[speechlesstx]

What are those guidelines, Tal?

[JudyKayTee]

I'm not Tal, but for starters:

“Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is... it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved." http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equa...refuse-service

I was in Texas, and my nephew and his wife could not get served because she is Hispanic - and he is not. Discrimination comes in many forms.

I am Christian. My late husband was an Orthodox Jew. I saw discrimination in many forms in both directions.

And, yes, by all means refuse service to people based on your individual "feelings" and beliefs. I need the work!

[tomder55]

Speech ;you didn't build your business . What makes you think you can make decisions about what opportunities to accept or decline ?

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved."

Of course ;because as we all know ,the constitution was designed to protect the collective right over the individual.

[excon]

Hello:

the point is that she did not refuse to sell flowers ;she refused to partake in a ceremony that she had religious objections to. This is not the same as the civil rights movement... not even close.

I've never been to a wedding where a florist "partook" in the ceremony. At best, he delivered the flowers and put 'em where the people wanted 'em. That's NOT "participation" in anybody's book. If, to him, "delivery" equates to participation, then other arrangements could have been made. If he feels that simply HAVING his flowers AT a gay wedding infringes on his religious rights, he's bonkers.. FLOWERS aren't religious.

Excon

[JudyKayTee]

There's a lawsuit in NY right now - a photographer turned down a gay couple that was getting married because he doesn't believe in gay marriage. I wouldn't take it to this extent - but he got sued for violating their civil rights.

The Attorney changed it to the photographer being unfamiliar with same sex weddings, didn't know about two brides (which was the case), colors and angles and so forth, not a white dress and a dark suit, blah, blah, blah. Don't know how it will play out BUT the photographer is, at least for the moment, under Court Order NOT to photograph weddings. There goes his business!

I think the Court is infringing on the photographer's rights at the moment - but I'm not the Judge.

[Wondergirl]

There's a lawsuit in NY right now - a photographer turned down a gay couple that was getting married because he doesn't believe in gay marriage. I wouldn't take it to this extent - but he got sued for violating their civil rights.

And a photographer "participates" in a wedding ceremony, i.e. is on the scene taking photos, whereas a florist delivers, arranges, and leaves before the wedding begins.

[talaniman]

The dufus photographer should have taken a page from the closet racist, smile and make up an excuse why he couldn't squeeze them into his busy schedule. He himself opened the door for redress with his blatant discrimination. That's why he has to pay a lawyer for his stupidity.

Not defending the hater who hides behind his "religious beliefs", but blatant discrimination is just not allowed. I mean if you want to holler about what YOUR rights are, how can you deny someone else THEIR rights. Goes back to the original question of how does exercising their rights stop you from exercising yours? It should not but we obviously see where we do have an effect on someone else by our actions.

Good or bad.

[cdad]

Not defending the hater who hides behind his "religious beliefs", but blatant discrimination is just not allowed. I mean if you want to holler about what YOUR rights are, how can you deny someone else THEIR rights. Goes back to the original question of how does exercising their rights stop you from exercising yours? It should not but we obviously see where we do have an effect on someone else by our actions.

Good or bad.

What it seems your failing to understand is that those rights you speak of are situational. That is why there are laws in place. But somewhere lines have to be drawn. "New" is never an easy process. They are still hammering everything out. But I stand by those that have religious convictions and don't wish to cross those convictions just because there is money involved. When you speak of rights you can't forget that there are responsibilities that go along with it. There is no need to be sue happy at every offence that comes your way. It hurts the very thing you proclaim to protect. We see every day discrimination on many levels. Visit a family court room and you will see it in action with the full force of the law protected by the barrel of a gun. Ask your insurance company if they have a redline policy. Its everywhere.

[tomder55]

Hello:

I've never been to a wedding where a florist "partook" in the ceremony. At best, he delivered the flowers and put 'em where the people wanted 'em. That's NOT "participation" in anybody's book. If, to him, "delivery" equates to participation, then other arrangements could have been made. If he feels that simply HAVING his flowers AT a gay wedding infringes on his religious rights, he's bonkers.. FLOWERS aren't religious.
excon

By selling and /or arranging ,the florist is facilitating a same-sex wedding .This case is in law suit too. Again ,this is not the same as a civil rights violation based on color . First ,this florist has frequently sold flowers to at least one of the couple previously ,and has on occasion hired a gay. . So no case can be made that she is discriminating over so called sexual orientation. In fact ;the only reason she refused is for religious reasons. Forcing her to sell flowers to the couple for that purpose indeed violates her 1st amendment rights of religion and the implicit freedom of association. .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

In fact ;the only reason she refused is for religious reasons.

Even if that's so, when her religious freedom bumps up against someone else's civil rights, it DOESN'T mean she automatically wins.. One Constitutional right does NOT trump another.

Excon

[talaniman]

What it seems your failing to understand is that those rights you speak of are situational. That is why there are laws in place. But somewhere lines have to be drawn. "New" is never an easy process. They are still hammering everything out. But I stand by those that have religious convictions and dont wish to cross those convictions just because there is money involved. When you speak of rights you can't forget that there are responsibilities that go along with it. There is no need to be sue happy at every offence that comes your way. It hurts the very thing you proclaim to protect. We see every day discrimination on many levels. Visit a family court room and you will see it in action with the full force of the law protected by the barrel of a gun. Ask your insurance company if they have a redline policy. Its everywhere.

They have a right to sue and let a judge decide. And everyone has there own convictions, gay or not, religious or not. Does that make one better than the other? You can't claim your religion allows you to break the law, nor more than you can shoot someone and claim self defense. The disputes are settled in courts and who cares if they are crowded or not.

Bet a few court cases lost will make people think before they act or speak.

[JudyKayTee]

Not even lost - and I see both sides here.

Having your business sued, getting that publicity (lots of people have gay friends/relatives), having to pay an Attorney and traipse back and forth to Court, possibly having your business "frozen" while it plays out - any/all of these factors would scare me straight!

[tomder55]

Yes that is the intimidating power of government to impose it's will on individuals .This is also the core problem with the IRS scandal . The founders never envisioned the system they constructed would grow to be such a Leviathan.

[cdad]

They have a right to sue and let a judge decide. And everyone has there own convictions, gay or not, religious or not. Does that make one better than the other? You can't claim your religion allows you to break the law, nor more than you can shoot someone and claim self defense. The disputes are settled in courts and who cares if they are crowded or not.

Bet a few court cases lost will make people think before they act or speak.

You are aware that there are laws on the books that address shooting someone in self defense right? Also when dealing with a protected class then aren't you asking the courts to give another superior rights?

[smkanand]

Court and constitution allows equal rights to all. Law will provide gay marriages legal status. But even if law forces religious bodies to do gay marriages, it will not give them social status. So those religious places who are fine with gay marriages should do that. Those who don't must not be forced.

[talaniman]

The legal system is designed to give people redress before the law, as opposed to duels and physical feuds. Or one group dominating another. It doesn't matter what the vision of the founders was, what matters is how we keep building this nation which has grown in leaps and bounds. We have to have a vision of ourselves as we have changed as a society, and will probably change a lot more in the future.

The founders could wear a small government because the nation was small and full of farmers and merchants and life was simpler. That's no longer the case, and there are many complexities and nuances that a larger population has to address. The behavior of the citizens being first and foremost.

I mean do you define the value of the citizen by the size of his wallet, and give him more power and privilege, or are we all equal under the law? The constitution says we are equal with no regard for the size of your wallet. The founders wrote that.

[talaniman]

You are aware that there are laws on the books that address shooting someone in self defense right? Also when dealing with a protected class then arent you asking the courts to give another superior rights?

And those laws will have to stand the court and public scrutiny and be changed as necessary as have others before, that's the system.

But I would like a definition of protected class.

[cdad]

And those laws will have to stand the court and public scrutiny and be changed as necessary as have others before, that's the system.

But I would like a definition of protected class.

Me too. But from Judy's earlier post you will see this as part of it:

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.

[talaniman]

Me too. But from Judy's earlier post you will see this as part of it:

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The patron can accept what a business does, or act in good conscious and do something about it. Is this not the way to establish what's acceptable, and what's not?

[cdad]

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The patron can accept what a business does, or act in good conscious and do something about it. Is this not the way to establish what's acceptable, and what's not?

No I don't say that is the most acceptable way. The way to do it is to speak with your dollars and if you don't like how a business handles itself then you don't patronize that business. Isn't that what boycotts are all about? In cases of extreme discrimination then you can and should address the problems in a court room. Otherwise leading by example is a much better way to do things as it gets to the point directly.

Do you actually believe that most people need and want to live in a nanny state and be told what to do and how to live their lives?



Food for thought:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/...under-New-Law/