Bridal Shop Owners Under Fire After Denying Lesbian Couple Wedding Gowns

[Jeff]

This shouldn't even be hews, the folks that own the store ought to be able to sell to who they want. The store owners have already hired a lawyer because they know what is coming, I wonder if they refused to sell to a biker how much of a news story this would be :rolleyes: or how about if a wino ( who had money ) walked in and was turned away do you think the TV camera's would be rolling, I seriously doubt it. I guess in this country now a days you have to be politically correct in everything you do. I can remember walking into a bike shop ( to buy a bike ) but I had just got done cutting hay and looked like it, the salesman didn't refuse to sell to me they just took my info and did nothing with it ( they told me there computers where down ) as I watched them sell to customer after customer ( Daddy signing the dotted line for Jrs' new Harley ) well to make a long story short the salesman finally told me they would run my app on Monday ( I was there on Saturday ) well they never called me, no surprise, so I called them and they told me the computer had just come up ( imagine that ) well I explained to the guy I really didn't want the payment I would rather offer a cash offer on the bike I liked, ooo man I was a good guy then, needless to say I told him to shove his deal and bought a better bike ( the one I really wanted ) at a different shop, but ya know there where no TV camera's or lawyers to be seen.



A Pennsylvania bridal shop that refused to make an appointment with a lesbian couple shopping for wedding gowns is under fire after one of the women posted about it on social media, WBRE News reported (http://www.pahomepage.com/story/d/story/bridal-store-denies-same-sex-couple-gowns/33658/DcBN5tNqH02E6kQBOX77-g).

Owners of the Bloomsburg, Pa., store, W.W. Bridal Boutique (http://www.wwbridal.com/home.html), cited their Christian religious objections for refusing the brides-to-be.

"We feel we have to answer to God for what we do, and providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God’s law," said Victoria Miller, a store owner, who in an interview with the Press Enterprise (http://www.pressenterpriseonline.com/daily/080814/page/1/story/bridal-shop-refuses-gay-couple).





http://www.newsmax.com/US/bridal-shop-refuse-dress/2014/08/09/id/587846/

[Gaffer]

Everything must be queer oriented these days. Its' the job of the media to promote queerdom at every opportunity. This is the news doing their part.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This shouldn't even be hews, the folks that own the store ought to be able to sell to who they want. The store owners have already hired a lawyer because they know what is coming, I wonder if they refused to sell to a biker how much of a news story this would be :rolleyes: or how about if a wino ( who had money ) walked in and was turned away do you think the TV camera's would be rolling, I seriously doubt it. I guess in this country now a days you have to be politically correct in everything you do. I can remember walking into a bike shop ( to buy a bike ) but I had just got done cutting hay and looked like it, the salesman didn't refuse to sell to me they just took my info and did nothing with it ( they told me there computers where down ) as I watched them sell to customer after customer ( Daddy signing the dotted line for Jrs' new Harley ) well to make a long story short the salesman finally told me they would run my app on Monday ( I was there on Saturday ) well they never called me, no surprise, so I called them and they told me the computer had just come up ( imagine that ) well I explained to the guy I really didn't want the payment I would rather offer a cash offer on the bike I liked, ooo man I was a good guy then, needless to say I told him to shove his deal and bought a better bike ( the one I really wanted ) at a different shop, but ya know there where no TV camera's or lawyers to be seen.





http://www.newsmax.com/US/bridal-shop-refuse-dress/2014/08/09/id/587846/


Political Correctness is tyranny, is a tool the leftists use to attack Conservative Christian values . I reject it at every turn and tell anybody that dares accuse me in any way of my being intolerant when PCNESS
itself practices total intolerance!
My stand is ffkk them and the damn horse they try to ride in on!
Yes, I've had to slap hell out of people over that in the past.
An action that I dearly loved....... A decent man always enjoys defending what is right even if it has great personal costs...
And it always does! --Tyr

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I think people should be allowed to do business with whomever they chose. However, if they choose to discriminate, they should be required to post a sign in their shop outlining their bigotry so that others can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to do business there. I have no problem with a 'No Dykes Allowed" sign or "No ButtSexers." Hell, be my guest and put up a "We Don't Want to Serve Sambo Here" sign in your shop window. I'm perfectly good with that. Freedom of choice for you. Freedom of choice for me! It's a win-win.

[fj1200]

This shouldn't even be hews, the folks that own the store ought to be able to sell to who they want.


We feel we have to answer to God for what we do, and providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God’s law,"

http://www.newsmax.com/US/bridal-shop-refuse-dress/2014/08/09/id/587846/

Do sanctified wedding dresses look different?

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Do sanctified wedding dresses look different?
The odds of these lesbians actually being virgins is significantly higher than those of the heterosexual brides.

[darin]

Someday a business will sue a potential customer for refusing to do business with them. It will happen.

[aboutime]

The odds of these lesbians actually being virgins is significantly higher than those of the heterosexual brides.


The shop owners should just offer to provide TWO TUXEDO'S for the couple. And let them fight over who will be the HUSBAND.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

The shop owners should just offer to provide TWO TUXEDO'S for the couple. And let them fight over who will be the HUSBAND.
If they don't want to sell them bridal gowns because of their religious convictions, what in the Wide World of Sports makes you think they'd rent them tuxedos instead? BTW, bridal shops aren't known for renting tuxedos. Tuxedo shops, however, are.

[Drummond]

I think people should be allowed to do business with whomever they chose. However, if they choose to discriminate, they should be required to post a sign in their shop outlining their bigotry so that others can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to do business there. I have no problem with a 'No Dykes Allowed" sign or "No ButtSexers." Hell, be my guest and put up a "We Don't Want to Serve Sambo Here" sign in your shop window. I'm perfectly good with that. Freedom of choice for you. Freedom of choice for me! It's a win-win.

.. Wow !! I have extreme difficulty in imagining this happening in the UK these days. In today's politically correct climate .. not to mention that minor matter of the law of the land .. anyone trying out any of those suggestions here would be highly likely to invite police interest, and very possibly be arrested. In all likelihood, businesses trying it would be committing suicide ...

A by-product of Socialism, 'Lemongrass', is that social attitudes are tightly controlled. In a climate of so-called politically correct tolerance, the outcome is intolerance against anyone deviating from diktat.

It is, after all, the Socialist way.

[aboutime]

If they don't want to sell them bridal gowns because of their religious convictions, what in the Wide World of Sports makes you think they'd rent them tuxedos instead? BTW, bridal shops aren't known for renting tuxedos. Tuxedo shops, however, are.


I KNOW! Why else would I say such a thing? You try to be funny here. And now you don't recognize it when someone uses "tongue-in-cheek" remarks?

Really? My apologies for insulting your lack of intelligence.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

.. Wow !! I have extreme difficulty in imagining this happening in the UK these days. In today's politically correct climate .. not to mention that minor matter of the law of the land .. anyone trying out any of those suggestions here would be highly likely to invite police interest, and very possibly be arrested. In all likelihood, businesses trying it would be committing suicide ...

A by-product of Socialism, 'Lemongrass', is that social attitudes are tightly controlled. In a climate of so-called politically correct tolerance, the outcome is intolerance against anyone deviating from diktat.

It is, after all, the Socialist way.
Why is this such a bad idea? If a shop owner is to stand by their convictions, they should let others know what those convictions are. Let their business thrive or die based on their convictions. OR they could say to themselves, I'm in business to serve the public and that includes all of the public, no matter what.

People are up in arms saying they have religious reasons for not serving gay people, but it hasn't been all that long ago that people had religious reasons for not serving interracial couples, too. Miscegenation was once considered an abomination, too, but for most people, no longer is. Think about how silly these shop owners will look in twenty years.

[Drummond]

Why is this such a bad idea? If a shop owner is to stand by their convictions, they should let others know what those convictions are. Let their business thrive or die based on their convictions. OR they could say to themselves, I'm in business to serve the public and that includes all of the public, no matter what.

People are up in arms saying they have religious reasons for not serving gay people, but it hasn't been all that long ago that people had religious reasons for not serving interracial couples, too. Miscegenation was once considered an abomination, too, but for most people, no longer is. Think about how silly these shop owners will look in twenty years.

Did I say it was a bad idea ?

My point is that Socialist-run States, such as we had, up to 2010 (and arguably still have to some extent, considering the LibDem contingent of our Government, now) work to make the expression of such thoughts, biases so toxic as to be increasingly unthinkable. Socialists legislate to punish expressiveness they don't approve of actionable in law, and through that, to govern what thoughts and attitudes they require their citizens to conform to.

Socialism is anti-freedom. You must think in a pre-approved manner. If you fail to, then you incur a heavy penalty for not deferring to the will of your masters.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I KNOW! Why else would I say such a thing? You try to be funny here. And now you don't recognize it when someone uses "tongue-in-cheek" remarks?

Really? My apologies for insulting your lack of intelligence.

So far, all I have seen from you is that you are angry and bitter and fling more poo than a rabid rhesus monkey in a zoo. Why do you insist on insulting me? In other words, what the fuck is your problem?

[aboutime]

So far, all I have seen from you is that you are angry and bitter and fling more poo than a rabid rhesus monkey in a zoo. Why do you insist on insulting me? In other words, what the fuck is your problem?


Well. You've just seen the last of it.

[Abbey Marie]

If they don't want to sell them bridal gowns because of their religious convictions, what in the Wide World of Sports makes you think they'd rent them tuxedos instead? BTW, bridal shops aren't known for renting tuxedos. Tuxedo shops, however, are.

My husband and his groomsmen did get their tuxes in the shop where my bridesmaids got their dresses.

[jimnyc]

A business should be free to decide who they want to do business with and who they don't. Just as consumers should be allowed to take their business to who they like. Unless in some way associated with or funded by the government, people should be able to see fit how to run their own businesses - even if that means running it into the ground due to their beliefs. Forcing people to do business outside of their comfort zone is eventually going to lead to businesses closing up, or owners simply maintaining the law by then offering shit services to those they disagree with. Same with the bakery couple. The next time a gay couple comes in - sure, I know the owner might make it, to stay in line with the law - but if me - I then wonder what the hell might be in my cake from his mouth! :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

A business should be free to decide who they want to do business with and who they don't. Just as consumers should be allowed to take their business to who they like.

Devil's advocate question: Would you feel the same way if the business refused to do sell wedding attire to a couple because they had guns on them?

[jimnyc]

Devil's advocate question: Would you feel the same way if the business refused to do sell wedding attire to a couple because they had guns on them?


That happens all the time at other establishments, and that's their choice. There are PLENTY of other places that will have them. I remember last year Starbucks did just that. I don't know if it was just one, or all of them. I would tell them to go to Dunkin Donuts then! And myself, if I had a gun with me, and they tell me that - no way they would get my business anyway.

[gabosaurus]

That happens all the time at other establishments, and that's their choice. There are PLENTY of other places that will have them. I remember last year Starbucks did just that. I don't know if it was just one, or all of them. I would tell them to go to Dunkin Donuts then! And myself, if I had a gun with me, and they tell me that - no way they would get my business anyway.

Quite a good answer.
If you disagree with the way someone does business, don't go there. I would never go to Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby. I don't go to Chick-Fil-A, but it is more about their crappy food than their social beliefs.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

A business should be free to decide who they want to do business with and who they don't. Just as consumers should be allowed to take their business to who they like. Unless in some way associated with or funded by the government, people should be able to see fit how to run their own businesses - even if that means running it into the ground due to their beliefs. Forcing people to do business outside of their comfort zone is eventually going to lead to businesses closing up, or owners simply maintaining the law by then offering shit services to those they disagree with. Same with the bakery couple. The next time a gay couple comes in - sure, I know the owner might make it, to stay in line with the law - but if me - I then wonder what the hell might be in my cake from his mouth! :laugh:
Agreed. Now what's wrong with having store owners post their convictions publicly so that consumers can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to spend their money in that establishment? I mean, if someone decides not to serve blacks, I might not know that since I'm not black, but I think it's my business to know so I don't accidentally give some racist asshole my money.

[Jeff]

Agreed. Now what's wrong with having store owners post their convictions publicly so that consumers can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to spend their money in that establishment? I mean, if someone decides not to serve blacks, I might not know that since I'm not black, but I think it's my business to know so I don't accidentally give some racist asshole my money.

The south use to be filled with restaurants and other businesses that had that very sign in it, I can remember going to Florida as a young boy and we went to eat at a little place in GA, when we walked up there was a sign that said NO BLACKS and my Grandmother refused to enter the restaurant ( myself I was to young to know any better and to dam hungry to care LOL ) But this went out because it wasn't politically correct, so know folks take a chance, if ya have a few beat up pick ups with rebel flags in the parking lot it probably isn't the best place for a black man to stop and eat.

As for the whole question of putting sign up I think it is a good idea, Businesses ought to be able to serve who they want, I see a question about guns, one only has to look around, there are signs in many places saying NO WEAPONS . I don't take offense I just don't shop there, but that does bring up another point, I am lisc. to carry in PA and there are stores I am sure that have the no weapons sign up why is that any different than refusing to serve gays. signs or no signs ?

Some Liberals seem to want it both ways, they want the guns outlawed ( even though it is in our Constitution ) but Gays ought to be able to come and go into any store they want, why is that different?

[Drummond]

Agreed. Now what's wrong with having store owners post their convictions publicly so that consumers can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to spend their money in that establishment? I mean, if someone decides not to serve blacks, I might not know that since I'm not black, but I think it's my business to know so I don't accidentally give some racist asshole my money.

That's actually a reasonable argument.

It's also a surprising one, coming as it does from a non-Conservative. A Socialist-type should be taking the attitude which says .. 'Such prejudice should not be being expressed .. if it is, the one responsible must be taught not to, and from that, must be taught how to think'.

Socialism is all about control and power-wielding, and the most repressive social engineering imaginable .. with Socialists insisting everyone is in lockstep with them.

You should stick with this forum. You may just find Conservative thinking more agreeable than you'd imagine ... if, in fact, you have any love of freedom and respect for the individual !

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

The south use to be filled with restaurants and other businesses that had that very sign in it, I can remember going to Florida as a young boy and we went to eat at a little place in GA, when we walked up there was a sign that said NO BLACKS and my Grandmother refused to enter the restaurant ( myself I was to young to know any better and to dam hungry to care LOL ) But this went out because it wasn't politically correct, so know folks take a chance, if ya have a few beat up pick ups with rebel flags in the parking lot it probably isn't the best place for a black man to stop and eat.

As for the whole question of putting sign up I think it is a good idea, Businesses ought to be able to serve who they want, I see a question about guns, one only has to look around, there are signs in many places saying NO WEAPONS . I don't take offense I just don't shop there, but that does bring up another point, I am lisc. to carry in PA and there are stores I am sure that have the no weapons sign up why is that any different than refusing to serve gays. signs or no signs ?

Some Liberals seem to want it both ways, they want the guns outlawed ( even though it is in our Constitution ) but Gays ought to be able to come and go into any store they want, why is that different?
It didn't go out of fashion because it wasn't politically correct. It went out if fashion because it was illegal. But I'm all for bringing it back. Let the chips fall where they may.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

That's actually a reasonable argument.

It's also a surprising one, coming as it does from a non-Conservative. A Socialist-type should be taking the attitude which says .. 'Such prejudice should not be being expressed .. if it is, the one responsible must be taught not to, and from that, must be taught how to think'.

Socialism is all about control and power-wielding, and the most repressive social engineering imaginable .. with Socialists insisting everyone is in lockstep with them.

You should stick with this forum. You may just find Conservative thinking more agreeable than you'd imagine ... if, in fact, you have any love of freedom and respect for the individual !
Announcing ones bigotry is a conservative principle?

[jimnyc]

Agreed. Now what's wrong with having store owners post their convictions publicly so that consumers can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to spend their money in that establishment? I mean, if someone decides not to serve blacks, I might not know that since I'm not black, but I think it's my business to know so I don't accidentally give some racist asshole my money.

Unfortunately, all opinions right now due to the laws. But if it WERE legal to legally discriminate, then I'm with ya, have them own up to their beliefs and make it so that there are no run-ins. Personally, I wouldn't have an issue posting who I would prefer not to do business with. For starters, I would hang a huge sign stating sorta just like Samuel L. Jackson - "English motherfu^&#$s, speak it or get out" :coffee:

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Unfortunately, all opinions right now due to the laws. But if it WERE legal to legally discriminate, then I'm with ya, have them own up to their beliefs and make it so that there are no run-ins. Personally, I wouldn't have an issue posting who I would prefer not to do business with. For starters, I would hang a huge sign stating sorta just like Samuel L. Jackson - "English motherfu^&#$s, speak it or get out" :coffee:
Serious question: would it be acceptable for an establishment to discriminate against a mixed race couple based on biblical principles?

[jimnyc]

Serious question: would it be acceptable for an establishment to discriminate against a mixed race couple based on biblical principles?

In my world - yes - even though I agree it's a shitty thing to do. I think people should have the right to strictly do business with whoever they want, and dismiss whoever they want. And the same in return for consumers. The public will even things out in the end. I just don't think people should be forced is all.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

In my world - yes - even though I agree it's a shitty thing to do. I think people should have the right to strictly do business with whoever they want, and dismiss whoever they want. And the same in return for consumers. The public will even things out in the end. I just don't think people should be forced is all.
Okay. Fair enough. But do you agree that consumers have a right to know they are dealing with bigots and that a business owner should post (although not as crudley as I stated) the types of customers who are not welcome in their establishment?

[Jeff]

It didn't go out of fashion because it wasn't politically correct. It went out if fashion because it was illegal. But I'm all for bringing it back. Let the chips fall where they may.

Fair enough but honestly why was it illegal ( well besides the fact that it was wrong ) the same folks that now say it is OK to allow shops to not do business with gun owners but say they ought to have to do business with the folks they want where annoyed by it, and truth be told they didn't live where these signs were mainly posted. How about all or nothing, if you can tell a gun owner to get out then you should be able to tell anyone to get out for any reason, ya can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Fair enough but honestly why was it illegal ( well besides the fact that it was wrong ) the same folks that now say it is OK to allow shops to not do business with gun owners but say they ought to have to do business with the folks they want where annoyed by it, and truth be told they didn't live where these signs were mainly posted. How about all or nothing, if you can tell a gun owner to get out then you should be able to tell anyone to get out for any reason, ya can't have your cake and eat it too.
But people who don't wNt open carry in their stores post it. Also, gun owners aren't a protected class as much as you'd like them to be.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

That's actually a reasonable argument.

It's also a surprising one, coming as it does from a non-Conservative. A Socialist-type should be taking the attitude which says .. 'Such prejudice should not be being expressed .. if it is, the one responsible must be taught not to, and from that, must be taught how to think'.

Socialism is all about control and power-wielding, and the most repressive social engineering imaginable .. with Socialists insisting everyone is in lockstep with them.

You should stick with this forum. You may just find Conservative thinking more agreeable than you'd imagine ... if, in fact, you have any love of freedom and respect for the individual !
You keep trying to smack me with your cookie cutter and what you think liberals think and feel. I'm more typical than you realize and I am a free thinker. Again, I don't like the people you made up in your head and have labeled as liberals either.

[Jeff]

But people who don't wNt open carry in their stores post it. Also, gun owners aren't a protected class as much as you'd like them to be.

I apologize, post signs all ya want, personally I like the sign deal but I still say a shop ( with or without a sign ) should be able to sell who they want to.

As far as open carry no we aren't talking about open carry alone, when these businesses post NO FIREARMS that means no concealed as well, and yes I agree gun owners aren't a protected class but why aren't they, they have the Constitution behind them. The whole Gay thing is a Liberal issue, or rather a politically correct thing ( to some ) never was a law until recently that we even had to acknowledge them. As for Blacks that is wrong and I don't believe in one man being better than a other due to skin color (but Obama is making a lot go back to that way of thought )

[Jeff]

You keep trying to smack me with your cookie cutter and what you think liberals think and feel. I'm more typical than you realize and I am a free thinker. Again, I don't like the people you made up in your head and have labeled as liberals either.

I will apologize for this for myself, we have been bomb barted by what liberals supposedly think so I am guilty of this I am sure.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I apologize, post signs all ya want, personally I like the sign deal but I still say a shop ( with or without a sign ) should be able to sell who they want to.

As far as open carry no we aren't talking about open carry alone, when these businesses post NO FIREARMS that means no concealed as well, and yes I agree gun owners aren't a protected class but why aren't they, they have the Constitution behind them. The whole Gay thing is a Liberal issue, or rather a politically correct thing ( to some ) never was a law until recently that we even had to acknowledge them. As for Blacks that is wrong and I don't believe in one man being better than a other due to skin color (but Obama is making a lot go back to that way of thought )
Crap. We're onto something here and I'm on my phone...that sucks because I'm forced to shortcut this. You don't think it's right for business owners to discriminate against gun owners or black people, for two different reasons but it's okay to discriminate against gay people because it's really just liberals being politically correct? Is that right? And if you recall, I talked about mixed race couples being discriminated against for biblical reasons. You didn't mention them in your post. And I apologize in advance for my seemingly curtness. I assure you it's the one fingered typing that is the reason.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I will apologize for this for myself, we have been bomb barted by what liberals supposedly think so I am guilty of this I am sure.
Thank you. I appreciate your honesty.

[red state]

Jeff, I totally agree and usually do business with those who respect my 2nd Amendment Right rather than patronize a business that it anti-American. Of course, many businesses post anti-gun signs to simply save their @$$ in case some ignorant liberal sues them should a robber come in a shoot someone.....an ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK sorta thing.

As for the blacks or interracial couples. I don't cotton to the idea but I'd never treat someone poorly because of it. Interracial marriages are in the Bible an the "unequally yoked" part doesn't mean interracial marriages between a man and a women...............it was FAITH oriented yoking of the two.

I have been following this sort of news for years now and it always ends up the same way. I believe, as in the case of the photographer who didn't wish to vomit at a homosexual wedding, should not have been forced to do so. It is a Biblical principle and the homosexuals should have gone elsewhere to find a photographer. Who's to say that they wouldn't sue because they feel that the photographs didn't turn out well.......even though they were exceptional shots? Liberals like FREE stuff and I wouldn't put it past them to try cheating someone simply because that someone believed differently than they believe (especially if it is of the Christian faith). I like to see them do this to a muslim for once. I can't say that I've ever heard of a quarrel their but I can think of many instances where the liberals cater to them (over Christians).

It is so crappy how the liberals want it BOTH WAYS but that is what we've allowed to creep up on us. One of the members here said that those refusing to service homosexuals will look as silly in 20 years as those who refused to serve blacks or interracial couples. The bad thing is.....there's no telling what will be going on if we last another 20 years. Heck, we may be writing about how a formal wear business refuses to suit a dog that is marrying a woman. The libs have no boundaries and their standards/morals are simply trash blowing in the wind. So....There we are and there you have it.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Jeff, I totally agree and usually do business with those who respect my 2nd Amendment Right rather than patronize a business that it anti-American. Of course, many businesses post anti-gun signs to simply save their @$$ in case some ignorant liberal sues them should a robber come in a shoot someone.....an ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK sorta thing.

As for the blacks or interracial couples. I don't cotton to the idea but I'd never treat someone poorly because of it. Interracial marriages are in the Bible an the "unequally yoked" part doesn't mean interracial marriages between a man and a women...............it was FAITH oriented yoking of the two.

I have been following this sort of news for years now and it always ends up the same way. I believe, as in the case of the photographer who didn't wish to vomit at a homosexual wedding, should not have been forced to do so. It is a Biblical principle and the homosexuals should have gone elsewhere to find a photographer. Who's to say that they wouldn't sue because they feel that the photographs didn't turn out well.......even though they were exceptional shots? Liberals like FREE stuff and I wouldn't put it past them to try cheating someone simply because that someone believed differently than they believe (especially if it is of the Christian faith). I like to see them do this to a muslim for once. I can't say that I've ever heard of a quarrel their but I can think of many instances where the liberals cater to them (over Christians).

It is so crappy how the liberals want it BOTH WAYS but that is what we've allowed to creep up on us. One of the members here said that those refusing to service homosexuals will look as silly in 20 years as those who refused to serve blacks or interracial couples. The bad thing is.....there's no telling what will be going on if we last another 20 years. Heck, we may be writing about how a formal wear business refuses to suit a dog that is marrying a woman. The libs have no boundaries and their standards/morals are simply trash blowing in the wind. So....There we are and there you have it.
I'm a liberal. Do you really want to tell me that I have no morals and only want freebies? Is that really where you want to go with this argument?

[red state]

I'm not an arguer......just an observer. I don't know you but I've known many liberals (unfortunately). You may be one of those ugly ducklings (as I once was) who will grow out of liberalism. I hope so but so many never do and die a retched, empty life in dark ignorance. From what I've read of some of your posts, there seems to be hope. Going to open Netflix and watch the film you so graciously reminded me of............THANKS!

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I'm not an arguer......just an observer. I don't know you but I've known many liberals (unfortunately). You may be one of those ugly ducklings (as I once was) who will grow out of liberalism. I hope so but so many never do and die a retched, empty life in dark ignorance. From what I've read of some of your posts, there seems to be hope. Going to open Netflix and watch the film you so graciously reminded me of............THANKS!
I want so desperately to smack you down with some really good snark, but you're just so damned nice about your insults! I hate when that happens!

[DragonStryk72]

This shouldn't even be hews, the folks that own the store ought to be able to sell to who they want. The store owners have already hired a lawyer because they know what is coming, I wonder if they refused to sell to a biker how much of a news story this would be :rolleyes: or how about if a wino ( who had money ) walked in and was turned away do you think the TV camera's would be rolling, I seriously doubt it. I guess in this country now a days you have to be politically correct in everything you do. I can remember walking into a bike shop ( to buy a bike ) but I had just got done cutting hay and looked like it, the salesman didn't refuse to sell to me they just took my info and did nothing with it ( they told me there computers where down ) as I watched them sell to customer after customer ( Daddy signing the dotted line for Jrs' new Harley ) well to make a long story short the salesman finally told me they would run my app on Monday ( I was there on Saturday ) well they never called me, no surprise, so I called them and they told me the computer had just come up ( imagine that ) well I explained to the guy I really didn't want the payment I would rather offer a cash offer on the bike I liked, ooo man I was a good guy then, needless to say I told him to shove his deal and bought a better bike ( the one I really wanted ) at a different shop, but ya know there where no TV camera's or lawyers to be seen.





http://www.newsmax.com/US/bridal-shop-refuse-dress/2014/08/09/id/587846/

Okay, now I have argued previously in favor of caterers' right to refuse, actually. Still think they're dicks, but it's people's right to be assholes, and being forced to go to the wedding, by the nature of it, does actually impinge upon their own beliefs.

However, in this instance, no. A store is selling me an object, and have no right to qualify what I intend to do with it afterward. For instance, if I go into a retro video games store, and buy up every copy of E.T. for Atari (The worst video game ever), the store has no right to know that I intend to burn the heretical little bastards away with a blowtorch, one by one.

As well, sanctified marriage? Gay marriage only covers state marriage, which is not sanctified by God, so I'm sorry, but that's not really an argument there.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

I've actually seen an establishment with a sign posted saying they refuse to serve anyone who wears the waistband of their pants below their below their ass cheeks. None of the customers inside had plaid boxers showing above their belt line.

[jimnyc]

Okay. Fair enough. But do you agree that consumers have a right to know they are dealing with bigots and that a business owner should post (although not as crudley as I stated) the types of customers who are not welcome in their establishment?

Yes, if the law were different (title vii and other discriminatory laws), then I think it would be fair to post certain things to avoid embarrassment. I don't necessarily think it should be mandatory, but it would make sense for both the consumer and the business owner.

[Jeff]

Crap. We're onto something here and I'm on my phone...that sucks because I'm forced to shortcut this. You don't think it's right for business owners to discriminate against gun owners or black people, for two different reasons but it's okay to discriminate against gay people because it's really just liberals being politically correct? Is that right? And if you recall, I talked about mixed race couples being discriminated against for biblical reasons. You didn't mention them in your post. And I apologize in advance for my seemingly curtness. I assure you it's the one fingered typing that is the reason.

Wow wow wow where did you get all that from ? Maybe I confused you, let me try it this way, a shop owner has the right to sell to who ever they want to, it is their goods they are selling. Now with that said I must say how very liberal of you. Again the owner of any business can sell to who they want but if it is OK to discriminate against gun owners why are the liberals up in arms about Gays, and although a shop owner has the right to sell only to those they want yes I feel discriminating against blacks is wrong but then again any discrimination is wrong. Maybe that will clear it up, just because I feel something is wrong doesn't mean I go against my feelings on the entire subject.

[jimnyc]

yes I feel discriminating against blacks is wrong but then again any discrimination is wrong.

The beauty is that 99% of discrimination is legal, even in the workplace! And like it or not - people should be able to discriminate. I should be able to not do business with a guy with a blue shirt on, just as employers in an at will environment can fire someone for any reason or no reason at all, so long as the reason doesn't break any laws (title vii 1963 I believe?). And that's how I think it should be.

Imagine being forced to do business, being forced to employ people.

Or imagine being forced to do business with a company you literally hate and stands for everything you're against. Or being forced to work somewhere further away than you like, or for a company that you don't care to work for. Wouldn't like that, right? And it should go both ways.

[Jeff]

Okay, now I have argued previously in favor of caterers' right to refuse, actually. Still think they're dicks, but it's people's right to be assholes, and being forced to go to the wedding, by the nature of it, does actually impinge upon their own beliefs.

However, in this instance, no. A store is selling me an object, and have no right to qualify what I intend to do with it afterward. For instance, if I go into a retro video games store, and buy up every copy of E.T. for Atari (The worst video game ever), the store has no right to know that I intend to burn the heretical little bastards away with a blowtorch, one by one.

As well, sanctified marriage? Gay marriage only covers state marriage, which is not sanctified by God, so I'm sorry, but that's not really an argument there.

Dragon somehow I seem to of confused many

Here it goes, a shop has the right to sell to whoever they want it is there goods they are selling ( I don't have to agree with it but it is what it is ) and I agree what you buy and what you do with it is your business ( as a shop owner honestly I would sell to all and couldn't care less what ya do with it as long as you paid me for it ) As for the whole Marriage thing all I was saying is we have a right to own a weapon thanks to our Constitution and the great men that wrote it, Gay's have had no laws ( rights ) at all until recently ( whether on the federal side or state side I am not arguing that at all just showing the difference )

[fj1200]

You keep trying to smack me with your cookie cutter and what you think liberals think and feel. I'm more typical than you realize and I am a free thinker. Again, I don't like the people you made up in your head and have labeled as liberals either.

:laugh:

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I've actually seen an establishment with a sign posted saying they refuse to serve anyone who wears the waistband of their pants below their below their ass cheeks. None of the customers inside had plaid boxers showing above their belt line.
That falls under No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service as does "no weapons." I've seen signs at Amusement Parks regarding the wearing of t-shirts with vulgar statements. That's more of a standard for the other customers comfort level rather than a discriminatory practice.

[jimnyc]

However, in this instance, no. A store is selling me an object, and have no right to qualify what I intend to do with it afterward. For instance, if I go into a retro video games store, and buy up every copy of E.T. for Atari (The worst video game ever), the store has no right to know that I intend to burn the heretical little bastards away with a blowtorch, one by one.

That I agree with, but it may not reach that point. Some want to cut off the business before any transaction even takes place, and I think they should have that right. The minute the establishment realized what it was for, that's when the transaction stopped. They didn't ask, nor do I believe there was any type of demand. Had they stated you MUST tell us the details... I don't think it's their "right" to know either - but when they did find out, not by demand, that's when they killed the transaction. And however horrid many believe that is, I believe they should have that right.

Imagine the gay couple finding out months before that this business was ran by people who can't stand gay couples, and literally detest them. The gay couple is horrified by this. Now imagine telling these people they MUST go to this business and purchase there.

[jimnyc]

:laugh:

Is that your reply? :)

You're more than welcome to participate fully if you like.

[jimnyc]

That falls under No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service as does "no weapons." I've seen signs at Amusement Parks regarding the wearing of t-shirts with vulgar statements. That's more of a standard for the other customers comfort level rather than a discriminatory practice.

I've seen many places with signs that state: "We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone"

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I've seen many places with signs that state: "We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone"
I wouldn't have use for that particular business because it smacks of bigotry. There's a sign in a small store in Maryland that says, "We Don't Have Grape Soda." I don't go there either because that's code for "we don't want black people in our store."

[fj1200]

Is that your reply? :)

You're more than welcome to participate fully if you like.

Yes, that was my reply but it was more of an affirmation. :) I haven't seen much that hasn't been stated yet but I could blame BO for everything; has that been done yet? :poke:


I've seen many places with signs that state: "We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone"

It might be a nice sign but they don't have that right; The fact is the Civil Rights Act makes it so. One side of the argument is that people should have the right to do with their property as they see fit and the other side is that the government has to force behavior on commerce to be inclusive of all people. Those who go for the latter argument I think generally want to legislate that people be nice even though it may be counterproductive to the overall goal. Was the CRA a success? The evidence is not positive IMO.

50 Years of the Civil-Rights Movement—in 10 Charts (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/50-years-of-the-civil-rights-movement-in-10-charts.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet)

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't have use for that particular business because it smacks of bigotry. There's a sign in a small store in Maryland that says, "We Don't Have Grape Soda." I don't go there either because that's code for "we don't want black people in our store."

Hey, my son loves grape soda! :)

Usually you will see those refusal signs in bars, at least that's where I saw the majority of those signs.

[jimnyc]

It might be a nice sign but they don't have that right; The fact is the Civil Rights Act makes it so. One side of the argument is that people should have the right to do with their property as they see fit and the other side is that the government has to force behavior on commerce to be inclusive of all people. Those who go for the latter argument I think generally want to legislate that people be nice even though it may be counterproductive to the overall goal. Was the CRA a success? The evidence is not positive IMO.

50 Years of the Civil-Rights Movement—in 10 Charts (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/50-years-of-the-civil-rights-movement-in-10-charts.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet)



Agreed, never said it was legal, hence me pointing out several times earlier that there were laws in effect for discrimination... And just in case I am reading wrong, it's NOT illegal to place the sign in place, they just can't enforce for certain circumstances based on federal law.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Hey, my son loves grape soda! :)

Usually you will see those refusal signs in bars, at least that's where I saw the majority of those signs.
Your son may love grape soda, but that's not really the point. It's a stereotype that black people love grape soda so the sign is a substitute for the "No Coloreds" sign that I'm pretty sure once graced that storefront.

And bars? That's a whole different thing. Can you refuse service to the creepy dude who really isn't doing anything wrong, but is ogling women and making lude comments? I hope so. Can you refuse service to the same guy if he happens to be black? Again, I hope so. Can you refuse service to a guy because he's black? Nope. Oooh, here's a good one: Can you refuse service to straight men who go to a gay bar looking for trouble? I've been in gay bars (Hey, I vacation in Rehoboth Beach) and have heard them tell people, "You're in the wrong place and need to leave." But that's more of the owners/management trying to thwart trouble than it is discriminating against them because they are straight.

[jimnyc]

Your son may love grape soda, but that's not really the point. It's a stereotype that black people love grape soda so the sign is a substitute for the "No Coloreds" sign that I'm pretty sure once graced that storefront.

And bars? That's a whole different thing. Can you refuse service to the creepy dude who really isn't doing anything wrong, but is ogling women and making lude comments? I hope so. Can you refuse service to the same guy if he happens to be black? Again, I hope so. Can you refuse service to a guy because he's black? Nope. Oooh, here's a good one: Can you refuse service to straight men who go to a gay bar looking for trouble? I've been in gay bars (Hey, I vacation in Rehoboth Beach) and have heard them tell people, "You're in the wrong place and need to leave." But that's more of the owners/management trying to thwart trouble than it is discriminating against them because they are straight.

And all should change. All you mentioned should be able to do business with who they choose, and who they choose not to, even the black guy and even without a sign (although I wouldn't mind the way you mentioned). I just think there is extremely little that a business owner should actually be forced to do. He can choose to develop it and make it better and hopefully make more money, or he can choose to run it into the ground. To me, it's not a matter of who the other person is, but just all about rights I think the owner should have. I think it should be more like a homeowner. And no, this is no legal analysis, just my opinion.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

And all should change. All you mentioned should be able to do business with who they choose, and who they choose not to, even the black guy and even without a sign (although I wouldn't mind the way you mentioned). I just think there is extremely little that a business owner should actually be forced to do. He can choose to develop it and make it better and hopefully make more money, or he can choose to run it into the ground. To me, it's not a matter of who the other person is, but just all about rights I think the owner should have. I think it should be more like a homeowner. And no, this is no legal analysis, just my opinion.
The issue that I have with being able to discriminate at will, for any reason, is that there are potential problems in more rural areas. And, not over wedding dresses or cakes or photographers. But what if the only pharmacist in town decided he/she didn't want to serve blacks or gays or single mothers? And I'm sure I can think of other examples where refusing service to someone would place undue hardship on them and then, the next thing you know, we'll be litigating Plessy v. Ferguson all over again.

[jimnyc]

The issue that I have with being able to discriminate at will, for any reason, is that there are potential problems in more rural areas. And, not over wedding dresses or cakes or photographers. But what if the only pharmacist in town decided he/she didn't want to serve blacks or gays or single mothers? And I'm sure I can think of other examples where refusing service to someone would place undue hardship on them and then, the next thing you know, we'll be litigating Plessy v. Ferguson all over again.

Pharmacies work under federal regulations and I believe they would have to do business with anyone in the public. Similarly I would say the same about physicians.

But private businesses? I don't think any private business owner should be forced.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Pharmacies work under federal regulations and I believe they would have to do business with anyone in the public. Similarly I would say the same about physicians.

But private businesses? I don't think any private business owner should be forced.
Do you have a link to support that because I can't find it?

[Abbey Marie]

Agreed. Now what's wrong with having store owners post their convictions publicly so that consumers can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to spend their money in that establishment? I mean, if someone decides not to serve blacks, I might not know that since I'm not black, but I think it's my business to know so I don't accidentally give some racist asshole my money.

Cool. Then I should be able to legally withhold my taxes from the government because I am against funding abortions, for example.

[jimnyc]

Do you have a link to support that because I can't find it?

For which, federal regulation for pharmacies? There are both federal and state Pharmacists need to be licensed in order to dispense medicine. Specifically scroll down to the federal laws area:

http://www.resource4pharmacymalpractice.com/laws.html

Or were you asking about the physicians? Just look up any medical board which oversees things. Or simply type in federal regulations for physicians into google and read about them regulations all day.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Cool. Then I should be able to legally withhold my taxes from the government because I am against funding abortions, for example.
That's quite a leap in logic, but if you want to do that, I guess you don't have a problem if I withhold my taxes because I'm against funding wars.

[DragonStryk72]

Dragon somehow I seem to of confused many

Here it goes, a shop has the right to sell to whoever they want it is there goods they are selling ( I don't have to agree with it but it is what it is ) and I agree what you buy and what you do with it is your business ( as a shop owner honestly I would sell to all and couldn't care less what ya do with it as long as you paid me for it ) As for the whole Marriage thing all I was saying is we have a right to own a weapon thanks to our Constitution and the great men that wrote it, Gay's have had no laws ( rights ) at all until recently ( whether on the federal side or state side I am not arguing that at all just showing the difference )

No, I get that, but the situations are different between this, a photographer, and a caterer. Their argument is specious, in the fact that it is clearly a contractual state marriage, not sanctified (This is one of my big beefs with the entire gay marriage argument), and then as well, it really doesn't matter what the women do with the dresses, because the dresses are theirs after point of purchase.

Now, if they are discriminating based on the sanctity of marriage, do they also refuse service to couples who are getting married for a green card? How about couples where the prospective wife is cheating on the guy? What about selling them to a magazine so that it can put them on a model (who may be gay or bi herself), who wears it once for the shoot, then never again? If not, then, well, it's really not about the sanctity of marriage, now is it? It's about not liking gay people.

Again, I actually understand it with a photographer, planner, or caterer, who will have to, by the nature of what they're doing, attend the wedding, be cordial to everyone, and try to put it in the best light possible for the matter of doing their jobs. This is not that. Once the dress is made, well, it's made, and sold, and after that is none of the owner's business, frankly.

[jimnyc]

For which, federal regulation for pharmacies? There are both federal and state Pharmacists need to be licensed in order to dispense medicine. Specifically scroll down to the federal laws area:

http://www.resource4pharmacymalpractice.com/laws.html

Or were you asking about the physicians? Just look up any medical board which oversees things. Or simply type in federal regulations for physicians into google and read about them regulations all day.

LG, was in a rush to go to the store to get more cement, but wanted to add now that I'm back...

I'm no pharmacist or a doctor - but I believe that any business that is associated with the government, or funded in anyway by the government, then they fit into set regulations. More or less the "government sector". I'm sure there might be some exclusions, but what I'm speaking of is mostly the private sector. One exclusion of course, for example, is a doctor with a private practice - because said doctor is licensed by the state and still run under many state/federal guidelines.

[Abbey Marie]

That's quite a leap in logic, but if you want to do that, I guess you don't have a problem if I withhold my taxes because I'm against funding wars.

More of a logical extension than a leap.

If we withhold money from that which we disagree, the list of withholding will get mighty long. Perhaps in a free market capitalist society, the attitude should be, I personally won't get involved with a business that "I" deem racist, sexist, anti-gay, etc., but I have no problem if others do business with them.

And I will leave it to the inevitable word of mouth for that information to get around, rather than force any business to put inflammatory signs in their window. Because in the end, it is only my opinion that their beliefs make them bad people, not deserving of customers.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

More of a logical extension than a leap.

If we withhold money from that which we disagree, the list of withholding will get mighty long. Perhaps in a free market capitalist society, the attitude should be, I personally won't get involved with a business that "I" deem racist, sexist, anti-gay, etc., but I have no problem if others do business with them.

And I will leave it to the inevitable word of mouth for that information to get around, rather than force any business to put inflammatory signs in their window. Because in the end, it is only my opinion that their beliefs make them bad people, not deserving of customers.
If those people truly stood by their convictions, why would they have a problem letting others know what those convictions are? Why wait for "word of mouth" which may or may not be accurate? I'm not sure what the problem with signs pose.

[Drummond]

That's quite a leap in logic, but if you want to do that, I guess you don't have a problem if I withhold my taxes because I'm against funding wars.

As impractical as this is, it creates an interesting question.

Depending on the war you have in mind, of course .. I'm sure that a factor to be considered is how much safer you've been as a result of them.

Take the Iraq war, 2003. Had Saddam been left alone, he'd have succeeded in defying the UN, defying world opinion, which would've proved to everyone that no maverick State need consider itself accountable for WMD stocks .. Saddam himself included, of course. So .. stockpiles would've been built. Whether from future wars, or some tinpot dictator or other doing a 'dodgy deal', terrorists might've got their hands on WMD's by now, and got around to deploying them.

Or, how about Afghanistan ? A Taliban controlled Afghanistan, hosting Al Qaeda terrorist training camps, never being militarily tackled. Result .. today, a far stronger Al Qaeda, one never taught to care about its attacks. How many future 9/11's would that have created by now ?

So, 'Lemongrass', how does one calculate the level of increased risk to your safety you should be subject to, had such wars never received funding ? How would that lack of safety be translated into your daily life ?

An easy answer might be to ensure that no authoritative body ever comes to your aid if such aid is needed.

Then again ... lack of funding doesn't just translate into a lack of your own safety. If others followed suit, and if necessary funding resources didn't allow for those wars, through their absence .. well, you and others would also decide the risk others should suffer, too.

And what good would any of this be ? Good for your enemies, and nobody else.

Better just to accept that your citizens' safety should actually count for something, and be safeguarded !!!

This is the Conservative way. As to what extent it is yours, I'll leave you to ponder that one, 'Lemongrass'.

[Drummond]

Announcing ones bigotry is a conservative principle?

I'm not sure of the point you're making, unless you mean that you've completely reversed what you were advocating before ?

Are you agreeing that my description of Socialist control-freakery is, from your point of view, acceptable conduct ?

[Drummond]

You keep trying to smack me with your cookie cutter and what you think liberals think and feel. I'm more typical than you realize and I am a free thinker. Again, I don't like the people you made up in your head and have labeled as liberals either.

I'm no youngster, Lemongrass. I've been around a long time. This means - and especially considering where I come from - that I have a lot of experience of generations of Socialist conduct. What they argue for. What they do to get what they want. How they behave when they get real power.

I've 'made up' nothing. I know for a certain fact that Socialists will trample on others' rights in the pursuit of the power they want. I know what propaganda games they play to get people to think as they do.

If you are 'more typical' than I 'realise' ... then this must mean that you're into the suffocating control they like to exercise, be it from societal pressure, or psychological social engineering initiatives.

We have a combined Conservative/LibDem coalition governing us. The result is a Government that has recognisable Conservative principles, but remarkably little latitude to follow through on them.

Before that Coalition, we had Labour ... and a climate that was not only lax about immigration, but one that insisted that to so much as criticise that policy meant that the criticiser could be labelled 'racist'.

We have the largest police DNA database anywhere on the planet. Number of CCTV cameras spying on us, per head of population, ditto. There was a proposal that our GCHQ (Government Communications centre) in Cheltenham be given powers to intercept all emails, all telephone calls, as they saw fit (in pursuit of security concerns, naturally ..).

In Wales, courtesy of a Labour-dominated Welsh Assembly, the principle of organ donation is being reversed. You don't opt in to such a scheme, you have to opt out of it, to stop the State plundering your body after you're dead.

Sorry, 'Lemongrass' .. you cannot persuade me that any form of Socialism, no matter how watered down it may be, isn't anti-freedom in nature. I know better. I've seen my society go into near-meltdown from Socialist excesses ... and I've seen Conservatism save us from it.

The only question in my mind is whether your 'pro-free-thinking' mindset is real or not. If it is, I wonder when you'll realise that true freedom only comes from Conservative thinking ?