Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

Why doesn't the community allowing you to get away with it determine its legitimacy?If the community does allow stores to bar shoplifters, then how is it illegitimate?

I'm following the rules of my community. The rules I described are the one's the community uses. What you are saying should be the rules are not used by the community.So it is not that I am treating my business as a fiefdom. I am instead not allowing ringo's silly ideas to run my business.I think we've confirmed our point of disagreement at this point.

That's the question dwise is asking you. The question is instead whether a member can use the court system to hold a private business to follow its own rules. You can certainly use the court system to force at least some rules, like how much a private business you did work for ought to pay you.Dwise1 mentioned members of the organization who were kicked out without regard for the business's rules. If kicking you out just makes you a member of the public with no say at all, couldn't a private company just fire an employee and then change the rules so that he is not owed any pay?Do you want to rethink your answer?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why do you keep saying this? You cannot keep this up on a routine basis. If you continually turn some protected group's business down you are going to get nailed for it. What you are describing won't work as a policy. It may work to get one gay or Hispanic couple out of your shop on a Thursday, and it might not. There is no reason to conclude that the Muslim's approach makes any legal difference. It's pretty obvious what the reason for refusal is and that the reason is no different from those given by Christians.One possible difference is that the Muslim approach is not as in your face as telling people that you hate gay people. The simple change in being polite versus confrontational might be enough to avoid a law suit unless you are the only bakery in town.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't think so because they'd be breaking laws that fall outside of their own rules. Not really. Me saying that you can get away with it is not me saying that it is legal. I think you could get away with it because it would be too hard to prove that you were discrimiating against a protected class. You may have to go to court but I doubt you'd get convincted. Its the lack of good evidence that they were actually discriminating that makes the legal difference. I think its different. They didn't have a problem making a cake for a gay wedding, they just didn't want to put particular things on the cake.They weren't "standing up against redefining a sin", they just didn't want to write or draw stuff that said it was gay. I wouldn't hold it against them for refusing to write "Jesus is the Son of God" on a cake either.The Christians, on the other hand, came right out and said that they couldn't make a particular cake because it was for a gay wedding. They admitted discrimination so that does make the case a bit different. Sure. And its more polite to just keep it to yourself. Keep it private.

That is quite a substantial difference, and might well be a difference that matters. Lots of people would not view the refusal as discrimination at all, although I'm sure some people would.On the other hand, if you turn down even baking a cake for every gay person that enters your shop, your specific reasons for so doing is going to be irrelevant. You are practicing discrimination. We don't need use telepaths to probe your mindset to infer your intent. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hello ringo: I'd like you to meet ringo. So yes you did take exactly that position. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What the community enforces tends to lag behind the community standard. Legitimacy is based on what the community thinks, not what it enforces.

You're getting away with it. That's not the same as actually conforming to the community standard. There was a transition period during which community standards prohibited segregation but bigots still got away with segregation, claiming they were "within the rules". Eventually, the community finds a way to enforce its rules.

Huh?

Geez, its like you keep your goalposts on roller boards.

You have yet to show that the rules you espouse are the community rules. Right now they are just ringo's rules.

Feel free to back up your empty accusations.

I have not espoused any rules. I have pointed out how the community operates, with reference to the specific case of segregation. If you want to claim that the community will change its modus operandi in the future, fire at will.

You have espoused rules on situations that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. And in that regard you claim to be pointing out what the community is thinking rather than how they are operating. Those rules have no basis in reality. They are what ringo thinks the rules should be.