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

The Protestant reformers said that usury was a sin, and defined it not merely as charging extortionate interest, but as "charging for a loan" per se. The Catholics also said that "that to affirm that usury is no sin is to be guilty of heresy" and that usurers were "infamous in life and unworthy of burial after death". Harsh words, and yet this was the unanimous opinion of Christendom ... up to a certain point, it's hard to put one's finger on exactly when they changed their minds. So when did Christians redefine sin? And on what basis did they do so? And why, Faith, why are you complaining about people "redefining sin" without you or any of your co-religionists trying to get back to the good old definition of sin as including usury, usury as being a sin, and usury, as Luther said, consisting of "charging for a loan"?But wait, you're too busy being mean to gay people to care about that. Opposing gay marriage takes up all the time of all the people who are worried about "redefining sin", such that none of you have any free time at all left over to complain about bankers. Again I ask couldn't half of you spend your time objecting to the usurers? A quarter of you? 10%? Or could you not personally spend three-quarters of your Christian Complaining Time complaining about gay people, and the remaining quarter on usurers? But no, you're all way too busy complaining about gay people. Why is that, Faith? Why is that?Well, I stand by my diagnosis. It's because conservative opinion leaders tell you to take a stand against gay marriage, whereas they're all in favor of usury. You take the handful of opinions where conservatism and Christianity arguably intersect, you fight for conservatism and you call that your Christian duty.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ahh. But this doesn't mean the corporate/business right to free speech no longer exists. My head was into the more formal apparatus of repealing such a right.What you cite in the demonstrations and complaints was the society beating up on a state to repeal a religious defense for bigotry. Political influence on the state, not a free speech issue for business.If a gay is refused a nothing-special-about-it wedding cake just because he is gay then this law would allow the baker a religious defense for her refusal. That was what society found intolerable and needed to be reversed. Technically, no free speech question involved.If a gay is refused his request for a wedding cake of two crossed boners ...I say the baker is within her rights to refuse, not just because her religious conscience is offended, but in addition, she is being asked to create art (speech) which her religious conscience finds offensive.There is a major difference between refusing service just because you don't happen to like this class of people (which is what the Indiana law would allow) and refusing to use your art to create a political statement.Society can force a business into the one (Thou shalt not be a bigot), but I have doubts that the court's traditional view of the First Amendment would allow society to force the other (Thou shalt speak as thy customer demands no matter how deeply it cuts into your conscience).But to answer your question more directly, yes. In fact I live under a rock. The view is not much but it is naturally cooler down here and Phoenix is in the desert. Saves on the AC bill.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Deny all you want. That changes nothing. The numbers are still there and are not going to go away.

You've been waiting years for someone to ask you that question, haven't you?

Some times it takes a while to find a good straight man.

And people who loan at interest without shame on the Sabbath while eating pork boiled in sow milk by a menstruating cook. Well I do anyway.... Because it was economically advantageous to just forget the whole taboo and was eventually normalised to do those things (ok maybe boiling pork in milk hasn't quite made it yet).However....if their pastor were to commit adultery they may expect him to stand down, but he would probably show contrition and be forgiven and may get back his job later. But if instead he proudly announced it was fine and he'd carry on doing it, and society would be cheering him on and defending him against the outraged community...I'd expect passive aggressive pushback at the very least.Likewise with homosexuality. Time was it was all secretive and those caught would regularly express guilt and remorse and shame and so on and presumably go back into hiding with more care. But now the veil is opened, and the number of people left to passively enforce shame on homosexuals is diminishing so the few remaining are beginning to feel a certain duty is incumbent upon them to do their bit and so may be more inclined to do so.In addition - there is a certain protest movement afoot. From abortion and contraception to homosexuality and transgender issues... there are those that make sure their reasons for doing what they are doing are abundantly and unashamedly made clear. I am not serving you because you are black/homosexual/getting married to the wrong type I want you to know I disagree with your kind doing whatever it is, and so refuse to do otherwise. I will continue to acknowledge I said this, even though it may ruin me. I will have to be a martyr in this American jyhad....crusade....redevolution.I anticipate after the fine is levied and bankruptcy is finalised, the Kleins will find themselves on TV with some interesting remuneration opportunities as professional public martyrs.

That is your faith. That is not my faith.I am very happy to say God doesn't care.

Speaking as a liberal atheistic partnered gay man, I fully support private businesses' right to refuse service based on any objection, religious or not. I am absolutely opposed to the forcing businesses to serve gay people.There are times when one needs to stick with certain principles even if it meant going against the mainstream. This is one of those times. I think it is absolutely vile to try to force businesses to shut down because the owners are deluded enough to believe in a magical sky daddy.

Don't forget the shenanigans about "compromising" the Bible:From Message 308:

quote:

---

It's the Christians who compromise with the world and compromise the Bible and are in it for comfort rather than truth who drop away.

---

According to their own argument, they have already "dropped away".But we all already knew that...

Ha! I could've sworn that you were a girl.The software stuff made me doubt that you were actually a female, but the words you typed made me think that you were a girl.Congrats on your successes! I'm actually glad that you're a dude. You did seem like one.Anyways I was raised Catholic, but educated in Science. Given a private business, sure; serve whoever the fuck you want.But part of having a public business, is serving everybody. Which includes all protected classes. Of course. No, I disagree; it is not. As you identified, they can keep their business "opened up" if they keep it private. The legality of the situation comes in when they go public. And in that case they have to serve "everyone".Or, are you answering an ethical question instead of a legal one? 'Cause, I think that's what "these times" are really about:

quote:

---

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

---

The answer is when your business goes from private to public.If you're asking the same question but ethically, then why shouldn't the answer be the same?

Which is exactly what my example consisted of with the exception of the exact title of the magazine. WTF???Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Thank you. I have a gay friend who has the same opinion. Except he's not a liberal-- or an atheist either, although his version of God isn't mine and he's subject to my occasional attempts to save him, which sometimes he takes very politely and sometimes not. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This parallel has been raised many times before, but would it be equally vile to try to force businesses to shut down, if they refused to serve black people ?How do you distinguish the two forms of prejudice ?

vimesey writes

quote:

---

How do you distinguish the two forms of prejudice ?

---

I don't. They're both prejudice.I forgot to mention that I'm also east asian. As an east asian, like many others, I've faced everything from microagression to full blown discriminatory behavior by blacks, whites, and hispanics. Did my feelings hurt? Yes, of course. Sometimes, these people don't even realize they're offending me. But realize this. Just because my feelings are hurt doesn't mean I have the right to force them to not do something. Their right does not end where my feelings begin.Don't kid yourself. The only reason this nation needed to legislate in regard to the treatment of black people because they were rioting and burning. Too many liberals are too quick to forget that these anti-discrimination laws were put in because the country was burning. It wasn't because people were somehow changed.Racists will always be racists and christians will always be christians. My partner and I have learned to avoid any place that even hints at being religious. If we go into a store and we observe someone being religious or mentions god, we just leave. It's not that hard to avoid being discriminated against.Just the other night, we went out to a restaurant because neither of us felt like cooking. There was a woman sitting at another table who kept staring at us and shaking her head. I whispered to my partner to point her out and we left to find another restaurant. Problem solved.And yes, this might surprise a lot of people, but gay couples get looks of disgust and shaking heads all the time. The vast majority of us just leave or ignore them. Only a few attention seekers sue. My message to that lesbian couple who put Sweet Cakes by Melissa out of business is their rights shouldn't end where your feelings begin. They should have just gone to another bakery to get their cake.Edit.May be I'm a little cranky because I just woke up and I haven't had my coffee yet. Edited by coffee_addict, : No reason given.Edited by coffee_addict, : No reason given.

Cat Sci writes

quote:

---

As you identified, they can keep their business "opened up" if they keep it private. The legality of the situation comes in when they go public. And in that case they have to serve "everyone".

​

Or, are you answering an ethical question instead of a legal one? 'Cause, I think that's what "these times" are really about:

---

The distinction between a public and private business makes no sense here. All businesses are both private and public. All businesses are owned by individuals (privately) and serve the public (publically). So, trying to distinguish between private and public business is moot.

quote:

---

Ha! I could've sworn that you were a girl.

---

This is funny because my real name is girly sounding. A lot of people assume I'm a girl when they see my real name. Trust me, I'm as masculine as one comes.

quote:

---

Congrats on your successes! I'm actually glad that you're a dude. You did seem like one.

---

It ain't a success until we get 2 incomes, which won't be for at least another couple years.