Summations Only

I don't think it is different. Blacks made up more of the population in the South than homosexuals do now. If keeping blacks out of your stores and places of business did not hurt them then, how would it hurt them now with an even smaller minority?/

It is worded in vague terms so that it isn't a straight up (pun intended) attempt to ban gays from businesses. It allows a business owner to deny service to anyone if it goes against their deeply held religious beliefs. This means that you could have stores that ban catholics, delis that won't bake cakes for interracial couples, wedding planners that will refuse service to Catholics, etc. It is an open license for people to use their businesses as a cudgel for their bigotry. It has no place in this country.

Freedom isn't segregation, which is what you are calling for.

There's a lot more businesses and people have ways of instantly communicating which ones will accept them or not.If this was back then, black people would have almost nowhere to go.Given that this is today, gay people will have almost no one discriminating against them.There's only going to be a handful of businesses that want to discriminate, and then people will go on Yelp, or whatever, and call them out and then everyone else will stop going there and they will go out of business.The way I see it: good riddance.Not allowing them to discriminate will keep them out of sight and still in business. Why would you want to include those people in the community? Fuck 'em. Let them discriminate and go out of business.

No, that's just stuff you're making up in your head without even reading the language of the bill. There's no jail, or prison, or loss of business. Why do you do that?And no, Faith, we don't hate you for being a bigot. We would prefer you keep it to yourself in public, but you are free to rant as you will. As we are free to criticize you for speaking that way publically. Criticism isn't hate.

How many businesses do you think are going to turn down money?Why would they expose their bigotry to the public and face the backlash?For the ones that do, lets let them make themselves known so we can shun them and stop supporting their businesses.

Your argument boils down to this. It is ok to have a pro-bigotry bill because no one will actually take advantage of it. That seems like a really poor argument to me.

Oh brother. Cudgel, yet, as if a businesses aren't extremely vulnerable to public opinion and exist in the first place to get customers. It's government, it's LAWS that act as the cudgel, such as laws that deny business owners the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason, if they are willing to risk going out of business. As Catholic Scientist replied to you, the idea that businesses would discriminate against customers for such reasons is ridiculous, and if it did happen they could be shunned by the public which should take care of that.Why shouldjn't someone who wants to open a business have the right to take whatever customers they WANT to take? That is basic freedom. And THAT is what you are saying has no place in this country. Freedom. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

When I opened my business with one employee, one of the federal regulations regarding the operation of a business was to put up a poster in a clearly visible location for all employees to see. It listed all the forms of discrimination that could not be invoked by the employer and how employees could seek redress if they felt their rights were being unfairly infringed. Including, but not limited to, lawsuits."EEO is the Law" Poster | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission This means your don't have a right to discriminate ... and it also means you are protected from discrimination: it's a two-way street, and it's part of the social contract for living in a community - to behave unto others the way you expect them to behave towards you.

You forgot the part where the ones who do expose themselves for who they are and the rest of us get to make them go out of business.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This business was doing just fine. Do you think segregation in the South stopped because people were going out of business?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Yup. Just like all those people that went to prison after passage of the civil rights act.Blacks are no different than those evil gays are they.(I tried to you use more vulgar slang on that last line, but just couldn't sink to that level.)

CS, have you met Mr. Rand Paul?"Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights"Rand Paul On 'Maddow' Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill (VIDEO) | HuffPost Latest NewsHe also thought that bad publicity would force these businesses to close. Didn't really work out that way, did it?

Right, smear basic moral attitudes of Christians with racism, that's all it takes. Kind of like calling Tutsis "cockroaches" and Jews "vermin." It's a common tactic of bigots like all of those here who want to deprive business owners of freedom of conscience.

We'll save 'em a cell next to all the bold martyrs with a "strong moral conviction" against desegregation."If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty." --- Bob Jones Sr.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.