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

The question that kept coming to my mind in those topics was, "What's the legal basis for a 'right to refuse service' and what do court decisions say about it?" We can (and did) spend days on end and burn up considerable bandwidth arguing our own uninformed personal opinions, but none of that would mean a thing in the real world, unlike legal opinions would. So what is the informed legal opinion?In the meantime, we have all seen signs hanging in businesses saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone or that require customers to follow a dress code ("No shirt, no shoes, no service", and I have encountered one where a man is required to wear a tie). Are there legitimate situations that would stand up in court? In my own uninformed opinion, a business could legitimately refuse service if the individual is being disruptive or presents a health or safety hazard.

Not being able to provide a service should be a valid reason. You're not so much refusing service as not being able to do the job. For example, if I were in the computer repair business specializing in PCs but with no experience with Macs, if someone of a protected class brought in a Mac to be repaired, I would have to tell him/her/whatever that I couldn't. But I would refer them to one of my competitors who does work on Macs. And even if I didn't know anyone who works on Macs, I could at least try point him in the right direction.The other question that kept coming to mind was what actually went down. How did the baker refuse service? Did he do it politely or nastily? Did he politely explain his reason for not wanting to bake their cake? Or did he tell them exactly what he thought about gays and gay marriage (which we know from Christian rhetoric would very likely have been very nasty)? Was he confrontational about it, which would have caused things to escalate rapidly? Did he even try to refer them to a baker who would serve them? Or did he choose to use his business to make a personal stand and then when it escalated to legal action decide to play the martyr (which is how the Right has been using this case)? Was he even seeking to play the martyr from the beginning, hoping to be the test case that would help to oppose gay marriage?Of course, it could have been the customer who became confrontational. Maybe he had just had enough of being treated like dirt -- a nasty refusal would have triggered that response quite nicely. Or was he looking for a test case or at least to teach the baker a lesson? Did that baker have a history of such behavior?The thing is that we don't know any of what had actually happened, even though we were passionately debating it. My impression is that the baker handled it badly and then decided to play the martyr when it blew up in his face. But what did actually happen?

So in other words even the bigots know that they're wrong, so they hide behind their god who, by some wild coincidence, hates the exact same things and people that the bigots hate.

Yes, we see that and know that all too well. Like all other believers of all kinds of theologies and ideologies, you will act on what you believe. Regardless of how utterly and completely wrong your beliefs may be, exactly that same as with all other believers of all theologies and ideologies. You are no different in this regard than a jihadist, a Bolshevik anarchist, or a Catholic.Your beliefs have nothing to do with Christianity, but rather with your fallible human misunderstanding of Christianity. Your beliefs have nothing to do with what the Bible says, but rather with your fallible human misunderstanding of what the Bible says. Your beliefs have nothing to do with any actual god or gods, but rather with your fallible human misunderstanding of fallible human concept about one particular human idea of a god.Of course, you will insist that we must accept your misunderstandings as true, but your record informs us otherwise. After all, we cannot test your claims about God and other aspects of the supernatural, since the supernatural is outside our ken and our ability to perceive and test and verify. But you have been so consistently wrong about things that we are able to test that there is no conceivable reason for us to believe you about things that we cannot test.As much as you have demonstrated how much you hate reality, you still need to deal with reality. You have expressed your disdain for diversity, but diversity is part of our shared reality. Reality is that our society is very diverse. Reality is that our society includes a wide spectrum of religious beliefs and traditions. Reality is that we all need to live together peacefully and get along with each other, peacefully. And reality is that society's rules and expectations of us need to promote behavior that promotes peaceful coexistence and discourage behavior that threatens peaceful coexistence.

This issue is not about gay marriage, it's not about cakes.The real issue is whether, in a widely diverse multi-cultural society, particular minutiae of one particular religious view should have precedence over the rest of society. Or at the very least over the laws of the society.

Bullshit.Bullshit upon bullshit.Do you really and actually know the entirety of God's Mind? Or are you merely expressing what you personally believe about it?You are a fallible human. Do you disagree with that assessment?Admittedly fallible human, you claim to know exactly what God is thinking? Yeah, right! Bullshit! Oh, you don't think that your position is bullshit? OK, defend your position objectively!!!! Prove it! No, of course you cannot. Nor could any human possibly do so!Everything I said about you was the absolute truth! Point out to me exactly what you think was a lie! Exactly and precisely!And of course, you, living within your lie, would not care less about the truth. Nothing new there. So you accept the false ideas of others. So what? They also claimed that their beliefs were based on the Bible, just as you have made the same claim? So what? That just means that they were just as misguided and lost as you!

Then you are yet again wrong! Our society is indeed diverse. To be able to function within our society, we need to be able to deal with diversity. Now, you are stuck there in your own habitat (yes, I do realize that you have medical conditions that limit your mobility and your ability to go out and interact with others), so your own personal interaction with society's diversity is very limited. It would certainly seem that your physical isolation and selectivity in reacting with others outside your own personal habitat would shield you unnecessarily from the broad diversity of our society. However, most individuals in this society are not as isolated as you are. Most individuals in this society do indeed encounter other individuals of backgrounds that are entirely different from their own. Most individuals in this society do have to deal with others who are very different and diverse from themselves. That may not be part of your own extremely limited reality, but it is very much a part of everybody else's reality.Again, gay marriage is not the issue here. The issue here is whether one's own personal religious beliefs, however false they may be, are to be allowed to override society's invested interest in ensuring equal rights for all its members.

That is in itself a lie! Point out very specifically what you think is a lie! Be very specific!!!Do you really believe that you are yourself without fault? That you are yourself perfect and completely lacking any kind of human fallibility? if you truly believe that then you are most certainly completely and absolutely deluded! Prove to us that you are personally completely perfect and that everything you utter is the complete and utter truth!if you cannot do that, then your accusations are completely and utter false.Can you be wrong? Com'on, be honest for once in our life! Can you be wrong?You claim to know intimately what your god is thinking. Can you be wrong? As much as it is against character, do please be honest.

People are as they are. That is most certainly outside my own experience, but people are as they are. Of course I have no idea how much contact you may or may not have had with homosexuals. Could you please enlighten us about your contacts? Certainly, because of your completely legitimate limitations with the real world, you may very well have not had any contact with homosexuals, or else you may have had daily contacts with homosexuals. We have no way of knowing that, but rather you do. Do please inform us of the details of your daily contacts with homosexual individuals. And, please, do not spare us any details whatsoever. So what the frak is your point? I know that you are physically not very mobile. I am making allowances for your personal mobility issues. Have you physically been to the Grand Canyon to personally examine exactly what the layers look like? Of course not, that would physically be impossible for you, so I don't demand that of you while others who didn't know about your physical limitations would for very good reason.The point still remains that your contacts are limited. So what have been your contacts with homosexuals? You have tried to divert our attention away from the question, just the totally dishonest Christian maneuver we would expect. Gee, why is it that Christians keep employing totally dishonest and lying tactics?

You claim to have perfect knowledge of what God wants.You need to provide us with perfect proof of that perfect knowledge.Can you? Of course you cannot, because you are a very imperfect human.So why do you pretend to have such perfect knowledge?Please come clean!

You claimed to have such a perfect knowledge of "God's mind" about everything. So you damned well need to be able to prove that!Of course, we are all too well aware of the outright lies that Christians will say. Such that we know all too well to question each and every claim that any Christian will say.

Tonight on NPR's All Things Considered, there was an analysis of the federal law and what it covered and did not cover, etc.Refer to npr.org for specifics. Refer to All Things Considered for 01 April 2015.Circa 1991, I was personally involved in the religious discrimination lawsuits involving Boy Scouts of America, Inc. As a non-lawyer, it was an eye-opener. Justice is justice and what BSA, Inc, was doing was blatantly unjust. But the USA does not have a justice system, but rather a legal system. You cannot plead against the blatant injustice, but rather must be able to cite a specific law that is being violated and be able to prove that that law was being violated. In the case of Randall v. Orange County Council, the applicable law that was chosen, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, spoke of "places of entertainment" (as I recall from my personal involvement). Therefore, the plaintiffs had to, among other things, establish that the Scouting Program was a "place of entertainment". Not truly representative of what Scouting actually is, but required for legal purposes. The court's findings that discrimination did indeed exist resulted in the boys being allowed to continue to participate in the program. When they had both fulfilled their requirements for Eagle, BSA was able to force the California Supreme Court to make a decision, which was that, while BSA did blatantly commit discrimination, they are a private organization and hence were not subject to the law. At the same time, BSA immediately and arbitrarily disposed of their other pending cases, totally bypassing their own officially published due process.I was only able to listen to the NPR report while driving in my car. What I gathered was that the federal statute's precise legalistic wording led to court decisions against the party claiming religious immunity, which in turn led to individual states taking the initiative to remove any such ambiguity.Edited by dwise1, : Clean-up in Unruh Act isle
Also added consequences of Randall case

[voice="Austin Powers"]Tell that to Vegas, baby![/voice]You get caught cheating in one casino, you get barred from all the casinos.

OK, let us imagine such a "private" organization in the USA. It has had a Congressional Charter for a little over a century now. It has traditionally received enormous support through public moneys, including free use of public lands (or one-dollar leases) and somewhat free access to military facilities. And even though it is a "private" organization, it provides a very public service to American youth.It also has published rules and regulations and bylaws that govern its operations and its policies. Those include rules for how it treats members who are not deemed worthy of membership, which includes their appeal processes.Problems have arisen in which the leadership has deemed that atheists should not be allowed membership, even though neither the rules and regulations nor the bylaws forbid it (and can even allow it). And, furthermore, members expelled for that "reason" were denied their due process according to the organization's own rules and regulations and bylaws.So the question is: Can a private organization do just whatever the frak it wants to do? Or can it at least be held responsible to following its own rules and regulations and bylaws?

"best-known"by whom? As my suegro (father-in-law) would so often say, "En su propria casa se conoce." ("In his own house they know him.") Similarly, those who have had to deal with creationist nonsense over the years know the names of creationists all too well, yet even most creationists do not know even that much.What is the name of this "One of the best-known theologians"? You know him/her so well, so give us the name.During what panel discussion? You know full well what panel discussion it was, so please let us know as well so that we can review it ourselves. Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Oscar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where? In what country? Provide us with specifics! Starting with the name of this anonymous "One of the best-known theologians". Do be most extremely specific!We are all calling Bullshit!!! and for very good reason!Do please name any one specific case where "he'll tell them what the Bible says and be arrested. and other teachers I hear on the radio have been mentioning if only in passing, sometimes in the context of a Bible passage about persecution, how laws are being designed these days to make criminals of Christians." Do please be very specific.You cannot. And you know it. So why do you continue to pretend?