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

I can one up this. In the UK it's actually a criminal offense for a bartender to serve a drunk person - they are legally mandated to refuse service!

quote:

---

Section 141 makes it an offence to sell or attempt to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk, or to allow alcohol to be sold to such a person on relevant premises.

---

And more - it's illegal to buy alcohol for your mate, if they are drunk:

quote:

---

Under section 142 a person commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly obtains or attempts to obtain alcohol for consumption on those premises by a person who is drunk.

---

I'm not sure if this next one is still on the books, but until recently you could have your licence to sell alcohol revoked or refused renewal on the grounds that your establishment is 'frequented by thieves, prostitutes or persons of bad character'.I have refused service to drunks and prostitutes (who were working). But not thieves or other persons of bad character (otherwise I'd have been unemployed).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But the difference in NoNukes example is that the de facto result is that you are operating a white's only business. In your example you'd be happy to repair a Black person's PC where you would refuse to repair their Mac.Like the obligation for businesses to provide access to their services for disabled individuals (as much as actually possible and forseeable), there might be a moral obligation for a hairdresser to have competency in providing service to different races - especially those minority races who make up a sizeable proportion of the population.It's an interesting question, I think. This is from the court case - it is listed as a fact that is undisputed:

quote:

---

Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.

---

The complainants immediately and peacefully left.

quote:

---

The next day, Ms. Munn called Masterpiece Cakeshop and spoke with Phillips. Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and
because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages.

---

There is no evidence in the case commonly referred to, instead it seems to have been a natural occurrence. The outrage from some Christians who believe they should have this right, will potentially lead to people looking for a case to 'hunt' those self-same Christians out. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Why just faith? Is faith more important than secular principles? If I don't want to serve Jews because I think they are part of a conspiracy to bankrupt America/wherever then why is that belief, should it be sincerely held, not to be permitted but 'I believe some anonymous and long dead jews were told this by the creator of the universe' is? I'm not sure the Bible's position on homosexual marriage is entirely clear. The best I can come up with is Mark 10, but I don't think it is a slam dunk. Even if we read it as sympathetically to your ideas as possible:1) The primary meaning behind Mark 10 is that re-marrying after divorce is adultery.2) It is talking about a religious ceremony, and the theological reasons for it being considered permanent. The US Government does not, or at least should not, perform religious ceremonies. Being united by the government is not the same as being united by God.The very fact that Christians almost never balk at having to serve someone a wedding cake for the second or third marriage, it would seem clear to me (and to a court, if Mark 10 was for some reason brought forward) that the refusal to serve was based on animus not religion.This doesn't prevent it from being a religious objection, as you can of course point to Church Doctrine. But I don't think that should excuse abhorrent behaviour. I'm sure some people were claiming traditional religious views when they let their 'seed pass through the fire to Molech', but I don't think that would fly would it?Laws that exempt religious people from following them, at their whim (as long as they claim membership to the right religious institutions), break certain laws, are not good for society. Even if you think that in some cases it benefits your clan.I think a good moral guideline to follow is: If a religious group that hates my behaviour or my race or my religion or... became the dominant group, would I want these kinds of laws in place? If the USA was 90% Muslim, and those Muslims felt that for religious reasons they could not serve people that deny Muhammed as a prophet, or assert prophets that came after him - would you be happy that many shops and clubs and services effectively excluded you, because you are a Christian? Or worse, but perhaps more realistically, what if atheism became predominant? Would you be happy that asshole atheists made you feel like scum for believing in 'Magic Jew/Sky Daddy/mystic ghost'?I reiterate my former position, if you can't in good conscience, serve certain classes protected by law (even if its only in certain contexts), then you should stop serving all classes.You might think that this one religious exclusion is not that big a deal, and even if you were right in that, it should be noted that one religious exemption can be used to justify others. And before you know it, people are neglecting their children to death without fear of state intervention.

And I too was careful to include the phrase 'even if its only in certain contexts'. For instance refusing to sell a cake for a gay wedding is refusing a certain class of people, only in certain contexts. If you'd like instead of Jews being responsible for bankrupting us, you can replace it with 'people wearing yarmulkes'.Or we can avoid that legislation and look to medical staff who neglect patients on grounds of conscience (such as letting a woman die rather than prematurely terminating her pregnancy), or the woman who is refused the morning after pill by a pharmacist and has to work out how to get to the other side of town, or the next town over, and assess what the likelihood is she'll be refused there... It seems then that in practical terms, there would be no need for the law at all, as 'conscientious' grounds are largely what people appeal to when refusing to obey these kinds of laws. Your honour, I don't need to pay taxes, that's subornation of false muster! I can let my child die slowly and horribly, because I prayed they wouldn't and it is unconscionable for me to doubt God's will.... I'm trying to keep my points general. But if you want to talk about the details of same-sex marriage issues you could create a new thread or respond to
Message 588, or indeed Message 343, Message 356, Message 397, Message 409, Message 444, Message 484 and Message 524. I'm sure there are plenty of points I raised you didn't even give the illusion of answering.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

If you refuse to provide wedding cakes for Jewish weddings, but you provide them for Christian weddings. That's discrimination. Even if you can prove that you would serve birthday cakes to Jews.For instance, if you think that Jews are an inferior race based on some Nazi social darwinism type ideas - and you cannot condone them getting married and therefore propagating their filthy genes...
would this be acceptable to you?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That's your view. But Muslims have different views on what is the standard. As do atheists. Despite your wishes for a theocracy (of your preferred variety), that's unlikely to happen in the US any time soon (cynical comments aside). Since it is unconstitutional to favour Christianity or even 'people of the book(s)', there is nothing that can be done. If changing your theological view is not possible, either stop providing wedding related services or accept the court costs/fines/other punitive measures.I'm interested in what the Biblical basis is, though. I asked earlier, could you help me out?

'Anal pleasures' is as much enjoyed by heterosexuals as it is homosexuals. While sexuality active homosexual/bisexual men do as a population engage in it most frequently - the number of heterosexual women who have engaged in it is not far off (although a same sex male couple that does it probably does it more regularly). Add in lesbians (who very rarely engage in it) and the figures aren't quite as different as you might expect. Thus associating gay men with anal sex is verging on being an unfair association. Oral sex and mutual masturbation are much more common. I'd give you ahem, hard numbers, but I can't find any right now - just references to them made in scholarly texts that don't obviously cite sources, and I don't have the time to go on a hunt.Anyway, not really on topic, but I felt it needed saying.Incidentally - the baker could refuse to create such a cake as long as they don't specifically create explicit cakes as their business model.Here's an interesting example of a non-human product that engages in discrimination (race). Not sure where we should fall on that one. Could it be said to be racist neglect (ie., absence of black models used during testing?)?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes, but surprisingly it isn't just about the Christians. I'm including other religions who may have their own conflicts with equal rights legislation and the like as a result of their religious teachings. I get that it's a sin. What has that got to do with 'normal classes'? I've already covered Mark 10. Matthew 19 can be dealt with the same way. Genesis 2 is a 'just-so' story explaining heterosexuals.So far, even if I accept the argument you are trying to make, all you have done is say that God only joins together heterosexual marriages. Really this seems to be an argument that gays can marry multiple times.But what about the service part? I don't remember Jesus refusing sinners. Luke 7:

quote:

---

And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner. {Parable} .... then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.

---

Or are you guys holier than Jesus now? I guess the alternative is that you are the modern day Pharisees. I'm not telling you how to read the Bible or about your conscience. I am just trying to understand your position and those like you as to what parts of the Bible instruct you to refuse service to certain sinners, but not to others. Which one? The one where I think Christians should be treated equally to atheists and Muslims? The one where I think heterosexuals should be treated equally to homosexuals? The one where I think all races should be treated with equal dignity? Or that physical disability should not be something treated with disdain? I expect so. I think there were quite a few cases in the early days of the initial Civil Rights act as racists stubbornly dug their heals in and tried all manner of tactics to discriminate against black people. It's still happening, unfortunately, but I think to a lesser degree.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You should try paying attention Faith. If a person cannot serve wedding cakes to jews or homosexuals or French people - they should stop serving wedding cakes to everyone else. To do otherwise is immoral and can result in civil or even criminal proceedings. Even if we only look at it from a fairness perspective - ie., other businesses are having to adapt their policies and behaviours to comply, why should another business be exempt from providing equal enjoyment of services because the owners can't in good conscience do so?If you can't use lethal force because of conscientious reasons, don't become an infantryman and try and get out of your duties because of your personal reading of the Bible or Koran.You want to open a public library? You can't deny women access to feminist literature while allowing men to access it, even if you think women are evil and those texts will radicalise them. If you have such feelings, you don't belong in the public library game.This is not the same as forbidding people to enter into business, its just mandating they do so while playing by the same rules as others. I don't want to start a weapons manufacturing business, becoming a charlatan preacher or psychic or start a gay reversion therapy business. All on grounds of conscience. I can still start a business selling ribbons or arts and crafts materials if I like. But if I can't sell waterpaints to autistic people for some conscientious reason, then the latter business is not one I should be entering, and if I'm in the business already I should just stop selling waterpaints entirely.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I understand. And although the example I'm about to give is, I feel, more inappropriate I think it illustrates the reason I thought it prudent to provide that perspective.

quote:

---

...a few of those may make wedding cakes for a living and a few of those may be asked by a black couple crazy, stupid or determined enough to make a point to bake them a cake with a marzipan couple sharing fried chicken.

---

Come on, aren't you a little nostalgic for the days of'No Blacks
No Dogs
No Irish'
?

Indeed - thousands of years, but over time. Of course, it isn't necessarily unidirectional. The last 50 years or so are anomalous and shouldn't be relied upon. But some would if it didn't. So actually they do want to, they just want to avoid the consequences more.

It is denying a service to a person. The problem is denying a particular service generally to a group of people, membership of which says nothing about their character, opinions or personality. Such as refusing to bake wedding cakes for mixed race marriages. Fair enough. But if you do serve wedding cakes, and a KKK member wants one, you have to make a choice. It turns out KKK membership isn't protected, so their complaints may well turn to nought. I suppose but the objection has so far been about baking a cake or providing some other product or service intended to be used to celebrate a same-sex marriage or some other analogous situations.

Do you (hypothetically) sell racially offensive cakes to white people and hispanic people and Jewish people? If so, then there may be an issue.However, if you refuse everybody who asks for racially offensive cakes equally, then it's not an issue at all.

As a matter of fact EVERYBODY is going to allow Christians your Biblical stand against gay marriage. We feel very strongly that you are allowed to do this.You are confusing being forbidden from refusing to provide certain services to certain classes while also providing those same services to other classes with being forbidden to take a stand.You are welcome to take a stand in front the US courts if you like.
Or you can stay on the right side of law, and the commonly agreed norms of decency, and stop providing those specific products or services you cannot serve to one class, to anybody. You can keep on with other services such as portrait work, birthday cakes, DJing for corporate gigs. And you get to say and write whatever the heck you like, more or less! They came for the atheist ending their freedom by saying 'you will not discriminate on grounds of religion'.
Then they came for the xenophobe saying 'you will not discriminate on grounds of nationality'
Then it was the racists...the colourists, the sexist and the ableist.And when they came for the homophobes, I mean homomisians, homosyzygyadiakoneoists?? No Abrahamians! Erm, Christians, no Protestants, no evangelical conservative Christians. Wait got it.And when they came for the True Christians, there was nobody with any freedom left to fight for them.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.