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

I haven't been paying attention, so this has probably been made clear already, but when you talk about what does and does not constitute discrimination, are you talking about a legal sense or some moral/ethical/dictionary definition sense?

I've talked about both, it depends on the context.

Nonsense. Discrimination is when you treat one person differently from another. This "group" business has been tacked on to excuse discriminating against people who are not members of any of the officially recognized groups.

Sure it does. It just happens that if your customer was gay last week he's probably still gay today. But if you saw him coming out of a gay bar last week, that doesn't justify you barring him today.

Okay, in that sense the community does allow businesses to discriminate. And its not because of a lack of enforcement that is lagging behind their standard. The standard is to allow businesses to discriminate despite the fact that they are open to the public.If you don't like the way that someone is behaving in your business, then you have the right to tell them to GTFO. Jerks have no right to be treated like everyone else.

So you've never heard of "Whites Only" lunch counters, etc.? They lagged behind the community standard until the community started enforcing its standard. Have I said otherwise? I've said that you (may) have the right to refuse service in a specific instance but you may not have the right to refuse service based on a previous instance.

Of course. I haven't said that it never happens.I said that its not happening in the case you are referring to. Okay, so now your just waffling.You go from being ambiguous, to moving the goal posts, to waffling. I think we're done here.

It's hard to correct your confusion when you refuse to tell us where your confusion is. Give examples of "moving goalposts" and I'll try to clarify.

Its not worth the effort.You're obviously just making shit up as you go along.

Luckily for you, empty accusations don't take much effort.

You would know, my love.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

So easy it only took you three words *rimshot*Now seriously, I think this section of the discussion has now ended. This is therefore a cease and desist message to anybody else who wants to discuss their dialogue partners' (for the PC lovers out there) failings over the topic itself.

quote:

---

Rachel Bowman-Cryer should collect $75,000 and her wife, Laurel Bowman-Cryer, $60,000 from the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, an administrative law judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a proposed order released Friday, April 24.

---

quote:

---

The amounts recommended by law judge Alan McCullough, coming after four days of testimony, are not final. State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian has the final authority to raise, lower or leave the proposed damages as is.

---

Same-sex couple in Sweet Cakes controversy should receive $135,000, hearings officer says - oregonlive.com

quote:

---

The Sweet Cakes by Melissa car was vandalized and broken into twice Photographers and florists severed ties with the company, eventually forcing Sweet Cakes to close the Gresham shop in September 2013. The business now operates out of the couple's home in Sandy.

---

The vandalism is of course inexcusable. I don't condone it, and I included the comment about it in the post just to avoid an accusation of whitewashing or ignoring it.However the publicity and the resulting shunning by other businesses is probably the natural outcome of mistreating potential clients. Would Fundy Christians insist that such actions are Nazi like and deprive them of their religious freedom?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, they have to do something if SCOTUS rules for gay marriage and I'm glad they have something in mind though it's hard to imagine exactly what it is they have in mind. Sit ins?The article says they are expecting a "hell storm" against them. I'm sure they are right about that.http://www.foxnews.com/...ivil-disobedience-if-supreme-courtEdited by Faith, : No reason given.