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

Not really offensive in my opinion. But I don't imagine that Faith would be satisfied with such an option.

Churches are free to decline to marry anyone they want. That even includes not marrying people who are legally allowed to marry, but whom the pastor does not believe are ready. We've had discussions here about churches who refused to perform interracial marriages.I think this is pretty much a non-issue. You don't actually need a church to get married. The state provides secular marriage services.

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.

Yup, that was my point. There'll always be people who won't comply 'on principle.' Martyrs.

You said in Message 21, "I would be refusing service based on what he has already done." Neither the time frame nor the nature of the victim's previous action are pertinent. If we allow you to refuse service on the basis of previous action A, then we can not prevent you from refusing service on the basis of previous action B.

I'm not advocating any law at all. I'm advocating licensing standards.Buddhists are not licensed to have cockroaches running free in their restaurants and Christians are not licensed to persecute people. That's equality.

The customer hit on the barber's wife. Maybe she had cause to take offense, maybe not.The barber did take offense but I don't know if any court would recognize that. Ownership of wives has slipped out of fashion. Since the wife isn't even present at the hypothetical present time, I'd say the barber has even less legal standing to take offense again. I'm not talking about keeping a child molester away from children. I'm talking about refusing a haircut to a reformed safecracker.Edited by ringo, : pelling.

Isn't that why the pilgrims left Plymouth? So that they could persecute people not of their own faith?

The courts have always acknowledged the special emotional relationship between husband and wife. This is one reason a spouse cannot be compelled to testify. I think, based on this special relationship (the same, btw between parent/child), the courts would recognize that such an offense against the one is an offense against the other. That was me being a bit tongue in cheek. Your safe cracker (reformed or not) as well as your molester (reformed or not) can expect to receive their haircut. But not the lascivious lech who hit on your wife, whether she is presently there or not.Even in the rule of law the bench has latitude in assessing the realities of the human condition in their decisions.This is a one-off situation as animus between two individuals having no bearing on society's compelling interest to fight broad discrimination. I've been wrong before but I would be willing to wager that no court in either of our systems would touch this case.BTW, It has been a while, but you are beautiful again! Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I think your eagerness to make me look bad has hindered your ability to comprehend my very simple points.I'll live.

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.

That's been my position all along, never deviated from it for a moment, though for some reason it's been just about impossible to get it across. That's what I've been proposing. This wouldn't work for me. As long as I know it's for a gay wedding I couldn't make a wedding cake at all. If they want to buy a simple cake out of the display case that's already there they are welcome to that, but a wedding cake is a very special creation and I'd have to refuse. Nope, see above. I'll sell them cookies, eclairs, brownies, cakes from the display case, but not a wedding cake. And the KKK people can do their own inscription.

Really? I think I fundamentally disagree with the idea that letting people discriminate as long at they put up a sign is the way to go. It's not like your point was all that difficult to understand, although I was a bit curious about what you'd want those signs in Nebraska to say. But yeah, I did have some fun at your expense. At least I did resist the temptation to drop yet another 'democracy in action' funny.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you allow me? What law prevents me from kicking people out of my shop after they behave badly? Have you ever actually worked at a retail establishment? So if I kick someone out of the shop for hitting on my wife, that suggests ownership? I don't see it that way. I think we'll just have to disagree on that point. Since the affront was a throw away item just for fun, let's suggest instead that Jody took my favorite copy of Wrestling World Magazine the last time he was here. Or pretend he used the "J" word at a Japanese customer.Just to make it abundantly clear. Ex-cons are welcome in my fictitious barber shop. In fact, I've got a barber here who served time for shoplifting.Still not going to let Jody come back in. Probably ever. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.