If selling a wedding cake to a gay couple means...then.. (Page 9): According to the history of STD's syphilis and gonorrhea date to the discovery of the Americas. If you have some...

PeterS

JW wrote:

Do you actually read what you're responding to? You think STDs have only been around for a few hundred years? I've already told you that STDs are caused by many things but are being spread epidemically by homosexual behavior. I gave you a link to the CDC. What more do you need?

According to the history of STD's syphilis and gonorrhea date to the discovery of the Americas. If you have some STD's that predate that then lets have them. And are you saying that STD's can't be spread by heterosexual behavior? I don't need a link to the CDC to know that you are full of crap...

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

"What does “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” really mean?

In restaurants and near cash registers, we’ve all seen signs that state: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” But who can business owners really refuse service to? It’s certainly not just anyone.

Here’s a breakdown of what is and isn’t covered by this familiar phrase.

Can business owners really refuse service to anyone?

Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

At the national level, protected classes include:

Race or color
National origin or citizenship status
Religion or creed
Sex
Age
Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
Veteran status

Some states, like California, have more protected classes than the federal baseline. In addition to the above factors, California adds:

Marital status
Sexual orientation or g****r identity
Medical condition, or AIDS/HIV status
Military or veteran status
Political affiliations or activities
Status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking
So who can businesses refuse service to?

These signs also don’t allow business owners to refuse service based on arbitrary reasons outside of the protected classes (though pointing out signs to cries of “No fair!” might avoid any further action on the part of spurned patrons). Instead, reasons must be legitimate enough to hold up in court. In general, refusal of service is justified in cases where a customer’s presence interferes with the safety and well-being of other patrons and the establishment itself. The most basic examples of this include patrons who are unreasonably rowdy, patrons lacking adequate hygiene, and those accompanied by large groups of non-customers.

Or consider this more nuanced example: In 2001, a California court ruled that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that denied members entry because they were wearing their club colors. The sports bar wasn’t denying the club members entry because they didn’t like their logo, but because management thought that allowing the colors to be worn could lead to fights with rival clubs inside the bar. Though no such fight had ever occurred, preventing hypothetical violence is considered a legitimate business interest.

And what about those “No shirt, no shoes, no service” signs?

If a business owner determines that lack of shoes or shirt poses a danger to the patron or other customers, or if it’s merely enough to make others uncomfortable, this sign is both legal and completely justified.

When such signs go beyond these more traditional clothing requirements or are geared toward a specific group, they’re bound to be controversial. In Brooklyn, Ultra-Orthodox Jewish businesses came under fire for posting modesty signs stating, “No shorts, no barefoot, no sleeveless, no low cut neckline allowed in this store.”

The city sued the group of stores located along a two-block stretch of a Satmar Hasidic section of Williamsburg saying, “It seems pretty clear that it’s geared toward women dressing modestly if they choose to come into the store, and that would be discrimination.” Hasidic advocates said that the signs were no different than dress codes at places like the Four Seasons. But allowing grocery and hardware stores to set the same standards as upscale restaurants and private clubs isn’t entirely logical, whether or not it’s legal.

Door policies at nightclubs seem pretty discriminatory. How do they get away with it?

While it can be unlawful to refuse service, it is not unlawful for most businesses to provide discounts based on certain characteristics in order to attract the desired clientele. This is why a club that overtly denied admittance to anyone but Koreans was fined $20,000 this year, but anti-feminist attorney Roy Den Hollander, who has been crusading against “Ladies’ Nights,” has been shot down since he started bringing suits to court in 2010.

Unfortunately, while it’s no mystery that clubs discriminate based on both g****r and physical appearance, changes in this policy are unlikely to come about anytime soon. By enacting strict door policies, nightclubs aim to create an environment that best fits its image and, it follows, best for business. Gay bars, for example, can argue that too many straight people of the opposite sex will make patrons uncomfortable and hurt business, while the clubs that Hollander sued might claim that they give discounts to women to draw the men that bring in the most profits. Plus, doormen and bouncers can cite a number of reasons to deny access—from an imaginary guest list to the wrong shoes—making it difficult to prove legitimate discrimination."

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

PeterS wrote:

There's nothing hypothetical about it--if the baker want's to stay in business he has to serve those who walk in his doors. If he can't do that then he shouldn't have opened his doors to begin with...

"You didn't build that bakery business...the gays did"

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

PeterS wrote:

And why did the "little pansies" need to go to another baker? So your are telling me that great big Christian Bakers can't stand up to a bunch of little pansies fairy's? And why on earth would liberals want to shut down people who view others as "little pansies?" You're right. Life isn't fair is it...

You aren't interested in fairness, you only care about Christians being forced to compromise their faith. Suggest you read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the lives of saints and millions of Christian martyrs, who gave up their lives to keep the faith. Their vision was far superior than your own. You've already lost a battle that will continue to be waged until the end of the world. You freely chose the losing side and still think you're smart. You're much like being Hitler's chauffeur. You take evil wherever it chooses to go - you just along for the ride?

JW

PeterS wrote:

According to the history of STD's syphilis and gonorrhea date to the discovery of the Americas. If you have some STD's that predate that then lets have them. And are you saying that STD's can't be spread by heterosexual behavior? I don't need a link to the CDC to know that you are full of crap...

STDs can be t***smitted by anyone engaging in physical relationships with other living things. Those with the most partners constitute the greatest incidence of t***smission.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070517035707AAHy3lS

Within that link are additional links supporting what is being said in the piece.

STDs have been around as long as sexual urges.

Lonewolf

What would Jesus do

EconomistDon wrote:

I think that suing the baker and bankrupting his b... (show quote)

Lonewolf

How many times did God warn us a bought judging others

padremike wrote:

You aren't interested in fairness, you only care a... (show quote)

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

desparado wrote:

How many times did God warn us a bought judging others

OK, let's examine your premise! According to your understanding of judgment it is now time to abolish all law enforcement, all courts, our entire legal system and let criminals run amok, turn our backs to every sort of crime, never correct our children's behaviour because someone believes that judging others behaviour, as you expect to be judged yourself, is against God's warning. Is this really what you believe scripture means?

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

PeterS wrote:

And why did the "little pansies" need to go to another baker? So your are telling me that great big Christian Bakers can't stand up to a bunch of little pansies fairy's? And why on earth would liberals want to shut down people who view others as "little pansies?" You're right. Life isn't fair is it...

In several cases there is adequate evidence that the homosexuals shopped around until they found a Christian owned bakery where they knew the owner would not participate in the wedding by designing a special wedding cake for the occassion. When they were turned down they sued even though several bakeries offered to provide the celebration cake for free. This technique has been very effective for them and is the same technique used by activists who demand that Nativity scenes, crosses , signs that say Merry Christmas,or dare to mention God, and all of the above mentioned things have been removed to appease this small C*******t front or funded group.

Big Bass

desparado wrote:

How many times did God warn us a bought judging others

Who sold judging others?

Lonewolf

Of course were not going to get rid of law enforcement.
Early Christians hired Jews to do their banking why, because the Jews could charge interest something Christians weren't SUSPOSED to do.
And yes we will be judged the same way we judge others !

quote=padremike]OK, let's examine your premise! According to your understanding of judgment it is now time to abolish all law enforcement, all courts, our entire legal system and let criminals run amok, turn our backs to every sort of crime, never correct our children's behaviour because someone believes that judging others behaviour, as you expect to be judged yourself, is against God's warning. Is this really what you believe scripture means?[/quote]

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Big Bass wrote:

Who sold judging others?

The money changers...who got their table's turned over.. I guess..

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

desparado wrote:

Of course were not going to get rid of law enforce... (show quote)

[/quote]

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

PeterS wrote:

That's why you guys stacked the court isn't it? Though I think the need to stack the court in order to get your outcome shows everyone just who the pansies really are...

It appears that you are either the biggest hypocrite or the most prolific self-delusional ideological jerk on the OPP. Obama stacked the supreme courts with two politically correct women who were only concerned with Progressive (evil) ideology and never the constitution. He stacked the lower courts with many more unqualified judges who always bang the gavel for Progressive agenda and the hell with the Constitution. You will note that every time some jerk water organization doesn't like an action Trump takes they run to their ideological selected liberal judges and file suit. They always lose on appeal but they're a nuisance like a mosquito.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

desparado wrote:

Of course were not going to get rid of law enforce... (show quote)

[/quote

Usury was against Jewish religious law. Christians are called to both judge and reject evil behavior. We are not allowed to judge an unrepentant sinners final destination, that is solely Christ's d******n.