Belly35;1749422 wrote:Z4P drinking fountain and bathroom where at one time a public service provide by local government to their citizens.

Can’t compare government policy at one time to private business ownership…


Some private owner of business did discriminated and others did not. Those that choose to discriminate lost business. As the Black population grew, others that did not discriminate prospered greatly over time.
Private business owner have to make this call, they are the “risk take” and how those entrepreneurs “ risk taker” choose to deal with social issue of today world is their business .. Just like it was years ago… right or wrong..

No, no, no haven't you heard? The government determines your business risks for you.

Again, if you want to reap the benefits of a owning a business open to the public, then you must play by the rules (laws).

Want to get around it? It's easy. Make it a private "Cake Club" where you must apply for membership. Then you serve whoever you like while also watching your revenue go down the shitter.

It amazes me that people don't see how this is discrimination and fwiw....I think both sides are dbags.

like_that;1749419 wrote:I'm neither religious nor afraid of "teh gayz"

One deals with segregating public space based on race and the other deals with private business owners choosing who they want to serve. If I owned a bar i wouldn't serve any steelers fans, because fuck them.

Keep being dramatic with your reaching though. Typical sjw.

Obviously not meaning you, but the store owners.

It has nothing to do with public space and private enterprise. If you owned a bar, you could tell a black guy you won't serve them. You just could face a lawsuit from it. The true difference here is people have religious constitutional protections allowing them to discriminate in the name of their religion. It's still discriminating though.

Automatik;1749420 wrote:The business is open to the public, therefore they must abide by the laws that prohibit discrimination.

BS --- it is a shop that cuts men's hair; the shop does not even have the equipment (and probably the know-how) to cut women's hair. Are you saying the brown shirts in BIG government can come in and order the man to spend thousands of dollars to buy equipment to be able to cut women's hair (just in case some liberal 'victim' walks in) ---- that is absolutely ludicrous.

And as for the $750 fine; I would tell them to shove it.

QuakerOats;1749427 wrote:BS --- it is a shop that cuts men's hair; the shop does not even have the equipment (and probably the know-how) to cut women's hair. Are you saying the brown shirts in BIG government can come in and order the man to spend thousands of dollars to buy equipment to be able to cut women's hair (just in case some liberal 'victim' walks in) ---- that is absolutely ludicrous.

Next time they should grab a set of clippers and tell her to have a seat.

QuakerOats;1749412 wrote:http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/09/08/barbershop-fined-for-refusing-to-cut-womans-hair/


Men's barbershop fined for not cutting woman's hair.

Today's liberalism is indeed a disturbing mental disease.

Here's an idea.....use the men's haircut tools and do a man's haircut. Do an awful job and she will not come back...

Supply and demand....no demand, no reason to supply.

QuakerOats;1749427 wrote:BS --- it is a shop that cuts men's hair; the shop does not even have the equipment (and probably the know-how) to cut women's hair. Are you saying the brown shirts in BIG government can come in and order the man to spend thousands of dollars to buy equipment to be able to cut women's hair (just in case some liberal 'victim' walks in) ---- that is absolutely ludicrous.

The barbershop fine is complete bullshit, but I don't view that situation in the same light as the cake idiots.

Religious people are dumb and I don't support any laws that give dumb people any rights.

sleeper;1749456 wrote:Religious people are dumb and I don't support any laws that give dumb people any rights.

Reps.

I think Sinead O'Connor is an attractive lady.

sleeper;1739269 wrote:But they aren't. It's one thing to say "We don't serve gays here" but its another thing to say "We won't bake a cake for a gay wedding here".

There is a difference and I believe the latter should be perfectly fine.

sleeper;1749456 wrote:Religious people are dumb and I don't support any laws that give dumb people any rights.

Wait, what?

Also ... dick.


Here's what I'd like to know: Would they be willing to bake a cake for a gay couple that the gay couple intends to use for their straight daughter's wedding? Would they be willing to bake a birthday cake for a man to throw a surprise party for his husband/boyfriend/etc?

If the answer is yes, then the discrimination is not taking place against the customer. They are simply distinguishing events for which they will/won't provide cake.

If the answer is no, then I think there is a strong precedent to suggest they're discriminating against the customer, and I can see the legal justification (as it currently exists) for intervention.

I'm allowed to change my mind. I don't like religious people and I love seeing them get hammered for their broken and backwards beliefs.

sleeper;1749573 wrote:I'm allowed to change my mind. I don't like religious people and I love seeing them get hammered for their broken and backwards beliefs.

Ass.

I disagree with a lot of their beliefs/stances, but I don't get butthurt over religious people.

fish82;1749638 wrote:I disagree with a lot of their beliefs/stances, but I don't get butthurt over religious people.

This is, in essence, the same way I react to people whose worldviews differ from my own, whether they're religious in a different way or irreligious altogether.