But next week when a redneck business kicks out a black man wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt, you can’t complain. Because, and I’ll just make this very clear - legally IT IS OK. It’s not because he’s black, see? It’s because of his political beliefs! They’d kick out anyone of any color in an Obama shirt too!
And six months from now when a baker won’t make a cake for a lesbian couple they will point to the sign on their wall that says “We reserve the right to refuse service to democrats” and it will be fine too, right? Because no lesbians would be republicans, right?
THAT’S the slippery slope I’m afraid we are coasting down. I understand how the law works. I work in the legal field. But this specific application of the law worries me.
BLM is a movement about racial bigotry; it’s not a political affiliation.
And Black folks are already getting kicked out of Starbucks, out of membership gyms and off golf courses, for no good reason at all… (at least, no reason that their accusers are actually willing to admit on record) so that part of your argument holds no water…
As a person who lives in reality, I think it is very dangerous for people to equivocate all views as equally valid and worthy of consideration. It is not a valid opinion to believe that the Earth is flat. It is not a valid opinion to think that we never landed on the Moon. It is not a valid opinion to believe that climate change is a hoax. It is not a valid opinion to think that black people are physically, morally, and/or mentally inferior or less capable than white people. It is not a valid opinion to say that giving boat-loads of money to rich people will make everyone better off. People are by all means allowed to think these things (and, in fact, at least one political party is built on these opinions). But they are, objectively, wrong.
Further, it is absolutely your (the general you, not you specifically) right to think that trans people are the root of moral decay in America. But because those people are trans - not just of the opinion that they are trans - they make up a protected class because it is illegal to discriminate against people because of their inherent characteristics. “Bigot” is not a protected class. “Conservative” is not a protected class.
The only thing with that argument is that a (very) small minority of gays and lesbians are trump supporters. So it’s not impossible for such an assumption to be incorrect. Whereas a MAGA hat is a pretty dead giveaway.
Dude got kicked out for ill treatment of the waitstaff according to the owner of said restaurant, and this guy tried to claim it was about his hat… so there’s that:
The court could have been ruling on the rights of a private citizen (the owner of the club) to exclude anyone he chooses, as long as that person is not a member of a protected class. Because individual rights, yes?
I have cop friends who will tell you “black lives matter” is a movement and that “blue lives matter” is racism they’d rather not have the association with.
Am I understand this right?
I can’t throw you out of my business because of your Sex, Race. Religion. or your sexual orientation, but if I claim, I disagree with your political belief , I can throw you out.
( Not that I care about any of that if you are a paying customer.)
If it’s a business open to the public you can’t refuse service to people only because of their membership in a (legally) protected class.
You can, of course, refuse to allow anyone entry into your home even if they are a member of a protected class. You are entitled to be a jerk in your own home.
I actually feel that bakeries who don’t want to make cakes for gay weddings should be allowed to take this stance. I also think they should be required to have a sign at the front of the premises stating this policy, so everybody can decide if they want to give them their business.
The Black Lives Matter T-shirt is a greyer area, because race is a protected class, so the political speech is intertwined with racial issues. I’m not sure how judges would rule on this — IANAL.
I feel like at least one of your positions is reversed. Sexual orientation is protected as an immutable trait, and businesses should not have leeway to discriminate against such traits. For the same reason as “No Negros Allowed” signs are no longer legal.
BLM, (though @Mindysan33 is very much correct about it being an equal rights movement which honestly very much needs to be taken seriously for the good of all communities,) is still considered a political movement and we have yet to see how courts would react to customer discrimination regarding it, so I would agree, it is still a gray area. For now.
Yeah, sure, but remember the bakery that wouldn’t bake a cake for a same sex wedding? The argument from those bygone times is that it is an imposition to demand that a private business serve someone they don’t like but that this is an imposition we are okay with because of edge cases. In New York? Screw it. Some bakery won’t cater? Plenty more that’ll snap up the business. The tricky thing is being the lone Hillary supporter in Trumpenreich or the sole MAGA-freak in Hillarytopia. Or the sole gay couple in Holybibblestan, as it happens.
I think it applies here. Or rather, it applies in this discussion. They didn’t actually kick the guy out of the bar at all. And they shouldn’t. Private associations can be as selective as they want about their membership because freedom of association is a thing, but a public amenity needs to be public. Last time America got an exception it used it… poorly. No more.
I believe that in our pluralistic society, which includes, say, Christians who believe in stuff that I most certainly don’t, we sometimes have to make compromises. I think one of those maybe ought to be this bakery issue for gay weddings, because we also have a law that states that the State can not mandate a religion — which also means, I would argue, it has to tolerate different religious beliefs. And I do believe that these are what motivate people who do not want to bake cakes for gay weddings. These bakeries provide all of their other services to gay people, so it’s not like they’re flatly denying a protected class services. It’s a very tough area, and I am a very, very ally-oriented kind of chap.
As far as wording of the law goes, I believe it states that congress shall make no law respecting religion. From my perspective (though I understand that it isn’t the perspective of many,) that includes creating laws that are directly based on religious beliefs. Whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Athiest, religious convictions should not be the basis for legislation, and I’ve yet to see any argument against discrimination against immutable traits that was NOT based on religious convictions.
