The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

The other night I was at a bar and the bartender refused to serve a couple that came in because they refused to tip the last time they drank there. It was his bar. He had every right to not serve them. That was his choice.

False equivalency.

I bring this up not to compare a homosexual couple to assh*les but rather compare the "right" to beer and the "right" to cake. You don't have a right to either of those. A cake shop and a bar are not hospitals, post offices, ect...

Dude is an awful twat of a person and I hope they change the laws to exclude religious belief in the denial of any service but we don't have that yet so I don't disagree with the ruling of the court. They called it how it is at the present moment.

Can you refuse service based on race if you can cite a religious justification?

[Exo]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Can you refuse service based on race if you can cite a religious justification?

Civil rights act of '64 already states that a private business can not discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin. Unfortunately we haven't included, at least to my knowledge, sexuality into that language.

So your question doesn't have much to do with what I'm talking about as much as you think my bar story doesn't.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

Civil rights act of '64 already states that a private business can not discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin. Unfortunately we haven't included, at least to my knowledge, sexuality into that language.

So if we have those protections for something as innate such as race, wouldn't denying those protections based on something as innate as sexuality be unequal protection under the law?

Originally Posted by Frownland

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Also, establishment clause.

[Exo]

Originally Posted by Frownland

So if we have those protections for something as innate such as race, wouldn't denying those protections based on something as innate as sexuality be unequal protection under the law?

I think you underestimate how sh*t our laws still are in our country dude.

I'm not making opinionated statements here. I'm interpreting the law how it's been set in regards to a supreme court ruling by which it's their job to interpret the law.

EDIT: If I make a mistake in the way the laws are laid out, please correct me.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

I think you underestimate how sh*t our laws still are in our country dude.

I'm building my whole argument on the **** laws of our country.

[Exo]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I'm building my whole argument on the **** laws of our country.

Well stop arguing with me because I think they're sh*t too lol.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

Well stop arguing with me because I think they're sh*t too lol.

I figured. Still though, you said that he was in the legal clear and I showed how it violates two constitutional amendments. He's in the legal murky at best.

[Exo]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I figured. Still though, you said that he was in the legal clear and I showed how it violates two constitutional amendments. He's in the legal murky at best.

I just don't think the establishment clause applies to this particular case because it's about a cake shop. And the discrimination laws still exclude sexuality from their language for the most part. We're chipping that away by way of same sex marriage but there's still a lot of things that fall under the old umbrella.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

I just don't think the establishment clause applies to this particular case because it's about a cake shop.

They've provided a religion with the freedom to discriminate based on sexuality. Are religions that don't bar homosexuality allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality?

And the discrimination laws still exclude sexuality from their language for the most part.

Leaving them unprotected under the law where other groups have protections in place. What does the 14th amendment say again?

[Exo]

Legally murky might be a better description for this.