Make anti-LGBT businesses publicly post their policy.

[Kidlicious]

A couple walk into a restaurant having a lovely night out. Everything is lovely until a waiter comes over after realizing they are gay, and tells them their kind aren't welcome here. They then have to walk out in front of a restaurant full of staring people. You don't see why that would be humiliating?

There's two things going on. 1). They are stared at which is not the restaurants fault. 2). They were refused service.

Now let's say I go in there wearing my "Feminism is a Hate Movement" T-shirt, and they also refuse me service. People will probably stare. Would I be humiliated? No. I don't actually have a shirt that says that though, because I pick and choose my battles. But if I were to choose that battle I would not be humiliated.

[rah]

The difference is that you chose to where the t-shirt where gays don't choose to be gay.
So that isn't a real comparison.

[Aeson]

Shall they have to put a list of everyone they may or may not discriminate against .

Just the qualifications used. This isnt onerous at all, and many TOS already cover it for online businesses.

I actually wouldn't support such a law. It's their free speech right to decide not to publicize generally who they may discriminate against.

There are lots of restrictions on speech for businesses. This would be similar to various truth in advertising type disclaimers/restrictions.

You seem to be trying very hard to come up with excuses for bigotry and institutionalized racism/homophobia...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just the qualifications used.

It can be spontaneous and random discrimination just as well. Why not unless it is under a protected class exemption?

Qualifications used are TOSs so they can reverse transactions already in place (you have violated the agreement because we put the requirements up beforehand).

Why can't a business claim that it is its free speech right not to widely publicize that it doesn't serve certain people whom it can legally refuse to serve?

There are lots of restrictions on speech for businesses. This would be similar to various truth in advertising type disclaimers/restrictions.

You seem to be trying very hard to come up with excuses for bigotry and institutionalized racism/homophobia...

Legally there are no barriers to institutionalized homophobia in many states. I don't have to come up very hard for any excuses for them - they merely exist within the legal framework in many (I think most) US states.

--

My basic objection is people who go: **** the law/Constitution when its something I like! They generally don't think through those consequences.

[Dr Strangelove]

If a company doesn't post its policy does it have the right to enforce it? Isn't it being arbitrary? Let's say my chicken restaurant started randomly tossing people out onto the streets. Would that be OK? What's the difference between enforcing an unposted exclusion policy and a random exclusion policy? On the surface there is none.

[MrFun]

Shall they have to put a list of everyone they may or may not discriminate against . Or a general "We reserve the right to not serve someone" (some places do have that - but not for the gheys).

How does the generalized posted policy, "we reserve the right to refuse service," help LGBT customers to know in advance whether or not they're going to be denied service for not being straight??

That generalized posting of such policy does not help customers make a better informed decision. Would you rather subject LGBT people to public embarrassment when they find out, only when they are denied service??

Customers of any sort should have the right to all the information they need, to make an informed decision.

[MrFun]

I don't think the government will ever actually need to step in to protect the employment rights of gays specifically. It's happening on its own.

[MrFun]

Why can't a business claim that it is its free speech right not to widely publicize that it doesn't serve certain people whom it can legally refuse to serve?

Alright, let's focus here on just legal technicality.

If an amendment was added to an anti-LGBT bill that would make it a law to legally require businesses to publicly post their anti-LGBT policy, then you would have no problem, because then it would be formally legal and part of the law?

[Kidlicious]

The difference is that you chose to where the t-shirt where gays don't choose to be gay.
So that isn't a real comparison.

[Kidlicious]

The difference is that you chose to where the t-shirt where gays don't choose to be gay.
So that isn't a real comparison.

They can choose to be humiliated, or not.

[DaShi]

They can choose to be humiliated, or not.

Kid makes this choice every day.

[kentonio]

They can choose to be humiliated, or not.

By not leaving the house?

[Aeson]

Imran, your basic objection is to using applicable or sound logic in regards to the subject matter. Or to homosexuals. It's hard to tell which is driving you to make such absurdly stupid arguments as "that law is ridiculous for proposing something that isn't already the law".

a) There is precedence for laws that protect specific classes of people against denial of service discrimination.
b) There is precedence for laws which require businesses to post applicable information about the goods and services offered.
c) There is precedence for laws which limit businesses (and individuals) free speech in advertising.

All you're left with is trying to circular logic your way into supporting homophobia and misleading customers over truth and (at least not quite so indecent levels of) decency.

[Dr Strangelove]

The difference is that you chose to where the t-shirt where gays don't choose to be gay.
So that isn't a real comparison.

Maybe he doesn't, maybe he was born to be a misogynist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If a company doesn't post its policy does it have the right to enforce it? Isn't it being arbitrary? Let's say my chicken restaurant started randomly tossing people out onto the streets. Would that be OK?

Yes, that would be ok. No one can be forced to serve anyone who isn't designed as a protected class. It's part of the Freedom of Association.

If an amendment was added to an anti-LGBT bill that would make it a law to legally require businesses to publicly post their anti-LGBT policy, then you would have no problem, because then it would be formally legal and part of the law?

So... my response to it being possibly being a free speech issue is to make a bill that mandates them to post things? Do you believe ordinary bills trump the First Amendment?

Let's try this: A very conservative town decides that all businesses who have owners who make a political donation to a candidate needs to put up a visible sign saying who they supported so that customers can know that some of their money may be going to a candidate. What exactly do you think the liberal business owner in that town is going to do with his or her potential donations after that law is passed?