Make anti-LGBT businesses publicly post their policy.

[Kidlicious]

No, you claimed to be unable to understand why being treated as a lesser person would be humiliating or shaming to people. That demonstrates a near perfect example of a lack of empathy.

The part I'd like to hear your explanation of though, was..

No I didn't. I'm not even going to bother repeating myself.

This proposal was made to stop a law being passed that would make it legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation etc... Those making the proposal did so to add an economic cost to exercising rights. So yeah, obviously politically motivated.

[kentonio]

No I didn't. I'm not even going to bother repeating myself.

Ok, I'll do it for you..

By not believing that you are humiliated. We live in a society where people can offend you, shame you, and humiliate you if you allow them too. It doesn't matter if you were born a certain way either. We all benefit from such a society, the weak-minded not so much.

Seriously, do you have short term memory problems or something?

This proposal was made to stop a law being passed that would make it legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation etc... Those making the proposal did so to add an economic cost to exercising rights. So yeah, obviously politically motivated.

There's already an economic cost to exercising those rights ffs, they lose the custom of homosexuals. Expecting people to publicly state their policies to prevent innocent people from being publicly humiliated is only 'politically motivated' in as much as trying to protect minorities is always a form of political action. I was about to call it the decent thing to do, but its really not. The really decent thing to do would be to not act like a bunch of bigoted *******s, but it seems that's too much to ask of people. As such, this is a compromise that only a ****ing coward business owner should have any issue with.

[MrFun]

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.

[MrFun]

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.

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?

I still do not understand how requiring anti-LGBT businesses to publicly post their policy would force them to associate with LGBT people, and thus, violate their freedom of association. Anti-LGBT businesses can continue their bigoted policy toward LGBT people.

As to your conservative town example. What compelling interest is there, for the conservative town to force business owners to publicly disclose which political candidate they have supported, and donated to??

I think that on other hand, there is a real compelling interest to legislate law requiring anti-LGBT businesses to publicly disclose their bigoted policy. It's the compelling interest of customers' rights to make informed decisions in choosing where they go to purchase products or service while at the same time, protecting anti-LGBT businesses their freedom of association.

[MrFun]

And that sucks that Aeson called you homophobic, Imran. That was uncalled for and unfair.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As to your conservative town example. What compelling interest is there, for the conservative town to force business owners to publicly disclose which political candidate they have supported, and donated to??

You are sooooo close....

I think that on other hand, there is a real compelling interest to legislate law requiring anti-LGBT businesses to publicly disclose their bigoted policy. It's the compelling interest of customers' rights to make informed decisions in choosing where they go to purchase products or service while at the same time, protecting anti-LGBT businesses their freedom of association.

And then you fumble it at the goal line. Go ahead; try to make this argument before a federal judge. None of these are compelling governmental interests; none of these are necessary or crucial interests for the government to mandate (hint: there is a reason that strict scrutiny is so difficult a barrier to clear). For further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

(edit: I also realized that the "compelling interest of customers' rights to make informed decisions in choosing where they go to purchase products or services" is also something that can be said for publicly displaying the political campaign donations of the owners)

[MrFun]

Thank you for that link about strict scrutiny, Imran. Sometimes though, the strict scrutiny test is flawed, such as the case of how the segregation of Japanese Americans passed the scrutiny test, as mentioned in that Wiki article you linked to.

And you do have a point; my "compelling interest" argument would compel me to have to agree then, with allowing a law that would force business owners to publicly disclose which political candidate they donated to. OOPS!

[Imran Siddiqui]

It doesn't particularly matter if its flawed or not, it's the way the Federal Courts use to analyze First Amendment challenges.

The way to end discrimination of LBGT folk at businesses is to try to work in the statehouses regarding state discrimination laws (ie, their "Civil Rights Act of 1964"). Much better chance of getting traction there than Congress... at least for the foreseeable future. Long game.

[FlameFlash]

No one answered my previous question yet.

How would forcing businesses to post their anti-LGBT policy violate right to association?

Businesses will still be able to continue to choose whether or not to associate with LGBT people.

Besides that, this could actually strengthen the right to association - LGBT people will be able to know beforehand on which businesses they can go to, for services, making a better informed decision as consumers.

Sorry, don't live here...

Freedom of association means you are allowed to gather where you please, in a nutshell, right? If I have opened my business to the public that's what I've done. Why do I now have a right to kick out a certain sector of said public? I shouldn't be able to since the general public has the right to associate where it pleases.

There are some issues that come up such as safety (only protest in this area so you don't get run over, etc). If the law is telling people to post their beliefs up in their window that means they no longer can stay silent if they choose to. Of course, at this point I've forgotten the OP but I just wanted you to not be ignored since you were quoting and asking me.

What does your lifestyle have to do with my Chicken?

I like chicken... oh wait... this is a veiled comment about that one place isn't it?

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?

:

That would be horrible... for the waiter. In a perfect world everybody gets up and walks out right then and there.

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.

Why should they be allowed to refuse anyone in the first place though? When did businesses become entities that could refuse... oh... wait... crap...

[Kidlicious]

Ok, I'll do it for you..



Seriously, do you have short term memory problems or something?



There's already an economic cost to exercising those rights ffs, they lose the custom of homosexuals. Expecting people to publicly state their policies to prevent innocent people from being publicly humiliated is only 'politically motivated' in as much as trying to protect minorities is always a form of political action. I was about to call it the decent thing to do, but its really not. The really decent thing to do would be to not act like a bunch of bigoted *******s, but it seems that's too much to ask of people. As such, this is a compromise that only a ****ing coward business owner should have any issue with.

Some of us realize how important freedom is even if we don't like what people do with it.

I'm done with the rest of what you said.

[Aeson]

Unless, you know, you actually know how the law works. Protected classes is something statutory - its part of the enabling legislation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Which means that Congress is going to have to agree to it... Congress. A body opposed to doing much of anything.

By "leap" I am speaking for logic, not law. "Leap of logic" is a very common phrase. The law often flies in the face of logic. In this case I would say it definitely does. (eg. It is ok to not serve someone for being born homosexual, but not ok to not serve someone for being born black.)

It's obvious that homosexuals are not currently a protected class. It's also obvious that Republicans as constituted now would never allow an amendment to make them so. You keep hiding behind those things that no one is arguing against, to try to continue to support discrimination against homosexuals.

Regardless whether or not one can mandate disclosure is an entirely different question than whether one can deny service. The later is based on enabling legislation flowing from the 14th Amendment, while the former is based on questions involving the 1st Amendment.

Mandating disclosure happens all the time. You are simply placing the rights of homosexuals below the rights of say ... people clicking a button that says "win a free t-shirt" on some website. You can try to hide that assessment behind arguments that "it's legal", ignoring that changing what is legal is the entire point of changing the law ... but it's obvious that you are just erecting strawmen to avoid addressing the ugly nature of your position.

Your position boils down to "it's more important for businesses to be able to lie in their advertising than for homosexuals to have pertinent information about goods or services being advertised to them." To me that is disgusting position, both for supporting lies, and for supporting discrimination against homosexuals.

I would love you to try to make that argument in front of a Federal Judge.

This isn't a court, and in any case I wouldn't expect our government to always make the right decision. Do you (as a person, in a moral sense) disagree that it's misleading to advertise to someone to entice them to visit your establishment knowing full well that you will not allow them the goods or services advertised?

Ie, you have absolutely no idea how 1st Amendment jurisprudence works in the United States.

I know something about it, not everything. More importantly I have my own ideas about what is right and wrong and frame my arguments in that perspective. A business misleading it's customers about a product or service is wrong. Discriminating against homosexuals is wrong. If the law disagrees, the law is wrong and should be changed.

Also this forum has literally the shortest memory ever. I am highly amused that I'm being called homophobic. (Also demonstrates that Political Correctness is alive and well - due to concerns about free speech issues about mandating publicizing refusal to serve LGBT people, I'm being called homophobic... who said PC was dead?)

In cases where I have mentioned methods that would be perfectly legal, instead of showing support for them you have obfuscated and hidden behind "that isn't the law currently" or "it isn't likely to happen" rather than just support ending discrimination against homosexuals. In other cases where non-legal arguemnts have been made (or even direct questions as to your own personal opinions) you continue to obfuscate and dodge the moral issues by hiding behind legal and political strawmen.

That is why I say you are homophobic. Maybe in other cases you support homosexual rights, but here you are clearly are trying to support the right of business to lie to and discriminate against homosexuals, and doing so in an intellectually dishonest manner. It's not PC to call such action a display of homophobia. Like it or not, what you support determines what you support.

[Aeson]

(edit: I also realized that the "compelling interest of customers' rights to make informed decisions in choosing where they go to purchase products or services" is also something that can be said for publicly displaying the political campaign donations of the owners)

It is a different issue, as it doesn't in and of itself affect the quality or availability of goods or services offered to the general public. There is no need for "truth in advertising" when you aren't advertising anything to begin with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

More importantly I have my own ideas about what is right and wrong and frame my arguments in that perspective. A business misleading it's customers about a product or service is wrong. Discriminating against homosexuals is wrong. If the law disagrees, the law is wrong and should be changed.

So.... **** the law if it disagrees with my personal moral views is it? Regardless of any unforeseen consequences that could actually make things far worse?

Thankfully you are not dictator and we have freedom of speech rights that are strong enough to allow for, say, neo-Nazis marching in Jewish neighborhoods no matter how many people think it is "wrong".

It's not PC to call such action a display of homophobia. Like it or not, what you support determines what you support.

How Orwelian of you.

And this is where I treat you like Kidicious and don't take seriously anything you say.

Lets put it this way: MrFun thought you went too far.

[Aeson]

So.... **** the law if it disagrees with my personal moral views is it? Regardless of any unforeseen consequences that could actually make things far worse?

You have yet to raise a single issue that would make things "worse". Though in y our eyes you do seem to think it would be worse for homosexuals to know ahead of time that a business is not going to serve them than for businesses to have to actually be honest in their advertising.

You are ignoring that it already is required in many cases, so you can continue pretend that there are some horrific unintended consequence of requiring businesses to disclose accurate information about the nature of the goods and services they offer.

I am not asking for anything extraordinary here ... simply the same protection for customers in one case as is already afforded in many others.

Thankfully you are not dictator and we have freedom of speech rights that are strong enough to allow for, say, neo-Nazis marching in Jewish neighborhoods no matter how many people think it is "wrong".

The right to demonstrate is a separate issue, and one I've always supported to an extent.

Try addressing the issue we are discussing rather than throwing up strawmen to hide behind. (Though on this strawman you raise, I will point out neo-Nazis, or anyone for that matter, cannot march just anywhere they want. There are restrictions on that even.)

How Orwelian of you.

"Orwelian" is a ridiculously inapplicable term to describe the blatantly obvious truth that how you present yourself impacts how you will be perceived. Your reading comprehension has hit rock bottom.

And this is where I treat you like Kidicious and don't take seriously anything you say.

Another clear indicator that your analytical skills and/or intellectual honesty are severely lacking.

Lets put it this way: MrFun thought you went too far.

MrFun is generally a nice person. I'm much harder on people I disagree with than he is.

If you want to adopt MrFun as your authority on the subject feel free though. It would be quite a step up from your own position. He may not be making arguments that would stand up in court, but he's at least not trying to justify discrimination against homosexuals through intellectually dishonest methods like you are.

Also, I will point out again that you are dodging the questions as to your personal beliefs on the matter. Here's a few of the outstanding ones you're still too scared to answer:

a) should homosexuals be a protected class?
b) is it misleading to advertise in a way that you know will mislead a significant portion of those you are advertising to?
c) how is posting an accurate customer service policy going to lead to the sky falling (eg. whatever harm you have been referring to without actually describing)?

[kentonio]

Some of us realize how important freedom is even if we don't like what people do with it.

You can stick your freedom to be a bigot up your ass.

I'm done with the rest of what you said.

Of course you are, you always run away like a little ***** when you're pulled up on your bull****.