Make anti-LGBT businesses publicly post their policy.

[kentonio]

Businesses in the US can refuse to serve anyone for any reason unless it is related to a protected class (race, gender, etc - sexual orientation isn't a protected class yet in most states). They don't have to post it up.

Do you seriously doubt that sexual orientation is going to become a protected class given time? Can you make any logical argument why it would not be one?

If a business is willing to discriminate against a significant proportion of the nation customers based solely on a genetic factor, then they should have the balls to front up to that publicly. "We want the freedom to discriminate, but only if we can do it quietly" is not something that deserves defending.

[kentonio]

What does your lifestyle have to do with my Chicken?

When did you turn into such a complete ****? Seriously, that post makes me wonder whether you are genuinely just a Ben Kenobi alt after all.

[Kidlicious]

When did you turn into such a complete ****? Seriously, that post makes me wonder whether you are genuinely just a Ben Kenobi alt after all.

People aren't harming gay people by not doing business with them. Why should I care?

[kentonio]

People aren't harming gay people by not doing business with them. Why should I care.

Gay people aren't being harmed by being publicly humiliated and shamed by being refused service in shops, cafes and restaurants (not to mention hotels, bars, clubs etc)? I suppose there was no harm done to black folks when they were prevented from using facilities and services either?

[N35t0r]

probably not. You are speaking to the guy who believes that women didn't want to vote prior to them getting the right to do so, and got it as soon as they asked for it.

[Kidlicious]

Gay people aren't being harmed by being publicly humiliated and shamed by being refused service in shops, cafes and restaurants (not to mention hotels, bars, clubs etc)? I suppose there was no harm done to black folks when they were prevented from using facilities and services either?

Why would they be ashamed and humiliated?

[rah]

Because they're being treated like a lower class of human being.

Not being served for something they can't control that doesn't harm anyone is just plain wrong.

And I'm not surprised that you find nothing wrong with it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course they don't have to post up what protected classes they discriminate against ... it's illegal to discriminate against them at all.

If it were legal to discriminate against say, mixed race couples, would you support a law that required such businesses to be clear about their policy? Or would you want to protect the bigots who wanted to first draw in mixed race couples to their establishment so they could throw them out?

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).

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.

Do you seriously doubt that sexual orientation is going to become a protected class given time? Can you make any logical argument why it would not be one?

1) Irrelevant to publicizing requirement.

2) There's a Republican led Congress, so maybe no time in the near future(of course individual states may decide to do so).

[Hauldren Collider]

Increasing the number of protected classes is something that should be done pretty carefully. A lot of businesses have trouble firing, for example, minority employees because of fear that they may frivolously sue. This actually makes it harder to hire them in the first place since businesses fear they won't be able to fire employees who are incompetent.

Many businesses in the United States already are equal-opportunity with respect to sexual orientation, and basically zero are explicitly not so, all without government intervention due to public perception of businesses that are discriminatory. 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.

I absolutely agree that these laws were essential at least at one time to ensure fair treatment of all of the protected classes but it is worth remembering that they have negative consequences as well.

[kentonio]

A lot of businesses have trouble firing, for example, minority employees because of fear that they may frivolously sue. This actually makes it harder to hire them in the first place since businesses fear they won't be able to fire employees who are incompetent.

Definitely nothing anecdotal going on here.

Many businesses in the United States already are equal-opportunity with respect to sexual orientation, and basically zero are explicitly not so, all without government intervention due to public perception of businesses that are discriminatory. 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.

Until it's protected there will always be places that ignore that convention.

I absolutely agree that these laws were essential at least at one time to ensure fair treatment of all of the protected classes but it is worth remembering that they have negative consequences as well.

They may start out with negative consequences but then over time those consequences go away as people become used to the new system and society changes as a result. That's the point when people are hiring a new employee not a new female employee or a new black employee. You don't get to that point without enforcing employment protection though.

[Kidlicious]

Because they're being treated like a lower class of human being.

Not being served for something they can't control that doesn't harm anyone is just plain wrong.

And I'm not surprised that you find nothing wrong with it.

So you're trying to make me ashamed but I'm not. How is that possible?

[rah]

Easy, you're a complete ass.

[N35t0r]

Increasing the number of protected classes is something that should be done pretty carefully. A lot of businesses have trouble firing, for example, minority employees because of fear that they may frivolously sue. This actually makes it harder to hire them in the first place since businesses fear they won't be able to fire employees who are incompetent.

Many businesses in the United States already are equal-opportunity with respect to sexual orientation, and basically zero are explicitly not so, all without government intervention due to public perception of businesses that are discriminatory. 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.

I absolutely agree that these laws were essential at least at one time to ensure fair treatment of all of the protected classes but it is worth remembering that they have negative consequences as well.

It could also be argued that, if protected classes didn't suffer any real discriminations, then firing them on justifiable grounds wouldn't give them grounds to sue (and win).

[Kidlicious]

Easy, you're a complete ass.

Is there anything wrong with being a homosexual? If not why would they be ashamed? See you're the one acting like an ass, which is why you have failed to shame me.

[kentonio]

Is there anything wrong with being a homosexual? If not why would they be ashamed? See you're the one acting like an ass, which is why you have failed to shame me.

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?