Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Number of careers available to Christians "is quickly shrinking as homosexuals seek opportunities to wreck the personal business and career of any Christian who declines to support the gay lifestyle." This is bad news for florists   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 336
    More: Obvious, LGBT culture, prospective parliamentary candidate, gays and lesbians, Pippa Middleton  
•       •       •

10083 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2014 at 1:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



336 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-05 08:15:12 AM  

acohn: There's a more important principle at stake than just actions have repercussions.  There are some things you want to teach your children not to do under any circumstances, either in public or private, because they are inherently degrading/desecrating towards others.


Never tell a child they can't do something. They only want to do it more. Make them understand WHY they don't want to do it, and then they won't do it.

/children don't understand such a nebulous concept as "degradation" as a reason for not doing something. that part of their brain is not yet active.
 
2014-05-05 08:23:27 AM  

hchaos: archichris: Read up on the tactics that the Mafia uses to extort protection money and then read up on the tactics terrorists use to change public opinion or policy.....

Then read up on the tactics the LGBT activists use against Christians.

Its a scary parallel.

You know who else.... nah never mind, you arent reading anymore anyway.

Funny, when I looked into this just now, I didn't see anything that I would consider a scary parallel. Could you be more specific?


Duh. The parallel is that weepy christians are as petrified of gays as terrorists and mobsters. You know how many people got suicide-BJ'd in the past week alone? And the mafia is notorious for withholding the reach-around if you haven't paid up.
 
2014-05-05 08:28:59 AM  

Miss Alexandra: Well, for every gay that wants to purposely wreck a Christian's livelihood out of hate, there is likely at least one Christian who will be a customer.

You don't go into an occult shop and demand they stock King James Bibles.  Likewise, if a Christian--obeying their conscience--doesn't want to be involved in your so-called "wedding," just find someone with no morals or make it yourself.

I think most people have the sense to know that these gays are just being hateful and spiteful.  "Waaahhh...we can't get these guys to tolerate our perverted lifestyle!  Let's make sure we put them out of business!"

/just disgusted right now


You're part of a ~2,000 year-old death cult that believes an infant can be damned to an eternity of torment based on the behavior of its parents.  I really don't think you have any place being disgusted by pretty much anything gay people do.
 
2014-05-05 08:38:25 AM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: You're part of a ~2,000 year-old death cult that believes an infant can be damned to an eternity of torment based on the behavior of its parents.  I really don't think you have any place being disgusted by pretty much anything gay people do.


unbaptized babies actually go to limbo, not hell.

As a native once said to a missionary. "If I didn't know of God, would I go to hell?"  "Of course not, you didn't know."  "then why did you tell me about him?"
 
2014-05-05 08:56:09 AM  

fluffy2097: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: You're part of a ~2,000 year-old death cult that believes an infant can be damned to an eternity of torment based on the behavior of its parents.  I really don't think you have any place being disgusted by pretty much anything gay people do.

unbaptized babies actually go to limbo, not hell.

As a native once said to a missionary. "If I didn't know of God, would I go to hell?"  "Of course not, you didn't know."  "then why did you tell me about him?"


That's even worse.  Babies can't even walk, so how are they going to limbo?  And being forced to listen to that music for eternity?  *shudder*
 
2014-05-05 09:40:04 AM  

whidbey: ciberido: If you are a business that serves the general public, such as a restaurant, you are a public accommodation, which means you must serve everybody and can ONLY refuse service when there is " a legitimate business interest" in doing so

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!


Indeed.  Good lord these people are retarded.
 
2014-05-05 09:45:49 AM  

Bob Robert: noitsnot: Wait, it's not what I said? It's right there in the italics! Who said it, if I didn't?

You only said it after the fact, once you realized what your claim was really leading to. Way to play naive instead of admitting your argument is devoid of logic.


No, I said it right at the time that I said it.  I realized that my claim was leading to what I said, so then I said what I had previously said, only now at a later time.
 
2014-05-05 10:08:19 AM  

atomic-age: ciberido: clancifer: Notabunny: fta Anyone "who has authority of the sword, is the ruler of a city, or wears the purple" has to resign his job or leave.

Aaaaand then they decapitated his whole family. You don't want to say 'no' to people who have authority of the sword. Just ask Vince Foster and Chris Stevens.

I'm not asking any zombies.

I asked a bunch of zombies once.  They were pretty cryptic with their answer: "No one ever spoke to  Noah.They all laughed at him instead. Working on his ark, working all by himself."  Useless, so I told them to hide their faces.

Thank you for this.


You know, just as I was posting that, I said to myself, "There's no way anybody's going to get that reference, and even if anyone does, they'll just think it's stupid."  So thank YOU.
 
2014-05-05 10:35:53 AM  

Bertuccio: namegoeshere: ricbach229: notto: ricbach229: ]

The guy pushed out at Mozilla was fired for donating to a prop 8 support group that had their donor list illegally released.

This is absolutely untrue and you are spreading a lie.  The donor list was legally released by the California Secretary of state as mandated by law.  Quit  spreading lies.

Thanks for being an asshole while calling me a liar over a mistake.  I didn't realize California had a $100 threshold for disclosure of donations to non politicians.

I notice you didn't correct me on the private phone call Stirlings had or the bakers case where they are essentially a kosher deli being forced to serve an unkosher cake.

Please explain this. What makes a kosher deli kosher is not their refusal to serve a particular customer. It is the list of ingredients that they do not use in their food. What ingredient is included in Gay Cake that is forbidden in Christian cake? Because that would be the only way the two situations would be at all the same.

Gay ingredients... Cumin?

Maybe someone else can do better.


Basil?
 
2014-05-05 10:46:40 AM  

ciberido: If he says he's queer, do we really need a precise measurement of just HOW queer he is?


What units would this hypothetical queerometer measure queerness in? Liberaces?
 
2014-05-05 11:16:52 AM  
You CAN refuse service to people who are disruptive, destructive, threatening, or obnoxious.

You CANNOT refuse service to people who are black, Asian, gay, wearing a brand of clothes you don't like, drive a model of car you don't like, etc.
 
2014-05-05 11:30:09 AM  

cchris_39: Should kosher deli's be forced to sell me a ham sandwich?

Should the black owned dry cleaners be forced to launder my hood and robe?


If they don't stock ham? They can't make a product for you that they don't make for anyone else.

As for your hood and robe, in most jurisdictions that could easily be construed as a threat, and that's a completely legitimate reason to refuse service.

So yes on both of your "hypotheticals"
 
2014-05-05 12:07:28 PM  

ricbach229: namegoeshere: ricbach229: notto: ricbach229: ]

The guy pushed out at Mozilla was fired for donating to a prop 8 support group that had their donor list illegally released.

This is absolutely untrue and you are spreading a lie.  The donor list was legally released by the California Secretary of state as mandated by law.  Quit  spreading lies.

Thanks for being an asshole while calling me a liar over a mistake.  I didn't realize California had a $100 threshold for disclosure of donations to non politicians.

I notice you didn't correct me on the private phone call Stirlings had or the bakers case where they are essentially a kosher deli being forced to serve an unkosher cake.

Please explain this. What makes a kosher deli kosher is not their refusal to serve a particular customer. It is the list of ingredients that they do not use in their food. What ingredient is included in Gay Cake that is forbidden in Christian cake? Because that would be the only way the two situations would be at all the same.

Kosher isn't just kosher because of the ingredients.  It's also in the prep.  Slaughter a cow one way and it's kosher, do it another and it's just hamburger.

The bakers sell a wedding cake as a contribution to the marriage sacrament.  Something as small as the male/female figure on the top of the cake is a part of it.  Now they're being forced to change the cakes decorations from what they artistically believe appropriate and sell to people who are not even committing the sacrament. In the case in Colorado the baker had made other products without any problem for the couple in question.  It was only when it came to the wedding cake that the baker said no, this is different, can't do it.


Huh... last time I checked, the Church didn't have anything to say about what kind of cake you had for your wedding, or how it was prepared. Or even that you had one. The Catholic Church at least doesn't use the cake during the ceremony.

Are you sure it's part of the Sacrament? Or is it just traditional trappings for the after-party, the time post-Sacrament when everyone celebrates what just happened? Which would mean there should be no religious conflict, because there's no religious service...
 
2014-05-05 12:18:04 PM  

mikefinch: namegoeshere: They are in no way contributing to the sacrament of marriage. They aren't marrying the couple. There is no cake in a wedding ceremony. They're baking a cake for the party after the ceremony. They're baking the same cake they bake for every other  couple. They are specifically denying that same cake to the gay couple. And again, it has fark all to do with your kosher deli example.

Lets say i hunt allot and i have a great picture of myself stabbing a deer in the face... And i take it in to a framing shop owned by a PETA ultravegan... and the guy politely tells me he cant open his business towards something he feels glorifies killing animals... Its against his values...

Is he a bigot?


If the framing shop refused to frame his family picture because the customer was a hunter, yes, he is a bigot. But based on the content of the picture? No. A baker would also be within their rights to refuse to make a wedding cake with a giant dildo on it.
 
2014-05-05 12:48:13 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: You CAN refuse service to people who are disruptive, destructive, threatening, or obnoxious.

You CANNOT refuse service to people who are black, Asian, gay, wearing a brand of clothes you don't like, drive a model of car you don't like, etc.



Sigh.

You cannot refuse service to a person because they are a member of a protected class.

That's it.  That's all you need.

You CAN refuse service to people who are disruptive, destructive, threatening, or obnoxious.

Yes, but you don't need any of those reasons.  You can just pick a random person and refuse to serve them.

You CANNOT refuse service to people who are black, Asian, gay, ...

Yes

- ...  wearing a brand of clothes you don't like, drive a model of car you don't like, etc.

No, you can happily refuse service to those people on those grounds.  Not protected.

People get tripped up thinking they need to justify it.  Just say "I don't feel like selling you ice cream today.  Please leave my store."  It's still private property, and right to pass is controlled by the owner and/or the tenant.

Haven't we gone through this enough with the gun guys?
 
2014-05-05 12:59:15 PM  

noitsnot: Keizer_Ghidorah: You CAN refuse service to people who are disruptive, destructive, threatening, or obnoxious.

You CANNOT refuse service to people who are black, Asian, gay, wearing a brand of clothes you don't like, drive a model of car you don't like, etc.


Sigh.

You cannot refuse service to a person because they are a member of a protected class.

That's it.  That's all you need.

-  You CAN refuse service to people who are disruptive, destructive, threatening, or obnoxious.

Yes, but you don't need any of those reasons.  You can just pick a random person and refuse to serve them.

-  You CANNOT refuse service to people who are black, Asian, gay, ...

Yes

- ...  wearing a brand of clothes you don't like, drive a model of car you don't like, etc.

No, you can happily refuse service to those people on those grounds.  Not protected.

People get tripped up thinking they need to justify it.  Just say "I don't feel like selling you ice cream today.  Please leave my store."  It's still private property, and right to pass is controlled by the owner and/or the tenant.

Haven't we gone through this enough with the gun guys?


You actually can't. Unless there's a business interest you can point to, randomly refusing service is a good way to lose a lawsuit. It needs to be a legitimate business reason.

https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
 
2014-05-05 01:02:45 PM  

pjkraatz: acohn: Miss Alexandra: Well, for every gay that wants to purposely wreck a Christian's livelihood out of hate, there is likely at least one Christian who will be a customer.

You don't go into an occult shop and demand they stock King James Bibles.  Likewise, if a Christian--obeying their conscience--doesn't want to be involved in your so-called "wedding," just find someone with no morals or make it yourself.

I think most people have the sense to know that these gays are just being hateful and spiteful.  "Waaahhh...we can't get these guys to tolerate our perverted lifestyle!  Let's make sure we put them out of business!"

/just disgusted right now

[img.fark.net image 469x304]

Serious.  Check the profile.


You've been fooled.  There are obvious signs of trolling, its a really complete front, but it's a front.
 
2014-05-05 02:05:49 PM  

Pitabred: noitsnot: Keizer_Ghidorah: You CAN refuse service to people who are disruptive, destructive, threatening, or obnoxious.

You CANNOT refuse service to people who are black, Asian, gay, wearing a brand of clothes you don't like, drive a model of car you don't like, etc.


Sigh.

You cannot refuse service to a person because they are a member of a protected class.

That's it.  That's all you need.

-  You CAN refuse service to people who are disruptive, destructive, threatening, or obnoxious.

Yes, but you don't need any of those reasons.  You can just pick a random person and refuse to serve them.

-  You CANNOT refuse service to people who are black, Asian, gay, ...

Yes

- ...  wearing a brand of clothes you don't like, drive a model of car you don't like, etc.

No, you can happily refuse service to those people on those grounds.  Not protected.

People get tripped up thinking they need to justify it.  Just say "I don't feel like selling you ice cream today.  Please leave my store."  It's still private property, and right to pass is controlled by the owner and/or the tenant.

Haven't we gone through this enough with the gun guys?

You actually can't. Unless there's a business interest you can point to, randomly refusing service is a good way to lose a lawsuit. It needs to be a legitimate business reason.

https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service



Hmmn - that says the "Federal Civil Rights Act", but if I google that I don't find it.  There's a "Civil Rights Act of 1964".  That looks like the closest thing.

Looks like from here:  http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php that it defines "public accommodation" specifically as hotels, restaurants, and movie houses.  So if I had a flower shop, looks like that's not covered.

But even taking "LegalZoom" at face value - the idea of right of access never appears without the idea of prevention of discrimination by race, color, religion, origin.  There's never a statement of "You must sell to anyone who wants to buy" or "If you are open anyone can come in".  I just don't see that.

Yes, I agree that you might be in for a lot of hassles if you arbitrarily refuse customers.  But I don't see that the law requires a merchant to sell if he doesn't want to sell.  Or that a property owner must allow anyone to pass onto the property if there is any kind of business there.
 
2014-05-05 02:14:21 PM  

noitsnot: Pitabred: noitsnot: Keizer_Ghidorah: You CAN refuse service to people who are disruptive, destructive, threatening, or obnoxious.

You CANNOT refuse service to people who are black, Asian, gay, wearing a brand of clothes you don't like, drive a model of car you don't like, etc.


Sigh.

You cannot refuse service to a person because they are a member of a protected class.

That's it.  That's all you need.

-  You CAN refuse service to people who are disruptive, destructive, threatening, or obnoxious.

Yes, but you don't need any of those reasons.  You can just pick a random person and refuse to serve them.

-  You CANNOT refuse service to people who are black, Asian, gay, ...

Yes

- ...  wearing a brand of clothes you don't like, drive a model of car you don't like, etc.

No, you can happily refuse service to those people on those grounds.  Not protected.

People get tripped up thinking they need to justify it.  Just say "I don't feel like selling you ice cream today.  Please leave my store."  It's still private property, and right to pass is controlled by the owner and/or the tenant.

Haven't we gone through this enough with the gun guys?

You actually can't. Unless there's a business interest you can point to, randomly refusing service is a good way to lose a lawsuit. It needs to be a legitimate business reason.

https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service


Hmmn - that says the "Federal Civil Rights Act", but if I google that I don't find it.  There's a "Civil Rights Act of 1964".  That looks like the closest thing.

Looks like from here:  http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php that it defines "public accommodation" specifically as hotels, restaurants, and movie houses.  So if I had a flower shop, looks like that's not covered.

But even taking "LegalZoom" at face value - the idea of right of access never appears without the idea of prevention of discrimination by race, color, religion, origin.  There's never a statement of "You mu ...



Whoops - looks like there's a 1991 version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1991

This seems to modernize some of the language, and to codify the legal decisions made based of the 1964 act.  However, I stand by the claim that the intent is to prevent discrimination, not to provide customers with right of access in spite of the property owner/tenant.
 
2014-05-05 05:29:36 PM  

noitsnot: No, you can happily refuse service to those people on those grounds.  Not protected.

People get tripped up thinking they need to justify it.  Just say "I don't feel like selling you ice cream today.  Please leave my store."  It's still private property, and right to pass is controlled by the owner and/or the tenant.

Haven't we gone through this enough with the gun guys?


Why do you insist on saying the same stupid wrong crap over and over long after your wrongness has been pointed out to you?  Are you trolling?  Is it performance art?
 
2014-05-05 05:34:40 PM  

RobSeace: ciberido: If he says he's queer, do we really need a precise measurement of just HOW queer he is?

What units would this hypothetical queerometer measure queerness in? Liberaces?


If we're talking about male homosexuality, sure.  For female homosexuality we'd use Nalgenes or Flannels.

And for bisexuality, I guess we'd use Bowies.
 
2014-05-05 05:51:16 PM  
Why is it the people that refuse to believe in evolution so often appear to be the least evolved?
 
2014-05-05 05:54:47 PM  

ciberido: And for bisexuality, I guess we'd use Bowies.


At first, I read that as bowties, and was trying to figure out if you were trying to imply that Orville Redenbacher or the eleventh Doctor were bisexual...

/How about Captain Jacks?
//More for omnisexuality, I guess...
 
2014-05-05 06:22:35 PM  

ciberido: noitsnot: No, you can happily refuse service to those people on those grounds.  Not protected.

People get tripped up thinking they need to justify it.  Just say "I don't feel like selling you ice cream today.  Please leave my store."  It's still private property, and right to pass is controlled by the owner and/or the tenant.

Haven't we gone through this enough with the gun guys?

Why do you insist on saying the same stupid wrong crap over and over long after your wrongness has been pointed out to you?  Are you trolling?  Is it performance art?


All I've seen is a LegalZoom page that refers to a non-existent federal act.  It does contain verbiage from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which I assume is what it meant by the "Federal Civil Rights Act" - although there have been at least four of those, so you'd think a "legal advice" site might be a little more careful with it's citations.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, says that if I operate a hotel, restaurant, or movie house, then I can't refuse you service because of your race, religion or origin.

So, where's the law that says I am required to serve you no matter what?
 
2014-05-05 07:02:06 PM  

noitsnot: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, says that if I operate a hotel, restaurant, or movie house, then I can't refuse you service because of your race, religion or origin.


"hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce"
 
2014-05-05 07:05:24 PM  

noitsnot: ciberido: noitsnot: No, you can happily refuse service to those people on those grounds.  Not protected.

People get tripped up thinking they need to justify it.  Just say "I don't feel like selling you ice cream today.  Please leave my store."  It's still private property, and right to pass is controlled by the owner and/or the tenant.

Haven't we gone through this enough with the gun guys?

Why do you insist on saying the same stupid wrong crap over and over long after your wrongness has been pointed out to you?  Are you trolling?  Is it performance art?

All I've seen is a LegalZoom page that refers to a non-existent federal act.  It does contain verbiage from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which I assume is what it meant by the "Federal Civil Rights Act" - although there have been at least four of those, so you'd think a "legal advice" site might be a little more careful with it's citations.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, says that if I operate a hotel, restaurant, or movie house, then I can't refuse you service because of your race, religion or origin.

So, where's the law that says I am required to serve you no matter what?


There's no law that says you're required to serve you "no matter what", but opening yourself up as a public place of business means you need to be very judicious about who you kick out. If you kick out people of protected classes, even if you claim other reasons, you're still opening yourself up to lawsuits and fines. You can't hide behind the "I didn't kick him out because he was black, I kicked him out because he looked funny" defense, because the real reason is easily discernible behind your pattern of exclusion. Even one time kicking out a person of a protected class, if your reason doesn't hold water, is enough to fall afoul of those regulations.

In addition to the federal laws, there are numerous more granular state laws.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimin at ion-in-public-accommodations.html
 
2014-05-05 07:40:53 PM  

RobSeace: noitsnot: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, says that if I operate a hotel, restaurant, or movie house, then I can't refuse you service because of your race, religion or origin.

"hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce"


"public accommodation" is specifically defined in  Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be hotels, restaurants and movie houses.  They take four big paragraphs to do it.

If I have a florist shop, that's not a "public accommodation" according to  Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Andeven assuming that every business is a "public accommodation", that only means that I can't discriminate against race, religion or origin.  I think I am free to refuse you service just because I feel like it.
 
2014-05-05 07:56:14 PM  

Pitabred: noitsnot: ciberido: noitsnot: No, you can happily refuse service to those people on those grounds.  Not protected.

...

There's no law that says you're required to serve you "no matter what", but opening yourself up as a public place of business means you need to be very judicious about who you kick out. If you kick out people of protected classes, even if you claim other reasons, you're still opening yourself up to lawsuits and fines. You can't hide behind the "I didn't kick him out because he was black, I kicked him out because he looked funny" defense, because the real reason is easily discernible behind your pattern of exclusion. Even one time kicking out a person of a protected class, if your reason doesn't hold water, is enough to fall afoul of those regulations.


I get that maybe it's not a smart idea.  But there's no law preventing one from doing it.  The burden of proof is still on the accuser.  I don't have to say why I refused you service.  It's your job to prove I was discriminating.

You all keep making arguments that boil down to "You have to serve everyone or else it's discrimination".  That's not true.  It's not the same thing.

In addition to the federal laws, there are numerous more granular state laws.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimin at ion-in-public-accommo ...


Yep.  In California they pretty much have extended it to be any business of any kind, and any sort of personal "difference" you can feasibly point to - such as droopy pants, for example.
 
2014-05-05 08:35:33 PM  

noitsnot: RobSeace: noitsnot: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, says that if I operate a hotel, restaurant, or movie house, then I can't refuse you service because of your race, religion or origin.

"hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce"

"public accommodation" is specifically defined in  Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be hotels, restaurants and movie houses.  They take four big paragraphs to do it.

If I have a florist shop, that's not a "public accommodation" according to  Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Andeven assuming that every business is a "public accommodation", that only means that I can't discriminate against race, religion or origin.  I think I am free to refuse you service just because I feel like it.


Actually, it's pretty obvious it's because you feel like flaunting your bigotry, based on your rather absurd fervent defense of the "right" to act on it.
 
2014-05-05 08:38:08 PM  

noitsnot: "public accommodation" is specifically defined in Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be hotels, restaurants and movie houses. They take four big paragraphs to do it.

If I have a florist shop, that's not a "public accommodation" according to Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Nope, wrong... CRA1964 was somewhat limited in its definition, but section 4.a.2 would seem to include anything in a mall that contains any of the other covered items, such as a restaurant, so a florist in a mall that contains any store that serves food would qualify... However, it's now understood to just generally apply to pretty much all retail establishments that serve the public...
 
2014-05-05 08:41:07 PM  

RobSeace: However, it's now understood to just generally apply to pretty much all retail establishments that serve the public...


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
 
2014-05-05 09:18:25 PM  
And once again, the folks vociferously defending "freedom" are arguing for the freedom to be a jerk.

You must be so proud.
 
2014-05-05 09:32:47 PM  

RobSeace: noitsnot: "public accommodation" is specifically defined in Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be hotels, restaurants and movie houses. They take four big paragraphs to do it.

If I have a florist shop, that's not a "public accommodation" according to Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Nope, wrong... CRA1964 was somewhat limited in its definition, but section 4.a.2 would seem to include anything in a mall that contains any of the other covered items, such as a restaurant, so a florist in a mall that contains any store that serves food would qualify... However, it's now understood to just generally apply to pretty much all retail establishments that serve the public...


Well, my flower shop is in an old Arby's that I got a good deal on.

But, as you say, current interpretation is that anything not a private club is covered.  In California we have state legislation that spells that out, I believe.

But now show the refusal of service is discriminatory - which was the only thing I was ever interested in.  Seems like unless you can prove I'm discriminating, I don't have to serve you, and I don't have to justify it.
 
2014-05-05 10:05:49 PM  

Deucednuisance: And once again, the folks vociferously defending "freedom" are arguing for the freedom to be a jerk.

You must be so proud.


They were bullied and made fun of in high school, so now they are desperate to grab guns and money so they can treat others the same way they were treated.
 
2014-05-05 10:13:43 PM  
As a Christian, let me say to any homosexual farkers, hi.

Really, that is about it from me.

/sorry about the noisy idiots whose faith has the same name as mine
//hope life is good. If you are in town, drop in and I'll buy you a beer.
 
2014-05-05 11:39:08 PM  
The same thing happened to "Christians" who hated black people after the civil rights movement.  Like then, this is a good thing.
 
Displayed 36 of 336 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report