3279

No, it’s not.

You don’t have, nor have you ever had, the right to purchase goods from a person selling them. And really, the reasons for this are multiple and obvious.

Really, if folks want to argue about this, we already have a discussion going on the topic in the legal thread… not sure how it spilled over into this one.

3280

I hope the guy goes out of business, but I’d like my right to kick a Nazi out of my store thankyouverymuch.

3281

Timex acts like this is all perfectly settled law. It isn’t. There are federal rulings that support the notion that homosexuals are a protected class, and thus public services must be offered to them. There are some other rulings that contradict it.

Eventually the Supreme’s will need to settle it

The 8-3 ruling echoes recent decisions by lower courts, which also have concluded that discrimination against gays is a prohibited form of sex stereotyping. It conflicts, however, with many others, including a ruling last month by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act more narrowly and found that sexual orientation is not a protected class under that law.

A split in the circuits could set up a clash before the Supreme Court.

Writing for the dissenters, Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes accused the majority of altering the long-standing interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” In the past, courts routinely found that the prohibition did not cover sexual orientation, but that has changed in recent years, particularly since the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same-sex couples have a right to marry.

3282

They should be, but at the same time nothing says they are. The Constitution doesn’t and to my knowledge no federal law does either. Mostly they’ve gotten by with not being denied fundamental rights, like in the case of marriage, but that doesn’t automatically assume they’re a protected class.

3283

What says they are protected is the federal rulings that more broadly interpret the Civil Rights Act. But, again, there are other rulings that are more narrow which contradict it.

Eventually the SC will need to rule more precisely on the issue. I look forward to Gorsuch’s opinion on that one (just kidding, I don’t - he sucks)

3284

Honestly, I’m not even commenting on whether homosexuals are considered a protected class (although there is no clear precedent to establish that they are).

I’m merely taking the position that you cannot simply extend the protections afforded to protected classes, to literally everyone. Because to do so constitutes a massive infringement on the rights of every American.

3285

That’s fine - I’m not sure many people would disagree with that.

I just want to make sure that it is clear those protections are currently being litigated in the courts, and it has been determined in at least some jurisdictions that homosexuals do have SOME legal protections that we would associate with a protected class.

3286

That’s literally Banzai’s position, and that’s why we are having the disagreement.

3287

GOP sacrifices a little fish, allowing the big fish to swim free - now that Greitens is gone, GOP investigators have suddenly stopped caring about his shady donors:

3288

You would be mis-stating my position. I do not think you can extend protections to literally everyone. Absolutes are inherently problematic. But I do think that for the vast, vast majority of cases, if someone wants to buy a pack of gum, and you sell gum, that morally and ethically, you should sell them the gum. For all of the reasons we fought for civil rights in the 50-60s, and continue to fight for them today. Being gay is not a choice. Discriminating against people for something that is not their choice is very contrary to my personal belief system, and I’ll happily defend them and fight for their rights.

3289

You’re making your position even worse then.

Now you’re saying that no one can be discriminated against, EXCEPT people that the government specifically wants to allow discrimination against.

Again, get off the gay thing. If you want to prevent discrimination against them, make them a protected class. Done. You’ll get no complaint from me.

But to suggest that american store owners do not have the right to refuse service to people outside the cases of protected classes, is clearly a terrible move.

3290
3291

The cake is a lie.

3292

In Colorado, gays are explicitly a protected class. Colorado’s argument here was that the baker’s free speech rights were not infringed because there was no specific message sent by the cake, and no one seeing the cake could infer the baker’s beliefs from it. He still absolutely had the right to say whatever he wanted to say about gay rights. The Court’s ruling didn’t touch on this, but rather on the “religious animus” shown by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Case defeated on procedural grounds, with the merits of either argument not considered. I think it’s pretty clear that the baker’s actions were illegal in Colorado, just as the Oregon bakers’ actions were illegal there.

3293

I wondered that as well. Grainger is, as far as I know, a large national company and I have to think corporate somewhere is wondering what the hell is going on.

3294

Looks like its not one of their stores, just the name of the county the store is in.

3295

You continue to not use my words and instead make shit up that you think I’m trying to say. I’ll just stop talking cause you appear to now be deliberately usinng positions I am not in fact arguing as my positions.

This is the Timex I remember from years past.

3296

I’m sorry Banzai, I don’t mean to come off so hard on you. I feel very strongly about making sweeping restrictions of basic rights, in an attempt to correct social wrongs. It’s not that I don’t care about bigots being bigots, I totally do, but I am equally concerned about the massive infringement of rights for everyone else, if you try to make overly broad legislative moves. And saying that everyone has an inherent right to enter into an economic transaction with you if you own a business, is exactly that.

I’ve already said multiple times now, that I have no problem with including sexual preference along with race and religion as a protected class, to specifically prohibit discrimination based on that. But you seem to require that it go further, and that’s where I simply cannot agree.

3297

(I’ve not kept on with the PR threads lately, but we’ve had these discussions before.)
Being disruptive or wearing a red hat that proudly proclaims one’s idiocy is a choice.
Being black, hispanic, white or gay isn’t. Refusing to serve is bigotry.
That’s the distinction you guys seem to be missing.

3298

There’s a lot of people in the Republican camp that disagree with you, despite you obviously being correct. Unfortunately, those people happen to run all three branches of the government now and it will likely happen again multiple times in the future.

I’m with @Timex. If you want to make sexual orientation a protected class, that’s great. But I want the right to refuse service to a nazi.