LGBT Extreme Discrimination Legalized in Mississippi

Br. John wrote:

MadHatter wrote ... if the states and not federal legislatures are the ones to define marriage then this would be within the power of the state that passed the law would it not? Otherwise, it is a federal issue correct? Or am I thinking about this too simply?

The states define marriage, not the federal government. But the issue was many states were defining it in a way that violated the US Constitution. If any state or federal law, or a state constitution, has a provision that is alleged to be unconstitutional it's usually an issue for the federal courts. Although state courts can rule a state law violates the federal constitution, it can be appealed to federal court. The final say if something is federally constitutional or not is the US Supreme Court.

Ok thanks. I thought that might be where you go with it. But I was a bit tired and need more coffee so I wanted to ask. I clearly am fine with gay marriage. I think its a clear civil right of association and contract. But where I differ is that we do not have a right to be on the property of or demand the goods of another if they do not want our money. Yes that means as a gay man I might get the short end in some cases but I do not want to be forced to serve people against my will so I cannot in good conscience force that upon others. No matter the reason.

Let's take a quick step back here and look at what the first amendment to the Constitution ACTUALLY says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty clear to me. The U.S. Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This does NOT mean they can pass laws about religious establishments under the pretext of protecting religious freedom. They cannot make laws abridging that freedom either. Now, I would naturally guess that this freedom stops short of cases in which other federal (or state/local) laws are being broken. However, any law put forth by Congress even MENTIONING a religious establishment (of any kind) is, according to this wonderful amendment is, by definition, unconstitutional.

Now, we could argue about state's rights versus federal rights all day. I really don't have the time nor inclination to do that.

That being said, I should hope that ANY law that clearly legalized discrimination against ANY group/subset(s) of the American populace for ANY reason could and would be challenged and deemed unconstitutional. We wouldn't tolerate a law put forth that says "black people cannot marry white people" or some such so why would we allow any other form of legalized discrimination. Now, this argument falls to pieces a bit when you get down to the individual level. Each American citizen is, providing they aren't actively breaking any laws in doing so, allowed to behave as they wish toward other people. I wouldn't have it any other way. However, codifying a method for discriminating against anyone is not something any American government body should be doing. (With certain clear and obvious exceptions.)

MadHatter wrote ... we do not have a right to be on the property of or demand the goods of another if they do not want our money. Yes that means as a gay man I might get the short end in some cases but I do not want to be forced to serve people against my will so I cannot in good conscience force that upon others. No matter the reason.

True story. Groucho Marx: I sent the club a wire [a Telegram] stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

Does anyone not know what a Telegram was? I bet some younger people here don't. The last one was sent almost 13 years ago. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11147506/ns/business-us_business/t/stop-telegram-era-over-western-union-says/#.WeOycFtSyHs

Humor aside (and I don't want to be somewhere if I'm not wanted there either), is it OK for a restaurant to refuse to seat someone because of the color of their skin? Or a grocery store to tell a customer to leave because they are not caucasian?

Br. John wrote:

MadHatter wrote ... we do not have a right to be on the property of or demand the goods of another if they do not want our money. Yes that means as a gay man I might get the short end in some cases but I do not want to be forced to serve people against my will so I cannot in good conscience force that upon others. No matter the reason.

True story. Groucho Marx: I sent the club a wire [a Telegram] stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

Does anyone not know what a Telegram was? I bet some younger people here don't. The last one was sent almost 13 years ago. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11147506/ns/business-us_business/t/stop-telegram-era-over-western-union-says/#.WeOycFtSyHs

Humor aside (and I don't want to be somewhere if I'm not wanted there either), is it OK for a restaurant to refuse to seat someone because of the color of their skin? Or a grocery store to tell a customer to leave because they are not caucasian?

What is right and what should be legal are two different things in my view. Is it right? No. But that is my morality and its not something I can force on others. Just like I dont think a vegans morality should be forced on me. So should it be legal yes. As vile as the act is I do not see it as depriving someone of a right. The owner of goods and land should have total say on how they are used and sold. Even if its in a scumbag way. I dont like how some people use their freedom of speech. I do not like the morals/ethics/laws of some religions. I do not like the way some people abuse the legal system to get away with corrupt actions. That does not mean I would be for taking away free speech, freedom of religion, or the various rights to legal representation and trial. I can think something ought not to be done without demanding a law be placed to take away the right to do it.

Br. John wrote:

MadHatter wrote ... we do not have a right to be on the property of or demand the goods of another if they do not want our money. Yes that means as a gay man I might get the short end in some cases but I do not want to be forced to serve people against my will so I cannot in good conscience force that upon others. No matter the reason.

True story. Groucho Marx: I sent the club a wire [a Telegram] stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

Does anyone not know what a Telegram was? I bet some younger people here don't. The last one was sent almost 13 years ago. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11147506/ns/business-us_business/t/stop-telegram-era-over-western-union-says/#.WeOycFtSyHs

Humor aside (and I don't want to be somewhere if I'm not wanted there either), is it OK for a restaurant to refuse to seat someone because of the color of their skin? Or a grocery store to tell a customer to leave because they are not caucasian?

Nope. Not OK. Perhaps not illegal, but not OK.

The scary part is I have no doubt this could happen in this country today and the restaurant or grocery store would remain in business because so few people actually care about the rights of their fellow human beings.

That being said,

Amendment XIV of the U.S Constitution wrote: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sounds like the laws of the states should give all citizens equal protection under the law. I think anyone being discriminated against in a place of business (for any reason) has, therefore, the right to sue the **** out of the business taking part in the discrimination. More than that, if suing the establishment is not an option for some reason, they have every right to tell anyone who will listen about the miscarriage of justice taking place at the business establishment. If we truly live in a "just" society (which is an arguable point in and of itself...) these sorts of businesses would be immediately boycotted and run out of business. It is, generally, not OK for a business to discriminate against anyone (even if they technically have a "right" to do so), which is why most large businesses are, in general, fairly careful about what they do and say.

Also, if the only grocery store in town suddenly decided I was not welcome there for some reason what am I supposed to do? Drive miles out of my way just to buy daily necessities? (Something many people cannot afford to do considering gas prices and what not.) Pretty sure that I'd have a pretty solid lawsuit on my hands if that were to happen. Another example, what if the store allowed me to shop there but demanded I pay one dollar more than all others for each item? Would that be legal? Would that be allowed?

MadHatter wrote: What is right and what should be legal are two different things in my view. Is it right? No. But that is my morality and its not something I can force on others. Just like I dont think a vegans morality should be forced on me. So should it be legal yes. As vile as the act is I do not see it as depriving someone of a right. The owner of goods and land should have total say on how they are used and sold.

That is where the libertarian argument fails. Because it is depriving someone of a right. Wasnt so many years ago that a person of color couldn't sleep in a hotel, couldn't eat in a restaurant, couldn't buy groceries or use public transportation in certain areas. We have sixty years of legislation and jurisprudence on how systematic racism actually is denial of privileges and immunities, denial of equal protection of the law.

When you imply that people who own businesses should be free to do what they will yet trusted to do the right thing, you ignore the fact that in some cases it is only the law that gives them any incentive to do so.

Atticus wrote:

MadHatter wrote: What is right and what should be legal are two different things in my view. Is it right? No. But that is my morality and its not something I can force on others. Just like I dont think a vegans morality should be forced on me. So should it be legal yes. As vile as the act is I do not see it as depriving someone of a right. The owner of goods and land should have total say on how they are used and sold.

That is where the libertarian argument fails. Because it is depriving someone of a right. Wasnt so many years ago that a person of color couldn't sleep in a hotel, couldn't eat in a restaurant, couldn't buy groceries or use public transportation in certain areas. We have sixty years of legislation and jurisprudence on how systematic racism actually is denial of privileges and immunities, denial of equal protection of the law.

When you imply that people who own businesses should be free to do what they will yet trusted to do the right thing, you ignore the fact that in some cases it is only the law that gives them any incentive to do so.

You do not have a right to shop in or use those businesses. That is not a right you have. Not your property and you dont own those people to force service at gunpoint. Which is what every law is backed by. A right cant be taken away because you get lippy with someone. But you can be banned from a store for it. So no you have no right to others property or services. Further, as I said are you going to tell the girls of Bunny Ranch that they have to service people or go to jail? If not then you are not consistent and it shows exactly why this argument is flawed. Further equal protection of the law? What law is not being applied equally? There is no law in the matter. Its private citizens doing what they wish what they own.

MadHatter wrote: You do not have a right to shop in or use those businesses. That is not a right you have. Not your property and you dont own those people to force service at gunpoint. Which is what every law is backed by. A right cant be taken away because you get lippy with someone. But you can be banned from a store for it. So no you have no right to others property or services. Further, as I said are you going to tell the girls of Bunny Ranch that they have to service people or go to jail? If not then you are not consistent and it shows exactly why this argument is flawed. Further equal protection of the law? What law is not being applied equally? There is no law in the matter. Its private citizens doing what they wish what they own.

I don't know what part of this is not registering. Equal protection is not what law is applied unequally, it's to whom. It's not a right to shop in a particular establishment, it's a right to be free of persistent institutionalized discrimination in all establishments. And it's not private citizens doing what they wish with what they own. You can ban black folks from your house to your heart's content. What you can't do is refuse to serve them in your business.

Atticus wrote:

MadHatter wrote: You do not have a right to shop in or use those businesses. That is not a right you have. Not your property and you dont own those people to force service at gunpoint. Which is what every law is backed by. A right cant be taken away because you get lippy with someone. But you can be banned from a store for it. So no you have no right to others property or services. Further, as I said are you going to tell the girls of Bunny Ranch that they have to service people or go to jail? If not then you are not consistent and it shows exactly why this argument is flawed. Further equal protection of the law? What law is not being applied equally? There is no law in the matter. Its private citizens doing what they wish what they own.

I don't know what part of this is not registering. Equal protection is not what law is applied unequally, it's to whom. It's not a right to shop in a particular establishment, it's a right to be free of persistent institutionalized discrimination in all establishments. And it's not private citizens doing what they wish with what they own. You can ban black folks from your house to your heart's content. What you can't do is refuse to serve them in your business.

You tried to say equal protection of the law that is not the case there is no law applied unequally. You tried to say that it denies a right. You have no right to the goods or services of others. If you did they could not enforce dress codes or kick you out for being rude. You cant be denied freedom of religion or speech for dressing in just shorts and sandals but you can be denied entry into a store. Thus you have no right to be there. Yes, there are laws saying you cant do those things and those laws are the thing that infringes on property rights. Just because you do not like how someone used liberty does not mean you get to take it away. As I asked before in many places prostitution is legal. Will you toss a girl from Bunny Ranch in jail if she refused service to someone for racist reasons? Would you force me a gay man to service the computers of the Westboro Baptist church even though I do not want to perform the service due to their religious beliefs?
You have no right to those things and the law should not force you to do something against your will. It is YOUR property and YOUR labor and no one should be telling you who you sell it to. Which is exactly what you are saying should be the case. Just because a person wants to make a living you do not get to force your morals on them. I dont care if I personally agree with your morals or not

I am, to at least some degree, a libertarian. However, people are assholes and do not have a right to treat another human being as second class or "less than" because of their beliefs. America was (allegedly) founded on the idea that "all men are created equal," are we to just reject that in favor of protecting the right of racist assholes to be racist assholes? Or sexist assholes? Or rapist assholes? Or religious assholes?

As an hourly wage-worker I do not have the right to deny service to ANYONE because of my beliefs. What about MY right to be an asshole? What, because I don't "own" the property the business is built on I don't have the right to assert my religious/racist/whatever assholery?

Technically I don't own the house I live in, does that mean I have to just let whoever wants to do so walk into my home? Does my landlord get to treat me like shit because me and my family are pagans?

Should the Amish people in my area be allowed to deny service/sales to women because they're sexist assholes?

If your right to be an asshole trumps my right to use legal currency to purchase something based on your assumptions about me based on my appearance then what the hell is the point of having a legal currency? The United States constitution does NOT exist to protect anyone's right to treat someone as less than they are. If it does then we need to abandon any and all delusions that we're a civilized, developed country built on a foundation of equality and liberty. Your personal liberties do not trump my own.

You can SAY whatever the hell you want about me, but the first amendment (nor any other part of the Constitution that I'm aware of) does not protect denial of service based on bullshit claims of personal belief.

Apparently you disagree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores.

Oh, and the ADA...

Quote taken from legalzoom.com (https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance)