@gildas You are right but there one thing to notice and another you
need to know. First you will notice those signs are a general disclaimer and
never single out groups or parts of our connunity. Second it is important to
understand that posting such signs do not protect companies from being
successfully suede if the person denied services can show the reason for denial
was based on animus. The case of the cake maker that everyone likes to talk
about being a good example.
@Gildas;Those signs are not carte blanche for the business to refuse
service. They're reserved for cases where customers are obnoxious and
bothering other customers, when they're inebriated, when they're high
or something. They don't mean that the business will serve every customer
but a specific subset of customers (LGBT, Black, Hispanic, Mormon, etc.). They
may only be exercised within reason; the business, sign or no, may not violate
public accommodation laws.
Yes, thanks, Kansas. Let's get the litigation started and get a ruling on
the books. In the public sphere, ALL must play by the same rules, no matter the
nature of one's personal beliefs.
I'm all for protecting religious rights. I'm also for protecting the
rights of no-religious individuals. The constitution offers protection to
practice religion, but it also offer protection from religion. I
hope that Kansas maintains an equal balance of protection for all.
"No gays served here, everyone else is welcome".I dare any
of you Christians to find any scripture in the Bible (or for Mormons, the BOM);
where god says: "Thou shalt not do business with sinners". Good luck.
I have seen signs in businesses many times that state: management reserves the
right to refuse service to anyone.
Just when I think Christians couldn't get any farther away from Christ...
there goes treating others the way that you would yourself would want to be
What a monumental waste of time. The first time a law like this is challenged
in court, it will lose as it has nothing to do with religion and everything to
do with denial of civil rights and the public accommodation laws, already on the
books for years.How is this any different than similar proposed laws
back in 1967 when inter-racial marriage was legalized? Back then some were
claiming that God didn't want the "mixing of races" and serving
such couples was against their religion.It is discrimination, plain
and simple, and ugly, to boot.
So it seems to me that they will run head first into the same problem the state
of Utah has but even worse. How are you supposed to claim that the law was not
animus when it specifically targets one group of people (LGBT)?f it is so
important to protect religious people from public accommodation laws then why
not have a law that states that a person can refuse services to anyone if
providing such services violates their religious conscious. Of course that would
then include the right to refuse services to people of other religions that they
may think are cults or sinful, could get messy.