You do have that right. You can totally decide who you spend time with, or associated with. Or eat dinner with, or worship with, or play Scrabble with.
But if you are engaged in commerce, which is regulated by the government, and provide a public service that is deemed "essential" by those regulations, you have to play by those rules that are set up. Actually, you don't HAVE to play by those rules, but you may be penalized for violating those rules, either through fines, or through the civil courts. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:25 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You should not be discriminated against by the government. > > Individuals should be able to freely associate with people of their choice. > Freedom of association was important enough to make the bill of rights. > Like most of these things if I have the right to choose who to spend time > with, don't I also have the right to chose who I don't want around me? > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:21 PM, GMoney <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > No, it is not a federally protected class. > > > > A protected does not seem insane to me if you draw it up based on > genetics: > > If you are born with it, you should not be discriminated because of > > it...period...since you have it through absolutely no fault of your own. > > > > That makes perfect sense to me. > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:04 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Also is sexual orientation a protected class here? > > > > > > I know it is in some states, but it is not federally, right? > > > > > > The whole idea of a protected class is insane to me. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmi...@gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > No, if your business is open to the public, your business has to be > > open > > > to > > > > all people OF A PROTECTED CLASS. > > > > > > > > There are plenty of legitimate reasons to turn someone down for > > business. > > > > But not solely because they are part of that class. > > > > > > > > What those protected classes are differs from state-to-state, and > again > > > > different federally. > > > > > > > > Some judges have also ruled that "innate" characteristics, above and > > > beyond > > > > those delineated protected classes (race, gender, age, national > origin, > > > > sexual orientation, and religion (which is not innate but taught), > > > veteran > > > > status (which is earned).) > > > > > > > > also, my understanding is not all businesses that do business with > the > > > > public are subject to the discrimination laws, but those business > that > > > > offer a "public accommodation", or where there is a "government > > interest" > > > > in making sure those services are protected. > > > > > > > > so, in arizona state, on the state court level, it is probably fine > to > > > not > > > > make a penis cake, but you still could be sued (but would probably > > win). > > > on > > > > the federal court level, not so much. and you can kick the KKK out of > > > your > > > > shop at any point (but still get sued), but the suit would be > dismissed > > > > early due to no protected class status. But a member of the Arian > > Church, > > > > on the other hand, could. > > > > > > > > But you could kick that same person out because they dated your > > daughter, > > > > or because they voted for Obama, or because they smell like > > elderberries. > > > > just not because of their religion. > > > > > > > > (proving that was the reason, in a suit, gets harder, but is legally > > > > acceptable) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Larry C. Lyons < > larrycly...@gmail.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If your business is open to the public you have to serve all the > > > > > public. End of story. > > > > > > > > > > Mind you you can always say you're too busy to take new orders at > the > > > > > present time. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey < > > > chumph...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > While the headline emphasizes his comments about homosexuals, > this > > > > > question > > > > > > is one that I thought about as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi > > event? > > > > How > > > > > > about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbeque [sic] > > dinner?" > > > > > > > > > > > > A slight correction to his assertion in my line of thought > > though... > > > > they > > > > > > wouldn't "force" anyone to do something. The bill would have > only > > > > > > prevented the "offended" party from being able to bring a > > > > discrimination > > > > > > lawsuit against the business. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Until Later! > > > > > > C. Hatton Humphrey > > > > > > http://www.eastcoastconservative.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Every cloud does have a silver lining. Sometimes you just have > to > > do > > > > > some > > > > > > smelting to find it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Larry C. Lyons < > > > larrycly...@gmail.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/tea_party_leader_attacks_jan_brewer_for_allowing_%e2%80%9cslavery%e2%80%9d_and_penis_cakes/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Amazing what the Teahadis come up with now. More than a bit of > > > > > >> projection going on here. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:369519 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
