If the business, club, organization, not-for-profit, religious group receives ANY money from local, state or federal entities and/or ANY tax breaks from any government entity, they cannot refuse to provide services/goods to anyone for any reason (except for health/safety laws).

Religious groups are free to use 'against my religion' for whatever they want, however they cannot be a non-profit. Not-for-profit status is a tax break. I do not believe this is against the 1st Amendment as it does not infringe on religious freedom.

No one is forcing anyone to offer goods and/or services to the public. If someone's religious views precludes them from offering goods and/or services to someone based solely on the fact of someone's sexual orientation, race, religion or other individual characteristics that are protected by law, they can choose not to go into business in the first place. Maybe they should work in some isolated cubicle somewhere where they don't have to deal with people at all.

These laws are to protect against discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion and other characteristics that have been historically discriminated against. Why are people arguing against having laws that protect homosexuals/same sex couples from being discriminated against and being denied goods and services?

omg did that take forever!
 

....................

Thanks, in advance, to anyone who will respond to any/some of these questions.

Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.

I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).

(ps.....I have a libertarian streak :|)

Actually no I wasn't responding to your post. So you think it's ok for someone to deny offering their services to someone based on their sexual orientation or race?

I knew I would overlook one along the same idea.

If I missed others, I think the point involved in these series of questions is apparent. (?)

My personal feelings are not really the point. However.........no I don't think it's right and yes I would do my best to avoid giving them my money or time.

Folks/business DO have the right to discriminate against queers or folks who like sparkly stuffed ponies/poodles. However the government certainly cannot reward said business/individuals for having discriminatory practices. No personal or business tax breaks. If your tax bracket is 37%. then 37% of your personal and business income (and I mean ALL income....no deductions ever allowed. Period. Full Stop.)

The government cannot discriminate or reward those who do. Individuals and organizations certainly can, but at a pretty big cost in the area of taxes and government programs.

Toughy, I am a former accountant so I am familiar with the tax code. Beyond that, I don't know what you are saying.

to help stop discrimination you must make it less profitable because passing laws is not very effective......

well..........you know all those tax deductions you and every other accountant get for your clients..,those deductions that lower the actual percentage of taxes paid by said business? If one of those clients has discriminatory practices or policies then they get NO tax deductions on their income taxes......they are not eligible for any deductions and will pay exactly what their tax bracket is by law....it works this way:

business tax bracket is 37% of total income
deductions/breaks/subsidies/etc lower percentage payed to 5%
business gets a 32% tax deduction.

business discriminates & tax bracket is 37%
therefore business MUST pay 37% of all income as taxes
because they discriminate they get NO deductions.

as an individual I will do my best to avoid patronizing said business because I do not agree with the business plan, practices, and/or policies

I am talking about governments laws practices and policies vs business practices and policies. Tax deductions are a privilege not a right. deductions are an incentive toward good business practices. The government should not reward repugnant businesses with tax breaks/deductions/subsidies/programs.


This is a capitalist society......profit is king......discrimination makes you pay more taxes and you get less profit,,,,,,,,, business will stop discriminating because it is less profitable

Toughy,

Doesn't your government already tell you that you cannot discriminate in your private business against certain groups of people?

Didn't your government intervene to stop unfair and prejudicial business practices with Title 2 of Civil Rights Act?

I am asking if people believe that private businesses should be allowed to deny services based on that owner's religious or moral beliefs.

Because of the Civil Rights Act, isn't it true that a local store cannot deny a Muslim couple goods and services just because the owners don't approve of non-Christians?

I thought that since this law has been in place since 1964 that people would largely agree that a private business cannot deny service--regardless of the owner's moral or religious beliefs--to someone based on that person's, race, religion, gender, or ethnicity....and, consequently, support a queer couple's right to goods and services as well.

I think there is a difference in reserving the right to refuse service to anyone and discrimination.

As a manager I have refused service to people. All kinds of people, for a variety of reasons. But I have not targeted a specific group of people except when I have....like "locals." I manage a hotel. We don't like locals. We don't want locals staying at the property. There are exceptions of course, some people are remodeling their house, there might be a water or some other type of emergency....but overall locals are staying with us because there is something that they don't want to do at home. Whether it's set up a meth lab, cheat, deal drugs, prostitute or throw a party. It's never anything good for my business.

But we can't have a blatant no locals policy. The reason we can't is because of a case where a hotel owner refused to let locals stay. The reason they did it is because high school kids were reserving rooms for huge parties, trashing the hotel, throwing up in the halls and generally causing a huge headache.
Because most of the kids were local - they just said "No locals." The only problem with that policy was that the geographic area for locals was populated mainly by minorities. (Even though the high school kids they were really trying to keep away were mostly white.) The hotel owner lost a huge lawsuit because the courts decided it was a discriminatory policy.

I rent to people I can't stand personally all the time. Church groups and hunters are a couple big ones. I hate guns. I hate seeing a bunch of strangers walking around the hotel with shotguns which are "too expensive to be left in the truck." People saying to me "Praise Jesus, God is good." Every single time they interact with me in large numbers is just as strange to me as the guys talking to me with shotguns on their shoulders. I smile and nod just the same. Oh, and thank them for coming so that they come back next year.

The good of the business dictates that I don't turn away good customers, regardless of how I feel about their belief's, views or politics. It's best not to discuss it. That is different then people who I feel may put other guests happiness and enjoyment of the property in jeopardy. I have had people set up meth labs (which can level and entire city block,) drug dealers raided by swat, pimps beating up the prostitutes, drunken contractors fist fighting in the halls, college kids on three day crack binges....race has nothing to do with any of it. In fact, no one could guess what goes on in someone's room based on how they look. I have had very wealthy appearing people check in, only to have the FBI check in right behind them and want to be in the room across the hall. Ugh. Anything that brings the police to the property = bad. That hurts business. Paying customers that don't cause drama and are spending money - we want. I don't have to live with them, they eventually check out.

/snipped/



I have to disagree that passing laws isn't very effective in preventing or reducing discrimination.

I think when businesses realized (and public school boards -- who lately are getting sued a lot due to discriminations against LGBT students) that they can be CHARGED by the federal government, as well SUED by the consumer, due to existing legislation, it makes a very large impact!

Do we see any more signs that say whites only?

If a business did that today they would be charged and sued -- EVEN if the owner's personal beliefs didn't approve of different races mingling.

I think laws were and are necessary to prevent this kind of discrimination.

The problem with having protected classes is every time a new group gets added to the protected classes, a huge ass long nasty hateful debate occurs prior to adding them. Lines are drawn and folks are shoved in various boxes. The government finally adds them or doesn't add them and the nasty crap continues for at least 50 years.

It's not safe in parts of many states for a POC to be walking around....same goes for queers, muslims, jews, and _____ . It's been close to 60 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed. In many places the effect of that has been violence moving underground and folks still not safe.

In hind sight, one could argue that the Civil Rights Act has in some ways made it worse for the black community. Once integration passed and white businesses were forced to allow blacks in their businesses, thousands of black businesses went bankrupt. A booming black middle class came to a screeching halt as black business owners lost customers by the hundreds and had to close go bankrupt.

It's a hella big conundrum. What would have happened if instead of forced integration and decimation of black businesses, the government had allowed whites only business to continue, and had taken away every single tax deduction those white business were allowed? What if it had hurt the bottom line for those business?

These are just some thoughts that run through my head.

actually there are still whites only signs in this coutry.......go about 300 miles north of SF and you will find them.......

Business that did change did so because they lost MONEY. It's all about the money in capitalism. They did not change because their hearts changed or because it was against the law. They changed because of money.

I also think there is a second discussion about the role of government in business and in business regulation.

We do have freedom of religion in Canada, but there are limits placed on that freedom. I'm okay with that. What if your religion said that you could (and should!) have several wives (all of whom are under the legal age at the time that you marry them)? That's what the limits on freedom of religion are for. You're free to believe what you want, assemble with other believers, talk about your belief - up to the point that your religious practices break the law or harm someone else. I don't think that's unfair.


Just for fun:

Toronto printing press owner refused to print out letterheads and envelopes with the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives logo on them because he's a "born again Christian". They sued. He lost. He had to pay the Archives 5k and also had to pay their legal fees on top of his own legal fees.

This little tidbit should be interesting to the people from the "omg but that would mean that I can be forced to make milkshakes with the blood of virgins at my place of business because I'm not allowed to say no to anything!!!!" camp: While it was ruled that he could not refuse to do letterheads for them, it was also ruled that he was welcome to refuse to print out literature that was against his religion.

Toughy, you sound like Ron Paul, the Conservative Republican Congressman from Texas who opposed the renewal of the Civil Rights Act in 2004.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Son Rand is following in his footsteps and is part of the Tea Party Movement. Oh yes, and I believe they are both Libertarians as well.

It is true that corporations' desire for gay people's money and the talents of gay folks as employees has created faster change than legal interventions would have. Still we need legal protections.

Toughy,

I gotta give you mad props for answering. Every other person who was opposed to LGBT folks becoming a protect class who I asked if they thought there should be no protected classes refused to answer. (Not sure why?)

That's what I like about you. Unafraid to say something that could potentially be unpopular or misunderstood takes guts. I like guts. I like your guts. :)

I'm not going to lie, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Because I'm not American, I'm young enough that I wasn't alive when it happened, and because I'm White. Fuck, I'll own that. I've got that very White tendency to not know how things actually are - I try, but when it boils down to it I'm still pretty ignorant.

But, you know, not so ignorant that I don't get that there was backlash and is backlash. I also get that if "sexual orientation" becomes a protected class that there will be backlash to that too - but baby the times are a changin' and I want to believe that the immediate ugly wouldn't be as bad now as it was then.

And to me backlash (or the potential that there will be backlash) isn't reason enough to not want protection for my queer friends in the US.

In Canada sexual orientation was added to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1995, and in 96 we were added to the Human Rights Act. The 90s were wicked-heavy on culture wars issues (which I guess was our backlash) but I can't see any evidence that becoming protected has harmed my community in any way.

Having a protected class is important for me personally because it draws attention to the bigger issue.

My grandfather is 82 years old. He is prejudice and racist. Not according to him mind you. One thing that I've always found very interesting that he said is that "if blacks would just assimilate they wouldn't have all these problems."

Well, alrighty! Why didn't black people just think of that? He hated the Irish and Italians just as much. Because when he was little, most of the Italians and Irish in our town were immigrants that couldn't speak English well. As a town, everyone hated them. They were different. But, goes my grandfather's argument, they assimilated so now no one hates the Italians and Irish anymore.

He did drop out of school in the 3rd grade.

Black people and hispanics cannot "assimilate." Arabs and, I would argue, Jews struggle too. Neither can most gays, queers, fags, dykes, lesbians or the rest of our little rainbow. They stand out. This is where a protected class matters. Is there a backlash? Sure. The south is still a very different place then the north.

Over time, things slowly change because there is no government tolerance of hate. When any government has a policy of hate and discrimination or there is a silence on such things, obscene things are allowed to happen. WWII Germany is a good example. Segregation in this country is too. Lynching, slavery, murder - all things bad that were allowed by the government. Don't ask don't tell, outward discrimination towards of all people, our military. Sexual harassment of women at work or flat out refusing to hire women...There are a million examples but it's too early for me to think of more right now.

There was a time when the KKK was a powerhouse in this country. Today? They are more of an annoyance during their occasional march. They were marginalized because as a country we decided to move past it. The way we do that is by passing laws that unify us against stupidity. Forcing the issue, makes it an actual issue that people can no longer deny. It also makes crime and discrimination against a protected class EXPENSIVE. Once it's not easy to discriminate, companies change their policies and people's attitudes slowly change.

Sloooowly. There is still prejudice, discrimination, hate, and ignorance. With a protected class, we say "These people here, THESE people, they belong to us - leave them alone." There are laws. It's not enough. Attitudes change slowly over generations only with constant reminders from the government (which WE are a part of.) The government is more then an annoying bureaucracy it's also a collective majority with the power to change lives through legislation.

It does and has changed all of our lives. We CAN march. We CAN vote. We CAN work. We CAN own property. And if anyone questions our right to do that we CAN sue the shit out of them. People CAN be charged with hate crimes for hurting one of us.

I personally don't care if someone doesn't like me because I'm queer. We can't force people to like each other. But I do care very much that the government doesn't discriminate against me and that they not send a message that it's ok for others to do the same. I can "assimilate" until I go apply for a marriage license, join the army, end up in the hospital, want a raise, or want to adopt. Blacks and Hispanics, have no problem getting marriage licenses as long as their straight, but have a much harder time getting a job regardless of sexual orientation.

As minority groups we are not all in the same place at the same time but we are all in the same boat. Any in roads help us all, and setbacks hurt us all.

Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul (recently elected to the US Senate from Kentucky) both claim Libertarian over conservative Republican. There is a difference between the two. I don't understand why Libertarians have moved to the Republican side since their views on individual rights are certainly more in line with Democrats.

On the surface what I suggested certainly does sound like the Pauls. It's not anywhere near their politics. Libertarians don't believe in Government at all. No Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury (and the Federal Reserve), Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security and a whole bunch of other Cabinet level jobs.

What I suggested is the role of government (in this instance) is to motivate business to act right by costing them that all mighty profit. And it's not limited to discrimination. All the big oil, big agriculture (ADM, Monsanto), ________ companies get government subsidies even though they damn sure don't need them...what the fuck is that about. WalMart pays less in taxes than I pay....and yes that is true......yet has the largest class action discrimination lawsuit ever filed in this country. Why are they getting subsidies, tax deductions from the Government? Cities and States (and federal) routinely give very profitable businesses big ass tax breaks to locate plants, headquarters, etc in their city/states. Why???? And why are they getting those breaks when they are being sued for discriminatory practices? Filing a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar business will only drain money out of the Treasury, because those businesses can pay off anyone/everyone and flood tons and tons of paperwork on the plantiff. I'm willing to bet if they had to pay ALL their taxes no exceptions, some of their practices will certainly change. It's a law, but a law attacking a different method of changing abhorrent business practices.

Under our current system, there is no choice but to have protected classes and I support having protected classes.

I was just trying to get at the problem in a different way, which ain't ever gonna happen. Thinking outside the box if you will.

I do not believe in assimilation..........this country should not be a melting pot.......it should be a salad bowl. Our differences make us stronger..........assimilation makes us weaker.

(I feel the same way about you)

I certainly don't think the current tax code is fair. However, I also don't think significant social change is going to happen through tweaking the tax code.

We shouldn't have to have protected classes but until racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia are done away with, I do think that Civil Rights Acts and Equal Protection under the law is necessary and worth fighting for.

Your previous post sounded to me as though you thought we would be better off without the Civil Rights Act.

I wasn't talking 'tweek' at all............I was and am talking major overhaul of tax tax code as well as all the other government incentives that keep being given to business that does not need it at all.............

take all the incentive money given to the fossil fuel industry and give it to real green industries (and clean coal does not exist and is fossil fuel) such as solar wind....car industry that is developing non fossil fuel power......

and any of the above business that gets convicted of any type of discrimination loses that government incentive.........

good convo........thanks

The Civil Rights Act should not be a sacred cow never to be scrutinized..........it certainly has affected many protected classes both positively and negatively.......as has Affirmative Action.

OK, I agree with taking incentive money from the oil industry and funneling it into green industries. I agree that the oil companies don't need any tax breaks.

I don't believe in tax breaks for big business unless they are providing jobs or developing new industries such as your example of green industries and developing cars that run on non fossil fuels- something Obama has called for since he ran for President. Those types of new technologies are better for the environment and can also create new jobs.

I don't believe social change will come about through changing the tax code, but we certainly could do better with our finances and use our resources for the betterment of society rather than lining corporate coffers and funding wars.

I agree tax code change alone won't do it, but it certainly can be another tool in the box........it certainly can affect profit margins and give help to anti-discrimination laws.......

comprehensive solutions from a big picture perspective rather than a band-aid solution for each particular problem.....all of it is inter-related and needs an inter-related approach........

I had some thoughts to this post that I'm gonna throw out here. Adorable wrote on the decline of the KKK over the years, and that kind of started my train of thought here. It also makes me wonder if the strong presence of racism in some states is moreso because of the fact that the government hasn’t taken stronger measures to suppress it entirely. I know that Nazi Germany is a more extreme case, however, given where the States sits with racism/minority rights compared with modern Germany and other European nations that suffered dictatorships, I wonder why the US seems to be one of the only ones that has not remedied the effects of its past.

I decided not to use Canada as an example on this one because, even though we possess many similar laws and policies as Western Europe (primarily laws referred to in this thread: not permitting business owners to refuse service), we do not have a history of extreme xenophobia to the extent of the US, Nazi Germany or Spain under Franco. That isn’t to say we haven’t had our share in the past, because we have, however, I’m not sure that it’s comparable to the US.

When Nazi Germany fell, Germany took measures (and continues to take measures) to assure that it would never be easy for a group like the Nazis to come into power again. Today these measures continue: the swastika is still banned, Neo-Nazi organisations and media are illegal (and this is taken very seriously, despite that some groups still exist) and, perhaps most importantly, the German government has hate speech laws in place that make it illegal for anyone to publicly insult, defame or generally incite hatred toward any minority group. It is also illegal to refuse service on the basis of race/ethnicity.

But the US government hasn’t really taken such drastic measures. Freedom of speech laws continue to protect bigots who would, given the chance, eradicate any group that does not conform to their world view. I do not understand the need to allow free speech for people who specifically incite hatred for other groups. That kind of "freedom" does not benefit society in any way whatsoever, and instead threatens social progress. In fact, I think this is a huge reason why the US is so behind when it comes to minority/human rights compared with other Western nations, and why European neo-nazi groups are able to expand online through American domains/"free speech" laws. I understand the need to protect speech, however, that speech should only extend as far as there is no desire to eradicate or discriminate against groups based on inherent, unchangeable traits (the person themselves vs. actions committed).

Same goes with making it illegal to allow business owners to refuse service to protected classes, including LGBT. And I do wonder whether the strong racism/homophobia etc. in certain areas of the US are not due to the US government’s negligence on actually cracking down on all avenues of racism (or all forms of bigotry for that matter), rather than the Civil Rights Act (I think progress would have been even slower without it) as you suggest.

I presume she meant because both Canada and the US had abusive residential schools that First Nations children were shipped off to. (since that's what the link she posted was about. well, the link was about the ones in Canada she didn't mention the ones in the US - although I'm certain she's aware of those schools in the US.)

Canada and the US share some really abhorrent historical practices. We both had slavery. We both had abusive church run and government funded residential schools with the aim to "westernize" First Nations children. We both had internment camps for Japanese, German, and Italian Americans and Canadians during WWII.

laughin.....little sensitive are we suebee :mohawk: edited to add: making laws does not "insure' individual rights

that little mohawk avatar could certainly be considered racist as hell............so whose sensitivities should be legislated?

I was always told that you can't legislate morality. All these protected class laws are doing is attempting to force everyone to think the 'right way' as defined by the government. The Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were really good at doing just that.

Under the current legislative landscape, I have no choice but to support protected classes while I work to change and be creative about how to effect equality for everyone.

good grief it was just a little teasing..........

<shaking my head>

Sue, can I borrow a million coins?

My post about Canada was a direct response to Ender's post. I just wanted to point out that Canada does have a history, as most countries, including the US. My extensive research for that one sentence post was a google search for "canadian atrocities" because I assumed there were some. I felt like Ender was singing 'Oh, Canada' - which is fine - but we all have our warts.

The US isn't some horrible place that does horrible things to people IMO. We are one country of many, a big one with lots of money and a powerful military, and our dirty laundry gets thrown around more than others.

There is a reason there isn't peace in the Middle East. Very little of that has to do with America. It has more to do with thousands of years of history that we, here, learn about in college. Families and tribes in the middle east have actually been LIVING it from the time they are born. A very different reality and hard for most of us to understand.

Germany has a much longer history then we do, as do many places around the world where mass atrocities have happened at the hands of government. To try to say that WE are on par in any way seems nonsensical to me. We have done bad things as a people. We do bad things as a people. We all have. We all do. We haven't been doing it nearly as long. That isn't an excuse for bad behavior, but at the very least we all need to acknowledge our own dirt before we start throwing stones. (I didn't feel like Ender was attacking the US necessarily - but there did seem to be a little bit of Canada is better then all these places including the US where bad things have happened. That may or may not have been his point.)

Native Americans in this country got fucked over long before anyone else. Same in Canada too. Indigenous people are still getting screwed in the Amazon and Africa. History repeats itself, over and over. In America we can say that we learn at the speed of light compared to other countries. Look at how far our society has come since 1787. And we built a country where you can walk four blocks and pass a synagogue, a baptist church, an adult book store, a catholic church and mosque. That to me is powerful.

The right for a business to refuse service to people may not be ideal for US (you and me) who might get discriminated against. I'll take it today, argue about it tonight and hope it changes tomorrow. And unlike many places in the world I have hope that it actually might. There are pockets of ignorance. I may die at the hands of an idiot. I will not die at the hands of a government official for being queer. (I realize that some minorities may not have that security btw)

Not everyone is thinking that tonight as they try to sleep with bombs flying over their homes. Just like their parents did. Their grandparents did. Their great grandparents did. Their great-great-great-great-great grandparents did.

I love Canada- great northern neighbor. however, it is not without black slavery as part of its own history and economy. In fact, Canada brought anti-slavery rules into its government in the 1830's via the British Crown, not as an independent country. Before the US, but not much before. It has a dark history concerning its native peoples as well.

Developed, industrialized nations, especially western, share many shameful practices. I feel like the important things that we need to to in order to change the effects of things like slavery and discrimination on all fronts is where we need to concentrate. Not many places in the world that don't have blood on "their" hands, historically.


http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...=A1ARTA0007449

Addition- As we are discussing in this thread, the "allies"- formed by the UN security counsel is bombing in Libya. Canada and Britian along with the US are involved. Yet, which of the 3 will be criticized the most about this?