Jump to content
Goes to show how so much of healthcare costs is dealing with billing. So it is cheaper to provide free care for short visits than to deal with billing them.
Every business is free to refuse any design as long as the objections are to the design, not the person or couple requesting the design when that person or couple is covered by an anti-discrimination law.
The Oregon bakery got into trouble when they told the lesbian couple that no cake would be made for them because they were a lesbian couple.
"whatever it means" is because much of the issue is because of not everyone agreeing what the confederate flag means.
The state governments of the South started flying it in the 60s in response to federal and protestors attempts to end segregation. So for white supremacists the confederate flag tends to be a symbol of defiance of integration.
For the Dukes of Hazzard and some people, the confederate flag is a symbol of defiance of authority including state and local governments.
I think the current situation is whether the use by racists too greatly undermines it's usage as a general statement of defiance. Like the Nazis use of the Swastika overwhelms other historical meanings of that symbol.
Artist is allowed to refuse any tattoo design.
But if artist was willing to tattoo "Sam" on a young woman until the artist learned that "Sam" was the name of her girlfriend and the state had an anti-discrimination law that includes lesbians then the artist could have legal issues.
Anti-discrimination laws just mean a business has to have the same rules for the covered groups of people. So the tattoo artist could also refuse to do tattoos for lawyers saying they are too troublesome, but it would have to be all lawyers, not just lesbian lawyers.
Yeah, all those darn older people with the audacity to withdraw from the workforce by retiring.
If you look at workforce participation by age then it has barely moved.
Citizens United found that individuals do not lose all rights when grouped together and when what they are doing together is legal as individuals then claims of harm are limited. So a group can do political ads.
A business is not merely a group of people, but must also follow any number of state laws on being registered and so on.
As for Hooters, their claim to the EEOC is that their waitresses provide a "vicarious sexual experience" and thus there is a valid reason that only women can do the job.
Anti-discrimination laws have been held as being constitutional The individual's right to not be economically harmed by racist businesses, etc, overrides any reason for the business to be racist, etc.
There is a difference between personal life and a business.
No force from government can force you to bake a cake, serve a meal or provide any service to someone.
But, if you have a business that is baking cakes, serving meals or providing services then that business must follow anti-discrimination laws.
Anti-discrimination laws are very important so that people can life without being mistreated at places of business due to their race, etc. People don't need to have racist friends, but they do need to interact with businesses for any number of services.
All the Oregon bakery had to do was not make it clear that it was violating Oregon's LGBT anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a cake for the lesbian couple.
If it is pandering and dividing by saying businesses cannot discriminate against certain people then so be it. Discrimination due to race, etc is deplorable conduct and does not belong in businesses.
Individuals have the right to exhibit deplorable conduct. It doesn't extend to businesses.
Yes, a business does not have First Amendment rights to violate anti-discrimination laws.
Anti-discrimination laws do not apply to an individual's personal life.
The Walmart making an ISIS flag cake was a mistake made by a store. It doesn't reflect company policy. Go to SB Walmart and try to order an ISIS cake and you'll see that they know now enough to not do that.
So while the confederate flag is a widely known symbol of whatever it means, initials NAMBLA could be mistaken for some band or something else. It is not nearly as well known as the confederate flag. So, to have a fair bet, there has to be a way to make sure the "NAMBLA proponent" is recognized by the business as promoting underage homosexual relationships with adult homosexuals.
It is not "anti founders" to point out the contradictions between their words and many of their personal lives and business activities. It is historical accuracy and honesty. There is also a certain relevance of showing there is a difference between lofty words and actions. It shows that even the best promises from the most important people may not mean much to those currently lacking rights.
There is no need to make a choice between noting the contradictions of the Founding Fathers and bad modern governments.
Last login: Saturday, July 4, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.