Supreme Court rules against LGBTQ

[CobbVol]

The point is pretty obvious: Businesses exist to serve customers. You don't quiz customers on who they are or what they believe before agreeing to serve them. And you don't present customers with a list of your beliefs and tell prospective customers that some of those beliefs may prevent them from doing business with you. If you're a baker and someone wants a cake, make the freakin' cake and stop with all the religious nonsense. I'm pretty sure there's been a universal rule in business for ages: If a customer walks through the door and wants to avail himself or herself of your product or service, you provide the product or service, get paid and wait for the next customer. Leave it to wacky American religious freaks to challenge this fundamental principle of business. Businesses have a right to refuse service to people who are being disruptive or potentially breaking laws, of course--but that's not what this is about.

Go find a Muslim bakery and ask for a cake with this writing: Jesus is the ONLY Lord and Savior.
Report back you findings.

 

[Weezer]

Private business shouldn't need a reason to refuse service. Business owners should have the right to choose who they do business with. Businesses can be built and destroyed by reputation. If a business refuses service for a stupid reason, word will get around.

If someone doesn't want my business, I don't want to give it to them.

 

[Boston Vol]

The point is pretty obvious: Businesses exist to serve customers. You don't quiz customers on who they are or what they believe before agreeing to serve them. And you don't present customers with a list of your beliefs and tell prospective customers that some of those beliefs may prevent them from doing business with you. If you're a baker and someone wants a cake, make the freakin' cake and stop with all the religious nonsense. I'm pretty sure there's been a universal rule in business for ages: If a customer walks through the door and wants to avail himself or herself of your product or service, you provide the product or service, get paid and wait for the next customer. Leave it to wacky American religious freaks to challenge this fundamental principle of business. Businesses have a right to refuse service to people who are being disruptive or potentially breaking laws, of course--but that's not what this is about.

The baker in Colorado never refused service to anyone. He simply refused to make a custom cake that went against his religious beliefs. Customers were more than welcome to purchase existing pre-made cakes or place order(s) for a custom made cake that the baker would agree to make.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

The point is pretty obvious: Businesses exist to serve customers. You don't quiz customers on who they are or what they believe before agreeing to serve them. And you don't present customers with a list of your beliefs and tell prospective customers that some of those beliefs may prevent them from doing business with you. If you're a baker and someone wants a cake, make the freakin' cake and stop with all the religious nonsense. I'm pretty sure there's been a universal rule in business for ages: If a customer walks through the door and wants to avail himself or herself of your product or service, you provide the product or service, get paid and wait for the next customer. Leave it to wacky American religious freaks to challenge this fundamental principle of business. Businesses have a right to refuse service to people who are being disruptive or potentially breaking laws, of course--but that's not what this is about.

My wife runs a consulting business. A company reached out to engage her services. She chose to decline because the owner had a widely publicized prior arrest for domestic abuse. You saying she had to accept that?

 

[VOLS INC.]

My wife runs a consulting business. A company reached out to engage her services. She chose to decline because the owner had a widely publicized prior arrest for domestic abuse. You saying she had to accept that?

I am!

She should put her morals aside and risk both her business and reputation. She’s a slave to the customer. That’s business!!!

 

[Jxn Vol]

The point is pretty obvious: Businesses exist to serve customers. You don't quiz customers on who they are or what they believe before agreeing to serve them. And you don't present customers with a list of your beliefs and tell prospective customers that some of those beliefs may prevent them from doing business with you. If you're a baker and someone wants a cake, make the freakin' cake and stop with all the religious nonsense. I'm pretty sure there's been a universal rule in business for ages: If a customer walks through the door and wants to avail himself or herself of your product or service, you provide the product or service, get paid and wait for the next customer. Leave it to wacky American religious freaks to challenge this fundamental principle of business. Businesses have a right to refuse service to people who are being disruptive or potentially breaking laws, of course--but that's not what this is about.

This is loaded full of incorrectness. I stopped reading after the 2nd sentence.

No shirt no shoes no service.

 

[Vol8188]

Feels like a bit of a slippery slope could happen as a result of this

The only slippery slopes comes from telling businesses they’re forced to serve others. Forcing someone to serve another is slavery

 

[Vol8188]

The point is pretty obvious: Businesses exist to serve customers. You don't quiz customers on who they are or what they believe before agreeing to serve them. And you don't present customers with a list of your beliefs and tell prospective customers that some of those beliefs may prevent them from doing business with you. If you're a baker and someone wants a cake, make the freakin' cake and stop with all the religious nonsense. I'm pretty sure there's been a universal rule in business for ages: If a customer walks through the door and wants to avail himself or herself of your product or service, you provide the product or service, get paid and wait for the next customer. Leave it to wacky American religious freaks to challenge this fundamental principle of business. Businesses have a right to refuse service to people who are being disruptive or potentially breaking laws, of course--but that's not what this is about.

Do businesses not have a right to decide who their customers are

 

[85SugarVol]

I don’t understand your choice. Again, we do this with Alzheimer’s patients.

In my opinion, you are feeding this person’s sickness.

Trying to think of a healthy situation where people go along with absurdly incorrect dialogue like this.

We just disagree. We disagree on other fronts as well - for legal, consenting adults.

 

[85SugarVol]

Private business should be able to choose who they do business with. Full stop.

But that means corporate boards are free to engage in any crazy hiring and promotion charades they damn well please.

It also means they can fire you for refusing to get a shot. It also means they can fire you for getting a shot.

We don’t pick and choose.

 

[RockyTop85]

Private business should be able to choose who they do business with. Full stop.

But that means corporate boards are free to engage in any crazy hiring and promotion charades they damn well please.

It also means they can fire you for refusing to get a shot. It also means they can fire you for getting a shot.

We don’t pick and choose.

Not you, but it’s wild to me how much less controversial this broad of a take is when it’s gays and “others” being discriminated against but turn the clock back to 2021 or beyond and some of the people agreeing with this were surely experts on the completely fictitious platform vs. publisher jurisprudence and Section 230 and common carriers and the like. The screeching was so loud that the common carrier thing even made it into a Clarence Thomas dissent and I remember Alan Dershowitz claiming that Trump suing twitter over being banned was the biggest first amendment case in a bajillion years or something.

 

[85SugarVol]

Not you, but it’s wild to me how much less controversial this broad of a take is when it’s gays and “others” being discriminated against but turn the clock back to 2021 or beyond and some of the people agreeing with this were surely experts on the completely fictitious platform vs. publisher jurisprudence and Section 230 and common carriers and the like. The screeching was so loud that the common carrier thing even made it into a Clarence Thomas dissent and I remember Alan Dershowitz claiming that Trump suing twitter over being banned was the biggest first amendment case in a bajillion years or something.

Some love the idea of private business being able to fire you over a shot, but hate private business refusing to bake a cake.

Some hate firing over a shot, love refusing to bake the cake.

I have no problem with Facebook or Twitter refusing service to those they don’t want on their platforms. As long as it’s their actual decision.

 

[RockyTop85]

Some love the idea of private business being able to fire you over a shot, but hate private business refusing to bake a cake.

Some hate firing over a shot, love refusing to bake the cake.

I have no problem with Facebook or Twitter refusing service to those they don’t want on their platforms. As long as it’s their actual decision.

I think there are distinctions for each set of facts (religious belief/protected class) that make hating one plausibly consistent with loving the other, depending on where your values lie. But neither is consistent with a “full stop” belief that businesses should be able to choose to do business with someone, or not, regardless of those other facts.

 

[85SugarVol]

I think there are distinctions for each set of facts (religious belief/protected class) that make hating one plausibly consistent with loving the other, depending on where your values lie. But neither is consistent with a “full stop” belief that businesses should be able to choose to do business with someone, or not, regardless of those other facts.

Mandating transactions between private entities seems like a weird place for the State to be. At least to me.

 

[RockyTop85]

Mandating transactions between private entities seems like a weird place for the State to be. At least to me.

I’m only pointing out that agreement with that sentiment waxes and wanes on this board with some people espousing this pseudo libertarian view when it’s “others” and crying like bitches when the people that are being discriminated against are more like them.

 

[85SugarVol]

I’m only pointing out that agreement with that sentiment waxes and wanes on this board with some people espousing this pseudo libertarian view when it’s “others” and crying like bitches when the people that are being discriminated against are more like them.

I completely agree with that. I don’t perceive myself to be in that bucket. But we all have blind spots.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

LMAO. So dishonest as usual. He doesn't even know or has met her. Jut lying to his peeps.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Private businesses should be able to refuse service for any reason. If a business owner hates a particular group whether it be for religious reasons or just plain old hate, it's their business. We either live in a free society or we don't.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I may mock Lia Thomas for swimming with girls. But I always try to use her chosen name, and her chosen pronouns.

Because I choose to.

I should not be compelled to do so by the State. That’s absurd.

You mean William Thomas?

 

[McDad]

Private businesses should be able to refuse service for any reason. If a business owner hates a particular group whether it be for religious reasons or just plain old hate, it's their business. We either live in a free society or we don't.

Agreed.
Private businesses were refusing to serve the unmasked during the covid scare. Bartenders refuse to serve Nazis. Coffee shops refuse homeless. If I wore a MAGA hat, I'm sure some place would refuse to serve me.

Way it should be.

 

[85SugarVol]

You mean William Thomas?

I assume that’s her birth name?

Yes, she was born biological male.
Yes, she is still a biological male.
Yes, she will always be a biological male.

But if she can find more joy in this life living as a female, and she’s not hurting anyone? I support her attempt to find happiness.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I assume that’s her birth name?

Yes, she was born biological male.
Yes, she is still a biological male.
Yes, she will always be a biological male.

But if she can find more joy in this life living as a female, and she’s not hurting anyone? I support her attempt to find happiness.

You're just feeding into mental illness, bro.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I assume that’s her birth name?

Yes, she was born biological male.
Yes, she is still a biological male.
Yes, she will always be a biological male.

But if she can find more joy in this life living as a female, and she’s not hurting anyone? I support her attempt to find happiness.

He is hurting people however. HE is making a mockery of feminity and women's sports.

 

[turbovol]

Go find a Muslim bakery and ask for a cake with this writing: Jesus is the ONLY Lord and Savior.
Report back you findings.

I'm not wrapped up in religious craziness, so not relevant for me and most people.

 

[kiddiedoc]

most people.

Say what?