I don't think you do. "no business owner should be forced to provide services to anybody he doesn't want to if doesn't like the way they look or if they are gay." This is textbook discrimination.
I don't think Jindal's proclamation is going to affect too many businesses. I goes back to the proverbial bakery/wedding cake. If the baker says "I don't make gay cakes but you can pick out one of the cakes on the shelf." I don't see how that's discrimination. Baking a special cake is a special service over and above the day to day commerce of the bakery. What if I own a bar? A nice little neighborhood sports bar with a mixed group of customers from blue collar workers and professionals and a few women and maybe even a few gay guys who don't bother anybody and keep to themselves. People come to my bar to drink and watch sports and talk about sports and other things and maybe even meet the women who also frequent the place. A lot of the customers are also my friends. But after a time the gay guy starts bringing in some of his friends and then more and more homos start hanging around and it makes a lot of my customers uncomfortable and they stop patronizing my business. Well, maybe the gay crowd are just as big or better spenders and I won't lose money but I don't want to be the owner of a gay bar. I would be within my rights to do something to discourage the gay crowd, right? Or what if I have a store or something and I just hate muslims and don't want their business. There are a lot of Arabs who aren't muslims and I have nothing against them. The Arab muslim men for the most part dress like anybody else in America. But the women wear those rags to cover their hair. I'm pretty sure it would be legal to ban anybody wearing anything that covered their hair from entering the business. That must be legal. Last week when I went to the bank there was a sign on the door saying nobody was allowed in wearing masks, sunglasses, hoodies pulled over their heads or hats.
Are you serious??????? The only thing you mentioned that is legal or moral is banks posting signs about hat, glasses etc. No one gets to chose who they sell to because of religon, sexual preference, race disability or any other differentiator. If you want to look at it in a religous Christian light remember who Christ preached to an promised salvation to. Were they the conformers and ' good' citizens? No they were the outcasts, whores, lepers, Samaratins the poor, those shunned by the rest of society. So if they truly are Christians they would serve all and by example show them love. A Christian's duty is to love others as he loves God and to follow in god's footsteps. Nothing mentioned above qualifies.
No point in responding to this. You really don't know what discrimination is. Any bank that says customers can't walk in from a Louisiana summer with a hat and sunglasses is going to lose my business. It means that they are using face-recognition software and that the NSA and the police probably have access to it.
Jindal didn't issue the EO until the bill was overwhelmingly killed in committee, Republicans included. I would say Jindal owns the order, not the GOP.
Jindal owns the order for sure but he is a republican. The GOP still owns the politics of catering to religious evangelicals in their legislation. A declining demographic that Jindal seem intent on making into his constituency. He is getting no traction in the Republican primary campaigns.
Jindal only did this shit because of his aspirations for the presidency. No one with clout is giving him money so he needs to appease the snake handlers. I almost feel sorry for him, he is a fucking joke.
Once again you failed to grasp the whole of my post as usually went into your banty rooster mode. I'll try to explain the gist of it so I'll speak slowly and try not to use any big words. Please pay attention. First of all it may surprise you that I agree with you about Jindal's reasons for making the proclamation. Strictly a grandstanding play to curry favor with the religious right. But my posts of this thread have not been about Jindal but about what constitutes discrimination. If you will recall I stated that it would be wrong and discriminatory (oooh, sorry about the six syllable word) to refuse to sell your merchandise in stock to anybody based upon race, creed, sexual preference, ect. To get back to the bakery (its always a bakery because it seems that few other types of businesses would be affected) if the baker has cakes on the shelf he can't refuse to sell them to anybody who walks in the door. BUT, and here's where it may get a little tricky for you to understand the difference, A baker's refusal to specially bake a wedding cake or any other kind of specialty item specifically purposed for a practice that is against the religion or morals of the baker is not discrimination. He may be obligated to sell a gay person a cake, but he has no obligation to make a gay cake for anybody. No one is forced to participate in pagan ritual practices they don't approve of. As for myself, I would bake the gay cake. Though I oppose same sex marriage and see it as just one more sign that this country is fast going the way of the Roman Empire it doesn't affect me directly and since I'm not all that religious I like money more than I dislike gay marraige. All I am doing here is defending the rights of those who are religious in a specific narrowly defined way. Now here is an example I don't even think you would disagree with. Let's say you are a baker. A guy from NAMBLA comes into your shop and wants you to bake a cake topped with figurines of naked pre-pubescent boys. Wouldn't you agree that you would be within your rights to refuse?
