(June 27, 2018 at 2:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(June 27, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Shell B Wrote: That would very much depend on each case for me. I couldn't make a broad moral statement regarding refusal of service.
A member of a gang doesn't have to be in a group of gang members to be dangerous. I think it would be fine to reject them if they were with family, though I wouldn't recommend it.
I think the law is flawed because of the two-party system. On certain topics, it gets very twisted as it's dribbled back and forth between two opposing factions. This is one of those topics. All in all, I think people being unable to refuse people based on color, gender and sexual orientation is about as good as it's going to get, and that's good enough for me.
I think that these things are in place to protect those you don’t like, and may not see as needing it. Which is why I think that principles are better than a list.
By the way, sexual preference is not a protected class in the majority of the states. So if it is just a technicality, whether that discrimination is wrong, merely depends on where you are? I don’t think it becomes wrong just because you are on some list.
Sexual preference should be a protected class in all of the states. It's not something someone can control. I would say, go ahead and refuse anyone you want. It's not hard to find other services, but it's been shown that slippery slope leads to segregation. I'll pass.
