Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker

[vorlon13]

I know people won't agree with me but I think businesses should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they want to, provided no fundamental rights like personal survival or safety are at stake. Let people be bigots and you can know where and who they are, they expose themselves. Forcing bigots to be less bigots is just one way to create division in society and worsen the situation. If a shop refused to serve me for whatever reason, I don't think I should have the right to sue them, but rest assured I wouldn't step inside or buy anything from the same company ever again.

To be clear, my objection centered on the business owners (presumably) citing 'sincerely' held religious beliefs, and I am definitely calling bullshit on that claim.  Additionally, 'sincerely' held beliefs would just about have to include prohibitions regarding serving Jews (no cake for Christ murderers!!), Protestants (if Catholic, else vice versa) atheists, and of course, 'heretics' in their own choice among the 40,000 possible Christian schisms.

[Athene]

But that is not the law in that state.

Yes, Dura Lex Sed Lex - It's just my opinion

A percentage of my tax dollars are used for the local, state and federal services that businesses utilize and benefit from, same as yours.
Your proposal could only be acceptable if a business did not use any taxpayer funded resources of any kind, whatsoever.
Btw, If a fire were to occur at this hypothetical business, they would need to have a private engine company at their disposal to to tame the flames. No using municipal water, either.

I didn't know America, the land of the free where public services are supposedly hated had the government funding privately owned businesses, I've never heard of such a thing in my entire life - Even if that's true, why is your personal preference relevant? Most people would not want to pay taxes anyway, you're saying specifically that you do not wish to fund businesses that refuse to serve gays, but anti-gay Christians will, most likely, want to fund those businesses - If I'm transgender and genderqueer, can I refuse to fund a shop that segregates items by male/female because I think that's wrong? If not, why is your opinion any more relevant? You never know where your tax money goes, never - You just pay and you know it's going somewhere, no one knows certainly where it goes.

Yes, if someone is fired without proper cause, I don't see why the government is needed. In my country, if you're fired without compelling reason you have the right to both the employer's compensation and the government's pension, but both are separate rights that don't intersect with each other. Unemployment benefits are government provided and compensations are given by the employer in a court of Law when you're fired without a legally admissible reason.

Your personal preference about where you want your taxpayer money to go is not relevant because we all have them - Most of us don't even enjoy paying taxes, it's a coercive institution by its very nature. The fact people running businesses have preferences doesn't invalidate state funding.

The problem with an idea like this is it allows for oppression by the majority. Imagine you are a gay person living in a city dominated by Christian business owners with no anti discrimination laws, suddenly you cant buy groceries, get a job, or rent an apartment. We might as well go back to segregated society at that point, large majority groups could essentially force out minority groups.

The problem with imagining is that it leads to unrealistic scenarios, and I said specifically that essential rights shouldn't be taken away like survival, food, clothing and healthcare. I'm talking about privately owned businesses, government officials should follow the law no matter what. Baking a cake doesn't sound like an activity that is essential to your survival (unless you're arguing you only eat cakes) and it's an activity that can be provided by anyone else who specializes in bakery. Private businesses opened to the public are still private, and subjecting the market to government regulation decide by a small number of politicians who claim to be wise is just not a very good idea. What is the criterion to decide who's a protected class? And why? Rest assured, my country protects minorities as well, though there isn't a legal equivalent to protected class, but there are laws that create analogous situations - Still I find a lot of incongruences such as requirements being arbitrarily applied to some groups but not to others.

All Americans do not hate or resent the fact that they pay taxes. They understand that tax revenues are necessary in funding resources that all Americans benefit from, including privately owned businesses. I do NOT believe that as a taxpaying citizen, I should be able do determine what kinds of goods and services a business provides. That is left to the free market. I DO believe that I , as a citizen who pays into the system, should not be denied access to services by businesses who benefit from services that are funded by everyone's tax dollars, including mine.........based soley on a business owner's personal prejudices. Especially, if being singled out for a factor over which one have absolutely no control over.
It is not simply a flight of fancy to suggest that the the scenario you think would be no big deal, could easily become a living hell for many Americans. First of all, what qualifies you or anyone for that matter, to determine what is crucial to any person at a given point in time? Also, you seem to think that it's somehow far-fetched to suggest that multiple business owners in a specific geographic area would adopt this open discrimination policy if it were allowed. I can tell you with as a resident of The Old Dominion (VA), it's not a far-fetched notion at all. Do honestly believe that it's alright for a person, who's done nothing other than be the wrong color, gender, sexual-orientation etc. to have to drive 40, 50, 75, 100, or even as little 10 extra miles out of their way, at their own time, risk and expense......because enough local business owners simply refuse to serve them? Would you just consider this to be a minor inconvenience?
How much would this cost families over a couple weeks? How about over a year?  Do you think it would be alright to tell a kid the reason why he can't buy a bicycle helmet, a backpack, some Pokemon cards, or even a pack of gum where everyone else does, is because he's black? Or gay......or just seems to be kinda gay? Or an atheist? You don't think that would have an devastating emotional impact on people, especially children? You think that somehow all of this would decrease resentment? Do you not see how detrimental this would be to society at large? 
I just don't understand how any decent human being would think that allowing businesses to ignore anti-discrimination laws is cool idea. I'm not implying that you're not a decent person, but I will suggest that you may not have thought the matter through. 
,

[Longhorn]

You can stick that cross up your ass, buddy

[Longhorn]

I know people won't agree with me but I think businesses should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they want to, provided no fundamental rights like personal survival or safety are at stake. Let people be bigots and you can know where and who they are, they expose themselves. Forcing bigots to be less bigots is just one way to create division in society and worsen the situation. If a shop refused to serve me for whatever reason, I don't think I should have the right to sue them, but rest assured I wouldn't step inside or buy anything from the same company ever again.

To be clear, my objection centered on the business owners (presumably) citing 'sincerely' held religious beliefs, and I am definitely calling bullshit on that claim.  Additionally, 'sincerely' held beliefs would just about have to include prohibitions regarding serving Jews (no cake for Christ murderers!!), Protestants (if Catholic, else vice versa) atheists, and of course, 'heretics' in their own choice among the 40,000 possible Christian schisms.

Nononononono.

It's allegorical.

-_-

[robvalue]

Good! Fuck you, bigoted scumbuckets. If you're religion requires you to be a shitty person, maybe it's time to find another religion or even better give it up completely.

[Dystopia]

I think the government has a legitimate interest in a heterogenous society. The more homogenous certain areas are, the more civil and racial unrest when those lines get blurred for any of a number of reasons.

This is wrong on so many levels, it is not the government's business to determine if society should be homogenous or heterogenous - In some cases, the former is better. If you're talking about racial diversity only I'm indifferent to it but keep in mind it's very hard to create more people of different races out of the blue and turn bigots into tolerant people with one or two laws that claim to follow compelling interests. It is up to people to decide who they marry and with whom they have kids with, and depending on that you may have a more racial homogenous society (if people only or almost exclusively only marry intra-racially) or an heterogenous one (if people marry inter-racially more often). It isn't the government's job to determine how diverse society should be as that's merely a natural result of Human affairs. You can find some societies more diverse than others without significant government intervention. 

For this reason, the government has a vested interest in not allowing discrimination based on any of a number of protected classes. I don't think there's a specific criteria for what makes a protected class other than that class having been either marginalized or having its rights restricted or taken away.

Ok, can I as a smoker apply for a protected class then? Or are you going to say that there's no social discrimination, hiring discrimination or any kind of prejudice against us? What about fat people?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you've ever been turned away from a business, Dys. I don't think you've ever experienced what it's like to be told that you are not good enough to shop at a store, eat at a restaurant, be a patron at a public establishment. I have. To some of the less educated yokels in this state, I look like I could be a Muslim. I have been called a raghead and told to leave a restaurant, that ISIS money was no good. I see the stupid fucking confederate flags that these idiots fly off their gas guzzling bubba trucks here, and I am reminded of America's history when we tried the separate but equal gambit. It doesn't work. It is nice in theory, but we tried it. It failed spectacularly, and the effects of it are still being felt today no matter where you look in this nation that bends itself to liberty, but really couldn't give a fuck about it.

You're correct, I've never been turned away from a business because where I live people are mostly concerned in making profits and are extremely nice to clients so it's considered rude to turn away someone - This without mentioning that private businesses have regulations created by the boss/employer that must be obeyed at all times by employees. So if my employer decides that we should serve everyone, we ought to serve everyone. Why would you want to eat in that restaurant? What would you do if the law was on your side? Would you request the meal and eat knowing these people over there hate you? I can't help but noticing this is basically an appeal to emotions as you're saying that it feels terrible and no one should go trough it. I am ok with people discriminating for whatever reason, any reason literally, if Muslims wanted to discriminate against non-Muslims in their privately owned  shops, I'd be ok with it.

Steel, being ok doesn't mean I agree with it - I think it's idiotic to refuse service for reasons like religion, race and sexual orientation, and if I owned a business I'd make rules against that, but I think the market itself will take care of people who refuse service often as the lack of profit leads to bankruptcy and closing businesses.

[Athene]

Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone responding to this thread was suggesting that it's the government's business to encourage intermarriage, nor do I think anyone was suggesting that business owner's shouldn't be able discriminate at all. To my understand the responses to certain posts within this thread, were specifically questioning the notion that business owners should be refuse service to anyone, for any reason, without repercussion and that somehow, this would be good for society.

[Lek]

If you believe that business owner should be allowed to refuse service because of religious beliefs, do you also feel that there should be no room for refusing service based on any personally held beliefs?

[vorlon13]

If you believe that business owner should be allowed to refuse service because of religious beliefs, do you also feel that there should be no room for refusing service based on any personally held beliefs?

Did you intentionally leave out the word 'sincerely', and if so, why ?

[The Grand Nudger]

 I think the market itself will take care of people who refuse service often as the lack of profit leads to bankruptcy and closing businesses.

You might have trouble explaining why that didn't happen, then......why the market was forced to serve and desegregate, here in the US.........why those previously discriminating businesses and segregated interests hadn't gone bankrupt....

Everytime someone says "the market" I hear "the magic". Just a personal tick.