Simviation Forums

...but I have always assumed that a provider of; "Services" to the public, can always refuse to provide any Service to the public, for any reason they wish!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

If the proprietor of a Restaurant is not happy with my behaviour or appearance, they can refuse me entry to the premises, or so I assume!

I feel sorry for some of these businesses, and the "Legal Book" thrown at them!

"Political Correctness" gone crazy in the modern World!

Paul....speaks my mind.... ...1

Refusal of service on the basis of appearance (No shoes, no shirt, no service, etc) enables a business to maintain a level of decency regarding its clientele and makes perfect sense. It also could be considered a health issue if clientele come in not, let's say, appropriately dressed for that particular business.

Refusal of service based on behaviour also is proper. You want your customers to feel safe, secure, and comfortable.

But refusal of service based on who or what you are or what you believe in, assuming you meet the above criteria, is discrimination. We here in America have been fighting discrimination for a long, long time. I remember driving thru the deep south from Miami to New York with my parents in the 50', and seeing billboards that made it clear just who was in charge and which racial group was not appreciated.

Whereas I personally am not such that I could be a target of any kind of discrimination, it's dangerous to those who could be targets, and should not be tolerated.

We fight terrorism because they are out there and target us. We must also fight discrimination in America. We all are under the protection of our American flag. That flag and those assigned to uphold what it stands for, military, the police, etc., work 24/7 to insure our safety and security. They do not discriminate. Neither should anyone else. It's the 21st Century. Be in it, and be glad you are.

The bakery (rightly or wrongly) cause there own problem here. Had they kept religion out of this and chosen the more logical route they would have probably won. What route, the only legal one that could be used...........Copyright. They could have refused to decorate the cake with copyrighted images, but hey.....My god does not believe in the manner in the way your live your life so lets go to court and waste thousands, be the talk of social media and maybe get a sad victim pose in the Daily Fail....

Matt

Article mentions "the message on the cake", but doesn't say what that message is. Does it? So I now see. That's a critical bit of info, I'd say.

Quote:
"Robin Allen QC said his client Gareth Lee was "very glad" the case was finished"
End quote.

...as they gave each other a big kiss....

...nice... ....

Paul.... ... ...!

Everyone, about 600 people, where I work has just gone through a mandatory two hour sensitivity class.

It's not because anything has happened. Although I'm pretty sure that the corporate lawyers want to head off any law suits.


What was made very clear was that there are "certain protected groups", and that these protected groups must not be offended.

Offending members of "certain protected groups" will probably pull down the full force of the state, federal, & local governments.

Plus, the offended person, or persons, can take you to court for being offended.



Now, the link above will say that the "U.S. federal law protects employees from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin or religion. Many state laws also give certain protected groups special protection against harassment and discrimination, as do many employer policies. Although it is not required by federal law, employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation."

What it does not say is that there is a de facto hierarchy where some groups are more equal than others.

For instance - My grandfather was born on an "indian" reservation within the Indian Territory before it became the Oklahoma Territory, and then simply Oklahoma.


So while I AM a member of a protected group, it's very near the bottom of the list.

So much so that if I were attacked and killed, the killer would probably face no other charges. Also, they would face lower penalties such as a lesser fine and/or less prison time.

Probably, the safest and best business decision would be to just to make the cake, take the payment and send them on their way. This isn't the first time I've seen an article like this. What you need when you're an entrepreneur is customers.

After reading this article - Ashers Bakery found guilty of discrimination, I've come to the conclusion that I really don't care.

The picture is there if anyone is interested.

"Ashers, which has six shops employing up to 80 people, was prosecuted for refusing to bake a cake with a slogan stating “Support Gay Marriage”. It was also to feature the Sesame Street puppets, Bert and Ernie, with their arms around one another."



In short, one side;
"The case was taken by Mr Lee, who in May last year wanted the cake baked on behalf of the Belfast lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voluntary group QueerSpace."

"During the initial three-day hearing in March, Mr Lee said the refusal to bake the cake made him feel a “lesser person.”

"“It is not very pleasant to be considered not worthy of service because somebody else says they are Christian. It does not make me feel good in any respect,” Mr Lee told the court. “It made me feel I am not worthy; that I am a lesser person and to me that is wrong.”"

On the other side you have this;
"Daniel McArthur said during the case that they could not carry out the order because gay marriage was “contrary to the Bible”.

“Before God we felt this was something we could not do. We were not doing this in defiance of the law,” he said. “Our Christian faith is of the utmost importance, it is how we live our lives.”


Matt is right, this is about getting "the message out". Both sides had agreed beforehand that the settlement would be £500.

And that's why I said before that I've come to the conclusion that I really don't care.

OldAirmail wrote:Everyone, about 600 people, where I work has just gone through a mandatory two hour sensitivity class.

It's not because anything has happened. Although I'm pretty sure that the corporate lawyers want to head off any law suits.


What was made very clear was that there are "certain protected groups", and that these protected groups must not be offended.

Offending members of "certain protected groups" will probably pull down the full force of the state, federal, & local governments.

Plus, the offended person, or persons, can take you to court for being offended.

I think the main problem with all of this, it that everyone has the right to be offended as long as you are not white and heterosexual which is rather ironic really. We have just had another case in the UK where a pub chain refused entry to some gipsies, sorry "travellers" ( ) and were successfully prosecuted under racial discrimination laws. So now because you live in a caravan, you are a different race......?
What is interesting about this story was, they were refused entry because the pub had had trouble with the same group the previous year (they were at a pikey conference). Now this is where I think it was getting to be taking the yellow stuff. The three "travellers" who sued and won were...........A vicar, a lawyer and a police inspector.....All of whom lived in nice comfortable houses with steady respectable jobs which are not on the whole gipsy preserves of leaving a mess where ever you go a stealing anything that is not nailed down and even then they will try an pry if up.. So they used their far back roots as a defence to being offended. But so proud of these roots they have chosen to abandon them for nice houses and attending a conference once a year.

As I said, as long as you are not white, heterosexual, married, middle class, a couple of children, a Ford Mondeo, a dog and maybe a garden pond than you are well within your rights to be offended at the drop of a hat. If you are in this group..........then shut up and do what you are told.........!

I'm searching for the ultimate minority.


This will be a left handed Polynesian of mixed Eskimo/African decent who has had a sex change from male to female after converting from Baptist to Catholicism.

She will soon declare that she is a lesbian.

PS - she will be running for office as a Republican.