-->
@Vegasgiants
It's up to the court to answer those questions
It was the court's ruling that raises those questions. The Supreme Court is supposed to clarify, not obfuscate the law.
Supreme Court allows certain businesses to discriminate who they will serve
Posts
Total:
135
-->
@Sidewalker
I got their opinion crystal-clear
-->
@hey-yo
I think the purpose to vagueness allows error and therefore correction for years to come. If we make a decision blal amd white, then it creates a line for everyone to split on. Although that clarity may be nice, in this decision the future generations need more say in a full decision, and evidence to make that decision.Also, these decisions are not aimed solely at one demographic, it applies to everyone for everything. Cutting this black and white limits how things are applied to everyone. Instead we get a law that only affects one demographic and eveyone else may get shot in the dark.
It's a rogue Supreme Court, the "purpose to vagueness" is to open the door for discrimination, and it will turn the courts into the battleground of the culture war.
-->
@Sidewalker
I disagree. I don't see it as vague at all
-->
@Vegasgiants
I got their opinion crystal-clear
It's the best decision money can buy.
-->
@Sidewalker
It follows the constitution
You tell me you are an expert and to just take your word then your claim is dismissed
No one, not even myself, has ever said to anyone here “just take my word for it, because I’m the expert here”!! No one!!
And if you retort with anything other than your agreement to that fact, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove someone, anyone, said those words - exactly - in asserting their position on the subject under discussion.
TWS
I'm still waiting on yiu to.prove your a legal expert.
You can't
Dismissed
And you reply a LOT to a guy you have blocked
TWSI'm still waiting on yiu to.prove your a legal expert.You can'tDismissed
I never claimed to be [a] legal expert. I put forth that I have more academic and professional experience than you, which gives my stated positions more credibility than yours. That’s not claiming to be [an] expert, that’s stating a fact of experience and knowledge that exceeds yours.
And you reply a LOT to a guy you have blocked
And so do you and many others here at DART. So what! As if pointing this out means anything, other than to you cause you clearly think it’s an insult on some level. It’s not. It’s pointless, utterly irrelevant and a waste of time and energy addressing it. It’s rather banal, to be frank.
-->
@Vegasgiants
It follows the constitution
Like a predator follows it's prey.
-->
@Sidewalker
God I hope so
TWS
Prove that you have more academic and professional experience than me.
Without evidence your claim is dismissed
And frankly it destroys your credibility to make such a outlandish and unproven claim
I suppose being online,
Would remove some of the necessity from some businesses,
Compared for example the only grocery store in town, refusing to do business with X people.
Online more often has more options.
-->
@Sidewalker
The court is not rogue. Thats silly and incorrect. The court favors a different opinion than us. That is all.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Well thats why Im curious what evidence would be adequate. Weigh it against personal privacy to see what I can do (as a future reference for me. Your post just triggered a unique interest and captivation really).
-->
@hey-yo
I think the evidence will be adequate when scientific agencies like the APA say their is clear and convincing evidence of a cause for sexuality
Currently they do not say that
To me it makes total sense. I met some people that denied their services to other people, not necessarily gays, because they're free to deal with whoever they want. Example of it are the lawyers, architects, engineers, hookers, ... come on, as long as it's not a public service, they cannot be obligated to contract with a specific person.
What I consider a public service, though, is any kind of store accessible from the public space. So, if it's a bakery shop, they cannot deny their service.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Its not a inherent right to have a website made for you, so they can refuse service for you for any reason they want to
-->
@IlDiavolo
@Bill-0
There 'are platforms that nearly everyone uses or expects others to use though,
Gmail for example.
>
@hey-yo
I think the evidence will be adequate when scientific agencies like the APA say their is clear and convincing evidence of a cause for sexuality
That’s nothing more than appeal to authority fallacy without credibility.
The ACLU once stood for something just and noble, it no longer does. As such, they’ve lost their credibility. To cite them in support of something as “expert evidence” is laughable at best, obscenely negligent at worst.
TWS
The ACLU?
The ACLU?
READ IT AGAIN. LOL
-->
@Savant
Out of curiosity because I don’t believe anyone’s ever asked, what do you identify as politically-speaking?
Are your debates a reflection of your personal beliefs or a Devil’s Advocate approach?
-->
@Bill-0
There’s no inherent right to eat at a restaurant or stay at a hotel along a highway either. But you can’t refuse those to a gay couple because you think gay marriage is immoral
-->
@Lemming
You make a pretty good point, however google can refuse to allow anyone to use gmail if they so please to
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yeah you can lol, Any business reserves the right to refuse service for any reason, exept if its against a protected class, however if you have a religion that is against that stuff i guess its okay to not serve them.
Plus, serving a gay guy food is different than making a website about them being gay for them
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
@Bill-0
Shelter and food do seem to be different things compared to websites. One is more about survival (or it once was) while other is luxury.
But should that be mean there should be a difference?
-->
@hey-yo
Thats up for debate, Im sure they can find somone else who would be happy to make the website, so i dont see anything wrong with the refusal
-->
@Bill-0
Its not a inherent right to have a website made for you, so they can refuse service for you for any reason they want to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, the question becomes can you refuse to accept work from a protected class, would that be a form of "employment" discrimination?
-->
@Lemming
There 'are platforms that nearly everyone uses or expects others to use though,Gmail for example.
I think Gmail is a massive service meant to be accesible to everyone, but in the case of a webpage like this one, is more like a tailored service for a specific client, in which case a professional should be involved.
As in my example, a lawyer can refuse to defend a determined person for different reasons because he should tailor a defense strategy to that particular client, and maybe the lawyer doesn't get along with the client so he can refuse to keep defending him, it's his right to do so. Another example, a hooker can refuse to give her services to a client for different reasons, maybe because he smells bad or has a too big dick, or whatever, it's her right to do so.
That's up for debate, I'm sure they can find someone else who would be happy to make the website, so i don't see anything wrong with the refusal
I agree.