Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
kimmy

Indiana "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" controversy

Recommended Posts

Ah ... Bryan and Hydraboss ... my two favourite sore losers consoling one another. Sweet!:D

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may have been mentioned earlier, ever have a an interview when trying to find a new family doctor? I have, smokers weren't welcome, other people have too, some turned down for being too old, here in Canada. I wouldn't say it's the right thing to do, but it happens. Discriminatory?

http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=309fc048-8b96-4c21-8812-da393bdfb663

Your link isn't going to a relevant article, poochy.

No, smokers don't have such protection.

Interesting though ... I wonder if such doctors also refuse to treat other high-risk populations ... and why does it matter to them?

It's all money in the bank for them.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to be less prejudiced and more discriminating about what's really at issue.

You can decide to politely not offer a host/hostess a job but you'd be in trouble if your ad or sign said fat and ugly people need not apply.

So what a business can't do is be deliberately and obviously bigoted towards the public.

As for religious bigotry, I think any deity that needs its followers to have a legally enshrined right to discriminate should be required to apply to a government for a special permit to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answers are already in this thread multiple times. I'm not falling for your troll bait. Do your own homework.

So I took you up on your 'homework' thing.

Went back over this whole thread.

And no, you offer nothing like you suggest you 'listed' ***, so the statement, "thanks for the non answer' stands.

Troll bait? Your the one in here claiming BS thanks, and no , one cannot discriminate (although many try) when dealing in a public business.

*** Hopefully not to claim you put forth the idiotic female gym idea thats been denounced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Restaurant hostesses aren't hired for their attractiveness?

Not much of what you're saying is specifically about the topic of this thread either. I was just responding to your narrow-minded nonsense.

We aren't talking about hiring. <sigh>

The thread is about a business serving the general public but refusing to serve a gay couple.

You gave no relevant examples.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went back over this whole thread.

Obviously not. If you had, you'd have a list.

*** Hopefully not to claim you put forth the idiotic female gym idea thats been denounced.

If you really "went back through the whole thread" you know that other people raised that point, not me. But since you're actually talking about something specific this time, I'll address it: You can "denounce" the gender discrimination all you want, it still completely voids your entire argument because it's true whether you like it or not. If you really read the thread, you'd also know that I did comment on the attempts to dismiss the point by trying to claim that gyms aren't open to the public. Like I said, it's a distinction without a difference. They absolutely are open to the public, anyone can walk in and pay to use the treadmill without buying a membership. Pay for a wedding, pay for a workout, it's all serving the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't talking about hiring. <sigh>

The thread is about a business serving the general public but refusing to serve a gay couple.

You gave no relevant examples.

.

Those same businesses that are really picky about the appearance of their staff are often also picky about the appearance of their clientelle. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is just a starting point, some are even pickier than that. And it's perfectly fine for them to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those same businesses that are really picky about the appearance of their staff are often also picky about the appearance of their clientelle. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is just a starting point, some are even pickier than that. And it's perfectly fine for them to do so.

Give it up.

You're just wrong, Bryan.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give it up.

You're just wrong, Bryan.

.

Why is he wrong ? Please keep the argument going - it's not enough to say somebody is 'wrong', it doesn't foment discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is he wrong ? Please keep the argument going - it's not enough to say somebody is 'wrong', it doesn't foment discussion.

Check the thread, Michael. We've been over and over it, and it's over.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check the thread, Michael. We've been over and over it, and it's over.

.

No - the point is that I don't have to check the thread. You should refer to what is wrong and why you think that. If the discussion is done, then there's no post to be made, no discussion to be had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give it up.

You're just wrong, Bryan.

.

No he is not wrong....employers can legally discriminate against employees based on gender for workplace dress codes and grooming standards (e.g. length of hair). Other public accommodations can similarly discriminate quite legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a dress code is hardly gender discrimination. An Air Canada pilot is required to wear a uniform regardless of their gender. I think we are talking Canada here so I suggest a little study of section 15 of the charter will give some insight into how tightly discrimination is controlled here. Employers and businesses certainly can not discriminate based on gender, and many other things. One exception would be for instance, were the job required the wearing of a hard, hat but someone applying for the job had religious requirement to wear a turban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can business' discriminate? Yes.

Can they discriminate with malice, bigotry and prejudice? Not without facing legal consequences.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - the point is that I don't have to check the thread. You should refer to what is wrong and why you think that. If the discussion is done, then there's no post to be made, no discussion to be had.

It's over if he doesn't make any more bogus claims without supporting them.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can business' discriminate? Yes.

Can they discriminate with malice, bigotry and prejudice? Not without facing legal consequences.

True.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...