esmith
Veteran Member
Well, now the legal proceedings will start.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.ba1b61456137
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.ba1b61456137
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Be sure to always quote some text for sources with a pay wall.Well, now the legal proceedings will start.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.ba1b61456137
Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).
These were products they already carried.And here I thought that conservatives actually believe that the government shouldn't intrude on what a private business may or may not wish to sell that is legal otherwise.
One person's ethical behavior is another's illegal discrimination.In a rare move, corporations that usually lack any sort of ethical backbone take a surprising stand on an issue that has failed to be acted upon appropriately by the offices that should be taking leadership on the matter. It's both unsurprising and disheartening to see it challenged.
Age and sexual orientation are different. Just as race is a different thing. The kicker is age discrimination is already rampant depending on products and services and depending on the state laws.I guess if someone can sue over a gay wedding cake....and no it isn't different.
There is a big difference when the government and multiple states are looking to enact the very thing those stores are being sued over. I didn’t see a big push for wedding cake legislation like there is for gun legislation. Miles apart.One person's ethical behavior is another's illegal discrimination.
Guns & wedding cakes have this in common.
Age and sexual orientation are different. Just as race is a different thing. The kicker is age discrimination is already rampant depending on products and services and depending on the state laws.
In both cases, it's illegal discrimination.There is a big difference when the government and multiple states are looking to enact the very thing those stores are being sued over. I didn’t see a big push for wedding cake legislation like there is for gun legislation. Miles apart.
There is a big difference when the government and multiple states are looking to enact the very thing those stores are being sued over. I didn’t see a big push for wedding cake legislation like there is for gun legislation. Miles apart.
Yup not surprising but they should be applauded for getting ahead of laws that many states want to pass anyway.In a rare move, corporations that usually lack any sort of ethical backbone take a surprising stand on an issue that has failed to be acted upon appropriately by the offices that should be taking leadership on the matter. It's both unsurprising and disheartening to see it challenged.
Yes states and federal issues get the into things with age. There is a law I saw where employment can’t be dicriminated if your under forty, yeah there is already age discrimination because it isn’t all that protected. Also it isn’t arbitrary, it is very specific to even something the president and several states have proposed.But those are state and federal issues, this is an issue of companies arbitrarily imposing age restrictions on products they already sell despite the state and federal laws.
The difference is very significant. One tried to use religious rights and the other has to do with sale of deadly weapons that already has dicriminatory power. Like those poor felons and domestic abusers that lose their second amendment rights.In both cases, it's illegal discrimination.
And both stores believe they're doing the right thing.
Those are similarities.
Sure there are differences.The difference is very significant. One tried to use religious rights and the other has to do with sale of deadly weapons that already has dicriminatory power. Like those poor felons and domestic abusers that lose their second amendment rights.
But it isn't lawAlso it isn’t arbitrary, it is very specific to even something the president and several states have proposed.
It would be much more interesting if a store gun advocate decided to sell guns to minors and felons and try and take that to court.Sure there are differences.
But under the law, both must comply with anti-discrimination
laws, their sense of ethics notwithstanding.