RE: Refusal of Goods and Services

RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 5:51:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I see I have to spell this out. Why, if an employee new his/her job was a risk depending on a vote, would that employee tell the employer (or advertise with signs etc.)? Yeah, you're right. When they don't agree with the left they should just shut the fuck up and not speak out. That's a good idea. I've got another good one for you: Why should ANYONE'S job be at risk because of their political beliefs? If that's true, I know a few "journalists" that should be dismissed, immediately. Michael Seriously, what's your problem? How did this abruptly become a "agree with the left" issue. You don't think this happens with Republican employers? You can Google those stories. Now, aside from your wild leap, I agree entirely -- no one's job should be at risk for their political beliefs. . . . although I bet a fair number of posters here would fire someone for, say, pro-Muslim country sympathies. But in the real world, employers do, and there's no law against it. An employee can move on or be more careful. Not saying it's a good thing--just reality as it stands today. "Only four states – California, Colorado, New York and North Dakota – protect workers from being fired for legal activity outside of work. For the rest, workers can and have been fired for anything from smoking to cross-dressing, all in the privacy of their homes. The growing practice of employers demanding job applicants to hand over their Facebook passwords underscores the blurring of the work-life divide in this information age." "A number of Romney backers took it upon themselves to spell out more clearly to their workers what "the best interest for their job" really means," for example. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/26/can-company-fire-you-for-way-you-vote

bounty44 -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 5:53:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: what if it was the morning after pill? That's actually one of the few medications I'm not likely to need in this lifetime. [:)] The hypotheticals that crossed my mind were folks who don't approve of psychiatric medications or painkillers. Or who believe no one should need contraceptives outside of marriage. Another possibility, given that many pharmacies offer flu shots, might be an anti-vaxxer. Then there's the tricky business of folks who don't believe in blood transfusions. How does one balance their rights with a patient's? again, one likes to think that people weigh their conscience against their future job requirements and if there is not a match, they don't go into that field.

dcnovice -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 5:57:18 PM)
quote: You don't think this happens with Republican employers? You can Google those stories. Closer to home, we had a poster some years back brag repeatedly about firing an employee who supported Obama.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 5:57:25 PM)
This is going to be fun (and easy): quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice The hypotheticals that crossed my mind were folks who don't approve of psychiatric medications or painkillers. Or who believe no one should need contraceptives outside of marriage. Lack of contraceptives are not going to endanger anyone's life; except in the case that the birth control pill is often used for ladies who bleed, excessively when "the curse" comes to call. Once again, it depends upon intent. Also, it's been my experience that people who don't approve of contraception make no distinction between inside or outside of matrimony. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Another possibility, given that many pharmacies offer flu shots, might be an anti-vaxxer. I cannot help but to laugh at the multitudes of "anti-vaxxers" that go into pharmacology as a career. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Then there's the tricky business of folks who don't believe in blood transfusions. How does one balance their rights with a patient's? Well, I don't know of any pharmacies where blood transfusions are administered. *Usually*, that's done in hospitals (emergency rooms). So, applying it to pharmacies is a bit intellectually dishonest. That said, OBVIOUSLY it would be an issue in hospitals and I would favor a "law" that makes it mandatory to have at least one doctor on staff that is willing to provide transfusions (except that such a law would be frivolous as this is another bullshit scenario). Michael

dcnovice -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 5:59:57 PM)
FR D.C. has abundant pharmacies, but only one--opposite my workplace--is on my daily flight path. When you're a non-car-owner toting an oxygen tank, that is no small consideration.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 6:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: what if it was the morning after pill? That's actually one of the few medications I'm not likely to need in this lifetime. [:)] The hypotheticals that crossed my mind were folks who don't approve of psychiatric medications or painkillers. Or who believe no one should need contraceptives outside of marriage. Another possibility, given that many pharmacies offer flu shots, might be an anti-vaxxer. Then there's the tricky business of folks who don't believe in blood transfusions. How does one balance their rights with a patient's? That was just one that occurred to me immediately because I had heard of several of those happening. Considering how many rapes go unreported, girls and women deal with it on their own but at least try to take care of that aspect of it but meet a brick wall when they do...how many pharmacies are they going to go to before they give up in shame, humiliation, etc? And I have heard of the same happening with contraceptives. My view is, its your job. But then you have the case of Kim Davis. She was not only able to refuse to do her job, but she was able to block others from doing theirs.

dcnovice -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 6:07:41 PM)
quote: This is going to be fun I'm glad I could bring some joy to one whose posts suggest a real need for it. quote: Well, I don't know of any pharmacies where blood transfusions are administered. Usually, that's done in hospitals (emergency rooms). So, applying it to pharmacies is a bit intellectually dishonest. That said, OBVIOUSLY it would be an issue in hospitals and I would favor a "law" that makes it mandatory to have at least one doctor on staff that is willing to provide transfusions (except that such a law would be frivolous as this is another bullshit scenario). Mea culpa. In my East Coast, liberal elitism, I figured folks were swift enough to realize I'd branched out from pharmacies. Apologies for failing to consider your special needs.

vincentML -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 10:18:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: If Melanie Trump declares that she wants Dior to dress her for the Inauguration, and Dior refuses to due to political beliefs, should Melania be able to take Dior to court for it? The Trump ladies are not a protected class. Nor is political opinion. Simple as that. And it is a political attack against Trump, it is as simple as that. Civil Rights Law does not shelter politicians. Why would you think it does? Do you think there is only one law? Do you think an employer can get away with firing someone for voting the "wrong " way? The same laws that prohibit that would apply to this. Different law same problem. I believe there are two sets of Laws that are divergent from each other and pertain to different areas. The OP title was Refusal of Goods and Services. In that, establishments of public accommodations are prohibited from refusing service and goods to "protected groups" by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Clearly, the Trump ladies are not part of any protected group if as claimed the fasionistas are discriminating against them because of their politics. The other stream of court cases stem from the rights protected by the Constitutional "Bill of Rights." In this stream the government, not public accommodations, is prohibited from interfering with various rights. There may be a conflict between these two case steams when the issue is religious belief. I don't know if there has been any case law that has settled that specific conflict. To answer your question, your political speech is not protected from the actions of your employer unless you work for a government agency or one that is supported by government money. I may be wrong and perhaps you can enlighten me with a specific case where a non-government employer was stopped by the courts from firing an employee for his political opinions.

crazyml -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/17/2017 4:34:03 AM)
So the question at the top of the article is : "If fashion designers can refuse service to the Trumps based on principle, why can’t bakers and florists follow their own principles?" The answer is very very simple. So simple that even the rightists on the board should be able to get help understanding it. It is not illegal to refuse service to the trumps in this case. It was illegal for the bakery to refuse service in their case. It really is that simple. Gather round... You see, there are these people who are elected to make laws. They passed laws making it illegal to discriminate against certain groups of people. They didn't list politicians. They didn't list political beliefs. They listed - race, disability, and in many cases they listed sexual orientation. There now, that wasn't too hard was it? Now y'all can get your helpers to wipe the drool off your chins.

mnottertail -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/17/2017 5:00:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Mea culpa. In my East Coast, liberal elitism, I figured folks were swift enough to realize I'd branched out from pharmacies. Apologies for failing to consider your special needs. But that east coast liberal elitism is kinda hip and edgy on you right now.

KenDckey -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/17/2017 5:42:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Presumably a conservative idea is always right, even if it resembles a progressive idea that is always wrong. Not at all what he said. There does not seem to be any concern when those on the left discriminate against conservatives but let someone on the right do the same thing and there is Hell to pay. Demonstrating the partisan selective outrage that he's is complaining about the left monopolising in his original post, yes. Have you really drank too much of that potent koolade to understand that it's hypocrisy whichever side displays a double standard that favours them? And it is that very hypocrisy he is pointing out. The left has been not just complaining about but prosecuting the very things they now embrace as their right, and consider even a negative opinion to be violating their rights while thinking that they are perfectly within their rights to ruin the lives of those who disagree with them. Your right the left is full of hypocrites. And so is the right, obviously. Either the same standards apply to both or they apply to neither: arguing otherwise is dramatic organ sting hypocrisy. Exactly. If you are going to prosecute a cake maker for his religious belief, then you must also prosecute a dress maker for his political belief when their belief denies a service or product to someone they oppose based upon their beliefs. Political correctness in action. And if we apply the standards of the left, the dress maker is still in trouble. To say (successfully ) that someone should be sued out of business if they agree with you, but later when someone you agrees with it you pretend it is just fine is hypocritical. After you have lost when arguing against those suits you take the position that it is now settled law and good for the goose , good for the gander there is no hypocrisy. Unless, as it seems once you argue on one side even if the law says you are wrong you have to stick to that position. This of course means that the Democratic party must still support slavery and the Klan. If not they must be, by your "logic", be hypocrites. Actually I see it as hypocritical because 1) political speech/opinion is protected by the first amendment just like religion, etc 2) if it illegal to express one or the other of the protected classes, it must be applied to all. Personally, I think that people should be allowed to decidee who does business with whom, but that isn't what the courts have stated. Instead, they have indicated the contrary in bakery, etc.

Musicmystery -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/17/2017 6:39:46 AM)
Well, the first amendment protects political speech from the government, not from your employer or business providers. Doesn't make it right. A lot of people hide behind things that aren't right but are technically legal.

vincentML -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/17/2017 6:41:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Presumably a conservative idea is always right, even if it resembles a progressive idea that is always wrong. Not at all what he said. There does not seem to be any concern when those on the left discriminate against conservatives but let someone on the right do the same thing and there is Hell to pay. Demonstrating the partisan selective outrage that he's is complaining about the left monopolising in his original post, yes. Have you really drank too much of that potent koolade to understand that it's hypocrisy whichever side displays a double standard that favours them? And it is that very hypocrisy he is pointing out. The left has been not just complaining about but prosecuting the very things they now embrace as their right, and consider even a negative opinion to be violating their rights while thinking that they are perfectly within their rights to ruin the lives of those who disagree with them. Your right the left is full of hypocrites. And so is the right, obviously. Either the same standards apply to both or they apply to neither: arguing otherwise is dramatic organ sting hypocrisy. Exactly. If you are going to prosecute a cake maker for his religious belief, then you must also prosecute a dress maker for his political belief when their belief denies a service or product to someone they oppose based upon their beliefs. Political correctness in action. And if we apply the standards of the left, the dress maker is still in trouble. To say (successfully ) that someone should be sued out of business if they agree with you, but later when someone you agrees with it you pretend it is just fine is hypocritical. After you have lost when arguing against those suits you take the position that it is now settled law and good for the goose , good for the gander there is no hypocrisy. Unless, as it seems once you argue on one side even if the law says you are wrong you have to stick to that position. This of course means that the Democratic party must still support slavery and the Klan. If not they must be, by your "logic", be hypocrites. Actually I see it as hypocritical because 1) political speech/opinion is protected by the first amendment just like religion, etc 2) if it illegal to express one or the other of the protected classes, it must be applied to all. Personally, I think that people should be allowed to decidee who does business with whom, but that isn't what the courts have stated. Instead, they have indicated the contrary in bakery, etc. You really should go back to high school and take a Civics class, Ken.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02