The Pitters' Place

...will force businesses who choose to discriminate against lgbt people to publicly display their policies.

I approve.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/okla ... Q.facebook

I do as well.

It will be interesting to see how this will affect the sales numbers of the discriminating companies.

On the other hand:
What if all businesses will start discriminating?

phe_de wrote: What if all businesses will start discriminating?

How do you mean?

A better law would prohibit said discrimination.

Boomer wrote:

phe_de wrote: What if all businesses will start discriminating?

How do you mean?

What if in some rural area, all businesses will advertise: No service to <homos/blacks/unmarried women>?
Where will the members of the discriminated groups turn to?

A positive outcome might be that some businesses will advertise: We do not discriminate. And if these businesses prevail, then maybe there's hope for humanity.

I don't follow your reasoning.

Were the businesses not discriminating before, but now they magically are?

phe_de wrote:

Boomer wrote:

phe_de wrote: What if all businesses will start discriminating?

How do you mean?

What if in some rural area, all businesses will advertise: No service to <homos/blacks/unmarried women>?
Where will the members of the discriminated groups turn to?

A positive outcome might be that some businesses will advertise: We do not discriminate. And if these businesses prevail, then maybe there's hope for humanity.

It's illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, and (although I'm less sure of this) on sex. Anyway, I'm guessing the theory in this case is that by forcing businesses to formally announce their discrimination, the free market will eventually weed them out. However, I agree that a complete ban is far more preferable, as I'm quite certain there will be many people who will be more likely to shop at such places because of their policies (a la Chick Fil A)

"However, I agree that a complete ban is far more preferable, as I'm quite certain there will be many people who will be more likely to shop at such places because of their policies (a la Chick Fil A)"

I'm very reluctant to force businesses to do business with people who they don't want to deal with.

If I owned a store and a group from the WBC or some klan members walked in, there's no way I would serve them.

Boomer wrote:"However, I agree that a complete ban is far more preferable, as I'm quite certain there will be many people who will be more likely to shop at such places because of their policies (a la Chick Fil A)"

I'm very reluctant to force businesses to do business with people who they don't want to deal with.

If I owned a store and a group from the WBC or some klan members walked in, there's no way I would serve them.

I'd argue there's a difference in discriminating between those groups and discriminating based on race, gender, or orientation.

I completely agree, however from a legal standpoint there's not much distinction.

Even if you wanted to deny service to WBC or klan members, you need to be very careful and very specific in how you do it.

Monk wrote:It's illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, and (although I'm less sure of this) on sex.

Is that so?

From the article:
“The notice may refer to the person's religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race."

But maybe I just got the wrong Idea.

Boomer wrote:I don't follow your reasoning.

Were the businesses not discriminating before, but now they magically are?

That's what I was thinking. From what I understood, discriminating was illegal before the law; and now it is, as long as the company advertises who it discriminates against.

If I'm wrong and discriminating is still illegal, then I stand corrected, and you can ignore what I said.

phe_de wrote:

Monk wrote:It's illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, and (although I'm less sure of this) on sex.

Is that so?

From the article:
“The notice may refer to the person's religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race."

But maybe I just got the wrong Idea.

Pretty sure it violates Civil Rights Act.