LGBT News Jeb Bush: “People have a right” to refuse services to gays

That's right out of the Jim Crow south. They barely even filed off the serial numbers.

 

Here in 'Murica, we don't want to infringe upon your right to infringe upon others' rights.

 

That's complete absurd! :bang:

Religious freedom? Come on! What kind freedom who discriminate people because of your sexual orientation? This man is crazy like a lot of politics how put religious in ''most important issue in the world'' and forget about other rights!

:tantrum::tantrum::tantrum:

 

As an antitheist, I guess I also have the right to refuse services to religious people.

Oops, I forgot- they wouldn't like that.

 

So glad I'm English.
*cough cough 2006 equality act section 46 cough cough*

 

If religious discrimination against gays is okay, then any religious discrimination should be okay. My religion forbid me from talking to people of other races, so I'm going to put up on a sign on my bakery that says "WHITES ONLY". Protected religious freedom, right?

 

It is important to remember that they have a deeply held religious belief, and that the word of God is all supreme.
It's a similar moral logic that justifies the actions of ISIS. :tantrum:

 

...and if they try that shit on me and I will excercise my 2nd ammendment right.

 

I predict a 40% chance of racism, with some scattered sexism.

But good news, folks!

Thursday is going to lower all that down, to a respectable 32%.

Back to you, Chuck.

 

I'm probably going to get shit for this

But I agree with the idea that people should be able to refuse services to certain people

If it's your business it should be your rules

Now this also extends to me thinking the above post about refusing service to religious people is perfectly ok.

Not morally of course. Either case is a horrible thing to do. But people should be allowed to do it because if they're putting their time and money into something, that kind of thing should be their decision.

 

They like to focus on the freedom of religion, and ignore freedom from religion, don't they?

And no, I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Absolutely not.

 

I feel like private companies should have a right to refuse service to anyone they feel like, assuming they don't provide a basic necessity. If they want to alienate a huge portion of the market, let them destroy their business.

 

Except... that's called discrimination. Why should it be legal to refuse to do business with a person based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.?

"Sorry, women aren't allowed to buy chairs. I own this furniture store, and you need to come back with a man."

"I'd sell you the food if you had brown hair, but you don't so... bye."

---------- Post added 26th Mar 2015 at 09:27 PM ----------

My response here is the same as I replied to the above quote. If you're refusing services, it's easy to create a society that totally ignores the "non-essential" needs of a particular group of people.

 

Sadly Jeb Bush is what will make the presidential race in 2016 more competitive but hopefully he does not stand a chance at winning. We don't need a bigoted Bush at the white house. lol the way that sounds. Time to kick the bushes to the curb. lol sorry cannot help myself!

 

I still think it's crazy that people in this country could elect another Bush, especially so soon after his disaster of a brother. And his father left the country in a recession too, although not as bad as W's.

Anyway, I think he's falling quite a bit lately. Romney picked the wrong time to bail, there's a good chance he'd be the front runner.

I can't believe we are talking about this so soon...one more reason I like parliamentary systems is the limited campaigning time.

 

We've had ENOUGH BUSH in the White House to last for 10 centuries!!!


NO MORE BUSH!!!

 

Yeah! Make 'em shave...

Wait, what? Oh, that 'Bush'!

 

You're right. It is discrimination. And it's an absolutely horrible thing to do.

But it should be legal because as long as they are putting their time and money into something then it is nobody else's business who they serve.

 

"nonessential needs" is an oxymoron. Maybe I'm too optimistic but I think in terms of this particular issue, society will evolve and legislation isn't needed. A company that discriminates will be alienated and their bottom line will get hurt in the end. A new market will be opened (all the people discriminated against) and someone will happily exploit that new market and offer services that do not discriminate and make a boatload of money. Again, maybe I'm too optimistic about the self-correcting nature of the market. If the issue becauses serious, maybe legislation is needed, but if a couple stores want to discriminate (again, for non-essential items), then whatever. The less laws tell us how to act, the better.