Is there a republican Dems would vote for over Hillary?

[Gulo Blue]

Is it a real doctor if it's holistic medicine?

edit: it says the doctor was a pediatrician that took a holistic approach. I guess that 's a real doctor that went to med school doctor.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's a good point. I don't know if there are any additional classes in specific states either. I wouldn't be too surprised to find that California prohibits discrimination on the basis of diet, exercise regimen, or fashion preference.

You know what's not on the list? Political affiliation. Could you imagine if we get even more polarized than we currently are and people decided to start restricting their services based on voting?

You mean like how certain artists refuse to play in North Carolina because of the bathroom law?

 

[Gulo Blue]

You mean like how certain artists refuse to play in North Carolina because of the bathroom law?

Yeah. We've seen that (boycotts of places), we've seen political boycotts of businesses, but what about businesses denying individuals? Why not?

 

[Sbee]

Wow. According to the article, this doctor went back on an agreement she had made with the couple in full knowledge of the couples status.

That's pretty crappy; they have a right to be pissed off.

the doctor refused to treat the child, whose sexual orientation is yet to be determined. it was the sexual orientation of the parents that made the doctor unable to treat the child?

it's not just wedding cake, you open yourself up to a lot when you allow people to refuse their service for who the recipient is.

 

[Sbee]

taken to the extreme, I guess that's true but it's still a ridiculous statement. I'm not aware of any religion or institution that seeks to protect the sanctity of whiteness (other than the Democratic party and Planned Parenthood, that is). can you site an example of someone claiming anti-racial discrimination laws violate their rights to religious freedom?

Being for people's freedom to decide who they do business with and getting the government out of institutions they have no business being in isn't a pro-discrimination position. Calling people racist or homophobic because they don't want the government overstepping its bounds and running everyones lives is nonsense. but that's what you have to do - you know you're wrong about the government's role here so you have to villainize your opponent and claim a false sense of moral superiority in order to think you won the argument. Of course you throw in little factoids like fake libertarian Gary Johnson supports forcing the baker to sell the cake so you think it's a libertarian position. It's not libertarian and neither is Gary Johnson or his running mate.

People's freedom to decide who they do business with can create conflicts with the 14th amendment and how it's applied. Equal protection was cited in the 2015 ruling on same sex marriage so I can't see how discrimination based on sexual orientation could be constitutional.

 

[Thumb]

To the OP question: At this point no. Fuck the Republicans, they don't deserve to win.

They threw out a group of dipshits so bizarre that people decided Donald Fucking Trump would be a better nominee.

Since Romney and tsmith lost on November 6th, 2012, the Republicans have made it known they wanted the White House back, they had plenty of time to get their shit together and failed spectacularly, and in the process fractured the shit out of their party.

So if for some reason Trump drops out, and an actual human being takes over the republican ticket, I still would not vote for them, because fuck the republican party for trolling the shit out of America.

 

[KAWDUP]

People's freedom to decide who they do business with can create conflicts with the 14th amendment and how it's applied. Equal protection was cited in the 2015 ruling on same sex marriage so I can't see how discrimination based on sexual orientation could be constitutional.

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Certainly Ok if hygiene is involved.

 

[Sbee]

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Certainly Ok if hygiene is involved.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection only applies to protected classes of people, race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. the marriage equality case invoked due process and equal protection. There is no equal protection regarding clothing choices.

 

[KAWDUP]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection only applies to protected classes of people, race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. the marriage equality case invoked due process and equal protection. There is no equal protection regarding clothing choices.

Now what if I let that Catholic in with no shirt, but when that Muslim came in with no shirt, I denied him service. Same sign in the window. Does the same go for the exceptions you make against your own rules?

How about if it is a buddy that I let break the rules of my establishment, but not allow a protected class or even the average joe to break it?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Now what if I let that Catholic in with no shirt, but when that Muslim came in with no shirt, I denied him service. Same sign in the window. Does the same go for the exceptions you make against your own rules?

How about if it is a buddy that I let break the rules of my establishment, but not allow a protected class or even the average joe to break it?

I'll bet you can get away with it once or twice, because they probably have to somehow prove you are doing it based on religion with shirts as an excuse.

 

[Michchamp]

Now what if I let that Catholic in with no shirt, but when that Muslim came in with no shirt, I denied him service. Same sign in the window. Does the same go for the exceptions you make against your own rules?

How about if it is a buddy that I let break the rules of my establishment, but not allow a protected class or even the average joe to break it?

you can't discriminate against members of a protected class (eg race, gender, age, etc) if you are engaged in interstate commerce (ie open to the public). sounds like in your hypothetical youre discriminating against muslims, so yes.

The law doesn't become inapplicable just because you only did it once or it was an isolated incident. it would just be unlikely you'd get caught or anyone would care until it became a consistent pattern (both because it wouldnt be worth the cost of a lawsuit against you and problems with the burden of proof until you had established a consistent practice). also, for the same reason,you'd have plausible deniability if it seemed like an isolated incident, so its unlikely you'd be charged with a crime or sued by the party you discriminated against.

and this isn't as limiting to your options as it sounds. if you still want to have your shirtless hillbilly Catholic buddies over your place, make your joint a private club. you can be as trashy and racist as you want on your own property.