Homosexual bill passed by OKC Council

[TedKennedy]

Yeah, but that's where it gets all grey. And frankly, I don't know that anyone has the right answer. In a personal, face to face relationship, I don't think anyone can argue that it's totally your choice if you even want to speak to someone. But if you are offering services, it gets difficult to find the line. So one person refuses a service to a particular group of individuals. That's their choice, right? But what happens when everyone suddenly starts refusing service to a group of people. Where does it go from "exercising my right to refuse service" to flat out discrimination. Each person feels it's their right to choose who they offer a service to. But collectively, an entire group of people is left out, and essentially discriminated against. So who is right? Both, probably. On it's face, it seems quite simple. I don't like you, I won't deal with you. But unchecked it could eventually become "you are from that group, you do not get the same overall treatment".

The law shouldn't really have a grey area. So the two options are nothing or you cannot refuse service to anyone based on these "criteria". And there you have it, a protected class is born.

Exactly. Taken to it's logical conclusion, one of the parties will be forced to deal with the other. That, my friend, ain't freedom.

 

[71buickfreak]

This isn't a utopia where people are all just, kind, and fair. Humans are a-holes, so you have to have laws to ensure that everyone gets a fair shake and isn't singled out just because more of the a-holes agree that your group shouldn't be allowed to live their life a certain way. There are just too many a-holes.

 

[SoonerP226]

But what happens when everyone suddenly starts refusing service to a group of people.

Then someone else will start providing service to them. That's the way capitalism works--there's always someone who's more interested in a person's money than any of his other attributes.

 

[TedKennedy]

This isn't a utopia where people are all just, kind, and fair. Humans are a-holes, so you have to have laws to ensure that everyone gets a fair shake and isn't singled out just because more of the a-holes agree that your group shouldn't be allowed to live their life a certain way. There are just too many a-holes.

See Sooner's reply above. Life isn't fair, and you get to have a free society, or a "fair" society. You can't have both.

 

[donner]

That, my friend, ain't freedom.

Yes and no. You're still free to stop provide the service completely. People here are quick to point out that an employee can quit if they don't like the employer's terms. Same goes for this. Don't like the laws imposed, quit trying to sell that service.

Then someone else will start providing service to them. That's the way capitalism works--there's always someone who's more interested in a person's money than any of his other attributes.

Ideally, yes, that might be true. But history is full of examples where capitalism fails when faced with institutionalized discrimination

 

[rlongnt]

Well at least the goat guy that got arrested over the holidays will be able to get a section 8 apartment when he gets out. Love wins... Merika!

 

[toehanus]

Butt......adults could be having butt sex in my rental property. Butt sex depreciates the property value.

Insert a butt sex clause in the rental agreement.


www.infinityok.net

 

[TedKennedy]

Yes and no. You're still free to stop provide the service completely.

That makes sense. Free to conduct business with everyone, or no one at all. Kind of like kindergarten and sharing. That makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Wait a minute - I AM fuzzy!

 

[trickydick]

$3.50

What you know bout dat tree fidy????

 

[SoonerP226]

Ideally, yes, that might be true. But history is full of examples where capitalism fails when faced with institutionalized discrimination

When?