Any business already has the right to refuse service to whomever they want as it is, this is not a new concept.
First thing I thought of.
Except the disabled in many states, whom can sue the shit out of businesses that don’t meet accessibility requirements, even if it’s not physically possible for the businesses in question to do so.
That is true now that you mention it, remember an episode of Penn and Teller’s bullshit about that.
They know. The legislators are trying to “make a statement”.
So I take it Chick-fil-A is a no go?
I’m always down for Chic-Fil-A.
You can’t taste racism baby!
Easy fix. Start a gay friendly taco truck and set up shop outside anti-gay establishments then sit back and let the cash flow in.
Well, not really sit back, you’ll have to work but still, bank.
I’m sure if an establishment was run by someone who would do something like this, people in the community would shun it. At least I would hope so.
Oh yes you can, and unfortunately sometimes, it tastes delicious.
I can’t believe what I am reading in this thread. Seriously, the times I think SRK can’t sink any lower it finds a new level of Dante’s Inferno to occupy.
Yes, you can deny service to anyONE. If there’s a specific person you don’t want to serve, that’s fine. It is within your right. But you have a right to deny service to an entire group of people? Yeah, no. If that were okay, Jim Crow laws would have withstood the test of time but hey, they didn’t. Turns out niggers and spics can eat at your restaurant just like the white guy can and it’s wrong for you to discriminate based on how they were born. Gays are born that way, too. They shouldn’t be punished for it. Besides, who cares what you believe in? Whatever deity you pray to should have no bearing on how you treat other people.
I mean, seriously, guys. This is embarrassing for the entire state. There’s a reason it was vetoed the first time and should be vetoed again. It’s a disgusting practice we got over in the 1960s.
:wtf: I thought you a lawyer? How do you not know that anyone can sue anyone for basically anything in the U.S. Now whether a case gets thrown out or not before going to court is a completely different story, but you should know that countless complaints are brought on entities with the knowledge that they’ll be dismissed immediately just to “make waves” for better or worse.
The problem with you and hubcapsignstop (weird username :lol:) siding with the businesses freedom to operate however they want to is that both of you dodge the central dispute which is not the discrimination of gays in itself as much as the slippery slope it creates. You said at a point government does need to step in okay, let’s assume 1062 passes and now business can legally refuse service to gays. I’m curious to know what is the tipping point you referred to? What demographics should 1062 protect and which shouldn’t it protect? It would be hypocritical for you or anyone to say it’s legal to refuse service to gays, but not legal to refuse service to women, or blacks, or one eyed 35 year old men that served in the navy.
Also how the hell do you legally prove if someone is gay or not? That seems like a legal nightmare for both sides unless there are federal gaydar experts that I’m unaware of.
This is really one of those all or nothing issues IMO. Having any middle ground in this situation would be counter intuitive and contradictory, either everyone gets service from AZ business (barring whatever current legal restrictions) or no one, but to say one group is protected and another group isn’t really opens up a legal quagmire shifting the topic of conversation onto the fundamental motivations of the criteria from which AZ law is based on.
You’ve conflicted me.
Okay then legally how does a business prove it has refused service to an individual and not because that individual was part of a protected class? And legally how does an individual prove they were discriminated against for being part of a protected class and not just refused service for an individual reason?
It seems like a case of he said/she said to me and business tend to win that one lol.
If it walks like duck, talks like a duck, then yeah its a duck…
http://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/06/Mickey-Mouse-3.jpg
I honestly wonder how many cases of this legal “no gays allowed” shit will happen. Because like others have said sometimes you can’t tell, but I can only imagine how shady it would be if an obvious gay dude waltz into a place only to be escorted out upon sight.
Well you could, but a lawyer doing that is subject to sanctions. You’re in law school right? You will really need to learn to think like a lawyer. Think of what the cause of action would be, who the defendant would be, if there is standing and what the judgment could be. If you can’t answer all those questions, you probably are running the risk of getting sanctioned. Depending on the type of lawsuit and location, even the client can be subject to a counterclaim for attorneys fees and lose a considerably sum of money for bringing a stupid case. Courts don’t look very kindly on that type of thing as they’re pretty busy to begin with. When you start thinking like a lawyer maybe then you won’t come up with such dumb stuff. That is if you ever finish school, what is this now, you’re 10th year of undergrad+graduate school?
Seems strange to turn away business over something so trivial to your personal self shrug
You don’t say…
To me it’s just…
[details=Spoiler]Business as usual…
[/details]