A perverted campaign against LGBT rights in Houston
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Are you planning to discriminate? Jeez, no wonder you lost your clients.
Well you immediately demonstrate a simple failure of "equal treatment."
Which parties are similarly situated here? A business owner providing services and a customer hiring services? You've got to be kidding.
Right, you also can't torture animals...what is your point?
My specialty is employment law and regulations; not public accommodation law.
In any case, someone hadn't made the right legal argument. Unless the club has no members, then they're obviously getting members from "the public" and therefore, the "private" veil could be pierced.
Not to mention that they sell more than memberships and greens fees. They sell food and drink. They sell clothes. They sell golf equipment. They sell golf lessons. A creative lawyer would get the "private club" designation tossed with little effort.
Further review shows that private clubs have been ruled to be "public accommodations" in the past, and the requirements for having your club remain private are narrowing over time.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124588111858449559
Do you want discrimination stamped out in this country or not? If a customer harms you, then you should be able to sue. If a customer comes into your store and breaks a bunch of stuff, you should be able to sue for those damages, right? So why's it so far fetched that you could sue for damages if a customer's illegal discrimination harms your business?
Yes, denial of a cake is equivalent to torture.
Moral equivalence, table for one....
"What goes too far is this bigoted ad and its perversion of the facts. It is an outright lie to say “any man at any time could enter a woman’s bathroom at any time simply by claiming to be a woman that day.” Such a statement reveals a willful ignorance of what it means to be transgender."
I don't understand this. Is the article saying this couldn't and wouldn't happen? Someone can't possibly pretend to be a tranny in order to get a peek? I don't understand the ignorance.
I have said since day one this would be an issue-- you WILL have a Pat go into a girls locker room and disrobe letting his hoo-hoo dilly hang out in front of 10 year old girls and I do have a problem with that. But I'm supposed to be ok with that? As a father of a three year old girl I'm supposed to be ok with allowing men who think they're women or who want to pretend to be women so they can get their rocks off get naked in front not my daughter and I shouldn't do anything about it? That's absurd. Call me a bigot if you must, but I will take great exception of this happened to any of my kids.
I don't understand this. Is the article saying this couldn't and wouldn't happen? Someone can't possibly pretend to be a tranny in order to get a peek? I don't understand the ignorance.
I have said since day one this would be an issue-- you WILL have a Pat go into a girls locker room and disrobe letting his hoo-hoo dilly hang out in front of 10 year old girls and I do have a problem with that. But I'm supposed to be ok with that? As a father of a three year old girl I'm supposed to be ok with allowing men who think they're women or who want to pretend to be women so they can get their rocks off get naked in front not my daughter and I shouldn't do anything about it? That's absurd. Call me a bigot if you must, but I will take great exception of this happened to any of my kids.
That has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever read.
Now that I've read this one, I'm having a hard time figuring out which of your statements is the dumbest one.
Businesses do not have a right to be profitable.
Then again, this could be the dumbest one, yet.
Businesses do NOT have the right to be profitable.
Talk about dumb, simplistic statements.
Businesses most certainly have the right to seek damages from those who harm them. Of course you're not guaranteed a profit, but you damn sure have a right to go after someone who intentionally harms your business.
How can workers and consumers have all these protections, but businesses don't? It's a screwed up, one-way system, and it's not right.
You have to realize that the threshold for proving discrimination would be very high. The consumer or employee would have to be stupid enough to make some sort of statement indicating discriminatory intent when harming the business.
So, if the customer refused to patronize your restaurant because she didn't like your food, no damages.
But of the customer refused to order because you assigned a black waitress to serve her, DAMAGES.
Your statements are still dumb and simpleminded.
Let's put your employment example into professional sports terms. The Dodgers are willing to pay Anthony Rizzo 1.5x his current salary. The Cubs are willing to go up to 1.25x his current salary, but will not pay as much as the Dodgers. Rizzo decides he likes to play for the Cubs and does not want to play for the Dodgers and is more than happy to do so at a lower salary. Should Rizzo be forced to play for the Dodgers simply because they are willing to pay more?
Businesses do not have the right to be profitable.
Period.
Full stop.
businesses do have the right to operate freely though, or at least they did, prior to the takeover
you can hamhand and ram through agendas in this commie country now if you are leftist or lbgt
you are to shut it and pipe down if you are capitalist or conservative or republican or wear a ron paul hat or have a gun or are a Texan, in this commie run country
you can hamhand and ram through agendas in this commie country now if you are leftist or lbgt
you are to shut it and pipe down if you are capitalist or conservative or republican or wear a ron paul hat or have a gun or are a Texan, in this commie run country
This is why your posts make you look dumb. If someone doesn't like your food, that's YOUR fault. Make a better product than your competitor. Simple as that.
The Dodgers are owned by Guggenheim Partners, which is controlled by the Guggenheim family. They're Jewish. If Rizzo made some statement about not wanting to play for the Dodgers because he didn't want to work for Jews, then the Dodgers should be able to seek damages.
Works the same way for employers. People accuse employers of making decisions with discriminatory intent; the employer then has to show a valid business reason for the decision.
This should go both ways.
Wow, the point really sailed over your head, there.
If someone doesn't like the food, no damages. That's on the employer.
If someone doesn't like the protected class that you belong to, or your employees belong to, and harms the employer over it, the employer should be able to seek damages.
Here's what you said:"why don't I have a right to hire the superstar salesman? This is the employment arena, not personal choice. If I'm willing to pay more, you should have to come work for me or pay me damages."
No, ifs, no qualifying statements.
Just found it tucked away on page 3.
Yes, you had made a point about someone not wanting to work for you because you're a gay business owner and 'hotshot' salesman doesn't want to work for you because you're gay.
Now, let's take this to a different level. If you were somehow legally able to force him/her to work for you, would you also legally be able to force him/her to do the job to the best of his/her ability? I'm not talking about someone purposely driving away customers or committing some sort of malfeasance that affects your bottom line. But, maybe not going the extra or even full effort he/she would for some other company.
It seems to me you would want salespeople who would do the best job for you, and that individual may or may not be necessarily the best salesperson.
Last edited:
Employers are required to reinstate employees as part of a discrimination charge settlement all the time. So, how can the employer force such an employee to be a good employee? They can't. Anything they do or say could result in the filing of a retaliation charge for the filing of the original discrimination charge.
I'm simply asking for equal treatment under the law.
you will never get fair treatment under the law, tradition, as long as we have a dictator system instead of: the congress making the laws, the prez signs them, the supreme court reviews them. that's how it is supposed to be but we have tyranny and the supremes make the laws now and they are activists and they go around congress and the prez
so the activists now say that "tradition is screwed" and the lbgt's get special treatment and all you folks are to shut it and pipe down
so the activists now say that "tradition is screwed" and the lbgt's get special treatment and all you folks are to shut it and pipe down
Your original point was not about reinstatement, but rather about forcing a person to work for your company and asking for damages if said person refused to work for you. There is no way to judge how much this person cost your company because there is no way to determine how much value they would have brought to your company if you cannot force someone to work to the best of their ability.
Wait, so you really believe this? I thought you were just arguing an extreme position to try to make the discrimination law appear equally extreme. But if you really believe in forced patronage and employment you are again off the rails.
Tell me you don't really believe this. Step back from the edge. Go back to the guy who thought it was justified to sue the company who discriminated against the army employee. Figure out why you think that's the correct action and this should all become clear.
Yep, you should just should shut it and pipe down. Nothing you say has any relevance anyway.
Is this thing on? Am I typing in English? Or is there something wrong on your end of the internet?
I am not calling for "forced patronage" or "forced employment." I am saying that if a customer or an employee has a discriminatory intent that leads to an adverse action against the employer, then the employer should have some legal recourse, just like customers and employees do.
Businesses have never been free of regulation on this continent. They were regulated under the pilgrims, the crown and congress. I think the right believes the crazy things so readily because they are so blind to history and the reality of the world.
and I think the commie takeover dates back to the pilgrims-maybe even before that
Got a link to support that, Sparky?
Other than torts, there was absolutely zero federal regulations on business until the late 19th century when the government went after the railroads. Later it was the robber barons, and things really got going with the New Deal (minimum wage and payroll taxes).
Civil rights regulations on business didn't happen until 1964.
Just look up "British Acts of Trade". This is a very simplistic view of the topic, but gives a decent overview of British government regulation of businesses.
Also, in 1824 the Supreme Court (Gibbons v Ogden) reaffirmed the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce. The "Commerce Clause" is right there in the constitution.
In case you missed it, I was focused on U.S. federal regulations on business. We know that England regulated business, and that was one of the reasons we declared independence.
