"Restrooms are for customers only"

[Rogue Hawk]

I went to get my bike serviced this weekend. When I do, I often wait at a nearby pub that attracts many riders. I noticed a difference when I walked up to the door, there was a new sign prominently stating "Restrooms are for customer only". Now, I wonder what prompted them to post that ;) I walked in and it was unusually crowded. There was one table for four and the bar available. I like my privacy so I wanted to sit at the table. The waitress approached and said, "You can't sit there, it's meant for four". Well naturally I complied. I did not like it, but my stern German mother ingrained in me a strong sense of politeness. So I sat at the bar. I mean, yes I am a customer, but I am also a guest at their establishment, so I should act appropriately.

What I was impressed by is how they handle customers. They don't just let people walk all over them. As soon as someone walks in for service, they take control of the situation. Pubs have been in business for hundreds of years and learned they must keep order. Without order, people won't come. This is common sense. But lately, common sense has been well...uncommon. If some feral turd (or two of them) gets unruly, there are businesses that bend over for them and take it up the wazoo. And then what happens? Your business gets overrun with feral turds and legitimate customers go were they can feel safe.

If I was advising a company, I would tell them if they are in the right, stand your ground. Give in once, and you become a cash cow for opportunists. The fake "Outrage" will die down. The pitch forks and torches will disappear. Just ride it out. The 'Outrage Police' is made up of mindless Brownshirts, so they have a short attention span. Perhaps people who get law degrees now are doing a brain dump these days, because they are certainly giving companies bad advice,

[vided]

And SCOTUS just ruled in favor of a businesses right to refuse their services.

[UtahPete]

If I was advising a company, I would tell them if they are in the right, stand your ground. Give in once, and you become a cash cow for opportunists. The fake "Outrage" will die down. The pitch forks and torches will disappear. Just ride it out. The 'Outrage Police' is made up of mindless Brownshirts, so they have a short attention span. Perhaps people who get law degrees now are doing a brain dump these days, because they are certainly giving companies bad advice,
And, what are your qualifications for making such broad, unsubstantiated statements?

[Bob Denman]

The customer may "always be right". But if someone just walks in to use the Bathroom: They're NOT a customer! nojoke

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

:agree::agree::agree: ..... I am in favor of Civil rights, however a very large Cabal in this country who used to insist on Civil rights.... are now only in favor of Civil rights of those who vote with the Cabal :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: :banghead:..... everyone else can just **** *** ** *** well you know what I mean :yikes: .... I believe St*r buck* is going to take a hit on their bottom line in the near future ...... jmho ....... Mike

[RinconRyder]

And SCOTUS just ruled in favor of a businesses right to refuse their services.

'Businesses" should be singular. SCOTUS specifically did NOT rule on a business-wide right of a business to refuse customers based upon religious or personal issues. They ruled only on one case - that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/narrow-ruling-supreme-court-gives-victory-baker-who-refused-make-n872946

[UtahPete]

..... I am in favor of Civil rights, however a very large Cabal in this country who used to insist on Civil rights.... are know only in favor of Civil rights for vote with the Cabal ... everyone else can just **** *** ** *** well you know what I mean :yikes: .... I believe St*r buck* is going to take a hit on their bottom line in the near future ...... jmho ....... Mike
I like you Mike, you know that. But, I wish you wouldn't engage in this kind of broad-brush denigration of and diatribe against your fellow Americans.

[Rogue Hawk]

And, what are your qualifications for making such broad, unsubstantiated statements?

I don't have the knowledge to analyze if they are in the right, so it is somewhat hypothetical. But if I could, and if the company is in the right, this would be advisable. It's like I am not a professional umpire, but their are times even a layman can tell if it's a ball or a strike.

[vided]

'Businesses" should be singular. SCOTUS specifically did NOT rule on a business-wide right of a business to refuse customers based upon religious or personal issues. They ruled only on one case - that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/narrow-ruling-supreme-court-gives-victory-baker-who-refused-make-n872946


Ok.
calm down, at least the state ruling was knocked down.

[UtahPete]

I don't have the knowledge to analyze if they are in the right, so it is somewhat hypothetical. But if I could, and if the company is in the right, this would be advisable. It's like I am not a professional umpire, but their are times even a layman can tell if it's a ball or a strike.

Until the last paragraph, I thought you were setting out to have a reasonable discussion about the rights and responsibilities of business owners to control what happens in their establishment. But, the last paragraph showed your true intent was to denigrate professionals who don't interpret the law the way you think it should be enforced and interpreted.

Just another right-wing rant. Nothing to see here.

[UtahPete]

'Businesses" should be singular. SCOTUS specifically did NOT rule on a business-wide right of a business to refuse customers based upon religious or personal issues. They ruled only on one case - that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/narrow-ruling-supreme-court-gives-victory-baker-who-refused-make-n872946
I think he was trying to come up with the possessive form of the singular noun.

See how confusing communication can become when folks don't know or respect English grammar, spelling and punctuation?

[vided]

I think he was trying to come up with the possessive form of the singular noun.

See how confusing communication can become when folks don't know or respect English grammar, spelling and punctuation?


KMLWA :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

[UtahPete]

KMLWA :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:
Well, I guess I should at least thank you for not attempting another assault on the English language.

[ARtraveler]

Careful...this thread could go down the toilet. :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

[UtahPete]

Careful...this thread could go down the toilet. :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

:thumbup:

[johnsimion]

I went to get my bike serviced this weekend. When I do, I often wait at a nearby pub that attracts many riders. I noticed a difference when I walked up to the door, there was a new sign prominently stating "Restrooms are for customer only". Now, I wonder what prompted them to post that ;) I walked in and it was unusually crowded. There was one table for four and the bar available. I like my privacy so I wanted to sit at the table. The waitress approached and said, "You can't sit there, it's meant for four". Well naturally I complied. I did not like it, but my stern German mother ingrained in me a strong sense of politeness. So I sat at the bar. I mean, yes I am a customer, but I am also a guest at their establishment, so I should act appropriately.

What I was impressed by is how they handle customers. They don't just let people walk all over them. As soon as someone walks in for service, they take control of the situation. Pubs have been in business for hundreds of years and learned they must keep order. Without order, people won't come. This is common sense. But lately, common sense has been well...uncommon. If some feral turd (or two of them) gets unruly, there are businesses that bend over for them and take it up the wazoo. And then what happens? Your business gets overrun with feral turds and legitimate customers go were they can feel safe.

If I was advising a company, I would tell them if they are in the right, stand your ground. Give in once, and you become a cash cow for opportunists. The fake "Outrage" will die down. The pitch forks and torches will disappear. Just ride it out. The 'Outrage Police' is made up of mindless Brownshirts, so they have a short attention span. Perhaps people who get law degrees now are doing a brain dump these days, because they are certainly giving companies bad advice,

I agreed with everything you wrote until I got to the last sentence. No, I'm not going to defend lawyers even though I am one myself. I know there are plenty of lazy, dumb ones. However, I am going to share my experience and that is, people will take the word of their aunt's mechanic's sister "legal advice" before they will listen to their lawyer. They "hear" something and instantly it becomes a "requirement" caused by the lawyers, and most of the time no lawyer ever went through it. I have had clients in my office arguing with me about some finer point of law and I'll pull out the statute and show them in black-and-white and they'll still argue with me. I marvel at this kind of thing I see every day, all these forms that are obviously churned out of some internet program, all these so-called "requirements" that are not actually required by law and are probably unenforceable anyway. Now maybe there are indeed a few dumb lawyers who recommended them. Like I said, I'm not defending lawyers. Still, when I look at the number of forms and BS "requirements" you see every day and multiply that times the number of billable hours if some lawyer actually had reviewed and recommended that and multiply times the lawyer's typical hourly rate ... well, I just don't believe it. If I thought that was true, I myself would be spending my time writing BS forms for people and giving BS legal advice and spending my spare time flying my Learjet to my private estate in Hawaii.

[vided]

Well, I guess I should at least thank you for not attempting another assault on the English language.



You can always depend on the lefties to correct grammar and spelling when they got
nothing else. :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

[Bob Denman]

:agree: When you lack a coherent and accurate point that you should be making: just attack the other fella... :banghead:

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

I like you Mike, you know that. But, I wish you wouldn't engage in this kind of broad-brush denigration of and diatribe against your fellow Americans.
I like you to Pete, but not your Politics ......However I don't feel the need to denigrate you for them :dontknow:..... and if you re-read my post on this ....I didn't Denigrate anyone .... and my post was way to short to be considered a " Diatribe " .....and from what I've learned the Ultra lefties in DOJ & FBI are going to need some realllllllllllly good attorney's :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack: ............Mike :thumbup:

[Rogue Hawk]

Until the last paragraph, I thought you were setting out to have a reasonable discussion about the rights and responsibilities of business owners to control what happens in their establishment. But, the last paragraph showed your true intent was to denigrate professionals who don't interpret the law the way you think it should be enforced and interpreted.

Just another right-wing rant. Nothing to see here.

You make a good point, I was too general questioning the judgement of professionals. But you are making a stretch assuming my post is bias.

[UtahPete]

You make a good point, I was too general questioning the judgement of professionals. But you are making a stretch assuming my post is bias.
We can agree on that.

[ofdave]

I think it was rude and selfish for one person to sit at a table for 4.
Especially since the place was "unusually crowded".

[UtahPete]

If I was advising a company, I would tell them if they are in the right, stand your ground. Give in once, and you become a cash cow for opportunists. The fake "Outrage" will die down. The pitch forks and torches will disappear. Just ride it out. The 'Outrage Police' is made up of mindless Brownshirts, so they have a short attention span. Perhaps people who get law degrees now are doing a brain dump these days, because they are certainly giving companies bad advice,
Maybe you could explain where you come up with this bit of nonsense; The 'Outrage Police' is made up of mindless Brownshirts, Who are you accusing of being the 'outrage police'?

Then, we can talk about your broad, vague and unhelpful accusation that lawyers are certainly giving companies bad advice. ​Which companies? Which lawyers? What advice?

[JerryB]

Hi RinconRyder,

Re: that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding.

I have not read the actual SCOTUS ruling. I only read about it.

As I understand it, they did not rule on his creating & selling a cake for a gay wedding. They ruled that, because of religious reasons, he did not have to decorate it as the gay couple wanted.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) I know, I know; those pesky facts.

[RinconRyder]

Hi RinconRyder,

Re: that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding.

I have not read the actual SCOTUS ruling. I only read about it.

As I understand it, they did not rule on his creating & selling a cake for a gay wedding. They ruled that, because of religious reasons, he did not have to decorate it as the gay couple wanted.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) I know, I know; those pesky facts.

You are correct. The point I was trying to make was that this SCOTUS ruling applied solely to this one business only and was not intended to create a market-wide standard.

[UtahPete]

Hi RinconRyder, Re: that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding. I have not read the actual SCOTUS ruling. I only read about it. As I understand it, they did not rule on his creating & selling a cake for a gay wedding. They ruled that, because of religious reasons, he did not have to decorate it as the gay couple wanted. Jerry Baumchen PS) I know, I know; those pesky facts.
From what I've read, this was a decision based on the very narrow set of facts and circumstances of this particular case and has no broad application. The majority ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to give adequate weight to the plaintiffs (Baker's) right to exercise his religious beliefs while running his business. In other words, the Commission had ruled to protect the gay couple's civil rights but had not properly considered the baker's rights to freedom of religious expression.

It was basically a ruling against the Commission's specific action, not a ruling generally applicable to the right of business owners to discriminate against certain customers on the basis of religious beliefs.

FWIW, I think this was a reasonable decision. Congratulations to the baker for winning his case.

[vided]

Well, I guess I should at least thank you for not attempting another assault on the English language.



http://www.purplecar.net/2013/09/grammar-bullies/

:roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflb lack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Bring back pay toilets

[UtahPete]

Bring back pay toilets
Unisex.

[Holly]

You are correct. The point I was trying to make was that this SCOTUS ruling applied solely to this one business only and was not intended to create a market-wide standard.




A certain group will spin it, but IMO this case sets a precedence and will be used by attorneys throughout the nation. :firstplace:

[UtahPete]

WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This case sets a precedence and will be used by attorneys throughout the nation.

What would that wide-ranging precedent be, exactly?

[teninospyder]

I think he was trying to come up with the possessive form of the singular noun.

See how confusing communication can become when folks don't know or respect English grammar, spelling and punctuation?

:dontknow: :banghead: :ohyea::ohyea:

[UtahPete]

... I am in favor of Civil rights, however a very large Cabal in this country who used to insist on Civil rights.... are know only in favor of Civil rights for vote with the Cabal .. Mike

Okay, who is this very large Cabal you're referring to? Aren't they fellow Americans?

What is the secret plot you're accusing them of?

Aren't you denigrating them by accusing them of;


BEING a Cabal in the first place (Merriam-Webster Definition of cabal. 1 : the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such schemes. 2 : club, group.
partisanship and self-serving rhetoric when you say 'they' "are know only in favor of Civil rights for vote with the Cabal"? (sic)

[Holly]

What would that wide-ranging precedent be, exactly?


Hopefully starting a movement...…. :thumbup:




IMO, Refusing service should be at the business owners discretion for
any reason.

I wouldn't like it if it was only about race or being gay ect……., but it should be their choice.
Like those people at Starbucks that wanted to get rich by winning the ghetto lottery . If you don't spend money, get the he*l out of my store. That should have been the end of it.…..….:banghead:


This gay cake crap was just another example of entitled people trying to win the ghetto lottery.

The baker should have just kept his mouth shut and say that he didn't have time to bake the cake. They would have went somewhere else. As soon as this couple found out the real intent of not baking it, they had to ruin his business through the media and lawsuit.

[Docster]

I think this breaks down to "their house, their rules". Entitlement proponents will want to treat the bathrooms and property as public, demand or expect special services or treatment whether appropriate or not and complain loudly or use the race/discrimination card when they don't get what they feel entitled to.

Their house, their rules. Unless illegal, if one doesn't agree with those rules they should go elsewhere.

[UtahPete]

Hopefully starting a movement...…. :thumbup: IMO, Refusing service should be at the business owners discretion for any reason. I wouldn't like it if it was only about race or being gay ect……., but it should be their choice. Like those people at Starbucks that wanted to get rich by winning the ghetto lottery . If you don't spend money, get the he*l out of my store. That should have been the end of it.…..….:banghead: This gay cake crap was just another example of entitled people trying to win the ghetto lottery. The baker should have just kept his mouth shut and say that he didn't have time to bake the cake. They would have went somewhere else. As soon as this couple found out the real intent of not baking it, they had to ruin his business through the media and lawsuit.
Okay, more right wing opinion. But, that doesn't answer the question; WHAT legal precedent does this case set, which will be 'followed by lawyers all over the country'?

Your statement. Now, support it instead of deflecting.

[loisk]

Hmm
The legal precedent could be that any service can be refused at any time if it upsets any service-provider's religious sensibilities. Slippery slope stuff indeed. Note that the service-provider can be of ANY religion, not just the most common ones. Wonder if those lauding this decision would be OK with that!?
This all occurred five years' ago ... the world has changed since then...

[Holly]

Okay, more right wing opinion. But, that doesn't answer the question; WHAT legal precedent does this case set, which will be 'followed by lawyers all over the country'?

Your statement. Now, support it instead of deflecting.






Religious beliefs are now going to carry the same weight in legal court arguments as the blue cries of outrage over everything
that is currently running amuck in this nation. IMO, It's now an even playing field and not a left wing free for all. :thumbup:

[UtahPete]

Religious beliefs are now going to carry the same weight in legal court arguments as the blue cries of outrage over everything
that is currently running amuck in this nation. IMO, It's now an even playing field and not a left wing free for all. :thumbup:
I don't agree with your premise or conclusion (or your editorializing), but thanks for explaining your statement.

[Holly]

I don't agree with your premise or conclusion (or your editorializing), but thanks for explaining your statement.




Remember what I said about us disagreeing in another thread ??????? More clicks = more hits !!!!!!! :roflblack::roflblack:

[loisk]

Remember what I said about us disagreeing in another thread ??????? More clicks = more hits !!!!!!! :roflblack::roflblack:

Ah now I see where you're coming from.
Pardon me for thinking an actual issue was being discussed with actual rational reasons and viewpoints ... Oops... Guess I don't watch any of your favourite tv stations, so failed to model my conduct on them.

[johnsimion]

Hopefully starting a movement...…. :thumbup:




IMO, Refusing service should be at the business owners discretion for
any reason.

I wouldn't like it if it was only about race or being gay ect……., but it should be their choice.
Like those people at Starbucks that wanted to get rich by winning the ghetto lottery . If you don't spend money, get the he*l out of my store. That should have been the end of it.…..….:banghead:


This gay cake crap was just another example of entitled people trying to win the ghetto lottery.

The baker should have just kept his mouth shut and say that he didn't have time to bake the cake. They would have went somewhere else. As soon as this couple found out the real intent of not baking it, they had to ruin his business through the media and lawsuit.



The smartest thing you said was that the baker should have kept his mouth shut and said he didn't have time to bake the cake. That was good. The rest is BS. Business owners should not have unlimited rights to refuse service for whatever reason. We've had that before in this country. Whether you intend it or not, you're advocating for allowing "whites-only" businesses in this country. We've had that and thankfully it's been relegated to the dustbin of history -- where it belongs!

As for the case itself, you call this the ghetto lottery, I call it the "fake religion" excuse. This is a case of using religion to cover up the fact that the owner simply doesn't like gay people. There's nothing in the Bible that forbids selling a wedding cake to gays or anybody else. The prohibitions in the Bible are on sodomy, not on selling to sodomites. But whatever, we'll assume that the religion was real. Quoting the Court's actual syllabus, the Court ruled for the baker only because it found that the baker's "religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the [Colorado] Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same." The Court was concerned because the "Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs" and because the State had concluded "concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages."

See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
This is the actual U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Thankfully, the Court's own verbiage makes clear how little precedent this case will have. All the States have to do is treat everybody equally. Colorado didn't do that, so they lost. Next time they'll be more evenhanded and fair, and rightly so. But there's another reason this case doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The facts of this case specify that the couple was gay, but gay people don't usually wear a label that says, "gay." You may think somebody is gay and be wrong about it. I know a gay guy who is totally hetero in appearance and actions. I also know some straight guys who act gay. I want to see what happens when two males come into the bakery together and the baker refuses to serve them because he mistakenly thinks they're a gay couple -- and they're not. Now THAT will be the ghetto lottery and I eagerly await that day.

[RinconRyder]

Suppose this case had been a Jewish baker who was asked to decorate a cake with a Swastika on it. Virtually everyone in the country would agree with his right to refuse to decorate a cake in that manner, right?

That is exactly the issue here. The baker did not refuse to make a cake but he did refuse to decorate it in the manner the buyers wanted. As justification, he believes in the Biblical version that marriage is between a man and a woman and having two men on the cake goes against his religious beliefs.

The baker is an idiot but he is also entitled to believe what he does and live his life accordingly. The customers could have simply found a gay baker who would not have objected to their request.

[vided]

Why is the baker an idiot?

[canamjhb]

From what I understand, and that may be wrong based upon watching biased reports, the baker did not refuse to bake a cake for them. He agreed to bake them a cake. Just not a Wedding cake because of his beliefs. I support his rights to not have him and his business associated with gay weddings. I also support the rights of gays to have cakes baked for them..... The baker didn't refuse their business because they were gay. He just refused to be involved in their wedding. I see no problem with that.

[RinconRyder]

Why is the baker an idiot?

Figure it out.

[vided]

Figure it out.


You said he's an idiot. i don't want to assume

[RinconRyder]

You said he's an idiot. i don't want to assume

Then don't. Your choice.

[vided]

Then don't. Your choice.



Why are you not willing to back up your accusation that the baker is an "idiot".
Just explain why you think he's an idiot.
thank you in advance

[kep-up]

Well now, "Here We Go Again"...………………………..

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

"Suppose this case had been a Jewish baker who was asked to decorate a cake with a Swastika on it. Virtually everyone in the country would agree with his right to refuse to decorate a cake in that manner, right?"

Very very well stated, as long as neo nazism is not illegal what would people say about that?
I'm not anti alcohol but at my place i really don't like doing work for those who come in here drunk and i have no
religious objections to drunks.

[Bob Denman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfltikFvhWc

[Orange Spyder Man]

commenting on the orginal post of "RESTROOMS ARE FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY" .. i think its the business owner's right to set rules on his establishment... after all its a BUSINESS ... not a public place... if you have ever gone to New Orleans during Mardi Gras... almost every business has a sign stating "RESTROOMS ARE FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY" .. otherwise the restrooms would be over run by non paying visitors and the paying customers would not be have access to restrooms..

[BoilerAnimal]

I think that the biggest problem with the Starbuck's incident is that the "rules" were not consistently applied throughout their stores.

You cannot allow some people to do something, then turn around later and not allow someone do the same thing. I believe that if a business wants to make the restrooms available for paying customers only, then that should be clearly posted AND consistently enforced at ALL stores. Same thing applies to what constitutes a "paying" customer. If you want to set a time limit on when customers must leave after completing their "business transaction", then it needs to be clearly posted AND consistently enforced.

If you allow one set of rules for some, then apply another set of rules to others, you are undoubtedly setting yourself up for a charge of discrimination, especially if race, sex or religion appears to enter into the decision.

To avoid charges of this manner, consistency is extremely important. Bias runs rampant in this country, whether or not you want to admit it.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Why the hell should someone be allowed to use a bathroom at a business when they are not a customer? Someone
has to clean it and i'm sure customers aren't going to do it.

[loisk]

So has this whole thread been about the Starbucks arrest?

If so, good to know.
It was all over our news - you'd be surprised how much USA stuff makes international news...

[ThreeWheels]

Careful...this thread could go down the toilet. :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

Really. I have no idea. This is another thread where 3/4 of the participants are on my ignore list so I'm missing most of it.

[BigGuy66]

And SCOTUS just ruled in favor of a businesses right to refuse their services.

...No shirt, no shoes, no service...

[BoilerAnimal]

So has this whole thread been about the Starbucks arrest?

If so, good to know.
It was all over our news - you'd be surprised how much USA stuff makes international news...


Obviously a very thinly veiled attempt to masquerade as something more.

[Rogue Hawk]

I think it was rude and selfish for one person to sit at a table for 4.
Especially since the place was "unusually crowded".

True, I did want to sit there. The waitress reminded me to be polite which I appreciated.

[Rogue Hawk]

Why is the baker an idiot?

I certainly would not call him an idiot. But he does let a church tell him what to think.

[vided]

I certainly would not call him an idiot. But he does let a church tell him what to think.


You are correct.
no one has the right to call him an idiot for his beliefs

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

I certainly would not call him an idiot. But he does let a church tell him what to think.

no, he let's his invisible friend in the sky do that. i think it is the same invisible friend who endorsed slavery.

[RinconRyder]

You are correct.
no one has the right to call him an idiot for his beliefs

Really? What would you call someone who believes the Earth is flat?

[UtahPete]

Really? What would you call someone who believes the Earth is flat?
How do you know that's what he believes? Just curious.

[vided]

Really? What would you call someone who believes the Earth is flat?


When did he tell you the earth is flat? :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflb lack:

[BoilerAnimal]

How do you know that's what he believes? Just curious.


I took it to be an analogy to his religious beliefs.

[vided]

162072

[UtahPete]

I took it to be an analogy to his religious beliefs.
I don't think Christians are necessarily 'flat-earthers', so that's why I ask if there is something about this baker which would indicate he is both.

[ThreeWheels]

...No shirt, no shoes, no service...

I always see that sign, especially at the shore, but my first thought is always "Do you think they should mention pants in there someplace ?"

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Really? What would you call someone who believes the Earth is flat?

muslim

[Rogue Hawk]

...No shirt, no shoes, no service...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFhbFYjFq54

[kep-up]

I think that the biggest problem with the Starbuck's incident is that the "rules" were not consistently applied throughout their stores.

You cannot allow some people to do something, then turn around later and not allow someone do the same thing. I believe that if a business wants to make the restrooms available for paying customers only, then that should be clearly posted AND consistently enforced at ALL stores. Same thing applies to what constitutes a "paying" customer. If you want to set a time limit on when customers must leave after completing their "business transaction", then it needs to be clearly posted AND consistently enforced.

If you allow one set of rules for some, then apply another set of rules to others, you are undoubtedly setting yourself up for a charge of discrimination, especially if race, sex or religion appears to enter into the decision.

To avoid charges of this manner, consistency is extremely important. Bias runs rampant in this country, whether or not you want to admit it.

Bias runs rampant in every country, whether or not you wish to admit it. It's a human condition.

[RinconRyder]

When did he tell you the earth is flat? :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflb lack:

When he quoted a fictional book.

[vided]

When he quoted a fictional book.


oh you mean your handbook
162081

[UtahPete]

oh you mean your handbook
162081
Wasn't that written by one of our revolutionaries in the British colonies? Our country was founded by radicals, not conservatives.

[vided]

162082

[Bob Denman]

I always see that sign, especially at the shore, but my first thought is always "Do you think they should mention pants in there someplace ?"

:banghead: :shocked: I KNEW that I forgot to tell the sign-painter something... :opps:

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Suppose this case had been a Jewish baker who was asked to decorate a cake with a Swastika on it. Virtually everyone in the country would agree with his right to refuse to decorate a cake in that manner, right?

That is exactly the issue here. The baker did not refuse to make a cake but he did refuse to decorate it in the manner the buyers wanted.

Should we then also say a Muslim restaurant owner would be well within his rights to refuse to serve bacon or ham with breakfast?

Some have said that if you don't like the limitations a business operator has, take your business elsewhere. But couldn't we turn that argument around and say if a person wants to operate a business that caters to the public but doesn't want to provide a specific service to a specific part of the public, then he shouldn't enter the business in the first place, or, get into another business. In the case of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop his web page has said for years, "Masterpiece cakes are perfect for any occasion..." But apparently he really did not mean "ANY occasion."

The question really is to what extent does a business operator have a right to pick and choose his customers when he opens a business that ostensibly is open to all? In other words, what kinds of discrimination are we willing to consider moral and legal? That question is not explicitly answered by the SCOTUS ruling.

[Joel The Biker]

And way off topic now too. Just a bunch of grumpy old men on here.

[SpyderConvert]

Found this in another forum this morning.....

Me: I was doing an overnight at a hotel away from home. I took my
computer down to the bar to do some data entries. I sat down at the
bar and I asked the bartender, ‘What’s the wifi password?’

Bartender: 'You need to buy a drink first.'

Me: 'Okay, I’ll have a beer.'

Bartender: 'We have Molson’s Canadian on tap.'

Me: 'Sure. How much is that?'

Bartender: '$8.00.'

Me: 'Here you are. OK now, what’s the wifi password?'

Bartender: ' "youneedtobuyadrinkfirst" . . . no spaces and all lowercase.'

[Rogue Hawk]

Should we then also say a Muslim restaurant owner would be well within his rights to refuse to serve bacon or ham with breakfast?



That is a good question. Can they also refuse service to a women that is not covered or accompanied by a male?

[Rogue Hawk]

And way off topic now too. Just a bunch of grumpy old men on here.

https://larry5154.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/grumpy-old-men.jpg

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

This really shouldn't be a discussion, a business exists to make money, if it costs money to own a bathroom then
it is for paying customers only at the owners discretion. i have a sign in the back of my shop that says "employees only"
when i see customers walking around i tell them they need to pick up a broom and sweep up or they are not allowed & i point to the sign.

[RinconRyder]

Should we then also say a Muslim restaurant owner would be well within his rights to refuse to serve bacon or ham with breakfast?

There are already restaurants that specialize in specific menu offerings (vegan, Chinese, etc.). Business owners do not have to offer everything to everybody BUT if one were to refuse service to someone wearing a Burka because he/she didn't like Muslims it would be a Federal offense.


Some have said that if you don't like the limitations a business operator has, take your business elsewhere.

That would be my preference. I won't go where I am not wanted.


But couldn't we turn that argument around and say if a person wants to operate a business that caters to the public but doesn't want to provide a specific service to a specific part of the public, then he shouldn't enter the business in the first place, or, get into another business.

Let's say I own a welding shop and a customer comes to me to create a big gate for his residence. He wants a swastika in the middle of each half. I tell him "I will make your gate but will not place a swastika on it."

I think the welder has that right. I think the cake guy was right as well. He didn't refuse service but he did refuse to comply with a decorating request he found offensive.


In the case of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop his web page has said for years, "Masterpiece cakes are perfect for any occasion..." But apparently he really did not mean "ANY occasion."

Such as a swastika for your really nice neighborhood Nazi's?


The question really is to what extent does a business operator have a right to pick and choose his customers when he opens a business that ostensibly is open to all? In other words, what kinds of discrimination are we willing to consider moral and legal? That question is not explicitly answered by the SCOTUS ruling.

That is correct and SCOTUS said so in their ruling. This defined only the specific case against one baker and was based upon one specific action of Colorado law.

What would you think if the baker had said "I will make your cake and hand you the decorating material and you may place two men upon it but you may not advertise it as being a Masterpiece Cakeshop product"?

[RinconRyder]

Found this in another forum this morning.....

Me: I was doing an overnight at a hotel away from home. I took my
computer down to the bar to do some data entries. I sat down at the
bar and I asked the bartender, ‘What’s the wifi password?’

Bartender: 'You need to buy a drink first.'

Me: 'Okay, I’ll have a beer.'

Bartender: 'We have Molson’s Canadian on tap.'

Me: 'Sure. How much is that?'

Bartender: '$8.00.'

Me: 'Here you are. OK now, what’s the wifi password?'

Bartender: ' "youneedtobuyadrinkfirst" . . . no spaces and all lowercase.'

Sometimes it is so obvious! BWA HAAAA HAAAAAA!!!!!

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

am i allowed to go to a store for a koran, pay for it, walk out of the store, tear a page off, blow my nose then
rip all the pages and throw in the garbage? would any of that be illegal? who here would be offended or tell someone
that you CAN'T do that?

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

What would you think if the baker had said "I will make your cake and hand you the decorating material and you may place two men upon it but you may not advertise it as being a Masterpiece Cakeshop product"?
Handing over the decorations with the cake probably would have been the smartest solution. I believe he would be within his rights to ask his name not be associated with the cake, but would most likely fail in any attempt to enforce that restriction simply because of what's practical and what isn't. If his business name is trademarked or copyrighted then he has the right to control how it is used. Many companies produce products anonymously.

You could also argue this was purely a contractual situation. Neither party is required to perform the contract if they cannot agree on the terms. If some terms and conditions are dictated by law then they have to be complied with if a contract is agreed to. Think non-discrimination in home and apartment rentals.

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

This really shouldn't be a discussion, a business exists to make money, if it costs money to own a bathroom then
it is for paying customers only at the owners discretion. i have a sign in the back of my shop that says "employees only"
when i see customers walking around i tell them they need to pick up a broom and sweep up or they are not allowed & i point to the sign.
I'm not going to bother to look up the pertinent law, but it is my understanding most, if not all, state laws require any establishment that serves food and drink must have restrooms available. It would interesting to know if the law allows the restriction to customer use only, requires they be available to anyone, or is totally silent about the issue. In a situation like yours I don't believe there is any requirement spelled out that says you have to let even paying customers have access to them. Any time I need to use a restroom that is not obviously a public restroom I deem it a courtesy by the business when they let me use it.

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

am i allowed to go to a store for a koran, pay for it, walk out of the store, tear a page off, blow my nose then
rip all the pages and throw in the garbage? would any of that be illegal? who here would be offended or tell someone
that you CAN'T do that?

In this country, illegal, no, but it would be viewed as inconsiderate by some people.

[Bob Denman]

:agree:

And just pretty damned rude by the rest! :shocked:

[Rogue Hawk]

am i allowed to go to a store for a koran, pay for it, walk out of the store, tear a page off, blow my nose then
rip all the pages and throw in the garbage? would any of that be illegal? who here would be offended or tell someone
that you CAN'T do that?

You can do it. But you may have to deal with the religious wack jobs.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Well forcing the baker to put 2 men on the cake is just as offensive to the baker so why should it be considered
illegal? private business should be run by the rules and standards of the owner not by anyone else.
keep in mind i have no sky father i pray to but i will defend the baker still.

[UtahPete]

Well forcing the baker to put 2 men on the cake is just as offensive to the baker so why should it be considered illegal? private business should be run by the rules and standards of the owner not by anyone else. keep in mind i have no sky father i pray to but i will defend the baker still.
This is a non-issue for small business owners. When was the last time you tried to do something in your business and got shot down by New York's PC police? You're not in Colorado, you're not a baker, and the court ruled for the baker. Why are you trying to make this into something it isn't?

Back to the original thread; you want to put your bathroom off-limits to non-patrons? Go ahead, nobody's stopping you.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

This is a non-issue for small business owners. When was the last time you tried to do something in your business and got shot down by New York's PC police? You're not in Colorado, you're not a baker, and the court ruled for the baker. Why are you trying to make this into something it isn't?

Back to the original thread; you want to put your bathroom off-limits to non-patrons? Go ahead, nobody's stopping you.

I have been winged a few times and if you know anything about ny then you might know to have a body shop pro
shop you have to have handicap accessible bathroom even though you very rarely ever will get a wheel chair at your
shop that will need the bathroom at a cost of $5k on top.

[ThreeWheels]

https://newsd.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/funny-creative-bar-signs.jpg

[Bob Denman]

https://newsd.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/funny-creative-bar-signs.jpg

162222

[UtahPete]

162222
Welcome back from Lake George Bob.