Tennessee Store Puts Up "No Gays Allowed" Sign - and It Is Perfectly Legal

[GUT]

And also those people who wear clothes made out of two different kinds of material like cotton and nylon.

And although there is no Biblical restriction against it, from my own personal perspective, I would include those people who wear stripes and checks at the same time. I run a tight ship.

c.d.

The worst offence of all.

[Robert]

Re dress codes, I would refuse to serve anyone who wasn't accompanied by a person from Thailand.

You cannot come in without a Thai.

[Mayerling]

Re dress codes, I would refuse to serve anyone who wasn't accompanied by a person from Thailand.

You cannot come in without a Thai.

Which is nicely covered for admitting Siamese twins!

"Gobble, gobble, we accept her/him!"

Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

I am pretty sure I'll be in the minority but I have no problem with it.

If someone owns a business they should be allowed to say who they will and won't deal with. I work in a profession where I have to take on any client who will pay my fees regardless of how repulsive I may find their actions, and can assure you that at times I'd rather not.

Now the business may go under, but that is the risk they take.

I agree, so what.

Take your business to another shop.

If we have to force people to be reasonable and appreciate the sentiment of equality under the law - for all - then equality or democracy is worthless.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course you should be allowed to refuse to serve religious people in your shop, CD. Or people with a mole on their chin. Or people whose eyes you deem to be too close together. That's because it's your shop.

This isn't about refusing to serve, Rob - it's about prejudice, plain and simple.

As to the ownership argument... if a shop-owner refused to serve a kid because they had a birthmark, mole or other disfigurement that "offended" them, they'd deserve all the opprobrium they got. Agreed?

There's really no justification for this sort of behaviour, either way.

[Fleetwood Mac]

This isn't about refusing to serve, Rob - it's about prejudice, plain and simple.

As to the ownership argument... if a shop-owner refused to serve a kid because they had a birthmark, mole or other disfigurement that "offended" them, they'd deserve all the opprobrium they got. Agreed?

There's really no justification for this sort of behaviour, either way.

Two entirely different concepts, that is providing justification and allowing differences of opinion to co-exist.

You are left with two bad options: allow opinions to be aired, no matter how much you disagree with them, or force them to think like you. And, I'm afraid your solution is the worst of all worlds.

[Sam Flynn]

You are left with two bad options: allow opinions to be aired, no matter how much you disagree with them, or force them to think like you. And, I'm afraid your solution is the worst of all worlds.

I'm talking about entirely NATURAL conditions here. There is no question of "opinion", and the only "bad option" is the one that permits the promotion of baseless prejudice and discrimination against human beings.

[Robert]

Hi Gareth

I'm talking about the law here. The law has no business in whom a shopkeeper does or doesn't serve, and for what reason, or for no reason at all.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm talking about entirely NATURAL conditions here. There is no question of "opinion", and the only "bad option" is the one that permits the promotion of baseless prejudice and discrimination against human beings.

Many a person has been vehement in the belief that they are entitled to force people to agree with them. It never ends well. History has proven this. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth

I'm talking about the law here. The law has no business in whom a shopkeeper does or doesn't serve, and for what reason, or for no reason at all.

I'm not talking about the shopkeeper, Rob, who is - after all - there to provide a service. I'm talking about the customer's right not to be discriminated against.

[Sam Flynn]

Many a person has been vehement in the belief that they are entitled to force people to agree with them. It never ends well. History has proven this. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm not FORCING my belief on anyone, I'm basing my judgment on scientific evidence. Homosexuality is widespread throughout nature, and that is an established fact.

If anyone's forcing their beliefs, it's those who base their judgment on groupthink or the cosmology of Bronze Age shepherds.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm not FORCING my belief on anyone, I'm basing my judgment on scientific evidence. Homosexuality is widespread throughout nature, and that is an established fact.

If anyone's forcing their beliefs, it's those who base their judgment on groupthink or the cosmology of Bronze Age shepherds.

I would take an altogether different line. It doesn't matter to me whether or not homosexuality is natural, a choice at say 14 years old or something else. It is completely irrelevant as in my opinion people can be whatever they want to be, whether or not it's a 'scientific verifiable fact' or merely a whim; but the point is that just because I think like this it doesn't mean the next bloke must think like this.

And, you are forcing your belief onto others. Take a moment to revisit your post.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm not talking about the shopkeeper, Rob, who is - after all - there to provide a service. I'm talking about the customer's right not to be discriminated against.

There is no such right. It's some bollocks that came out of The Enlightenment, and it seems Enlightenment thinkers were wide of the mark, considering around 60% of us take the time to vote at the general election.

[Robert]

I'm talking about the customer's right not to be discriminated against.

But there's no such right, Gareth. There may be a legal right - depending on what the law is at the time. But if we ask whether or not such a law is a good one, then I can only answer that it is not, because it impinges on the freedom of the individual.

Of course, the situation is different when it concerns Government business. If a Government announces an income tax rate of 20% for heterosexuals but 30% for gays, then that's wrong (in my opinion).

[Sam Flynn]

There is no such right. It's some bollocks that came out of The Enlightenment

There's a reason it was called "The Enlightenment", you know.