Pew report shows American Christian numbers in decline

[Theway]

A publically accommodating business can put up any sign they want, but they can not refuse service to a protected class without just reason; health, safety, dress code, etc..

Sure they can refuse service... However it's like i said, they just can not say why anymore. That is the irony.

The deal with private clubs is in how they operate. If they operate in a way that they become less private; then they may have some restrictions.

So what you are saying is that if I allow blacks into the club, then I have to allow women, and if I allow women, than I have to alow gays?
Where then is the incentive for me to do the right thing and allow blacks into the club in the first place?
That kinda throws a whole new light on the "allowing the camel's nose in the tent" story.
LOL... The club members wives of the all male club, were for it remaining an all male club.

My family is black, but I myself do not belong to a club... I go by the old Groucho Marx quip... "I would never belong to any club that would have me as a member".

Remember when Augusta National Golf club accepted their first black member around 1990? They only did that, from external pressure from the PGA and it was not from any government entity or law. Augusta National could have rejected anyone membership they saw fit to.

And that's the way it should be, without government.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure they can refuse service... However it's like i said, they just can not say why anymore. That is the irony.


So what you are saying is that if I allow blacks then I have to allow women, and if I allow women, than I have to alow gays?
LOL... Where then is the incentive for me to do the right thing and allow blacks into the club. FYI... The club members wives of the all male club were for it remaining and all male club.

My family is black, but I myself do not belong to a club... I go by the old Groucho Marx quip... "I would never belong to any club that would have me as a member.
And that's the way it should be, without government.

On what basis would the publically accommodating business be able to legally refuse service to someone?

You created a straw man in regards to the private club issue.

 

[Theway]

On what basis would the publically accommodating business be able to legally refuse service to someone?

You missed my point.
All I was doing was pointing out the irony of it being legal to put up a sign that says you can refuse service to anyone, but illegal to say why out loud.

You created a straw man in regards to the private club issue.

I did not create the "private club strawman" I'm just the one who easily kicked it over.

 

[bhsmte]

You missed my point.
All I was doing was pointing out the irony of it being legal to put up a sign that says You can refuse service to anyone, but illegal to say why out loud.

I did not create the "private club strawman" I'm just the one who easily kicked it over.

You admit then, that a publically accommodating business, has to have a legal reason to refuse service to someone?

In regards to private clubs, any limitations they may have, is in regards to how they operate. If they retain a private setting, which is consistent, they have no issues.

For instance, if a private club accepts a female member and collects the same fees from them, the club needs to have equal facilities for men and women. Since they already accepted them as a member, they created the expectation of equal treatment.

 

[LoAmmi]

You missed my point.
All I was doing was pointing out the irony of it being legal to put up a sign that says you can refuse service to anyone, but illegal to say why out loud.

It isn't irony. In our laws, there are specific reasons you cannot refuse service to someone. Yes, you could do it and remain silent or whatever. But those are the same reasons, generally, you can't refuse to hire someone or decide to fire someone.

 

[Theway]

It isn't irony. In our laws, there are specific reasons you cannot refuse service to someone. Yes, you could do it and remain silent or whatever. But those are the same reasons, generally, you can't refuse to hire someone or decide to fire someone.

And I'm on the record for completely disagreeing that the government can require such laws of private citizens and their businesses. What makes it even worse is that at the same time they exempt themselves from these laws. It is completely backwards... The goverment should be the ones made to adhere to civil rights laws, not a private individual.
People always forget that it was government which mostly created these problems in the first place, they then give their rights over to government to try and fix it.

 

[bhsmte]

And I'm on the record for completely disagreeing that the government can require such laws of private citizens and their businesses. What makes it even worse is that at the same time they exempt themselves from these laws. It is completely backwards... The goverment should be the ones made to adhere to civil rights laws, not a private individual.
People always forget that it was government which mostly created these problems in the first place, they then give their rights over to government to try and fix it.

You would be good then with open season on business owners refusing customers for whatever reason they feel like in a public accommodating business?

 

[awitch]

I'm dumbfounded that in 2015 there are Americans who think their personally chosen religious beliefs entitle them to discriminate against fellow citizens for failing to pass their personally designed and arbitrary morality tests.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm dumbfounded that in 2015 there are Americans who think their personally chosen religious beliefs entitle them to discriminate against fellow citizens for failing to pass their personally designed and arbitrary morality tests.

IMO, it is just the conservative religious types, that are whining because they don't have unlimited religious freedoms and these are the loudest types. The vast majority of people with religious beliefs would understand; I open my door to the public and I serve the public equally.

I have said this before, but will mention it again.

It would be interesting, if religious business owners were allowed to refuse to serve certain customers and if they were actually granted this ability, with the following caveat:

Notify the public on your store front and website, which customers you will refuse to serve and be specific, so the public will be aware and will avoid embarrassment of being turned away when they walk in the door.

So, a certain Christian business owner could be a sign up in plain view;

-we don't serve homosexuals
-we don't serve remarried couples who are committing adultery
-etc. etc.

This way, the religious business owner can put his strong religious beliefs where his mouth is and have what he wants. The right to refuse and all they would have to do is make this known to the public they opened their door to.

 

[LoAmmi]

And I'm on the record for completely disagreeing that the government can require such laws of private citizens and their businesses. What makes it even worse is that at the same time they exempt themselves from these laws. It is completely backwards... The goverment should be the ones made to adhere to civil rights laws, not a private individual.
People always forget that it was government which mostly created these problems in the first place, they then give their rights over to government to try and fix it.

Ok, show me which exemptions to the discrimination laws the government gave itself, please.

 

[awitch]

Notify the public on your store front and website, which customers you will refuse to serve and be specific, so the public will be aware and will avoid embarrassment of being turned away when they walk in the door.

So, a certain Christian business owner could be a sign up in plain view;

-we don't serve homosexuals
-we don't serve remarried couples who are committing adultery
-etc. etc.

This way, the religious business owner can put his strong religious beliefs where his mouth is and have what he wants. The right to refuse and all they would have to do is make this known to the public they opened their door to.

That's what happened in Oklahoma when the Republicans wanted to introduce a "religious freedom" bill. One the Democrats in the House introduced an amendment that would require business owners to display signage in the location's window and in all advertising indicating specifically who they would not serve. The bill then died.

 

[bhsmte]

That's what happened in Oklahoma when the Republicans wanted to introduce a "religious freedom" bill. One the Democrats in the House introduced an amendment that would require business owners to display signage in the location's window and in all advertising indicating specifically who they would not serve. The bill then died.

Funny how one's with such strong religious beliefs, that require them to refuse to serve certain customers, don't feel strongly enough to be transparent about them.

 

[Red Fox]

Funny how one's with such strong religious beliefs, that require them to refuse to serve certain customers, don't feel strongly enough to be transparent about them.

I suppose many of them like to hide behind their religious [bigotry] freedom.

 

[muichimotsu]

What it is is what the Bible says. But, just out of curiosity, doesn't the person leaving question their salvation? If they question it and decide it doesn't exist, then why should we not do the same.

That is not to say that they truly aren't saved, but since nothing can separate us from God, then if they are separated, either they were never God's, or they are struggling, in which case, they will return.

I didn't question my salvation, I questioned whether salvation was even something I should care about.

Your explanation at least is more consistent in the notion of your god being all powerful and all knowing: if I'm not the elect, then nothing I can do would change that, nor would your preaching affect me. Insisting anything other than Calvinism suggests human will can invade into God's realm. At least Calvinism and predestination is "logical"

 

[Zoness]

I'm dumbfounded that in 2015 there are Americans who think their personally chosen religious beliefs entitle them to discriminate against fellow citizens for failing to pass their personally designed and arbitrary morality tests.

I hear ya. And then they call my generation the entitled one lol.

 

[HonestTruth]

I'm beginning to think that moving the LDS and Jehovah Witnesses over here was not such a bad idea. Some new and interesting people are starting to show up.
In regards to the Book of Amos, when I was teaching at a regional state university in Kentucky I asked my students to write an essay on a primary source in antiquity. Someone asked if they could do the Bible. I told them they couldn't do the whole Bible because the Bible was a lot of different books written at different times. But they could do a particular book in the Bible. So this student picked the Book of Amos. Unfortunately all she got out of it was that that Christians (!) shouldn't get drunk or divorced. I don't know where she got 'divorce' out of that book, but the reference to drunkneness was the rich getting drunk off of the misery of the poor.
My point is, it doesn't matter if they read the Book of Amos. They still won't 'get' it.

Perhaps she was influenced by church teaching. Christian professing churches in the USA often tend to endorse Ayn Rand-Reaganomics materialism while failing to realize that the Bible teaches the precise opposite of all that. The message taught in the Book of Amos is extremely clear - churches should be teaching it if they wish to see the USA become a stronger nation again.

 

[smaneck]

No, it's job is to protect the people from the government. They stand together with the Declaration of Independence to protect us, and give us the right to throw off a tyrannical government. You really need to get some proper education. There is NOWHERE that the Constitution gives the government the right to trample on the citizens. According to the constitution, the citizens OWN the government. That is why the government is trying to hard to shred the Constitution.

First off, the Declaration of Independence is not a law which can protect us. It give us no rights whatsoever. The only way the government had 'shredded' the Constitution has been in its insistence on maintaining a standing army. But it is hard to imagine a modern government without one. All the Social Welfare legislation was made in accordance with the wishes of the majority of its citizens, so there is no trampling there.
Remember Reagan's famous speech about how if we passed Medicare we would be telling our grandchildren what it was like being free? Actually what grandparents are telling their grandkids is "don't you dare mess with my Medicare!"

 

[smaneck]

Perhaps she was influenced by church teaching. Christian professing churches in the USA often tend to endorse Ayn Rand-Reaganomics materialism while failing to realize that the Bible teaches the precise opposite of all that. The message taught in the Book of Amos is extremely clear - churches should be teaching it if they wish to see the USA become a stronger nation again.

Yes, there are always lenses through which we read the scripture. Remember the guy over in the politics section who insists social justice isn't in the Bible? That takes a very special kind of reading glass not to see that.

 

[A New Dawn]

Pleased to meet you.

Paul.

Ah. Nice to meet you, too!

 

[bhsmte]

Sure they can refuse service... However it's like i said, they just can not say why anymore. That is the irony.


So what you are saying is that if I allow blacks into the club, then I have to allow women, and if I allow women, than I have to alow gays?
Where then is the incentive for me to do the right thing and allow blacks into the club in the first place?
That kinda throws a whole new light on the "allowing the camel's nose in the tent" story.
LOL... The club members wives of the all male club, were for it remaining an all male club.

My family is black, but I myself do not belong to a club... I go by the old Groucho Marx quip... "I would never belong to any club that would have me as a member".
And that's the way it should be, without government.

You are saying then, that if I walk in a McDonald's, they can legally refuse to serve me without giving me a reason?

No, that is not what I said about private clubs, you are assuming and putting words in my mouth.

Groucho is a funny guy.