Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 13:14:32 GMT -6
I really don't see what difference it makes anyway, whether a Kroger (transacting with most), a Costco (transacting with members) or a professional firm (transacting with accepted clientele) they are all similarly incorporated business enterprises and should be afforded the same rights. Costco is another poor example. They are not a "private club" with very much or any exemptions from law or regulation that Kroger is. They certainly would be in the same situation in most ways. For example, they cannot exclude "members" on grounds of race, religion, etc. Idiot I never stated they are a private club, however since you went down this road, explain how there are women only health clubs all over the country. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 13:23:32 GMT -6
C'mon, not even a good example. A private liquor store is open to the public over 21 and Crestview or Player's Club are public golf courses and advertise as such. Even some Country Club courses are open a day a week to the public, or do public business in their facility, for example wedding receptions. If you want to call stores and restaurants "privately owned" that is one thing, and certainly that might have some impact on government regulation that would apply, but, to call most business "private" in terms of their business model is ridiculous. Their doors are open to the public. Your private home where you are a social host surely is different. Most businesses advertise to the public inviting commercial interaction. Find a business not on the web, without public signage, without any such invitation to deal, maybe that is a "private" business model. And sure, sometimes businesses limit their invitation to deal by product or service type. What do you mean when you use "private" and "public" in terms of a business model? Geeze, I think being open to the public is fairly self explanatory. I suppose we might say that advertising to the general public and inviting the public to deal is the basic idea. If Delaware Country Club advertised for membership and specified he "private" nature of the their business I suppose that might be different. If businesses what to exclude members of the LGBT community, maybe the law should allow that if they would advertise their discrimination? I don't know what you think about the employee of the firm who engages in discrimination on his own. Most businesses I believe would fire him, but he would appear not to be liable personally in any way under statute, and if he discriminated on the basis of religion or race, he would create liability for the company as it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 13:28:51 GMT -6
Oh so you mean like AARP who advertises on television but engages in age discrimination. Got it...........
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 13:33:14 GMT -6
Costco is another poor example. They are not a "private club" with very much or any exemptions from law or regulation that Kroger is. They certainly would be in the same situation in most ways. For example, they cannot exclude "members" on grounds of race, religion, etc. Idiot I never stated they are a private club, however since you went down this road, explain how there are women only health clubs all over the country. Why did you bring up Costco with their membership model then? As to women's health clubs, I have not researched this question, though being a male may not be a suspect class in some states, perfectly legal to discriminate against males on the basis of gender in some cases for sure...it is after all how the statute is written. Maybe if there is an ERA in the state, not so? But probably mostly because the laws have a number of exceptions, such as for bona fide occupational necessity in employment. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 13:33:54 GMT -6
Oh so you mean like AARP who advertises on television but engages in age discrimination. Got it........... Not against the law to discriminate against young people, that's the statute... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 13:40:49 GMT -6
Idiot I never stated they are a private club, however since you went down this road, explain how there are women only health clubs all over the country. Why did you bring up Costco with their membership model then? As to women's health clubs, I have not researched this question, though being a male may not be a suspect class in some states, perfectly legal to discriminate against males on the basis of gender in some cases for sure...it is after all how the statute is written. Maybe if there is an ERA in the state, not so? But probably mostly because the laws have a number of exceptions, such as for bona fide occupational necessity in employment. Because it's a different model than Kroger, Target, or Walmart. Now what if a trans-gendered male in Bloomington wanted a membership at Curves. I suppose they would be forced to let him join and suffer the resulting locker room issues and member backlash. Yep it's a great system you are supporting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 13:43:17 GMT -6
Oh so you mean like AARP who advertises on television but engages in age discrimination. Got it........... Not against the law to discriminate against young people, that's the statute... But that's not fair................WHA...............WHA..................Yep let's select whom can be discriminated against because they don't have enough political clout with the left. |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 12, 2017 14:06:25 GMT -6
What do you mean when you use "private" and "public" in terms of a business model? Geeze, I think being open to the public is fairly self explanatory. I suppose we might say that advertising to the general public and inviting the public to deal is the basic idea. If Delaware Country Club advertised for membership and specified he "private" nature of the their business I suppose that might be different. If businesses what to exclude members of the LGBT community, maybe the law should allow that if they would advertise their discrimination? I don't know what you think about the employee of the firm who engages in discrimination on his own. Most businesses I believe would fire him, but he would appear not to be liable personally in any way under statute, and if he discriminated on the basis of religion or race, he would create liability for the company as it is. I don't think "open to the public" is self-explanatory at all, seeing as just about every place that is "open to the public" still can deny access to most anyone. It's still private property. They still get to pick hours of operation. Government buildings close and lock their doors to the public every day. Hell look at what people call public beaches in New Jersey (government beaches would be more accurate). Repeat my question: Why does being open to "the public" and soliciting the public mean you forfeit your right to association? And it sounds to me like being a business doesn't really impact your reasoning at all. So if a guy purchased a restaurant and made food to give away freely to people who came in and ordered meals, he too would forfeit his right to free association because he'd opened his doors. Right? Read more: overthepylon.boards.net/thread/1397/why-players-return-indiana?page=8#ixzz4meKclK4g |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 15:21:50 GMT -6
Not against the law to discriminate against young people, that's the statute... But that's not fair................WHA...............WHA..................Yep let's select whom can be discriminated against because they don't have enough political clout with the left. No. It's because the Congress many years ago did not see a problem in this area. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 15:24:17 GMT -6
Why did you bring up Costco with their membership model then? As to women's health clubs, I have not researched this question, though being a male may not be a suspect class in some states, perfectly legal to discriminate against males on the basis of gender in some cases for sure...it is after all how the statute is written. Maybe if there is an ERA in the state, not so? But probably mostly because the laws have a number of exceptions, such as for bona fide occupational necessity in employment. Because it's a different model than Kroger, Target, or Walmart. Now what if a trans-gendered male in Bloomington wanted a membership at Curves. I suppose they would be forced to let him join and suffer the resulting locker room issues and member backlash. Yep it's a great system you are supporting. Have you any reason to believe the Bloomington ordinance would have this result? If so, it's the good citizens of Bloomington who should correct it, not the state legislature in absence of any existing problem. If the State should correct Bloomington's error, they should not shoot it with a cannon like the RFRA which goes way to war in what it protects and when. |
|
|
|
Post by TakeMeBackto2008 on Jul 12, 2017 15:31:25 GMT -6
The Chug
General small talk of a non-political and non-BSU sports nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 12, 2017 15:35:44 GMT -6
The Chug General small talk of a non-political and non-BSU sports nature. Call the cops if someone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read this. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 15:36:42 GMT -6
Geeze, I think being open to the public is fairly self explanatory. I suppose we might say that advertising to the general public and inviting the public to deal is the basic idea. If Delaware Country Club advertised for membership and specified he "private" nature of the their business I suppose that might be different. If businesses what to exclude members of the LGBT community, maybe the law should allow that if they would advertise their discrimination? I don't know what you think about the employee of the firm who engages in discrimination on his own. Most businesses I believe would fire him, but he would appear not to be liable personally in any way under statute, and if he discriminated on the basis of religion or race, he would create liability for the company as it is. I don't think "open to the public" is self-explanatory at all, seeing as just about every place that is "open to the public" still can deny access to most anyone. It's still private property. They still get to pick hours of operation. Government buildings close and lock their doors to the public every day. Hell look at what people call public beaches in New Jersey (government beaches would be more accurate). Repeat my question: Why does being open to "the public" and soliciting the public mean you forfeit your right to association? And it sounds to me like being a business doesn't really impact your reasoning at all. So if a guy purchased a restaurant and made food to give away freely to people who came in and ordered meals, he too would forfeit his right to free association because he'd opened his doors. Right? Read more: overthepylon.boards.net/thread/1397/why-players-return-indiana?page=8#ixzz4meKclK4gThat beach argument is the silliest one yet. I think business (and beaches) are open to the public enough to be regulated. If you are a commercial enterprise open to the public and solicit business from the public I think you should be subject to reasonable regulation. I certainly don't think anyone here has lost all their freedom of association. I didn't say you forfeited all rights at all, but only that the RFRA went too far in protecting rights. There was no real problem, and the law is too broad. I have said the latter in almost every post, and you ignore the incompetent and extreme decision the State made which created the appearance of our being a bigoted backwards state. Where would you draw the line? The guy giving away food may qualify as a business, I have no idea. If so he would be subject to applicable laws. Most civil rights laws exempt many activities. This is one that I don't know about. Should we really have the RFRA with all its flaws in order to guard against this possible food giveaway problem? Don't you think it is overkill? |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 27, 2017 11:58:48 GMT -6
I don't think "open to the public" is self-explanatory at all, seeing as just about every place that is "open to the public" still can deny access to most anyone. It's still private property. They still get to pick hours of operation. Government buildings close and lock their doors to the public every day. Hell look at what people call public beaches in New Jersey (government beaches would be more accurate). Repeat my question: Why does being open to "the public" and soliciting the public mean you forfeit your right to association? And it sounds to me like being a business doesn't really impact your reasoning at all. So if a guy purchased a restaurant and made food to give away freely to people who came in and ordered meals, he too would forfeit his right to free association because he'd opened his doors. Right? Read more: overthepylon.boards.net/thread/1397/why-players-return-indiana?page=8#ixzz4meKclK4gThat beach argument is the silliest one yet. I think business (and beaches) are open to the public enough to be regulated. If you are a commercial enterprise open to the public and solicit business from the public I think you should be subject to reasonable regulation. I certainly don't think anyone here has lost all their freedom of association. I didn't say you forfeited all rights at all, but only that the RFRA went too far in protecting rights. There was no real problem, and the law is too broad. I have said the latter in almost every post, and you ignore the incompetent and extreme decision the State made which created the appearance of our being a bigoted backwards state. Where would you draw the line? The guy giving away food may qualify as a business, I have no idea. If so he would be subject to applicable laws. Most civil rights laws exempt many activities. This is one that I don't know about. Should we really have the RFRA with all its flaws in order to guard against this possible food giveaway problem? Don't you think it is overkill? What does it mean to be open to the public? I open my house to guests on my terms and reserve the right to make any of them leave or not be allowed in. How is this different than a business that does the same? Why does the business lose freedom of association where I get to keep it? So you've just completely given up on defining what a business even is? If you claim that operating a business that is open to the public means forgoing freedom of association, but you can't define operating a business OR being open to the public how do you expect anyone to understand their rights? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 27, 2017 12:34:00 GMT -6
That beach argument is the silliest one yet. I think business (and beaches) are open to the public enough to be regulated. If you are a commercial enterprise open to the public and solicit business from the public I think you should be subject to reasonable regulation. I certainly don't think anyone here has lost all their freedom of association. I didn't say you forfeited all rights at all, but only that the RFRA went too far in protecting rights. There was no real problem, and the law is too broad. I have said the latter in almost every post, and you ignore the incompetent and extreme decision the State made which created the appearance of our being a bigoted backwards state. Where would you draw the line? The guy giving away food may qualify as a business, I have no idea. If so he would be subject to applicable laws. Most civil rights laws exempt many activities. This is one that I don't know about. Should we really have the RFRA with all its flaws in order to guard against this possible food giveaway problem? Don't you think it is overkill? What does it mean to be open to the public? I open my house to guests on my terms and reserve the right to make any of them leave or not be allowed in. How is this different than a business that does the same? Why does the business lose freedom of association where I get to keep it? So you've just completely given up on defining what a business even is? If you claim that operating a business that is open to the public means forgoing freedom of association, but you can't define operating a business OR being open to the public how do you expect anyone to understand their rights? I don't see much problem with people being confused about when they are in business or when they are engaged in social activity or other noncommercial activity. Nor do I think "opening your house" for your dinner guests is the same as advertising food and drink for sale to the public. I doubt anyone is confused about when they are going to a restaurant in ordinary course of business. I don't think government has as much interest in regulating your private non economic activity in your home. Operating a business enterprise, whether from your home or not is different than entertaining guests. |
|
