Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel
Since when is it discriminatory for a PRIVATELY OWNED business to specialize in offering a certain product style, or type, which serves a certain demographic?
|
Do I seriously have to explain the difference inbetween the PRODUCT and the CUSTOMERS???
No. It's not like "French Restaurant serving Italian".
If a dating service said "We're only going to match Christians to Christians, and non-Christians to non-Christians", would you recognize THAT as discriminatory? Or White to White, and everybody else can do what they want?
How about if a restaurant refused to seat blacks and whites at the same table. If an interracial couple came in, they would have to sit in different sections.
It's discrimination Archie.
We're not talking about a MENU item here. We're talking about PEOPLE who ARE CUSTOMERS.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archie
And why isn't every single gay dating service listed on Google, all 990,000 of them required to also serve a straight clientele also?
|
1) Quite frankly, by this ruling if a "gay only" service existed, it needs to serve both gay and straight.
A straight person COULD EASILY take the gay service to court and demand such a change, with this case as an applicable precedent.
2) If you seriously think there are 990,000 gay dating services out there, then you REALLY NEED TO LOOK at those links that come up in google.
Here's some of those links:
Michelle Malkin eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuit
So I guess Michelle Malkin is doing gay dating now, eh?
Private Company Forced to Offer Gay Dating Service (Mexican, campaign, legal) - Politics and Other Controversies - City-Data Forum
eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service After Lawsuit
Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service :: WRAL.com
The vast majority of those links are NOT to "gay dating services".
Google includes news articles, web forums talking about "gay dating services", and other junk in their search replies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archie
You seem to think it's justified to force a private business owner to cater to a demographic which he never set out to serve, but will you support the requirement that all gay dating services must also serve straights?
|
1) You mean demographics like blacks, or Jews, or women?
As difficult as it may be for you to accept, our country has a LONG HISTORY of forcing "private businesses" to include demographics that the owner is prejudiced against.
2) I never said what my position on this story is.
I simply explained to you what "discrimination" was existing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archie
Just for the heck of it I googled GAY CHRISTIAN DATING SERVICES to see if this jerk had a valid point since they are hard to find. And lo and behold, 802,000 of them spring up. gay christian dating services - Google Search
So there was no discrimination here at all. |
That's a false assumption.
1) People like you need to STOP defining the word "discrimination" based on whether or not you ACCEPT the "act" that is being questioned as "discriminatory" or not.
It IS discrimination for "Christian (only) dating services".
Whether it is LEGAL discrimination is an entirely different question.
It IS possible to have discrimination that is LEGAL in our society.
The Boy Scouts discriminate against girls, gays, and atheists.
But it's legal.
2) Just because nobody has sued those other organizations doesn't mean that it's legal.
The 14th amendment was the cornerstone of Loving v Virginia.
The 14th amendment was passed ONE HUNDRED YEARS before Loving v Virginia.
Lawsuits take time for a variety of reasons. Injustices and unconstitutionalities can exist for decades before they are addressed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archie
There was no service he didn't have ready access to within his own community.
|
And we're back to the "separate drinking fountains" approach.
After all, that provides a "service" that the preson has "ready access" to, doesn't it?
The existence of alternative options DOES NOT address the justifiableness of discrimination.
If one "whites only" bakery was surrounded by TWO HUNDRED "whites and blacks" bakeries, it wouldn't make the "white only" bakery legal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archie
This was just more of the homosexual agenda to target another straight organization and force acceptance under the guise of either equality or discrimination in order to further your goal of infiltrating every aspect of our world.
|
Just because an organization serves both gays and straights doesn't mean squat about "acceptance".
In my partner's line of works, he has served all kinds of people he doesn't accept.
Some people need to realize that not discriminating does not mean "acceptance".