Yakoob on 14/11/2016 at 22:44
At the risk of sounding bigoted, I'm a little torn about this ruling. I'm all for LGBTQ rights, but I also support "freedom to refuse service" of a business. Maybe the fault is the business explained why, which is what is indeed discriminatory? Would it have been ok if they just said "no" and refused to explain why?
Not baking a cake is not quite like separate bathrooms or refusing to hire someone ala Jim Crowe laws, but I see how it's a slippery slope that could very well lead to that. So maybe play it safe on the side of non-discrimination in this case?
Renzatic on 14/11/2016 at 22:54
The fear of the slippery slope is why these little transgressions are rarely ever tolerated. The Civil Rights Act of '64 prevents any company operating in the commercial sphere from discriminating against their customers over race, sex, creed, orientation, or nationality. Any exceptions to it now only serves to open up room for more exceptions later.
SD on 15/11/2016 at 02:27
Quite simply, if you want permission to operate a business servicing the public, then you need to provide that service to the public, which means you can't refuse services to people because they are gay, or black, or Canadian. Social cohesion depends on it, so there is a vested public interest in prohibiting this type of unresonable discrimination.
Tocky on 15/11/2016 at 02:43
Not even Canadian? That's going too far.
Renzatic on 15/11/2016 at 02:54
I ain't accommodating no frostbacks. :mad:
Nicker on 15/11/2016 at 04:05
Canuck is the new Black.
Vae on 15/11/2016 at 04:48
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I ain't accommodating no frostbacks. :mad:
That's the spirit!...:mad:
Renzatic on 15/11/2016 at 04:53
Great. Vae just agreed with me. Now I have to say something nice about Canada.
Mr.Duck on 15/11/2016 at 08:00
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Great. Vae just agreed with me. Now I have to say something nice about Canada.
Well, I'm in Canada now. So they got that going for themselves.
<3
