Should businesses be allowed to deny fat/ugly people?

Are you replying to me?

If so, I don't think that one person ought to be able to say that another person needs a license in order to interact with other people. We are all equals. I don't see how one person has the right to require his neighbor ask him for and pay for a license to act in a peaceful manner.

I think that each of us has the right to act as wish, as long as we don't violate the person or property of our neighbor.

 

One person doesn't require squat of his neighbor. A government requires those licensees under its jurisdiction and within its boundaries, to abide by laws and regulations that it has ascertained as in the public interest. For example a government may require a medical doctor or nurse to acquire a medical license and maintain it in good standing with the a state board of medical certification. Or a government may require that a hospital be accredited and certified consistent with HFAP or a government may require a business license or a drivers license or or an electrician's license. These are not 'persons' nor are they on par with a person. they speak with the authority of a government for the community's interest. City councils, state legislators and Congress are not your equal, because you do not have the authority to regulate commerce, and they do.

 

I don't see how they aren't? That would require the owner of the bakery to tell the gays to get out of his shop simply because they were gay, that would be discrimination. To refuse to make a selected product because it's offensive is NOT. Should a Muslim baker be forced to make donuts with bacon in them if he willing to make and sell the same donuts to the same customer without the bacon? Should a black baker be required to make a cake with racial epitaphs and the racially offensive image of Memin Pinguin on it? After all he must waive some of his rights once he filed for that business license. Should his business be shut down if he refuses?

 

That is free market enterprise, a business should have the freedom to deny service to anyone it deems fit.

It is not anyone's money at risk but the business owners, he or she, should be free to deny service to whomever they like because it is their business who they serve.

 

No, to your first example because he is not required to something more like buy and include bacon. He is providing substantially the same exact product to everyone, which happens is a pork free product.

No to your second example because in no state is political or ideological identification a protected class. You can tell someone with a Mitt Romney button on his lapel, that you will not serve republicans too.

 

You know, I just got into reading your thread as it caught my attention, however, by post #3, I see Johnny MO doing what he does best. I get tired of this. Of course he can do what he wants but THAT is what is driving me away from the big PF.

Nothing of the sort happens to the other place I frequent. And it is smooth as a baby's azz.

 

We are all equal but job interview FC matters much if an employee will work with people, so FC will remain to be employer's right to save his business.

 

By "a government" you mean certain people. And as I said, I don't think that any person or group of people ought to say that another person needs a license in order to interact with other people.

 

I concede that point as a Muslim baker wouldn't have bacon on hand and would have to go buy it.

Neither is sexual orientation depending on State Law not Federal Law and then State Law has expanded it slightly to private work places depending on the state. Federal Law only protects sexual orientation for Government jobs, not private.

BTW.........You seem to forget sexual orientation is a "limited" protected class.

But I digress, here's the question again.

Should a black baker be required to make a cake with racial epitaphs and the racially offensive image of Memin Pinguin on it? After all he must waive some of his rights once he filed for that business license. Should his business be shut down if he refuses?

Racial epitaphs and the image of Memin Pinguin may be offensive to the Black baker, they are not illegal to say or display, like Nazi's displaying the swastika. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, that would mean the the white supremacist and the racist would have the same rights to force a baker to make them a cake as the gay couple. There is NO legal grounds for the baker to refuse to make the racially offensive cake other than it offends him, should he be forced to make it?

 

I understand the Indiana law only allows people to refuse to support activity that offends their religion.
That is the pizza place would be allowed to not cater a gay wedding.
The law doesn't allow the pizza place to refuse to cater a party thrown by a gay, just a marriage thing.
The pizza place doesn't want to service a gay wedding, that's not the same as refusing pizza to a gay because he's gay.
Do you understand the difference?
If the pizza place were to be made to service a gay wedding then it's involuntary servitude.
Would you be ok if the pizza place refused to cater a NAZI wedding??

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...4871370&thid=HN.608034126874871370&ajaxhist=0