We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Well they certainly got off easy (4 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
"TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, Caféteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5041 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quite amazing.
Isn't some of this superseded by subsequent housing law? I'm thinking specifically of b (1), "other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; " or is that still a present exemption?

(General law question--is there some way to know in general if a section of a law has been superseded?)
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
That is interesting Lobo. I've got a couple questions.

1. You said earlier that the bakery would probably qualify as a place of public accommodation but the description in the law doesn't seem as though it would apply. It specifically says, "facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises", which a cake bakery is most likley not "principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premisis".

2. Also, the law specifically states that it covers, "without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." It doesn't mention sexual orientation.

Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law?
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law?


They were certainly breaking any moral law not based decency.

The fact that we need any laws to compel people to treat others with the same respect that they demand, is a disgrace in this land where ALL are supposed to have been created equally.

Please note that when speaking of morality I'm speaking GENERALLY.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
motown
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta by way of Detroit
6022 Posts

Profile of motown
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
Or maybe, Rockwall, other facts and circumstances accounted for the different outcomes to these dissimilar cases of business services discrimination:


The Pennsylvania Barber Shop Case

1. The Pennsylvania barber shop in question specifically marketed itself as an upscale gentleman's room, bar, and barber shop, a man cave where men came to congregate, have a beer, and get a traditional barber's haircut.

2. The woman who filed the complaint with Pennsylvania's Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs had made an online booking for haircuts for her and her boyfriend.

3. When they showed up, the owner of the shop was gracious, explained that they really didn't cut women's hair and weren't equipped for it (no woman had ever requested a haircut there), and even offered to pay for the woman to get a haircut at a place nearby that he recommended.

4. After the woman filed her complaint, the owner of the barbershop was contrite, said he hadn't really realized he was legally compelled to also cut women's hair, explained that he hadn't conceived that a woman would want her hair cut in his establishment and was caught by surprise, said he'd certainly cut women's hair in the future if anyone wanted it, and said the experience had even given him the idea of opening a shop to cater specifically to female clients.

5. The barbershop owner took his medicine and paid the fine "out of respect for the law."

I wonder if the woman had gotten a bad haircut if she would have filed a complaint. Smile
"If you ever write anything about me after I'm gone, I will come back and haunt you."
– Karl Germain
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2015, rockwall wrote:
That is interesting Lobo. I've got a couple questions.

1. You said earlier that the bakery would probably qualify as a place of public accommodation but the description in the law doesn't seem as though it would apply. It specifically says, "facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises", which a cake bakery is most likley not "principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premisis".

2. Also, the law specifically states that it covers, "without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." It doesn't mention sexual orientation.

Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law?



Quite probably. They were sued under state law.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law?


They were certainly breaking any moral law not based decency.

The fact that we need any laws to compel people to treat others with the same respect that they demand, is a disgrace in this land where ALL are supposed to have been created equally.

Please note that when speaking of morality I'm speaking GENERALLY.


I don't think we have moral laws unlike some other countries.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Does this mean that the bakery was more than likely not breaking federal law but possibly just state law?


They were certainly breaking any moral law not based decency.

The fact that we need any laws to compel people to treat others with the same respect that they demand, is a disgrace in this land where ALL are supposed to have been created equally.

Please note that when speaking of morality I'm speaking GENERALLY.


I don't think we have moral laws unlike some other countries.


Let me be the first to say that you're quite incorrect about that.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
It appears you are.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
What is "You are legally required to obtain health insurance in order to facilitate the subsidization of health insurance for people who would otherwise be unable to afford it" if not a "moral law"?

Or laws prohibiting gambling, or prostitution?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
Quote:
On Sep 21, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
What is "You are legally required to obtain health insurance in order to facilitate the subsidization of health insurance for people who would otherwise be unable to afford it" if not a "moral law"?

Or laws prohibiting gambling, or prostitution?


That question made me reflect on how ineffectual laws against gambling and prostitution are.

The laws never stop it or even seem to make a dent in it.

Then I thought of drugs and - same thought.

Oh well I thought - at least the laws against murder and thieving work.

And then I thought - hold on - do they?

There's still plenty of murderers and thieves.

So now I'm wondering if any of our laws work?

If we would have any less murdering and thieving without laws against it?

If any of the laws actually lessen the amount of offences committed or just provide a framework for dealing with them?
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
The ACA isn't just a moral law. It's purely pragmatic as well. Who pays (and how much) for the health care of those who can't afford insurance without the ACA?

But I suppose, of course, that "just let them die," is a moral choice as well.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 21, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
The ACA isn't just a moral law. It's purely pragmatic as well. Who pays (and how much) for the health care of those who can't afford insurance without the ACA?

But I suppose, of course, that "just let them die," is a moral choice as well.


True, too. I suspect that most laws in the USA are "moral laws" in part or in whole.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5041 Posts

Profile of landmark
Isn't the whole concept of law a moral construct?
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 21, 2015, landmark wrote:
Isn't the whole concept of law a moral construct?


I would say in large part, if not primarily.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Steven Keyl
View Profile
Inner circle
Washington, D.C.
2587 Posts

Profile of Steven Keyl
Both sides of this argument have strong points. As per usual I fall out somewhere in between.

Should the LGBT community become a protected group? Here are a couple of thoughts...

#1 : The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted largely to counter an en masse discrimination of black people in specific parts of the country. Yes, there are provisions for other groups but it was the racial component that created the political will to push it forward. In parts of the country, the discrimination was so severe and so widespread that some legal remedy was necessary. The LGBT community is working within a very different context. There were entire towns where a black man (or woman) could not stay in a hotel or go to a restaurant. This situation seems quite different to me in that if an isolated baker or barber refuses service you can go to one of 1,000 others. I'm sure many of you can provide additional examples of discrimination but the larger point is that this discrimination does not rise to the level that was necessary to enact the Civil Rights Act in the first place. Should the pervasiveness of the discrimination have some bearing on whether or not a Constitutional Amendment is required? If not, then there are many other groups that should be Constitutionally protected as well, not just the LGBT crowd.

#2 : If a shop owner wants to be ignorant, hateful and small shouldn't they have the right to do so? Wouldn't the free market weed them out? They would lose business of not only the LGBT community but all the people that oppose discrimination in general, and there are a lot of people that fit that description. The fewer people you allow through your doors, the less money you make, the more money your competition makes and the quicker you'll be out of business and give way to those business that are most inclusive.

#3 : You can't legislate what's in a person's heart and mind. Just because a bakery is legally required to bake a cake doesn't mean that I'd want to buy that cake if I knew the malice and bigotry behind it (and accept the possibility of one or more 'secret ingredients'). A good friend of mine in college once told me why he preferred spending time in the south. He said there is no pretext down there. If someone doesn't like you, for whatever reason, the color of your skin, the shine of your shoes, etc. they will say it to your face. In yankee country, you just never know the true intent behind the smile. Isn't it in some way an advantage to have a bigot advertise their bigotry so you know what's behind the veneer and what establishments to avoid?
Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!

Come visit Magic Book Report.com!

"If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Sep 21, 2015, Destiny wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 21, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
What is "You are legally required to obtain health insurance in order to facilitate the subsidization of health insurance for people who would otherwise be unable to afford it" if not a "moral law"?

Or laws prohibiting gambling, or prostitution?


That question made me reflect on how ineffectual laws against gambling and prostitution are.

The laws never stop it or even seem to make a dent in it.

Then I thought of drugs and - same thought.

Oh well I thought - at least the laws against murder and thieving work.

And then I thought - hold on - do they?

There's still plenty of murderers and thieves.

So now I'm wondering if any of our laws work?

If we would have any less murdering and thieving without laws against it?

If any of the laws actually lessen the amount of offences committed or just provide a framework for dealing with them?



The fact that a majority of people obey the law is why society works. When they don't it doesn't . Laws per se don't prevent crime. They only prescribe punishment so the risk reward is not good.
Most people obey because they agree it is the right way to run a society. When they don't you get anarchy.
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Sep 21, 2015, landmark wrote:
Isn't the whole concept of law a moral construct?


Only in the sense that they come from the 10 commandments or earlier ideas of how society should work. Otherwise they are invented to help those in power.
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Sep 21, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
The ACA isn't just a moral law. It's purely pragmatic as well. Who pays (and how much) for the health care of those who can't afford insurance without the ACA?

But I suppose, of course, that "just let them die," is a moral choice as well.


I think there is more here than get insurance or die. The ACA only affects a small portion of the population. There are other pragmatic ways to accomplish the goal of keeping people from dying.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 22, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
The ACA only affects a small portion of the population.


Since nearly 90% of Americans now have health coverage (a sharp improvement from two years ago), it's more accurate to say that the ACA affects almost the entire population.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/eco......-gallup/


Quote:
There are other pragmatic ways to accomplish the goal of keeping people from dying.


Such as...?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Well they certainly got off easy (4 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL