(03-31-2015 03:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We'd like a king bed....

You can do anything in a queen that you can in a king. The only way this is an issue is if you push it. Book online, nobody gives a damn.

Quote:If its not such a big deal, then why did the Indiana GOP kill an amendment to this bill stating that this law wasn't designed to override non-discrimination ordinances (it was offered, and defeated). Why did Gov. Pence vote against ENDA? Just look at what he brought to his signing ceremony...the friggin' AFA.
I get it. You're not a social conservative. But you support the GOP. But if I'm you, I'd be trying to help Pence undo this crap because its' not helping the GOP at all. And due to the structure of the GOP primaries every single GOP candidate will endorse the Indiana law (Jeb Bush did so yesterday - Walker is apparently wisely hiding in a super secret bunker right now. Rand Paul supports the law). This has the potential to cause massive damage to whomever is the GOP candidate. This issue isn't going away and statements made now will be brought up in the general campaign. Who is leading the outrage over this bill? A lot of them are business establishment Republicans. How is this going to play in the Cincinnati suburbs? Or the I-4 corridor in Florida Because the uproar over this is national in scope.

I agree that this is stupid for republicans to push. But it seems that you can't be a republican without pushing it. So no, I don't support the GOP, except in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" way when it comes to fiscal issues. And even then, they aren't usually a very helpful enemy to my enemy, because they spend all their time on stupid stuff like this. The democrats are clearly my enemy, the republicans more preoccupied with other things.

I oppose the democrats not because I like the republicans, but because the democrats' ideas are harmful. Republican ideas are almost equally harmful, just in different areas.

Again, I ask you, are gay people the only people who have rights? Do we allow no consideration for sincerely held religious beliefs? Where does the equity between the two viewpoints lie?

(03-31-2015 04:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:53 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, how do they know whether someone is gay or lesbian?

I mean, I travel a lot, I check into hotels a lot, sometimes I travel alone, sometimes I am accompanied, sometimes it is a female, sometimes it is a male, sometimes I travel with someone half my age, sometimes I have travelled with people half my age, of either sex, who were very physically attractive. I've never been asked, not once, whether the woman I was with was my wife, or whether I planned to f*** her in the room, or when with a guy, what our relationship was or what acts we planned to carry on in the room. I am going to the Masters next week with a very attractive lady who is half my age. Last year I wet with a very attractive guy who is half my age. Nobody asked me anything last year, and I don't expect any questions this year.

I mean, unless you run up to the check-in desk screaming, "I'm gay and I'm going to make you rent me a room," I really can't figure out how the issue could come up. I suppose if you are with your boyfriend and you pitch a hissy fit because they put you in a room with twin beds instead of a king, maybe somebody might ask something.

But I frankly don't understand how this is a real problem, or for that matter what is the need for the law.

We'd like a king bed....

So why wasn't I questioned when I asked for a room with two queen beds, with three dudes sharing...

Two double beds, three dudes sharing...usually means college guys trying to save money on a room.

And perhaps that particular hotel didn't care.

99.999% of reservations are made online. You think they care if you are gay? They want your money. There also seems to be lots of gay people working in the hospitality industry also.

Well Arkansas has joined the fun now.

(03-31-2015 04:10 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  Well Arkansas has joined the fun now.

And they will pay dearly for it. Arkansas explicitly nullified existing non-discrimination protections in Eureka Springs and made it illegal for municipalities to enact them. They're going to have an even bigger problem walking it back. But Arkansas doesn't currently have any high profile events (and won't have them), have any business conventions, or much of a new economy corporate culture so there's really little we can do other than point out that Jane Crow is alive and well in Arkansas.

We will probably lose in Texas as well. As we have already lost in Mississippi.

But we appear to have won in MT, and look to win in NC and GA.

I've booked hundreds of hotel reservations over the years and even worked at a hotel and at a hotel booking company when I was in college and I've never asked nor been asked the sex of my traveling companions.... either when I made the reservation or checked in.

I can't say nobody has ever done so, but it has never happened to me.

A question for the lawyer types here, would it be possible for a hotel to refuse a one bed room to an unmarried (straight) couple?

(03-31-2015 04:21 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  A question for the lawyer types here, would it be possible for a hotel to refuse a one bed room to an unmarried (straight) couple?

Yes

(03-31-2015 04:21 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  A question for the lawyer types here, would it be possible for a hotel to refuse a one bed room to an unmarried (straight) couple?

It would be under the Indiana and Arkansas laws. But those laws are only used against Gay persons anyway.

(03-31-2015 04:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:21 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  A question for the lawyer types here, would it be possible for a hotel to refuse a one bed room to an unmarried (straight) couple?

Yes

Thanks, I had assumed that was the case.

And ODU has nailed why public accommodation laws in this context are idiotic.

A hotel owner can tell a straight couple to F off if they are unmarried but not a gay couple for the exact same reason.

The whole argument is a joke and is a perfect example of why America is lost.

Nobody who sees these laws in action supports them, unless they have an agenda and were made fun of as a kid.

(03-31-2015 04:29 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:21 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  A question for the lawyer types here, would it be possible for a hotel to refuse a one bed room to an unmarried (straight) couple?

Yes

Thanks, I had assumed that was the case.

Ahhh, so we see, equal protection... Hetro AND homo.

(03-31-2015 04:42 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:29 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:21 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  A question for the lawyer types here, would it be possible for a hotel to refuse a one bed room to an unmarried (straight) couple?

Yes

Thanks, I had assumed that was the case.

Ahhh, so we see, equal protection... Hetro AND homo.

Not exactly. Because those claiming religious freedom in their B&B's aren't turning away divorced persons. Nor are the florists refusing second weddings. Its just the Gays that are denied service.

In effect, while discrimination against heteros by those claiming religious motivation would be legal, it never ever happens in a commercial setting.

(03-31-2015 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We'd like a king bed....

You can do anything in a queen that you can in a king. The only way this is an issue is if you push it. Book online, nobody gives a damn.

Quote:If its not such a big deal, then why did the Indiana GOP kill an amendment to this bill stating that this law wasn't designed to override non-discrimination ordinances (it was offered, and defeated). Why did Gov. Pence vote against ENDA? Just look at what he brought to his signing ceremony...the friggin' AFA.
I get it. You're not a social conservative. But you support the GOP. But if I'm you, I'd be trying to help Pence undo this crap because its' not helping the GOP at all. And due to the structure of the GOP primaries every single GOP candidate will endorse the Indiana law (Jeb Bush did so yesterday - Walker is apparently wisely hiding in a super secret bunker right now. Rand Paul supports the law). This has the potential to cause massive damage to whomever is the GOP candidate. This issue isn't going away and statements made now will be brought up in the general campaign. Who is leading the outrage over this bill? A lot of them are business establishment Republicans. How is this going to play in the Cincinnati suburbs? Or the I-4 corridor in Florida Because the uproar over this is national in scope.

I agree that this is stupid for republicans to push. But it seems that you can't be a republican without pushing it. So no, I don't support the GOP, except in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" way when it comes to fiscal issues. And even then, they aren't usually a very helpful enemy to my enemy, because they spend all their time on stupid stuff like this. The democrats are clearly my enemy, the republicans more preoccupied with other things.

I oppose the democrats not because I like the republicans, but because the democrats' ideas are harmful. Republican ideas are almost equally harmful, just in different areas.

Again, I ask you, are gay people the only people who have rights? Do we allow no consideration for sincerely held religious beliefs? Where does the equity between the two viewpoints lie?

If you are engaged in for profit commerce, no discrimination. Sorry. If you are a church (per the IRS rules, then you can discriminate, but there are other things you can't do as a church - per the existing rules).

We pay for the roads, the police, and the other things that make commerce possible. Its long been held that if you open your doors to some, you must open them to all. If you provide a service to some, you must provide that for all.

(03-31-2015 05:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Not exactly. Because those claiming religious freedom in their B&B's aren't turning away divorced persons. Nor are the florists refusing second weddings. Its just the Gays that are denied service.

In effect, while discrimination against heteros by those claiming religious motivation would be legal, it never ever happens in a commercial setting.

I'm calling BS on the 'never ever' of this, Tom. You don't know and aren't qualified to say so.

You've been asked to put yourself on the other side of your 'fairness' and answered whether or not you support it. Obviously you don't, which means you aren't really interested in fairness. That's fine. You don't have to be... but you lose a lot of credibility with people like me who otherwise support you when you refuse...

and saying 'it never ever happens in a commercial setting' is a cop out, especially when the entire debate about the Indiana law is entirely prospective... meaning 'never ever' has anyone relied on this law to discriminate against gay people in Indiana.... You're merely arguing that they now could.

(03-31-2015 05:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its long been held that if you open your doors to some, you must open them to all. If you provide a service to some, you must provide that for all.

So the WBC should be allowed to use the force of law to make a gay baker or florist or party planner or banquet hall host their 'gays are the devil' conference?

If you say yes... then fine... I disagree, but fine.

If you say no... then your comment above clearly only holds for positions you support.

Good Christians treat their neighbor as they'd like to be treated and do not pass judgement. It's really baffling to me that so many people want an excuse to treat their neighbor poorly and judge them to Hell and back. Guess we all have different interpretations of the Bible.

Not baking someone a cake is treating them poorly?

(03-31-2015 06:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Not baking someone a cake is treating them poorly?

It's treating someone in a way that you wouldn't like to be treated.

Someone didn't want to bake a particular cake for me wouldn't bother me at all. I wouldn't think they were treating me poorly. I would think they don't just flush their values and morals for a buck. I would think I was treating them badly and not how I would want to be treated if I threatened to sue.

Seriously, someone trying to make you do something against your will. That's how YOU want to be treated?