I’ve heard that one too. Since death records are not public it could be done. But a lot of family would have to be in on the secret, and the cynic in me says it would only be a matter of time before the secret slipped out.
I’ll be driving by their compound today again, on the way to Gage Park with my dog. I need to check the latest sign they have up on the northeast corner of the fence. This past week it’s been “ST VALENTINE IS A CATHOLIC LIE! GOD HATES YOUR IDOLS!”
I know it’s not always accurate (and the gov’t doesn’t even profess it to be) but the Social Security Death Index is public, no? I haven’t dealt with it in years, but at one time I looked up my father on it. I can’t recall if you could do a name search, or if you had to have the actual SS number…but given the things the internet (think Anonymous) is able to do, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that ol’ Freddie’s SSN could be found. Just a thought–completely tangental to the thread.
Re: the Kansas House: Vile, disgusting, pandering. But if this is where the (R)s want to go, I say let them fly that flag as high as they can. There’s then no need to strawman them when all one has to do is say “look at what they, themselves, are doing.”
Here’s a thread from 2012 in which we pit a church in Mississippi for refusingto allow a black couple to who attended the church to get married there. Note that no mention is made of suing the church, or its actions being illegal, in either the article or the thread.
I would expect to see signs of some nasty infighting, and probably reduced outside activity until it’s settled.
There’s also the whole Christian Identity movement, which is explicitly white supremacist. There’s a whole bunch of shitty little churches out there preaching race hate, and using extremely dodgy Biblical exegesis to do it.
Now that you mention it, their active picketing has become rare. The WBC used to picket the church I attend about one Sunday in three, and we haven’t seen them since before Thanksgiving. To see them on a streetcorner has become more rare too.
Hmmm.
Whoops, I spoke too soon. They do still picket. Here’s a link I just found after seeing a TV report about the WBC picketing against Missouri football player Michael Sam.
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2014/2/15/students-stand-sam-against-westboro-baptist/
It’s a free country, and you don’t have to do business with anyone you don’t want to. That’s what ‘free’ enterprise means. Millions have died for our freedoms. Nobody has the right to force me to do business with anyone or to fine me if I refuse. People refuse to patronize certain businesses for any reason they choose. Why doesn’t the business have the same right? Boycotts anyone?
Their idiotic tactics have backfired on them, and they seem to be abandoning them.
I’m not sure what country you think you live in but in the US the government has the right to force you to do business with any number of protected classes if you chose to offer a public accommodation. Part of making it being a free country is making sure that everyone has the freedom to participate equally. You do not have the right to refuse to serve a black customer because they are black. If you don’t want to serve black people don’t work in a business that offers public accommodations. It does limit the freedoms of businesses and I’m OK with that. I’m also OK with prisons limiting the freedom of convicted criminals. You don’t have much of a society or government if no one has restrictions on their freedom.
Making pastry is not public accommodation, and we all have the right to patronize the businesses we want, and to choose whom we do business with. That’s what ‘freedom’ means. Restaurants often have signs that say ‘we reserve the right to refuse service’; ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service’, etc. Do you drive a certain brand of car, or prefer certain brands of cereal? Or do you avoid a certain grocery store or cell phone company?
Tennessee pastor refuses to marry mixed race couples - http://progressivepopulist.org/2014/02/15/racist-preacher-calls-mixed-marriages-communism-right-mulatto-children-video/
And don’t forget Lester Maddox, who refused to serve blacks in his restaurant and eventually shut it down because of the fines being assessed by the US government for his violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And the good citizens of Georgia wound up electing him Governor.
Unless it is a private membership only bakery it is a public accommodation. If you are open to the general public you can not refuse service to a protected class based on their protected class status. A bakery can not refuse to sell a black person a cake because they are black.
Yes a private citizen has the right to discriminate.
I think your definition of freedom is going to be a lot different than those of us who have had our freedoms limited by bigots.
They reserve that right so the can ask unruly customers to leave. They do not have a right to refuse service based on someone being black.
The usual reason a business will not service someone not wearing a shirt or shoes is because it is a health code violation, so this is a poor example of the businesses freedom.
As a private citizen I discriminate as I choose.
As a business owner in MA I would never refuse service to anyone based on Race, Color, National origin, Religion, Sex, Disability: physical or mental, Age (40 and older), Genetic information, Marital status, Sexual orientation, Military service, Arrest record, or Gender identity. Those are all protected classes here. I do refuse to do business based on people being assholes though and can legally do so as assholes thankfully aren’t a protected class.
Let’s see if this can be phrased in a way that’s so simple even YOU can understand it:
You can refuse service to someone based on what they DO, but you cannot refuse service to someone based on who they ARE.
Got it?
But selling pastry is.
Ever heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act?
The Kansas Senate has refused to consider the bill - In Kansas, Right Joins Left to Halt Bill on Gays - The New York Times
And now there is a similar bill before the Tennessee state legislature - http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/14/tennessee-gop-pushes-turn-away-the-gays-bill-to-legalize-lgbt-discrimination/
And a similar bill has gone all the way to the governor in Arizona.
Seems to me that if one had a business catering to cats, it would be logical and practical to exclude dogs . . .
Why? In addition to being a really specious analogy, what is the benefit of going from “you’re probably not the target market, but whatever” to “YOU SHALL NOT ENTER,” except to make a hateful statement?
I think the legislature(s) are going about this the wrong way, but there is a potentially sticky underlying issue - how far must a private business owner go in violation of their own morals/beliefs?
What if I walked into a black owned bakery and ordered a cake with a burning cross topper? Or a Jewish owned bakery and ordered a cake celebrating the holocaust? Should the owners be legally compelled to serve me?
I have not read the statute(s). If any of them single out homosexuality or SSM as the only (or primary) protected reason for refusing service, then I believe that is wrong. A government should not, however, have the right to dictate that a business must serve every request that comes in. Where is the balance? I really don’t know. I do know it is very difficult to legislate without creating openings for unintended consequences.