I’ve had it happen plenty of times. I just chalk that business off as one less to work with ever again and I would warn other Roma (and people like us) about trying to use them. Over time sometimes peoples attitudes change especially if they become acquainted with other businesses that do work with Roma and enjoy them as customers, but throwing temper tantrums and filing lawsuits only serves to alienate merchants that would ordinarily work with our community.
I’m a bit surprised it didn’t end with “… and all caused by Obamacare.”
I told you it happens frequently. The fact that I don’t bitch about it on the Dope or really spend more than 30 seconds thinking about the matter should tell you enough. Their business. Their rules. The same law that allows me to throw out customers I can’t stand protects them also and I think that is a fair and acceptable law to respect regardless of the motivations of people using it.
Those screams of oppression would be correct and moral, because its 100% wrong to discriminate based on someone’s race. It is, however, 100% moral to discriminate based on someone’s bigotry, and its something I encourage everyone to do.
The thing you and others who believe like you haven’t answered is how selling a item to a person automatically means you support their lifestyle. Its a simple question but everyone who believes as you do has dodged it. Just answer it. If you sell a burger to an adulterer, does that mean you support adultery? If you sell a car to a guy who is abusive to his kids, does that mean you support the abuse?
You’re going to say that in many places, sexual orientation is not a protected class. Well how wonderful for you, being such a righteous moral crusader that you only do things that are legally allowed. So if there’s a loophole and you take advantage of it, you’re perfectly fine and right in the eyes of your god because, hey! if he wanted the rule to be stricter, he would have written footnotes to the 10 commandments! So everyone who had slaves or lynched blacks before the law was passed to eliminate them was just fine and upstanding citizens, following the law, right?
Sexual orientation is something that one is born with. Its as a part of someone as being straight is to you. Those of us who are actually good people can see it. It matters little that there aren’t laws protecting sexual orientation yet, it is immoral to discriminate against them. You just have to accept that you’re not a good person. Or keep lying to yourself, whatever
I’m pretty sure she’s saying in this thread that she racially discriminates. IOW, she is not doing what’s legally allowed at all.
Almost right, except precisely wrong. Here’s what you should say:
If you’re throwing out customers based on their race, sex, national origin, or other protected class, you’re violating a half-century of federal law and will hopefully be the subject of a lawsuit (hint: you won’t be; what protects your violation of the law is lax enforcement).
It’s not worth telling us to grow up, by the way, because someone who was born the day after this law passed is already fifty years old. No American child has not lived under this law.
Well, unless the New Testament passage in question declares that the laws on food and mixed fabrics no longer apply, while the ones about sexual immorality are just as binding as they ever were. But hey, that just proves that the Apostles were bigoted homophobes and so the passage can be discounted.
Perhaps principle would be better term for the concept. The federal law you seem to be clinging to (which takes, but one court case to strike down, sometimes I think about being that case) does not say that a shop owner has to subject themselves to unpleasant situations, rude or dangerous behavior to conduct their business, nor do I believe if the matter were brought before the Supreme Court in a truly equitable fashion, engage in behavior they consider immoral.
Your culture is who you are unless you make a make a very strident point to denounce it.
When I played violin as a teenager with a Roma ensemble I always loved working Jewish weddings because the men never bothered me. I think it was the most pleasant money I ever made being able to just do my job and nothing else.
I know that this is from early in the thread, but it sums the whole thing up so well. I may need to keep a copy of this around…mind if I quote you when unsavory things come up in my Facebook feed?
I love the idea that citing a law means “clinging to” the law. You’re very poetic! Alas, entertaining though I’d find it for you to offer your own discriminatory practices for the court, I might first suggest you read up on Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. You might not find your court case makes it very far on this settled issue of law.
Ah, but that’s not the culture we’re specifically talking about, is it? You were asked which specific cultures you do NOT feel comfortable working with. To be clearer: are there cultures whose members you deny service to, based on their membership in that culture, and if so, which specific cultures are we talking about?
The fact that not everyhthing is always available is not in dispute. Sometimes there arent enough seats on the bus and you physically cant sit where you want. That has nothing much to do with the topic at hand.
In my spiritual advisory practice I don’t take American born black male clients. In thirty plus years of reading cards, palms and charts I never had one that wasn’t an asshole, so a few years ago I told the scheduler at my shops not to book any appointments with them on my schedule. I don’t work American black events as a musician or an entertainer. I have had too many bad experiences. I have had to brandish too many weapons because of creeps that think musicians are prostitutes. And if anyone ever tries to sue me I will gladly dredge thirty plus years detailing these experiences into court (I rant in my journals a lot).
Those experiences and journals will get you absolutely nowhere in court, but dream on.
ZPG Zealot, you are…
[checks forum]
Never mind, wake me up when this gets moved to the Pit.
Neither do bus seats. The topic at hand is whether or not a small business should be destroyed because they do not care to take certain clients. I think there is more than enough room in the American marketplace of nonessential items to give small business owner’s choices also. Didn’t forcing someone to do work against the will become illegal with the 13th amendment?
I’m curious about the logistics of that. Did you put up with these American born black assholes for 30 whole years, then suddenly decide enough was enough?
Actually, yes. I like to give everybody a chance, but after 30 years, enough is enough. When a particular type of client always seems to a problem, sometimes it’s better just to send that category of client elsewhere.
I would be super-glad for you to do that, as well, and if you’ll be kind enough to send me the name of your business, I’ll do what I can to achieve this goal for you.
There’s an interesting twist on Civil Rights laws: how do you deal with a charlatan who refuses to scam people based on their race? I mean, how do you argue that a person’s been harmed by a racism-based *refusal *to victimize them?