We all know the right to free speech is not absolute.

 

But to answer your question, at least BGP has the balls to publicly post what is not allowed at BGP.

 

Again, I get your point, but I feel there has to be some leeway to protect the religious freedom of business owners, just as you protect your editorial freedom as a business owner. And, Hey, are you allowed to say balls? oops, am I allowed to say balls? I remember getting sidelined once for using the word nads;0)

If I own a business I shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone and I should be forced to hang up any sign. It's my business and my money.

 

So the Woolworth's can still segregate at the lunch counter?

Please tell me where I said a business owner should be able to do as they like. I'll wait.

 

As far as the second part of your post, give me a break. If the only argument you have is "you're not a real American if you you don't agree with me" then there I guess we're done. Sharia Law? Really?

 

I thought that is what you are saying in the earlier post.

 

"If I own a business I shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone and I should be forced to hang up any sign. It's my business and my money. "

Posting the signs Guru proposed is absolutely no different than, the "No Blacks Allowed" or "Whites Only" signs from the past. Those are reprehensible as are these proposed signs. This goes back to the legislation and as I said in the other thread I don't trust Frankfort Politicians to craft a law in such away that it doesn't allow for such actions if one so wanted to but those old signs back up.

So the Woolworth's can still segregate at the lunch counter?

If that's what they want to do. How long do you think WoolWorth's would be in business if they did?

 

I thought that is what you are saying in the earlier post.

 

"If I own a business I shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone and I should be forced to hang up any sign. It's my business and my money. "

Nope. There are obviously things business can't be allowed to do any more than the individual. Health codes for restaurants for example, not allowing companies or individuals to dump chemicals in water ways...things like that.

 

However, ones right to be a racist piece of crap shouldn't stop because they hang an "Open for Business" sign on their door.

Again, I get your point, but I feel there has to be some leeway to protect the religious freedom of business owners, just as you protect your editorial freedom as a business owner. And, Hey, are you allowed to say balls? oops, am I allowed to say balls? I remember getting sidelined once for using the word nads;0)

 

I don't want to see anyone discriminated against because someone doesn't agree with their sexual preference or the color of their skin or any other multitude of differences we all have.

 

Our differences are our strength.

If that's what they want to do. How long do you think WoolWorth's would be in business if they did?

 

 

Nope. There are obviously things business can't be allowed to do any more than the individual. Health codes for restaurants for example, not allowing companies or individuals to dump chemicals in water ways...things like that.

 

However, ones right to be a racist piece of crap shouldn't stop because they hang an "Open for Business" sign on their door.

 

If history says anything the Woolworths might have kept business up had then been able to keep it's counters white. Same for a lot of business' down here some 50 to 60 years ago.

 

I think human nature and history has revealed that without certain discrimination practices being halted, society and business' doesn't go about "doing the right thing." Just my take.

An interesting recent Court case.

 

‘Muslim-Free Zone’: Gun-shop owner wins case

I don't want to see anyone discriminated against because someone doesn't agree with their sexual preference or the color of their skin or any other multitude of differences we all have.

 

Our differences are our strength.

 

So can I use the word 'nads' now? As in kicked in the...

So can I use the word 'nads' now? As in kicked in the...

 

Please, no.

An interesting recent Court case.

 

‘Muslim-Free Zone’: Gun-shop owner wins case

 

Tip of the Iceberg, and it is a big one.

New legislation in KY.

 

Posting the signs Guru proposed is absolutely no different than, the "No Blacks Allowed" or "Whites Only" signs from the past. Those are reprehensible as are these proposed signs. This goes back to the legislation and as I said in the other thread I don't trust Frankfort Politicians to craft a law in such away that it doesn't allow for such actions if one so wanted to but those old signs back up.

 

Can someone provide a link to a story on the legislation being proposed? For some reason I am in the dark on this one. Is it really saying you can choose not to serve specific groups of people--like MUslims, gays, African-Americans, or evangelicals? I find that hard to believe. That is reprehensible, as Jumper_Dad states.

 

If it is saying this I will apologize to @theguru for my initial response in this thread.

Oh, I see it is called SB180. Clyde mentioned it in another thread. I'll see if I can find it to read it.

Can someone provide a link to a story on the legislation being proposed? For some reason I am in the dark on this one. Is it really saying you can choose not to serve specific groups of people--like MUslims, gays, African-Americans, or evangelicals? I find that hard to believe. That is reprehensible, as Jumper_Dad states.

 

If it is saying this I will apologize to @theguru for my initial response in this thread.

 

http://bluegrasspreps.com/controversial-issues/does-sb-180-324493.html

Oh, I see it is called SB180. Clyde mentioned it in another thread. I'll see if I can find it to read it.

 

Also:

 

http://bluegrasspreps.com/controversial-issues/kentucky-senate-panel-323873.html