posted on October 7, 2001 04:47:07 AM new
---greedbay - You seem to think that there are no exceptions to the laws you believe exist.---
Quote ONE line from ANY of my posts that indicates that I "seem" to think that. Just one. And I don't "BELIEVE" that these laws exist, THEY DO.
---As far as I know, Hooters restaurants are still getting away with hiring only slim, big-breasted women to wait on their tables. They were questioned on it before and get away with it stating that they are a "themed" restaurant and hire women that only have their required (what they call) "Girl-next-door" looks. So, if you're an overweight female, forget about bothering to apply for a waitress job there... ---
That has NOTHING to do with anything I posted. Whether or not there are laws governing something is entirely separate from the fact that people/companies are violating them, and possibly getting away with it.
---You might not want to think there are, but there are exceptions, believe me...
---
Um THIS is the main absurd statement I objected to, and again, noone said there aren't "exceptions" in theory or practice-
---A private business has the right to cater to ANYONE they want to and exclude ANYONE they want to.---
That is plainly, simply, and obviously a completely absurd statement. Under what law or "constitutional right" does anyone who makes such a silly statement think that it's true????
posted on October 7, 2001 07:35:48 PM new
Perhaps this will make things more clear to everybody in this thread:
In this country, it is completely legal to discriminate against *ANY* person for *ANY* reason *OTHER* than those which are constitutionally protected, i.e. skin color [I did not mention "race", for we are all the same "race", and are all brothers and sisters however distantly removed], religion, gender, etc. It is, for example, totally legal to discriminate against anyone with blue hair or who wears Levi's jeans. Furthermore, while private businesses are obstensibly "open to the public", they are not in fact "public property". All persons in that business are there at the pleasure of the business owner. In this way, a private business owner shares many of the same rights and privileges as does a person inviting guest into his or her private home. A private business owner may request and demand that any person leave their property, so long as the reason for expelling that person is not one of those specificly protected under the constitution.
Furthermore, certain groups are allowed by our current government to discriminate against people in clear violation of their constitutional rights, if those being discriminated against are believed to be "oppressors", i.e all-girl schools, minority and gender-based scholarships, and affirmative action programs. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The BSA falls into neither category above. Because they are in many ways like a religious organization, they are allowed to discriminate against those who do not share their common beliefs. This is protected under the constitution, and for good reason. It would not be proper, for instance, for a local church congregation to be forced to accept into a leadership position any person who does not agree with the faith of that local congregation. Those who oppose the BSA or other religious groups because they believe themselves to be unfairly excluded are fully permitted to start their own religious groups, and then exclude any who disagree with their own beliefs. Under this same principle, it is constitionally permitted to have schools, scholarships, and other similar programs which require adherance to a specific faith -- not that they require people to believe a certain way, but that they only grant benefits to those who do. But gender and skin color are not faiths.
