Hopefully someone with a talent for wording and punctuation will write it It would be a shame for it to not be taken serious because it wasn't readable to some, or is shot down solely based on grammar, or one or two words. Or overturned later in the courts on same basis. It does happen in our legalistic and law based societySo it seems to me this bill isn't about letting someone refuse to service a gay customer as it is protecting a business from being forced to break its moral code.
..........
I hope the language in the bill is specific enough about that otherwise it'll get shot down for being too vague.
This is important, though. You need to be specific when legislating.Hopefully someone with a talent for wording and punctuation will write it It would be a shame for it to not be taken serious because it wasn't readable to some, or is shot down solely based on grammar, or one or two words. Or overturned later in the courts on same basis. It does happen in our legalistic and law based societySo it seems to me this bill isn't about letting someone refuse to service a gay customer as it is protecting a business from being forced to break its moral code.
..........
I hope the language in the bill is specific enough about that otherwise it'll get shot down for being too vague.
It is the case sometimes in so many things that one or more ultraist types will go after how someone states something so as to take away from what was stated
so very true wander how often common sense is replaced with proper wording ? One can only hope and pray that that law makers can find the two compatible.^What C$ said. A former lawyer turned pastor and bible college professor told me, "A country's laws are the height of its literature. Every phrase, every punctuation mark, each word choice matters." Cases are won or lost based on the tense of a verb.
how childish of Connecticut governor to make such a order where does he think he is in facebook?The Connecticut governor has issued an executive order banning state travel to Indiana over this law.
... even though Connecticut passed a similar law in 1993.
The ability to deny service as I said before has its limits, depending on the reason for the denial. To address this question, it again depends on what they are being asked to provide. Assuming that the KKK would want such a business to do the catering in the first place, are they asking the business to just provide the food or are they being asked to serve or otherwise have their staff participate directly in the event? I've seen both happen regarding catering. If it is the former, then I would say they do not have a right to refuse service cause again, all they are doing is making food. What happens to it after it is delivered is not up to them and they bear no direct responsibility for it. In the case of the latter I think there would be a good case for refusing service. The reason is again, that they would be asked to directly participate in the event itself, not just provide the food. The product in the former case is just the food which in itself is neutral. That is not the case in the latter.Businesses should have the right to refuse service. Restaurants should have the right to refuse catering if they don't wish to do it. What if a restaurant owner was African American, he should have the right to turn down a KKK reunion...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests