I meant that they benefit financially because if people didn’t pay taxes, there wouldn’t be roads or sidewalks or schools or firehouses or police stations, which means that the for profit-business in question wouldn’t be making any profits at all. If I live in your neighborhood and my taxes help make it possible for you to have your business, then you shouldn’t be able to discriminate against me.

Let’s turn that around and see if it makes sense.

If I operate my business and pay taxes in your neighborhood, then you shouldn’t be able to discriminate against me either. So you’ll be shopping at my store from now on, no matter the prices or the customer service. After all, as a business I pay a hell of a lot more taxes than you do so. (Come to think of it, maybe I even get to dictate your sex life. After all, you do walk on the sidewalks I pay for.)

Perhaps we should agree that – regardless of the arguments made by some of the more totalitarian-minded Republicans – “I pay taxes” does not give us the right to make decisions for other taxpayers.

When would a church’s religious beliefs *not* be a factor?

There is a common misconception about religious belief, in a legal context. It isn’t just “hey, I believe this”, it has to be consistent with the expressed beliefs of your religious community and it has to be on a matter that is part of a uniquely identifiable part of the engagement of one’s beliefs.

For example, suppose the local United Church of Christ owned a coffee-shop. And suppose that it fired an employee when they found out she was gay.

It would matter a great deal that this was UCC and not Southern Baptist, because the teachings of the two communities are worlds apart on the issue. And while the pastor of a local UCC Church might be homophobic, he doesn’t have the legal presumption that his anti-gay beliefs are based on religious objection because his denomination teaches equality.

Then it would matter whether this coffee-shop was a real part of the church’s ministry. If it were expressly created and operated consistently as a means of ministry (like maybe the wait staff spending time at each table talking about how great it is to be a Baptist) then they would have some argument.

But simply saying “we are a church” is not enough to exempt them from non-discrimination laws.

As for formatting, just use simple HTML codes.

Talk about a straw man…

But you just said exactly what I said. You said the scenario is unlikely, and I don’t think it is. I also don’t think the law should condone it even if it is rare.

Then we disagree. I suppose that there actually is a real answer somewhere (maybe SPLC?) as to the frequency of racial minorities being denied access to food, but ’til someone more knowledgable than either of us chimes in we are left with our best guesses.

As for legality, you and I see the world from opposite perspectives. You seem to think that the law condones things which it allows and that freedoms should be restricted unless “the law” approves of them. I believe the exact opposite: individuals (including merchants) should be as free as possible and laws should only restrict them in areas in which they actively (not by omission) harm others.

“The Law” neither condemns nor condones anything which it does not address. And when “the law” gets in the condemning and condoning business – as it does from time to time – it is not really “the law” that is doing so, it’s politicians using the law to impart their own values onto the lives of their constituents. Having been on the “condoned” side of that equation more than I care for, I am always hesitant to go there.

There has been some discussion about how if one engages in commerce in any way then the government is free to assign any dictates that it prefers. After all, you can simply do something else (which is also under the same demands, turning this argument into “well, you could just choose not to eat”). I have a significantly higher barrier for what I think is reasonable intrusion.

Now as you have clarified that you didn’t read my comment before responding to it, perhaps you were not intending to use a strawman argument – I’ll retract that. But in the future, please read my full comment before rebutting it.

Stop pretending to be a victim.

Absolutely, Priya! Let me put a different spin on this issue. I am disabled, and use a manual wheelchair for mobility. Although the ADA was signed into law 20 years ago, there are still hundreds of businesses in my community that are not accessible. In most cases, just one step is separating me from the services I want and need. The only thing which must be done is install a ramp, for crying out loud! But they don’t. For all intents and purposes, that step has the same effect as a big old “Abled-Bodied ONLY” sign to anyone who uses a wheelchair.

The problem with not having anti-discrimination laws and/or the ADA is that minority groups, by their very definition, represent a smaller number of people than the majority. Thus, minority groups do not have the financial clout to negatively impact a business by forcing it not to discriminate or risk losing income. And while able-bodied people (or people who are straight and support LGBT rights) may talk a good game and claim this kind of discrimination is wrong, there aren’t too many of them who are willing to go out of their way and forego doing business with a particular provider just because they discriminate against LGBT folks, people with disabilities, or any other minority group.

Unless discriminating impacts a business’s bottom line (through income loss or fines imposed for discriminating), there is no incentive for them to change. Because minorities don’t have the numbers to affect that bottom line, the only way to prevent discrimination is with the law and the imposition of fines or penalities for those businesses in violation.

Of course, with so many businesses still not in compliance with the ADA 20 years after the law took effect, it seems anti-discrimination laws are doing a far better job of ending discrimination for minority groups than the ADA has for people with disabilities.

(BTW, I have no idea how to format or change the font or anything on this website. Sorry that it looks so messy).