The debate "Public restaurants can NOT refuse to serve lgbtqa+ people because they are lgbtqa+" was started by
April 11, 2015, 9:59 pm.
42 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Elpiyu posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, Getmurked posted 2 arguments, I_Voyager posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Bodaciouslady16 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
transfanboy, parth311, Mastermind, Shuttey, YesOrNo, PsychDave, I_Voyager, Getmurked, meetakapoor, battletrick, sugoi_shan, Vivinary, tr, invincible_01, rcheyanne99, AtheistOfHappiness, sighnomore99, wkahhoong, Argument_fightme and 23 visitors agree.
Bodaciouslady16, mancandyandy, ufufugh, Elpiyu, omkar, judge, jonatron5 and 5 visitors disagree.
yeah, theres no equal ground for kicking someone out for any reason other than them causing a disruption, otherwise we coule kick people out all the time for no reason
Anyone, but not for any reason.
Let's say an LGBT person grabs a glass cup and smashes on the ground and starts yelling. If they get kicked out, it's not because they're LGBT. They're an asshole.
Let's say an LGBT person grabs a menu and says "I'll have the hamburger please." In this case the store owner has no right to kick the person out.
The store owner doesn't have infinite rights. The store owner doesn't have a right to any kind of discrimination. The store owner can protect their property and their employees. After that, they have no right to serve or not serve people because they just don't like something arbitrary about them.
I know, and I know that that kind of discrimination is not representative of everyone in Indiana. I only included it for the sake of accuracy.
indiana is changing that ASAP
and yes, i think everywhere they shouldnt be able to do that, its discriminatory and wrong, and would cause more problems than it solves
The right to refuse has certain limitations. It cannot be based on race, color, religion or national origin in any place of public accommodation (restaurant, store, hotel, etc). Sexual preference is not covered in the federal law, however there are many states that have enacted laws to prevent discrimination based on sexual preference. The rule regarding who is not welcome also has to be clear and not arbitrary (you can't ignore it for some and not others, and there has to be a reason).
In Canada, protected groups include race, national origin, color, religion, gender, age, disability and sexual orientation. So in Canada it is illegal to deny service to people based on sexual preference.
So depending on where you live it might not be illegal to deny service to someone based on their sexual preference, but anywhere other than Indiana you may be opening yourself up to potential lawsuits.
In all actuality, a restaurant has the same amount of rights to refuse service to anyone they don't like to the same extent of refusing service lgbt. I'm in words not against homosexuals in fact I am all for what you believe in but restaurant owners have the right to refuse service to anyone
I would explicitly say that im not a homophobic, however we cannot force resto owners to serve individuals that they think will affect their conscience especially if they are really attached to their religion that explicitly say that being homo is a sin. More than that since there is guilt for the resto owners that theyre serving people which is against their religion, the quality of service might gravely affected.We dont want lgbt to be served with less delicious food just because their homos right?