Re: Skirt wearer turned away
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:41 pm
Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to inc
https://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/
You have to click "comments" at the top and they slide in from the side.Fred in Skirts wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:48 pmI could not find the comment section on the article site.
Nor a place on the restaurant web site.
Would that also apply if they refused service to disabled people or black people or left-handed people? If not, why not? The difficulty here is that LG&B are seen as preferences and T is lumped in with them as though it was a lifestyle choice. It is no more a choice than being born left-handed or with dark skin. They might say they don't approve of the way LG&B people behave and I would be sympathetic to them for refusing if they were asked to help those people to behave in that way, but I would not support them refusing to give ordinary everyday service. In the case of T people, what are they being asked to assist with that they disapprove of?moonshadow wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:24 pm[...]
On the LGBTQ matter, many people have deep religious concerns for being required to render service to LGBT people.
Religion is a choice, but transgender is not; religious people can believe what they like, as deeply as they like, but if they try to put discrimination into practice they should be given no special consideration under the law.Religion is also a choice, but both are protected by the same constitutional amendment... so which one cancels the other out?
I am actually quite fine indeed with the Dress Code as it stands, italics and whatnot included. There really should be some standards in public life.Fred in Skirts wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:29 pmFrom their website "THE DRESS CODE"
Dress code: Monticello is a upscale R&B live Entertainment Restaurant.
There used to be a comment button, but I have poured over that page up one side and down the other on my phone and on my laptop... that comment button is GONE. If it is there, they did a bang up job hiding it!Fred in Skirts wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:48 pmI could not find the comment section on the article site.
Nor a place on the restaurant web site.
There are a lot of people out there who think so. Thankfully very few seem to be in business. In fact, it seems a lot of them are drawing a social security disability check.
Behave in what way?
Well, technically religion is a choice, but in fairness, maybe it's more like a belief, or a means of identity (e.g. someone who identifies as "Christian") I suppose one could force themself to not believe a certain way... but when I really think about it... could we? For example, I identify as agnostic, but one who upholds many of the teachings of Christ, but there is more to it than that, once it's all said and done, and the end of the day, when the lights are out and I'm alone with my thoughts, I admit there is still a little spark in me that believes in his salvation.
That is indeed the general structure of the law here: you can't discriminate on attributes that a person cannot change and are not relevant for the situation. So a one-legged person can be refused enrolment in a commercial pilots training on the grounds that they cannot meet the physical requirements. Once it was broadly accepted that being homosexual was not just a choice, it became illegal to discriminate on that basis.
I think that's basically the issue the SCOTUS was grappling with in 2020.rode_kater wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:30 pm The choice of clothing is an interesting one. Yes, you can discriminate on the basis of style of clothing, such as saying "smart casual" or some such (as long as it is clearly communicated beforehand). In workplaces you can insist on clothing that is safe around machinery. But can you refuse a man in a dress in a store? Here it gets fuzzier.
I was mainly referring to the act of homosexual sex, but it could include a same-sex marriage ceremony if that particular religion specifically forbade it.
If only it were so. There is no reason why people can't practice their faith without being a jerk. Millions of religious people peacefully practice their faith and coexist happily with others of differing opinions.
Indeed it's millions. The problem is the thousands who insist on being jerks about it. It's almost always a minority that causes trouble.moonshadow wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:30 pmThere is no reason why people can't practice their faith without being a jerk. Millions of religious people peacefully practice their faith and coexist happily with others of differing opinions.