• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Washington Republican introduces bill that would legalise discrimination

Mr. X

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Legislation proposed in Washington state this week would allow businesses to deny service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population and others, based on religious differences.

Under the terms of the bill, businesses in the state could refuse service to anyone whose religious or philosophical beliefs differ from their own. They could not, however, refuse service based on areas protected under federal law, which does not include the LGBT community.

The legislation was sparked by a lawsuit filed in April by the American Civil Liberties Union against a florist in Richland, Wash., who, based on her religious beliefs, denied service to a gay couple who were getting married, The Associated Press reports.

State Sen. Sharon Brown (R-Kennewick), the lead sponsor of the bill, told The Associated Press that religion needs to be protected by the state government.

"There's a glaring lack of protection for religion in state law," Brown said.

The portion of the state's non-discrimination statute that Brown seeks to amend includes sexual orientation, but is limited to specific areas and does not include service in businesses. The areas protected include employment, hotel stays, the purchase of real estate and insurance, and the use of credit cards.

It is unclear if Brown's proposals would now allow hotels to deny rooms to LGBT individuals. Brown was not available for immediate comment.

In her legislation, Brown writes that many people come to the United States to escape religious discrimination and her bill is a way to preserve religious freedom.

But opponents of the legislation, including Equality Washington, noted that Brown's bill is seeking to create a new class of discrimination in the state instead.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/washington-discrimination-gay_n_3164812.html

Sad that a country created to allow Religious Freedom is now using Religion to persecute Freedoms.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Merely introduced. I don't think it is going to get anywhere. And it shouldn't.

But, if this were to pass, why would an insurance company or credit card company not do business with you? Do they not like money? Shouldn't matter who you are if you can pay. Makes absolutely no sense

Hotels, realty, and things that are independent or franchised I can maybe see that occurring (and those would be people who really should not be running a business), but still isn't right. And still makes no sense to me. You're in business, you want the almighty dollar, you don't turn away customers (generally). It boggles my mind.

Although I wouldn't have a clue how they would even know you're gay in the first place O_o
 

Magnetic

Underground Trainer
117
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Jan 29, 2018
Every time I think I've seen it all, the world continues to amaze me and step back 100 years. Just ridiculous.
 

cacturne4512

244
Posts
12
Years
Why should this be even necessary? You wouldn't even be able to know if the customer you're serving is gay or not, and even if you were able to, if they're not doing anything else that would normally result in being refused service, you're just losing money.
 
Entermaid

Entermaid

2,138
Posts
11
Years
There is no reason why a private business should not be able to discriminate against services to customers based off sex, race, or gender. Simply, businesses that do discriminate will be reprimanded by the loss of business and capital; there is no need to regulate it.

However, since corporations receive funding by the government, especially large companies with major subsidies and tax breaks, those businesses that operate while receiving funds have a duty in order to continue funding given that they are entering a mixture of public/private sector rather than a pure private sector, and therefore, should not have the ability to discriminate or do anything by which goes against a compelling state interest while receiving government monetary benefits.

This law should be amended to stipulate that discrimination can exist in businesses, yet those businesses that do discriminate may not receive federal or state funding.
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Fenneking said:
There is no reason why a private business should not be able to discriminate against services to customers based off sex, race, or gender. Simply, businesses that do discriminate will be reprimanded by the loss of business and capital; there is no need to regulate it.

However, since corporations receive funding by the government, especially large companies with major subsidies and tax breaks, those businesses that operate while receiving funds have a duty in order to continue funding given that they are entering a mixture of public/private sector rather than a pure private sector, and therefore, should not have the ability to discriminate or do anything by which goes against a compelling state interest while receiving government monetary benefits.

This law should be amended to stipulate that discrimination can exist in businesses, yet those businesses that do discriminate may not receive federal or state funding.
Click to expand...

In fact, if consumers can't distinguish between discriminatory and nondiscriminatory businesses, then they won't know whom to refrain from doing business with.

I'm also concerned with the OP's rhetoric. He seems to be hell-bent on bashing the Republican Party, seeing as almost all of his threads have the word "Republican" in the title. While there's no doubt that the GOP isn't perfect, neither are the Democrats.
 
Mr. X

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
They have the word Republican in the title because they are the ones doing this.

Then again, I guess political correctness means that 'speaking the truth' is 'bashing' something.

If Republicans wouldn't undertake stupid actions - That is, attempts to supress the rights of people that they do not like - Then I would have no need to point out these actions.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
FreakyLocz14 said:
In fact, if consumers can't distinguish between discriminatory and nondiscriminatory businesses, then they won't know whom to refrain from doing business with.
Click to expand...
True, but I don't think discontent from consumers would be noticeable strong. It comes down to wanting the best bang for your buck. There may be momentarily blitzes of coverage and outrage and then we move on.

I don't think social/political issues surrounding a business influences the majority of consumers, myself including. I don't care XD But, if you prevent such discrimination from occurring in the first place then they wouldn't even need to consider such things. Decisions could then come down to quality, price, quantity, value, marketing, etc. More market-driven metrics, which is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top