GOP lawmaker: “Businesses should be allowed to turn away people of color”

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

A South Dakota state lawmaker argued in a Facebook comment that businesses should be allowed to turn down people based on the color of their skin. 

The comment from state Rep. Michael Clark (R) came shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. 

"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."

Clark deleted the post on Tuesday, saying he had "jumped in on it a little bit too fast," the Leader reported. 

[rumours 45,521]

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/CivilRightsActOf1964.pdf

Let me just casually link this since the lawmaker seems like he hasn’t read it.  

[REALITY 80,166]

I understand the logic, and that's why the whole Colorado baker case makes me furious. I know that the case itself is a little more complicated than "I'm turning you away because of my religious beliefs," however, that's the root of the problem.

What annoys me is that turning away people, whether it be because of their faith, race, sexual orientation, etc. is wrong, and I don't understand how some people can say that. There are (unfortunately) a lot of people—not on this site specifically, but just generally—who defended the baker saying "Well, it's his business and he can choose who he wants to serve," which is exactly what this lawmaker said here but because it's now POC instead of LGBTQ people, people will be up-in-arms because of what he said.

[LePetitGAGABLover 21,234]

White, straight religious males are the WORST thing that has ever existed on Earth. Period. 

[Florian 20,017]

2 minutes ago, Rumours1977 said:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/CivilRightsActOf1964.pdf

Let me just casually link this the lawmaker seems like he hasn’t read it.  

But that's the issue, the Colorado baker case ruled that descrimination can be ok under some circumstances

[LePetitGAGABLover 21,234]

1 minute ago, Florian said:

But that's the issue, the Colorado baker case ruled that descrimination can be ok under some circumstances

Under religious freedom. But discriminating against people of color has nothing to do with religion. He’s a disgusting pig for saying that comment.

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

by that discriminatory logic businesses should be allowed to let dumb people like him only clean toilets and pay him less because of his ignorance. Once again american politics show how you can earn a lot of money by spouting hate and dumb ignorant bvllshit.

[Florian 20,017]

12 minutes ago, LePetitMonstr said:

Under religious freedom. But discriminating against people of color has nothing to do with religion. He’s a disgusting pig for saying that comment.

nvm  

[rumours 45,521]

22 minutes ago, Florian said:

But that's the issue, the Colorado baker case ruled that descrimination can be ok under some circumstances

To my knowledge (I could be wrong), no amendments have been passed to the Civil Rights Act to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly prohibits this (or any) type of discrimination based on race in many facets of society. Therefore, his comment was not only repugnant but antithetical to already-established legislation meant to protect racial minorities. 

[PartySick 172,545]

Whaaat?

But the GOP is always racially righteous and never has a GOP lawmaker said something this foolish! This must either be one bad egg or more of that Fake News™ that President (yeah, president, libbys) Donald Trump was speaking about.

It's actually the Democratic party that's racist!

Spoiler

/gross levels of sarcasm

2 minutes ago, Rumours1977 said:

no amendments have been made to the Civil Rights Act to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This does need to be done though.

Don't open a business if you're planning on turning away customers for such trivial reasons like "It's against my religion to bake a cake for a gay couple" or "I don't want blacks in my store".

Fuq out of here with that noise

[Florian 20,017]

5 minutes ago, Rumours1977 said:

To my knowledge (I could be wrong), no amendments have been made to the Civil Rights Act to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly prohibits this (or any) type of discrimination based on race in many facets of society. Therefore, his comment was not only repugnant but antithetical to already-established legislation meant to protect racial minorities. 

Omg you're right

Descrimination based on sexual orientation isn't ruled on a national level  I found an article from 2015 where it is stated that 29 States still allow this kind of descrimination...

That's even worse than I thought 

America : get. your. sh!t. together.   

[rumours 45,521]

14 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Don't open a business if you're planning on turning away customers for such trivial reasons like "It's against my religion to bake a cake for a gay couple" or "I don't want blacks in my store".

There’s no question that via the Civil Rights Act, you can’t formally state “I don’t want blacks in my store”. With sexual orientation, it’s significantly more tricky without any legislation to protect us.

Moreover. it’s also a moral gray area in relation to the idea of freedom regarding religious expression - a tenant in America’s foundation.  By telling someone they have to sell to members of the LGBTQ community, are we infrining on their religious freedoms?

With this recent ruling in Colorado, the Supreme Court’s ultimate answer may actually be “Yes”.

[Economy 52,861]

31 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

I understand the logic, and that's why the whole Colorado baker case makes me furious. I know that the case itself is a little more complicated than "I'm turning you away because of my religious beliefs," however, that's the root of the problem.

What annoys me is that turning away people, whether it be because of their faith, race, sexual orientation, etc. is wrong, and I don't understand how some people can say that. There are (unfortunately) a lot of people—not on this site specifically, but just generally—who defended the baker saying "Well, it's his business and he can choose who he wants to serve," which is exactly what this lawmaker said here but because it's now POC instead of LGBTQ people, people will be up-in-arms because of what he said.

I do think the situation is a tad bit different tho

 

In the case of the same sex couple, his religious beliefs don't agree with that way of life in which he'd be helping contribute to the party of by selling his cake

 

Turning people away for their colour on the otherhand has nothing to do with ways of life you don't agree with or something you don't want to participate in indirectly. Literally it's just their skin

 

Both cases have prejudice but clearly we can't put them on the exact same level tho

[REALITY 80,166]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

I do think the situation is a tad bit different tho

 

In the case of the same sex couple, his religious beliefs don't agree with that way of life in which he'd be helping contribute to the party of by selling his cake

 

Turning people away for their colour on the otherhand has nothing to do with ways of life you don't agree with or something you don't want to participate in indirectly. Literally it's just their skin

 

Both cases have prejudice but clearly we can't put them on the exact same level tho

They can be put on the same exact level though.

Being attracted to someone of the same sex has the exact same effect as being a different skin color: both of them are not directly affecting you. You could use that argument with people of color. As recently as the 60s and 70s black people were being beaten and kicked out of restaurants because of their skin color. White people didn't want to contribute to people who were different from them. Obviously in that scenario, because of their conservative and religious upbringing, they felt like they didn't need to serve POC. Are we going to commend them for that now? Absolutely not. 

 

[PartySick 172,545]

8 minutes ago, Rumours1977 said:

By telling someone they have to sell to members of the LGBTQ community, are we infrining on their religious freedoms?

But by allowing that person to turn away members of the LGBTQ community, are we not infringing on their right to be given service? I mean, if they were being belligerent, refusing to pay, stealing, etc then yeah, turn them away but "they're gay, I'm not serving them" seems pretty messed up.

Imo, the rights of a human being supersede the rights of someone else's stance/opinion.

7 minutes ago, Economy said:

In the case of the same sex couple, his religious beliefs don't agree with that way of life in which he'd be helping contribute to the party of by selling his cake

Yeah, but they're baking a cake, not marrying the couple

They don't have to be a part of the ceremony, they don't have to attend, they don't have to be personally involved at all. Just bake a cake, send the cake, be paid for the cake, and move on with life.

If their religion is THAT important to them, then they need to open a church, not a bakery.

Edit: Besides, the Bible verses these people quote are taken out of context purely to "justify" their own bigotry and homophobia. It's not their religious right to turn away a gay customer, it's their personal privilege due to the abuse of the U.S.' religious liberty.