Posted on 04/04/2015 7:10:21 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Today’s generation is very well-acquainted with what is known as a “Terms of Service Agreement.” In fact, people across all generations that use social media and apps, or purchase products online, know they must always “agree” to the terms of service before any services will be even be considered. They simply check the “Agree to Terms” box and proceed to do business with the company.
It’s not a mystery that all Terms of Service Agreements specifically state in one way or the other that “services” will be rendered only when the consumer “agrees” to the terms of service. People also know that the terms make it clear that the company can refuse “service” for any or no reason, even after the consumer has agreed to the terms of service. Social network companies enforce these terms all the time when they censure or delete accounts for political or social reasons.
Rather than having to make an on-the-spot determination whether to provide services to a consumer based on his intentions for the use of those services or products, it would behoove a “Christian” company that wishes not to “serve” people based on a specific behavior or action that goes against the company’s religious beliefs to deter such persons from using their services in a familiar and respectful way.
Since the vast majority of people today are very familiar with Terms of Service Agreements and how they work, Christian companies can literally spell out, in no uncertain terms, that company policy is based on their “Christian” beliefs, and that such companies will not render service that will in any way compromise those beliefs.
Since Terms of Service Agreements can be very specific, Christian companies can list examples of behaviors that offend and/or go against their religious beliefs....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Needing to announce that you are a Christian-based business is reminiscent of having to put a star of David outside your business if you were a Jew in Nazi Germany. But in this case, maybe it will solve more problems than it will cause. For now.
Excellent!
Won’t work. The equivalency the Left - and the Courts - are looking at comes from discrimination laws. The example used for comparison is skin color, usually Black people, though any color will do except White. You can’t discriminate against White people for being White - by law, it’s impossible. It says “race” in the discrimination law, but try claiming race as the reason for discrimation for being White. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
So - imagine you have a TOS agreement that specifies that a customer agrees to not involve the store in their purchases if the customer is more than a certain percentage of Black, or any other race, except White. 50%, 10%, 1%, whatever. You couldn’t do that under the discrimination laws - it is an untouchable subject, because it is part of that class of things that are protected from discrimination. And, so far, nothing whatsoever is allowed to provide and exemption from that protection of members of that class.
That’s where homosexuality is - in that protected class. And the fact of its inclusion there, so far, has not allowed any discrimination for any reason whatsoever in the realm of incorporated business operations. The argument is simple - that the TOS itself is bound by the anti-discrimination law.
Homosexuality is not “there.” Homos want it to be “there,” but the federal and state laws in place don’t support gayness like race.
TOS’S are voluntary contract laws.m Should hold up in court. The standard TOS terms put in the the business can stop providing the service at their discrtion, for any and all reasons, like the firing of an employee at-will agreement.
The other day someone here on FR made the suggestion that when confronted with this to include in the contract that all payments must be made directly to some national organization that defends traditional marriage. (Can’t remember if it was a thread or a post.)
Sure the business owner might be out of money, but in reality the homos will probably walk rather than write the check.
Fascinating response. Bakke, though, goes both ways - allowing affirmative action and limiting its application at the same time. What is limited is quotas, what is allowed is considerations based on deficiencies that other applicants don't possess due to race.
In other words, affirmative action based on race is only allowed to make up a deficiency of a group of applicants, not to exclude applicants for the purpose of exclusion based on race. Since quotas are based solely on race itself without examining specific deficiencies, they are not allowed.
In the case of a TOS, however, general exclusion based on a defining aspect of a protected class would be the subject - ie, homosecuality is being treated the same as race. There would be no evaluation to balance merits - just class-based exclusion. So I would think that the quota denial of Bakke would be used to deny such a TOS.
However thanks for this argument, it made the brain cells wake up.
Employment law is different from the right to merely act in business as a purchaser of something open to the public at large. Even then, you can't have a voluntary employment contract based on discriminating against a protected class - like voluntarily agreeing not to serve black people if you're hired as a waitress.
The issue isn't the contract - it's the violating of discrimination laws. This "TOS" would be mandating that customers agree to the seller's violation of discrimination laws before the seller will agree to sell them something. Not only would that NOT indemnify the seller, anyone who signed the TOS would be guilty of conspiracy to knowingly, deliberately violate the law.
The problem is that homosexual marriage - not homosexuals merely purchasing products - but homosexuals purchasing products for a specific reason which is in direct violation of religious teachings of over two thousand years which are followed by billions of people, has been given the protected status of skin color.
It's an overreach that not only clashes with 1st Amendment rights of religious beliefs - it actually claims superiority over them, and over the Constitution in which they are enshrined. It literally persecutes Christians, not over homosexuality, but over what Christians believe marriage IS. Homosexuals don't get this - because they can never comprehend when they are irrelevent. The truth is that ANYTHING that violates the Christian marriage teachings would violate Christian beliefs, not just homosexuals.
That's why these rulings against Christians are NOT discriminatory against homosexuals, but discriminatory against Christians.
In the TOS you state Seller can refuse to offer service for any/all reasons.
It’s in a bunch of TOS’s people accept everyday. Especially online/software ones.
It doesn’t have to be explicit.
I always thought the difference was in discrimination based on status, vs. discrimination based on participation in a behavior.
Serve everyone, but not if the behavior requested is objectionable, then only as to that behavior.
Therefore, the lunch counter analogy is inapposite.
Well when you refuse to work a gay wedding, it suddenly becomes explicit. You can point to a general TOS, but by invoking it you are declaring what you are applying it to.
I can write: "will not work for extraterrestrials," but the moment I use it not to work at a gay wedding, the word "extraterrestrials" becomes a "term-of-art" meaning "gay weddings," because that's where I'm using it.
I just don't think the tactic will fly when there is a specific discrimination law naming a protected class that the TOS is going up against.
That is indeed the argument. Gays say that the discrimination is because they are homosexual, and Christians say that the discrimination is because they are being asked to participate in a wedding that violates their religious beliefs about who can be married.
Status vs. Participation
Personally I think it's clear that it's a participation issue, because there are MANY reasons why a Christian won't work for a wedding - Christian marriage is dependent upon one man and one woman. A Christian will not support a marriage of a person with a dog, a tree, four people, etc. So gays are NOT being singled out - the issue is the right to ONLY support the mandates of Christian marriage, not gays.
Scheduling conflicts and prior committments, we will be unable to accomodate you.
Now that is probably the best approach, because it has so little that is provably connectable to the gay wedding.
Just say no.
We must not surrender to this crap and rely on crutches and gimmicks to stand for freedom......
Keep your mouths shut and work behind the scene without offending anyone
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.