Pretty much the title. It’s wrong to refuse service based on sexual orientation, just like it’s wrong to refuse service based on race. And that change (for the most part at least except for some areas in the Deep South according to a friend) required laws protecting races from being discriminated against. It used to be religiously motivated for people to refuse service based on race too.
It’s absolutely immoral to support that idea in any form no matter how someone twist it, and no matter how important someone believes a person’s right to practice religion is. We don’t let people do human sacrifice even if it is a religious belief. People can believe and practice whatever they want, but as soon as it affects the ability for other people to function in society, those rights end. Period.
Washington Post, “Discriminating in the name of religion? Segregationists and slaveholders did it, too.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/12/05/discriminating-in-the-name-of-religion-segregationists-and-slaveholders-did-it-too/
Edit: For the several people so far who think that free markets will take care of it, free markets only adjust to what the general markets want. That means that the minorities who are discriminated against are powerless until they can get the majority to agree it isn’t right. This creates a paradox because if people already thought it was wrong in the first place, discrimination wouldn’t have been a problem. It’s a cycle that, historically has only been broken by legislation. Child labor was prevalent until it was legislated in 1938, and that is despite calls for it decades earlier (https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/history-of-child-labor-in-the-united-states-part-1.htm), working conditions didn’t have to be safe until around the same time though it wasn’t really enforced until OSHA was created in 1971. Greenhouse emissions including the causes for the hole in the ozone layer (remember that?) weren’t reduced until they were legislated. This has been a consistent pattern throughout all of history. Slavery too, it was allowed until legislation (and even war) finally abolished it. Seriously, free markets theoretically work like that, but only for the general market and do not come to true defense of oppressed minorities at any point in history (except for a few minor exceptions sometimes, but those were the exception and it did not become the norm until legislation was introduced).
I give you two examples:
- US Soccer Federation Men's and Women's national teams
- Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts
In the first case, an umbrella organization includes both.
In spite of the fact that the WNT is a money loosing proposition, in spite of the fact that the men's team sells many more seats - and nets much more revenue per game, and in spite of the fact that the Dallas Stars U15 boys developmental team trashed the women's team 7 to 0 - the women are suing for "equal pay".
Clearly, the was no benefit for the US Soccer Federation in having a women's team, and they would be well advised to just focus on the type of soccer people actually watch - men.
In the second case, the complete separation of the Boy Scout and Girl Scout organizations in no way protected the Boy Scouts from infiltration by social justice types, homosexuals and eventually girls. By separate from the girl scouts meant that there was no way to exclude budding feminists (i.e. girls who want to pretend they are boys).
-==-
I don't know what to make of this. Organizational structure appears to be irrelevant - there is no way to protect a formal organization from social justice and the depredations of activist women.
We only know of the Nameless Namekian doing this (by this I mean separating good and evil) but is possible for others in their race? Perhaps it's a dragon clan thing?
But perfect for eyebrows!
Were they able to go to the same schools as white people? Could they take federal and state jobs?
