By Lauren Leamanczyk, WBZ-TV

CONCORD, N.H. (CBS) – New Hampshire business owners could soon have the legal right to decide who they serve.

Lawmakers are debating a bill that would let a business refuse service to any couple, for any reason.

As a business owner, Tim Kierstead believes in the right to run his restaurant the way he sees fit.

“I think each business has the right to do as they choose,” he told WBZ-TV.

But as a gay man, he has a real problem with the new bill being proposed.

It would allow businesses to refuse service to a couple if they didn’t agree with their marriage.

“When the government starts getting involved, it turns around and brings in a whole new light. We turn around and now we’re becoming second-class citizens. I mean, they don’t have a right. Where’s the line going to be drawn?”

The bill never specifically mentions gay marriage and opponents say it could be used to allow businesses to discriminate against anyone whose marriage they didn’t agree with.

The bill’s co-sponsor Rep. Frank Sapareto, a Republican from Derry, said this is not a gay rights issue, but a religious freedom case.

“We’re certainly taking people’s freedoms away as we make more and more laws that force them to provide occupation or services that violate their beliefs,” Sapareto told WBZ.

And he told me, that could include refusing service to any group.

“I, as a business man, have a right to do business with who I want to.”

WBZ-TV’s Lauren Leamanczyk reports

WBZ NewsRadio 1030’s Bernice Corpuz reports

But outside on Main Street, business owners saw it differently.

“We don’t ask those questions and we don’t care,” Audrey Little said.

Little provides her caramel apples and chocolates for all sorts of weddings.

In this economy, a customer is a customer.

“It would be foolish for us to turn any kind of customer away,” she said.

Comments (420)
  1. Italo says:

    Ah, once again, New Hampshire: our own little neighbor version of the state of Texas!

    1. Radar says:

      The government has been taking away our Christian religous rights a little at a time. If you want to say that NH is a little Texas, we welcome you to say more because in Texas we have the right to say no. But of course our business friendly state is creating jobs while the government loving states are not. Go figure.

      1. marc says:

        there will one day be another civil war. I was born in California when it was like Texas: and respected freedom. In three years, I am leaving California, to move to a free state.

      2. Gilbert R Albright Jr says:

        The only thing you Christians have been denied is the right o shove your Religion and your Religious beliefs down the throats of all other Americans.

        The U.S. Constitution gives all American the right to be FREE FROM RELIGION and the Christian Al Quaida like you!

      3. buzzcut says:

        Its called discrimination. Take your pathetic whiny excuses and shove it.

      4. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

        ROFL! Nice try, Gilbert. If you seriously believe that, you wouldn’t know the Constitution if it bit you in the arse. Show us exactly where it says anything close to that. We and all the crickets eagerly await your reply.

      5. Ernst Halford says:

        @Gilbert R Albright Jr
        The US Constitution does not guarantee anyone freedom from religion. It guarantees that your religion will never trump mine through law. So sorry to burst your bubble, but the religion of atheism is violating that right everyday.

        When the day comes, WILL YOU ACCEPT THE MARK?

      6. matt says:

        and which of your rights have been taken away? The right to be a bigoted idiotic religion (like all major religions)? If i had it my way, any church or religious establishment that sponsors or supports anti gay legislation should have their tax exempt status TAKEN AWAY and labeled as a hate group.

      7. David Lampo says:

        Gilbert mostly has it right. It’s so weird to hear Christians say they’re being discriminated against or having their freedom diminished when that’s exactly what they impose on people who don’t share their religious beliefs. And since when does freedom of religion not apply to those with no faith?? Freedom of religion is only for those who agree with you? Those who believe that don’t know a damn thing about the Constitution or freedom

      8. Rick L. says:

        I am so happy that homos can now marry so that their assets can be divided when they divorce just like normal people have to deal with.

      9. Jeff Gerard says:

        “Christian religous rights” means using your book of fairy tales to punish and discriminate against people who don’t share your cult beliefs. Please keep your religion in your tax-free churches and keep your nose out of secular politics. Jesus would weep over people like you. I’d say you should be ashamed, but shame is beyond people like you. Your hate is eating your soul.

      10. Steve says:

        I think you would be hard pressed to find decent evidence to support your extreme claim that you are discriminated against by religion here in America. The real issue is that religion offends you because those morals don’t agree with your morals. I also wonder how you attained the qualifications to comment on the emotions of Jesus himself. If you have read the Bible cover to cover (which I doubt) I would still wonder how you would presume to know what Jesus himself is thinking. I would argue that you hate religion because it offends you. Why don’t you just be strong enough in your own beliefs that you don’t have to be offended?

      11. TxGrown says:

        Italo…stupid post! I live in Round Rock Texas and even Texans haven’t and wouldn’t go this far. You obviously know nothing about Texas or Texans. I believe this bill is as idiotic as they come. By the way I’m Conservative and a Christian. And this is just stupid.

      12. krp says:

        Texas isn’t adjacent to a state that has gender bender “nuptials” and doesn’t have B&Bs flooded with reservations requests for the honeymoon suite.

      13. TxGrown says:

        @Gilbert R Albright Jr …Actually you could use some religion AND a crowbar to pull your cheeks apart.

      14. Jon says:

        The South had the right to say no to African American couples and inter-racial couples too… Doesn’t make it right. How would this bill not allow someone to refuse to serve a Christian couple, or an inter-racial couple or any identifiable couple that the owner didn’t like… that is a good Christian value, be a biggot… guess we were raised in different Churches

      15. Steve says:

        @Gilbert R Albright Jr

        Gilbert, when have you or your kids ever had Christianity, Mormonism, or Islam shoved down your throat from any type of public organization. I doubt that it has happened, yet Christians, Mormons and Muslims have to fight against the public system to not have morals, like homesexuality is right shoved down our throats. If it has not been shoved down your throat by the U.S. Government or Public Education System, (don’t even need to mention television or the internet) then the real problem is religion just offends you. Just be man up and be honest about how you feel instead of hiding behind demonizing those different than your

      16. Judith says:

        Gays should be put on a remote island and so shouldnt the religous as well as there both wrong ..

      17. S2 says:

        We are living in some amazing times.
        At first glance its good that business owners have the right to make choices, but then again this goes a little far. I agree with disruptive customers you want to turn away but it just leaves room for abuse in some instances.
        Really got to wonder with all theses laws, and everything.

      18. Steve says:

        If I had my way, all the cowards who try to get their way by indoctrinating kids behind their parents into morals their parents don’t agree with would have to answer to kids parents. I’m sure you would agree if religion was being forced. When does Christianity do this to LGBT kids? How is that any less hateful or despicable? Because you think it’s right and I don’t? Personally I don’t agree with any of it being taught in school but I bet you would beg to differ. Hypocrisy is okay for you as long as you are the one that wins right? SO honestly, when have you ever had religion pushed down your throat in a public forum? If not then the only one who has responsiblity for you being offended is yourself.

      19. Stewart says:

        @Jon…You’re mixung apples and oranges. Like all gay activists you are trying to equate morals with race, gender, religious beliefs, etc. Certainly there may be a few who will use this law to discriminate against interracial couples, Christians, etc. By the way, it happens every day. But, the push for gay marriage is not the same as the push for civil rights. Skin color is not a moral issue. Don’t throw sodomy in the pot with skin color, gender, and religious beliefs. Call homosexuality what you will…even make it legal…but the truth of the matter is that it is still sin…and all unrepentant sinners will find themselves in hell…guaranteed. It would be better to try to rescue others from their own wickedness. It’s what we all need.

      20. Steve says:

        Don’t you think a better idea would be for everyone to be respectful of each other? Sending everyone away that you don’t agree seems immature and would not be becoming of ones character.

      21. ca13005e says:

        “Gilbert R Albright Jr

        The only thing you Christians have been denied is the right o shove your Religion and your Religious beliefs down the throats of all other Americans.

        The U.S. Constitution gives all American the right to be FREE FROM RELIGION and the Christian Al Quaida like you!”

        You must be confused with the constitution of another nation. If you are refering to the 1st amendment, which i assume you are, it would do you good to actaully know what it says. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…’ where does it say America is free FROM religion. All this text is saying is the federal government shall make no law that favors one religion over another. The term ‘seperation of church and state’ didnt even appear until an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association.

        Anyways, this is more of a free speech issue anyway. As a business owner you should have the right to serve or not serve anyone you want. If you don’t like it, then voice your feeling with your wallet by not shopping there.

        You say ‘us’ Christians (iI happen to be Roman Catholic) just want to shove our religion down your throat. Well like it or not, the constitution protects my rights too so you’ll just need to learn to deal with it.

      22. Turban says:

        The same people who wrote the US. Constitution came from states where homosexuality was punishable by death. They didn’t call it homosexuality in those days, the term having apparently been coined in the 19th century. They called it “sodomy,” “buggery” and “unmentionable filth,” but you get the idea. Of course we get the idea. Jefferson, though, was a softy, and he wrote some Virginia legislation lessening the punishment. He thought castration was a more humane response, more fitting to the crime. In any case the people who wrote the Constitution didn’t seem to see any conflict between that document and “gay” rights because it is “self-evident” to the sane that there is no such thing as a “gay” right. They didn’t call those days “The Enlightenment” for nothing.

      23. Matt Clemens says:

        @Gilbert. You’re an idiot if you think the constitution guarantees freedom FROM religion. It guarantees freedom OF religion. Pretty much exactly the opposite of what you think. It also prohibits the government from endorsing any religion. That being said, I doubt this bill will pass constitutional muster. It’s no different than segregation laws. You can’t discriminate based on color, sex or sexual orientation. If you operate a public business then the public must be welcome.

      24. jeff says:

        Steve and Radar you guys are correct, I’m so happy that nthere is still normal people out there, that understand what these people are doing is shoving there perverted morals down our throat, how are they doing it? thru the public schools and their current president obama.

        businesses has always had the right to post a sign that says “WE reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”

      25. USArmyCombatMedic says:

        No business should be forced to serve any customer for any reason. We should be legally free from criminal and civil charges to do as we please, so long as we do not directly physically/mentally/financially harm another. Yes, you read that right. We should be able to discriminate against whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, gays, straights, the young, the elderly, Republicans, Democrats, Americans, foreigners, and anybody else. Who is the Government to tell us? Notice how I said “directly harms”. Obviously, punching a Jewish/gay/black/etc man in the face should always be illegal. But refusing to serve food at a restaurant in the US, where there are MANY other restaurants (and thus the person won’t starve), is not directly harming anyone.

        This sounds harsh, but let’s say this was legal. And let’s say Wal-Mart decides to stop serving minorities. Their sales would drop because it’s ridiculous. I wouldn’t shop there, and millions of Americans would feel the same. That’s how this mixed capitalist system is supposed to work. Businesses should have a right to deny service to ANYONE for any reason. Just like consumers have a right to patronize whichever business they choose.

        It’s legal now to not go to Disneyland because I don’t like them, right? Let’s say I think the whole park is too full of foreigners. Aren’t I discriminating? But it’s LEGAL, right? The reverse should be true for Businesses. And once the society realizes that the friendly little coffee shop down the street doesn’t serve blacks, or gays, or Jews, the amount of customers will drop substantially. Sure, they still might have their neo-nazi customers here and there, and that’s fine. But they will sink soon do to Market pressures.

        Get it? It should be the “invisible hand” of the Market that directs where resources go and who profits from them. This is not the Government’s job.

        You can argue with me, but you can’t argue with proven Economics. Well, you can try… Go ahead. (PS: my favorites are when you insult my intellect, and spell the insult incorrectly..)

      26. Sumter's Ridge says:

        @TxGrown: Newsflash, if you support homosexuality, you are not a Christian. If you believe the government has the right to force a business to service individuals against the business owner’s will, you are not a conservative. With your statement taken in full, your claim to be either carries the same weight at Obama’s.

      27. sean says:

        @Ernst Halford, SerfCityHereWeCome, ca1305e, Matt Clemens, et. al. What in the world are you talking about? Do you all think that you are experts on the U.S. constitution? Of course everyone knows how it reads, as quoted by ca1305e. But you all seem to lack analytical skills, or are either blinded by faith to admit the truth. Gilbert R Albright Jr hit the nail right on the head. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion is a false dichotomy. They are indeed both one and the same. There are many religions that exist in the world and luckily our Constitution guarantees that we may freely practice the one of our choice. So, by choosing one religion over another, you have already chosen to be free from the latter. In other words, if I choose to be Protestant, then that necessarily means I am free from being Catholic, Mormon, Islamist, Hindu, Wiccan, etc, etc. So freedom from religion is guaranteed by the same 1st Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never said we all had to have and practice some type of religion, albeit freely chosen. They just said the government will not interfere with your practice of it and also that the government would not establish a state religion, as was the case in England. There is a clear separation of church and state, although most fundamentalists today try to blur that notion over by saying we are a Christian nation. Sure, I agree we have our origins in Christianity, since the people who colonized the Americas came from Christian countries over 400 years ago. But when we decided to break away from England and become our own Country, we established a charter Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land. So those of you who would like to start misinterpreting the 1st amendment, or talk about what you think it means, be very careful that the rest of the Constitution doesn’t start to follow that path as well.

      28. Dee Menton says:

        Perry created 276,000 minimum wage jobs in Texas..that does`nt help the country as a whole…someone needs to tell the truth about that. I also lived in Texas for 10 years and it is obssessed with shoving the bible down everyones throat as well as one of the most racist States I have ever lived in

    2. JohntheBaptist11 says:

      Leave Texas out of your stupid and ignorant colume of bs, freedom has been gone for over 65 years and it is not coming back for just these kinds of attacks on a manwho if he wishes should be able to pass or fail on his own merit, if this business does’nt want business then so be it but leave him to his own fate, but all the rest will pay the piper one day too for their own stupidity in supporting this suit against the rights and freedoms of the constitution, it works both ways, where is it written gays have no property rights as a title, a right to anything, being gay a is sickness and a perversion of mankind

      1. marc says:

        true. every word.

      2. Nicki says:

        While bad grammar, incoherent ranting, and lack of comprehension about Constitutional rights is curable… we hope.

      3. Truth says:

        Gayness is a sickness and perversion to mankind? Please, preach more from your book of hate. I’m sure your god will be more than happy to forgive your life of eating shellfish and wearing clothing of different fabrics, and allowing women into positions of authority in power. But of all of these, he would never consider forgiving the homos.

        You ignorant christians parade around here without an iota of sensible critical thinking ability. You choose which parts of the bible to follow and hypocritically disregard all of those that don’t suit you. You pray for blessings of wealth and prosperity while defenseless children starve halfway around the world, but so long as you have your 52″ plasma to watch dem cowboys play Sunday, none of the rest is important. You’re a despicable disgrace to morality. The rest of us don’t need a farce of a book telling us what is right.

      4. Ashamal says:

        I live in TX and it has far less freedom than quite a few other states. You cant open carry here, there is virtually no such thing as consumer rights or protection so big businesses can rack up any kinds of charges they want for any reason they want and you cant even buy alcohol at various hours. How are those, or any of the other prudish crap laws you have here freedom?

      5. Steven says:


        I find it funny that you talk about lack of critical thinking when you misquote and misrepresent a book which you have probably never read. I imagine your comments have come from bigoted web sites and google searches. You know, critical thinking means honestly analyzing the opposing views positions, something I doubt you have done due to your lack of an intelligent argument. Spewing venom and your own personal beliefs does not equal critical thinking. If you understood the Bible and the nature of sin as it is reprsented in the Bible, you would not presented your argument as you did. You would also know where in the new testament, something that were considered forbidden before were no longer forbidden. You would also understand the historical context and the reason for some of those laws you are implying as dumb.

      6. 1689 says:

        This is a reply to “Truth’s” comment saying that being gay is not a sickness. Perhaps. But being a gay man will kill you.

        The U.S. government’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that in 2006 gay & bisexual men, less than a mere 2% of the U.S. population (euphemistically called “MSM” or men-who-have-sex-with-men), were getting a majority, 57%, of new AIDs cases in the US, and 64% of the new syphilis cases. So a minority of new AIDs cases (43%) were spread thinly over a whopping 96+% of the remaining heterosexual U.S. population. Thus, according to the CDC, in 2007 gay & bisexual men were “44 times to 86 times” [sic] more likely than heterosexual men to contract AIDs, STDs, and other pathogens. Don’t believe it? Go to the CDC web site and read it. The increased odds for getting these diseases from homosexuality is astounding. The wildly promiscuous nature of male homosexuality and the dangers of gay sex is supported by scientific evidence. So called “gay-marriage” and “gay-adoption” would encourage homosexuality. Why would any sane society want that? For their sons?

      7. astounded says:

        wow. that’s not even a sentence; and if so, possibly the longest one I have ever seen! you people are ignorant!

    3. Neo says:

      I’ll take that as a compliment.

      1. Judith says:

        OK @ Truth now go read your mathew again and pause a bit longer chapter 6 verse 5 and when your done ask me ware another 100 are like that one and then describe to us your description of sin. The queer community can only alevieate some of there guilt by changing the laws the same way you aleviate your by sitting in a pew this next Sunday.

      2. Steve says:

        I think your trying to respond to me, not Truth. Anyway I find your response incoherent but I will try to answer. Matthew 6:5 states “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.” referring to religious leaders of the day that would make a show praying in order to gain political power (not a lots changed unfortunately). The verse doesn’t say that’s a sin, only that God is not listening to their prayer because their intentions are wrong. Christians, are not required n the bible to hide their religion. In fact Mark 16:15 states “He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.””

    4. Cam Kirmser says:

      Compare the economic environment in Texas with that of Massachusetts.

      I submit that any attempt to emulate Texas would be a wise choice on one’s part, wouldn’t you agree?

    5. mikaman3000 says:

      I’ve been to Boston several times as well as all over the not so great state of MA. and it’s safe to say that the same type of mentality that caused the Salem witch trials still runs rampant in a lot of it’s citizens. “Pathetic little sheep children, following the her, guided by the voices in their empty little heads”

      1. mikaman3000 says:

        “HERD” NOT “HER”……..

      2. Leo Sullivan says:

        I’m a Massachusetts resident and you have just hit the nail on the head, liberalism abounds in this Marxist State aand most of its people haven’t a clue. PS our politicians are all corrupt and anti-Constitution.

      3. Andre says:

        Forgive my being off topic, but you are too. The Salem witch trials were allowed by a sudden loss of Christian influence which had previously protected citizens from flippant charges. Specifically, “spectral evidence” was not previously allowed in court since it violated that Biblical principal that two unimpeachable witnesses were needed to accuse someone. That actually protected witches in the Commonwealth of Mass. The 4+ months of the trials occured when the mob shoved judeochristian tradition aside to “have it their way.” The witch trials were caused by pushing the Bible aside, and as usual, it didn’t work out like the mob had hoped. (See Prof Marvin Olasky article at

      4. krp says:

        This bill is probably a backlash to what is going on in Massachusetts. The article says that the bill involves refusal to COUPLES, not individuals, not groups, but COUPLES. So it only involves those businesses that would have couples as customers, not just two random people.

        Probably the impetus for this bill is the rash of same gender couples from Massachusetts that want to run off to New Hampshire, with all its scenery and go to some Bed and Breakfast and rent out the honeymoon suite. This allows the owner to refuse to rent it out to them. Or a marriage counselor that refuses to take on a same gender couple as clients.

        This would not apply to say a gas company that would refuse to hook up gas service to a house because there is a same gender couple, because they could just be two individual roommates or co-workers sharing living expenses – UNLESS they tried to make it obvious that they were trying to live as a couple.

    6. Henry says:

      As free Americans, we have always had the right to serve or refuse service to whom ever we want………… is our PRIVATE PROPERTY………….but the local, state and federal governments relentlessly tear away at those rights………….

      1. Gilbert R Albright Jr says:

        It’s funny how NEOCON HYPOCRITE jerks like are all for discrimination as long as it is applied to others, but are outraged, scream and throw a fit when it is applied you.

        How you like it if your Grocery Store didn’t allow your kind, your Pharmacy didn’t serve your kind, hotels didn’t allow your kind, colleges didn’t allow your kind, doctors wouldn’t treat your kind, department stores didn’t allow your kind,
        Taxi Cabs wouldn’t pick up your kind, Casinos didn’t allow your kind, movie theaters didn’t allow your kind and on an on.

        Sickos like you are always fine with this as long as it doesn’t affect YOUR LIFE!

      2. No so Albright! says:

        Give me a break. This country isn’t as backwards as you’re trying to make it out to be. If there were all those entities that wouldn’t accept your money there would be others that will. Money talks and B.S. walks.

      3. Looie says:

        So the restaurant owner could make it ‘whites only’ or ‘no jews’. That would be ok with you. I hope you don’t have children.

      4. Ernst Halford says:

        I’d be ok with “No Democrats!”

      5. fedex dispatcher says:

        Any restaurant that tried no whites….or no jews…..would be driven out of business. That’s whats great about freedom. Works every time

      6. David Lampo says:

        Not since the 1964 Civil Rights Act you haven’t. Did you complain about that at the time? I think it’s only when gays are the customers that you get up on your high horses about freedom.

      7. Stuart says:


        If someone didn’t want me in their club, restaruant, cab, etc., then I don’t care to be in it. I don’t get mad about women’s universities or black fraternities which legally discriminate against white males like me. I, unlike you, am not a sissy that whines like a 5 yr old when things don’t go my way. If a store owner has a “whites only’ sign, capitalism will likely resolve that problem since most whites nowadays, like myself, wouldn’t care to patronize those places that discriminate. They’d likely be out of business in no time due to their bigotry. This goes back to letting the market rule instead of the gov’t morons that you’d prefer to rule. Not every white male who agrees with letting businesses do as they please is a neocon hypocrite, we just want the gov’t out of our daily lives.

      8. Mike A. says:

        This is a reply to Gilbert Albright’s reply. There are already laws on the books that force pharmacists to provide abortifacents even though they may be pro-life. The typical Gilbert Albright (and government) response to the pro-life pharmacist is “well, you don’t have to be a pharmacist”. Same thing here, if you don’t subscribe to the government approved belief system (liberal secular humanism), you are out of luck and your choice is to abandon your belief system or drop out.

      9. gb says:

        Honestly I don’t care if a store owner doesn’t want my money. Good. I’d rather know up front. If they stop enough of it, they won’t be a business anymore. But…keep the frickin government out of it.

      10. Il Bui says:

        Gilbert you are babbling. Freedom of association is a fundamental, natural human right protected by the Constitution. You DIDN’T know that? Seriously?

    7. ablecynic says:

      Gilbert, the Constitution, in the 1st Amendment, specifically protects the right of individuals to express their religion. You are free to express your atheism. But if you try to stop my expression of religion, I in turn will have the right to stop your expression of your beliefs. I know that is hard for a lunatic liberal to understand, but free expression is free expression. I am proud of New Hampshire for even taking up debate on this law. It is long overdue. You have the right to dislike me and I have the right to dislike you. And that is called freedom.

      1. No so Albright! says:

        How can an atheist BELIEVE there ins’t a God but I can’t BELIEVE there is? Why do they care!

      2. krp says:

        Unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. How can an atheist make any pronouncement about human rights, when they don’t believe in a Creator?

      3. Picnic king says:

        The Constitution protects your free EXERCISE of religion – not expression. I’m not sure what you mean by the “right to stop your expression of your beliefs.” Do you mean shout louder? Or punch me in the mouth? Or print a pamphlet expressing a different point of view?

        No Constitutional right is absolute. Not religion, not speech, not privacy.

    8. David Loper says:

      Should a black business owner have the right to refuse service to a grand wizard of the KKK?

      Should a toy store owner be allowed to ask a known pedophile to leave his store?

      Should an owner of a 1948 Tucker be forced to sell his car to a demolition derby star?

      Just trying to see what your moral rational is for forcing a business owner (a private individual) to associate with anyone.

      1. Ernst Halford says:

        That’s the problem. Atheists get their morality from watching PBS and morns like Keith Olbermann. The questions you’ve asked have not been addressed by the liberal media, so they don’t what they’d do.

      2. John Q. says:

        1. No. If he’s there’s doing business and not harassing, intimidated or causing a disturbance.

        2. If they’re that much of a threat they shouldn’t be free to begin with.

        3. Shouldn’t matter what the buyer is going to do with it if the price is right.

        The attempts people are using to rationalize blatant discrimination is just sad. If you don’t see how this opens a door to so many types of discriminatory business practices…I don’t know how to reach your humanity.

      3. Canof Sand says:

        “Discrimination” isn’t bad, despite the negative connotations. Prejudice is bad. Racism is bad. Bad the free market actually corrects for those. Only wanna-be-tyrants don’t think the free market can handle things just fine itself in most circumstances. Government should only be there to make sure businesses aren’t literally stealing or committing violence against one another, etc.

      4. Il Bui says:

        John Q. Your answer are NOT based on our rights under the Constitution. So what ARE you babbling on about?

    9. jasperddbgghost says:

      This works both ways. Businesses should have the right to lose money as their choice.

      Gays can decide against serving the breeders. They will lose even more money though. Doesn’t matter because half of them are prostitutes.

    10. George, Dallas, TX says:

      All states should act thay way! I, for one of many, do not want to sit next to a gay couple while I’m trying to enjoy a meal. I find that the gays’ pda is disgusting!

    11. Smitty says:

      Lauren, it should read “whom they serve” and please….never say between you and I.

      1. CommonCents says:

        Smitty, you must be a liberal. Whenever a liberal is cornered by facts or logic, they resort to petty, childish, nit-picking about spelling or grammar on the blogs.

        She was -quoting- someone, thus the quote stays as spoken (unlike Obama).

        In fact, private businesses “reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

        It’s obnoxious liberals and militant gays who force their lifestyle on others.

    12. patriotic says:

      We’d better watch out. We might fool around and someday actually restore private property rights in this country! Wouldn’t that be tragic (at least in the eyes of Barack Hussein and his think-alikes)!

    13. john martin says:

      and thank god!!

    14. matthew says:

      gotta love it, freedom is wonderful

    15. HudsonValleyWest says:

      In response to Gilbert Albright: Your knowledge of the Constitution is remarkably unencumbered by the facts. Have you ever actually read the First Amendment? It says Congress shall make not law regarding the establishment of a religion. In other words, the government can’t create or endorse a national religion and require everyone to follow it. Get it there, James Madison? According to the Constitution, we have religious freedom, not freedom from religion based on governmental dictate. If you don’t believe in God or follow a religion, that’s your right, too. Just don’t try to force it on the rest of us who, by the way, are in the majority in this country.

    16. Sumter's Ridge says:

      “I think each business has the right to do as they choose,” he told WBZ-TV.

      But as a gay man, he has a real problem with the new bill being proposed.

      It would allow businesses to refuse service to a couple if they didn’t agree with their marriage.

      Why is it that every statement that comes out of a liberal’s mouth, just like this, is full of hypocrisy?

    17. Kate says:

      They are getting some sense are they? Kind of surprises me because I always thought New Hampshire was a liberal backwater.

  2. Rose says:

    How sad. I pity the children being raised by these hate mongers….

    1. Doowleb says:

      So any person who doesn’t agree with you is a hater?
      Any person who criticizes Obama is a racist?

      People don’t criticize Obama because he’s half black, they criticize him because he’s totally red.

      1. Ernst Halford says:

        No, she says they’re a hate monger. The difference being that a hater can silently seethe in his own hate, but a hate monger evangelizes his hate.

        Fortunately for me, God disagrees with Rose, and I’m happy with that.

      2. Bob Lippert says:

        in real terms, little barry is 50 percent white, 25 percent black and 25 percent arab. Due to his family tree, probably more arab blood than black—-Now I will be called a racist for posting facts.

    2. Timothy Smith says:

      What makes someone a hate monger? This bill will allow Gay business owners to turn away neocons? How is that a bad thing?

      1. Mark says:

        I would never eat in a gay owned restaurant anyway, who knows what they put in that special sauce!!!!! EWWWWW

    3. Radar says:

      Rose, hate mongers for what, loving freedom and standing up to a corrupt government. There is nothing in the article that says anything about hate, so get a life.

    4. Al says:

      The word “hate” is being so diluted by people who use any slight, any possible discriminatory act, to shout “hate, hate!”

      As for their children, I’d bet they’ll be just fine.

    5. JennyZ says:

      When my little children don’t get what they want they cry “You guys just hate me!” “Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.” John Adams

      1. stopthe says:

        A good quote, but “property must be sacred” probably didn’t mean what most people think it means. It probably means what Hillaire Belloc meant: well-distributed property.

        In the U.S. we include the wrong kinds of property protections, such as the right of giant remote corporations to own everything and savagely run small businesses into the ground; and we exclude the protections we actually need per John Adams, such as the right of a small business owner to use his property as he pleases. Even if that use offends us.

      2. Canof Sand says:

        “well-distributed property”
        Asinine. It’s obvious you know nothing of the Founders or their philosophies.

    6. Mark says:

      So if I am black, Oriental or have a limp I can be turned away too? Well damn Mammy, lets just go sit in the back of the bus now.

      1. woodyblack says:

        So you’re telling me that being BLACK is somehow the same thing as being GAY? Excuse me, but my ancestors didn’t CHOOSE to take the “cruise” to the US, and I don’t remember any GAYS being in chains, or whipped, or sold as livestock! DO NOT COMPARE PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER TO BEING BLACK! IT IS NOT ON THE SAME PLANET OF REALITY!

        You can hide homosexuality! Its very difficulty to hide ethnicity when you’re black.

      2. Bob says:

        What the he!! is an Oriental?

      3. Ernst Halford says:

        Oriental?? You f**kin’ rascist little troll! LOL! I love when liberals fall in their own traps.

    7. nanuq says:

      Hate? Where’s the hate? Have you read the Constitution?

      Focus on the First Amendment and the freedom of Assembly, then expand your reading to include Intimate and Expressive Associations.

      Then think about Freedom of Religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCIZE THEREOF”

    8. marc says:

      when freedom morph into hate?…(about 5 years ago when the gay agitprop mongers bought themselves a gay judge in MA to impose minority rule over the voters)…you people are the party of hate, under the guise of ‘tolerance’.

    9. Durazac says:

      Hello Pot, I’m Kettle and I don’t like your looks!

    10. marc says:

      I envy those children being raised by these freedom mongers.

    11. matthew says:

      hate mongers?? What article are you reading

    12. DaMav says:

      That’s a separate issue. Homosexuals certainly should not be allowed to adopt but in many areas the state has abandoned its role of protecting children and passes them out like candy to homosexuals. Nobody is left to advocate for the children and anyone speaking up is subjected to the most vile hate mongering by the “gay” lobbyists.

    13. BritAbroad says:

      Ah, so it’s OK for the gay community to evangelize its hate of heterosexuality, to demand the indoctrination of children so young they shouldn’t even have to know about these things – to confuse them about everything sexual before they even know what sex is – that kind of hating on the heterosexual community is OK, but anyone who says heterosexuals should have choice and freedom from harassment from gay issues in their businesses, that’s hating? Rubbish. This oppression of the res tof hte commuity by a minority is what needs redressing, and it’s good to see gov’t saying “OK, fair is fair, gay folk can deny service to hetero’s, and so hetero’s should have the same choice”. That’s not hating, that’s equal rights.

  3. donny says:

    Yeah, florists turning away business…HAH!! Sorry we don’t deliver flowers to gays – their money is just not wanted.

    Laugh out loud!

    What’s next?…
    Don’t rent to gay couples,
    don’t sell groceries to gay couples,
    don’t give medical treatment to gay couples…
    Heck, let’s just follow this to it’s conclusion.

    1. jonny says:

      Go somewhere else. Why would you want to spend your money there? I prefer to give my business/money to companies I believe in. I don’t need to government to tell me how they are running their business is wrong. I’m a big boy I can think for myself.

      1. wanderlust misfit says:

        Thank you!! Let people run their businesses as they please, because if their policies and practices are immoral and awful, nobody will spend their money there!!
        Besides, gay men buy 87.32% of all flowers (I think that was a statistic from a Gallup Poll).

        By the way, the same needs to go for big businesses and banks. We people need to be more informed about what these 1%’s do with our money so we can realized all the immoral and tactless policies they enforce on our dime. Invest your money in a local bank instead of Chase!!

    2. Ernst Halford says:

      As the law currently stands, everyone is currently able to spit in anyone’s food that they already don’t like. Shop owners just don’t want to waste the spit anymore.

    3. matthew says:

      you make no sense, business people want to make money, they are not gong to refuse business

      1. Justin Haines says:

        Whether or not it’s a good financial decision is irrelevant but it is not necessarily a horrid financial decision. I would not eat in a restaurant convicted sex offenders regularly hangout in. Throwing their sorry asses out would likely be a boon to business.

        Regardless, it’s not about hating anyone. It’s giving people the freedom to do business with who they choose.

    4. krp says:

      How do you know they are couples? They could just be two co-workers or two roommates that just happen to be the same gender.

      How often do “couples” get sick? One might catch the flu and then go to the doctor, and the other one catches the flu from the first and goes to the doctor a few days later. However the couples don’t receive medical treatment TOGETHER but as two individuals.

      Now if a couple were to be in the grocery store and they were in the health and beauty aisle and they started undressing each other and squirting KY on each other, they would be kicked out regardless if they were same gender or otherwise.

      This bill only involves couples that are requesting services AS couples. Not as two guys or two gals that are having lunch together, not as two co-workers that are sharing living spaces, not two roommates that are shopping for groceries together, but to COUPLES.

      What idiots that cannot understand the damned article that they supposedly read.

      1. Frunkis Baldwin says:

        KY is horrid for gay sex. That said, why not just pass a general right to refuse service bill (if one does not exist at this moment)?

      2. Daniel says:

        A general right to refuse service bill would violate the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act basically says you can’t refuse service because of race, creed, color, or national orgin (something like that I’m to tired to look it up now).

        The Civil Rights Act in that regard should probably be changed. The part where govt can’t discriminate is great.

        Bottom line, businesses should be allowed to discriminate, as well as individuals. If a person or a business is a bigot, I’m not going to talk or spend money there.

    5. Rick says:

      I’d be happy to fly my family to NH to give his restaurant my business. Too many times my kids have had to see perverts while we dine. Wonder if he would like to franchise.

  4. massman says:

    Bill sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin, R-Manchester, called it a “business protection bill”

    I’m speechless.

    1. marc says:

      I’m speechless too….speechless that a 21st century political hack actually understands the meaning of freedom as defined by the Constitution. Good for him.

      1. Mark Santeramo says:

        Um, you mean this is a Republican that wants to use big government legislation to HURT small businesses by allowing them to discriminate against potential customers? Yea, that make a lot of sense and is truly American, LOL.

        Honestly, when Independents like myself read articles like this we cannot help but to laugh and shake our heads at how ignorant and hypocritical most conservatives and some liberals really are.

      2. jonny says:

        How long can a business large or small survive if they keep turning away business? If they can survive, so be it. It’s their ignorance, life, business and money.

        You’re not an Independent when you make a statement like MOST conservatives are this way and SOME liberals are that. You more interested in Liberal ways, just call a spade a spade.

      3. Ernst Halford says:

        @Mark Santeramo
        State gov’t is not BIG gov’t. Learn the difference!
        And by your remarks, you certainly sound like a BIG liberal to me.

      4. krp says:

        @mark Santeramo, as usual your comment doesn’t make sense. Not surprising since you are a liberal. How does legislation that allows a small business to conduct business as they please HURT them? If the bill ALLOWS them to discriminate, and does not force them to discriminate, and they choose not to discriminate anyway, how does it hurt them??

        This is a business protection bill. This allows a banquet hall that is used for wedding receptions to refuse to host a wedding reception for a same gender wedding if they feel that it would offend their regular clientele, without fear of being sued by the gender benders, It allows a bed and breakfast owner from refusing to rent out the honeymoon suite to a newley”wed” couple from Boston with repercussions. This allows a marriage counselor to reject a same gender couple as clients, because his methods and techniques simply don’t apply to such ridiculous lifestyles.

    2. Tango says:

      Why speechless. BHO crammed the Affordable Care Act down out throat. Matter of fact, if you listen the BHO, you can simply plan on him doing the opposite of what he says. He would not have been elected if he told the truth of his agenda.

      1. Tango with me. says:

        Always with the cramming down the throat with you conservatives. Always with the throat imagery. Methinks you doth protest too much.. ;-)

      2. Tango'ed says:

        Just like you liberals and your Tea Bagger. Always with the mouth imagery. Methinks you doth protest too much… ;-)

  5. Willow says:

    There are some people in this country who still believe that homosexuality is immoral. Why is it that gay folks have “rights,” but those who do not embrace this lifestyle are discriminating.? I don’t hate homosexuals, I just don’t embrace the lifestyle and wouldn’t want to be forced to embrace it. In my opinion, this business has a right to serve those who are in a traditional marriage, and gay couples should seek out another company that is willing to plan their wedding for them.

    1. GM says:

      I agree whole-heartedly.

    2. stopthe says:

      Now take the next step and admit that based on that view, the civil rights act of 1964 is unconstitutional.

      Because in fact it is – based on the same arguments about property rights.

      The thing is, I agree with you; but I can’t be inconsistent. If I don’t want to serve blacks, I shouldn’t have to – it’s the same issue. I’m surprised no one is making the comparison.

      1. Tom says:

        BUT,…being of a certain race is not a choice. Being homosexual IS.. THAT’S the difference.

      2. Canof Sand says:

        The “comparison” you’re talking about is nothing new. And there’s nothing WRONG with it.

        John Stossel on the right to discriminate

      3. Freedom of Association says:

        So are Hate Crime Laws. Double Leopardy for the White, Straight Man and no one else!

      4. Daniel says:

        I would say the Civil Rights Act is definitely unconstitutional in the situation where it forces businesses not to discriminate based on race. The parts of the Civil Rights Act about gov’t not being allowed to discriminate are great. Frankly the law shouldn’t have to stop gov’t from discriminating it should be automatic under the constitution and the 14th amendment.

        Businesses are private, and private individuals run them. Private individuals and businesses should be allowed to choose whom they associate with.

        Some businesses would discriminate, but part of freedom is allowing people to do things that I would consider immoral as long as it doesn’t violate their person, property, or liberty.

    3. RJ says:

      And what if you’re on the receiving end of this discrimination – and don’t make the mistake of thinking that this bill isn’t discriminatory. Would you simply accept it if you were denied service at a restaurant because of the color of your skin or some personal belief that doesn’t impact the business owner you’re patronizing? Maybe they can just deny you service because your wife is fat, or because you’re balding and don’t meet the ‘standards’ of what this business wants to portray..

      It’s a slippery slope. Don’t be tricked into falling down it.

      1. Lucas Temple says:

        I certainly would. I would simply take my business elsewhere and encourage friends to do the same. The business would exercise its freedom, and I would exercise mine.

        ““When the government starts getting involved, it turns around and brings in a whole new light. ” The problem currently is that the government is involved in businesses by dictating to them what they can’t and can do.

        If you own a business, you own it, and you have the right to run it how you see fit for any reason. IF one wants to be a racist interolerant bigot and discriminate, its their choice. This is called Civil liberty, and just because we or someone else doesn’t like it doesn’t negate the rights of that business.

    4. Brian Rothbart says:

      It isn’t a “lifestyle”. You don’t choose to be gay, you are born that way. The same God that made them made you too.

      “You’ve never walked in that man’s shoes or saw things through his eyes…. For the God that made you made them too….”

      1. Jeff says:

        What does Romans 1 say?

      2. Steve says:

        Can you say for a fact, without a doubt that in every single instance that people are born to be gay? In reality is probably a complex combination of genetics, environment and choices with a variety of mixes in each case. Ranging from totally genetics to totally choice.

      3. Willow says:

        Yes, and He also made seriel killers.

      4. krp says:

        So you were born with that Cher makeup on your face?

    5. Mark Santeramo says:

      Actually thatds called discrimination outlined by the 14 amendment in the Constitution that conservatives hold dear, LOL.

    6. Tango with me. says:

      So, if you didn’t like Jews, you wouldn’t let them into your shop? If, oh, I were a woman, you would have the ability to not serve me? What if I walked with a limp, or was a Muslim? Then it’d be ok to discriminate?

      1. Rusto says:

        Freedom is a precious thing…amazing how quick we are to give it up. Everyone is sadly confusing the constitutional rights granted to a free person and what morals say we should do with those rights. Don’t do that. It is indeed a slippery slope…and we are unfortunately headed in the wrong direction. Discrimination is not a bad thing…like it or not, it is something each and every one of us do every day. From what we wear, what car we drive, what brand we identify with…and yes, who we associate with…it is human nature.

        All of you balking at this bill are on the side of wanting to have your cake and eat it too…but you can’t have it both ways…someone will always be discriminated against when rules are put into place to protect one group from another. All it suceeds in doing is restricting the natural order of all humans and pit group against group. It also serves to create an ever endless supply of special interests that want their way just like the last special interest. It’s extremely hipocritical and serves no purpose….so again…don’t do it.

        The only answer is to agree that you can’t legislate people to like eachother or get along. On a completely constitutional basis, the civil rights act is a violation or our right to discriminate…now let me make it clear, morality in the individual will decide when and where that discrimination occurs…and society in any given era will determine what is socially acceptable, We all have our lines in the sand based on our individual values and they are all completely arbitrary. Who am I to tell you where your line should be, and who are you to tell me…so how about we all just back off, and agree that ALL anti-discrimination laws (civil rights act and others) are inherently discriminatory. Get rid of them…and grow up/grow a pair if you don’t like how you are being treated. Let your feet and wallet do the talking.

        And to all the people asking about when and in what situation it would be okay to discriminate…the answer is yes…to all of them. Is it moral, or nice, or a smart business practice?…probably not, not really, and hell no…but I stand by my position that you have every right in this country to be as bigoted and as hateful of an individual as you wish to be. I accept what I feel are poor choices on your part in order to have and enjoy the liberties we all share. So I implore you to please stop asking for our fundamental rights to be taken away when so many before us have worked so hard to make those rights available.

        It is indeed a slippery slope…

      2. Eternal Anachronism says:

        Under our Constitution, it’s ALWAYS okay to discriminate. It’s called freedom of association. And for most of American history, the government didn’t trump this right.

      3. Amy Witchek says:

        Oh…well put Rusto…well put indeed!!! Good read and thank you!

    7. Heike Seik says:

      I so agree with you !!! Give everybody the choise they want to do business with.

    8. Amy Witchek says:

      I completely agree with you Willow. As well, don’t mistake the intent here. The gay community has, for decades now, talked about forcing acceptance or the demise of any Christian faith that opposes their lifestyle choice. They have systematically pushed to that end and we now see laws that are being put in to place that would actually restrict a Church from following its belief system through the Bible and forced in to following man-made law instead. As well, Churches would lose their tax exempt status and all the charity work they do would cease, many Churches not able to stay afloat at all. Why? Because the gay community is mad at the Christian faiths for not patting them on the back for their chosen lifestyle. Now that gays are a protected class legislators are going to tear down the last vestiges of religious freedom. I guess those of us who follow the teachings of our Lord and do not accept abortion, the gay lifestyle, the denial of religious expression, etc…better start saving bond money. But you can bet the farm that no one is going to ever make me deny Him. And no, that doesn’t mean I, or any other Christian, hates gays or women who have suffered through an abortion so just get that silliness out of your system.

  6. Robin says:

    Go ahead and discriminate. There are enough people that will boycott the business and it will be out of business. This is not about religous freedom. It is about acceptance. My understanding of the bible is that acceptance was a practice of Jesus Christ

    1. Da Troot says:

      Your understanding of the bible is nil, so let’s address your other issue. Imagine you ran a business where you sell widgets out of a store. One day, you realize that your store is filling up with neo-nazis who just LOVE your widgets. Over time, you realize that for every nazi you serve, two or three desired customers fail to return. Would you appreciate being compelled to serve nazis at what you think is the expense of your bottom line? If you stopped serving nazis, would people start to think of them fondly as the “oppressed minority”? Should they?

      1. KPC says:

        Substitute the word BLACK for Nazi, then answer your own question.

      2. beeswaxx says:


        BLACK is not a choice….

      3. woodyblack says:

        @KPC Getting tired of gays comparing themselves to blacks.

      4. Ernst Halford says:

        Hiney humping IS a choice.

    2. Ken Po RobsterCraw says:

      Jesus said “go sin no more”. In the jewish law homosexuality was a grave sin, an abomination to God.

      18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
      20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

      John 8:3-11
      3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman
      caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the
      4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in
      adultery, in the very act….
      10 “Woman, where are those accusers
      of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
      11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her,
      “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

    3. cheetah says:

      Yeah, see thats part of the problem, Robin. It used to be tolerance, now its acceptance. I have no problem with straight or gay couples, I can tolerate and mind my own business as long as it doesn’t affect me. I don’t have to accept it though. If a guy wants to have a relationship with a pumpkin, I don’t care but I don’t have to accept it.

    4. rube says:

      Then you need to go back and re read it. Homosexuality is called an ABOMINATION, not just a sin, but an ABOMINATION. If you are a sinner, and we all are, and even if you were practicing the ABOMINATION of homosexuality, and then you repent, and stop the sin, or do your very best to stop, maybe you cant because the sin is so powerful, but you try, and you also realize that it is wrong, and you should not do it, then you are forgiven. If you march for sinners rights, and for your right to not only sin, but get special treatment, and force the rest of us to condon your sin, then you are not forgiven. It is not hate to tell a sinner that his sin will get him condemnation, just like it is not sin to tell someone playing russian roulette that sooner or later, there will be a bullet in the chamber. If you want to see hate and anger, look at an ACT UP march, or a pride march.

    5. woodyblack says:

      something described in the Bible as an abomination is not something that Jesus would have accepted. He would love the person, but HATE the sin.

    6. marc says:

      correct!…they should be free to discriminate on ANY basis….and deal with the consequences. I don’t like Muslims. I won’t serve them in my business. I tell them we are out of whatever it is they ask for, and I tell them the next shipment is delayed for six months. works great for me. I don’t want or need their business—ever.

    7. GM says:

      Jesus loved people (all of us sinners), he did not accept sin. Big difference.

      1. Ernst Halford says:

        Why do you speak about Jesus in past tense?

    8. Jeff says:

      Read a little more closely. He condemned sin and accepted the sinner…which is all of us. “Go and sin no more.”

    9. Ernst Halford says:

      “My understanding of the bible is that acceptance was a practice of Jesus Christ.”

      You should actually read the Bible before making statements like this. And you could not be more wrong in that statement.

    10. JR says:

      The Bible specifically states that we should be against a man having relations with another. Your acceptance logic means we should accept truly bad behavior because it leaves no line drawn. Your logic says oh well, this person does x which is wrong, but we should accept them regardless. The Bible states that we shouldn’t accept things that are against God’s tenants and homosexuality is one of them. God does not teach us to accept sin. He teaches us to reject it. It really is that simple. Don’t hate on me, I didn’t write the Bible. I didn’t choose what was in it. That being said. I think that businesses should be allowed to discriminate. If they discriminate and are boycotted out of business well then that’s fine. That’s how capitalism works. You make money by providing what people want to the people that want it. They pay for and run the business, they should be the only ones deciding who they do business with.

    11. Steve says:

      Jesus loved everyone but did not accept everyone. In fact, Luke 13:27 mentions that fact that Jesus will turn away people from heaven to those who chose not to accept him: But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!

    12. The Batman says:

      You are right. Jesus was about love and acceptance but he also told those that were caught in the act of sinning that they were “to go and sin no more”.

  7. emom says:

    Discrimination is immoral. We are a divided country , segregated by dislikes , hate and beliefs. We may never agree with what others say, like, do or even how they live or believe…. But at what level is over the top,,, However I understand that there is some level of tolerance, If someone is out of line, breaking the rules being disgusting then we have the right to point it out, You know like someone acting inappropriate,,,, But if someone is not over the top how can we discriminate against.
    Its like a store not allowing you in just because you were African American, a hospital not taking care of you because you have no insurance, a restaurant not serving you because you are wheelchair bound, the government saying you are no longer worthy all because you are now old and feeble..
    So how can a store still be allowed to do this and further more how can our government still encourage discrimination of this level,, This opens the door to major lawsuits .
    Its immoral discrimination…

    1. Charles Raymond Chandler says:

      A hospital should be able to turn away someone without insurance. That is not discrimination, unless you count as discrimination choosing to serve those who can pay as opposed to those who cannot. Nothing wrong with that.

      1. emom says:

        then its considered murder, By not helping those that are sick, Is the same as casting them out to die. discrimination . People that are unable to afford health care should simply be throw away folks, Just like those in our nursing homes. When someone you love or know is unable to afford health care and needs care You tell them to go home to die and then .just walk away. Discrimination either way you slice it. ‘

      2. Washington Nearsider says:

        emom – A car dealership can turn me away if I can’t afford a Corvette. A bank can turn me away if I can’t afford a $1,000,000 mortgage.

        Are my rights being violated?

      3. stopthe says:

        It IS discrimination – and discrimination is ok.

        The thing that people need to grasp is that we have the right to discriminate, based on any criteria whatsoever. Any law that forbids us to do so is unconstitutional – period.

        I have the right not to serve blacks in my restaurant, or to employ jews. Period. It is not the government’s place to effect social change via the violation of property rights.

      4. Whitney says:

        emom – “then its considered murder, By not helping those that are sick, Is the same as casting them out to die. discrimination ”

        So if someone is trained in the medical field, every sick/injured person they may encounter is entitled to their time and resources? Wow. Sounds like you’ve just created a slave. If I’m hungry, can I demand that anybody involved in agriculture or the food service industry stop whatever they’re doing and immediately feed me? How about if my car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and it’s really cold outside? Can I enslave a mechanic for 4 hours to repair my car? If he doesn’t can I have him arrested for murder?

    2. nanuq says:

      We all discriminate every day. Not everyone deserves a drivers license, for example. No boys allowed on a girl’s volleyball team. “You must be this tall to ride this ride.” It happens all the time. Why is discrimination bad in this example? NOT passing this bill would encourage violation of our Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Assembly,

    3. marc says:

      You are dumber than mud. You discriminate every day. You choose X over Y every day.
      Hospitals should be allowed to discriminate on citizenship status only. If you are here illegally, go die in the corner. sorry..tough love. Or we will collapse as a nation.

      1. Jeff says:

        Bingo. If you don’t discrimiate then you are indiscriminate, right? That would be synonomous with being an idiot! Conservatives are regularly criticized because we make decisions based on standards, you know, those things that don’t change just because they force us to make difficult decisions and come under criticism? I do not care what you believe or how you act privately. But as a conservative libertarian, I do care how you actions affect others. Be gay, smoke pot, etc., but you should have to bear the consequences of your actions and decisions. Our biggest problem as a nation is that we bail people out from their personal responsibility. Stop that and you fix a multitude of problems.

    4. Whitney says:

      I think you may not understand the meaning of the word discrimination. There is nothing wrong with evaluating the information you have about someone and making a judgement. You do it every single day even if you don’t realize you’re doing it. I’m doing it right now. I’ve read what you wrote and based on that I’ve discriminated you from an intelligent person.

      1. GM says:

        Aslo referred to as discernment. And YES, we ARE called to be discerning and excercise good judgement.

    5. emom says:

      Sure there are some things in this world we can not have is it then discrimination or just we can not have, If you can not afford a luxury item that is not the problem of the banks, But its a moral code with hospitals to not turn you away just because you can not afford health care. I see this practice will only alienate people on a whole , Is it there right I guess it could, Is it morally right , hardly will it have repercussions for them in the long run, I say it will, so if they choose to discriminate against a person simply because of who they are , what they do in life and who they are married to then we have just taken a large 40 year step back in time, I seem to remember this same thing happened back in the 50’s and 60’s and beyond, I thought we have moved pasted that, I guess bigotry still

      1. krp says:

        Read the article. It is not about discrimination against a person, it is discrimination against a COUPLE, that Requires two people. And two people that somehow claim to be in a relationship. This is not two co-workers eating lunch together while discussing a project, this is not about one individual giving his neighbor a ride to the grocery store and they shop together. This is about couples. Therefore it only applies to businesses that service couples, and if they are uncomfortable with the idea of same gender couples, if they do not feel that a same gender couple qualifies as a couple=, then that is their right.

    6. Springer Rider says:

      When your daughter turns down a date with a jerk like you,she is rightfully discriminating. All knowledge is discrimination. That is how we break reality down!!

    7. Ernst Halford says:

      You REALLY sound lost.

      1. james says:

        discrimination and bigotry lives on ,, what a shame and the cycle never ends.
        That means no one has the right to have an opinion, but merely be judged for having an opinion. Yup a sad entitled world we live in.

  8. Denise says:

    Well the “LIVE FREE OR DIE” motto for NH should be changed then and apparently the companies in NH that are behind the discrimination bill should plan on being out of business soon. How will they market themselves now??? Serving those w/: Shades of X skin color? no uncontrollable children! Those men over 6 ft and women between 5’5″ and 5’8″.. Blondes, Brunettes but no Redheads??? Only 1 tattoo??? Must have something pierced! You have the right to believe in whatever – but to own a business and refuse service to someone because you don’t like their “lifestyle” is just business suicide. I’m sure you aren’t the only company that does XY or Z and the minute you take a stand to discriminate your competition just gained a lot more business. But then again – not all Business owners are smart!

    1. Sam says:

      Why is it that you don’t care that business owners in NH are not able to ‘live free or die’? Why, in your mind, is that right only extended to your protected classes.
      Free will is just that, free. If a business owner does not want to do business with another person, why should they be forced to do so? Why don’t you care about his free will?
      You see, this is where relying on your government for this sort of thing just doesn’t work out. This is a question for the free market. If this practice offends enough customers, he won’t have any left so you’ll have nothing to worry about.

  9. Mtumba Djibouti says:

    I’m curious. Would the bill permit a similarly bigoted business to refuse service to a married black couple because he doesn’t think blacks should marry? Or maybe he doesn’t think people of different religions should marry. Or could a business prohibit service to two individuals who enter the business with one another, or shop together or dine together, because they are NOT married? Or, unlike the charade the bill author claims, is it simply anti-gay?

    1. josh says:

      how is it the gov’t responsibility to tell people how to think, if a PRIVATE buisness does not want to do buisness with a couple of a certain “ilk,” he should have the right. with that being said, in todays society he most likely does so at his own peril or economic demise, as the majority of his patrons will most likely see this unfavorably and do buisness elsewhere. plus you would know who your doing buisness with, cause the way it stands today people are forced to service those that they would just assume not. i don’t know about you but i would rather know that the person is a bigot, racist, sexist, or pick your adjective so that i can take my money elsewhere. PEOPLE NEED TO STOP BEING SO PC AND SENSITIVE allow these people to show themselves for who they are.

    2. Sam says:

      As a business owner and an American citizen, I should be able to choose who I associate with, no matter of race, religion or orientation. Your opinion on the matter is immaterial.

      1. Mark says:


        You get to choose not to serve blacks or Jews? Are you really that archaic in your thinking?

    3. woodyblack says:

      @Mtumba Your analogy is ignorant. Black is NOT a choice, GAY is!

    4. dango says:

      This is a matter of freedom in business, and freedom of association (and the right to …liberty and the pursuit of happiness) . People, including the small minority involved in homosexual behavior, have the right to choose who they associate with or who they do business with. You cannot get more Marxist and despotic than FORCING people to associate or enter into business with someone they don’t want to associate with, believing that association would be contrary to their values/goals or detrimental to their business.
      Let’s please stop trying to equate an innate characteristic (ethnicity, color, gender) with behavior that is chosen (homosexuality, polygamy, political association).

  10. jshell says:

    Live Free or Die — means giving business owners the freedom to choose who they want to do business with.

    All you freedom haters, when wil you understand what true freedom is?

    Forcing someone to do business with another person is not freedom.

    If a business owner doesn’t do business with a certain segment of the population b/c of their race, religion, or sexual preference, they’re only harming themselves. And it’s not very good for business. I’m a landlord, if this were to pass, it would not stop me from renting to gays — even tho, I disagree with their lifestyle.

  11. TexanPatriot says:

    And what is wrong with a business owner’s right to do business with the entities he or she sees fit? So the government decides that you MUST make a contract with an individual — it’s a short step to the government determining the terms of that contract. Wait, they’re already deep into that game.

  12. Evan says:

    Idiots. Freedom is not about FORCING people to serve people they don’t want to serve. That is the opposite of freedom. If it is the live free or die state ANYONE would be able to discriminate against ANYONE for ANY REASON. Saying they can’t is a violation of their freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies. Just because it makes you feel good to force others to do things doesn’t mean it implies freedom. Touchy-feely-goody is not equal to freedom.

    But like people have said businesses that discriminate will generally lose business.

  13. MarkJ says:

    Most of the above comments display the same thinking exhibited by Jean “Health Fuehrer” Sibelius who decrees to religious groups, “I don’t care if you have a moral and religious objection to dispensing birth control. YOU WILL FOLLOW ORDERS. However, because I’m such a nice person, I’ll give you a year to figure out how to violate your consciences and contravene church teaching.”

    The thinking above isn’t “progressive” at all: it’s fascist. .

    1. 'Nother-Son-'O-Ursus says:

      Re: “exhibited by Jean “Health Fuehrer” Sibelius who decrees to religious groups, “I don’t care if you have a moral and religious objection to dispensing birth control….”

      Look ’round, foolish one!

      The efforts by the Catholic Church to prevent the use of birth control/cause their employees to ‘pay-out-of-pocket’ rather than enjoy it (as an employee benefit), like the reat of us will, are extraordinarily effective…

      …If by ‘effective’, one is applauding the fact that the pews in Catholic Churchs are, (slowly, but surely…), becoming ‘buttocks-free’ zones!

      None of my money has been in a tithe-collection plate since Paul-6th’s idiotic anti-birth control screed; did the church go under?
      Not Yet! Is the church millions of faithful fewer? Absolutely!

      If the Vatican thinks it can continue to exist under such circumstances, (with millions of faithful ‘voting with their feet’!), that’s their decision!
      If a business imagines it can survive the bad publicity & potentil cost of lawsuits going all the way up to the supream court, which will likely reject this law, (and which cost LOTS N’ LOTS aof money & years of time…
      Be my (‘bankrupted, in-the-procss) guest!

      Running the Titanic full speed thru the ice floes, operating the Exxon-Valdeeze while drunk in his cabin & showboating off a rocky Italian coast were all the decisions of their Captains involved…Great Seamanship? I think NOT!!

    2. GM says:

      Spot on! Your analysis is without flaw.

    3. Jon says:

      So A Muslim ambulance crew has a right to refuse service to a woman? Does a 24hr gas station have to sell to everybody at 2AM? Would it matter if I owned the gas station and the local Cab company?

      Businesses operate under a license from the state. That license like a Dr’s, Pharmacists of EMT comes with rules imposed by the state. What if every Grocery store in NH refused to sell to Baptists or Muslims or Lutherans? Would you dare take a trip around Utah if such rules were allowed? Mormon only Gas, Bread?

  14. Au Contraire says:

    There is no law against shooting yourself in the foot. This is similar. If business owners don’t want gay people’s money, they can refuse. Simple as that. Let’s see how prosperous they become with that type of attitude. Not only will they be losing out on gays’ business, but other customers may choose to boycott them as well.

    I like freedom. And the freedom to be ignorant and stupid is included under that umbrella. No need to get upset or angry about it.

  15. Doowleb says:

    Affirmative action, ie. no white males need apply is okay though, right?
    If I own a restaurant and Hugo Chavez wants a table, I must serve him?

    Rights for thee but not for me I guess.

  16. JD says:

    Nothing wrong with this at all. In fact, this is what the US is all about: the freedom to run your business any way you want it to and let the market decide its future. The full definition of freedom. Those who want a federal level of control over business decisions have no understanding of true liberty.

    1. Segeny says:

      “Those” are liberals (or Dimocrats) who are anti-freedom – – except for other libs.

  17. David says:

    This is a horrible bill and it would set gay rights back 20 years. I’m a poligamist and this could set our acceptance back even farther back. We need to vote these conservatives out of power and stop this hate against people who share the same desires to live free, raise families and pay taxes, but have a different lifesytle.

    1. Jay says:

      If you have 10 businesses and 3 of them are run by racists, eventually, those 3 business will die off due to lack of consumers. If you force thsoe 3 business to tolerate people they do not want as consumers or employees, you are actually asking for MORE lawsuits and MORE problems at work. You cannot force tolerance via federal or other forms of legal actions. Sure you can say that a person must hire a certain percentage of certain groups, but that does NOTHING to promote actual tolerance at a philosophical level. If you want true acceptance, let the open market decide the fate of a business. Those which society feels are acceptable models of business will thrive, while others will not last.

  18. Segeny says:

    ‘Tis politically incorrect, I fear, but I support this proposed bill. If a bed and breakfast does not want to have ‘gay’ (where in the world did THAT term come from? These folks are the least ‘happy’ people on the planet. And as for usurping the lovely rainbow ….. ) folks staying at their little establishment, that should be their choice. Oh wait – – only libs get to have choice. The rest have to swallow whatever the libs choose.

    1. GM says:

      Not PC, but absolutely correct.

  19. Dave_D says:

    “I, as a business man, have a right to do business with who I want to.”

    Didn’t Lester Maddox say pretty much the same thing?

    1. Evan says:

      Oh god Dave. So freedom to you means the right to do whatever other people approve of.

    2. micro says:

      lester maddox – DEMOCRAT

      1. Dave_D says:

        Yup. In those days everyone in Georgia was a Democrat. They still hadn’t gotten over that Abraham Lincoln thing. (Something about the federal government forcing businessmen to give up their God-given right to own slaves.). Richard Nixon later convinced the segregationists that they would be more at home the Republican party.

  20. VulpesRex says:

    What the amoral posters who presume to know how Christ would have behaved are missing is that while Jesus would certainly have spent time with gay people, he would have done so because they are SINNERS, and at the end of his visit, he would have called them to REPENT and turn away from their lifestyle.

    And these bills are quite necessary, as there are plenty of gay activists working with orgs like GLAAD to target Christian churches and businesses for discrimination lawsuits. If a church or religious organization disagrees with homosexuality as part of their core beliefs, they should not be forced to provide services to gay couples.

    Since the ultimate goal of gay activists is to see all traditional institutions torn down and to replace them with new amoral sociocultural norms, no dissent from their point of view will be tolerated. They will not stop until every church, temple, and synagogue espouses a bland Unitarian creed denying anything resembling truth. Their forced indoctrination of elementary schoolers out in California is only the first step in a campaign to raise a generation of kids who are not only confused about morality, but also about gender. Parents who don’t want their kids inculcated with this nonsense should pull their kids out of public school ASAP.

  21. Dan says:

    The free market determines winners and losers, not gov’t regulation. Unless you are dealing with a monopoly (municipal services) you have the freedom to choose who you do business with. If a gas station only wants to sell gas to people under the age of 30, how long do you think they will stay in business?

    You don’t look at a gas station and say, “I won’t buy my gas there, because the delivery driver is gay”. You look at the price and value.

    Let the free market work, it is always going to be better than gov’t regulations which have unintended consequences.

    1. Sam says:

      “You don’t look at a gas station and say, “I won’t buy my gas there, because the delivery driver is gay”. You look at the price and value.”

      Well, I stopped going to my local donut shop due to the cross dressing freak they had working the counter there. So I guess price and value are just two factors to consider.

    2. Gilbert R Albright Jr says:

      More “free market ” Right Wing mentality. Business principles applied to social issues.

      Your “free market” bigotry was applied to African Americans for the first 200 years of our county’s existence. With Slavery and JIm Crow Laws in the South allowing them to be banned from Hotels, Resautrants, Schools Colleges, Neighborhoods, Housing, etc.

      This sickness still persists with you NEOCONS!

      1. David Loper says:

        Should a black store owner be required to serve the grand wizard of the KKK?

        Should a toy store owner be required to tolerate a known pedophile on his property?

        The freedom to associate is also the freedom to NOT associate. Slavery was wrong because it VIOLATED a person’s freedom. Forced association is wrong because it violates a persons freedom.

        Progressives are sick and have a twisted notion of right and wrong. Reciprocal values need not apply as long as we subscribe to whatever is the moral political correctness of the day. In the case of a government or GSE, absolutely you cannot discriminate. But let the private Catholic school deny service to that atheist. Let the Mormons deny entrance to their temples to the non-Mormons. Let the black store owner hang a sign that says ‘KKK members are unwelcome’ and let the guy selling his 1948 Tucker refuse to sell it to the demolition derby man.

      2. krp says:

        You said Jim Crow LAWS, That is different than giving business owners A CHOICE if they will not serve someone.
        There were no Jim Crow Laws until after Reconstruction. They did not exist prior to the War. And don’t say that is because all the blacks were slaves, because 20% of the antebellum population of New Orleans were Free People of Color, of which about 3000 owns slaves themselves.
        Jim Crow Laws came as a backlash to the oppressive treatment of the South by the Northern Liberals that treated the South like a region of Second class citizens and dictating from afar what they can and cannot do.. And they are still doing it .

  22. David Tomlinson says:

    If they REALLY wanted to allow business owners to run their businesses the way they saw fit, New Hampshire legislators would repeal the state’s draconian smoking ban in bars.

    1. Will James Robertson says:

      I agree!

  23. Will James Robertson says:

    I endorse this bill and I support a business owner’s right to discriminate at any time, for any reason. This is a good bill and I would like it to go national!

  24. John says:

    Is this relegated only to couples? I hope it allows business owners to kick out blacks and other mudskins. It would make eating out much more enjoyable.

    1. Evan says:

      You’re pathetic John.

      1. John says:

        No Evan, I am just sick and tired of going out and hearing them hooting and hollering constantly. If this law means that I can have a quiet evening out without them acting like a bunch of apes then I’m all for it.

    2. Evan says:

      Close minded retard.

      1. John says:

        If that’s your only argument Evan, then I have already won this discussion. Apparently you lack the brain capacity to formulate anything more than a three word response/insult. Perhaps you should read your insults and direct them at yourself since you’re proving to be nothing but a hypocrite.

      2. Chuk A Spear says:

        I have to go with john here,,,just after they start to get loud one or two will begin slapping hands and dancing,,then its soon a full scale flash chimpout.

      3. Spank05 says:


        In an above comment you compared black people to APES.

        You have won no discussion here unless you were trying to prove your allegiance to the KKK.

    3. Evan says:

      John, everyone who has met a black person knows that they aren’t apes running around hooting and hollering.

      There was no discussion, no argument. Just an absurd characterization.

      Which is pathetic.

      1. John says:

        Then you are blind Evan, walk through any public area. You’ll see blacks on their phones yelling as loud as possible in to the speaker, they’ll talk loudly in theaters and restaurants, I even had to shut a laptop on one at school because she was Skyping while other students were studying. You are blind and ignorant.

      2. E P Standing says:

        I have to go with john here,,,just after they start to get louder several will begin clapping hands , dancing,,then its soon a full scale chimpout.

    4. krp says:

      Yes is it only about couples. Not individuals.

  25. SeattleInvestor says:

    Pass this law and you really will be the live free or die state.

    I don’t want to serve democrates, they whine, complain, rip me off on the bill, and then “slip and fall” on the way out the door with the lawyer present.

    So There.

  26. CommonSense says:

    Nothing wrong with people being able to run their business as they want to. People can vote with their wallets and not go to restaurants or establishments they don’t like, then that restaurant goes out of business! Yay economic liberty!

  27. Chris says:

    Freedom of association is a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment, notwithstanding periodic violations by the federal government, including legislative ones. You don’t have to agree with how someone exercises that freedom but you do have to respect it. Taking away control of how someone conducts his or her private business is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Excluding someone from your private home or private business is your own, constitutionally protected, affair. It may make you less profitable but it’s your right.

  28. mrbill 59 says:

    discrimination is freedom
    that is all

  29. WereTurtle says:

    I think this bill should pass. The free market is a cruel mistress. If you refuse service to couple X for what ever reason, word will get around. Sure, it will bring you more clientele, but, it will lose you far more.

    We, as Americans have the right to associate with who we want. However, the Constitution doesn’t absolve us of the consequence of our actions and choices. If you don’t want gays in your place of business, you won’t have them. You also won’t have the people who think your are dumb for being bigoted. Consequence, meet action.

    1. krp says:

      This bill is about couples, not individuals. I think the main thing about this bill is to let hotel owners to not rent the honeymoon suite from some same gender couple from Boston.

    2. Freedom of Association says:

      I avoid businesses that hire more than 10 percent blacks, and have for years. This includes MCD’s, they only advertise to blacks, nowadays. Hate Crimes laws make it doubly important(as in double jeopardy) that ‘whitey’ stay away from the blacks.

  30. Paul says:

    I wouldn’t advocate that any business refuse to serve a person based on sexual orientation, race, gender, or any other such attribute. In fact, depending on the circumstances, I might boycott and actively oppose such a business. But, I don’t have a right to bring in the government, and throw them in jail for it. They have a right to make their own decisions about who they do business with, as do their customers, and as do I.

  31. David says:

    SO a person takes their money invests it in a business and somehow they should be told that they cant refuse service to someone if they choose? Thats stupid. Its your place do what you want you dont want gays there then thats your choice.

    1. Gilbert R Albright Jr says:

      Then they should be able to refuse to serve Ugly Idiots like you too!

  32. Bill E Bob says:

    A business owner should be able to refuse service to whomever they wish. They’re not “owners,” obviously, if they can’t.

  33. Gilbert R Albright Jr says:

    This is disgusting! More Conservative Bigotry. Time to amend Federal Anti-Discrimianton Laws to include Sexual Preference.

    1. Evabn says:

      Freedom is not bigotry. Freedom merely allows bigotry.

      Being in favor of freedom is not being in favor of bigotry.

      You are in favor of free speech right?

      Then you are in favor of people using racial epithets then by your logic right?

      1. Gilbert R Albright Jr says:

        Treating ALL U.S. citizens EXACTLY the same is not Bigotry. Equality is not Bigotry!

        What sick twisted minds you Conservative Nut Jobs have.

        Your perverse logic is always based on one thing: HATRED!

    2. WereTurtle says:

      More government is never the answer. When the sun shines upon the bigots and lets the community see them for who and what they really are, they will go out of business. There is no need for more government power to make that happen.

      Sunlight is the worlds best disinfectant.

  34. JohntheBaptist11 says:

    All americans should just say no for the homosexual movement believes they have rights not granted in the constitution or anywhere else! If you are to be granted rights under the conditions of the constitution then the term citizen applies! Another thing the term gay is happy and carefree, merry,brightly colorful or ornamental, full of or giving lighthearted pleasure, in this case they are giving frustration, torment and intolerance to the business man so they are not gay, for the term gay is being used improperly it is homosexual that these perverts are not gay!

  35. vobmfas says:

    I believe the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren took away a business’s right to serve whomever they choose more than 50 years ago. Same thing for a business’s ability to hire whomever they choose.

    1. stopthe says:

      Yes he did, in an unconstitutional decision which should be overturned.

      1. vobmfas says:

        The concept of “Pro-choice” only applies in certain situations doesn’t it. This decision was based on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution which is also the basis of Obamacare’s presumed authority to require citizens to purchase a product or service whether they want to or not.

  36. 'Nother-Son-'O-Ursus says:

    Re: “The bill never specifically mentions gay marriage and opponents say it could be used to allow businesses to discriminate against anyone whose marriage they didn’t agree with…”
    This bill is profoundly unconstitutional and anyone who can’t see that need stronger glasses that the ones I’m currently wearing!

    I’ve read of two (British) bed-N-breakfasts’ who decided they wouldn’t serve gay couples. Both are out-of-business due to lawsuit-related bankruptcy! Even if this cruel, stupid idiocy were enacted, AND even if some business decided to run with it, (refuses to serve gay marrieds, or insists that gay married couples sleep in separate bungalows, as the two B & B’s did, thus getting sued), how long do you think a typical small business could survive the protests that would immediately exist?

    I’m forced to concede that the USCCB, (U.S. Bishops), closeted-queens that they, are would probably support this stupidity, (further reducing mass attendance in the process); it is a shameful, ignorant idea!

    As a Hetro-American I’m ASHAMED that someone would even propose such crap in this day & age!

  37. Van says:

    So what’s the specific language of the bill? It’s not in the article at all. The only thing reported is one man’s fear of what the law may lead to.

    If all the media reported was the beliefs of people regarding real issues, we’d get all sorts of paranoid rantings.

  38. Edward Boothe says:

    That sounds like freedom to me, Obama better veto it.

  39. Cam Kirmser says:

    The law is valid.

    A business belongs to the owner, not the government. A business owner has every right to make business decisions affecting his property. Even if these decisions would damage his bottomline.

    Gay money spends just as well as straight; to refuse it would not be profitable.

  40. marc says:

    Every PRIVATELY owned business enterprise should have the right to deny service or business to anyone—including me. This is the fundamental basis of the founding of this nation. Gays are the absolute worst forms of political arm-twisters and contortionists we have now. The LOVE government when they can buy a Massachusetts judge (who is gay) to over-rule the will of the people, yet they revile this NH court when is asserts the basic rights of liberty. Be gay, whatever. But stay off my property rights!

  41. Johnthe Baptist11 says:

    Definitions and English terms do matter in a discussion: to be a bigot, one must first show intolerance so christians are standing up for their believes for they are intolerant of the homosexuals in public places demanding rights they don’t posses by law! I am a bigot not bigoted but I do practice bigotry on issues I cannot tolerate!

  42. MyOpinion says:

    Start printing up the signs again…”NO COLOREDS”. That would be allowed under this law. How about the other potential target…”NO MUSLIMS”? Or maybe we could scare up some of the other great signs of history, like, “JUDEN VERBOTEN”.

    1. Evan says:

      Ya, everyone would suddenly become racist right when this law is enacted.

      1. RJ says:

        This law would allow exactly that. If anyone can be discriminated against, then EVERYONE can be discriminated against.

    2. CR says:

      Really? Are you serious? If so, then you’re a paranoid simpleton who sees conspiracies everywhere. Yes, legions of radical racists and anti-semites are just waiting for this law. Business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone, anytime.

      One opens a business to make money by gaining customers. Nobody gains customers by angering the local populace with overt racism. Basic supply and demand…look it up. My state allows business owners to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Are there racist or anti-semitic signs all around? Not hardly.

      1. Xyr says:

        If the comments in this article are anything to go by….yes….racists ARE waiting for some legislation that will allow their hatred, intolerance and bigorty back into public businesses.

    3. krp says:

      Read the article. The Bill is about couples, not individuals. So that would not be allowed under this law.

  43. Chuk A Spear says:

    So if boys came in to dine and were singing show tunes or having a discussion about decorating,,a female like ellen wearing sturdy shoes etc they would be asked to leave?

    1. krp says:

      Are they a couple or two individuals? This bill is about couples.

  44. Chuk A Spear says:

    So if boys came in to dine and were singing show tunes or having a discussion about decorating,,a female like ellen wearing sturdy shoes etc they would be asked to leave?

  45. len says:

    “It would be foolish for us to turn any kind of customer away,” she said.

    And people should have a right to be foolish! To cut off their nose to spite their face, so to speak.

  46. Reality says:

    I think it’s ironic that gays and minorities want the government out of their private lives, but they want the government to force other people to forfeit their personal choices if they conflict with their sense of entitlement. People who own businesses and property should be within their rights to serve whoever they choose, hire whoever they choose, and serve whoever they choose.

  47. tramky says:

    Just a little ol’ question: Do gay-owned businesses refuse service to straight couples? There ARE places in the United States where, for example, motels and bars that fly the rainbow flag, the Gay Pride flag. What does that mean? Do some such businesses turn away straights? I’ve not heard of it, but it is quite possible that straights simply do not go into a motel or bar flying the Gay Pride flag in the first place–kind of like the effect of ‘whites only’ or ‘colored only’ signs of Jim Crow.

    Also, are housekeepers at ‘gay motels’ or motels/hotels that have gay guests exposed to any additional health risks. A common form of homosexual gay expression may result in the deposit of human waste materials–excrement–on towels & bedding that is not seen with most straight couples.

    1. krp says:

      Gay bars are a great place to find really really hot girls. They do there because the gay guys don’t hit on them.

  48. RJ says:

    This is absolutely outrageous! So it would be legal to start denying service to mixed-race couples? Or people of any color, based on this new law? No. This goes against all equal rights laws on the books.

  49. KellyinBoston says:

    Just so everyone knows, you’re seeing incredibly ignorant postings on this site because Drudgereport posted a link here. Every inbred retard right-winger in the world will be weighing in. There goes the neighborhood.

    1. CR says:

      Wow. No doubt you would like the right to refuse service to “ignorant, inbred, retard, right-wingers” as you put it. Nice.

      1. KellyinBoston says:

        I call them like I see them.

    2. VulpesRex says:

      As opposed to the elitist libtard snobs who are posting because Kos or HuffPo posted a link? Take a look in a mirror if you want a portrait of mental deficiency.

  50. Gibbs Bentley says:

    “Doctors destroy health,
    lawyers destroy justice,
    psychiatrists destroy minds,
    scientists destroy truth,
    major media destroys information,
    religions destroy spirituality and
    governments destroy freedom.” ~ Michael Ellner


  51. Tom Fairbanks says:

    Funny how the people who push for the right to choose, are the same ones who would deny a business owner the same right.

  52. NYS Parkie says:

    Good…Glitter that you bunch of ?????’s

  53. JDB says:

    There is only one group that give me the heebie-jeebies to be around, and that is the obvious homosexual practioners.

  54. No Utopia says:

    The root of this is The Battle of Liberty VS Utopia. I chose Liberty!

  55. anontdh says:

    1. Leviticus 18:22
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Leviticus 18:21-23 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
    2. Leviticus 20:13
“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:12-14 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)
    3. 1 Corinthians 6:9
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 6 (Whole Chapter)
    4. Timothy 1:10
The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching
1 Timothy 1:9-11 (in Context) 1 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)

  56. Professor Henry Higgins says:

    “New Hampshire business owners could soon have the legal right to decide who [sic] they serve.”

    If it is my property and my business, why would it not be my right to decide whom to serve?

  57. elevenhundred says:

    Bad law is bad. They already have the right to refuse service on that basis. Some politician is just trying to make a name for themselves.

    It’s like the government telling us SOPA/PIPA are necessary to combat piracy then as a show of force they arrest a man in a foreign country and have well over 50 million dollars worth of assets and millions of people’s data confiscated. It’s all theater centered around the peace of mind of the little people or intentionally scaring them.

    1. krp says:

      Yes but gays are Leftsts and have lawyer friends looking to make a name for themselves and lots and lots of quick cash as well. There is a reason this is called “Business Protection” bill.

  58. rlroll2 says:

    I think businesses should be allowed to associate with whomever they want to associate with, as long as I am allowed to tell them who they want to associate with.That’s not a line, its a political philosophy.

  59. Buyme says:

    Why America is sick:-)

    In this economy, a customer is a customer.

    Anything for a Buck is what we teach & Preach:-)

  60. CR says:

    I find this whole topic to be amusing. Many states have had such a law on the books for many years. Has it lead to mass discrimination, racism, anti-semitism, or any other problem? No it has not.

    The headline of the story is incredibly biased. It could just as easily read, “NH Bill Would Allow Service Refusal To Airhead Reporters Who Make Up Misleading Headlines”. Most amusing is all the paranoid comments claiming such a law will certainly lead to “insert worst fear or own bias here”. How does one make the leap from obvious freedom for business owners to forecasts of doom? They are all very specific too, making me suspect that the real racists, bigots and anti-semites are those accusing everyone else of those offenses.

    Enough with the holier-than-though nonsense, people. Freedom is worth fighting for. Paranoia and negativity are not worth anything.

  61. Kevin Knightsbridge says:

    As a business owner I should have the right to refuse service to anyone I choose. The government needs to butt out. Personally since gays usually have more disposable income then straights I would never forbid them from visiting my place of business. But I should have the right to do so.

    1. RJ says:

      You have the right to refuse service, but not based on sexual orientation, gender, race, hair style, or eye color. If a customer is disruptive, or has historically caused issues in your business, then I would support your decision to eject them and deny them service. But this law seems to allow business owners to discriminate BEFORE a customer does something other than simply exist.

      1. krp says:

        This bill doesn’t allow business owners to discriminate before a customer does something, it discriminate against TWO customers. Not the same thing. If they exist as a couple then they have already done something, declared themselves as a couple, as an item. This bill has no effect on individuals. It doesn’t affect two guys that just happen to go shopping together, or two co-workers that go to lunch together at the same diner, This applies ONLY to couples, not individuals.

  62. Carol Q. says:

    Read the 1st ammendment again! It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. It limits the government, not the people. It does not protect YOU from me. It protects me from the government being like YOU! NH does not need to create a new law, they simply need to allow people to exercise their Constitutional rights.

    1. celador2 says:

      Where in constitution or state law is it required all customers be served? There is an opening for non service outside public accomodations and even then that protection is based on race, sex and creed. It was not until tthe mid 1960s the Civil Rights act allowed people of color to use a bathroom at a gas station and get a motel room to sleep.

      Does that 1965 protection nationally apply to NH gay couples buying specialized candy for a wedding it looks to me to be the question.

      There is no religious reason to deny a person of color access to a bathroom at a gas station but there are religious reasons opposed to gay marriage. I can see the Religious exemption might apply in this case to the sale of specailized wedding candy.
      Were it me I owuld take my business elsewhere. If they don’t want my money so beit.

  63. celador2 says:

    What are the chances this bill will pass and after that how long before a court challenge?

  64. notaproblem says:

    Why would gays want to give their money to people that don’t like them anyway? And you think the answer is to force them to take your money? I’m sorry, but that is stupid. You should say fine, I will go spend this green, green money elsewhere.

    1. VulpesRex says:

      Gay activists don’t want to spend their money somewhere else. Their goal is to shut down anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They will seek out establishments that they believe will refuse them service in order to file lawsuits. In every state that allows gay marriage, there will be instances of gay couples finding the most evangelical church in the area, and demanding that the pastor allow them to use the church and that the pastor “marry” them. When he exercises his right of conscience and tells them no, they will sue.

      Bills like the one proposed in New Hampshire are necessary to protect religious liberty from amoral secular humanists and their converts/allies in the gay community who preach tolerance but tolerate no opinions differing from their own.

    2. VulpesRex says:

      Case in point, Lawrence v. Texas was initiated by a gay couple that wanted to strike down Texas’ sodomy law. They summoned police to their residence under false emergency pretenses, and then started having sex just before the police broke in to force police to arrest them.

      The American Psychological Association of years past was quite correct in the way it used to label that lifestyle. Only when the depraved progeny of the sexual revolution began to infiltrate such organizations did the diagnoses change.

  65. lugnut4 says:

    I laugh at you homosexuals calling us “breeders”! If it wasn’t for “breeders” your kind would die out!!

  66. celador2 says:

    At one point the repeal of gay marruage was to be on the 2012 ballot was it not? Is that still scheduled for a vote?

  67. Lynn Pilcher says:

    Ms. Leamanczyk quotes Tim Kierstead a Gay restaurant owner who stated..

    “When the government starts getting involved, it turns around and brings in a whole new light. We turn around and now we’re becoming second-class citizens. I mean, they don’t have a right. Where’s the line going to be drawn?”

    Actually, this is exactly why we have a problem in the United States. In election after election, the American People have voted against the advancement of the Homosexual Agenda. Yet people like President Clinton, Congressmen and Federal Courts are going against the will of the people and have promoted the Homosexual Agenda. In California a Homosexual judge threw out the election, where the majority voted that a marriage was between a man and a woman.

    in states that have adopted Homosexual marriages, they are teaching Kindergarten students that it is acceptable for a kid to have two mom’s or two dad’s.

    Yes, Mr. Kierstead is right the majority who voted against the Homosexual Agenda are becoming second class citizens. However, they get to pay for the consequences of other peoples actions.

  68. oops says:

    You’ll have to allow smokers now or it’s hypocritical identity politics.

  69. Joe Loiacono says:

    “When the government starts getting involved, it turns around and brings in a whole new light.”

    Exactly! When a government says you have to serve somebody you choose not to – that’s a whole new, bad light.

  70. mani ali says:

    Let the people be free. Let business owners decide who they want to or don’t want to work for. Those who disagree are equally free to boycott.

    What’s wrong with freedom??

  71. SHRKB8 says:

    The problem today is the government’s willingness to deny the fact that people discriminate in their decisions everyday, and in the fact the government has seemingly dictated which discriminatory actions are permissible. In reality, people discriminate when they eat one food over another, speak to one person before another, choose to use one government service or another and so forth. Discrimination is simply another word for choice. When a business owner decides to not serve someone for being black/white/gay/straight/woman/man, it is making a decision that they believe is in their best interest. As guaranteed by our 4th amendment of the right to associate with whom we choose, this makes sense. Of course, the asinine business decision to serve some but not others will cut into the bottom line of the business and ultimately drive them out of business. My point is everyone simply needs to stop worrying about what others are doing, and worry about themselves. Don’t worry about Joe Schmo discriminating — just don’t do it yourself. STOP BEING THE TOWN BUSYBODY.

  72. Don Murray says:

    Here are two more reasons you should never check valuables in your luggage when you’re flying. More at

  73. b says:

    For all those spouting off about discrimination and your Constitutional rights, you are forgetting that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of association. The gay guy quoted in the article has it exactly backwards when he says this is the government getting involved–in fact it is the exact opposite–it is making sure the government cannot force you to associate with whomever it chooses. A private business owner should be able to serve anyone or no one according to his perogative and need offer no explanation for why. The gay lobby should stop using the government to bludgeon everyone into agreeing with their agenda.

    1. Cougian says:

      And just to make sure we know who the gays are, so we don’t “associate” with them, we should make them wear little patches on their sleeves.

      Don’t you understand how close you are to fascism?

      In this country, you don’t have the absolute right to operate a business. It’s a privilege. There are only two basic requirements. One is that you don’t discriminate who you serve to based on a few, fairly unremarkable criteria. Things like race, gender, and sexual orientation. The other is to pay some amount of taxes on the profit that you generate. These are not onerous in any way, yet, people on this message board seem to feel mighty put upon to let everyone shop in their establishments.

      I think we should allow this type of law. Let’s publish the names of every business owner who denies service to a gay couple, and then deny the business owner service in every other business in town. Don’t make them lose only gay customers, make them lose every customer who believes in equality.

      1. krp says:

        Read the damned article. The bill is about COUPLES. Not individuals. Think about what businesses would have identifiable couples as clients or customers. There no need for them to wear armbands because there is no discussion of individuals, but couples.

  74. SHRKB8 says:

    Sorry — not 4th Amendment, but 1st Amendment.

  75. dog says:

    “”As a business owner, Tim Kierstead believes in the right to run his restaurant the way he sees fit.””

    No he doesn’t. What a liar.

    1. Joe Loiacono says:

      No he’s not lying. He thinks he can run *his* restaurant as he sees fit – but you can’t!

  76. meee says:

    Live FREE or Die!!!

  77. Tinylitess says:

    One must think in terms of…Lets say you own a nice little bar. One day a biker comes in and has a beer and a burger. The next day he brings a few of his friends then the next day a few more. Next thing you know you’re running a biker bar….Business owners should be allowed to serve who they want.

  78. notahater says:

    The bible tells us not to lie with a man as we would lie with a woman, but it does NOT tell us not to do business with someone who does, not to hang out with them, not to be their friend, or whatever. God already handles all the judging and sorting out for us, and those of you who take it upon yourselves are only sinning.

    “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”

    Denying service to homosexuals, or anyone else, based on the color of their skin or their sexual orientation is simply discrimination, and IN NO WAY serves your religious freedoms.

  79. Choice says:

    Purporting that you are gay does not equal being born black, so don’t even go there. Of course a private business can refuse to serve anyone for anyreason, especially if the business finds the person to be morally or physically disgusting due to his or her sexual perversions. We are NOT required to like gay people, nor to accept their nonsense in our private businesses. If gays don’t like it, they can go to another business who is friendly to gays.

  80. BIG_GAY_LIE says:

    @Choice, @meee, @dog, @othersalongthisline…..WELL SAID!

  81. Thor Burfine says:

    This has nothing to do with gay rights, or religious freedom.

    This is 100% business freedom.
    How many of you remember the signs (like the one at my place of business)

    “We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason”

    This just states that I have the right to refuse you service just because I don’t like the color of your shoes.

  82. ManOnPoint says:

    I disagree with the decision to not serve gay patrons. I DO NOT agree with their disgusting lifstyle, but I believe they do have an expectation to have a meal in any place they choose. If, they start to act sexual in any way, (I would extend this to straight couples, too!!!) then they would be asked to leave right away. Sexual behavior is inappropriate in public places especially in front of children. Liberace, the famous gay entertainer, refused to answer questions about his orientation because, “It’s a family show.” Sexual behavior should be kept 100% private and not for public display!!!

  83. StraightRightsAgenda says:

    He’s absolutely right. The government shouldn’t be involved with who a private business chooses to serve. The bill basically is giving that freedom back to businesses.

    Gays have the freedom to marry, businesses have the right to not service them. Nothing to see here except, of course, the gay agenda trying to push beyond the government gains they’ve already gotten and force their views on to private business owners.

  84. Blake S. Davis says:

    If, as the article notes, businesses would not turn anyone away (a very clever bit if biased reporting) then what harm would the law do. It used to be said, “it’s a free country” – it’s a shame we need a law at all, where is the consensual nature of our society?

    Answer: destroyed by people of bad will, in the media and elsewhere, who divide us by race, class, age, religion – to make us afraid, dependent, suspicious and keeps us buying for our little group and hating others. And it’s the Democrats who are doing that – these corrupt creeps who live off money funneled through public unions, who encourage gov’t dependence and have destroyed African American in so doing. The KKK (a Democratic organization by the way) would be proud of today’s Democrats and what they have done to blacks and are doing to Latinos!

  85. Son of Bob says:

    So, this gay man is actually complaining about, “When the government starts getting involved…”

    Sorry, but it’s the government getting involved that forced this whole PC, support gays agenda on us. But, when a law would actually enforce the rights of those who may not want to support gay marriage, etc., then suddenly the government shouldn’t be involved. Give me a break.

  86. Alex says:

    Honestly, I do believe businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish. It is freedom of speech/expression. I would hope though, that businesses that choose to exercise that right to put down, and discriminate, are driven out of business by the free market, which I am sure will reject all discrimination at this point.

  87. Idontcare says:

    A business should have the right to serve and not serve who they want. If a Jew hater doesn’t want to serves Jews, it’s their business.

    If a business doesn’t want to serve me because of ANY reason, I’ll take my money else where. It’s the beauty of capitalism. .

  88. Machismo says:

    I think everyone has the right to go out to eat. But if Gay men or women, go to that resturant, and start kissing each other in from of everyone, I think it would make a bunch of people sick and they would never retuurn to the resturant. This would kill the mans business. The Gays would sue, if he told them to leave, or stop kissing, so what is he suppoed to do? If they do not flaunt it, no one will care. The problem is that Homosexuals are jamming their adjenda at Straight people to the point that we are fighting back. 3% of the population is dominating law suits, holywood movies, Schools.ect… I am sick of it too.

  89. Udo says:

    Good! A business should be able to serve who it wants without the government getting their hands into it. Political correctness and lack of decency have gone too far and Americans are getting sick of it and beginning to react, reaching back to times with better values. If the business owner won’t serve gay couples, some political correctness worshipers will go on low-life rants and boycotts to try to hurt the business but you will find others supporting this business owner to pick up the business. The Libs are making themselves a joke so maybe time for them to act a little more civil and start reviewing their values or lack thereof.

  90. Franklin Lopez says:

    This is just STUPID! I don’t like it but if it’s a private business, they sure do have that right and I respect that. That said, how would they know that the gay couple is married? DUHR! If a gay couple walks into an establishment feeling the need to say they are married, they should be seeing a shrink not patronizing an establishment.

    1. krp says:

      Exactly, This bill only effects businesses that deal with couples, not individuals. So it only involves those people that would be using the business as a couple. This is not about banning individuals from a restaurant just because they happen to be gay.

  91. Todd Clemmer says:

    So what? If they don’t want you in their private business then don’t go. This whole thing where people are forced to accept other people is ridiculous. Of course you can’t commit violence against someone you don’t accept. We have laws that cover that.

  92. massman says:

    Hey all you folks claiming it should be the business’s right to discriminateare incredibly ignorant bigots. The state of NH is a complete embarrassment.

    1. Liberity#1 says:

      This is not a religious issue. It is a personal property issue. The owner, not the business, has the right to run their business as they see fit. If they want to discriminate they can. You don’t have the right to shop or eat at any store. You have the personal liberty not to shop there, tell your friends not to go there and if you don’t support the store because they are discriminating against people the business will go under or they will change to stay in business. Just because you want to go there doesn’t give you the right to go there. Just like any property a person owns allows them to control who enters. ALSO the property owner doesn’t have to right to tell you who you can marry or to come enter your property. You rights stop where mine begin and mine stops where yours begin. Just imagine if we respected each other’s rights. Wow, what a concept. I think it is called the Constitution.

      1. Picnicking says:

        You are incorrect. You may wish the Supreme Court would uphold property rights in this way, but it has not. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v U.S. (1964).

        If you do business with the public, your rights to run your business the way you want have limits.

        If you would like to refuse to let gay people (or blacks, or Muslims, or smokers) into your private home, you may, But when you do business with the public, your business is subject to many kinds of regulations.

    2. Tinylitess says:

      oh don’t get on your higher horse now. Sorry but I think Environmental Nut jobs are Bigots as well. In fact I see some gays as being the biggest bigots of all demanding other people do what they want.

  93. Jon says:

    If only NH had a casino we could all bet on how many hours before the injunction was issued, how much the lawyers on each side would make and how high the decision would be appealed.

    The real crime is that any politician would stoop to writing a law that is only guaranteed to waste taxpayer money.

  94. Chuck says:

    Any lawsuit would be filed in Federal court under the 1964 Civil Rights law and the state law would not matter. The business would lose.

    1. Greg in AZ says:

      Civil rights do not extend to choice of sexually partner.

  95. Scott says:

    I think the precedent for this case was where a husband & wife wedding photographer turned down a lesbian couple on religious grounds, and they ended up getting sued for a civil rights violation. I really have no problem with this if it’s only for private businesses; you should be allowed to choose who you want to do business with, and not turn down someone who can then come after you saying it was discrimination.

  96. Sendac says:

    Oh poor Albert, I’m sure you are deeply oppressed by religious folk. You need psychiatric help.

  97. Mike Alan says:

    Im a straight guy living in nyc and if I knew a restaurant didnt serve gays or blacks or anyone because of lifestyle or religion, Id never frequent the restaurant again. Disgusting

    1. Calvin says:

      And that is your right. But putting gays and blacks in the same category is wrong.

    2. krp says:

      Read the damned article for a change. The bill has nothing to do with not serving members of any individual group, but rather not serving couples. It would only involve businesses that serve couples as couples.

  98. kbill says:

    As a businessman this law protects me from lawsuits if I refuse to do business with someone who has not paid for past work. Non business owners have no idea how many times people refuse to pay after the work is done or try to get additional work done for free before paying the bill.Those who disagree with this law want to be able to control the businesses without having to do any of the investing, work, or risk taking that the owner has.

  99. SeaWitch says:

    As a business owner, whether you enter solo, as a couple or with a group, my only requirement is that you respect my establishment, be kind to my staff and to other patrons, keep the volume of your voice(s) in check and no obsencity where others gather. In otherwords, carry yourself with dignity and class and friendship.

  100. Todd Clemmer says:

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.

  101. Liberity#1 says:

    This is not a religious issue. It is a personal property issue. The owner has the right to run their business as they see fit. If they want to discriminate they can. You don’t have the right to shop or eat at any store. You have the person liberty not to shop there, tell your friends not to go there and if you don’t support the store because they are discriminating against people the business will go under or they will change to stay in business. Just because you want to go there doesn’t give you the right to go there. ALSO the property owner doesn’t have to right to tell you who you can marry. Just imagine if we respected each other’s rights. Wow, what a concept. I think it is called the Constitution.

  102. Ball Sherman says:

    i agree with this and DO NOT want Blacks or Latinos in my place of business since they do most of the crime …also, i don’t want mormons as well due to their cult like beliefs…

    1. Canof Sand says:

      You don’t HAVE a place of business, troll. And if you did, it’d go out of business because word of your bigotry would spread to your clients. Moreover, your bigotry would be on full display to the community, causing you all manner of other problems (social relationships, etc.)… which is as it should be, and why businesses should be free! The free market and a free society WORKS.

    2. krp says:

      Read the article. The bill is about refusing service to COUPLES, not individuals. You cannot ban people from your place of business. This only applies to businesses that would cater specifically to married couples.

  103. Greg in AZ says:

    Finally! let’s hope other states follow suite. I am sicks of gays and the entitlement they think they should get because they take it up the backend. This does nothing to make them special. The greatest shame is what happened in 1952 when all the sudden since the beginning of time, it was deemed sane to be gay.

  104. David B says:

    If one homosexual or liberal (under redundant see redundant) object to a prayer at a high school graduation or a religious statue or a sign at Christmas saying Merry Christmas(even if an objection is not voiced and someone may be offended) then the prayer, statue and Christmas greeting are removed. If I object to a gay parade on public streets during business hours I am told to go pound dirt. MF the left they are the borg…they are the enemy!

  105. Dustin says:

    I agree…I as a business owner conduct my business as I see fit. I have done this from the day I opened my doors. I own a service related business and I will refuse work if they are not a US Citizien. I will not voluntarly help out the Illegal situation in this country by provideing service to them. Call me what you will but the amount of money lost in the US to paid illegal immagrants is in excess of 4 Trillion dollars. I have several leagal immagrants that work for me and they cant agree more. Less illegals means more oportinuty for legals and means more jobs for americans that are willing to work for their money and not depend on handouts. Again I appologize to no one for the way i run my business. Its my business not the “committe of they” business. God bless this amazing country and please people lets work to gether to keep it FREE!

    1. krp says:

      What kind of business are you in? The immigrants that work for you are not citizens so you would not work for them? What if a soldier marries a German girl while he was stationed in Frankfurt and he had just brought her over and she just got her green card and is waiting to be naturalized? Would you serve him and not her , or just refuse to work for them?

  106. vaman says:

    Sapareto is just trying to justify his bigotry and hide it behind religion. No doubt he’s a good christian. One of gods loving people perhaps? I hope every business owner turns him away.

    1. Carl Parsons says:

      Don’t you believe in evolution? Don’t you believe that if evolution, by natural selection, says a person should not reproduce and renders them genetically as gay, we should at least acknowledge that their very existence is a waste of valuable resources? They will not contribute ANYTHING genetically to the survival of the species, therefore they are a drag on society as a whole. Only when we acknowledge this will we truly evolve. Survival of the fittest is a fact of nature. People who claim to believe in evolution, yet seek to give gays rights are truly hypocrits.

  107. dustin says:

    and last i checked the bible called what we call “gay” an abomination. For referance and accuracy here it is in black and white. however we as christians are not to judge the person rather we are suppose to judge only the sin. That does not mean i have to provide anything my morales dont agree with.

    Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (NIV)

    Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)

  108. dustin says:

    first the creaters of the country were god fearing men. (if you care to dispute this read the federalist papers if you dont know what they are then you probably should not be on here anyway) second they created this great country based upon that. Just to be accurate however i will cite what the bible says about the “gays” and wheather it is morally ok or not morally ok. You may have troubles reading this if you dont know english however.

    Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (NIV)

    Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)

    seems pretty black and white to me…Gay = (for those with reading problems) very bad!!

    1. Picnic King says:

      Many of the founding fathers were also slave owners. While they were brilliant and courageous men, they were humans who were a product of their time. Surely our society has advanced the cause of liberty by ending race-based slavery?

      Leviticus also says that a man should not have sex with a menstruating woman. Are you prepared to round up al those couples? What seems black and white to me is tha picking the old testament as a black and white rule book is fraught with quicksand for a people living in 2012.

  109. Bill Dambacher says:

    Well HELLO FREEDOM! Where have you been? I’ve read about you in books and hear about you all the time… I just don’t see you in action to much so you seem elusive!
    And what the heck does your sexual preference have to make the headlines on this bill? Unfreaking real! How about ” NH Bill demonstrates civil liberties can still be applied today”
    Geez, always about the sex….

  110. Carl Parsons says:

    If we truly believe in evolution, then we must believe that nature has identified homosexuals as people who do not contribute to the genetic strength of the species (they will not survive, nor will they pass on their genetic material). As such, homosexuals use up valuable resources and should be afforded NO rights, as nature dictates. Otherwise, if you say you believe in evolution AND you believe in gay rights, you are a hypocrit.

  111. Dennis Webb says:

    “New Hampshire business owners could soon have the legal right to decide who they serve.”

    It’s “whom”. Where is the editor?

  112. BIG_GAY_LIE says:

    It SHOULD NOT be a requirement of ANY business or house of worship to serve a person or persons based on their sexual preference, race, color or religion. Businesses for years have had signs in their establishments stating that they “reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE”. Now all of a sudden because 2 homosexuals want to force a religious group to marry them (that’s what spawned this legislation), the right of the business and/or ministry is called into question.

    Homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior, a choice and does not belong on the same platform as race, ethnicity or skin color which is not a choice.

  113. Mark says:

    Our constitution gives no one any rights. It only tells everyone which rights will not be taken away from them A person has no more right to visit a business than a business owner has to run their business the way they choose. Call them homophobes, racists or anything your little heart desires, boycott their business if you wish, but do not deny them their rights to run their business they way they wish. Should the government tell them what color of tile the floors must be inside the bathrooms of their business also? Wake up people!

  114. John Malverne says:

    Don’t be afraid of freedom. Business owners *should* be allowed to deny service to anyone they please, they are not slaves to be ordered around.

    However, the actual number of businesses that choose to deny service to minorities of ANY sort would be infinitesimal. 98% of the publ;ic would refuse to patronize any business that did this.

    People should do the right thing because they *want* to, not because they *have* to. Trust in freedom and trust in your fellow man.

  115. niki says:

    Sorry to burst most of your bubbles but we ALL discriminate everyday. We choose who to date, marry, talk to, be friends with, where to work, what movies to see, where to live, what to wear, what brands to wear, what restaurants to go to, what kind of car to buy, who to buy the car from, where to send our kids to school and on and on. Since when did discrimination become this dirty word. If someone doesn’t want me to shop at their business because I am a woman, or a Christian, or straight, or short, or whatever other reason they have, I’m fine with that. I’ll take my business somewhere else. Everyone needs to stop being so angry all the time. Let people do what they want and let them deal with the consequences, no bail outs.

    1. Itsallgood says:

      Right on! Finally some one who understands freedom.

  116. scott chester says:

    Blaming religion for being able to use personal moral beliefs is a load of crap. Discretion & discrimination are a natural animal as well as human instinct. There’s no accounting for taste, so let each march to his own drummer & if that marching bothers someone, then stay away from each other & find someone who walks the same way & same path as you.

  117. JustFollowing says:

    There’s a lot of double speak in the article. The government is not intruding in this case. It’s reasserting the rights of individuals to decide who they want to interact with. That’s not taking away rights or intruding. Intruding by the government would be saying who the person must interact with or not interact with. This law is saying that you have the choice, and we will not step in to remedy such a choice if the other party is offended by it. Now that being the case, provided that it’s done with civility and not heavy handed, certain people and groups can disseminate information if and when accurate to others around them explaining what so and so is doing and why they think it is wrong. So said business owner could have backlash for not serving anyone who comes in. I think a business owner should be able to also make a determination that if a customer is drunk, violent, or somehow is a true safety issue, then s/he may ask the person(s) to leave the premises without the govt forcing them to do something differently. That’s called free to choose. It may have its consequences in a heterogenous society, but we should always be able to exercise our own choices.

  118. Lee S says:

    I do not see it as fundamentally a religious issue. It is a private-property issue, and a freedom-of-association issue. The federal government has NO constitutional right to make a business serve anyone the owner wishes not to serve. If a business owner wishes not to serve blacks, whites, men, women, hispanics, middle-easterners, the elderly, the young, homosexuals, heterosexuals, singles, the married – whomever – that is his or her legitimate prerogative. Federal statutes barring discrimination are illegal because they are unconstitutional, as they violate property and freedom-of-association rights. Show me where, in the US constitution, the federal government is explicitly authorized to exercise this power over any of us.

  119. JEFF TINBERGMAN says:

    This is a wicked time when homosexuals are trying to shove there perverted morals down our throats, there will be a civil war if this continues to happen.

    businesses have always had the right “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE”

  120. rhokeral says:

    “When the government starts getting involved, it turns around and brings in a whole new light. We turn around and now we’re becoming second-class citizens. I mean, they don’t have a right. Where’s the line going to be drawn?”

    The line was drawn right there with the push of group rights forcing business and property owners to kowtow to the whims of activist groups. As with all laws that infringe on an individuals right there are unforeseen consequences. Maybe the government should have never been allowed to be involved in the first place, hmmm.

  121. ca13005e says:

    No one is allowed to offend you without your permission

  122. llkey says:

    They would turn down a share of a multi-billion dollar bridal industry in this economy? NH may be the dumbest people in America! One thing about the bridal industry when you are treated badly or poor service you tell one person and they tell another and another and another and another. This actually will right itself nicely….out of business, out of business, out of business. I may have to move to NH to open up business. I see and huge opportunity here for a niche.

  123. Dryden01 says:

    Freedom means also that you are not subject to the dogma and will of others, whatever that dogma and will are. Some would like to have the freedom not to have to serve the Westboro Baptist Church entourage after they picket a funeral. Others would prefer not having to feed the NAMBLA marchers after a gay pride parade. What’s wrong with being allowed to make your own choice instead of having to accept the choices made by others?

  124. macroscommon says:

    So if two guys dressed like women walk into my business, and head for the Ladies restroom, I should assume all of my patrons would object to me asking them to leave?

  125. Alydia says:

    As a business owner, Tim Kierstead believes in the right to run his restaurant the way he sees fit.

    “I think each business has the right to do as they choose,” he told WBZ-TV.

    But as a gay man, he has a real problem with the new bill being proposed.

    It would allow businesses to refuse service to a couple if they didn’t agree with their marriage.

    “When the government starts getting involved, it turns around and brings in a whole new light. We turn around and now we’re becoming second-class citizens. I mean, they don’t have a right. Where’s the line going to be drawn?”

    Should have thought about that Tim when all of you homosexuals decided to bring government into “gay” marriage….

  126. RTL says:

    About damn time somebody told the depraved perverts to hit the road, you wanna be a goofball then that is your own business, but stay the hell away from me and my family you sick crazy b@stards

  127. Nitroxman Nitroxman says:

    First of all the law in question says a business can refuse service for any reason, how did it suddenly become a gay issue?
    Secondly, if we want to claim the first amendment protects us FROM religion then we need to apply that same logic to the entire document. That would have to mean we are protected FROM speech as well. You can have your freedom of speech all you want as long as you do it quietly in the privacy of your own home where no one else can hear you. If you have a child that is a game changer though, you cannot express any views that have not been determined appropriate by the politically correct police if they can hear you. For those of you keeping score, my claim in my second point is clearly sarcastic but makes a valid point.
    The reality is that the 1st amendment is being violated by not allowing Christians to pray in public, like at memorial services for fallen military at a federal cemetery. There are countless other examples as well. If any and all religious activity is banned from public property it would still be a violation but at least it would be consistent. There are foot washing stations installed in certain US airports for Muslims and that clearly is for religious purposes. It would be absurd to claim the “state” was establishing Islam for installing them just as it is absurd to claim the “state” is establishing Christianity for allowing voluntary prayer in public places like schools etc.
    Finally, political correctness is going to be the end of us. I personally want to know what people actually think. If someone is a hateful ignorant bigot, let them go public with it. If any business wants to exclude a particular group, let them. If the public at large is ok with their choices they will remain in business, if not they will go away. The whole hate speech “crime” is nothing more than a way to control opinions contrary to a particular political persuasion’s way of thinking. Can we please stop having the government play mother hen to us? Not everyone gets a trophy, not everyone is going to be liked, not every lifestyle choice is going to be accepted, grow up and deal with it.

    1. Picnicking says:

      Can you cite evidence that a Christian was refused permission to pray at a memorial service for a fallen soldier? I seriously doubt this is true. At Arlington National cemetary, ther are about 30 burials a day, the majority of which are CHristian ceremonies and the fallen soldier’s burial marker often has a cross (or religiousl designation of his family’s choosing).

  128. Rightiam says:

    “It would be foolish for us to turn any kind of customer away,” she said.

    LOL, I can’t help but to wonder if KKK klansmen showed up in white hooded cloaks carrying burning torches and ordered a dozen chocolate truffles if she’d suddenly starting caring then.

  129. WIll says:

    This whole issue is moot. The First Amendment to the Constitution gives eveyrone the Freedom of Association. This applies to private sector businesses that already has the constitutional right to refuse service to anyone (except Housing).

    1. Kate says:

      Ask the boyscouts about this freedom of association. The sodomites have tried to destroy the boy scouts because of this. Who would want a sodomite staying in the same tent as their little boy? They have been sued several times.

  130. fred says:

    aids, the gay penultimate contribution to society.

    1. picnicking says:

      I’m guessing you don’t actually know what penultimate means. If so, then what is the last contribution?

  131. Rusto says:

    Freedom is a precious thing…amazing how quick we are to give it up. Everyone is sadly confusing the constitutional rights granted to a free person and what morals say we should do with those rights. Don’t do that. It is indeed a slippery slope…and we are unfortunately headed in the wrong direction. Discrimination is not a bad thing…like it or not, it is something each and every one of us do every day. From what we wear, what car we drive, what brand we identify with…and yes, who we associate with…it is human nature.

    All of you balking at this bill are on the side of wanting to have your cake and eat it too…but you can’t have it both ways…someone will always be discriminated against when rules are put into place to protect one group from another. All it suceeds in doing is restricting the natural order of all humans and pit group against group. It also serves to create an ever endless supply of special interests that want their way just like the last special interest. It’s extremely hipocritical and serves no purpose….so again…don’t do it.

    The only answer is to agree that you can’t legislate people to like eachother or get along. On a completely constitutional basis, the civil rights act is a violation or our right to discriminate…now let me make it clear, morality in the individual will decide when and where that discrimination occurs…and society in any given era will determine what is socially acceptable, We all have our lines in the sand based on our individual values and they are all completely arbitrary. Who am I to tell you where your line should be, and who are you to tell me…so how about we all just back off, and agree that ALL anti-discrimination laws (civil rights act and others) are inherently discriminatory. Get rid of them…and grow up/grow a pair if you don’t like how you are being treated. Let your feet and wallet do the talking.

    And to all the people asking about when and in what situation it would be okay to discriminate…the answer is yes…to all of them. Is it moral, or nice, or a smart business practice?…probably not, not really, and hell no…but I stand by my position that you have every right in this country to be as bigoted and as hateful of an individual as you wish to be. I accept what I feel are poor choices on your part in order to have and enjoy the liberties we all share. So I implore you to please stop asking for our fundamental rights to be taken away when so many before us have worked so hard to make those rights available.

    It is indeed a slippery slope…

  132. Joe says:

    I think the article did not explain the issue clearly. What happens when a gay couple wants to hire a photographer for their gay wedding when it offends the photographers personal beliefs? Some states threaten to take away the persons livelihood if they don’t perform the service. At that point the photographer either participates in something they find morally objectionable or losses their business. And these issues have already started happening.

    1. krp says:

      Which is why this is called a Business Protection measure.

      The thing is the photographer could be booked for that weekend and not be available, but if he turns down the gender benders, they could sue him for discrimination just because they feel like it.

  133. Il Bui says:

    Silly law. Everyone already has that Constitutional right. Freedom of association. Any laws stating otherwise are unconstitutional…

    1. krp says:

      Everyone has that right, but the “oppressed” groups like to file class action suits. There is a reason why this bill is called “Business Protection”

      1. Il Bui says:


    2. Kate says:

      It may seem silly to you, but businesses must be protected from the sodomites who would gladly sue them if they aren’t served. I hope this law becomes the law of the land one day.

    3. Picnicking says:

      Freedom of Association is not the same thing as operating a business in the public sphere. There seems to be an assumption on this thread that business can refuse to serve anyone for any reason. This is simply not true according the the SUpreme Court of the U.S. If you are a business owner, please get a lawyer.

      All constutional rights have limits.

  134. Rationalist says:

    If America is going to be about freedoms, there ought to be the freedom to not have to serve a couple of meatpackers…

  135. dickn52 says:

    I totally disagree with the presumption of losing rights if the bill passes. In fact it is just the opposite in my opinion. Choices are all about personal wishes and desires. Your wishes may not infringe on mine in a free society. Do whatever you wish but quit trying to tell me I have to agree with you. I don’t.

  136. Cat says:

    I’m just glad to see any kind of action taken which provides controversy to the idea that homosexuality needs to be accepted as a “normal” way of life. It is not. Liberals are trying to shove this and many other abnormalities down our throat calling acceptance of it as correct and moral. It is not. Let’s give our children some real values to live by, traditional marriage, personal responsibility, and the ability to grow into mature adults.

  137. Brian M. says:

    Good! People have the right to refuse anybody when its your own business. I’m a Christian and if I go into some restaurant that doesn’t care for Christians they can turn me away. That’s fine it’s America, we have freedom. I’m not going to die from it.

    1. Kate says:

      I wouldn’t want to be in a place where they didn’t allow Christians anyway. No skin off my teeth.

  138. Disgusted with gays. says:

    Gays are so disgusting and pathetic.

  139. Open-Minded says:

    Businesses should have the freedom to serve whom they want, and refuse service to those they don’t. These decisions will then be part of the calculus on their success or failure.

  140. justathought says:

    For all you sympathizers of gay people who say that being a homosexual is not a choice, does that mean that we accept the pedophile or child molester because they don’t have a choice? Or what about the rapist who can only be aroused by violence? Sodomy WAS a crime until someone thought it shouldn’t be anymore. Probably because half of these folks make up congress. Just because a law has been passed to protect such behavior, doesn’t mean that we have to embrace it. How long before it’s not a crime anymore to have sex with children? Think that will never happen, then how many of you ever thought you would see same sex couples legally marrying? A business owner has the right to not serve anyone they don’t wish to. I’m sure there are plenty of other business owners that will be happy to accommodate them. They should have the right to choose.

  141. Kate says:

    I personally believe if you own a business you should be able to serve or not serve whomever you want. The leftists and their sodomite friends are trying to make religious organizations that offer medical care perform abortions. That isn’t right, but the sodomites are okay with that as they hate anything or anyone with a moral code that doesn’t include their deiviant lifestyle. If I rented a room in my home I would not want a sodomite couple staying there because of the diseases they spread. Isn’t that my right? Leftists and sodomites are always hollering about their rights, rights never discussed in the Constitution. You don’t have the right to force your lifestyle on everyone.

  142. Libertarian says:

    The constitution gurantees freedom of association. Or to not associate.

  143. Kate says:

    Say a professional photographer doesnt’ believe in sodomite marriage. A sodomite couple come to him or her and ask to have their “wedding” photographed. Should the photographer be made to photograph an act he is against? Don’t think so.

  144. Reefer says:

    Religion Shmeligion….Gay, Shmay…My big concern is why this stupid site refreshes every two minutes…and you have to find your place again?!?!?!?
    Now THAT’S something we can fix!!!!

  145. NH Business owner says:

    If the bill doesn’t mention gay couples specifically, then why the title of this biased piece of trash posing as a news report?

    The fact is, a business should be allowed to serve whoever they want and refuse service to whoever they want. If a business wants to make a poor business decision to discriminate, that’s their own damned business. The people (customers) will determine in the end if that business stays afloat or not. It’s called freedom people – don’t be so afraid of it.

  146. Eternal Anachronism says:

    Reading these comments is sad, a testimonial as to how liberal suppositions are the norm. Folks, this has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with something implicit in the Constitution: freedom of association. If a business is yours, paid for with your OWN money, YOU have a right to determine what policies will prevail within it. It is none of the government’s business.

    Yet one commenter who described himself as “conservative” and “Christian” said this law was stupid. Wow, freedom is stupid. Oh, well, goodbye, America. It was nice while it lasted.

  147. BDDD says:

    -yawn- Getting real sick and tired of the militant queers ALWAYS WHINING!

  148. peggy6824 says:

    You and I will always live lives that are parallel and with any luck we will never cross paths but if we should than I imagine that we would treat each other with respect.

    This may anger you but I would hope it wouldn’t, it just is what it is.

    There are many who feel just like me even though we really don’t make it known unless we have to.

    If you are happy than that is great since we really bear no ill will toward you, we simply wish to continue to live our lives in a parallel manner with respect to yours.

    You call us bigots, all the while failing to understand that our belief that what you’re doing is not natural is as encoded in us as being gay is to you. We can no more change our beliefs than you can your sexual preferences so please stop trying.

    Do not ask us to change and we will not ask you to change. Lives your lives in a parallel manner and let us live ours. We can all live peacefully if we can respect each other’s views and beliefs.

    Where do your rights end and mine begin?

  149. Drudgebot 2.0 says:

    Drudgebots are out. Beware of bigoted uninformed comments.

    This law has 0% chance of being found constitutional. The US SC has already determined that hotels/restaurants/businesses cannot discriminate. Unless this particular law is parried down to just discriminate against homosexuals no way it is constitutional. And if it is parried down, there will be a homosexual “rosa parks” and this sad sac of a representative will have unwittingly given another discriminated against group equal rights.

  150. Me me me says:

    There is no need for such a law. Nobody is entitled to get service. Nobody.

  151. restaurantowner says:

    Business owners don’t want to lose money by discriminating, but they also don’t want to lose money by other customers in their business being disgusted. No shirt, no shoes, no man -man kissing and fondling, no service. Business owners, restaurant owners in particular, are scared of kicking out overtly homosexual couples who want to flaunt their sexuality opening them up to a lawsuit.

  152. getalife says:

    Its amazing how people who would be totally civil toward eachother in person turn into raving maniacs when they are hidden behind the comfy barrier of the internet.

  153. gatekeeper96740 says:

    Business have the right to refuse service to anyone they chose.
    The state is trying not only to for business to cater to clients that owners wish not to serve, but also they are trying to mandate Christian hospitals preform abortions and to force pastors to marry gays.
    Sorry no can do.

  154. Em Spearing says:

    Businesses (and everyday people) should be free to serve those they wish and eschew those they wish … and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of their actions. Imagine, something like that in a “free” country.

  155. massman says:

    BZ should be proud of all its bigoted listeners. Well at least they can quote the bible. Off to the jesus decapitation.

  156. Pat says:

    Why make it a law? It is your view don’t impose your view on to me.

  157. Scarlet Rose says:

    Our Founding Fathers never infringed on the Right of business owners to refuse service to anyone they so choose without challenge.
    When I was a child, many service businesses had sign’s prominently displayed, announcing the business owner’s KNOWLEDGE of HIS RIGHTS.

    GOVERNMENT never had the right to INFRINGE on this RIGHT to begin with.
    THAT is INDENTURED SERVITUDE. And whatever you think of it, THAT IS THE ONLY CRUX OF THE MATTER. Because groups that don’t like it can open their own business – THAT is the other side of the Coin! NOT the wannabe client’s “FEELIES”.

    Get a life – OF YOUR OWN – do not take someone ELSE’S LIFE.

  158. RH says:

    Just watch how fast Sapareto complains when some one refuses to serve him because he’s ‘christian’. Funny how it’s okay for you, Mr. Sapareto, to discriminate against some one you don’t agree with, but if they try to discriminate against you because they disagree with you, they’re doing something ‘illegal’ and ‘immoral’. Just a touch of hypocrisy there.

  159. Bellestarrrr says:

    Thank You Gilbert thats telling them..mighty fine mister!!

  160. Jeffsd says:

    As a married gay man and business owner, I agree with this law. Business owners should have more autonomy to decide how their establishment should operate. Yes, this law could be used in a hateful way, but hate is a powerful human emotion that cannot be legislated away.
    As a consumer I also have the ability to choose where I spend my money. I would rather know that someone hates me upfront so I do not make the mistake of supporting their business.

  161. Dwelchnz says:

    This is just political grandstanding folks. Its a pander to those that would deprive an American of their civil rights for any reason. Not many businessmen, maybe none, would alienate half their potential market by denying service to a gay couple or a black couple or a mixed race couple.

  162. sick of it says:

    blah, blah, blah, blah, blah… this is the problem with the world today… everyone is right. I’m not gay, but seriously W H O C A R E S? Live and let live. Problem with that? Get a life!

  163. Picnicking says:

    This comment section reveals a disturbing amount of ignorance of American law on both sides of this issue. I highly recommend looking for an adult education class in American government and politics. Honestly, I don’t mean that as an insult. Many of you are clearly passionate about it and yet you are unable to form articulate arguments.

    This is primarily a 14th amendment issue – the equal protection clause – though the 5th amendment also comes into play with substanitive due process.

    The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in regard to race (though not sexual orientation) in the 1964 case, Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US. The court ruled that the a motel that refused to rent rooms to blacks was in violation of the law. The authority of the law rested in the commerce clause largely, but also the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Further decisions have upheld and strengthened this ruling.

    If you do business with the public, your right to run your business exactly as you would like has limits – just like all constitutional rights have limits (including speech and religion). I suppose it’s theoretically possible that the SCOTUS will not extend these protections to sexual orientation, but frankly, I find that unlikely and problematic based on current precedent.

    On a side note, freedom of religion is a bit of an oversimplification. Religion has two components – the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. These two separate freedoms do sometimes bump into each other and the court has a large body of case law on these issues that is interesting reading. Start with Engel, go to Lemon, and then explore away.

  164. massman says:

    You really have to admire bigots. Using religion and “private business rights” to justify hate.Id put a provision in that bill stating that any businesses that are planning to discriminate, must state so at the business. Like a “white’s Only sign”, yet “Straight’s only”.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s