NH Bill Would Allow Service Refusal To Gay Couples

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.

More from Lauren Leamanczyk
  • Italo

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

    • matthew

      gotta love it, freedom is wonderful

    • patriotic

      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)!

    • Apachecav

      About time!

    • George, Dallas, TX

      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!

    • Neo

      I’ll take that as a compliment.

      • Steve

        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.””

      • Judith

        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.

    • JohntheBaptist11

      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

      • Truth

        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.

      • Steven


        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.

      • marc

        true. every word.

      • astounded

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

      • 1689

        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?

      • Ashamal

        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?

      • http://thelibertyzone.wordpress.com Nicki

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

    • Radar

      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.

      • Turban

        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.

      • Steve

        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.

      • Steve

        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.

      • Matt Clemens

        @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.

      • Stewart

        @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.

      • Steve

        @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

      • Judith

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

      • S2

        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.


      • ca13005e

        “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.

      • marc

        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.

      • matt

        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.

      • jeff

        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”

      • 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!

      • Sumter's Ridge

        @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.

      • USArmyCombatMedic

        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..)

      • Ernst Halford

        @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?

      • SerfCityHereWeCome

        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.

      • http://deeppitt.wordpress.com TxGrown

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

      • Jon

        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

      • http://deeppitt.wordpress.com TxGrown

        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.

      • krp

        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.

      • Jeff Gerard

        “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.

      • Steve

        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?

      • David Lampo

        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

      • Rick L.

        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.

      • buzzcut

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

      • sean

        @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.

      • Dee Menton

        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

    • john martin

      and thank god!!

    • Cam Kirmser

      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?

      • Gm


    • Henry

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

      • Mike A.

        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.

      • gb

        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.

      • fedex dispatcher

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

      • Il Bui

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

      • Ernst Halford

        I’d be ok with “No Democrats!”

      • Looie

        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.

      • No so Albright!

        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.

      • Stuart


        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.

      • David Lampo

        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.

      • Gilbert R Albright Jr

        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!

    • HudsonValleyWest

      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.

    • mikaman3000

      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”

      • mikaman3000

        “HERD” NOT “HER”……..

      • krp

        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.

      • Leo Sullivan

        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.

      • Andre

        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 http://www.worldmag.com/articles/551)

    • Kate

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

    • Sumter's Ridge

      “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?

    • jasperddbgghost

      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.

    • David Loper

      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.

      • Ernst Halford

        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.

      • John Q.

        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.

      • Canof Sand

        “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.

      • Il Bui

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

    • ablecynic

      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.

      • Picnic king

        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.

      • krp

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

      • No so Albright!

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

    • Smitty

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

      • CommonCents

        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.

  • Rose

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

    • matthew

      hate mongers?? What article are you reading

    • BritAbroad

      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.

    • DaMav

      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.

    • Doowleb

      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.

      • Bob Lippert

        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.

      • Ernst Halford

        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.

    • Timothy Smith

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

      • Mark

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

    • Radar

      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.

    • Mark

      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.

      • woodyblack

        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.

      • Ernst Halford

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

      • Bob

        What the he!! is an Oriental?

    • JennyZ

      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

      • Canof Sand

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

      • stopthe

        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.

    • marc

      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’.

    • Al

      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.

    • marc

      I envy those children being raised by these freedom mongers.

    • Durazac

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

    • nanuq

      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”

  • donny

    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.

    • matthew

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

      • Justin Haines

        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.

    • Ernst Halford

      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.

    • Rick

      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.

    • krp

      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.

      • Daniel

        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.

      • Frunkis Baldwin

        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)?

    • jonny

      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.

      • wanderlust misfit

        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!!

  • massman

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

    I’m speechless.

    • Tango

      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.

      • Tango'ed

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

      • Tango with me.

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

    • marc

      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.

      • Ernst Halford

        @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.

      • krp

        @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.

      • jonny

        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.

      • Mark Santeramo

        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.

  • Willow

    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.

    • Tango with me.

      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?

      • Eternal Anachronism

        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.

      • Amy Witchek

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

      • Rusto

        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…

    • Heike Seik

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

    • Segeny


    • Amy Witchek

      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.

    • Mark Santeramo

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

    • RJ

      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.

      • Lucas Temple

        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.

    • Brian Rothbart

      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….”

      • Steve

        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.

      • Willow

        Yes, and He also made seriel killers.

      • krp

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

      • Jeff

        What does Romans 1 say?

    • GM

      I agree whole-heartedly.

    • stopthe

      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.

      • Canof Sand

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

        John Stossel on the right to discriminate

      • Daniel

        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.

      • Freedom of Association

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

      • Tom

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

  • Robin

    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

    • marc

      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.

    • Ken Po RobsterCraw

      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.”

    • cheetah

      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.

    • rube

      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.

    • Da Troot

      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?

      • Ernst Halford

        Hiney humping IS a choice.

      • KPC

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

      • woodyblack

        @KPC Getting tired of gays comparing themselves to blacks.

      • beeswaxx


        BLACK is not a choice….

    • Steve

      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!

    • woodyblack

      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.

    • The Batman

      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”.

    • Jeff

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

    • JR

      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.

    • Ernst Halford

      “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.

    • GM

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

      • Ernst Halford

        Why do you speak about Jesus in past tense?

  • emom

    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…

    • Whitney

      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.

      • GM

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

    • marc

      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.

      • Jeff

        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.

    • Charles Raymond Chandler

      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.

      • emom

        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. ‘

      • stopthe

        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.

      • Washington Nearsider

        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?

      • Whitney

        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?

    • nanuq

      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,

    • emom

      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 exist.today.

      • krp

        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.

    • Ernst Halford

      You REALLY sound lost.

      • james

        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.

    • Springer Rider

      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!!

  • Denise

    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!

    • Sam

      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.

  • Mtumba Djibouti

    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?

    • josh

      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.

    • Sam

      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.

      • Mark


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

    • woodyblack

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

    • dango

      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).

  • jshell

    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.

  • TexanPatriot

    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.

  • Evan

    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.

  • MarkJ

    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. .

    • GM

      Spot on! Your analysis is without flaw.

    • Jon

      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?

    • 'Nother-Son-'O-Ursus

      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!!

  • Au Contraire

    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.

  • Doowleb

    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.

  • JD

    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.

    • Segeny

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

  • David

    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.

    • Jay

      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.

  • Segeny

    ‘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.

    • GM

      Not PC, but absolutely correct.

  • Dave_D

    “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?

    • Evan

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

    • micro

      lester maddox – DEMOCRAT

      • Dave_D

        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.

  • VulpesRex

    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.

  • Dan

    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.

    • Sam

      “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.

    • Gilbert R Albright Jr

      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!

      • krp

        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 .

      • David Loper

        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.

  • David Tomlinson

    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.

    • Will James Robertson

      I agree!

  • Will James Robertson

    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!

  • John

    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.

    • Evan

      You’re pathetic John.

      • John

        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.

    • Evan

      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.

      • E P Standing

        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.

      • John

        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.

    • Evan

      Close minded retard.

      • John

        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.

      • Chuk A Spear

        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.

      • Spank05


        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.

    • krp

      Yes is it only about couples. Not individuals.

  • SeattleInvestor

    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.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Taz Show
Download Weather App

Listen Live