Because you don’t live near a bakery doesn’t mean you have to go without cheesecake.
– Hedy Lamarr
On December 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the case of a bakery that denied service to a same-sex couple because they are gay. That’s why business leaders nationwide are taking a stand to affirm they are #OpenToAll – and we want you to join us.
Would you sign____________________________?
Businesses for LGBTQ Non-Discrimination Pledge:
Business leaders know that being open to the public means being open to everyone. Inclusion and diversity are critical to a thriving economy and dynamic workforce. Small business leaders across the country affirm the need for comprehensive nondiscrimination that prohibits unequal treatment against LGBTQ people and oppose all efforts to undermine or exempt businesses from the inclusive policies that benefit our businesses and our communities.
Please fill out the form below and add your name to the list of business owners who oppose discrimination and support being #OpenToAll. Your business name and city will be listed on Freedom for All Americans’ website along with hundreds of other businesses and organizations who support inclusive nondiscrimination policies.
I received this in my inbox today and I say No, No I will not sign it – Here’s why – there was a story from Santa Cruz in 1992 – a City Council proposed an ordinance that prohibited discrimination against persons on the basis of “personal appearance.” Which became known as the “Purple Hair Ordinance” or the “Ugly Ordinance.” Other wise known as – lookism – according the #Wikipedia – Lookism is a concept used to describe a setting where there exists discriminatory treatment toward physically unattractive people; mainly in the workplace but also in social settings.
First thing came to mind was an article in the Huffington Post – which stated,
“Approximately 100 women gathered last week to contemplate the idea that their skills, talent and intelligence could be overshadowed by a hairstyle. And more often than not, the concern is based on women of color sporting their natural hair. If one’s employment can be rejected simply by their hair – how is that the rejection of service by an establishment based on sexual orientation requires US Supreme Court intervention?
Example by Kath Manoff a restaurant owner stated, “If someone has 14 earrings in their ears and their nose -and who knows where else – and spiky green air and smells like a skunk…I don’t know why I have to hire them.”
In speaking to the Athenians, Paul stated that God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings” (Acts 17:26). We are all descendants of Adam. While we are divided between different nations and languages, we are all the same — human beings created by the hand of God.
If that be true then the statement, …”mind of a man could be ascertained by the manner in which he holds his cane.” Would present cause for everyone Black/White/Gay/Straight to have someone stand in the gap and provide “covering” to ensure everyone get an equal opportunity.
To my distress this has never occurred with folk who look like me.
Post, Robert. “Prejudicial appearances: The logic of American antidiscrimination law.” Cal. L. Rev. 88 (2000): 1.
“The Skinny on Job Discrimination.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 20 June 2007, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/20/skinny-on-job-discrimination.html.
New King James Version Bible