Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

[jzeidler]

Alright I got an honest question and I would like everyone's input. Many people say that business cannot turn people away because they have different beliefs. Some go as far as to say that no matter what a business cannot 'discriminate' and has to serve everyone. But what about this...?

What if a female yoga teacher isn't comfortable teaching a private lesson to a lesbian because some of the assists would be uncomfortable for her, should she be forced to teach her anyway?

Or suppose the yoga teacher was raped by a man of any color or a white man, should she be forced to teach to that colored or white man in a private lesson even though because of her history she has fear towards those certain types of men?

 

[Buzzword]

Your example kills your question.

The yoga instructor is teaching PRIVATE lessons.
She is not operating a business out of a publicly accessible building to which the public has unlimited access during set operating hours.

She has the right to choose her clientele because the nature of her business is one-on-one in a set of compromising positions (literally).

A business which operates out of a building to which the public has unlimited access during operating hours has zero right to turn anyone away except for reasons which they publicly post in writing, such as McDonald's "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" policy, or stores which sell alcohol refusing to sell it to anyone who is visibly intoxicated (which is also a legal issue in some states).

 

[HisServant]

Your example kills your question.

The yoga instructor is teaching PRIVATE lessons.
She is not operating a business out of a publicly accessible building to which the public has unlimited access during set operating hours.

She has the right to choose her clientele because the nature of her business is one-on-one in a set of compromising positions (literally).

A business which operates out of a building to which the public has unlimited access during operating hours has zero right to turn anyone away except for reasons which they publicly post in writing, such as McDonald's "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" policy, or stores which sell alcohol refusing to sell it to anyone who is visibly intoxicated (which is also a legal issue in some states).

Just put up a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime". Then serve who you want, deny who you want and NEVER give a reason.

 

[PureX]

You need to understand the difference between a privately owned business that's publicly operated, and a private business, like a private club or co-op, that's privately operated. Each of these have some common requirements, and some different requirements, according to their operating licenses.

A publicly licensed and operated business is open to the general public, and is obligated to treat the public reasonably and fairly. That means you don't get to pick and choose who you will trade with based on personal whims or proclivities. You have to have a reason that's related to the product or service you provide to refuse an individual trade. (For example, you're out of that item, your already booked on that date, etc.)

If it's a private business license, you will still have to follow all the requirements concerning the public's safety, but you will be able to limit participation in your trading so long as you make those limitations known in advance, and apply them fairly. You could, for example, have a "whites only" supper club, so long as you apply that membership restriction up front, and fairly.

 

[PureX]

Just put up a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime". Then serve who you want, deny who you want and NEVER give a reason.

Your sign would be meaningless. You still have to follow the terms of your business license, or you risk being fined and having it pulled. And you could still be sued for damages if you refuse someone service unjustifiably.

 

[HisServant]

Your sign would be meaningless. You still have to follow the terms of your business license. And you could still be sued for damages if you refuse someone service unjustifiably.

You do not have to provide an answer... an no business license anywhere requires you to.

Just like the owner of the restaurant kicking out a family with a baby that cried for 45 minutes. If a person is disruptive, makes other customers uncomfortable, smells, acts unruly, is not dressed appropriately, etc... you are free to show them the door... no explanation necessary. And legally, its better to not provide an answer.

 

[Rusha]

Should *privately owned* businesses be forced to serve everyone?

No, they should not. Thus the label of "private".

 

[jzeidler]

Many yoga teachers have LLC's and teach many classes open to the general public. Should they be forced to teach a private lesson to a person they don't feel comfortable teaching to?

 

[jzeidler]

A business which operates out of a building to which the public has unlimited access during operating hours has zero right to turn anyone away except for reasons which they publicly post in writing, such as McDonald's "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" policy, or stores which sell alcohol refusing to sell it to anyone who is visibly intoxicated (which is also a legal issue in some states).

Most yoga classes are in a building and open to the general public. If someone wants that teacher to give them private lessons and she isn't comfortable doing that should the state force her to do that because if she doesn't she is discriminating?

 

[PureX]

Should *privately owned* businesses be forced to serve everyone?

No, they should not. Thus the label of "private".

He's confusing a private business with a privately owned business. Perhaps you are, too.

 

[PureX]

You do not have to provide an answer... an no business license anywhere requires you to.

Yes, they do. Part of the reason we license businesses is so that we can control their interaction with the public. And part of that control is specifically intended to enforce fairness. That means that a public business doesn't get to willy-nilly decide who they will trade with and who they won't. And putting up sighs doesn't change that fact.

Just like the owner of the restaurant kicking out a family with a baby that cried for 45 minutes. If a person is disruptive, makes other customers uncomfortable, smells, acts unruly, is not dressed appropriately, etc... you are free to show them the door... no explanation necessary. And legally, its better to not provide an answer.

Actually, the explanation is necessary, and had better be reasonable: meaning that it is related to the operation of the business, and not to the bias of the proprietor. Otherwise he will be held liable for his actions

 

[TrakeM]

Public accommodation laws were created originally to ensure that businesses would serve minorities even when the business owner had a religious objection. I'm rather indifferent to whether there should be such laws, but let's be clear what's being argued here: should a business be required to serve black people, Asian people etc.

 

[PureX]

Most yoga classes are in a building and open to the general public. If someone wants that teacher to give them private lessons and she isn't comfortable doing that should the state force her to do that because if she doesn't she is discriminating?

No one can be forced to engage in trade in this this country. She could, however, be held liable for refusing private lessons to someone if she is giving private lessons to others, and is refusing this person without reasonable cause (she's booked up, she can't provide the tools or expertise necessary for a specific request, etc.).

 

[Rusha]

Public accommodation laws were created originally to ensure that businesses would serve minorities even when the business owner had a religious objection. I'm rather indifferent to whether there should be such laws, but let's be clear what's being argued here: should a business be required to serve black people, Asian people etc.

Should a business be required to serve a white person? IF they didn't, would we be reading about it?

 

[Mocking You]

A private business may deny service to anyone and not have to give any particular reason.

 

[jzeidler]

No one can be forced to engage in trade in this this country. She could, however, be held liable for refusing private lessons to someone if she is giving private lessons to others, and is refusing this person without reasonable cause (she's booked up, she can't provide the tools or expertise necessary for a specific request, etc.).

Refer back to my original. Read it. Now, should she be held liable for refusing someone based on those two?

 

[PureX]

A private business may deny service to anyone and not have to give any particular reason.

That's not exactly true. Private clubs and co-ops need to clearly state their exclusions, and then enforce them fairly. They can't, for example, take someone's money for membership, and then refuse to serve them as they do other members.

 

[Mocking You]

That's not exactly true. Private clubs and co-ops need to clearly state their exclusions, and then enforce them fairly. They can't, for example, take someone's money for membership, and then refuse to serve them as they do other members.

Yes, you are correct. But the taking of money implies service will follow.

Allow me to rephrase: If a private business owner refuses payment for products or services the owner does not need to give any particular reason for doing so.

 

[PureX]

Refer back to my original. Read it. Now, should she be held liable for refusing someone based on those two?

No, I don't think I will. If you have a question you want me to answer, then ask it. But don't tell me to "go back and read" whatever.

 

[TrakeM]

Should a business be required to serve a white person? IF they didn't, would we be reading about it?

As I said, I'm rather indifferent to the whole issue. I just wanted to be clear what we're arguing about here actually includes.

As for whether it would make the news if a business refused service to a white person, I'm not sure, but I think there is a fair chance they would. There's some randomness to news coverage. More days than not, we have a mass shooting in the US. Most don't appear on the news. Which ones do don't follow any real pattern.