toldailytopic: Should business owners have the right to not serve a gay customer?

[Lighthouse]

Sure. I'd say that would fall under a reasonable man standard and, unlike accommodations arguments, it's requiring you to go and work in what might be perceived as a show of support, endangering your business.

Now how about this one: should a hamburger joint be allowed to post "No N-word Served here!"?

Anyone going to give that a shout out? lain:

I doubt it. So there's the reasonable and the unreasonable and they aren't really about a class of people, but a course of conduct and its impact on a business model.

I assume you meant that as in the burger joint were using it as a pejorative toward blacks, and I call poppycock, as skin color is purely genetic, people are born that way and they cannot change. Homosexuality on the other hand...

That's another one of those "It would never happen" scenarios.

So a KKK leader would never walk into a deli that was, unbeknownst to them, kosher and and ask them to cater a rally? Because, no matter what they might like to claim, they can't always tell when someone is Jewish.

 

[Granite]

I support any kind of marriage between consenting adults in non-abusive situations. I don't care if it's between two women, two men, three men, two women and one man...whatever.

But if that's not the issue here...why did you ask me about it? Quite frankly I think it is the issue for the majority the of people going out today and buying chick fil a. Do they show up in masses at other times when the government may be infringing on other people's right? No. They don't. But bring up the gays and they're all over it.

"Traditional marriage" is kind of a misnomer, anyway. Two heterosexual adults wedding of their own free will and being considered the norm is kind of innovative.

 

[Dena]

So a KKK leader would never walk into a deli that was, unbeknownst to them, kosher and and ask them to cater a rally? Because, no matter what they might like to claim, they can't always tell when someone is Jewish.

Kosher delis usually advertise the fact that they are kosher. There is also signage informing customers of their certification (on the door, next to the counter, etc). Now, there are some kosher places that are not owned by Jews. I suppose in that case the KKK member may not have a problem with it.

 

[Town Heretic]

I assume you meant that as in the burger joint were using it as a pejorative toward blacks, and I call poppycock, as skin color is purely genetic, people are born that way and they cannot change. Homosexuality on the other hand...

Is likely a combination of things. But assume it's purely a matter of choice. So is religion. Does that mean it's okay to discriminate against you?

 

[Dena]

"Traditional marriage" is kind of a misnomer, anyway. Two heterosexual adults wedding of their own free will and being considered the norm is kind of innovative.

Yeah. My parents didn't pay my husband to take me so I guess I have a non-traditional marriage. :chuckle:

 

[Traditio]

Yeah. My parents didn't pay my husband to take me so I guess I had a non-traditional marriage. :chuckle:

:shut:

 

[Lighthouse]

Kosher delis usually advertise the fact that they are kosher. There is also signage informing customers of their certification (on the door, next to the counter, etc). Now, there are some kosher places that are not owned by Jews. I suppose in that case the KKK member may not have a problem with it.

And KKK members are stupid enough not to notice.

Is likely a combination of things. But assume it's purely a matter of choice. So is religion. Does that mean it's okay to discriminate against you?

Yes. But it's kind of hard to tell if I'm not making it obvious.

 

[kmoney]

I tend to agree with the view that if you are operating as a public business then there is a reasonable expectation that you will serve the public regardless of their sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. However, one thing I do wonder about is where the line between putting yourself out there as a public business and doing some business in a more private manner lies.

I doubt anyone would argue about someone who has a shop on main street and clearly advertises their business. All appearances says they are open to the public. But what about someone who operates out of their home but they advertise their business?

If you are going to say that businesses open to the public need to serve anyone, what determines someone serving the "public"?

 

[Town Heretic]

...Yes. But it's kind of hard to tell if I'm not making it obvious.

Should you have to hide your religious beliefs, not carry your Bible if you want to be served at a particular restaurant? Should you be denied service on the basis of your choice, your faith?

 

[Town Heretic]

I tend to agree with the view that if you are operating as a public business then there is a reasonable expectation that you will serve the public regardless of their sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. However, one thing I do wonder about is where the line between putting yourself out there as a public business and doing some business in a more private manner lies.

I doubt anyone would argue about someone who has a shop on main street and clearly advertises their business. All appearances says they are open to the public. But what about someone who operates out of their home but they advertise their business?

If you are going to say that businesses open to the public need to serve anyone, what determines someone serving the "public"?

A license, absent something that would shock the conscience of a reasonable man. Asking a Jew to cater a neo Nazi picnic would qualify easily enough. Asking someone with a religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin to write Steve and Steve Forever on a Wedding cake shouldn't, unless they also refuse to serve fornicators, liars, thiefs, etc. and possibly anyone, since all fall short. lain:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Is likely a combination of things. But assume it's purely a matter of choice. So is religion. Does that mean it's okay to discriminate against you?

Yes, if a black owned restaurant didn't want to serve me because i am white, i know how to spend my $ somewhere else, i sure would not be demanding that they take my $. Eventually if enough people disagreed, they would lose business.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, if a black owned restaurant didn't want to serve me because i am white, i know how to spend my $ somewhere else, i sure would not be demanding that they take my $. Eventually if enough people disagreed, they would lose business.

See, that sounds magnanimous and fair but we both know that it's not minority businesses that practice that exclusion, because they need the majority's participation in their business for profitability. That's the major market. So let's put the "blacks can do it too" business in the right context and realize what the history of this is and what it actually does.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

That's the major market. So let's put the "blacks can do it too" business in the right context and realize what the history of this is and what it actually does.

Good point.

 

[Town Heretic]

Good point.

:e4e: Keep in mind I would, if I could, mandate a reasonable man exception for the Jewish/Nazi sort of situation. And, practically speaking, there are ways to go about effectively doing that. You could have as policy a uniform ban on political slogans/service, just as you could have a public declaration that you don't utilize pornographic symbols or profanity. Those are conduct, not class specific.

 

[PureX]

I tend to agree with the view that if you are operating as a public business then there is a reasonable expectation that you will serve the public regardless of their sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. However, one thing I do wonder about is where the line between putting yourself out there as a public business and doing some business in a more private manner lies.

I doubt anyone would argue about someone who has a shop on main street and clearly advertises their business. All appearances says they are open to the public. But what about someone who operates out of their home but they advertise their business?

If you are going to say that businesses open to the public need to serve anyone, what determines someone serving the "public"?

All the same rules apply. If you advertise your product or service as being available to the public, then you are obliged to do as you have advertised. If you don't wish to do business with the general public, then all you have to do is be honest about it, and set your business up as a private club or co-op, and advertise it accordingly. Then you're free to define your participating membership any way your wish. I really don't understand why people find the expectation of simple honesty and courtesy so egregious.

 

[eameece]

A business may "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," if the customer behaves badly for example. But they don't have a right to discriminate. That is the power of money infringing on freedom, not a right of association. That right is for a private club, not a public business, as PureX points out. If a customer has the money to buy something, and is not rude and threatening, (s)he has the right to conduct business there, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. (S)he has the right to live in any neighborhood (s)he chooses too. In our society today, in the post-Reagan era, it is far more common for business to infringe on liberty, than for government to do so. Government protects our liberty; that is its function. Robber barons and other greedy and powerful people take our liberty away if not regulated and taxed. And these days we need to tax the HELL out of some of these robber barons (like the speculators on Wall St.) who are ruining our society, if not put them in jail.

 

[Angel4Truth]

A business may "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," if the customer behaves badly for example. But they don't have a right to discriminate. That is the power of money infringing on freedom, not a right of association. That right is for a private club, not a public business, as PureX points out. If a customer has the money to buy something, and is not rude and threatening, (s)he has the right to conduct business there, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. (S)he has the right to live in any neighborhood (s)he chooses too. In our society today, in the post-Reagan era, it is far more common for business to infringe on liberty, than for government to do so. Government protects our liberty; that is its function. Robber barons and other greedy and powerful people take our liberty away if not regulated and taxed. And these days we need to tax the HELL out of some of these robber barons (like the speculators on Wall St.) who are ruining our society, if not put them in jail.

Open your own business and do it like you think it should be done - you can pay more taxes than anyone else also if you wish and also pay for all your employees healthcare and the needs of their families and all the pet things you stand for, earn money and give it to them.

Then come back and show us how successful it is.

Stop complaining and be an example.

Let us know how that works out for you.

 

[bybee]

Open your own business and do it like you think it should be done - you can pay more taxes than anyone else also if you wish and also pay for all your employees healthcare and the needs of their families and all the pet things you stand for, earn money and give it to them.

Then come back and show us how successful it is.

Stop complaining and be an example.

Let us know how that works out for you.

Can't give anymore rep so let me say "Well said".
Put your money where your mouth is and then your opinion will count for something!

 

[SilenceInMotion]

A business may "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," if the customer behaves badly for example. But they don't have a right to discriminate. That is the power of money infringing on freedom, not a right of association. That right is for a private club, not a public business, as PureX points out. If a customer has the money to buy something, and is not rude and threatening, (s)he has the right to conduct business there, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. (S)he has the right to live in any neighborhood (s)he chooses too. In our society today, in the post-Reagan era, it is far more common for business to infringe on liberty, than for government to do so. Government protects our liberty; that is its function. Robber barons and other greedy and powerful people take our liberty away if not regulated and taxed. And these days we need to tax the HELL out of some of these robber barons (like the speculators on Wall St.) who are ruining our society, if not put them in jail.

The reason why 'right of association' is so focused upon is because of it's roots, really. For equality in the most carnal forms such as race or sex, there has to be some regulation, either official or unofficial, for there to be equality. In this case, if we go back to an earlier era, blacks may have a hard time in getting *basic, economical transaction needs*. In fact, that bigotry produced segregation.

Such notions take away the elementary notions of a free country, but if you think about it, it doesn't take away democracy because if that is how the majority feels, regulations are often secondary.

I personally would not keep anyone from bartering with me if I owned a business, but no matter what a democratic society wants, they cannot truly call their selves a free or liberating state if they impose such personal regulations.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Granite: the world authority on pleasantness. :chuckle:

:rotfl: