Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

[PureX]

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.

It's a little gray in this area. On the one hand, private clubs have to be clear about their membership requirements, up front. On the other hand, they can be set up so that the current members must approve the new member, which would tend to be subjective, and impossible to clearly state in advance.

It's easily resolved, though, by having all new members 'apply' for membership approval. The only sticking point there might be making people pay to apply. I know that happens, but I'm not sure that's legal.

 

[Rusha]

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.

I tend to side with business owners on such issues rather than customers or employees on trivial matters. Refusing to bake a cake or marry a couple, IMO, is trivial.

OTOH, a doctor (in a hospital setting) refusing to deliver a baby because the mother is black or lesbian OR refusing to give her CPR is not trivial. It's life or death.

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.

I don't think it would because the assumption would not automatically be made that it's racially motivated.

 

[jzeidler]

Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

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

The questions are in my first post. The opening post.

 

[jzeidler]

Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

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.

My questions are in my opening post. Would she be punished for refusing service for those two reasons?

 

[PureX]

My questions are in my opening post.

I gotta run, anyway ...

 

[Mocking You]

It's a little gray in this area. On the one hand, private clubs have to be clear about their membership requirements, up front. On the other hand, they can be set up so that the current members must approve the new member, which would tend to be subjective, and impossible to clearly state in advance.

It's easily resolved, though, by having all new members 'apply' for membership approval. The only sticking point there might be making people pay to apply. I know that happens, but I'm not sure that's legal.

My point is if someone came to a baker and wanted a cake baked for a gay wedding the business owner could decline and need not give a reason for it. Similarly a yoga instructor could decline to give lessons to someone without giving cause. (This is the vein that the OP asked the question, I think.)

People are refused entrance into night clubs every day for whatever reason. There is no law saying a business owner must sell something.

 

[HisServant]

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.
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

An explanation is NOT necessary to refuse service.

No Soup for You!

 

[Town Heretic]

Pure is by and large nailing it with his answers. On a point:

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.

Wouldn't work. It would be easy to establish discrimination by pattern to a group that was interested in making the case against the owner. You don't have to state a bias that isn't business related for the case to be made against you, if you're a business open to the public.

 

[Mocking You]

Pure is by and large nailing it with his answers. On a point:


Wouldn't work. It would be easy to establish discrimination by pattern to a group that was interested in making the case against the owner. You don't have to state a bias that isn't business related for the case to be made against you, if you're a business open to the public.

OK, let's explore how the prosecution would pursue this case.

Prosecutor: "Why wouldn't you serve Mr. Johnson?"

Business Owner: "I didn't want to."

(Repeat as many times as it takes)

 

[Town Heretic]

OK, let's explore how the prosecution would pursue this case.

Prosecutor: "Why wouldn't you serve Mr. Johnson?"

Business Owner: "I didn't want to."

(Repeat as many times as it takes)

That's not how a lawyer for the Plaintiff would pursue a civil matter. He would assert the owner was denying service to a protected group and to support the assertion offer statistical evidence, presented by an expert, to corroborate the otherwise inexplicable and habitual practice of the defendant.

He'd love to get the owner on the stand, because the answer you gave is a ticket to summary judgement.

:thumb:

 

[Mocking You]

That's not how a lawyer for the Plaintiff would pursue a civil matter. He would assert the owner was denying service to a protected group and to support the assertion offer statistical evidence, presented by an expert, to corroborate the otherwise inexplicable and habitual practice of the defendant.

This would require an extensive investigation by the prosecutor to find people of a certain group that had been systematically denied service. All the defense would need do is provide a couple of people that didn't fit in that group that were also denied service.

He'd love to get the owner on the stand, because the answer you gave is a ticket to summary judgement.

:thumb:

Why?

 

[Rusha]

That's not how a lawyer for the Plaintiff would pursue a civil matter. He would assert the owner was denying service to a protected group

Why should one group be *protected* over another?

 

[Tambora]

Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

No.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why should one group be *protected* over another?

Not protected over, but elevated to an equal status. Why is that a necessity? Because majorities have had a history of withholding right from minorities. One of the things that distinguishes our experiment in government is its notion that all men are equal in right before the law.

Now if you empower those who have to only do business with those they like you, historically, segregate your society, both in terms of right and that old pursuit of happiness attending. It's a recipe for what you found in the South prior to the Civil Rights Movement.

 

[Town Heretic]

This would require an extensive investigation by the prosecutor to find people of a certain group that had been systematically denied service.

Sure, but it really isn't that hard. You could set it up easily enough, push the issue by having, say, a great many black people ask after an apartment that is being offered for rent.

All the defense would need do is provide a couple of people that didn't fit in that group that were also denied service.

No, that wouldn't do. It might make a case for another study depending on what the people in that group had in common. Wouldn't impact the study, which is about the observable tendency/treatment of the complaining class.

Why?

It's non responsive as answers go. No judge would find it sufficient in relation to statistical proof directed at a class.

 

[Rusha]

Not protected over, but elevated to an equal status. Why is that a necessity? Because majorities have had a history of withholding right from minorities. One of the things that distinguishes our experiment in government is its notion that all men are equal in right before the law.

That is an assumption that minorities wouldn't be allowed to use the same criteria when running their own business ...

Also, all men and women are not equal insofar as their choices and work ethic. Born equal. Certainly. How many babies or toddlers are suing over being denied service?

 

[Nick M]

Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

It shouldn't even come up. America has turned wicked and evil and we do not put away the evil from us. Like homos. I also would not served child molesters, rapists, adulterers and murderers.

 

[jzeidler]

Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

So here's another question.

Since its the consensus that its good and ok for a yoga teacher to refuse service to anyone. Why is it argued that it is not ok or good for a privately owned business owner to refuse service?

 

[PureX]

My point is if someone came to a baker and wanted a cake baked for a gay wedding the business owner could decline and need not give a reason for it.

If he's running a public commercial bakery, he could be held liable for discrimination. Unless he has and can show a suitable reason for the discrimination. And personal whim (religion) is not not considered reasonable in most instances.

Similarly a yoga instructor could decline to give lessons to someone without giving cause. (This is the vein that the OP asked the question, I think.)

When the client that was refused calls the cops, better business bureau, or files suit, etc., the instructor will have to give a reasonable cause for the refusal, or be held liable for it. And if her business is a public business, her religion will not likely be acceptable as a just cause for her refusal.

People are refused entrance into night clubs every day for whatever reason. There is no law saying a business owner must sell something.

Yes; CLUBS. That's the difference. Those are PRIVATE CLUBS. They are PRIVATE BUSINESSES, which are allowed to discriminate. If the bakery or yoga school is not a private club or co-op, they can be held liable for discrimination.

 

[PureX]

So here's another question.

Since its the consensus that its good and ok for a yoga teacher to refuse service to anyone. Why is it argued that it is not ok or good for a privately owned business owner to refuse service?

You still don't seem to grasp that the ownership of a business has nothing to do with anything. The designation; "private business" has nothing to do with who owns it. It refers to it's intent to serve. A private business is a business intended to serve a distinct clientele. A public business is a business intended to serve the general public. Each is issued it's own kind of license with their own specific requirements. Situations that might breach that license for one type of business may not breach the license of the other. And that's particularly true regarding discrimination.