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

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 31st, 2012 09:07 AM

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

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[bybee]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 31st, 2012 09:07 AM

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

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

No.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

As an example...

As an example...

ACTIVISTS CALL FOR BOYCOTT ON CAKE SHOP AFTER OWNER REFUSES TO BAKE GAY WEDDING CAKE

Move over Chick-fil-A. There’s a new business getting heat for its stance on gay marriage. Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colorado, is facing critics who are calling for a boycott after it refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.

Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig, who went to the shop earlier this month to ask about having a cake made for their wedding, say they dated for two years before getting engaged. After only seconds of entering Masterpiece, they claim that owner Jack Phillips turned them away.

- Source

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No.

Really? So you think businesses should be forced to serve a customer no matter what the circumstance?

Don't you respect the freedom of varying beliefs?

 

[bybee]

ACTIVISTS CALL FOR BOYCOTT ON CAKE SHOP AFTER OWNER REFUSES TO BAKE GAY WEDDING CAKE

Move over Chick-fil-A. There’s a new business getting heat for its stance on gay marriage. Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colorado, is facing critics who are calling for a boycott after it refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.

Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig, who went to the shop earlier this month to ask about having a cake made for their wedding, say they dated for two years before getting engaged. After only seconds of entering Masterpiece, they claim that owner Jack Phillips turned them away.

- Source

He is a baker. Bakers bake cakes. A cake is an inanimate object carrying no commitment one way or the other.
Order the cake, pay for the cake, I'd call that a business transaction which ought to occur in the neutral zone.
On the other hand, take your business elsewhere if you don't like the vendor.

 

[Town Heretic]

Probably not. Homosexuals aren't a protected class under The Federal Civil Rights Act, but if the business can't show a non arbitrary, legitimate business interest served by the denial or they're likely going to run afoul of the law.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

He is a baker. Bakers bake cakes. A cake is an inanimate object carrying no commitment one way or the other.
Order the cake, pay for the cake, I'd call that a business transaction which ought to occur in the neutral zone.
On the other hand, take your business elsewhere if you don't like the vendor.

Bybee,

A business owner should serve all customers no matter what their sexual orientation. But the government should not force a business owner to serve anyone.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Probably not. Homosexuals aren't a protected class under The Federal Civil Rights Act, but if the business can't show a non arbitrary, legitimate business interest served by the denial or they're likely going to run afoul of the law.

And you don't believe that personal or religious beliefs play a part?

Lets say you are a young Jewish kid and in the summer months you mow lawns in the neighborhood to make extra money. There is a neo Nazi on your block who displays hateful messages on his property such as swastikas etc. The Nazi has contacted you and wants to pay you to mow his lawn. Should you have the right to refuse the job?

(I'm not asking "do you have the right", I'm asking "SHOULD you have the right".)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

He is a baker. Bakers bake cakes. A cake is an inanimate object carrying no commitment one way or the other.
Order the cake, pay for the cake, I'd call that a business transaction which ought to occur in the neutral zone.

Neutral zone??? What's a neutral zone? If I am a business owner my business is NOT a neutral zone. It's my zone. And I should have the right to serve whoever I want for any reason.

Do you oppose signs that say... "no shirt, no shoes, no service"?

On the other hand, take your business elsewhere if you don't like the vendor.

Bingo!! If you don't like the views of any given business... don't go to that business.

 

[Rusha]

I believe that privately owned businesses should have the legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason their little old heart desires.

However, having said that, I would also not expect the business owner to bellyache over any verbal backlash or loss of business that results from their desire to operate their business as they see fit.

 

[Town Heretic]

And you don't believe that personal or religious beliefs play a part?

Not as the law is written. No more than your deeply held convictions about race would allow for it or your loathing of enormous or freakishly tall people.

Lets say you are a young Jewish kid and in the summer months you mow lawns in the neighborhood to make extra money. There is a neo Nazi on your block who displays hateful messages on his property such as swastikas etc. The Nazi has contacted you and wants to pay you to mow his lawn. Should you have the right to refuse the job?

A very different argument from public accommodations. But the problem with this sort of inquiry is that it reaches into the Twilight Zone of hypotheticals to sustain itself.

(I'm not asking "do you have the right", I'm asking "SHOULD you have the right".)

I'd say in cases like the one you offer there should be a reasonable man standard in play. The objection of a Jew to serving a Nazi would fall under its protection as a matter of personal service, but I distinguish between that and baring public accommodations. Different animals. And in general I'd say your hypothetical would be an exception, but the rule is a necessary one to avoid all sorts of discrimination that underminds the stability of our compact.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

I believe that privately owned businesses should have the legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason their little old heart desires.

However, having said that, I would also not expect the business owner to bellyache over any verbal backlash or loss of business that results from their desire to operate their business as they see fit.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I believe that privately owned businesses should have the legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason their little old heart desires.

BINGO!

However, having said that, I would also not expect the business owner to bellyache over any verbal backlash or loss of business that results from their desire to operate their business as they see fit.

That's also true. :up:

Yep... the people who get refused service have the right to complain, boycott, etc.

What scares me is all these politicians wanting to "step in" and legally force business owners to serve without discrimination or even worse... use the power of government to block businesses from opening in a state, county, or city, simply based on the views of the business owner. That's just flat out wrong.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'd say in cases like the one you offer there should be a reasonable man standard in play. The objection of a Jew to serving a Nazi would fall under its protection as a matter of personal service, but I distinguish between that and baring public accommodations. Different animals. And in general I'd say your hypothetical would be an exception, but the rule is a necessary one to avoid all sorts of discrimination that underminds the stability of our compact.

That's pretty good. If you speak and write like a lawyer none of us will really know what you think. That way you can happily play both side. :dizzy:

The example I gave with the lawn servie and the Nazi is no different than the cake shop owner and the perverted homos.

 

[Alate_One]

That's pretty good. If you speak and write like a lawyer none of us will really know what you think. That way you can happily play both side. :dizzy:

The example I gave with the lawn servie and the Nazi is no different than the cake shop owner and the perverted homos.

How about the example of black people at a lunch counter?

What should be done there?

 

[Buzzword]

I believe that privately owned businesses should have the legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason their little old heart desires.

However, having said that, I would also not expect the business owner to bellyache over any verbal backlash or loss of business that results from their desire to operate their business as they see fit.

Agreed, especially here.

I've seen many small business owners try to take an innocent victim angle when they say or do something that people in their community disagree with (and the disagreement results in loss of business).

Especially if they can weasel religion into the argument somehow.

Real-world example:
The owner of a hardware store in my hometown woke up one day and decided he didn't want to serve Hispanics anymore.
But he knew he'd be ground under the heel of public opinion if he stated it that way, so instead he opted for an anti-Catholic angle, assuming that most Hispanics in the area were Catholic families.

He posted a sign in his window showing an X through an image of the Lady of Guadalupe, with the words "ONLY CHRISTIANS BUY HERE" beneath it.

Roughly two-thirds of the community picketed and boycotted his store (especially since ACE had just recently opened a franchise in the area), but at least one church came to his defense as a result of his choosing a religionist rather than racist angle.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's pretty good. If you speak and write like a lawyer none of us will really know what you think. That way you can happily play both side. :dizzy:

Except I didn't do that. Let me be as clear as rainwater then: I agree with the law, but I believe there should be exceptions under the application of a reasonable man standard. I gave you an example of that. I don't believe there should be many. And I believe that public accommodations, that make use of and derive great benefit directly from taxpayers are different from my forcing you to bring your lawnmower to my yard to cut my grass.

 

[bybee]

Bybee,

A business owner should serve all customers no matter what their sexual orientation. But the government should not force a business owner to serve anyone.

In theory I agree.
In the 40's and 50's in Minnesota, there were unwritten rules to which realtors and business owner's scrupulously adhered.
Certain areas, Edina/Morningside for instance did not sell to Jews. There were only very select areas which were sold to people of color.
Most upper crust restaurants would not willing take a reservation from a Jewish person and if, God forbid! a Jew showed up at the reservation desk, there were no openings and the supposed reservation was no where to be found.
I believe that to be a vendor catering to the public no discrimination should be shown short of "No shirt, no shoes, no service" or unruly or vulgar behavior.
I don't like the idea of being forced to do or not to do what I think best. However, my heart tells me it is not right to discriminate against others because they don't agree with my take on things.
My motto on't touch me! Don't cheat me! Don't steal from me!

And anyway, I'm careful about where I shop. If I were gay and ordered a cake from an openly and blatantly anti-gay Baker, why jeepers! Anybody ever heard of ex-lax brownies"?
A sure thing when someone is stealing your lunch....Just saying.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

He is a baker. Bakers bake cakes. A cake is an inanimate object carrying no commitment one way or the other.
Order the cake, pay for the cake, I'd call that a business transaction which ought to occur in the neutral zone.
On the other hand, take your business elsewhere if you don't like the vendor.

Let's take your "reasoning" to another level: a Christian pastor.

"He is a pastor, he marries people..."

Private property rights are God-given rights guaranteed to US citizens through the First Amendment. Whether it's a baker who has the right to deny service because of religious beliefs, or it's an ordained minister who doesn't want to "marry" to homosexuals.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/property-rights-and-the-first-amendment/

 

[Granite]

That's pretty good. If you speak and write like a lawyer none of us will really know what you think. That way you can happily play both side. :dizzy:

The example I gave with the lawn servie and the Nazi is no different than the cake shop owner and the perverted homos.

Well in all seriousness what kind of neo-Nazi would pay a Jewish kid?

If a business owner wants to act like a bigot, fine, but he shouldn't complain about the backlash he gets. And if a business has a reputation for discriminating against a certain type, any member of that group who knowingly goes in there to pick a fight is just wasting time.