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

[jde4zion]

Interstate Commerce

Interstate Commerce

Originally Posted by jde4zion
The answer is yes because it's their business. Interstate commerce doesn't regulate religious conviction.
Knight: And do you agree or disagree with the Interstate Commerce regulation?

The answer is no. Although interstate commerce was used as the means of barring restaurant's from discriminating on the bases of race at the same time it's their business. If a white supremacist neo nazi who owns a restaurant doesn't want to serve me because I'm black he has that right to, and neither do I want him to. I will gladly take my money to a restaurant owner who the only color he see is green.

 

[Traditio]

Probably not.

Businesses are private enterprises, aren't they? The way that I see it, a business should be subject to the same rights and protections which fall under private property generally speaking. So long as I'm not committing an injustice against someone else, I shouldn't be forced to do with my own possessions other than as I please.

Of course, if the business is receiving federal or state aid, that's one thing.

But otherwise? Why should A be forced to serve B if A doesn't want to? Let's set aside things like race or sexual orientation. What if A arbitrarily decides that he doesn't like B's face? Why shouldn't that be A's liberty?

There may be something that I'm missing, but this is the way that it seems to me.

Edit: Of course, you may accuse me of a certain inconsistency, since this seems to be an incredibly conservative economic position which would justify things like cafe owners refusing to serve black people, whereas I've made arguments in favor of otherwise very liberal economic policies like high minimum wages, etc. There is, of course, no actual inconsistency. My point is that, insofar as A and B come into an economic agreement, they are bound by rules of justice which transcend their agreement. But there is no necessity for A and B to come into an economic agreement.

 

[Memento Mori]

Businesses are private enterprises, aren't they? The way that I see it, a business should be subject to the same rights and protections which fall under private property generally speaking. So long as I'm not committing an injustice against someone else, I shouldn't be forced to do with my own possessions other than as I please.

Of course, if the business is receiving federal or state aid, that's one thing.

But otherwise? Why should A be forced to serve B if A doesn't want to? Let's set aside things like race or sexual orientation. What if A arbitrarily decides that he doesn't like B's face? Why shouldn't that be A's liberty?

There may be something that I'm missing, but this is the way that it seems to me.

Public accommodation laws... Just ask A4T. She should know all about it by now...

 

[Traditio]

Public accommodation laws... Just ask A4T. She should know all about it by now...

For me, the question is and generally always has been: are public accomodation laws just? Suppose I don't care about handicapped people and I don't think that it's worth the business expense to install a ramp for people in wheelchairs. Why on earth should I have to install a ramp if I'm willing to forgo the business I would otherwise have received?

Again, suppose I am a racist and I really, really don't like black people. In refusing to serve them, I am forgoing the business I otherwise would have received from them. Why on earth should I be subject to any further penalties?

Should I not be free to do as I please with my own possessions, so long as I'm not entering into any unjust business agreements?

Edit: This is an open question. There may be a compelling reason why public accomodation laws may be just.

 

[Sherman]

Lets say you are the cake shop owner. A Muslim comes in and wants a cake commemorating the 9-11 attack on America. They tell you that they want a cake that looks like the World Trade Center Towers being hit by jet airplanes with cotton candy smoke and explosions coming from the impact. They also would like small fondant characters that represent the people jumping to their death from the burning towers.

Should you be forced to make such a cake?

My answer:--absolutely not. Making a cake for a perverse travesty of a marriage is just as bad.

If I were forced to make a cake like this, I would put lard in the dough and the frosting and not tell them. I would have the think about what I would do to the homo cake--probably pack it full of high fructose corn syrup and fat...Or I might charge the pervert pair three times what I would a proper married couple.

 

[Memento Mori]

For me, the question is and generally always has been: are public accomodation laws just? Suppose I don't care about handicapped people and I don't think that it's worth the business expense to install a ramp for people in wheelchairs. Why on earth should I have to install a ramp if I'm willing to forgo the business I would otherwise have received?

Again, suppose I am a racist and I really, really don't like black people. In refusing to serve them, I am forgoing the business I otherwise would have received from them. Why on earth should I be subject to any further penalties?

Should I not be free to do as I please with my own possessions, so long as I'm not entering into any unjust business agreements?

Edit: This is an open question. There may be a compelling reason why public accomodation laws may be just.

Agreed partially. However, let's say there's only one black person in town and he's the only one you are denying in refusing to serve black people. Is it just to forgo the rights of one to support your discrimination rights? In my opinion, the rights of the individual should not be violated to support the beliefs of the majority. That is your personal beliefs should not supersede the rights of an individual.

However, I am aware of a situation in which a paraplegic lawyer (a paraplegal?) went into a small town and began reviewing all small businesses and threatened lawsuits if he was not accommodated for within a short amount of time. This would be a clear abuse of the law.

 

[Town Heretic]

Businesses are private enterprises, aren't they?

Sure they are.

The way that I see it, a business should be subject to the same rights and protections which fall under private property generally speaking.

Well, no. A business has an open invitation to the public. Your home presumably doesn't have that particular attached to it-unless it's also a hotel, in which case, no.

So long as I'm not committing an injustice against someone else, I shouldn't be forced to do with my own possessions other than as I please.

But that's rather the point. Arbitrarily denying a section of the public access is an injustice. It's denying them the right of access that you give others and without a justification tied to business practice, though even that won't be sufficient in every circumstance ("Your honor, serving Mexicans drives away business" won't do, by way of).

Now there can be legitmate reasons for discrimination, but they have to be aimed at a conduct or condition. So you can say, "No shoes, no shirt, no service" and it's not discriminating against people, but a practice. Similarly you can object to loud voices, using cell phones, etc.

What you can't do is put up a sign that says, "We don't serve negroes...." That's arbitrary. That's not about business. That's a class leveled discrimination. That's against the law. And it should be.

Of course, if the business is receiving federal or state aid, that's one thing.

Every business gets goods and services via the interstate. All businesses get benefits, utilize services paid for by general tax dollars. And every business is open to the public.

But otherwise? Why should A be forced to serve B if A doesn't want to? Let's set aside things like race or sexual orientation. What if A arbitrarily decides that he doesn't like B's face? Why shouldn't that be A's liberty?

Because by virtue of his business he has set that invitation to the general public. And that general public, to a man, has the self same rights and privileges. Again, you can discriminate by conduct, because it's equitable. But not liking a fellow's face? That's arbitrary, serves no business interest. That's fine in your home, but not in your shop, where that facial objection might be a way to uniformly expand the denial to everyone of a certain pigmentation or nose width or gender.

There may be something that I'm missing, but this is the way that it seems to me.

You're mostly missing a bit of history and law, the nature of a business invitation and utilization of interstate commerce...that sort of thing. But you can rectify it with a bit of reading.

 

[PureX]

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

No. If a business is open to the public, it is obliged to serve the public, and not just those members of the public that pleases the business owner. If a business owner does not want to serve the public as a whole, then they can open their business as a private club or co-op, and serve or refuse to serve whomever they like. So the option is already there. All society asks is that business owners state their intent up front, so that they don't waste the time and resources of people they do not intend to serve.

 

[sky.]

Well just like the ones who decided to pour their Starbucks down the drain. I guess all is made neutral by politics.

 

[jde4zion]

Yes a business owner does have a right of refusal

Yes a business owner does have a right of refusal

No. If a business is open to the public, it is obliged to serve the public, and not just those members of the public that pleases the business owner. If a business owner does not want to serve the public as a whole, then they can open their business as a private club or co-op, and serve or refuse to serve whomever they like. So the option is already there. All society asks is that business owners state their intent up front, so that they don't waste the time and resources of people they do not intend to serve.

The interstate commerce doesn't regulate religious conviction neither does it regulate that we offer our service to promote ideas we find offensive. A store in New Jersey, the state found, was justified when it refused to put "Happy Birthday Adolf" on a cake for a 6 year old boy back in 2008. And Yesterday in Colorado a gay couple told a cake shop owner they were getting married and to make a wedding cake for them. Just because I own a business doesn't mean that I must accept all of my customer's demand if they are offensive to me or my religious views forbid it

 

[PureX]

The interstate commerce doesn't regulate religious conviction neither does it regulate that we offer our service to promote ideas we find offensive. A store in New Jersey, the state found, was justified when it refused to put "Happy Birthday Adolf" on a cake for a 6 year old boy back in 2008. And Yesterday in Colorado a gay couple told a cake shop owner they were getting married and to make a wedding cake for them. Just because I own a business doesn't mean that I must accept all of my customer's demand if they are offensive to me or my religious views forbid it

It is true that a business owner can refuse service on a number of basis, including that it would harm the reputation of the business, endanger or otherwise impose upon the service to other customers, threaten public health and safety, just to name a few.

The refusal to make a wedding cake decorated with gay information could well be determined to have a negative impact on the business's reputation. And I have no problem with that, at all. Just as a business owner might refuse to make a cake with pornographic or overtly political content, for example.

What the business owner can't do is refuse to do business with a customer based on the customer's sexual, religious, political, ethnic, or otherwise personal orientation. The decorations on the cake, however, are up to the owner's discretion. As it is his reputation involved in the impact his product has on the public. And he can object to any design for any reason he deems inappropriate to the reputation of himself or his business.

You brought up a good point, here, I think.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What the business owner can't do is refuse to do business with a customer based on the customer's sexual, religious, political, ethnic, or otherwise personal orientation.

Why not?

Can't you turn away the Neo-Nazi kid who wants to wash your car simply based on his political views?

 

[zoo22]

service can be refused to anyone for any reason.

Wha?? Where do you live? Or what decade do you live in?

No it can't.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by jde4zion
The answer is yes because it's their business. Interstate commerce doesn't regulate religious conviction.
Knight: And do you agree or disagree with the Interstate Commerce regulation?

The answer is no. Although interstate commerce was used as the means of barring restaurant's from discriminating on the bases of race at the same time it's their business. If a white supremacist neo nazi who owns a restaurant doesn't want to serve me because I'm black he has that right to, and neither do I want him to. I will gladly take my money to a restaurant owner who the only color he see is green.

As long as that green isn't a three dollar bill.

 

[PureX]

Why not?

Because it's stupid, rude, unfair, and insulting. And since that doesn't seem to matter to some people, it's also a form of discrimination based on personal prejudice. And most grown-ups in modern civilized societies know that encouraging that sort of behavior is counter-productive to social order and to maintaining a positive, peaceful, social environment.

Can't you turn away the Neo-Nazi kid who wants to wash your car simply based on his political views?

Of course I can. I don't see how this is relevant. I'm not a business and neither is the kid.

 

[jamesmoris]

I think no.. Cause being in a business, you need to comply with the rule of the state that you need to serve anyone regardless of gender and believe.. Im not sure but that seems to be unfair!


Payday loans
How to lose weight
How to lose weight fast
Mobile phone deals
Holiday insurance
Pet insurance
Apple
Microsoft
Paypal
Pinterest

 

[Tambora]

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

Yes, if it is privately owned.


If I am a privately owned decorating business, then I have the right to refuse to decorate a house in a way that is offensive to me, such as Satanic decor, Sadomasochist decor, KKK decor, etc.

And if I am a privately owned cake business, then I have the right to refuse to decorate a cake in a way that is offensive to me, such as homosexual, sexually explicit, racism, etc.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think no.. Cause being in a business, you need to comply with the rule of the state that you need to serve anyone regardless of gender and believe.. Im not sure but that seems to be unfair!

So... if a pregnant woman walks into a Catholic Hospital that opposes abortion, you believe the government should require that the Hospital serve the woman's need to murder her baby?

Why is everyone so quick to give up our liberty??

 

[Lighthouse]

So... if a pregnant woman walks into a Catholic Hospital that opposes abortion, you believe the government should require that the Hospital serve the woman's need to murder her baby?

Why is everyone so quick to give up our liberty??

Are you really surprised that slaves to sin are into bondage?

 

[Town Heretic]

...If I am a privately owned decorating business, then I have the right to refuse to decorate a house in a way that is offensive to me, such as Satanic decor, Sadomasochist decor, KKK decor, etc.

I think you could argue that under a business consideration as it could impact your business negatively by making it appear you endorse the particular views you're actively presenting. But then, I believe in exceptions under a reasonable man standard, which is why Knight's concern about the Catholic hospital wouldn't be problematic.

And if I am a privately owned cake business, then I have the right to refuse to decorate a cake in a way that is offensive to me, such as homosexual, sexually explicit, racism, etc.

I think that's arguable, depending on what's being asked, under my reasonable man standard. For instance, you shouldn't be forced to put something graphic and offensive on the cake, but the names of the couple in question? I don't think writing Steve and Steve should rise to that level. And regardless, you shouldn't have the right to refuse to sell your cake to someone because you're a racist or hate conservatives and Limbaugh needs a lunch.