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

[PureX]

Yes! That's the point!

If a Jewish business wants to serve only Jews they should have that right! It's called LIBERTY!!!

People... lets not throw away our liberty just because some other person doesn't think or agree with everything you do.

Every business owner already has that right. They just don't get to claim they are open to the public, if they don't intend to serve the public.

I don't even know why this is an issue, when you are all free to be a bigoted and prejudiced and biased in your business practices as you want to be. You just have to be HONEST about it. If you don't intend to serve the public, then you can't pretend that you are open to the public. How hard is that to understand and accept?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Every business owner already has that right. They just don't get to claim they are open to the public, if they don't intend to serve the public.

I don't even know why this is an issue, when you are all free to be a bigoted and prejudiced and biased in your business practices as you want to be. You just have to be HONEST about it. If you don't intend to serve the public, then you can't pretend that you are open to the public. How hard is that to understand and accept?

The cake shop business owner that sparked this thread topic didn't make his stance public.

The two homos came into his cake shop and demanded he make them a gay marriage themed cake. He told them that was against his values and asked that they find another place to have their cake made.

The two homos then went on Facebook and caused a stir drumming up protests against the business owner.

 

[Stripe]

you could say the same thing about Christians

:AMR:

What's wrong with being a Christian?

 

[Town Heretic]

:AMR:

What's wrong with being a Christian?

Ask an anti theist. Or anyone with a competing ideology. And if we reduce right to a hand and head count that might matter. Sharia law anyone? :nono:

 

[Stripe]

Ask an anti theist. Or anyone with a competing ideology. And if we reduce right to a hand and head count that might matter. Sharia law anyone? :nono:

What are you on about?

We shouldn't write laws based on the popularity of an idea. We should write laws based on what is right and what is wrong. It is wrong to force a business to serve when they do not wish to serve. It is the right of every business owner to refuse service as they see fit.

And if homosexuals want to be treated like normal people, they should not act abnormally. Equality comes by conforming to the rules. Those who do not conform should face consequences. It is not abnormal to be a Christian.

Not getting cake seems like a fairly tame consequence, by the way.

 

[Town Heretic]

What are you on about?

A law not run by popularity. You?

We shouldn't write laws based on the popularity of an idea. We should write laws based on what is right and what is wrong. It is wrong to force a business to serve when they do not wish to serve. It is the right of every business owner to refuse service as they see fit.

Blacks only. No negroes served. That followed. I think that's a bad idea, that if you own a business open to the public you shouldn't exclude people, only conduct.

And if homosexuals want to be treated like normal people, they should not act abnormally.

How do homosexuals act abnormally in a cake shop? In a restaurant?

Equality comes by conforming to the rules.

We're talking about the rules. Equality comes from right, which is inherent. It is the foundation for our social compact. The rules don't create the right, they reflect it. We hold these truths to be self evident...not everyone agrees with that, of course.

Those who do not conform should face consequences. It is not abnormal to be a Christian.

It is if you think Christians are delusional. And then, if you get enough people to agree with you, no more equality for Christians. That's mob rule.

Not getting cake seems like a fairly tame consequence, by the way.

So does a back seat on a bus, if you're sitting up front.

 

[Stripe]

A law not run by popularity. You?

The OP.

There need be no law regarding when, how and to whom businesses should operate. And any law created to do such is a repression of liberty.

Blacks only. No negroes served. That followed. I think that's a bad idea, that if you own a business open to the public you shouldn't exclude people, only conduct.

Of course it's a bad idea to discriminate against people based on their ethnicity. But some bad ideas are not worth legislating against. In fact, the vast majority of bad ideas are not worth legislating against.

How do homosexuals act abnormally in a cake shop? In a restaurant?

By asking for a homo themed wedding cake. :duh:

 

[eameece]

Yes! That's the point!

If a Jewish business wants to serve only Jews they should have that right! It's called LIBERTY!!!

People... lets not throw away our liberty just because some other person doesn't think or agree with everything you do.

It's not liberty; it's discrimination.

Free enterprise is not freedom.

 

[eameece]

The two homos then went on Facebook and caused a stir drumming up protests against the business owner.

Which is their right.

 

[Stripe]

Free enterprise is not freedom.

:darwinsm:

 

[SilenceInMotion]

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

Yes.

By the same hand, gay business owners should have the right to not serve straight customers.

I think that the very idea of someone having am explicit 'right' to partake in a business transaction is inherently flawed.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Counter question:

Does a potential business patron have the "right" to force a business owner to conclude a contract? I would say "no."

Considering the specific, if I am a baker, I bake goods for sale. Can I refuse to sell? Yes, I can, if I consider that a transaction will have a detrimental effect on my business. My judgment may be right or wrong, in which case, the business interest will be served or not.

I assume there are other cake shops which will take the business I refuse.

And so, I must reckon in this situation that the objective is not to get a super wedding cake, but to force the business owner into a contract he does not want.

Salient questions: Would I bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? Sure. Would that violate my moral code? No. There is nothing intrinsic about a cake that would identify it as having a particular sexual orientation.

 

[bybee]

Counter question:

Does a potential business patron have the "right" to force a business owner to conclude a contract? I would say "no."

Considering the specific, if I am a baker, I bake goods for sale. Can I refuse to sell? Yes, I can, if I consider that a transaction will have a detrimental effect on my business. My judgment may be right or wrong, in which case, the business interest will be served or not.

I assume there are other cake shops which will take the business I refuse.

And so, I must reckon in this situation that the objective is not to get a super wedding cake, but to force the business owner into a contract he does not want.

Salient questions: Would I bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? Sure. Would that violate my moral code? No. There is nothing intrinsic about a cake that would identify it as having a particular sexual orientation.

I heartily agree with Frank's response here. He makes good sense.

 

[Granite]

Yes! That's the point!

If a Jewish business wants to serve only Jews they should have that right! It's called LIBERTY!!!

People... lets not throw away our liberty just because some other person doesn't think or agree with everything you do.

I wouldn't call that liberty, exactly. I'd say liberty is a lot more involved, and a lot more important, than the ability for a business owner to be selective (or not) about their clientele.

Frankly I kind of wonder about the mentality of people who place such a premium on the ability to get away with being unpleasant just because they happen to own a business. Well, yeah, great; knock yourself out, if you like. But it's easier to be pleasant, especially if you have a business to maintain and a reputation to keep.

P.S. Case in point--take the Soup Nazi.

 

[Stripe]

Granite: the world authority on pleasantness. :chuckle:

 

[Traditio]

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?

Let's be clear on the subject under discussion. We're talking about A selling x to B. In order for A to sell x to B, A must actually possess x. Under the very conditions which are necessary in order for a sale to take place, B has no right to x prior to the sale. The right is entirely A's.

If I go to a grocery store and I see a head of cabbage that I would like to buy, at that very moment, I have no right to the cabbage. The cabbage is in the possession of whoever owns the grocery store. I only gain a right over the cabbage when I enter into a business transaction with the owner. The moment I pay the money, the cabbage becomes mine and ceases to be his. The money ceases to be mine and becomes his.

So, if you want to tell me that there are "rights" involved with that one black guy that I am hypothetically choosing to discriminate, you'll have to tell me what that right is. Ex hypothesi, I would have a clear set of rights as the business owner:

1. I have the right over my possessions.
2. I have the right of free association with whomsoever I please.

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.

What is the violation of rights involved? Does the black person have a right to the cabbage? If so, then why is he wanting to buy it from me? Will you claim that he has a right to association with me? Then I have no right of free association. The moment that you say that the black person has a right is the moment that you say that I should be compelled to enter into an association, which generally seems wrong.

 

[bybee]

Let's be clear on the subject under discussion. We're talking about A selling x to B. In order for A to sell x to B, A must actually possess x. Under the very conditions which are necessary in order for a sale to take place, B has no right to x prior to the sale. The right is entirely A's.

If I go to a grocery store and I see a head of cabbage that I would like to buy, at that very moment, I have no right to the cabbage. The cabbage is in the possession of whoever owns the grocery store. I only gain a right over the cabbage when I enter into a business transaction with the owner. The moment I pay the money, the cabbage becomes mine and ceases to be his. The money ceases to be mine and becomes his.

So, if you want to tell me that there are "rights" involved with that one black guy that I am hypothetically choosing to discriminate, you'll have to tell me what that right is. Ex hypothesi, I would have a clear set of rights as the business owner:

1. I have the right over my possessions.
2. I have the right of free association with whomsoever I please.




What is the violation of rights involved? Does the black person have a right to the cabbage? If so, then why is he wanting to buy it from me? Will you claim that he has a right to association with me? Then I have no right of free association. The moment that you say that the black person has a right is the moment that you say that I should be compelled to enter into an association, which generally seems wrong.

Another consideration, what is the intent of the business owner when he offers "his goods" for sale?
If his intent is to sell his goods then, any law-abiding citizen who enters into his establishment ought to receive consideration as a customer?
This is a sticky-wicket with pro's and con's on both sides of the issue.

 

[Traditio]

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.

Is this analytic to the notion of a business, or is this by law? If the latter, then I've already called it into question. If the former, then ex hypthesi, the business in question does not have an open invitation to the public. It has an open invitation to the public with the exception of gay people.

But that's rather the point. Arbitrarily denying a section of the public access is an injustice.

Why? You've already granted that a business is a private enterprise. A private enterprise carries with it the notions, as I mentioned to MM, of free association and private property. A has a right of possession over x. B wants x. A and B enter into a free association (a business contract) to exchange possession of x from A to B.

For you to claim that there is some injustice is for you to assert that there is something which is rightfully owed to B which A is denying to B by not entering into business contract. But for you to say this, it seems as though you have to deny A's 1. right over his possessions and 2. right of free association.

B It's denying them the right of access that you give others

Is this right of access voluntary or intrinsic? If the latter, I deny that such a right exists. Others generally have no right of access to my property. If the former, then I am entirely free to deny them said right of access. This right of access exists only because I've freely granted it, and therefore I can grant it and deny it to whomsoever I please.

Every business gets goods and services via the interstate. All businesses get benefits, utilize services paid for by general tax dollars.

How does this justify anything further than taxation? I buy things from amazon.com. This justifies my paying a state sales tax. But what I've purchased from amazon.com is mine. It belongs to me. I have a right of possession over it. You can't come up to me and say: "Hey, look, you got it via the interstate. So you have to let me buy it."

Likewise, you've already admitted: the business gets good and services via the interstate. Therefore they belong to the business.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

So, if you want to tell me that there are "rights" involved with that one black guy that I am hypothetically choosing to discriminate, you'll have to tell me what that right is. Ex hypothesi, I would have a clear set of rights as the business owner:

1. I have the right over my possessions.
2. I have the right of free association with whomsoever I please.

Pretty good post kid. Surely they didn't teach you that in Marxism 101.

Of course in order to establish those "rights" that you talked about, we first have to acknowledge where they came from.

If they were given to us by government, then the same government can just as easily take them away.

On the other hand, if God-loving men acknowledged that certain rights come from God, and they formed a nation stating that certain rights were 'unalienable',
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm
and in order to take those 'unalienable' rights away, you first have to destroy the foundation of that nation (it's constitution), it's a whole different story.

 

[Traditio]

Another consideration, what is the intent of the business owner when he offers "his goods" for sale?
If his intent is to sell his goods then, any law-abiding citizen who enters into his establishment ought to receive consideration as a customer?

Why? You've said it yourself: he intends to sell his goods.