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

[Traditio]

An addendum: Regarding the defining of wrong. Legal rights and wrongs do not necessarily correlate to moral rights and wrongs.

I agree with this. Note, I'm not arguing in favor of actual prejudicial treatment. The Catholic Church is very clear: it's wrong to discriminate based on race. If I opened up a diner, I would be morally compelled to serve black people just as well as white people.

But that's not what's at stake. The question is about what the State should compel.

The way that I see it, the mere possibility (or even the actual fact) that a minority group ends up "harmed" by a segregationalist mindset on the part of the major party is not a sufficient reason to override our right to free association and to property.

Think about what this harm is: this "harm" is nothing else but the failure to obtain the benefits which otherwise would have been obtained by associating with the people who don't want to associate with you.

No such right exists.

If others don't want to associate with you, they shouldn't be legally compelled to associate with you. A right is a right.

TH mentioned separate but equal, but I'd like to note that what I am saying about private enterprise does not extend to cases in which there is a state or federal agency involved or an institution which receives federal funding. In that case, there is a public enterprise which "belongs" to the whole people. Therefore, there should be anti-discrimination legislation in those cases.

But certainly not in the case of completely private enterprises.

I have five children. When they were small we were quite poor. I usually baked cakes and brownies for treats because they could go a long way.
If I shared the treats in a less than equal way because one of my children had annoyed me would that be fair? moral? kind?

The question is one of legal compulsion. Should the State be able to force you to give your children equal servings of cake and/or brownies?

As citizens, we are in society together.

Yes, and I have argued for various economic policies on more or less these grounds. Since we are all part of society, then we have common rights and duties which are associated with being in society. But these rights and duties are not all-pervasive. There are real limits to the State and to the society.

I am a registered nurse. My license to practice comes from the state. I cannot legally refuse to help a patient who comes under my purview. That means that I must stop at the scene of any accident and render whatever aid a reasonably prudent other registered nurse would render under the circumstances.

This kind of legislation deals with matters of necessity/emergency. Those cases are different. As St. Thomas says in ST I-II, q. 96, a. 6, corpus: "...necessity knows no law."

Businesses require licensing in order to open their doors to the public. So they have a legal obligation to meet the requirements of that license.

It shouldn't be part of the requirements. It's one thing to say: "If you will engage in such and such social transaction, the transaction must meet these principles of justice/fairness." It's quite another thing to say: "You must engage in such and such a social transaction."

 

[Traditio]

The state has a vested interest in its stability as a compact.

This is a non-argument, and it's certainly not one that you initially were using. The initial argument was: "the groups are being harmed." I asked you to tell me what this "harm" is. "The state has a vested interest in its stability as a compact" may be a genuine concern, but it doesn't denote a definite harm.

Else, the answer to your questions are found in the case law and legislation. Time for you to dig in.

A brief look at one of your posts indicated that the court ruled that forcing a hotel to cater to black people doesn't constitute forced servitude. It gave no argument in support of this.

Again: not letting black people into the hotel...threatens interstate commerce? You've got to be kidding me.

And despite some interesting examples of minorities withholding, the historical fact is that majorities use the reasoning of personal liberty as justification for denial of access to keep the minority on the out side of the power structure looking in. You can build, but only if we let you and where. You can stay, eat, ride, but only if we decide you can. And we've decided you can't. Stay among your own kind and scrape out whatever means you can. It is a dehumanizing, stigmatizing, marginalizing means to an ignoble end. It's an immoral, unethical form of tyranny. And our law has rightly rejected it.

Private vs. public. In all cases of private affairs, the State has no business playing Mommy and forcing little Bobby to play with little Jimmy. Clearly, things like discrimination in terms of voting registration, state/federal employment, etc. are real concerns which require laws. But private enterprises? You have yet to show me an argument which justifies the infringement of personal right.

Seriously, read the case law. It comments on both the ethical and legal reasoning behind rejecting the notions you've advanced and there's no point in my spending the time to do for you what you can do for yourself. I've given you the overview and a beginning point for the Court's application of the legislative measure. The rest is up to you.

Copy/paste the relevent portions. :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

This is a non-argument, and it's certainly not one that you initially were using.

It isn't an argument, it's a foundation. The argument would be balancing the individual and collective right with an eye toward survival in terms of the justification for laws.

Now you may hold to a form of social Darwinism for all I know, but our compact is grounded upon your right to pursue your own happiness. The encumbrance of that tyranny I noted and its extraordinary effectiveness runs counter to that right. So while the state has no obligation to see that you are in fact educated, it does owe you the opportunity to become educated. While it can't drive you to the doctor it must provide a context wherein you can access and afford that service. Otherwise we fail our own stated and founding beliefs.

The initial argument was: "the groups are being harmed."

That's a given. Read any history of your notion in play in the segregated South to verify it.

I asked you to tell me what this "harm" is.

I've answered on the point.

"The state has a vested interest in its stability as a compact" may be a genuine concern, but it doesn't denote a definite harm.

It wasn't offered as one.

A brief look at one of your posts indicated that the court ruled that forcing a hotel to cater to black people doesn't constitute forced servitude. It gave no argument in support of this.

I gave you the law and a starting point. You want the reasoning then go to the opinion and read through it.

Again: not letting black people into the hotel...threatens interstate commerce? You've got to be kidding me.

You don't understand what you're reading because you haven't actually read more than snippets.

Private vs. public. In all cases of private affairs, the State has no business playing Mommy and forcing little Bobby to play with little Jimmy.

Inapplicable to our consideration. Not of the same cloth at all.

Clearly, things like discrimination in terms of voting registration, state/federal employment, etc. are real concerns which require laws.

Great. Now ask yourself why.

But private enterprises? You have yet to show me an argument which justifies the infringement of personal right.

We hold discrimination to be inherently harmful and to require justification for it's practice. Why? Because it denies equality of opportunity. Not result, but opportunity. And that opportunity is the cornerstone of our approach. Beyond that I've pointed you to evidence of the individual and collective harm that sort of thing has worked on at least one population in this country's history.

 

[PureX]

The question is about what the State should compel.

The way that I see it, the mere possibility (or even the actual fact) that a minority group ends up "harmed" by a segregationalist mindset on the part of the major party is not a sufficient reason to override our right to free association and to property.

Why not? What does property ownership have to do with anything?

The whole purpose of government is to govern the interactions of the people so as to ensure equal freedom, equal opportunity, and equal justice for all of us. That's WHY human beings form governments. Now you are trying to claim that the government should not be doing what it was created to do. Why shouldn't it? That is it's purpose, after all.

It is precisely because human beings will not treat each other fairly without some oversight that we have formed governments in the first place. So what are you proposing, that we return to anarchy? What possible advantage would there be in that? We have centuries of history showing us that we didn't like anarchy at all. That's why we created governments.

Think about what this harm is: this "harm" is nothing else but the failure to obtain the benefits which otherwise would have been obtained by associating with the people who don't want to associate with you.

That IS harm. Someone is being unfairly denied equal access to products and services.

If others don't want to associate with you, they shouldn't be legally compelled to associate with you.

They aren't. No one is forcing anyone to open their business to the public.

It's one thing to say: "If you will engage in such and such social transaction, the transaction must meet these principles of justice/fairness." It's quite another thing to say: "You must engage in such and such a social transaction."

But no one is saying that. And no one is doing that.

 

[Lighthouse]

Should a kosher deli reserve the right to refuse to cater a KKK rally?

Of course! And there isn't a single member of this board who thinks otherwise. Some of you are just ignorant.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Should a kosher deli reserve the right to refuse to cater a KKK rally?

Of course! And there isn't a single member of this board who thinks otherwise. Some of you are just ignorant.

Well said, exactly.

 

[Traditio]

Why not? What does property ownership have to do with anything?

We're talking about free enterprise. Again, let's carefully think about what it is that we're talking about. Think about what a business is:

Business, roughly speaking, is the exchange of goods or services for money. In order for this exchange to occur, there must a legitimate owner and someone who is seeking out a good or service which he does not presently possess.

Suppose I own a deli. The deli itself belongs to me. The services belong to me. The food belongs to me. Basically, the deli and everything in it, to the extent that I've paid for it and have lawfully come to possess it, is mine. That's why you wouldn't be able to come into such a deli, eat the food and then leave without paying. The food doesn't belong to you. The food, until you've paid for it, belongs to me. I have a right of possession over it.

Therefore, all of the rights associated with private propert necessarily must extend also to the ownership and running of businesses.

Basically, an anti-discrimination law says: "Look. I know that the deli and everything in it belongs to you. I know that this sandwich, which you are selling, is your sandwich. But even though it is your sandwich, I am going to tell you what to do with it. Furthermore, I know that you have a right of free association and you can associate with whomsoever you please. But simply because you are running a business, I am going to force you to associate with B, whom you do not want to associate with."

That seems to me to be intrinsically unjust.

The whole purpose of government is to govern the interactions of the people so as to ensure equal freedom, equal opportunity, and equal justice for all of us. That's WHY human beings form governments. Now you are trying to claim that the government should not be doing what it was created to do. Why shouldn't it? That is it's purpose, after all.

I made no such claim. In the event that private enterprise fails to provide the needs of the whole people, I think that it's the duty of the government to step in and supplement for the defect. If there are only whites-only hospitals, then it is the duty of the government to step in and provide adequate care for non-whites.

It is precisely because human beings will not treat each other fairly without some oversight that we have formed governments in the first place.

To be clear: this "not treating each other fairly" involves killing, stealing, cheating, unjust interactions, etc. We are not talking about those things. What we're talking about is whether or not a private individual should be forced to undergo a business transaction with another private individual. The answer should be an obvious "no."

So what are you proposing, that we return to anarchy?

You've read my previous posts. You know for a fact that I propose no such thing.

That IS harm. Someone is being unfairly denied equal access to products and services.

The reason why there is a deli is because a private individual chose to open one. Had he not so chosen to open up a deli, there would have been no deli, and so the black person in question wouldn't be able to eat there anyways. The only reason that the goods or services in question exist is because a private individual freely chose to make them available. But if he freely chose to make them available, then he should be free in choosing to whom they are made available. If that means no blacks, then he should be free to say "no blacks."

It's not as though the aforementioned blacks would be unfairly deprived of a deli. They had no right to such a deli to begin with.

Had our man not opened up a deli, it's not as though he could have been forced to open one. So what grounds have you to claim that a harm's been done if one's opened, but it doesn't cater to population x? Before he opened it, population x didn't have access to such a deli. Now they still don't. There's no harm involved.

 

[Town Heretic]

Should a kosher deli reserve the right to refuse to cater a KKK rally?

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.

 

[Traditio]

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

Yes, absolutely. And we should also be free to boycott that hamburger joint.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Our local NBC affiliate tweets their take on todays events: "Rallies on both sides of Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage stance"

:rotfl:

As if that's the REAL story. :doh:

While technically they might be correct, do you think that's the REAL story here? The real story is the MASSIVE show of support.

 

[Dena]

Again... the question isn't... "what is the current law regarding this topic?"

The question is... "how SHOULD this type of thing be handled?"

I actually like hearing TH's side. I don't know the Law but he does. I'm perfectly happy to listen to it if he's going to offer up the information.

 

[Angel4Truth]

There are huge longs at chick fil a here and they are having record sales

 

[Dena]

While technically they might be correct, do you think that's the REAL story here?

That you people hate gays so much you'll shove food void of nutrition down your throats to prove the point.

Should a kosher deli reserve the right to refuse to cater a KKK rally?

Of course! And there isn't a single member of this board who thinks otherwise. Some of you are just ignorant.

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

 

[Angel4Truth]

That you people hate gays so much you'll shove food void of nutrition down your throats to prove the point.

Surely it has nothing to so with government thinking they can deny constitutional rights to a business owner because of their freedom of religion and speech... nah, it HAS to be hate

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That you people hate gays so much you'll shove food void of nutrition down your throats to prove the point.

You don't even know what this is about do you?

The Chick fil A owner didn't say anything about "hating gays" or "not serving gays". All he said was he supports traditional marriage. That shouldn't be a controversial thing to say in my opinion. So is that where we are at now??? You can't even support traditional marriage?? Is gay marriage the only type of marriage that's politically correct?

Do you support traditional marriage?

 

[Town Heretic]

We're talking about free enterprise.

No, that's just how you insist on isolating to create something that isn't.

You haven't read nor evidenced any understanding of the holdings relating to interstate commerce, the institutionalized tyranny and its impact of the notion you're advancing. Instead, you myopically beat at a drum as though it was an island of consideration.

There's a word for someone who holds forth on the law without a background or serious study. And the word isn't wise. :nono:

The food, until you've paid for it, belongs to me. I have a right of possession over it.

No one's arguing otherwise.

Therefore, all of the rights associated with private propert necessarily must extend also to the ownership and running of businesses.

No. That "therefore" covered a lot of ground without argument or understanding. I own a gun. I own the bullets in that gun. Therefore I am free to do with both what I will, by way of errant parallel.

Basically, an anti-discrimination law says: "Look. I know that the deli and everything in it belongs to you. I know that this sandwich, which you are selling, is your sandwich. But even though it is your sandwich, I am going to tell you what to do with it.

No. It says, I realize your intent is to sell. That's what a business does. Your specific intent to deny access to your product to a particular segment of society that you can't stand for personal reasons is unjustifiable discriminatory practice. No one is interfering with your right to make and sell. But that doesn't give you the right to restrict that sale absent justification, to interfere with the potential customer's pursuit of his own happiness, or medical treatment or education.

You're conflating the purely personal with the business.

Furthermore, I know that you have a right of free association and you can associate with whomsoever you please.

Sure. But a business open to the public isn't an exercise of that and again, you're conflating the personal right with the business principle.

That seems to me to be intrinsically unjust.

That's why I suggested you do some reading instead of beating this drum of yours.

I made no such claim. In the event that private enterprise fails to provide the needs of the whole people, I think that it's the duty of the government to step in and supplement for the defect. If there are only whites-only hospitals, then it is the duty of the government to step in and provide adequate care for non-whites.

Again, study the reality of separate but equal. The government was involved in that too. It's a tool to exploit and deprive and runs contrary to the founding principles of our republic and its law.

To be clear: this "not treating each other fairly" involves killing, stealing, cheating, unjust interactions, etc. We are not talking about those things.

Yes, we are. Again, look at the practical impact of what you're advocating. The minorities who suffered under it were absolutely deprived of the life they should have been as free to pursue as you or I, but for the failure of the law to protect them from that exclusion and its impact and the malicious ignorance of those who excluded them.

What we're talking about is whether or not a private individual should be forced to undergo a business transaction with another private individual. The answer should be an obvious "no."

No, we're talking about whether someone who means to sell a product to as many people as he can has the right to exclude from that model those who might need and/or desire it, to stigmatize and dehumanize, to deny them equal status on the basis of nothing more or less than personal malice.

To allow that would be obscene and unjust.

 

[Tambora]

Again, I agree. For the same reasons as above.

But the thing that is important, here, is that you are not objecting to serve the client because of your bias toward them, personally, but instead because they are requesting a service that you do not, can not, or choose not to offer anyone.

Exactly.
I would not refuse to bake and decorate a birthday cake order just because the one who ordered it happened to be gay.


On the other hand, if I had a competitor that did refuse orders simply because the one who ordered was gay, I would not try and tell him that he had no right to do so.

 

[Tambora]

You don't even know what this is about do you?

The Chick fil A owner didn't say anything about "hating gays" or "not serving gays". All he said was he supports traditional marriage. That shouldn't be a controversial thing to say in my opinion. So is that where we are at now??? You can't even support traditional marriage?? Is gay marriage the only type of marriage that's politically correct?

Do you support traditional marriage?

I do.

 

[Town Heretic]

You don't even know what this is about do you?

The Chick fil A owner didn't say anything about "hating gays" or "not serving gays". All he said was he supports traditional marriage. That shouldn't be a controversial thing to say in my opinion. So is that where we are at now??? You can't even support traditional marriage?? Is gay marriage the only type of marriage that's politically correct?

Do you support traditional marriage?

Just wrote a letter praising my experience with a local Chic to their corporate headquarters. I won't make a special trip to support what's been turned into a movement, but it's a great place to take your family for a cut above fast food experience.

Dena, the food there is both nutritious and well made.

I support traditional marriage. I'm in one. I also recognize that in our social compact there's no compelling justification for denying same sex unions and that calling them something other than marriages invites discriminatory practice.

I don't support discrimination. I do support the freedom of anyone to believe and speak their mind on the issue, including the head of a chain I happen to like very much. And given Chic-fil-A has zero chance in determining the issues related to sex and law, I don't get overly excited. Should atheists be up in arms over In an Out Burger putting scripture on their wrappers and cups? Should they boycott?

If they're idiots. lain:

 

[Dena]

Do you support traditional marriage?

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.