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

[PureX]

Open your own business and do it like you think it should be done - you can pay more taxes than anyone else also if you wish and also pay for all your employees healthcare and the needs of their families and all the pet things you stand for, earn money and give it to them.

Then come back and show us how successful it is.

Stop complaining and be an example.

Let us know how that works out for you.

Wouldn't being able to pay taxes to help offset the cost of your business to the community, and being able to pay for healthcare for your employees and their families, and treating customers fairly and with respect be part of the definition of a "successful" business?

Or is business "success" just defined by how much money the owner makes for himself, how willing he is to abuse those customers he doesn't like, ignore his responsibility to the community, and ignore the health and welfare needs of his own employees?

 

[MaryContrary]

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

Dena, I don't hate gays at all. Frankly, I tend to care more about them than I do everyone else. What do you say to that? Do you think I'm just the exception here?

I'm going to the tell you now that I'm convinced most of the folks around here that you assume hate gays actually care more about them than you do. Most, not all. Some do hate, yes. But I think it's important for you that you recognize what you're dealing with rather than just shrugging it all off as hate, if you want to honestly confront this difference in opinion and belief.

But simply, I think you're smart, more honest and more sincere than many of the people on the other side of these issues and I think we'd enjoy discussing and debating them with you if you weren't simply shrugging us off as irrational bigots and hatemongers. I even think it'd benefit those that are irrational bigots and hatemongers.

Also, fast food is hardly devoid of nutritional content. Perhaps not having such in abundance, but there you go. :chuckle:

To the OP: Yes, business owners should be able to serve or not serve whomever they like for whatever reason they like. So long as customers and other business owners are free to make the same determination in the same way.

 

[PureX]

Caring about someone not living up to YOUR expectations is not the same as caring about THEM. The former is all about YOU, and your needs, beliefs, and opinions, while the later is actually about THEM, and their needs, beliefs, and opinions.

 

[Lee52]

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.

Knight,
I see this from two sides of our liberty in the USA.

First and foremost, in the USA a capitalistic society, businesses are in business to make money. How would a business owner know if someone was GLBT? Nobody is required to wear identifying ribbons, badges, name tags identifying them as GLBT. There is really no need for any business owner to know someone's fettishes in order to deny service to them.

The other side of this issue is the right of Americans to be treated equally and equitably just like everyone else in the USA. Which brings me back to the first statement above. Who would know what someone's life style choices are? Unless, they are seeking to make a political statement or draw attention to themselves to make an issue where none exists.

 

[MaryContrary]

Caring about someone not living up to YOUR expectations is not the same as caring about THEM. The former is all about YOU, and your needs, beliefs, and opinions, while the later is actually about THEM, and their needs, beliefs, and opinions.

Great. So I'll make sure not to base my caring on whether someone lives up to my expectations. In the meantime I'll continue to recognize that homosexuality is destructive and care about those caught up in it.

I'll also try not to be a bigot in the process of all this. But that, of course, has no relation to this discussion. lain:

 

[MaryContrary]

Knight,
I see this from two sides of our liberty in the USA.

First and foremost, in the USA a capitalistic society, businesses are in business to make money. How would a business owner know if someone was GLBT? Nobody is required to wear identifying ribbons, badges, name tags identifying them as GLBT. There is really no need for any business owner to know someone's fettishes in order to deny service to them.

Do you expect business owners and operators to suddenly begin requiring questionnaires to be filled out before services are rendered? I doubt that very seriously.

The other side of this issue is the right of Americans to be treated equally and equitably just like everyone else in the USA.

We have the right to be treated equally and equitably under the law. We don't have the right to be treated equally and equitably by one another.

Which brings me back to the first statement above. Who would know what someone's life style choices are? Unless, they are seeking to make a political statement or draw attention to themselves to make an issue where none exists.

Let's say you own a cake shop and you oppose homosexuality. Someone comes into your shop and orders a dozen cakes decorated with various slogans and whatnot supporting gay marriage for the big gay marriage rally they're throwing. You should have the right as a business owner to consider whether or not you're willing to give up that potential profit in order not to support gay marriage. Just as the customer has the right to shrug and go down the street to your competitor and give them the order for those dozen cakes.

This does not in any way require allowing business owners access to secret government mind reading goggles that allow them to read your thoughts.

 

[Lee52]

Do you expect business owners and operators to suddenly begin requiring questionnaires to be filled out before services are rendered? I doubt that very seriously.

NOPE and I would oppose that by going elsewhere to shop.
We have the right to be treated equally and equitably under the law. We don't have the right to be treated equally and equitably by one another.

Ain't freedom a wonderful thing!
Let's say you own a cake shop and you oppose homosexuality. Someone comes into your shop and orders a dozen cakes decorated with various slogans and whatnot supporting gay marriage for the big gay marriage rally they're throwing. You should have the right as a business owner to consider whether or not you're willing to give up that potential profit in order not to support gay marriage. Just as the customer has the right to shrug and go down the street to your competitor and give them the order for those dozen cakes.

This does not in any way require allowing business owners access to secret government mind reading goggles that allow them to read your thoughts.

Yeppers, freedom is indeed a wonderful thing. I agree with this last section of yours completely.

 

[PureX]

We have the right to be treated equally and equitably under the law. We don't have the right to be treated equally and equitably by one another.

What, exactly, do you imagine the laws are for, then?

Let's say you own a cake shop and you oppose homosexuality. Someone comes into your shop and orders a dozen cakes decorated with various slogans and whatnot supporting gay marriage for the big gay marriage rally they're throwing. You should have the right as a business owner to consider whether or not you're willing to give up that potential profit in order not to support gay marriage.

And you do have that right. So what's the problem?

 

[MaryContrary]

What, exactly, do you imagine the laws are for, then?

Maintaining order and providing justice. Not forcing everyone to be nice to one another beyond the minimum necessary for order to be maintained and justice done.

Do you really want to the government to force us all, by law, to treat one another equally and equitably? Have you really thought that through?

And you do have that right. So what's the problem?

You've lost track of the conversation you're responding to.

 

[PureX]

Maintaining order and providing justice. Not forcing everyone to be nice to one another beyond the minimum necessary for order to be maintained and justice done.

But that's not why this nation was formed: ... to maintain "order". It was formed to establish and protect equal freedom, equal opportunity, and equal justice for all who live here.

Do you really want the government to force us all, by law, to treat one another equally and equitably?

That's really the only way it can work. A hundred centuries of human history has shown this, and is still showing us this.

As soon as we allow one group of humans to hold power of another group, the abuse and exploitation of the powerless inevitably begins. Why on Earth would we want to deliberately create a society that behaves like that?

You've lost track of the conversation you're responding to.

I was responding to a specific post, not a conversation. Sorry.

 

[Traditio]

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.

TH: My concern is not about what consequences would follow if policies x-z were enacted. I pretty much never address topics in this way. You have, I am sure, seen me debate healthcare reform. You have seen me debate the minimum wage. And so forth.

For me, the question is not what consequences will follow if the State issues x law. The question is whether or not x law exemplifies y principle of justice/fairness/right. Is law x fair/just/right in itself?

It is possible, of course, to obtain an apparently "good" result by the use of evil means. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just such an example. It is wrong in itself to slaughter lots of innocent people. Even if that means saving the lives of lots more innocent people.

What is a difficult question for you is not a difficult question for me. You insist on looking at history and the results of legal policy. For me, that is a non-issue. For me, the issue remains at the conceptual/philosophical level: Does the State have a natural limit to its authority over and against the rights of the individual? If so, what are they?

And the answer, again, seems obvious: the State does indeed, by its very nature, have very definite limits. The State has authority to obtain the bonum commune (the common good).

In order for us even to say that the State has the authority to obtain the common good, we already must admit that there's such a thing as the private good. There is the good of the multitude on the one hand, and the good of the individual on the other hand. This good of the multitude, the common good, lies chiefly in 1. the maintaining of civil peace (generally expressed in matters of criminal law), 2. public works and 3. the regulation of social exchange (civil law).

With this schema, it is easy to justify things like a minimum wage, taxation (the moment you start talking about money, you're already in the domain of social exchange), etc. These all fall under something like civil law. Presumably, you wish to say that, under this notion of the regulation of social exchange (civil law), something like civil rights legislation can be justified.

I don't think that this is the case. If it can be, then just about anything can come into the sphere of the State's interest, since pretty much everything that we do (since we all live in the State) involves some sort of exchange. I buy my books on amazon.com. I use the internet to talk to you guys. I use a telephone or the internet to arrange times/places to hang out with my friends. You get the idea. Since each of us lives in the State and our lives find expression there, then pretty much everything that we do involves it in some way.

Are we then to abolish the notion of the private good? The answer seems to be no. Even though our lives do find expression in the State, nonetheless, there is at least some aspect of our lives which it is not the business of the State to regulate. Though in the State, it is nonetheless somehow "separate" from the State, and this is rightly termed "the private good."

And voluntary enterprises seem to fall under this private sphere. Whether I choose to get married or not, whether I choose to marry this woman or that woman, whether I choose to pursue this line of education or that one, whether I pursue this career or that one. You get the idea.

And, generally speaking, private property seems to fall under this sphere too. Whether I choose to buy a house or not, whether I will buy this house or that house, etc. And, once I buy the house, it seems to be really mine. Even though it exists in and as part of the State, the house belongs not to the State, but to me. The State really only has an interest in the house to the extent that the house has some relation to the rest of the State (for example, insofar as the house requires access to public utilities).

And this interest is an interest precisely insofar as something like taxation is concerned. Yes, the State may have other interests in the house, but these seem only to be in cases of emergency. If my house is in a state of disrepair and is threatening to collapse and damage the property of others...

But again, as I mentioned before to Bybee, this is a matter of necessity.

But more on this below.

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:

How about a semester of philosophy of law, a semester of Thomistic ethics (which including a portion of law) and a semester of natural law? Not to mention my background in Plato and (to a lesser extent) Aristotle.

No. That "therefore" covered a lot of ground without argument or understanding.

Actually, this "therefore" is the easiest and most straightforward "therefore" I've made in the entire thread. Basically, what I've done is this:

The notion of private property carries with it the notion of intrinsic right.

This (the owning of a business) is an instance of private property.

Therefore, it carries with it the notion of intrinsic right.

Think: All As are B's. x is A. Therefore, x is B.

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

But this only exemplifies my point. Yes, the State can regulate whether or not you can buy this or that kind of gun, or even a gun at all, insofar as the possession and use of a firearm bears relation to other parts of the State. If private citizens had bazookas, this would pose a public danger. And sure, when I buy the gun, this is a social exchange that the State can tax.

But granted that you own the gun, it seems as though the State really can't tell you what to do with it or how to use it: "You MUST go hunting every Saturday if you own a hunting rifle." This would be a clear violation of private liberty.

No. It says, I realize your intent is to sell. That's what a business does.

Yes: this is none of the State's business. My personal intentions and motivations should be completely outside of the scope of the State's considerations. The State should only ask the following questions: "Is an actual social exchange occurring? If so, then we must ensure that the exchange is fair and that it's fairly taxed (if applicable)." In other wods: "Does x point of the law apply? Is A intending to do something which falls under the scope of the law?"

But when it comes to private matters, it's none of the State's business what I am or am not intending to do. It's only the State's business that I am intending to sell in this or that case, and then only to make sure that the sale is fair and fairly taxed. But it's none of the State's business why I am selling.

Perhaps I am intending to sell to the general population to make a livelihood.

Perhaps I am intending to sell only to a segment of the population.

Perhaps I am running a business for some other reason. For example, perhaps I own a kind of coffee shop that caters exclusively to philosophers, and only philosophers whom I've personally invited can buy my products. The idea, of course, that I talk philosophy with other philosophers all day over coffee.

Again, this is none of the State's business. What should matter to the State is the following: I own the coffee shop and everything in it. They are mine. I can do with them as I please. The State has a genuine interest only insofar as I sell this cup of coffee to that man.

Beyond that, the State should keep its nose out of it.

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.

Again, private property/private enterprise. It's none of the State's business what my motivations are for dispensing with my own things.

You're conflating the purely personal with the business.

There's absolutely no difference.

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.

"Open to the public" is a personal motivation/personal intention which does not fall under genuine State interest. The State oversteps its rightful boundaries when it starts taking this sort of thing into consideration.

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.

There was more involved in separate but equal than just private businesses denying business to black people. As far as I'm aware, there were separate schools, separate public facilities. The latter, of course, is an injustice on the part of the state (qua common good). But the former falls under private right.

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.

If I own a deli and don't serve black people, I am not denying a black person the right to pursue a sandwich. He can make his own sandwich or build his own deli. Had I not opened a deli, he wouldn't have been able to buy from me. Assuming that I open a deli, he still can't.

He hasn't been harmed. At all.

 

[Traditio]

FURTHERMORE, Town Heretic, stepping away from philosophy and into the domain of law proper: it is worth noting that, with the recent healthcare decision (as I understand it), the courts have explicitly affirmed that the State cannot compel individuals to buy a product.

Insofar as the State was attempting to make people buy a product or service, the law was unconstitutional. It's constitutional only insofar as it is a tax.

 

[bybee]

TH: My concern is not about what consequences would follow if policies x-z were enacted. I pretty much never address topics in this way. You have, I am sure, seen me debate healthcare reform. You have seen me debate the minimum wage. And so forth.

For me, the question is not what consequences will follow if the State issues x law. The question is whether or not x law exemplifies y principle of justice/fairness/right. Is law x fair/just/right in itself?

It is possible, of course, to obtain an apparently "good" result by the use of evil means. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just such an example. It is wrong in itself to slaughter lots of innocent people. Even if that means saving the lives of lots more innocent people.

What is a difficult question for you is not a difficult question for me. You insist on looking at history and the results of legal policy. For me, that is a non-issue. For me, the issue remains at the conceptual/philosophical level: Does the State have a natural limit to its authority over and against the rights of the individual? If so, what are they?

And the answer, again, seems obvious: the State does indeed, by its very nature, have very definite limits. The State has authority to obtain the bonum commune (the common good).

In order for us even to say that the State has the authority to obtain the common good, we already must admit that there's such a thing as the private good. There is the good of the multitude on the one hand, and the good of the individual on the other hand. This good of the multitude, the common good, lies chiefly in 1. the maintaining of civil peace (generally expressed in matters of criminal law), 2. public works and 3. the regulation of social exchange (civil law).

With this schema, it is easy to justify things like a minimum wage, taxation (the moment you start talking about money, you're already in the domain of social exchange), etc. These all fall under something like civil law. Presumably, you wish to say that, under this notion of the regulation of social exchange (civil law), something like civil rights legislation can be justified.

I don't think that this is the case. If it can be, then just about anything can come into the sphere of the State's interest, since pretty much everything that we do (since we all live in the State) involves some sort of exchange. I buy my books on amazon.com. I use the internet to talk to you guys. I use a telephone or the internet to arrange times/places to hang out with my friends. You get the idea. Since each of us lives in the State and our lives find expression there, then pretty much everything that we do involves it in some way.

Are we then to abolish the notion of the private good? The answer seems to be no. Even though our lives do find expression in the State, nonetheless, there is at least some aspect of our lives which it is not the business of the State to regulate. Though in the State, it is nonetheless somehow "separate" from the State, and this is rightly termed "the private good."

And voluntary enterprises seem to fall under this private sphere. Whether I choose to get married or not, whether I choose to marry this woman or that woman, whether I choose to pursue this line of education or that one, whether I pursue this career or that one. You get the idea.

And, generally speaking, private property seems to fall under this sphere too. Whether I choose to buy a house or not, whether I will buy this house or that house, etc. And, once I buy the house, it seems to be really mine. Even though it exists in and as part of the State, the house belongs not to the State, but to me. The State really only has an interest in the house to the extent that the house has some relation to the rest of the State (for example, insofar as the house requires access to public utilities).

And this interest is an interest precisely insofar as something like taxation is concerned. Yes, the State may have other interests in the house, but these seem only to be in cases of emergency. If my house is in a state of disrepair and is threatening to collapse and damage the property of others...

But again, as I mentioned before to Bybee, this is a matter of necessity.

But more on this below.



How about a semester of philosophy of law, a semester of Thomistic ethics (which including a portion of law) and a semester of natural law? Not to mention my background in Plato and (to a lesser extent) Aristotle.



Actually, this "therefore" is the easiest and most straightforward "therefore" I've made in the entire thread. Basically, what I've done is this:

The notion of private property carries with it the notion of intrinsic right.

This (the owning of a business) is an instance of private property.

Therefore, it carries with it the notion of intrinsic right.

Think: All As are B's. x is A. Therefore, x is B.



But this only exemplifies my point. Yes, the State can regulate whether or not you can buy this or that kind of gun, or even a gun at all, insofar as the possession and use of a firearm bears relation to other parts of the State. If private citizens had bazookas, this would pose a public danger. And sure, when I buy the gun, this is a social exchange that the State can tax.

But granted that you own the gun, it seems as though the State really can't tell you what to do with it or how to use it: "You MUST go hunting every Saturday if you own a hunting rifle." This would be a clear violation of private liberty.



Yes: this is none of the State's business. My personal intentions and motivations should be completely outside of the scope of the State's considerations. The State should only ask the following questions: "Is an actual social exchange occurring? If so, then we must ensure that the exchange is fair and that it's fairly taxed (if applicable)." In other wods: "Does x point of the law apply? Is A intending to do something which falls under the scope of the law?"

But when it comes to private matters, it's none of the State's business what I am or am not intending to do. It's only the State's business that I am intending to sell in this or that case, and then only to make sure that the sale is fair and fairly taxed. But it's none of the State's business why I am selling.

Perhaps I am intending to sell to the general population to make a livelihood.

Perhaps I am intending to sell only to a segment of the population.

Perhaps I am running a business for some other reason. For example, perhaps I own a kind of coffee shop that caters exclusively to philosophers, and only philosophers whom I've personally invited can buy my products. The idea, of course, that I talk philosophy with other philosophers all day over coffee.

Again, this is none of the State's business. What should matter to the State is the following: I own the coffee shop and everything in it. They are mine. I can do with them as I please. The State has a genuine interest only insofar as I sell this cup of coffee to that man.

Beyond that, the State should keep its nose out of it.



Again, private property/private enterprise. It's none of the State's business what my motivations are for dispensing with my own things.



There's absolutely no difference.



"Open to the public" is a personal motivation/personal intention which does not fall under genuine State interest. The State oversteps its rightful boundaries when it starts taking this sort of thing into consideration.



There was more involved in separate but equal than just private businesses denying business to black people. As far as I'm aware, there were separate schools, separate public facilities. The latter, of course, is an injustice on the part of the state (qua common good). But the former falls under private right.



If I own a deli and don't serve black people, I am not denying a black person the right to pursue a sandwich. He can make his own sandwich or build his own deli. Had I not opened a deli, he wouldn't have been able to buy from me. Assuming that I open a deli, he still can't.

He hasn't been harmed. At all.

How far would you go with this?

You are too young to remember the boycott of businesses in which black people engaged over segregated seating in restaurants. I believe the economic impact was quite serious.
For instance, if you owned a "white's only" Deli I would boycott you with every means at my disposal.
And I am not alone.
The fact that the immorality of your stance escapes you leads me to question if you are educable?
Apparently you do not have the ability to feel empathy for the well being of another human being?
Stay hung up on legalisms and see where it gets you.
Someplace hot I would imagine.:devil::angrymob:

 

[Traditio]

How far would you go with this?

You are too young to remember the boycott of businesses in which black people engaged over segregated seating in restaurants. I believe the economic impact was quite serious.

Yes. Private businesses should be free to discriminate. Private individuals should also be free to boycott.

For instance, if you owned a "white's only" Deli I would boycott you with every means at my disposal.

And that's your personal liberty.

The fact that the immorality of your stance escapes you leads me to question if you are educable?

I'm not arguing in favor of segregation. See the difference between human law and natural law. Yes, given the natural law (which binds conscience), there is a duty not to discriminate against others based on race. If I had a deli, natural law would compel me to serve a black person just as well as a white person.

But human law should not. Natural law (the court of conscience) has a greater extension than human law does. Absolutely everything that we do (or don't do), think (or don't think) or say (or don't say) falls under the scope of natural and divine law. There is no private/public distinction when it comes to natural and divine law.

Of the natural/divine law, we read:

"But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment" (Matthew 12:36).

There is, as St. Thomas rightly points out, no such thing as a morally neutral human act in the concrete. Even when we commit acts which are in and of themselves morally neutral (like eating an apple), these otherwise insignificant human acts actually have a moral significance (they either move us closer to or farther away from God).

But we're not talking about natural law. We're talking about human law. In human law, there is rightly a distinction between what is public and what is private. Some things which are dealt with by the natural law should be left open in human law. Human law, for example, cannot legislate thoughts. Natural/Divine law can. Human law cannot.

Natural law compels us not to discriminate based on race. But for human law to do so would be to overstep its natural boundaries (which is the common good).

Consider this: it is Divine Law that absolutely every man should be obedient to the Roman Pontiff and should believe in and live out the Catholic Faith.

Should human law legislate that every man be Catholic?

 

[Memento Mori]

Yes. Private businesses should be free to discriminate. Private individuals should also be free to boycott.



And that's your personal liberty.

Should private businesses have the right to infringe upon your personal liberties?

Which holds more sway: companies or people?

 

[Traditio]

Should private businesses have the right to infringe upon your personal liberties?

No. But in order for this argument to be relevent, you would have to tell me that there is some right which I would be infringing in not serving black people at a privately owned deli.

And the answer is that there is none. The aforementioned black people have no right to the products of my deli. That belongs entirely to me. I am its rightful owner.

Which holds more sway: companies or people?

This seems to me to be a bad question. Companies are companies because they are owned by people.

 

[Memento Mori]

No. But in order for this argument to be relevent, you would have to tell me that there is some right which I would be infringing in not serving black people at a privately owned deli.

And the answer is none. The aforementioned black people have no right to the products of my deli. That belongs entirely to me. I am its rightful owner.

Is the deli serving the public? Are black people part of the public? If you are open to the public and blacks fall in the public then you are denying them parts of their liberties as part of the public. Hence, public accommodation laws. They have just as much a right to purchase from you as anyone else dealing with you.

This seems to me to be a bad question. Companies are companies because they are owned by people.

Actually, it is a perfect question as it exemplifies the fundamental ideas. You've given greater power to the whims of the business than you have to the liberties of the individual. Thus which is greater the rights of the business or the rights of the people? Should a business have the rights to violate the rights of people? Should people have the right to violate the rights of a business?

Perhaps a more malicious example, should for-profit hospitals have the right to deny treatment (life-saving, to hit home) to a black person for being black?

 

[Town Heretic]

TH: My concern is not about what consequences would follow if policies x-z were enacted.

Too bad. They had a great deal to do with the framing of the law.

For me, the question is not what consequences will follow if the State issues x law. The question is whether or not x law exemplifies y principle of justice/fairness/right. Is law x fair/just/right in itself?

That's fine. I've addressed that as well. When you ask for a harm, pointing out the marginalization, the economic reservation that is created, the social disenfranchisement and denial of the opportunity to pursue the happiness that is our birthright is that harm.

It is possible, of course, to obtain an apparently "good" result by the use of evil means.

Sure, depending on how you define an evil and how you define the good.

What is a difficult question for you is not a difficult question for me.

Getting a thing wrong is almost always easier. Hey, that one is on you.

You insist on looking at history and the results of legal policy.

They illustrate the harm. It's a logical necessity.

For me, that is a non-issue.

And that, again, is a part of why you get this wrong.

For me, the issue remains at the conceptual/philosophical level: Does the State have a natural limit to its authority over and against the rights of the individual? If so, what are they?

That's not the question before us, though it has been settled by our compact also. We hold that the state can interfere in any right, including the right to life, but not without a compelling interest being served, like justice or the necessity of balancing your individual rights with the rights of your neighbors. Once you realize that you understand how the rest of our approach fails.

In order for us even to say that the State has the authority to obtain the common good, we already must admit that there's such a thing as the private good.

Which is only a way of saying the individual as opposed to the collective good. But even in that you misstep a bit. The public good is aimed at protecting the private enjoyment by limiting interference between parties, setting boundaries. It isn't a separate thing.

I set aside your speculation about the basis/support for civil rights legislation. It was something of an evolutionary process. But you need to read and understand the history of that evolution. For instance, Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. 392 U.S. 409 (1968) is one of the cases you'd come across looking for landmark rulings.

Are we then to abolish the notion of the private good?

The public good serves the private right. You're manufacturing a bit.

The answer seems to be no. Even though our lives do find expression in the State, nonetheless, there is at least some aspect of our lives which it is not the business of the State to regulate. Though in the State, it is nonetheless somehow "separate" from the State, and this is rightly termed "the private good."

The private good is no more separate from the state than the public good serves some other function than to facilitate that "private" good/enjoyment of right. You're thinking about it wrong.

...generally speaking, private property seems to fall under this sphere too. Whether I choose to buy a house or not, whether I will buy this house or that house, etc. And, once I buy the house, it seems to be really mine.

Don't pay your taxes and see about that. You have the right to ownership of things and rights of expression and all of them are subject to the interactive restrictions and obligations tied to the general welfare and common good. Your notion is fundamentally flawed.

How about a semester of philosophy of law, a semester of Thomistic ethics (which including a portion of law) and a semester of natural law? Not to mention my background in Plato and (to a lesser extent) Aristotle.

How about a doctoral level education in the thing actually being discussed? There's nothing wrong with those courses, except while they may prepare you for thinking about the law, they aren't its study and are no more authoritative in that respect than an equal course of study in history or biology.

There's no substitute for knowledge.

The notion of private property carries with it the notion of intrinsic right.

As I've noted prior, you have any number of rights that we deem inherent. But all of those are subject to abrogation.

This (the owning of a business) is an instance of private property.

It is.

Therefore, it carries with it the notion of intrinsic right.

Depends on what you think that means. You have a right to property. You don't have a right to do whatever you want to with that property. Your right is necessarily limited in relation to my own, be that property fixed or mobile.

But granted that you own the gun, it seems as though the State really can't tell you what to do with it or how to use it: "You MUST go hunting every Saturday if you own a hunting rifle." This would be a clear violation of private liberty.

The state tells you any number of things you may do or cannot do and when and how you can. If you hunted you'd know that. If you ever tried to carry your weapon without a license you'd find that out. If you went out into your back yard and fired into the ground a few times you might discover a fact or two. You don't even have the right to own that gun if you've committed a felony...and so on.

No. It says, I realize your intent is to sell. That's what a business does.

Yes: this is none of the State's business.

You're wrong. Most business is conducted under license. The state is involved. All transactions that take more than a year to complete or are for over five hundred dollars, regardless of time involved, are required to be set to written contract. The state is heavily invested in the equity of contract and the elements of establishing legal transfers of goods and services.

My personal intentions and motivations should be completely outside of the scope of the State's considerations.

The state doesn't care why you do a thing internally, only how you conduct your business externally.

The State should only ask the following questions: "Is an actual social exchange occurring? If so, then we must ensure that the exchange is fair and that it's fairly taxed (if applicable)." In other wods: "Does x point of the law apply? Is A intending to do something which falls under the scope of the law?"

The state doesn't care if you get a fair deal, only that you aren't taken advantage of, which isn't the same thing. You can pay what you think a thing is worth, even if the rest of the world wouldn't pay half that, provided you have capacity and aren't misled by the seller. And the scope of the law involves discriminatory practice.

...It's only the State's business that I am intending to sell in this or that case, and then only to make sure that the sale is fair and fairly taxed. But it's none of the State's business why I am selling.

You're wrong. Read the law and case history. But the state doesn't have to read your mind, it only has to observe your conduct. And if your practice is discriminatory and that discrimination doesn't serve a business purpose it's violating your license and obligation under the law, interfering with my right as a buyer to enter the market place as an equal in right. As some have suggested (including me) there are ways to pander to specific people without running afoul of the laws. But if you're going to sell to the general public you don't get to redefine that public by exclusion of a class.

Again, this is none of the State's business.

Well, that's an empty declaration but it doesn't matter. The state doesn't care who you mean to sell to, only who you exclude and why and that is the state's business. If you want a fuller understanding of why than my general (and here and there particular) responses, dig in.

"Open to the public" is a personal motivation/personal intention which does not fall under genuine State interest. The State oversteps its rightful boundaries when it starts taking this sort of thing into consideration.

Many people would agree with you, no doubt. But they'd be wrong as a matter of law and running contrary to the actual foundation of the law as we have it. So you're entitled to your opinion, but it's on par with those who decry taxation as theft, purely an expression of a dream of some alternative state.

There was more involved in separate but equal than just private businesses denying business to black people. As far as I'm aware, there were separate schools, separate public facilities. The latter, of course, is an injustice on the part of the state (qua common good). But the former falls under private right.

Read the Court's opinion about the essential bankruptcy of the notion of separate but equal. Then look at the verification of their opinion in the history of its practice.

If I own a deli and don't serve black people, I am not denying a black person the right to pursue a sandwich.

Yes, that's precisely what you're doing. You may even be the only sandwich shop in town. And maybe the only store in town feels the same way as you do and won't sell the means to anyone of color. So they can't buy goods in your town. Maybe they can't buy anything else as all the merchants feel as you do and the families who are attempting to sell land won't sell. That means they can't live in your town. And the state is telling you that you can't do that. You can't decide who lives in your town and eats a sandwich on the basis of your personal prejudice.

He hasn't been harmed. At all.

You're wrong in theory, wrong in execution. He loves the area. He want's to live and eat there. He has the means to buy and dwell among you. Any time an injustice (and we hold this truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal...) is done, when an inequality is expressed in your discriminatory bias that has nothing to do with merit or ability, then you fail the compact and the compact may and will correct you.

And it should.

 

[Traditio]

Is the deli serving the public?

Irrelevent. Think about what it means for a deli to "serve the public." What this means is that a private individual is making use of his privately owned goods by trading them to other individuals in exchange for cash.

This "open to the public" only signifies an intention on the part of the private individual which should not be subject to the legislative power of human law. This "open to the public" merely means: "I have decided that I will let anyone walk in and exchange money for my goods." But this intention is merely a private course of action. This "right of access" which TH previously mentioned only arises because of the voluntariness of the private owner. Therefore, he can dispense it and withdraw it at his own leisure.

Are black people part of the public? If you are open to the public and blacks fall in the public then you are denying them parts of their liberties as part of the public.

You are equivocating. There's "liberty" in the sense of natural right, and then there's "liberty" in the sense of general permission. When we speak of "their liberties" we are generally speaking of natural rights. But this "liberty" which is created is a "general permission" arbitrarily granted by the owner of the shop.

So yes, in that sense, he denies them a liberty, but it's not a liberty which they intrinsically possess. It's a liberty which arises solely from the intention of the shopkeeper: "Yes, you may enter my building and exchange your money for my goods."

But hey have no intrinsic/natural right to this. Therefore, it should not fall under the scope of law.

They have just as much a right to purchase from you as anyone else dealing with you.

I agree. They have just as much right (in the sense of an intrinsic right) to purchase from me as anyone else: none.

Actually, it is a perfect question as it exemplifies the fundamental ideas. You've given greater power to the whims of the business than you have to the liberties of the individual.

This is false. I've "given" the same power to everyone. Everyone possesses the same intrinsic rights.

Thus which is greater the rights of the business or the rights of the people? Should a business have the rights to violate the rights of people? Should people have the right to violate the rights of a business?

Nobody should be able to violate the intrinsic rights of anyone. That's why they're intrinsic rights. But, again, you're equivocating on the notion of "right." There's natural/intrinsic right (which everyone possesses) and right in the sense of "general permission" or perhaps even "legal entitlement," wihch arises completely arbitrarily according to the whim of those granting the right.

Perhaps a more malicious example, should for-profit hospitals have the right to deny treatment (life-saving, to hit home) to a black person for being black?

In general, for-profit hospitals should be able to turn away anyone they please. Except in cases of emergency/life-saving treatment. As I mentioned before to Bybee and TH, emergency/life-saving situations are different, since everyone has a duty (which should be legislated) to make reasonable effort in such cases.

But note, even though I say that for-profit hospitals should be able turn away anyone they please, it should also be noted that I think that the government has a duty to step in where the free market fails. But then, I'm sure you've read my various posts on healthcare. :idunno:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Wouldn't being able to pay taxes to help offset the cost of your business to the community, and being able to pay for healthcare for your employees and their families, and treating customers fairly and with respect be part of the definition of a "successful" business?

Or is business "success" just defined by how much money the owner makes for himself, how willing he is to abuse those customers he doesn't like, ignore his responsibility to the community, and ignore the health and welfare needs of his own employees?

I guess that depends on the business owners definition of success.