The_Dunedan

Of course. And other people should be aware enough of the conditions in your establishment to know not to go there, or (having traveled outside the US, Canada, or Western Europe and come out just fine) see for themselves and perhaps not mind. If the cleanliness of your facilities acquires a suitably bad reputation, people will stop going. It's just that simple; I watched it happen to a restaurant in my old university town. Only dedicated vegetarian joint in a town full of hippies and fad-conscious sorority girls, and it got such a grody reputation that they simply went under. I understand they've reopened after considerable renovation and cleanup, but under new management.

Likewise, a barkeep or restaurateur, at least at the ownership level, should be able to decide who eats and drinks there. Some pubs in Prague had perfectly blunt, entirely reasonable rules against British "stag" parties, and would often simply refuse service to Englishmen, or people wearing football jerseys, or people wearing English football jerseys, because they simply didn't want the trouble. If the owner of such a place makes a rule about whom he wants to let in his/her front door, that's his/her business only.

Contrariwise, if the owner is known to be, for instance, a racist asshole, nobody is forcing anyone to give him/her their business. Boycotts over racism are still capable of being quite powerful; ask Fujifilm. If somebody tried that in virtually any town or city containing a State university and most private institutions, their establishment would be the subject of so much public antipathy that it would quickly shut them down. Small towns may be different, but given that much of the public rejects this sort of blatant discrimination I can't see such a place doing well. However, a heavy-metal bar and a hip-hop joint are going to attract two different crowds, which shouldn't be mistaken for racism or discrimination, and metalheads who head into hip-hop bars or vice-versa can expect at best a surprised reception.

Freedom of association and of dis-association are two sides of the same coin, just as are the equal rights to arm and disarm onesself, to speak in your own defense or to be silent in same, to enter into contracts and sue when you are defrauded, to have a lawyer or to represent yourself, etc etc.

As for not working in hazardous conditions; what the blue hell do you think a strike is? How long could a place of employment stay open in today's information-driven age if it was unreasonably unsafe and people exercised their right not to work there, and put the word out the way they did about -good- jobs?* It's not infantile to go work someplace else, it's -power-. It's use of individual power, sometimes by large groups of individuals all of whom have made the same informed decision, to create change. If a place is unsafe or unclean, people's use of their right to disassociate can result in that business failing. In today's developed world, people really do demand certain levels of service and safety and cleanliness, and market conditions simply won't support (in an un-distorted economy) a business that doesn't meet those standards. Bringing in an outside force to -make- someone do things your way in their own place of business, on the other hand, -is- infantile. It is equally infantile whether it is practiced by moralists, redistributionists, corporations, unions, or whiny busybodies.



*A notable exception to this is the illegal agricultural slavery of illegal immigrants which still takes place in parts of the US and Mexico. Prevented from exercising their right of dis-association, these people and their conditions are a notable exception to this rule. It would be fully within these people's rights to revolt by violence if prevented from leaving their place of employment to search for something better.