Do service providers have the right to refuse service on moral grounds? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

xepherys · 06-19-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

As a corrollary to my earlier post, businesses that do not hire the best possible candidate are doomed to failure. There are occassions where a person's race or physical attributes may make them a better candidate than someone else, but for the most part those are few and far between. For instance, an insurance company hiring an underwriter would put themselves out of business quickly if they hired only based on race instead of experience or some other irrelevant quality. However, if you are going to sell goods and services to Indians (from India), hiring an Indian can be quite beneficial - I worked for a service company years ago that did exactly that and was quite successful with that niche because of it. Hiring male waiters in a strip club is a good way to make sure no one buys any drinks, but hiring the same guy to serve drinks at a downtown businessman's club is a smart business decision.

Again, green is the color that matters. Businesses that don't realize that deserve to fail.

I agree with you, overall. My point is, sometimes hiring the white male instead of the black female is the best business decision. However, this can, rather often these days, get you in trouble as a business owner. I think that's wrong. In a conservative, republo-catholic town, REFUSING to serve gays is probably a good business decision in reality. Is it right morally? Depends on who you ask. Should the owner be allowed to make such a call? Absolutely!

Gilda · 06-24-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

First of all, private businesses do have such a "right" as it is in a true Capitalist society. I do believe that business owners should have those rights.

I suppose it's my fault for phrasing the question slightly differently in the title and in OP, but the question in the OP was whether it was appropriate to refuse service based on race, sexuality, etc.

Quote:

I'll one up that even... I don't believe that there should be "protected" classes at all in regards to private businesses from a servicing or hiring standpoint.

It probably comes as no surprise that I strongly disagree with you here. I also suspect that this is a lot easier to say when you are in the class that is least likely to be targeted for discrimination.

Also, keep in mind that protected classes in civil rights legislation very seldom identify a specific minority group and are nearly always written in such a way as to protect the rights of the majority as well. Laws saying you cannot discriminate in housing and employment say, for example, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race. This protects blacks, Hispanics and whites. Orientation covers straight, gay, and bisexual people. Gender identity and expression covers both transgendered and cisgendered people. Sex covers both men and women.

Quote:

While I disagree with biggotry, racism, sexism and the like, I do believe that, as an American, I (or anyone) has a right to be this way.

Absolutely. Bigots are a protected class in the US.

Quote:

This should extend to businesses (and is one of many reasons I fervently disagree with affirmative action). If I'm a white male middle-class business owner, and I want ALL of my sales associates to be cute, blonde, white girls, I should be able to do this without fear of backlash. If you are offended by these principles, feel free to take your business elsewhere. If I had all of my sales associate be big-booty, ghetto black girls (or some other stereo-type), this would be okay, even though it's STILL a racially driven motivation.

Nonsense. In a civilized society, such bigotry shouldn't go unchallenged. I would hope that there would be a backlash and that your business would go under as a result.

Quote:

It's STILL just as "wrong" but it is socially acceptable. As a straight, white, middle-class American male, I get the shit end of the stick in a lot of ways. There are plenty of college scholarships set aside for: Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Women, GLBTs, the poor, the wealthy, etc. There are no scholarships just for: white people, men, middle-class.

I'm always flabbergasted by the claim that straight white males are oppressed in our society.

There are scholarships given to white people. They just happen to be set aside for a specific class of whites most of the time, Irish, Russian, Italian, Scottish. I had a scholarship going to college that you had to be the child or grandshild of a Russian immigrant to qualify for. There are scholarships given to males. I've seen a good number of scholarships given to one male and one female student who meet certain qualifications--my brother has one of these.

I've never heard of a scholarship given because one is wealthy, and that does seem foolish, but giving more scholarships to the poor than to the middle class makes perfect sense to me.

Quote:

If someone wants to refuse you service because of who you are, go elsewhere... this isn't 1927 people... there are MANY businesses that CATER to specific groups of people. There are many more that don't care one way or the other. If you are part of the GLBT crowd and live in a small town, well... I'm sorry. Hopefully you can get to "the big city" soon, where it's much less of an issue.

Catering to a specific group of people is different from discriminating against others. The former is fine, the latter is bigotry.

Quote:

You want to make the world a better, more equal place? Don't try to shove equality down people's throats in a "free" country. It'll never get you where you want to go. *shrug*

So minorities that are the target of discrimination should just accept it as the way things are?

Vocal advocacy is the only tactic that is consistently effective at gaining equal rights

Quote:

Again, before I get blasted, I'd like to reiterate that I personally think biggotry is dispicable... however, I think forcing hands is equally so. People are people... even the worst ones deserve the most basic respect.

I disagree. I think bigotry deserves no repsect, and should always be fought, opposed, and exposed for what it is.

Gilda

Telluride · 06-25-2006, 11:04 PM

A business owner has an absolute right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason. However; the laws frequently do not recognize this right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

So, just for clarity, are you opposed to civil rights legislation that provides for equal access to housing and employment?

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I thought it was interesting and decided to answer anyway.

I am personally opposed to "civil rights" legislation that violates individual rights. The government has no place telling private property owners who to rent or sell their property to, or private businesses who to hire or sell goods/services to (I'm not saying that people should discriminate, but only that they have the right to).

Government institutions (public schools, government jobs, etc.) should not be allowed to discriminate. Pretty much everything the government has and does is paid for with taxpayer money, and people shouldn't be forced to subsidize their own mistreatment.

Kittie Rose · 07-18-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

#

# give a good grade on a paper that was well-written but promotes a morally offensive point of view?

I personally would refuse to depending on what it is. If it was a homophobic or racist document then it probably isn't very factually backed at all, so that's a good reason not to. If it's just hate speach, no matter how pretty it may look, it's still drivel. I wish people online would learn to look past the mood and tone of someone's demeanor and to what they're actually saying, too.

Charlatan · 07-19-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galt

A business owner has an absolute right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason. However; the laws frequently do not recognize this right.

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I thought it was interesting and decided to answer anyway.

I am personally opposed to "civil rights" legislation that violates individual rights. The government has no place telling private property owners who to rent or sell their property to, or private businesses who to hire or sell goods/services to (I'm not saying that people should discriminate, but only that they have the right to).

Government institutions (public schools, government jobs, etc.) should not be allowed to discriminate. Pretty much everything the government has and does is paid for with taxpayer money, and people shouldn't be forced to subsidize their own mistreatment.

Wow. By your argument, you would support business owners that don't want to serve blacks at their lunch counter. You would support a blacks to the back of the bus decision.

This is just incredibly wrong-headed.

The_Jazz · 07-20-2006, 04:58 AM

For the record, I will never invest in a business run by Galt, especially one supplying goods and services to the masses. Discriminating against anyone because of race, creed, sexual preferrence, etc. is a sure way to failure. Discriminate against those who can't or won't buy from you, but cater to those who can. If I listened to my brother, I would only do business with neocons and born agains and would soon be looking for another job.

Again, green is the only color that matters.

Cynthetiq · 06-12-2007, 11:34 AM

apparently some new legislation to make it right:

Quote:

Bill would require pharmacies to fill orders no matter beliefs
Monday, June 11, 2007
LINK
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) A pharmacy would be required to fill prescriptions for any drug it stocks such as birth-control pills regardless of a pharmacist's moral beliefs under a bill that cleared the Legislature on Monday.

The bill, approved 56-18 by the Assembly, establishes a pharmacy's duty to fill lawful prescriptions without undue delay and without consideration for a pharmacist's moral, philosophical or religious beliefs.

If a pharmacy doesn't have a prescription in stock, the pharmacy would have to either obtain it under expedited ordering or find a nearby pharmacy to fill the prescription.

The bill was approved by the Senate in June 2006 and goes to Gov. Jon S. Corzine for his signature.

Ourcrazymodern? · 06-12-2007, 12:35 PM

[QUOTE=ngdawg]If a repairman doesn't want to work on a car because of the political statements of some bumper stickers, I suppose he may have a right to refuse the work;

The police who protect and serve felt okay about objecting to one of my stickers several months ago...and all it says is 'the road to hell is paved with republicans' AND it covers a 'say NO to war with Iraq' sticker, after that became irrelevant.

P.S. The police stopped me because they thought I was someone else.

Imagine that.

FoolThemAll · 06-12-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Wow. By your argument, you would support business owners that don't want to serve blacks at their lunch counter. You would support a blacks to the back of the bus decision.

This is just incredibly wrong-headed.

I'd support such business owners in the style of the famous Voltaire quote, adjusted for property rights. But I'd not knowingly give them my dollars.

I know it was a while and a name change ago, but I think you and Jazz read too much into Galt's comments. Or I'm reading too much into yours. Galt/Telluride as much says that he's not defending discrimination, but only the right to discriminate. While you might disagree with that as well, it's crucial that the difference is recognized. I speak at least for myself when I say that the latter is not inherently bigoted.

And yeah, needless to say, I disagree with the New Jersey bill.

The_Jazz · 06-12-2007, 01:34 PM

FTA - wow, I wrote that almost a year ago. And I still feel the same way. I wouldn't invest in a business run with that model. Its a money loser every way I look at it.

FoolThemAll · 06-12-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

FTA - wow, I wrote that almost a year ago. And I still feel the same way. I wouldn't invest in a business run with that model. Its a money loser every way I look at it.

Me neither. But my point was that I don't think Telluride was endorsing such a model, just supporting its right to exist.

Telluride · 06-12-2007, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I'd support such business owners in the style of the famous Voltaire quote, adjusted for property rights. But I'd not knowingly give them my dollars.

I know it was a while and a name change ago, but I think you and Jazz read too much into Galt's comments. Or I'm reading too much into yours. Galt/Telluride as much says that he's not defending discrimination, but only the right to discriminate. While you might disagree with that as well, it's crucial that the difference is recognized. I speak at least for myself when I say that the latter is not inherently bigoted.

And yeah, needless to say, I disagree with the New Jersey bill.

Exactly. There's a big difference between supporting an activity (like smoking, drug use, discrimination, abortion, etc.) and supporting the right to engage in that activity.

Willravel · 06-12-2007, 07:45 PM

I would think that if it were a matter of safety, they should put aside their petty BS and do their job. If I was George W. Bush's doctor, I'd still keep him healthy. I might slip a laxative in a nearby bird-feeder every now and again, but my responsibility to his health supersedes my disappointment in his leadership.

Telluride · 06-12-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

FTA - wow, I wrote that almost a year ago. And I still feel the same way. I wouldn't invest in a business run with that model. Its a money loser every way I look at it.

Which "model" would that be? I never said anything about how I would personally run a business. My feelings on business ownership/management are actually very similar to yours.

Walking Shadow · 06-13-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Your scenarios fall under discrimination and, depending on laws on both state and federal levels can be grounds for at least lawsuits and possibly criminal charges. I for one, if found in any of those particular situations, would check out what rights I would have., especially in the rent scenario. No landlord, at least in the states here on the east coast, can discriminate against a potential renter at all. And, following the Denny's suit several years back, no restaurant can refuse service based on race or religious affiliation. That pharmacist should be ashamed of himself, really and I would have definitely filed a complaint there as well.
The only time I was a 'victim' of discrimination was at a job; the new store manager took me off the loading dock and 'replaced' me with a young man at more money. I filed a suit with the state EOE office, but the chain went bankrupt and I never collected.
If a repairman doesn't want to work on a car because of the political statements of some bumper stickers, I suppose he may have a right to refuse the work; however, there may be a fine line between saying, 'Sorry, I can't help you because my son is fighting in Iraq for your right to say he's a loser' and "Sorry, I can't help you because you're a gay jew'. One is simply a matter of conscience; the other is blatant bigotry. It would appear that pharmacist had both going against him and I would be very vocal to everyone I knew and to his boss about his stance. I personally would tell you to file a suit against the landlord who refused to rent to you. Seriously.

Oh great, yet another person who thinks that the answer to every problem in life is to file a lawsuit.

Ever been in a restaurant and seen a prominently displayed sign that reads: The owners and management of this establishment reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason.

That means they can turn you away for any/all of the following reasosn and you can't do dick about it:

You are black.

You are white.

You are plaid.

You are gay.

You are a lesbian.

You are a pre-post operative tri-sexual.

You aren't wearing shoes.

You are wearing shoes.

You aren't wearing a shirt.

You are wearing a shirt.

You smell like shit.

You smell like springtime in the French countryside.

(insert reason here)

Bottom line, they can refuse service and not only do they not have to say why, but you can't sue them.

Cynthetiq · 06-13-2007, 11:50 AM

really? someone better tell Denny's that...

http://news.google.com/archivesearch...64770378612765

Quote:

Denny's, a national restaurant chain, agreed today to pay more than $54 million to settle lawsuits filed by thousands of black customers who had been refused service or had been forced to wait longer or pay more than white customers. The new head of the civil rights division of ...

The_Jazz · 06-13-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Which "model" would that be? I never said anything about how I would personally run a business. My feelings on business ownership/management are actually very similar to yours.

Telluride, I think you've read too much into my comment. I meant that I wouldn't invest in a business that knowingly discriminated against anyone other than those who can't or won't pay for the goods/services. If you're running something that doesn't discriminate, I'd invest, assuming that you had a business I thought would suceed and make me more money.

FoolThemAll · 06-13-2007, 01:24 PM

Yep, private sector discrimination is often open to successful civil suits. It shouldn't be, but it often is.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
— H.L. Mencken

Many here would not hesitate to agree with this in regards to free speech, but free use of private property (barring possible external costs) is somehow an entirely different matter. Well, I don't see a relevant difference between the imaginary right not to be offended and the imaginary right not to be shunned. I should have as much autonomy over my real estate as I do over my vocal cords.

Denny's deserved scorn and a boycott, but not a government-enforced fine. They don't owe me a table and they don't owe you one, either.

dc_dux · 06-13-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Yep, private sector discrimination is often open to successful civil suits. It shouldn't be, but it often is.

WHy shouldn't it be? Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in "places of public accomodation" is against the law - Title II of the Civil RIghts Act of 1964:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

Sec 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

Sec. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

and when such discrimation occurs:
SEC. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited...., a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...w/civilr19.htm

Its the law.....and on at least two occasions, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the power of Congress under the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the civil rights of black (and all) Americans.

Ourcrazymodern? · 06-13-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

I suppose it's my fault for phrasing the question slightly differently in the title and in OP, but the question in the OP was whether it was appropriate to refuse service based on race, sexuality, etc.

It probably comes as no surprise that I strongly disagree with you here. I also suspect that this is a lot easier to say when you are in the class that is least likely to be targeted for discrimination.

Also, keep in mind that protected classes in civil rights legislation very seldom identify a specific minority group and are nearly always written in such a way as to protect the rights of the majority as well. Laws saying you cannot discriminate in housing and employment say, for example, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race. This protects blacks, Hispanics and whites. Orientation covers straight, gay, and bisexual people. Gender identity and expression covers both transgendered and cisgendered people. Sex covers both men and women.

Absolutely. Bigots are a protected class in the US.

Nonsense. In a civilized society, such bigotry shouldn't go unchallenged. I would hope that there would be a backlash and that your business would go under as a result.

I'm always flabbergasted by the claim that straight white males are oppressed in our society.

There are scholarships given to white people. They just happen to be set aside for a specific class of whites most of the time, Irish, Russian, Italian, Scottish. I had a scholarship going to college that you had to be the child or grandshild of a Russian immigrant to qualify for. There are scholarships given to males. I've seen a good number of scholarships given to one male and one female student who meet certain qualifications--my brother has one of these.

I've never heard of a scholarship given because one is wealthy, and that does seem foolish, but giving more scholarships to the poor than to the middle class makes perfect sense to me.

Catering to a specific group of people is different from discriminating against others. The former is fine, the latter is bigotry.

So minorities that are the target of discrimination should just accept it as the way things are?

Vocal advocacy is the only tactic that is consistently effective at gaining equal rights

I disagree. I think bigotry deserves no repsect, and should always be fought, opposed, and exposed for what it is.

Gilda

What if you discover you're bigotted against bigots? tic

FoolThemAll · 06-13-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

WHy shouldn't it be? Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in "places of public accomodation" is against the law - Title II of the Civil RIghts Act of 1964:

*snip*

Its the law.....and on at least two occasions, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the power of Congress under the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the civil rights of black (and all) Americans.

I don't dispute that it's the law. I'm saying that it shouldn't be. And I'm saying that admittance to private property of any kind - private residences or restaurants or what have you - is not a civil right, even if the Supreme Court says it is.

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 04:25 PM

How about a compromise: attendance to private property being denied based on race, gender, creed, orientation, etc. will be legal...
...but it's also legal to beat the shit out of people who do so?

I think that's a fair trade.

FoolThemAll · 06-13-2007, 04:27 PM

Uh, no.

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Uh, no.

Egg their house?

Maybe they could be bigots back to the bigots? Example:
Waiter: "We don't serve queers here. Get out."
Homosexual gentleman: "I hope you can go home to your wife/sister tonight and brag to her that you would serve a gay man a hamburger, you stupid Hick."

What do you suppose happens after that? Ass whooping. That's why I tried to offer than concession first. Any concession that allows bigotry has the potential to lead to a smack down, after all.

...or we can try to help society evolve.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-13-2007, 05:00 PM

although i think it is abhorrent to refuse services for moral reasons, i do accept it as their choice, so long as public funds (taxes) are not involved. government institutions and those who work for them are paid for by the people, and thus can't refuse service. however, if it is my own personal business, i can refuse service to anyone, and accept the consequences of such refusal, lost income, public shaming for being a bigot...

dc_dux · 06-13-2007, 05:08 PM

Dilbert.....can we put a sign on the restaurant saying police do not have to protect this establishment from crime....after all, police services are provided through tax dollars. Why should taxpayer money serve an institution that discriminates against some taxpayers?

Can we dig up the sidewalk in front of the establishment....paid for with taxpayer dollars? Turn off the streetlights in front?

FoolThemAll · 06-13-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Egg their house?

Maybe they could be bigots back to the bigots? Example:
Waiter: "We don't serve queers here. Get out."
Homosexual gentleman: "I hope you can go home to your wife/sister tonight and brag to her that you would serve a gay man a hamburger, you stupid Hick."

What do you suppose happens after that? Ass whooping. That's why I tried to offer than concession first. Any concession that allows bigotry has the potential to lead to a smack down, after all.

...or we can try to help society evolve.

No, don't go back to the silly 'concession', you nailed it just there. They can be bigots back to the bigots. It's not necessarily productive or right, but they should have that right as well. They can choose not to let bigots on their property.

But once unwelcome property damage occurs - say, a fist to the face - we're past discourtesy and onto intrusion. The hick being a dick doesn't grant you the right to harm him. He didn't deprive you of anything belonging to you, he only withheld his own. It's not 'equal' or 'fair' to respond to mere assclownery with violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Dilbert.....can we put a sign on the restaurant saying police do not have to protect this establishment from crime....after all, police services are provided through tax dollars. Why should taxpayer money serve an institution that discriminates against some taxpayers?

Can we dig up the sidewalk in front of the establishment....paid for with taxpayer dollars? Turn off the streetlights in front?

Sure, as long as you exempt the bigot from paying taxes.

He's not preventing anyone from using the sidewalk or the streetlights or the number 911, is he?

Dilbert1234567 · 06-13-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Dilbert.....can we put a sign on the restaurant saying police do not have to protect this establishment from crime....after all, police services are provided through tax dollars. Why should taxpayer money serve an institution that discriminates against some taxpayers?

Can we dig up the sidewalk in front of the establishment....paid for with taxpayer dollars? Turn off the streetlights in front?

no.

dc_dux · 06-13-2007, 05:36 PM

The only other alternative is to repeal the 14th amendment or elect a President who will appoint strict libertarian judges to the Supreme Court.

Good luck with either.

FoolThemAll · 06-13-2007, 05:44 PM

I don't see a need to repeal the 14th amendment. Entry into privately-owned restaurants isn't a civil right.

But yeah, that means we'd need a significantly more libertarian-leaning court. Probably a longshot.

Doesn't mean we're wrong.

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

No, don't go back to the silly 'concession', you nailed it just there. They can be bigots back to the bigots. It's not necessarily productive or right, but they should have that right as well. They can choose not to let bigots on their property.

That was the point originally, but it wasn't clear enough (or I hadn't finished the thought). People have the right to be bigots in their head, or maybe even in their words.... but refusing service is an action. They are moving from philosophy to practice. That's a problem, because bigotry is negative and destructive. It's not limiting speech to say, "you can think or say what you will, but doing whatever you want isn't a part of a free society. There are limits to reasonable actions." It's not my right to force someone else to think everyone is made equal, though I'll do my best through my own practice of free speech. They can use derogatory language, even. Unless you're Imus. But when that extra step is taken into action, a line has been crossed.

I'm saying the line is crossed at the action of kicking out, well before the fist fight.

FoolThemAll · 06-13-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm saying the line is crossed at the action of kicking out, well before the fist fight.

This discussion is probably coming to a standstill, then, but just to reiterate: I don't see how the line could be crossed by the act of refusing something that is yours to give or to refuse. I don't see any key difference between fining the bigot restaurant owner and fining the bigot grandpa who gives presents to all but the mixed-race grandchild. It's a terrible thing to do, and it's also none of the government's business.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-13-2007, 06:24 PM

denying is a passive action, if I don't offer Willravel service at my computer shop, that's not infringing on his rights, there are plenty of other places that will take his business, but if I hit Willravel with a rock and tell him to get out, that is wrong, that infringes on his rights. Conversely, if I worked at the DMV, and refused Willravel service, that would be wrong, the DMV is state owned, and the state can not discriminate.

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

This discussion is probably coming to a standstill, then, but just to reiterate: I don't see how the line could be crossed by the act of refusing something that is yours to give or to refuse.

Would you say that to a surgeon? "No brain surgery for you, you're black!"
That's not how services work. You sell, they have money. When McDonalds says no shoes no shirt no service, at least there's a sanitation consideration.

Would you support the pharmaceutical who refused to sell AIDS medication to gays? Would you support the electricity company who shuts off the power to all legal Mexican families?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I don't see any key difference between fining the bigot restaurant owner and fining the bigot grandpa who gives presents to all but the mixed-race grandchild. It's a terrible thing to do, and it's also none of the government's business.

It's about equal rights. All men are created equal. That's it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

denying is a passive action, if I don't offer Willravel service at my computer shop, that's not infringing on his rights, there are plenty of other places that will take his business, but if I hit Willravel with a rock and tell him to get out, that is wrong, that infringes on his rights. Conversely, if I worked at the DMV, and refused Willravel service, that would be wrong, the DMV is state owned, and the state can not discriminate.

...this is because of the 9/11 stuff, isn't it....

FoolThemAll · 06-13-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Would you say that to a surgeon? "No brain surgery for you, you're black!"

*snip*

Would you support the pharmaceutical who refused to sell AIDS medication to gays? Would you support the electricity company who shuts off the power to all legal Mexican families?

It's about equal rights. All men are created equal. That's it.

Yes, yes, and yes, assuming these are all private enterprises. That assumption might not be correct, no?

Of course, emergency services should make their policies on bigotry ABUNDANTLY clear to the public, so that no time is wasted driving to the 'wrong' hospital.

It's not about equal rights. We're not talking about anything to which anyone has a right, we're talking about permission to step onto private property. You do Not have a right to that permission.

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Yes, yes, and yes, assuming these are all private enterprises. That assumption might not be correct, no?

Kaiser is private, and it's where I go. Pharmaceutical companies are private. PG&E is private corporation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Of course, emergency services should make their policies on bigotry ABUNDANTLY clear to the public, so that no time is wasted driving to the 'wrong' hospital.

'Should'? What right do you have to make them put up a 'we reserve the right to refuse service" sign at the hospital?

Sorry, that just doesn't work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

It's not about equal rights. We're not talking about anything to which anyone has a right, we're talking about permission to step onto private property. You do Not have a right to that permission.

We have money, money buys goods and services. Unless you're talking about a weapon, it's money for goods or services.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-13-2007, 07:03 PM

I’m a libertarian capitalist at heart; the market will take care of itself with little or no government intervention. If some idiots decide not to serve a minority, someone will step up and cater to that small niche market, and all will be well. The government has to step in some times, like in the south during the civil rights movement, but in that case, the city government was part of the discrimination, not just the people of the city.

FoolThemAll · 06-14-2007, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Kaiser is private, and it's where I go. Pharmaceutical companies are private. PG&E is private corporation.

No public funding, no product confiscation.

Quote:

'Should'? What right do you have to make them put up a 'we reserve the right to refuse service" sign at the hospital?

Sorry, that just doesn't work.

Perhaps if it's a community where discrimination is a known norm. Otherwise, you rightly assume that a hospital will take any patient in need of emergency care. That's what hospitals do. If they don't make it clear that they're an anomaly, it's effectively false advertising. False advertising with likely deadly consequences.

Quote:

We have money, money buys goods and services. Unless you're talking about a weapon, it's money for goods or services.

An exchange requires two willing participants or it's not an exchange, it's theft.

Cynthetiq · 06-14-2007, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Kaiser is private, and it's where I go. Pharmaceutical companies are private. PG&E is private corporation.

'Should'? What right do you have to make them put up a 'we reserve the right to refuse service" sign at the hospital?

Sorry, that just doesn't work.

We have money, money buys goods and services. Unless you're talking about a weapon, it's money for goods or services.

Most Pharmaceutical companies are public companies, traded on NYSE or NASDAQ, PG&E is also a public company.

Kaiser Permanente is a not for profit company.

If you are referring to them not being a government organization, that is public sector versus private sector, but there is still a distinction wherein laws are different for publicly traded companies versus privately held companies.

Willravel · 06-14-2007, 07:02 AM

Yes, I meant private sector. Also "Not for profit" doesn't mean they don't want profits. I work for a non-profit myself.

07-20-2006, 04:58 AM	#46 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	For the record, I will never invest in a business run by Galt, especially one supplying goods and services to the masses. Discriminating against anyone because of race, creed, sexual preferrence, etc. is a sure way to failure. Discriminate against those who can't or won't buy from you, but cater to those who can. If I listened to my brother, I would only do business with neocons and born agains and would soon be looking for another job. Again, green is the only color that matters. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-12-2007, 12:35 PM	#48 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	[QUOTE=ngdawg]If a repairman doesn't want to work on a car because of the political statements of some bumper stickers, I suppose he may have a right to refuse the work; The police who protect and serve felt okay about objecting to one of my stickers several months ago...and all it says is 'the road to hell is paved with republicans' AND it covers a 'say NO to war with Iraq' sticker, after that became irrelevant. P.S. The police stopped me because they thought I was someone else. Imagine that. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

06-12-2007, 01:34 PM	#50 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	FTA - wow, I wrote that almost a year ago. And I still feel the same way. I wouldn't invest in a business run with that model. Its a money loser every way I look at it. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-13-2007, 01:24 PM	#58 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Yep, private sector discrimination is often open to successful civil suits. It shouldn't be, but it often is. "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H.L. Mencken Many here would not hesitate to agree with this in regards to free speech, but free use of private property (barring possible external costs) is somehow an entirely different matter. Well, I don't see a relevant difference between the imaginary right not to be offended and the imaginary right not to be shunned. I should have as much autonomy over my real estate as I do over my vocal cords. Denny's deserved scorn and a boycott, but not a government-enforced fine. They don't owe me a table and they don't owe you one, either. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

06-13-2007, 04:27 PM	#63 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Uh, no. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

06-12-2007, 07:45 PM	#53 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I would think that if it were a matter of safety, they should put aside their petty BS and do their job. If I was George W. Bush's doctor, I'd still keep him healthy. I might slip a laxative in a nearby bird-feeder every now and again, but my responsibility to his health supersedes my disappointment in his leadership.

06-13-2007, 04:25 PM	#62 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	How about a compromise: attendance to private property being denied based on race, gender, creed, orientation, etc. will be legal... ...but it's also legal to beat the shit out of people who do so? I think that's a fair trade.

06-13-2007, 05:00 PM	#65 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	although i think it is abhorrent to refuse services for moral reasons, i do accept it as their choice, so long as public funds (taxes) are not involved. government institutions and those who work for them are paid for by the people, and thus can't refuse service. however, if it is my own personal business, i can refuse service to anyone, and accept the consequences of such refusal, lost income, public shaming for being a bigot... __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-13-2007, 05:08 PM	#66 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Dilbert.....can we put a sign on the restaurant saying police do not have to protect this establishment from crime....after all, police services are provided through tax dollars. Why should taxpayer money serve an institution that discriminates against some taxpayers? Can we dig up the sidewalk in front of the establishment....paid for with taxpayer dollars? Turn off the streetlights in front? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-13-2007, 05:36 PM	#69 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The only other alternative is to repeal the 14th amendment or elect a President who will appoint strict libertarian judges to the Supreme Court. Good luck with either. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-13-2007, 05:44 PM	#70 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	I don't see a need to repeal the 14th amendment. Entry into privately-owned restaurants isn't a civil right. But yeah, that means we'd need a significantly more libertarian-leaning court. Probably a longshot. Doesn't mean we're wrong. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

06-13-2007, 06:24 PM	#73 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	denying is a passive action, if I don't offer Willravel service at my computer shop, that's not infringing on his rights, there are plenty of other places that will take his business, but if I hit Willravel with a rock and tell him to get out, that is wrong, that infringes on his rights. Conversely, if I worked at the DMV, and refused Willravel service, that would be wrong, the DMV is state owned, and the state can not discriminate. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-13-2007, 07:03 PM	#77 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	I’m a libertarian capitalist at heart; the market will take care of itself with little or no government intervention. If some idiots decide not to serve a minority, someone will step up and cater to that small niche market, and all will be well. The government has to step in some times, like in the south during the civil rights movement, but in that case, the city government was part of the discrimination, not just the people of the city. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-14-2007, 07:02 AM	#80 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Yes, I meant private sector. Also "Not for profit" doesn't mean they don't want profits. I work for a non-profit myself.