Do service providers have the right to refuse service on moral grounds?
 

The title is the basic question. Under what circumstances should a service provider who serves the general public be permitted to refuse service to an otherwise qualified custormer on the basis of moral objection to something about that person. I'm going to list a few examples, both real life and hypothetical, but by no means do I mean for these to be the sole subject of discussion. I'm more interested in whether there is a general rule that can be applied or if it's entirely situational, and if so, what differentiates one situation from another, other than agreeing with the moral stance of the professional?

Would it be appropriate to refuse to

• service a car with an anti/pro war bumper sticker?
  
• service a car with a Jesus/Darwin fish?
  
• fill a prescription for contraceptives?
  
• fill a prescription for female hormones for a male customer?
  
• rent an apartment to a gay/straight couple with excellent credit?
  
• give a good grade on a paper that was well-written but promotes a morally offensive point of view?
  
• serve a Muslum/Christian/Jewish couple/customer at a restaurant or store?
  
• rent a hotel room to a mixed race couple?

Under what circumstances is it appropriate to refuse service based on moral objections?

~

To start the discussion, I've been on the receiving end of a few of these, particularly the apartment scenario and the female hormones. While looking for a short term apartment while our condo was being renovated, we found that vacancies tended to disappear quite quickly when it was a lesbian couple attempting to rent the apartment. We ended up at an Extended Stay America, where they didn't give a damn. It was frustrating for us and didn't make sense in that we would have been nearly ideal tenants; quiet, orderly, prepay the entire time staying there upfront.

We also ran into the problem of a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for hormones for sexual reassignment. It again seems at best foolish, as they pharmacy would be giving up a $200 a month customer just in hormones alone, not to mention that they lost all future prescriptions from us and from their friends.

From a business perspective, it seems foolish. From an ethical perspective, it's more difficult to come to a conclusion, because it's difficult to separate that we see the moral/ethical issue in both cases as non-existent.

So, while I think as a general rule moral considerations should be kept separate from public services, I'm not sure that I can say with 100% certainty that there is no circumstance where I'd refuse service as a service provider. But I'm not sure where, or even if it's possible, to draw that line objectively.

Gilda

Initially, I was going to say that while I may completely disagree with the concept of not providing service to everyone equally, as American business owners, that's one of the rights they have.

However, there's a point where it easily becomes "Bigotry in Action", which shouldn't be tolerated, although providing effective legislation with be difficult at best. Which is not to say it shouldn't be attempted, as it happens to go against *my* own moral code to allow that to happen, especially without saying anything. Silence implies consent!

I can't even imagine what place a person who would refuse to provide sexual reassignment hormones would have working in a pharmacy.

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.

And most often bigotry/bias is foolish. While it is easy to dislike the scenarios you describe, it is easier to dislike local, state or federal governemnts mandating that people can't make these choices.

I personally take the utilitarian approach to this. They miss out on good business. If they are so strong in their beliefs they are willing to miss out on the business they risk the chance of losing out to people who aren't willing to.

My sympathies are with you in your troubles with finding an apartement and the perscriptions. However there is a tendancy on both sides in America to pressure our morals on each other.

Those people believe in their morals so much they are willing to give up lots of money each month to stick with it. They do not cause you direct harm, they do not come to you and verbally or physically degrade you. They simply dont deal with you, and thus you dont deal with them. Simply decrying those people as bigots does not work, as you would not do business with the KKK I'm sure. Under a "truely" tolerant society we would service neo-nazis the same as Mother Teresa. The business may be great, but the moral fiber of the individual would be decimated.

Please dont infer that I am stating that lesbians are on the same level of neo-nazis. I'm simply trying to draw parallels, though extreme cases can be dangerous. What I'm attempting to show is the sliding scale of morality. That I have no doubt anyone here would support a business that refuses to service a neo-nazi or KKK group in their home town. It gets very blurry with other moral issues

The line should definately be drawn in humanitarian cases. In cases such as a hospital refusing medical treatment for a trans-sexual, this should not be tolerated. The choice to perform a trans-gender operation, however, should be up to the doctors or hospitals in my opinion.

What you must understand is the power that you as an individual have on said places. They lose your money directly by refusing service. However local and national news teams drool at the chances to "uncover" situations like this. The news coverage could in-turn create pressure from once loyal customers, and very often "mysteriously" is followed by audits from the state, local, or national agencies.

As I said, they have the right to refuse service, but you have the right to stand up and fight back.

Yeah, as unattractive as bigotry is, at least in these cases it's self-defeating. If I say, "I refuse to take your money on principle," then I better hope I'm in the majority on that! And, guess what... mostly I'm not. Before long I'll be dealing with a large mass of people who won't give me their money on principle, and then I'm stuffed.

Hmmm I got refused to be seated at a Dennys in Indiana once cause of that reason. They didn’t outright say it, but I just got ignored.

I really don’t think they should be allowed to do this, especially if it a public company, made up of a plethora of owners with several different few views that come from several different backgrounds. When you open a business you have to realize that you are open to the PUBLIC and not the people that you want to serve. If you cant handle that, well then don't open shop.

Personally I don't shop at certain stores cause of their politics or whom they have as a spokesperson, but I feel that is an individuals right, and not that of an organization.

Technically, there are no such thing as "sexual reassignment hormones." The hormones used for MTF sexual reassignment were designed for treatment of post-menopausal and post-hysterectomy women. For MTF reassignement, they're given in 2 to 4 times the dose that adult women would get. For example, most post-menopausal women will use a 50 mcg patch, while transsexual women will use two 100 mcg patches.

The primary anti-androgen is technically a high blood pressure medicine that has the side effect of lowering androgen levels. Endocrinologists prescribe the medicine for that effect, again in a significantly higher dose than what most hypertensive men get.

Otherwise, I'd agree completely, it makes little sense. I think it's an extension of homophobia, thought that makes little sense as gender identity and orientation are separate issues, and in our case Sissy is very straight. It made little difference in our case, as there were literally dozens of pharmacies in town, it was just inconvenient.

Keep in mind I don't want this to be solely a discussion of my experiences, but a examination of the idea of what role morality should play in deciding who should and should not get services.

Gilda

I think it should provide no role at all.

Service providers aren't allowed to refuse service over race, sex and handicap, right? I think your personal morality falls into the same category.

You're in the service industry...deal with it.

In your examples, the answer to the pharmacist question is yes. A pharmacist is allowed to refuse on moral grounds as long as you're able to fill it elsewhere (and they must allow you to have the prescription back if you've given it to them already and they don't fill it)... which means that as long as any pharmacy exists anywhere, they can technically refuse and it's not discrimination.

I think "right" is a tough word to use here. Some forms of discrimination may be no more than poor business decisions- not taking business from, say, purple people because you don't like purple people. Those are private businesses. So really, the private business owners, as bigotted as they are, are only screwing themselves out of money, but I don't think any actual law is being broken (as I understand it).

Public services and accomodations, however, and stuff run/paid for by the government, are definitely open to everyone, and there would be no place for discrimination.

My EMT professor put it very bluntly to my class, when the subject of discrimination came up at the beginning of the semester. She said if anyone had any sort of bias or discriminatory feelings towards any kind of people, we'd better either leave the business, or get rid of it immediately. Because, "when you're standing over a patient who needs your help... no matter what color, religion, or sexual orientation they may be- we all bleed red."

In Maleficent's World:
If it's the business owner of a private business, they can decide who they will and won't provide a service for... They must clearly state, at the entrance what their rules are. I, as the consumer, can decide to patronize them or not. I'd be willing to bet they won't stay in business for long. Money talks a lot louder than people do...

If it's the employee of a business that has decided they will serve all, well the employee has a choice to work there or not... The employee doesn't get to make the rules as to who they do and dont provide service for.

I hear more and more about pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills for unmarried women, I'd almost like to see free standing pharmacies done away with, and have the pharmacy be directly related to the doctor's office... if the doctor writes a prescription, it gets filled. What if the private pharmacist is a health freak and thinks that high blood pressure can be lowered thru diet and exercise only.. so he doesn't fill prescriptions? pretty much any prescription out there, someone could have an objection to.

If a person objects to the business practices of a particular place, then they shouldn't patronize them...

We asked Sissy, and she wanted to just get her hormones as quietly as possible. She didn't want to go advertising her status and making an issue of it, which I completely understand. The laws at the time, late 2003 did provide for civil rights protection for gender identity and expression, and the existing sexual discrimination laws probably would have covered it.

We wrote a letter of complaint to the store manager and the district manager for that chain, explaining exactly what had occurred and that we would no longer be customers of any store in that chain for any of our needs, and that we had told our friends of our treatment and most of them were going to be taking their business elsewhere.

The rent thing was definitely illegal, as it's been illegal to discriminate in California in housing, education, and employment on the basis of orientation since the early 90's, but we had little to no proof. Vacancies simply disappeared once it became clear exactly who was applying to rent the apartment. It was for such a short period of time that it would have been a moot point by the time the suit came to court.

Here we've had no problems. When we rented a condo while waiting on construction of our house, they didn't blink, and the pharmacy didn't blink, though now they'd have no reason to with a female name on ther prescription, thought the pharmacist did call Sissy's doctor to confirm the estradiol prescription when she saw the dosage (it's double the normal highest recommended dosage for post hysterectomy women), but there was no problem after that.

I disagree with this, at least in regards to the issues in the OP, but rather than sidetrack the thread into that debate, I'll just leave it at that.

There's a very obvious and real difference here. A person going through sexual reassignement or having sex with a person of the same sex does not affect outsiders and causes no harm to anyone. The KKK actively seek to harm others through their actions.

That it does, though I don't see orientation as a moral issue, which is why I listed other potential examples.

It shouldn't be, but it has and does happen. Check out the movie Southern Comfort. Robert Eads was refused treatment for cancer by more than 20 doctors in succession, and was too far along for treatment to be effective by the time he found a doctor who would treat him.

Or course. It's a niche specialty performed by only a half-dozen surgeons in North America as it is.
I understand that, but did not want to make my sister's life any more difficlut than it already was.

Gilda

I'm in agreement with about half of the posters on this. Unless federal or state funds are involved with your business, you should be able to serve whatever clientele you choose. If your choices piss off enough people to wreck your business, then it's your own fault. However, if there's enough of a niche clientele to keep your business afloat, then more power to you.

In most cases, a rule of thumb always seems to capture the essence of an activity while a law destroys it. And in this case, the rule of thumb would be "If the ledger is not important to you, then serve/don't serve whomever you choose. However, if the balance sheet is critical in your business, you'd better learn how to swallow your pride and your tongue."

No government official should have to create punitive legislation to force business owners to follow this simple, basic activity. Let the market handle it.

Another interesting question would be "What would you do if service was denied to you based on some of the reasons listed above?" My answer is simple - get mad and go someplace else. I don't need to involve lawyers or congressmen in that decision. I'm a big boy now.

I agree with pretty much this whole post.

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

Gilda

I'll just comment on the perscription issue. No f-in way. It may not be an inconvenience in the city to go somewhere else but there are plenty of cities where there is only one place to get your meds. It's wrong to make someone drive 50 miles to get their meds. If you want to sell perscription medication, you need to sell everything the doctors write perscriptions for.

Businesses have enough rules and regulations.

They should be allowed to pick and choose who their clientele is or is not especially when one can choose another location to get their needs filled.

While that may well work in a city of 8 million people a city of 10,000 it may not.

I can only answer for myself:

As a provider of a good or service, I am not in the role of judge. I sell to those that are willing and able to pay without prejudice. Of course I deal ina product that is mearly for entertainment purpouses, so my product does not carry the stigma of guns or birth control or religion.

I agree with most everyone else that in the case of private businesses, they are free to serve whomever they choose, to their own financial detriment.

And to add to the discussion re: residential landlord issues. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 included a section concerning Fair Housing. The Act has been added to and clarified over the years and currently says:

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).

Of course there are exceptions to any rule. In your case Sultana, it is hard to tell from your info if the landlord's actions were illegal, but they certainly could have been.



(b) Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c) shall apply to--
(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any time: Provided further, That in the case of the sale of any such single family house by a private
{{6-30-05 p.6988.01}}individual owner not residing in such house at the time of such sale or who was not the most recent resident of such house prior to such sale, the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply only with respect to one such sale within any twenty-four month period: Provided further, That such bona fide private individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on his behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this title only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in a violation of section 804(c) of this title; but nothing in the proviso shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title, or
(2) rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.
(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this section, a person shall be deemed to be in the business of selling or renting dwellings if--
(1) he has, within the preceding twelve months, participated as principal in three or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any dwelling or any interest therein, or
(2) he has, within the preceding twelve months, participated as agent, other than in the sale of his own personal residence in providing sales or rental facilities or sales or rental services in two or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any dwelling or any interest therein, or
(3) he is the owner of any dwelling designed or intended for occupancy by, or occupied by, five or more families.



Subsection c, mentioned above, involves advertising. So even if you are the owner of a single family home and do not employ an agent to lease the property, you are not allowed to advertise in a manner that is in violation of the Fair Housing Law.

FYI, I have been 'shopped' by government agents before. They call on advertisements and ask very leading questions trying to get you to somehow disqualify them based on the sound of their voice or babies crying in the background. What I do, and I recommend this to my clients, is make a very specific list of criteria that they want in their tenants. Employed? How long? Where? Credit history, past landlord references, outstanding debts. These are all very legitimate questions to ask. If the person/persons meet these criteria who cares if they are black, white, disabled, gay, Jewish or whatever? If people want me to discriminate, I just tell them they need to rent the property out themselves.

BTW, in the case of commercial property rentals, I can rent or not rent to whomever I want. I have 'discriminated' in cases and not been proud of it, but it was the best business decision for me at the time.

I own a service business and I choose to refuse service under my own code of what is right or wrong, none of which are covered under Gilda's examples. One's religion, ethnicity, or significant other are simply irrelevant to the service we provide.

I refuse service to slum landlords who only want a quick and dirty job, or are attempting to use us to burn a tenant. Similarly, I refuse service to anyone who is trying to cheat someone else. "Do unto others" plays a big part when I fire a customer. I will not tolerate anyone being obnoxious to my service technicians. Their work is difficult enough without needing to dodge a grope or deal with verbal abuse. Dayum, I'm getting ticked off just thinking about some of the bs we no longer tolerate. I guess my bottom line is that I do not serve assholes, and they are not a protected class.

Interesting since the familial status part seemed to escape that township who stated that the couple needed to be married in order to be within the law, AND passed a new city ordinance stating as such.

damn can't find the thread now....

I understand how someone would feel they are encouraging someone's lifestyle by providing them drugs specifically for sexual re-assignment purpose when they are morally against it. By refusing service, yes they are losing some business but they still have their morals which are more important to them. The problem with this is that their morals are hurting, offending, and promoting more discrimination. This is why I think the Fair Housing Act should be expanded to all markets and to specifically include gay couples, transgenders and whoever else is currently being discriminated against.
With this law, The Guy that denied service on his moral issue can sleep soundly knowing that he hasn't willingly encouraged some 'sin' and everyone else gets the service they deserve.

I'm morally handicapped so I'm sure those with crazy morals(imo) would fight this all the way. It's sad that we live in a world where we need laws JUST to make people treat others fairly.

So if you owned a gunstore and a bunch of known KKK members all came in to buy guns at the same time as say... a NAACP rally was being planned. You would grant them service?

Exactly my point in my post.

I was going to ask something similar but you have already.

A private business can reserve the right to do business with whomever they wish.


That said, in a situation where there *are* other businesses to take your money to, this is acceptable. The market should deal with those who discriminate by shrinking their business. However, as this sort of discrimination becomes the norm, what then?

I don't think it was a Law that blacks couldn't eat at lunch counters, it was just accepted practice (even if it was a law let's just assume it wasn't for sake of the argument). If all of the lunch counters in town decide that they aren't going to let blacks eat there, this is a problem.

Now we could say, that the market will sort them out but is that enough? Sometimes laws are neccessary to bring about change. The key, as always, is when are laws neccessary?

No, I'm not opposed at all.

In order to make sense, even the simplest rules require some human judgment. Context is as vital in law as it is in life, and I believe laws can never cover every eventuality. Therefore, I don't struggle with the (seeming) dichotomy of my necessity for laws of equal housing and employment and my abhorrence of any laws of behavior and manners among service providers.

Common sense requires us to accept the idea that everything can't be regulated into perfection, and the more precise we try to make laws, the more loopholes we create. Every decision involves benefits and risks, and every single situation is different. Judgment and balancing are always required, and the words of law can never provide the final wisdom.

Preventing a crime, and discrimination aren't the same thing. I wouldn't sell 4-5 items on a "meth ingredient list" to someone I know is a drug addict, and I wouldn't loan a gun to a homicidal person. However, Being gay isn't a crime.

Being in the KKK doesnt mean they will commit a crime. You're applying your beliefs onto others, without getting to know them personally. You're doing exactly what all the examples are doing. The only difference is that when others do it it should be illegal, when you do it you're doing it for the good of your society.

Yes fuckin way, unfortunately.

Certainly it's wrong, though not to them, but "wrong" is not the same thing as "illegal".

Actually, that's not at all the case, and that would be a very dangerous thing to do.

To begin with, if the pharmacist detects a negative consequence or reaction of taking a particular medication, either in conjunction with another or based on the patient's unique health situations, they are bound by their license NOT to dispense the medication, pending verification with the prescribing doctor. Pharmacists do not just sit and hand out every drug for which they're given a prescription. You wouldn't believe how often a doctor will write a precription for medication X when the patient is allergic to that medication. If the pharmacy knows, the doctor should have that information as well- sometimes, they do not (there are a variety of reasons for this which I won't waste time explaining).

Secondly, and more to the point, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to fill a prescription based on moral conflict. That means they can refuse birth control, the "morning after" pill (PlanB), whatever they want, on the grounds of moral objection.

No, this is not a perfect scenario, but consider this point- to some people, any birth control is morally wrong. Therefore, you'd be forcing a pharmacist to violate their beliefs to fill your prescription. To some people, the "morning after" pill may as well be an abortion, and they object to that as well.

This is a matter of rights. For one, protecting the rights of the pharmacist to not be forced to violate their moral code to serve another. Does it suck? Sure. The flip side of that rights-coin is that the patient has the right to their prescription being returned, if such a refusal is made, or given to another pharmacist on staff who IS willing to fill it, OR if no pharmacist on premises will fill it, there must be another place to fill it or they can be compelled to fill it. I can't remember how far away "another place" can be, but it's a distance. I've heard of people driving 2 hours to fill birth control. When I say "compelled to fill it", I don't mean by you- you'd have to file a report against the pharmacist with the state medical board to effect that change, if at all.

It isn't right, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it. A privately-owned business should have the right to serve or refuse to serve anyone they want. The public should be made aware of discriminatory practices, and I would hope that they vote with their wallets on these issues. If nothing else, it will help to expose hatred and discrimination that normally goes unnoticed and unaddressed.

On the other hand, someone like a doctor or pharmacist who promises to serve the public good (do pharmacists have to take an oath like doctors do?) has a right to refuse services that he/she feels are immoral, but should inform the patient of the nearest place at which to obtain those services.

I have some hope that if we were forced to lay our prejudices on the table for all to see, people would start to udnerstand how absurd they are and discard archaic, judgmental opinions.

My parents are landlords, and have had homosexual couples among their list of options for tennants. Gilda, your case was unique. If there were no comparably financed straight couples going for the same location, they would have chosen you.

Here are some red flags that have prevented them from renting to those with an alternative lifestyle in the past:

no proof of income
declared income insufficient to pay rent regularly
debt-to-income ratio too great
substandard credit rating
unwilling to become registered domestic partners
unwilling to have both names on the lease
unwilling to sign a year lease (they won't rent short-term)

There are several factors that are considered when choosing a tennant. Landlords have many facts to consider. Usually they have several more applicants than they could ever place.

Now, as for the other scenarios, I have no experience, and therefore cannot make an argument.

I do think that when someone has a characteristic that sets them out from a crowd, they assume everyone sees it and hates it. Maybe everyone does see it. Probably most don't. Most sound-minded individuals can't base their interactions on stereotypes or bigotry - it is illogical. People are people.

*Car servicing... most people use small business owners for such...I have 7 bumper stickers on my car one saying "Get A Taste Of Religion... Lick A Witch" I have never had a problem... my money means more than my point of view it seems.
*See above.
*One never knows... I was on "The Pill" for nearly 10 years to control bleeding so severe I almost died... I wasnt having sex 90% of the time I was on it. How do they know why you are taking it?
*Perhaps this customer has a severe hormonal imbalance? Sometimes female hormones are prescribed for violent male sexual offenders to curb their testosterone overload.
*How do I know they are gay? Maybe they are just best friends? Shackin up saves a butt load of cash! So what if they ARE gay? I am sure they will give you great fashion advise and teach you how to dance for craps and grins. Homosexual people make awesome friends!
*Teachers take diversity training and if they cant handle the job and the heartache it brings they should GET OUT. The class room is NO place for a role model to teach intolerance, kids get enough of that in the real world.
*Who cares what religion someone is?? They came to the restaurant for food not a mass! I being pagan face christians every day at the bank... I ask them often how church was and the sermon. I do not think less of them for their faith. It is a choice and no reason for me to hate them....
*Mixed race couple.... SO? I may not date someone of a particular race for whatever reason, but if Susie wants to date King Tut I am not going to lose any sleep over it. More power to her and they can STILL come to the neighborhood BBQ... TOGETHER.... WITH their children if they like...

If people spent as much time worrying about themselves as they did worrying about what everyone else was doing and why the world would be a much better and more understanding place.

Live and let live, die and let die. Just please dont get any blood on the carpet... its not easy to get out.

Here ya go...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103902

Yes, if it is a private owner and he maintains that stance nondiscriminately... i.e. a rich man driving a Hummer and a middle to lower class man driving a Pontiac both have identical stickers, yet, he'll serve the man with the Hummer.

While the 1st ammednment protects the right to free speech, it does not mean someone has to be served by a PRIVATELY owned company, if that owner chooses to not serve based on that speech.

No, he may not religious belief is an inalienable right.

Yes, but again the company policy must apply to ALL people equally, and the pharmacy must be privately owned. NO, if the pharmacist acts out on his own and has no direct influence or ownership.


No, because equal housing is protected, what 2 adults do in the privacy of their own place is up to them.

It depends, what was the topic about, and by whom is the topic morally offensive to?

If the student followed all guidelines then he deserves to be graded unbiasedly, if the student wrote off topic for shock value only, then he should be graded for such.

No, again, religious belief is an inalienable right.

No, racial discrimination is illegal.

See, I have issues with this. This is a great question Gilda.

Personally, I feel a PRIVATE owner of a non essential business should have the right to serve or refuse service to anyone they wish. However, a PUBLICLY traded company has no right to discriminate at all.

Oh man, the only thing I can mention is a personal experience with teachers grading and why I'm grateful that they grade very unbiasedly.

To graduate in Texas you have to take the TAKS test, which is the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Apart of that test is a portion where you have to write a persuasive paper on some subject that they give. It's really kind of a "Here's a topic, give me a story about it"

Well, when I took it in the 11th grade my essay prompt was "Describe the importance of acceptance" and you know, everyone's writing how it's important. Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, etc. all have a bone to pick most likely, same with Gay/Lesbian/Transexuals, etc. Me on the other hand, a White Anglo-Saxon from a protestant family had nothing worth while to talk about, so I wrote an essay on that it was unimportant to accept others, even to the point that we shouldn't accept people of different races and stuff for a myriad of reasons. Essentially I regurgitated a documentary on Neo-Nazis in America that I saw on the History channel a few days before.

Oh boy.

That seriously pissed off my English teacher. Luckily, though, she was one of those "I don't accept what you say, but I'll defend your right to the death to blah blah blah." That essay as it turns out was 50% of my final exam grade in that class. Thank God she was one of those Voltairians and I pulled off a 95 on that half because hey, I can write a really persuasive essay on why whites are the superior race apparently.

Anyway, I think a teacher _has_ to grade completely unbiasedly to be fair. If it's not, they're basically impressing morality on their students in a situation where that shouldn't apply in aniy way shape or form.

Grace and I were registered domestic partners in California at the time, and we were looking at places that rented month to month. Our combined income was in the six figure range and we had excellent credit and debt to income ratio. One of the places that turned us down had rented an apartment to me as a single for six months.

We're landlords, too and much of that list is common sense, but I'm curious as to the bolded part, being registered domestic partners. Why does this have a negative effect on willingness to rent to a couple?

Gilda

Personally, I think that the one great equalizer in this country in the last 50 years has been the realization that the color green is the most important. Anyone who won't take your money really doesn't deserve it and you should make sure that you tell everyone you know just like you would if they had stolen from you. As a service provider (of sorts), I really don't care what you do in your free time or what you look like so long as your check clears. Sure I have my own inate prejustices (chiefly Florida and Alabama fans), but even then I still only care if you're going to help send my kid to college.

I find it interesting to see some of these responses. But here's my chime-in...

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'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. 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. 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. 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. This type of "reverse discrimination", while I detest the verbiage, is actually a downfall for "minoirities". I've said this for years... the WORST way to try to be equal is by demanding special treatment under the law. If I go for an apartment and a chinese owner turns me down because I'm white (no proof involved), I am SOL. If I'm black and a white owner turns me down for a GOOD reason (some proof involved), I could still likely win a suit in this country based on racial grounds. It's bullshit, plain and simple!

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.

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*

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.

See, this is actually why I believe that affirmative action should be legal, outside of the public sector (where you aren't free to take your business elsewhere). I'm against it, but I think that business owners have a right to implement it if they wish to. Is it legally mandated affirmative action that you're against?

I've never heard the term used outside of legally mandated affirmative action. Yes, I'm against it entirely if forced upon business owners. Aside from the levying of tax, and some other basic business principles, I believe businesses in the US should be allowed to operate, more or less, as they see fit. I also don't believe anymore that unions are beneficial, nor is minimum wage. They were designed for a time long since past. *sigh*

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.

This will work in many places, but there are still many, many towns in America where it is still very much a problem.

And, taking that into consideration, I don't think Gilda lives in a very uptight area- and still had issues.

Separate- no, pharmacists don't take oaths, but their licenses have those (stated earlier) requirements and rights built in.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

apparently some new legislation to make it right:

[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.:thumbsup:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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, 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.

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?

no.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

No public funding, no product confiscation.

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.

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

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.

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

We had an issue not long ago here in Mpls/St. Paul where the Muslim cab-drivers were refusing to carry certain passengers.
People in the service industry refusing to provide service probably belong somewhere else.

I have to disagree with you here. The job of the government is to protect the rights of citizens. In a free country citizens may choose to exercise their individual rights in a way that others find politically incorrect, bigoted or otherwise distasteful. That doesn't mean the government can refuse to do its job.

On the other hand, I would consider supporting your idea just to see the astonished look on the peoples' faces when all forms of taxpayer support is denied to certain businesses, universities and even the government itself due to their discriminatory affirmative action policies. :p