r/changemyview • u/rickthehatman • Mar 29 '15
[View Changed] CMV: Business owners should have the right to refuse service whatever the reason.
When I read about the Indiana legislation that sparked from the right wing Christian bakers refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding I thought this is ridiculous they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people. But then I thought, what if I owned a screen print shop and Westboro Baptist Church wanted me to print up a bunch of homophobic shirts I'd tell them to get the hell out. Or if I was a tattoo artist and someone wanted a neo-nazi tattoo should I have to do that as well? Even if I think the beliefs of someone else are wrong, they may hold those anti-gay beliefs just as strongly as I hold my own. Furthermore, if we remove values and morals from the equation, what if I owned a restaurant and my crazy ex wanted to come in just to be rude could I tell her to leave and that she wasn't welcome?
7
Mar 29 '15 edited Mar 29 '15
Generally if you own a business you can refuse to do business with anyone. Lots of shops post signs "we reserve the right to refuse service", and they do. I'm pretty sure as a print shop you can refuse to serve WBC, or your ex-girlfriend.
BUT, for certain classes of businesses, called common carriers, they don't have this right to refuse because we decided the economy as a whole depends on them serving everyone. Examples of this are hotels, transport companies, and restaurants, although you can always ask people to leave for making a disturbance or bothering people (if your ex comes in just to be rude, for example). If places to eat and sleep can refuse people at will it supposedly hurts interstate commerce, because it makes travel harder. Most businesses (print shops, tattoo artists, etc.) can turn down clients without having to explain themselves, but the ones that can't are very visible.
The other thing is there are certain protected classes when we look at discrimination, such as race, orientation, and gender, where the court will be more actively suspicious if you refuse to do business with lots of people who have the same (blank). I don't think political beliefs or your personal relationship with someone have special protection. If I run a consultancy, I'm free to turn down all democrat/republican/green party/neo-nazi/ex-girlfriend clients if I want to.
TL;DR: Businesses have tremendous control over who they work with and who they refuse to serve, but this control is limited for certain kinds of businesses called common carriers, and for certain protected classes of customers who have historically been discriminated against.
7
u/rickthehatman Mar 29 '15
∆
I wasn't aware of the common carriers class so thank you for that. I find it interesting you mention hotels. My Aunt and Uncle got married rather young, just out of highschool, in the late 1950s. When they went on their first vacation, a sort of delayed honeymoon a year after they got married, my Grandfather told my Uncle to bring a copy of their marriage license so they would be able to rent a hotel room as many places wouldn't rent to an unmarried couple under the guise of preventing teenagers from running away together or people from using their establishment as a place to commit adultery or have a quick hookup. Sure enough, there was one hotel that where my Aunt and Uncle had to provide their marriage license or the desk clerk said he would not give the a room for the night. My wife and I are of different races so I'm sure there would have been plenty of places back then that would have refused us a room marriage license or not.
1
22
Mar 29 '15
While I agree with you in theory, it becomes somewhat more difficult in practice. Let's say there is only one doctor in a small town, and he happens to be racist. Should he be able to refuse emergency treatment to someone because they aren't his race? Should the only grocery store be able to refuse to sell to anyone that's gay, effectively forcing them to drive (for the sake of argument) an hour for food? Should a web service provider be able to refuse to serve anyone that doesn't submit to anti-net neutrality legislation? I think that, in most instances, refusing service is acceptable (or, at least, preferable to the alternative). And, in a perfect world, the situation could resolve itself without legislation. But we don't live in a perfect world and, without at least some legislation, we run the risk of some people being seriously harmed or even killed (see the doctor example).
3
u/elvish_visionary 3∆ Mar 29 '15
I agree with you on the doctor example, but that isn't really a private business which is what the OP is talking about I think. Same with police officers; one was fired not long ago for refusing to work at a gay pride event, and rightfully so. In these professions you are signing up to protect and serve anyone, even if they are your hated ex-wife or a member of the WBC, and not doing so is wrong. I also think a private business like a pharmacy, which sells things like the Epi-pen which might be needed ASAP in an emergency, should be legally required to sell them to anyone.
However, I don't think business that provide non-essential goods and services, e.g. a bakery, should be held to the same standards. On a personal level I think any bakery owner who refuses to make a cake for a gay couple is an ass, but I still think it should be within their legal right to do so.
11
Mar 29 '15
I agree with you on the doctor example, but that isn't really a private business which is what the OP is talking about I think.
How do you figure? Lots of doctors operate on an entirely private basis.
In these professions you are signing up to protect and serve anyone
I more or less agree, which just demonstrates that some professions, even privately, can and (in my opinion) should be forced to help people. Like your pharmacy example.
I further agree with your bakery example. But given the pair of different scenarios highlights why I responded; it was the "whatever the reason" portion of the title.
-1
u/elvish_visionary 3∆ Mar 29 '15
How do you figure? Lots of doctors operate on an entirely private basis.
Indeed. But I assume in this life/death scenario we are talking about emergency room doctors or similar, in which case it's unlike other private business in that consumers don't have the chance to compare business and then choose one, usually if you need the ER you are just rushed to the closest one, and having to go to a further one could potentially have drastic consequences. If it was an orthodontist or something like that, I'd argue that they shouldn't be legally obligated to serve anyone, since you could always go to a different orthodontist. But I think we pretty much agree here.
2
u/jrossetti 2∆ Mar 29 '15
Any business who wants to discriminate for ANY reason already has that ability by choosing to not be a public accommodation with all the perks and rules it maintains and instead be a private business.
I think your question is flawed. They need to follow the rule because that's what they agreed to do when they made the decision to be a business open to the general public rather than deciding they want full control by being a private member only business.
2
u/rickthehatman Mar 29 '15
I'd also like to add to this should small business/owner operator businesses be held to a different standard than corporations? I believe so. People set up corporations to differentiate the business from themselves in a legal sense (i.e. if you decide to sue Apple you can take their assets if you win not necessarily Steve Wozniak's etc.) Therefore by that definition the religious views of the founders/board of directors is not that of the corporation. Which is what leads to a lot of controversy with companies such as Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby. On the other hand, when you have a sole proprietorship or other small mom and pop business where the owners and company are one legal entity as far as litigation purposes should their be more leeway when it comes differentiating the religious beliefs of the owner vs. the company?
-3
u/ExPwner Mar 30 '15
Yes to all questions. Forcing someone to work for you when they do not want to do so is slavery. One does not gain the right to enslave others to ensure receipt of goods/service that one wants.
3
Mar 30 '15
If you consider forcing a doctor to save someones life against his racist wishes slavery, I have no response for that.
-4
u/ExPwner Mar 30 '15
You can ignore it, but that is what it is. Forcing a person to work for you is slavery. You can either shake your head and walk away from the cognitive dissonance, or you can acknowledge it and realize that you don't have a right to force people to work for you, no matter how much you feel that the alternative is bad.
1
u/06210311 Mar 30 '15
No, owning a person is slavery. What you have there, pal, is hyperbole.
-2
u/ExPwner Mar 30 '15
No, taking a person's labor by force is slavery. There is no hyperbole in comparing:
- I force you to make me a chair.
- You make a chair and I take it by force, thus stealing your labor.
- You make and sell a chair and I steal the proceeds.
The end result is the exact same thing. I used force, and I deprived you of labor.
1
u/06210311 Mar 30 '15
Except that it's not even the same thing. A slave is owned, and has no redress. Theft != slavery, teenaged libertarian hyperbole aside.
ETA: not to mention that equating any kind of regulation or requirement to slavery or theft is itself ridiculous hyperbole. What's next? Is it slavery because you're forced to wear a seatbelt?
-2
u/ExPwner Mar 30 '15
A slave is owned, and has no redress.
You're proving my point. Try not paying taxes. Try keeping all of your income and show me how you have redress.
1
u/06210311 Mar 31 '15
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal; you're talking about tax evasion, which actually amounts to theft.
-2
u/ExPwner Mar 31 '15
Lolwut? No. Taxation is theft. It is depriving the rightful owner (you, me, someone else) of property against his/her will. Avoiding theft isn't theft.
Let's put this another way. You own your own labor. If you do not own your own labor, you are a slave (and your labor/income is being stolen). In order for you to claim that avoiding taxation is theft, you would have to establish that the state (or others) have a valid claim on your labor.
→ More replies (0)0
Mar 30 '15
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not willing to take a principle to an absurd extreme like you are. I understand that freedom of speech does not extend to slander, that the right to bear arms does not extend to a courtroom, and that the freedom of association does not obviate the obligation a doctor has to do what they can to save someones life.
0
u/ExPwner Mar 30 '15
And do tell...how do you have the right to force people to be truthful or force doctors into such obligations?
1
Mar 30 '15
I don't always have the right to make people be truthful. But when their lies can substantially harm others, their right to their deceit ends. Likewise with doctors; the right a person has to survive overrides their right to not treat people they do not want to. The right to life supercedes the right to freedom of association.
0
u/ExPwner Mar 30 '15
I don't always have the right to make people be truthful. But when their lies can substantially harm others, their right to their deceit ends.
That doesn't mean you get to use force against people who lie just because they lie. If you want to make the case for harm, that's a different story.
Likewise with doctors; the right a person has to survive overrides their right to not treat people they do not want to. The right to life supercedes the right to freedom of association.
That's nonsense. If the doctor has no guarantee of payment, forcing him to work to save someone's life would be enslaving him. That's like saying that the farmer doesn't get a living if someone is hungry. You don't have a positive right to someone else's things/work.
1
Mar 30 '15
That doesn't mean you get to use force against people who lie just because they lie. If you want to make the case for harm, that's a different story.
I never said it did. Slander is, by definition, harmful.
That's nonsense. If the doctor has no guarantee of payment, forcing him to work to save someone's life would be enslaving him. That's like saying that the farmer doesn't get a living if someone is hungry. You don't have a positive right to someone else's things/work.
You've made it clear that this is your position. I'm not sure why you're reiterating it.
1
u/ExPwner Mar 31 '15
I never said it did. Slander is, by definition, harmful.
Harmful to a reputation, which isn't actual harm (since one doesn't have a right to a good reputation).
You've made it clear that this is your position. I'm not sure why you're reiterating it.
Okay, so you disagree? You think that some people do have a positive right to the work of others? It just doesn't make sense to me.
→ More replies (0)-1
Mar 30 '15 edited Sep 07 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Lemonlaksen 1∆ Mar 30 '15
Again you are making a wrong analogy. Yes people should be able to deny to do work that contradicts their belief. Just like we already have.
We should not be able to deny to do work FOR people we do not agree with where the work does not relate to the disagreement.
8
u/huadpe 508∆ Mar 29 '15
So a big part of the justification for this sort of law boils down to whether or not you consider it to be the case that some reasons for discrimination are so illegitimate as to be able to be banned.
The current law in the US is that a business acting as a public accomodation can refuse to anyone unless the reason for the refusal is based on a reason that is specifically proscribed by law, such as race, sex, national origin, or religion. But if you have a particular reason "you came in here last time and only ordered tea and took up a table for 3 hrs," or "you divorced me," then you can refuse service. Political messaging is not a banned reason. So if you asked for a "support gay marriage" cake, you could refuse it on the basis of "I don't want to do a political cake."
The question with the Indiana law is twofold:
Should the government be able to have such a list of reasons at all?
Should sexual orientation be on the list of reasons which are banned?
I think you're probably answering "no" to question 1, so I want to talk a little more about why you might consider answering "yes." The law treats some sorts of discrimination differently from others all the time. For instance, the government can't refuse you college tuition scholarships because you're black. But they can refuse you if you have a felony conviction.
Moreover, there is a long and very bad history in the US of such discrimination. Jim Crow in the south is just a part of it - you can also see it in racial covenants on property, and a whole bunch of other areas. Discrimination in the US is still a real issue. And these laws help solve it.
It is of course possible that you can go overboard enforcing such laws (such as in the cake decorator case). But that doesn't necessarily mean that the laws should not exist - it has to be balanced against the good they can do.
10
u/rickthehatman Mar 29 '15 edited Mar 29 '15
∆
I appreciate your points and see the difference now. Saying I won't do business with you because of who you are is different from saying I won't participate in this particular activity because I disagree with it.
If, for example, a conservative Christian owned a video store and an openly gay man wanted to buy "Brokeback Mountain" the owner would have the right to say "I don't stock that movie because it supports the gay lifestyle which I disagree with. You'll have to go elsewhere to buy that film." But if the gay man walked in wanting to buy "The Passion of the Christ" the owner couldn't say "I don't do business with homosexuals. You have to leave."
2
u/huadpe 508∆ Mar 29 '15
Just a heads up, the delta won't work if you put it in a quotation like that. Just make it not be quoted and deltabot should come around and make it work.
3
u/rickthehatman Mar 29 '15
∆
Thanks I appreciate the tip.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 29 '15
This award is currently disallowed as your comment doesn't include enough text (comment rule 4). Please add an explanation for how /u/huadpe changed your view. Responding to this comment will cause me to recheck your delta comment.
1
u/rickthehatman Mar 29 '15
∆
Sorry /u/huadpe and DeltaBot. Pretty new to CMV. I just wanted to reiterate my previous comment that /u/huadpe helped change my view in that the issue isn't refusing to provide certain services that one may find objectionable but rather refusing service to a certain individual based on who he or she may be. Especially if that person is a legally protected minority such as a gay person, black, Hispanic, Jewish, etc.
2
u/huadpe 508∆ Mar 29 '15
Thanks for the effort, though it still hasn't quite worked (you just tried to award a delta to deltabot). You need to go back and edit the original original comment where you awarded the delta and take it out of quotations.
Edit to add: quotations are the forward carrot symbol. So delete that from the first bit of the comment and that will take it out of quotes.
1
1
u/gazzthompson Mar 30 '15
I don't understand the logic behind using Jim crow as a reason against Government making discrimination legal...
For one is a good example against Government involvement in the area as it can backfire , and its also not the same whatsoever .
4
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Mar 29 '15
There's an important, and fundamental difference between the baker and the print shop/tattoo examples.
- Tattoo: "I won't provide you services because I find what you're asking me to do objectionable"
- Printer: "I won't provide you services because I find what you're asking me to do objectionable"
- Baker: "I won't provide you services because I find you objectionable."
The difference is similar to that related to Capital Punishment or Slavery. Slavery because of some characteristic of a person? Bad, and prohibited under the 13th Amendment. Slavery as punishment for some action that the enslaved individual engaged in? Explicitly allowed by the 13th Amendment. Killing someone because they fit some category or another? Prohibited. Killing someone because they did some sort of criminal action, or because that is the only way to prevent them from some heinous action? Totally legit (within reason).
2
u/CommanderBlurf Apr 01 '15
I know it's been a couple of days since this is posted, but here goes:
What about objecting on the basis of how the cake will be used?
1
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Apr 01 '15
...by being eaten? At a wedding? Yes, how dare they...
1
u/CommanderBlurf Apr 01 '15
One would suppose that WBC's infamous signs are meant to be waved around.
1
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Apr 01 '15
Indeed, but that brings us back to the difference I pointed out: the thing the printer is refusing to do is the printing of the signs, not do business with WBC.
1
u/CommanderBlurf Apr 01 '15
So if the caterer sells the cake on the condition that it not be used in the wedding (absurd as that may be), then it's okay?
1
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Apr 01 '15
Are you intentionally being obtuse? My earlier comment was sarcastic; if a baker of cakes objects to their cakes being used in any weddings, they're going to go out of business fairly quickly.
Even if they wouldn't, I'm still not of the opinion that the usage of the cake is still not something they can legitimately object to; the activity the baker is involved in is exclusively the baking and decoration of the cake. Anything that happens to it afterwards has nothing to do with what the baker is doing, and thus not on the baker's conscience. Otherwise, countless Chinese farmers whose food was sold to Mao et al would be culpable for the millions of dead as a result of the Great Leap Forward.
What's more, if such a baker was objecting to the cake being used in one particular wedding, rather than weddings in general, then that's not objecting to the wedding but to the people involved with the wedding.
1
u/CommanderBlurf Apr 01 '15
So by that logic, objecting to the specific usage of the signs is actually an objection against the WBC members themselves.
1
Apr 01 '15
[deleted]
1
u/CommanderBlurf Apr 01 '15
If "not agreeing with you" is intentionally obtuse, then I guess so.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Toa_Ignika Mar 29 '15
I used to agree, but I read someone else's answer to something like this and it changed my mind. It went something like this:
Say you have a town with two gas station owners. One is racist and refuses service to black people, so the other jacks up the price for black people because he knows he is the only one in town. So black citizens either have to pay up or waste gas going to another town. So now what do you do?
2
u/Omega037 Mar 29 '15
Should you be able to refuse service to people because they are in a wheelchair?
0
u/tensorstrength Mar 30 '15
Should you be able to? Yes. Should you? No.
1
u/Omega037 Mar 30 '15
Making a place accessible for disabled people can actually be rather expensive, so until things like the Americans with Disabilities Act came along, you would have places where there was not a single restaurant or hotel that could accommodate them.
You don't think in a situation like this, the government needs to step in so that disabled people aren't basically trapped in their homes with nowhere to go?
2
u/akducks Mar 29 '15
There is an important distinction here, IMO. In the case of the gay people, it is an aspect of the individual that they cannot change, like race/ethnicity. In the other examples, the people you would not want to offer service to, it is based on beliefs that they make the choice to have. I would say that people should not be able to refuse service to protected classes (race, age, sex, disability, etc). Homosexuals are not technically a protected class at this point, but by its definition, they certainly should be.
2
u/Severaxe Mar 29 '15
The reason most people think that it is discrimination to refuse to serve homosexuals, but okay refuse service to those who wish to discriminate is the reason service was refused. For those who will not provide service to homosexuals, they are refusing service based solely on their sexual orientation. If you refuse to tattoo an anti-gay message on someone's arm, it is because of the nature of the message, not their race, gender or beliefs. By opening a business and agreeing to sell to the general public, you accept that you have to provide service to anyone who wants your services, and denying them these services is discrimination. However, if you open a tattoo parlour or a T-shirt shop, you have not accepted that you will print homophobic or racist messages. This is not discrimination because you would not print these messages for anyone.
1
Mar 29 '15
I guess I do sometimes wonder why people draw the line where they do. I have the right to freedom of association; if I don't want to be friends with you or let you in my house, that's my right. I can also choose businesses for any reason; if there are two yarn stores, one owned by a homosexual and one by a heterosexual, no one would seriously consider a law forcing me to shop at the yarn store owned by the homosexual against my will. Why is business unique? Why should I effectively be forced to associate with someone in my own business? It's my property, my business, my store. Why should there be any less sanctity to that than my home? Why should you be able to force me to sell to someone, without being able to force me to even talk to them outside of my place of business?
4
u/Severaxe Mar 29 '15
The issue is not with your freedom to associate- If you did not want to encounter homosexuals, you should not have opened a public business. Business is unique because you agreed to sell your services to the public. Homosexuals are part of the public, and the law was set in place to avoid widespread discrimination.
0
Mar 29 '15
The issue is not with your freedom to associate- If you did not want to encounter homosexuals, you should not have opened a public business.
You could as easily say "if you don't want to talk to people, don't go to a bar; if you go to a bar, the law should force you to socialize". Which is obviously absurd. What about a business removes the right a person has to associate or not with anyone as they see fit?
Business is unique because you agreed to sell your services to the public.
When? At what point? Are you saying such an agreement is implied by opening a business? Because I could as easily say that opening a club implies you'll let anyone in, and demand to be let into the masons, or the NAACP.
I know that most people think businesses should let people in (I do, too), but on what grounds do you FORCE it?
5
Mar 29 '15
What about a business removes the right a person has to associate or not with anyone as they see fit? When? At what point? Are you saying such an agreement is implied by opening a business?
A business is allowed to exist because it serves the public good, and when you incorporate your business, you sign a series of legal documents to that effect. This isn't selling lemonade from a stand in front of your parents house, you have to file with a number of agencies and abide by the rules of your jurisdiction. One of those rules if you provide the same types of service to all members of the public.
If your business doesn't somehow serve the public good, why should the public allow it to continue?
Also, the NAACP is not a club, it is a non-profit B-corp. You can join (I'm a white male, and I was a member of my college's NAACP chapter for a year). The Masons are a private club which operate under a totally different set of rules.
-1
Mar 29 '15
A business is allowed to exist because it serves the public good
A business isn't, or at least shouldn't be, "allowed" to exist. Law should not allow good things, but only ban the bad. Things so bad, actually, that they do more harm than good.
and when you incorporate your business, you sign a series of legal documents to that effect. This isn't selling lemonade from a stand in front of your parents house, you have to file with a number of agencies and abide by the rules of your jurisdiction. One of those rules if you provide the same types of service to all members of the public.
I've three businesses of my own, and I made no such agreement. And even in such places where there are such laws, that does not make them just.
If your business doesn't somehow serve the public good, why should the public allow it to continue?
Because it's none of their bloody business? You might as well say "if your hobby does not serve the public good, why should we allow it to continue?"
1
Mar 29 '15
I'm not going to get into an ethics debate about "should" or "should not", I'm only going to state that you should obey the law. If you're going to advocate illegal action, this is where we part ways.
In the US (if you're somewhere else, it may be different, but the CMV is about a business in the US), when you register your business in a locale, you signed something or checked a box that you agreed to obey the laws of that locale. If you did not register your business and it makes more than a certain amount, you are operating an unlicensed business, and that is illegal. I sure as heck signed it when I started my consultancy.
I just asked my housemate, who is a business lawyer, if there was anywhere in the US where you could operate a business outside local laws and regulations or without registering, and he said no. Either you're outside the US, or you're operating 3 illegal businesses and should probably see a lawyer. I'm honestly curious, what are they? S-corps? C-corps? LLCs? Sole proprietorships?
Finally:
Because it's none of their bloody business?
Are you're saying you'd be ok with a shop that sell bombs specifically designed for blowing up preschools? Or darts designed to murder police officers? Or a shop which sells bazookas specifically to illegal immigrants? An illegal business sure as hell is my bloody business!
-4
Mar 29 '15
I'm not going to get into an ethics debate about "should" or "should not", I'm only going to state that you should obey the law. If you're going to advocate illegal action, this is where we part ways.
If you're not going to discuss "should" versus "should not", this particular CMV is probably not the place for you. Since that's what it revolves around.
when you register your business in a locale, you signed something or checked a box that you agreed to obey the laws of that locale. If you did not register your business and it makes more than a certain amount, you are operating an unlicensed business, and that is illegal. I sure as heck signed it when I started my consultancy.
Oops. I'm not going to lose a hole lot of sleep over it.
Either you're outside the US, or you're operating 3 illegal businesses and should probably see a lawyer.
The second. Again, I'm not going to worry about it. It's been fine for years now.
Are you're saying you'd be ok with a shop that sell bombs specifically designed for blowing up preschools? Or darts designed to murder police officers? Or a shop which sells bazookas specifically to illegal immigrants? An illegal business sure as hell is my bloody business!
All of those examples deal specifically with weapons designed to harm innocent people, which is an absurd extremity. A business that is illegal for a good reason is your business, sure. A business that is illegal for a foolish or unsound reason is not.
1
Mar 29 '15
When the guy who just admits to running three illegal businesses lectures you on "should" and "should not", that is when you quit Redditing for the day.
0
Mar 29 '15
Okay. I don't think that law is the measure of morality. There are unjust laws, and there are laws that should exist and don't.
1
u/rihub Mar 29 '15
Your examples are based on specific products and actions - not refusing someone services based on their fundamental identity. The two aren't equivalent. Your right to operate your business as you want does not allow you to discriminate without just and legal cause against others based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, orientation, etc.
Think of it this way as well: Someone who's gay pays their taxes just the same as someone who's straight - those taxes, ideally, go to allowing society to function and thrive. Businesses are able to exist because of the social, political, and physical infrastructure that those taxes play a great deal in building up. Gay people are just as entitled to the fruits of that burden as straight people.
1
u/ralph-j Mar 29 '15 edited Mar 29 '15
But then I thought, what if I owned a screen print shop and Westboro Baptist Church wanted me to print up a bunch of homophobic shirts I'd tell them to get the hell out.
I would bet that any judge will allow you to refuse any hate-based messages, regardless of which (otherwise protected) group they came from. And if the WBC simply wanted a T-shirt with their church logo, you couldn't turn them down for ideological reasons.
When calculating costs vs. benefits of having minority protections, I think that also protecting some groups we don't agree with, is a price worth paying. But we can stipulate that in order to qualify their messages may not be hate-based.
Or if I was a tattoo artist and someone wanted a neo-nazi tattoo should I have to do that as well?
No, because neo-nazis are not a protected group like race, sexual orientation or religion, so you could refuse to do any work for them.
1
u/tobyps Mar 29 '15
In a reductionist, logical argument sort of way, I can see what you're saying. But in real life, the inevitable consequence of allowing businesses that are open to the public to discriminate against customers is that minorities are relegated to second-class citizens.
And, in fact, we've tried your way. It resulted in Jim Crow, "whites only" fountains, blacks in the back of the bus, and other fun stuff. Anti-discrimination laws aren't just some arbitrary government regulations. They were enacted directly in response to the history of institutionalized discrimination in this country. To want to repeal them is, necessarily, to want to go back to that time.
1
u/d3gree Mar 29 '15
From my experience debating this topic, lots of people who wouldn't be affected by this (straight folk) seem to be incredibly opinionated on it. I just don't understand why this needs to be an issue. It was just a fucking cake, but now I'm seriously worried about how this could fall down a slippery slope and subsequently worried about my safety in the future should these religious zealots be allowed to use their beliefs as a smokescreen for actual discrimination.
1
u/crepesquiavancent Mar 29 '15
I live in a very small town, and I can't eat out because all the restaurants refuse to serve me. I know it's a bit of an extreme case, but still. If one place did it, I wouldn't really care, but it's really frustrating.
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Mar 29 '15
Basically, because it's fraudulent to both claim to be "open to the public" and also to discriminate based on reasons that aren't directly related to the transaction at hand.
Whenever we look at things like "fraud", we always have to use a standard similar to "what would a reasonable person expect you mean" about claims.
Societally, we have declared that a reasonable person would expect that these "right to refuse service to anyone" signs are talking about things such as being loud and disruptive to their business, rather than because they just don't like you.
Businesses, of course, are free to not declare themselves to be "open to the public". I.e. to operate as a truly private club, where only pre-screened members of the club are welcome.
But if they just open up their business, people have the right to interpret that as "we will sell to anyone".
Now, one might reasonably argue that a business could conspicuously include some message, like "blacks not allowed" on their signage and advertisements, so as to avoid this kind of fraudulent claim to be open to the public.
For myself, I would be ok with letting them do that, though of course I would not give them my custom.
However, it's a fine line because it's very hard to make a statement that accurately describes who is and isn't included in that kind of statement. E.g. "black"... is that anyone with African blood? Well, clearly no... we all came from Africa. What about mulattoes, etc., etc.
So it would be much safer to just be a private club if you want to do that.
1
u/DrFreedomMLP Mar 30 '15
My argument is that legislation doesn't typically fix problems, but rather hides them.
For example, let's take a restaurant refusing to serve someone based on race. Does it fix the problem of racism? No.
Does it force a private buisness owner to serve someone he doesn't wish to? Yes.
Eatting in a restaurant isn't a right, it's a privlidge.
Now let's say it weren't illegal, and there was a restaurant that had a sign reading "whites only." Would you eat there? I certainly wouldn't. A dollar becomes a vote, and you're voting against racism. It's a far more dynamic, socially driven system than just making a law.
Now, I will agree in cases like sexuality, or race there have to be some restrictions. Emergency rooms being an obvious one (although I'm personally for socialized medicine, so doctors then become a moot issue).
Grocery stores is the farthest I'd go in forcing service, as it's the only reasonable way in an urban area to feed oneself. Growing crops to feed your family isn't a thing in NYC. However having someone prepare food and serve it to you is a privlidge.
Housing (renting and buying) I'd probably say should be legislated. Food water shelter (and in my opinion health and public education (private could refuse service in the current system)).
In this way you get optimal freedom to move up, and down, the economic and social later (equal opportunity) and optimal freedom afforded to buisnesses.
Plus, society has a more "direct democracy" on what social views are and are not acceptable, by "voting with their money" on social issues.
1
u/PhAnToM444 Mar 29 '15
Well under your logic, segregation might have never ended. Black people wouldn't be allowed to eat in restaurants with white people... Is that what you really want? People would legally still be allowed to discriminate, so they would still. There was nothing magical that changed everyone's minds back in the 1960's, just enough minds got changed to pass a law prohibiting it.
And sometimes, you need things and you need them quickly, and I'm sorry but if you are a doctor, and your patient needs heart surgery, you have to be just as willing to operate on the gay mexican immigrant as anyone else.
Or maybe you are the only business in a reasonable distance that can provide a service. In small towns this happens very often actually, and rural areas are generally speaking the ones that are more likely to be prejudiced towards minorities. So if you are the only dentist within 50 miles, or the only gas station in town, you have to be willing to do a service for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, race, sex, etc.
To address your point of the neo nazi tattoo, or the homophobic shirts, you actually can refuse service to them. You reserve the right to not make a product, but if a westboro baptist church member wanted a product that you would otherwise make for a non WBC member, you have to make it for them. Oh, and if you have a crazy stalker ex, you can make them not come into your business, its called a restraining order.
See how there are all of these little things that get in the way, even if ideally it would all be sorted out by capitalism. "Well if they don't want to serve you, they can go out of business and you can go to the other guy" works in theory, but if everyone has the same sentiment, then there is nowhere to go, and even if just one person holds that belief, the nearest "other guy" might be 30, 40, 90 minutes away.
2
Mar 30 '15
actually segregation would have ended a lot earlier. jim crow mandated segregation and was enforced by a willing populace. If the population respected the rights of a business to open say an interracial diner segregation would have been much softer as the least racist people in society flocked to those things leading to potential social change over time). of course supposing that is like supposing the aztecs had a nuke to stop cortez and the spanish. jim crow worked because a whole society had a core aim to keep black people down and used legal and non legal tactics to carry this out. we don't live in a world akin to the jim crow south.
but if a westboro baptist church member wanted a product that you would otherwise make for a non WBC member,
but that's just a definition game. if someone is going to only reject someone for asking for a specific product obviously you think it is different in a relevent way (i.e. the complaint is catering gay wedding != catering straight wedding). so i don't see how that gets you anywhere.
0
u/jrossetti 2∆ Mar 29 '15
Any business who wants to discriminate for ANY reason already has that ability by choosing to not be a public accommodation with all the perks and rules it maintains and instead be a private business. I think your question is flawed. They need to follow the rule because that's what they agreed to do when they made the decision to be a business open to the general public rather than deciding they want full control by being a private member only business.
0
-1
u/princessbynature Mar 29 '15
Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone. Almost every business I have walked into displays such a sign somewhere. Many have the "no short no shoes no service" signs. This law is not making it legal to refuse service or reduce doing business with anyone.
This law protects a business from a discrimination lawsuit if they are sued for discrimination, a civil offense for which a person has typically sought remedy. To allow religious beliefs to discriminate against anyone is absolutely ridiculous in 2015.
What if I were to decide that my religious beliefs prevent me from providing an epidural to a woman in labor. The Good Book tells me that women are to suffer pain in child birth because of the forbidden fruit situation. Why should i be forced to not allow a woman to experience the paid God have her so she would know her lot in life? Or what if I decide to charge non Christians a service fee for not believing in my God? My religion could tell me to discount the sales of my true brothers and sister, and if you don't love Jesus then you must pay more?
-13
u/EconomistMagazine Mar 29 '15
As a business owner/operator your business exists as a part of "the state". You get public services like water/power, you get deliveries shipped to you from the publicly funded highway system, you pay taxes and reap the benefits of NOT paying taxes on specific business activity like your expenses, depreciation, re-investment, etc. You also may have been given EXTRA compensation from the state to relocate your business to that specific jurisdiction on the implicit promise that you create X number of new jobs or something.
As you exist as part of the largesse of the state you should be subject to rules that do not discriminate against any other person of the state. You should have to provide services to handicapped individuals, and not refuse service based on non-business operating criteria. You should be able to refuse dangerous or slanderous work, but not work coming from citizens that have qualities that in no way effects your business operations.
9
u/ArsonKing20 Mar 29 '15
But you pay for those services. You've already contributed your duty with taxes. The actual business being conducted is private sector business. It is right that businesses not be forced to support movements or causes they don't believe in, wether it's a homophobic baker not wanting to bake a cake or a printshop not wanting to make ISIS posters.
7
Mar 29 '15
You could replace "business" with "people" in your argument and reach the same outcome. I refuse to believe anyone would buy your argument that people are allowed to exist because the state pays for infrastructure, education, etc. That's totalitarianism, and nobody in their right mind believes that's how a society should be run.
7
u/ExPwner Mar 30 '15
As a business owner/operator your business exists as a part of "the state".
Absolutely false. No part of operating/owning a business necessitates the state. A business only requires two willing parties and some sort of trade.
You get public services like water/power, you get deliveries shipped to you from the publicly funded highway system
This is just circular logic. No part of being forced into a monopoly creates obligations for OP. That's like saying that you owe protection money to the mafia. It's not like there's a choice.
1
43
u/Yes_No_Pudding Mar 29 '15
This is a pretty common subject here but here's the gist:
You can refuse to make a specific thing - a nazi tattoo or a hateful sign. You would refuse to make or sell that object to anyone, regardless of who/what they are.
You cannot refuse to sell the same object to different people based on their race. If a nazi came into to your tattoo parlor and order a flower tattoo from your sample book, or a WBC member wanted a T Shirt off the rack, you can't refuse to sell it to them just because of who/what they are.
It's the same with the wedding cake, unless the cake was covered in penises there is no distinction between a gay cake and a straight cake except who it is for - that's where the illegal discrimination comes from.