Businesses' discrimination

[Delta4Embassy]

...Against obese persons.

Should a donut shop be able to deny service to somoene so fat that regular-sized patrons seeing them may be put off their appetite, or link the donuts or other foods to obesity?

When I shop, at the end I'm passing through the bakery/produce section and I'll often eyeball the donuts. Usually just remembering how yummy they are, but onyl rarely actually buying any. But if I see a super obese person I lose any desire for a donut. Or anything else frankly. So as a disruption of business, especially a junkfood related business isn't refusing service to obese people something a business should be allowed to do? Their presence is likely negatively effecting their business.

This is different from a bigoted "I don't like blacks and gays" where the objection has no merit or real effect. If other patrons see someone fat and sorry, but disgusting to behold, that's actually effecting businness.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Businesses should be able to serve or reject anyone they please.

 

[danielpalos]

...Against obese persons.

Should a donut shop be able to deny service to somoene so fat that regular-sized patrons seeing them may be put off their appetite, or link the donuts or other foods to obesity?

When I shop, at the end I'm passing through the bakery/produce section and I'll often eyeball the donuts. Usually just remembering how yummy they are, but onyl rarely actually buying any. But if I see a super obese person I lose any desire for a donut. Or anything else frankly. So as a disruption of business, especially a junkfood related business isn't refusing service to obese people something a business should be allowed to do? Their presence is likely negatively effecting their business.

This is different from a bigoted "I don't like blacks and gays" where the objection has no merit or real effect. If other patrons see someone fat and sorry, but disgusting to behold, that's actually effecting businness.

Firms are required to make a profit or go, not-for-profit in public accommodations.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Firms are required to make a profit or go, not-for-profit in public accommodations.

Being forced to perform work for another by government decree is slavery.

 

[Mac1958]

Firms are required to make a profit or go, not-for-profit in public accommodations.

Being forced to perform work for another by government decree is slavery.

Hey, remember, businesses are evil and greedy and mean and rich and they didn't build that, someone else made that happen.

They should consider themselves lucky that our federal bureaucracy even tolerates their very existence.
.

 

[danielpalos]

Firms are required to make a profit or go, not-for-profit in public accommodations.

Being forced to perform work for another by government decree is slavery.

working for profit, dear.

 

[danielpalos]

Firms are required to make a profit or go, not-for-profit in public accommodations.

Being forced to perform work for another by government decree is slavery.

Hey, remember, businesses are evil and greedy and mean and rich and they didn't build that, someone else made that happen.

They should consider themselves lucky that our federal bureaucracy allows their very existence.
.

why not go, not-for-the-profit-of-lucre, if it is about social morals for free?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Firms are required to make a profit or go, not-for-profit in public accommodations.

Being forced to perform work for another by government decree is slavery.

working for profit, dear.

Yes. Government decree.

 

[danielpalos]

Firms are required to make a profit or go, not-for-profit in public accommodations.

Being forced to perform work for another by government decree is slavery.

working for profit, dear.

Yes. Government decree.

Yes, going for-profit requires a profit motive for a price, not social morals for free; only the Right is that clueless and that Causeless under our form of Capitalism.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yes, going for-profit requires a profit motive for a price

It should not.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, going for-profit requires a profit motive for a price

It should not.

It must under our form of Capitalism; otherwise, there is a more social option to go, not-for-profit in public accommodations.

 

[my2¢]

If I was a donut shop owner I wouldn't mind losing an occasional sale of a donut to you if I'm regularly peddling a dozen to somebody who really should do without. But your OP premise is interesting. For if I trade my donut shop for the bar across the street my responsibility becomes making sure not to serve liquor to somebody that is intoxicated. Presently that's where the line is legally drawn. In one case the denial of service is discrimination while another it's legal responsibility.

 

[danielpalos]

If I was a donut shop owner I wouldn't mind losing an occasional sale of a donut to you if I'm regularly peddling a dozen to somebody who really should do without. But your OP premise is interesting. For if I trade my donut shop for the bar across the street my responsibility becomes making sure not to serve liquor to somebody that is intoxicated. Presently that's where the line is legally drawn. In one case the denial of service is discrimination while another it's legal responsibility.

clear and present health and safety concerns are a traditional, police power of a State.