Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Foxfyre]

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Would a requirement that all customers are treated equally be reasonable? Would, say, senior citizen's discounts qualify as discrimination from that perspective? Should they be allowed? If they were prohibited, would that be a violation of the business owner's rights?

It sounds more like what you're saying is that, locally and within reason, it's fine for government to violate a business owner's rights in the name of public interest. And that's ok, I suppose. It happens all the time and will no doubt always be the case. But I think you can appreciate that I'm trying to hammer out the principle behind this and see how it plays out more broadly. Because that seems to be where we're headed.

I think sometimes we make things harder than they have to be. You can always throw in a 'but what if' or a 'why not' and no matter how we word a policy or concept, some of our friends will equate it with Jim Crow laws or institutionalized racism anyway. With some there is no mercy for the moral convictions of the business owner. If you read some of the posts in this thread, you would conclude that the business owner's duty is to serve the protected classes and he has no rights of his own at all.

First the federal government should not be involved except to make public (government) services equally accessible to all citizens without discriimination or prejudice. Except in the narrowest areas, i.e. anti-trust, RICO laws, and some necessary controlled substances, etc. the federal government should have no power to dictate to any private business how it must conduct its business. If we would just re-establish that simple principle, it would correct so much of the silly stupid stuff that goes on.

And the rest can be handled by social contract. I am going to guess that most states and local communities would make non discrimination policies and a reasonably safe environment for employees and customers a condition of a business license. But I would see that non discrimination as applying to those products and services that the business owner chooses to carry and would not force him to create a special ordered product that the owner would find morally offensive or provide services specifically for or at an activity or in an environment where the owner chooses not to participate.

 

[Conservative65]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

The issue is commerce. If its commerce related, the State's authority to regulate intrastate commerce is unquestioned.

Outside of commerce, not so much.

Seems only the faggots get their panties in a wad when told No.

 

[Conservative65]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government has been regulating interstate business since 1887 and enforcing civil rights legislation on business since the 1950s.

That is never going to change.

 

[dblack]

The government has been regulating interstate business since 1887 and enforcing civil rights legislation on business since the 1950s.

That is never going to change.

Everything changes.

 

[bripat9643]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

That's right. No one's religious beliefs empower them to deny services to anyone that are provided to everyone else.

The government has no legitimate authority to force any business to serve anyone. End of story.

Of course the Constitution legitimately empowers the government that power. Now it's the end of story.

Wrong, you senile lunatic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

What product you choose to sell, and who you choose to sell to are two entirely different issues.

CVS no longer sells cigarettes. By your demented reasoning, they are liable for discriminating against smokers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

Is USMB discriminating illegally if they refuse to let you put certain things in your posts?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I don't think there's any comparison between a website and a restaurant though?

 

[Foxfyre]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

Is USMB discriminating illegally if they refuse to let you put certain things in your posts?

Well that's sort of two different things isn't it? I appreciate what appears to be the intent of the comparison though.

I would strenuously object to a gay baker or anybody else being forced to inscribe "God hates fags" or a pro traditional marriage message on a product a customer ordered.

I would strenuously object to a Jewish baker or a black baker or anybody else be forced to decorate a cake with swaztikas or an anti-Jewish slogan or a pro-white message.

I would strenuously object to any baker being required to inscribe a pro life or pro choice message on a cake if it was against that baker's convictions.

So of course I strenuously object to a Christian baker being required to provide a product that violates the Christian's personal beliefs.

 

[Flopper]

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Would a requirement that all customers are treated equally be reasonable? Would, say, senior citizen's discounts qualify as discrimination from that perspective? Should they be allowed? If they were prohibited, would that be a violation of the business owner's rights?

It sounds more like what you're saying is that, locally and within reason, it's fine for government to violate a business owner's rights in the name of public interest. And that's ok, I suppose. It happens all the time and will no doubt always be the case. But I think you can appreciate that I'm trying to hammer out the principle behind this and see how it plays out more broadly. Because that seems to be where we're headed.

Requiring the business to serve everyone who conducts themselves property and requiring the business to serve everyone equally is an entirely different issue. Few businesses can survive treating all customers equally. Customers who buy in quantity get discounts, loyal customers get perks, and businesses offers special pricing such as senior discounts to attract customers who might not otherwise patronize the business. If the merchant arbitrarily denies service, he may be denying the business a good customer which is not in best interest of the business.

 

[Flopper]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

I think it depends on the product or activity. If it's needed for the health or safety of the public, the merchant should not refuse to sell it unless his refusal is based on sound business reasons. All decisions a business owner makes in regard to what to sell and who to sell it to should a business decision.

 

[bripat9643]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

What product you choose to sell, and who you choose to sell to are two entirely different issues.

CVS no longer sells cigarettes. By your demented reasoning, they are liable for discriminating against smokers.

Don't you turds claim a business is discriminating against women if it refuses to pay for birth control or abortions?

 

[Flopper]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

Is USMB discriminating illegally if they refuse to let you put certain things in your posts?

No. When you join USMB, you agree to the terms and conditions which include. "We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content".

Illegal discrimination occurs when the protections specified in legislation for a protected group are violated.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

I think it depends on the product or activity. If it's needed for the health or safety of the public, the merchant should not refuse to sell it unless his refusal is based on sound business reasons. All decisions a business owner makes in regard to what to sell and who to sell it to should a business decision.

I have to disagree. There are some who say that contraceptives, for instance, are a matter of health. But nobody should have the power to tell a pharmacist or Walmart or the grocery store than they have to stock them. If the business does carry them however, the store owner should sell them to whomever comes in to buy them.

 

[dblack]

Is USMB discriminating illegally if they refuse to let you put certain things in your posts?

No. When you join USMB, you agree to the terms and conditions which include. "We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content".

Illegal discrimination occurs when the protections specified in legislation for a protected group are violated.

More importantly USMB is privately owned. And they have final say on who is allowed to use the board. Government doesn't own the businesses in question, and has no say in who is allowed, or not allowed, to frequent them. Or at least some of us maintain that should be the case.

 

[dblack]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

 

[dblack]

More radically, I want to defend the right of anyone to use their economic decisions as expressions of protest. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it take the form of an organized boycott against businesses. Many people today base their decisions of where to shop based on the political, religious, moral or ethnic identity of those who own and operate the business. Why do we consider that a right for consumers or employees, but not business owners? And what about the wide middle ground between people who work as employees and those that are considered to be running their own business?

I think this kind of social protest is a key point of moderation in social mores and deserves protection. And our reasons for protest shouldn't require state approval.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Within the full context of my whole argument, I really don't think there should be discrimination against people who are conducting themselves as all other persons are expected to conduct themselves in your places of business. So yes, whomever comes in for a dozen cupcakes or to order a sandwich in a restaurant or anything else that a business has in stock should be able to buy that product or service. To me that is not unreasonable as a condition of a business license or via city ordinance or whatever and in no way violates the business owners rights.

Where I draw the line is when the customer demands the business owner provide a product that is objectionable to the business owner or participate in any way in an activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in, then I think it violates the business owner's rights to have to accommodate that customer.

Yes. I understand your position. I'm just not seeing the justification. Is there any general principle or right that is being protected here? Or are you just conceding to a certain amount of mandate from government in the name of societal convenience?

Social contract is not mandate from the government. Social contract is the people organizing the system under which they choose to live and agreeing on the rules or responsibilities each will assume. There is a difference between those two things.

 

[lake avenue]

More radically, I want to defend the right of anyone to use their economic decisions as expressions of protest. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it take the form of an organized boycott against businesses. Many people today base their decisions of where to shop based on the political, religious, moral or ethnic identity of those who own and operate the business. Why do we consider that a right for consumers or employees, but not business owners? And what about the wide middle ground between people who work as employees and those that are considered to be running their own business?

I think this kind of social protest is a key point of moderation in social mores and deserves protection. And our reasons for protest shouldn't require state approval.

Many people think that becoming an owner of a business puts you in the back seat to people that aren't, and to a certain extent, I agree. I feel the rights of people should be considered before the rights of business/business owners.