Should privately owned businesses be forced to serve EVERYONE?

[jgarden]

While the result of some private businesses refusing to serve everyone may seem innocuous on the surface, that would not be the case if McDonalds refused to serve "blacks" or taxi cab companies decided not to pick up Hispanics.

At the very least, companies that arbitrarily discrimminate against certain segments of society should not be allowed to receive government business.

 

[Mocking You]

And they aren't. A bakery sells cakes. They're trying not to sell the thing that they're in business for...which is one way you know their reasoning doesn't serve a legitimate business purpose.

If a bakery chooses not to be open on Saturdays, read: "I don't want to sell stuff to you on Saturdays." Is that discrimination? No.

Go back and look at the restaurants forced to integrate their patrons.

Those businesses had signs, "No Coloreds Allowed". They were giving a reason. My contention is that a business can refuse to sell stuff and not give a reason.

No shoes, no shirt, no service is aimed at a legitimate business concern and practice. No shoes invites liability for injuries that are forseeable within the context of a restaurant or any place where sharp objects are available. Shirtless people would by and large constitute an impairment of the model which means to sell meals to people who might not find it appetizing to watch Bob's nipple piercings and tattoo collection or count Sue's moles while they have breakfast.

I'm not talking about not having a shirt, not having shoes. I'm talking about businesses that won't serve you unless, say, you have dress shoes or are wearing a tie.

 

[PureX]

No reason needs to be given. The state cannot compel a person to sell something. You're going to have to show me precedent where the reason for refusing service was "I didn't want to" led to a conviction.

You are quite confused.

No reason needs to be given

This is just not true. If a business is open to the public and is refusing to serve a member of that public, that member of the public can call the cops, the Better Business Bureau, or even file suit for unlawful discrimination, upon which the first question asked will be why has service been refused. Now, the proprietor can refuse to answer the question, but that will very likely result in a citation, fine, and perhaps a finding of liability. Because his business license, which he signed, requires him to treat all members of the public fairly and reasonably. And he did not do so, nor did he provide a legitimate reason why he did not do so.

The state cannot compel a person to sell something.

This IS true. However, public commercial businesses have to have a license to operate, and that license requires that the business treat all members of the public fairly and reasonably. So that if a business operator does not do so, he will lose his license to operate his business, and possibly have to pay fines as well. The state can't MAKE you sell something against your will, but it can STOP you from selling things to the public if you insist on abusing (discriminating against) some members of that public.

You're going to have to show me precedent where the reason for refusing service was "I didn't want to" led to a conviction.

There are a whole slew of threads on TOL about Christian business owners/operators refusing to serve gays because they didn't want to; being fined, and being found liable for damages in court. And if you really need to know the exact instances, you can very easily look them up yourself on your own computer, and on your own time.

Sorry, I am talking about public bars and restaurants as well, not PRIVATE clubs where people buy memberships. These sorts of businesses discriminate all the time on what kind of clothes potential customers are wearing.

Dress requirements are allowable when the way the patrons dress is a part of the service being offered, and the dress requirements are being applied to all patrons, equally. In those instances, they are not viewed as being discriminatory.

 

[Town Heretic]

If a bakery chooses not to be open on Saturdays, read: "I don't want to sell stuff to you on Saturdays." Is that discrimination? No.

How could it be? It's no more discriminatory than keeping business hours. ChickfilA doesn't open its doors on Sunday. But it isn't keeping anyone out of its stores when it is open and it isn't closed to keep any one element out of its stores.

Those businesses had signs, "No Coloreds Allowed". They were giving a reason. My contention is that a business can refuse to sell stuff and not give a reason.

I've already answered on that. If the reason can be imputed from practice not stipulating won't help them.

I'm not talking about not having a shirt, not having shoes. I'm talking about businesses that won't serve you unless, say, you have dress shoes or are wearing a tie.

Same answer, it's related to their business and the people they are appealing to. It's not much different than, say, Whole Foods, or any store that isn't concerned with selling as cheaply, has another angle.

If a place is catering to upscale then you best believe its prices are too. The practice is then related to its business model and promoting it. It isn't an attempt to keep anyone out, except those who can't afford to be part of their model. Like I said, not all discrimination is prohibited. It's really about the why and that can be stated or imputed, but whatever it is should relate to and support a legitimate business interest and not something else.

 

[Foxfire]

No reason needs to be given. The state cannot compel a person to sell something. You're going to have to show me precedent where the reason for refusing service was "I didn't want to" led to a conviction.

Your premise assumes a "criminal" implication where there is none. It's a "civil" matter hence a "civil action" (civil rights-civil action....see the connection?) just as the "civil actions" that have been taken, for which this entire thread an offshoot of. If one were monetarily penalized out of business, that's arguably just as severe a penalty as being "convicted" (whatever that entails).

 

[Mocking You]

There are a whole slew of threads on TOL about Christian business owners/operators refusing to serve gays because they didn't want to; being fined, and being found liable for damages in court. And if you really need to know the exact instances, you can very easily look them up yourself on your own computer, and on your own time.

I suggest you (and/or Town Heretic) find an instance where a person lost a civil lawsuit for failing to serve someone and did not list a reason why.

 

[Mocking You]

Like I said, not all discrimination is prohibited. It's really about the *why* and that can be stated or imputed, but whatever it is should relate to and support a legitimate business interest and not something else.

Precisely.

Plaintiff : "Why did you refuse to serve my client?"

Business Owner : "No reason, I just didn't feel like it."

You seem certain of your position. Why not cite a precedent? Put the argument to rest.

 

[Town Heretic]

Precisely.

Plaintiff : "Why did you refuse to serve my client?"

Business Owner : "No reason, I just didn't feel like it."

And he might get away with it once. But if he patterns the behavior he won't.

You seem certain of your position.

Sure.

Why not cite a precedent? Put the argument to rest.

Just being difficult, I suppose.

Oh, all right. Start with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's pretty clear about what you can't do and anything that establishes your discriminatory practice is fair game. A "We reserve the right..." sign doesn't control anything and a restaurant with one is subject to the same Act as the restaurant without one.

“All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section,[1] without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

 

[Foxfire]

I suggest you (and/or Town Heretic) find an instance where a person lost a civil lawsuit for failing to serve someone and did not list a reason why.

The plaintiff in a civil case has no obligation, whatsoever, to establish your motivation. Only that the "preponderance of the evidence" supports the assertion of the accusation. "Do you or do you not consistently act in the specified manner."
Not even "beyond a shadow" as would be in a criminal action. It falls to the defendant to sway the preponderance of evidence in his/her direction.

 

[Angel4Truth]

On the profits they make as a business, sure. And you pay taxes that make that business possible. You won't see profit from it outside of the opportunity to utilize the service.


No, your home isn't a business. It's nature is private.

A business is an instrument of commerce entered into to make money. Otherwise, it's a charity.

So, they still pay taxes for their use of the roads just like i do. Your argument is faulty.

Is a defense attorney allowed to refuse to represent someone, if so why, since they're in business to make money and they use tax payer roads?

 

[Stripe]

Your home isn't a business. It's nature is private.

We notice you're equivocating on "private." Private means the government is not involved.

A business is an instrument of commerce entered into to make money. Otherwise, it's a charity.

Which does nothing to show it must not be private.

All examples of liberty without restraint.

Nope. Crime is not liberty.

You think anarchy is good?

False dichotomies are another example of fallacious arguing. Your words said you think liberty is not a virtue. Nowhere did I say anything about anarchy.

You think people should be compelled to enter business?

No.

Public simply means they hold themselves out to the general population, aren't a private club.

You're equivocating on what "public" means. Public means it is government run.

That's not an argument, it's a declaration.

That's right.

 

[Jose Fly]

Even to "private clubs" that serve any food or beverage in an enclosed common area of a building.

No. The "no shirt, no shoes, no service" applies to customers, not the businesses. For example, in our town there's a place that's wall to wall trampolines. For a few bucks an hour, you can bounce around, play dodge ball, and other stuff. But before you can step into the play area, you have to take your shoes off.

So it's not like "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is a city code that applies to all businesses. It's a selective rule that owners can choose to adopt or not. But as long as they apply that rule to every customer equally, and not by some factor that's prohibited by law (e.g., race, religion, sexual orientation), it's fine.

(however, the rule may also be a city code for businesses like places where people eat, for health and safety reasons)

 

[Jose Fly]

While the result of some private businesses refusing to serve everyone may seem innocuous on the surface, that would not be the case if McDonalds refused to serve "blacks" or taxi cab companies decided not to pick up Hispanics.

At the very least, companies that arbitrarily discrimminate against certain segments of society should not be allowed to receive government business.

And if private-sector employees can do it, why can't government employees? A 911 operator who won't help Jews, firefighters who won't put fires out at non-Mormon households, or school teachers who won't teach Christians.

Like I said before, some Christians only seem able to think of these things in terms of them being the discriminators against people they don't like.

 

[Foxfire]

No. The "no shirt, no shoes, no service" applies to customers, not the businesses. For example, in our town there's a place that's wall to wall trampolines. For a few bucks an hour, you can bounce around, play dodge ball, and other stuff. But before you can step into the play area, you have to take your shoes off.

So it's not like "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is a city code that applies to all businesses. It's a selective rule that owners can choose to adopt or not. But as long as they apply that rule to every customer equally, and not by some factor that's prohibited by law (e.g., race, religion, sexual orientation), it's fine.

(however, the rule may also be a city code for businesses like places where people eat, for health and safety reasons)

Hmmmm I doubt that they serve food or beverages on the trampolines and it's the business that gets the ticket for violating health rules. Not the patron. Rules that the business is required by statute to enforce on it's patrons "equally".
We are actually agreeing if you read the text, I think.

 

[Town Heretic]

We notice you're equivocating on "private." Private means the government is not involved.

Involved? Your home is private, but the government is involved. You pay taxes on it. It has to meet code when its built. Not sure what you mean by involved.

Which does nothing to show it must not be private.

You still have to wade through what you mean by private. Free from government regulation or control? Then nothing is private and you're arguing for a fantasy. Free from regulation? Then it isn't an argument, its just a philosophical position dressed as one.

Nope. Crime is not liberty.

I said it was an example of liberty without restraint. Your rebuttal doesn't rebut. Nothing IS liberty but liberty. What we're talking about is what you're allowed to do with it and no one is for unrestrained liberty. So you have a problem in your criticism.

False dichotomies are another example of fallacious arguing.

But you'd have to demonstrate more than the fact you've learned to spell the thing, which you don't here, as you failed to do with your last declaration.

Your words said you think liberty is not a virtue. Nowhere did I say anything about anarchy.

You made a statement

"You don't think freedom is good?"

in response to my writing that you didn't believe that liberty is inherently virtuous. So no, liberty itself isn't a virtue, as I illustrated with my responsive question about anarchy, which is the sum of unrestrained liberty.

You're equivocating on what "public" means. Public means it is government run.

I'm not equivocating and no, it doesn't.

 

[Stripe]

Involved? Your home is private, but the government is involved. You pay taxes on it. It has to meet code when its built. Not sure what you mean by involved.

I laid it out pretty clearly. Equivocation is when a word with two possible meanings has a meaning used in an improper manner. We opened the discussion defining "private" as being not state-run. You equivocated by using the meaning of "not generally for public use." Now you're further confusing matter by not correcting your first mistake.

All businesses should be run by their owners without state involvement. That people pay taxes is not a significant consideration in this assertion.

You still have to wade through what you mean by private.

Nope. You have to retract your equivocation. We are using private to mean not run by the state. You used it to mean "not generally open to the public."

No one is for unrestrained liberty.

I am. Liberty is a good thing. It is not a bad thing.

Like bravery.

 

[Town Heretic]

I laid it out pretty clearly. Equivocation is when a word with two possible meanings has a meaning used in an improper manner. We opened the discussion defining "private" as being not state-run.

I think you're confusing how you see a word with some tacit agreement. Because that's not how I would define private.

You equivocated by using the meaning of "not generally for public use." Now you're further confusing matter by not correcting your first mistake.

I think you're misstating. You should probably use quotes to establish your case, especially given the first bit and your assumption relating to it.

All businesses should be run by their owners without state involvement.

I differ with but understand your philosophical position on the point. That's not how it is, thankfully (from my perspective).

That people pay taxes is not a significant consideration in this assertion.

I recognize your philosophical position, but not its certitude or control over any part of the actual.

Nope. You have to retract your equivocation.

I haven't equivocated, so there's nothing to retract. But by all means, declare away if it makes you happier.

We are using private to mean not run by the state. You used it to mean "not generally open to the public."

I would never use private to mean not run by the state because I would never use public to mean run by the state, since neither would be accurate descriptions.

I am. Liberty is a good thing. It is not a bad thing.

As noted prior, liberty is simply a thing, without inherent virtue and the virtue or want or worse is found in the exercise.

Like bravery.

Many a Nazi was brave. It's also not inherently a virtue.

 

[oatmeal]

Alright I got an honest question and I would like everyone's input. Many people say that business cannot turn people away because they have different beliefs. Some go as far as to say that no matter what a business cannot 'discriminate' and has to serve everyone. But what about this...?

What if a female yoga teacher isn't comfortable teaching a private lesson to a lesbian because some of the assists would be uncomfortable for her, should she be forced to teach her anyway?

Or suppose the yoga teacher was raped by a man of any color or a white man, should she be forced to teach to that colored or white man in a private lesson even though because of her history she has fear towards those certain types of men?

Should the NAACP permit the KKK to join its ranks?

 

[Stripe]

I think you're confusing how you see a word with some tacit agreement. Because that's not how I would define private.

Irrelevant. If I used the word incorrectly, you should have corrected my definition. I stated clearly that "private" was being used in the sense of "not government run."

I think you're misstating. You should probably use quotes to establish your case, especially given the first bit and your assumption relating to it.

Boring.

I would never use private to mean not run by the state because I would never use public to mean run by the state, since neither would be accurate descriptions.

It is common usage where I come from. :idunno:

As noted prior, liberty is simply a thing, without inherent virtue and the virtue or want or worse is found in the exercise.

Nope. Liberty is good. Like bravery.

Many a Nazi was brave.

Put a "therefore, something..." on the end instead of just implying your irrational assertions. That way you can't just throw away the line when called on it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Irrelevant. If I used the word incorrectly, you should have corrected my definition.

Stripe, I'm here to rebut and to give my side of it. That's it. I don't recall giving approval of your misuse of the term and I've certainly made my disagreement clear enough at this juncture.

I stated clearly that "private" was being used in the sense of "not government run."

Quote to the place where you believe you established usage between us. Given I don't accept it, it would be an odd thing to let slide and I'm betting you won't find agreement on the point.

Here's what you're speaking to:

1. All businesses should be "private." None should be government run.

Nope. All business profits by tax investment in roads and other things that make their business possible. I think there's a better argument against private business at all than there is to suggest all should be private.

You appear to be asserting an implied colon after "private" instead of the punctuation you actually used. My response didn't address the definition, which isn't actually established as you wrote that. So that's on you.

I see you've changed the punctuation after the fact, but both my and Pure's capture in answer establishes the problem you must have recognized yourself, since you've corrected it. It also makes your protest here less than genuine.

I wrote: I think you're misstating. You should probably use quotes to establish your case, especially given the first bit and your assumption relating to it.

Boring.

Then there's no reason to believe you can and I'm fine with you making an assertion you can't back up and that I note is unsupported except by your mistaken declaration.

It is common usage where I come from. :idunno:

It's wrong where it matters, in this examination and regarding the law and its enforcement.

Nope. Liberty is good. Like bravery.

Look, if you want to look stupid answering a clear illustration of error by entrenching with declaration, if you want to find Nazi bravery good and anarchy virtuous, then more power to you.

Put a "therefore, something..." on the end instead of just implying your irrational assertions.

There's nothing irrational about exposing the fallacy of finding bravery inherently virtuous and my doing so by illustrating an application of it that is anything but.