toldailytopic: Should business owners have the right to not serve a gay customer?

[Memento Mori]

Irrelevent.

I find it unfortunate that you cannot see the difference between public and private.

Think about what it means for a deli to "serve the public." What this means is that a private individual is making use of his privately owned goods by trading them to other individuals in exchange for cash.

Except that those "individuals" are actually a group, i.e., the public. The sum of the individuals is what comprises the public. Thus if a person opens their business door to a single person walking on the street they are open to the public. Thus they must subject to the good of the public. They should not arbitrarily disservice the public to which it prior opened its doors.

This "open to the public" only signifies an intention on the part of the private individual which should not be subject to the legislative power of human law. This "open to the public" merely means: "I have decided that I will let anyone walk in and exchange money for my goods." But this intention is merely a private course of action. This "right of access" which TH previously mentioned only arises because of the voluntariness of the private owner. Therefore, he can dispense it and withdraw it at his own leisure.

Once you accept that your trades are done in a public setting then you are subject to the good of the public. You cannot disservice parts of the public based on a particular belief. For example, I should not deny service to a Scientologist even though I find their beliefs deplorable. My private beliefs cannot permeate the rights of the public. I am in a position of power and I should not attempt to enforce my beliefs on the public through denial of service in a public setting.

You are equivocating. There's "liberty" in the sense of natural right, and then there's "liberty" in the sense of general permission. When we speak of "their liberties" we are generally speaking of natural rights. But this "liberty" which is created is a "general permission" arbitrarily granted by the owner of the shop.

My right to life supersedes the rights of a businesses denial of service. My right to life is guaranteed inherently. However, the rights of denial of service arbitrarily, violates this inherent right. That right is guaranteed as a function of business and must bow down to those rights which are inherently guaranteed. If my purchasing power is viewed as an extension as the right (since it is fundamental to my survival that I have purchasing power) then those who deny it arbitrarily are violating. Thus my rights must be greater than those of the business.

So yes, in that sense, he denies them a liberty, but it's not a liberty which they intrinsically possess. It's a liberty which arises solely from the intention of the shopkeeper: "Yes, you may enter my building and exchange your money for my goods."

This is why I posed the question in such a form. You either have to choose that individuals (the public) has greater rights than the business owners rights or vice versa. I think the point is exemplified by common English usage, "Businesses are built to serve the public."

But hey have no intrinsic/natural right to this. Therefore, it should not fall under the scope of law.

Supra.

I agree. They have just as much right (in the sense of an intrinsic right) to purchase from me as anyone else: none.

Your rights to a business are only contractual. In creating a business your outlying a context based on a mutual agreement between you and the public. Your business rights are not intrinsic, they are contractual.

This is false. I've given the same power to everyone. Everyone possesses the same intrinsic rights.

No you haven't. You've decided that the arbitrary whims of a business are greater than the intrinsic rights of the public.

Nobody should be able to violate the intrinsic rights of anyone. That's why they're intrinsic rights. But, again, you're equivocating on the notion of "right." There's natural/intrinsic right (which everyone possesses) and right in the sense of "general permission" or perhaps even "legal entitlement," wihch arises completely arbitrarily according to the whim of those granting the right.

And purchasing power is intrinsic to me having the right to pursuit of happiness, life, and liberty (or even greater the original right to pursue property). By discriminating you're removing that right to the pursuit of property (and I believe the right to life establishes every other fundamental right).

In general, for-profit hospitals should be able to turn away anyone they please. Except in cases of emergency/life-saving treatment. As I mentioned before to Bybee and TH, emergency/life-saving situations are different, since everyone has a duty (and which should be legislated) to make reasonable effort in such cases.

Should car companies have the right to not include safety features in their cars such as seat belts, air bags, etc.?

But note, even though I say that for-profit hospitals should be able turn away anyone they please, it should also be noted that I think that the government has a duty to step in where the free market fails. But then, I'm sure you've read my various posts on healthcare. :idunno:

Anytime, there is a "but" the thing that follows is the opposite of what has been stated... A break in reasoning? I see it may depend on your answer to the car manufacturer question.

 

[bybee]

FURTHERMORE, Town Heretic, stepping away from philosophy and into the domain of law proper: it is worth noting that, with the recent healthcare decision (as I understand it), the courts have explicitly affirmed that the State cannot compel individuals to buy a product.

Insofar as the State was attempting to make people buy a product or service, the law was unconstitutional. It's constitutional only insofar as it is a tax.

A business is not the same as an individual.
A business requires licensure therefore it comes under the jurisdiction of local government.
It is the business that is offering a service or product.

 

[Traditio]

I find it unfortunate that you cannot see the difference between public and private.

No, I grant a difference between public and private, as I set out in answer to TH. Public is what is "in common," so to speak. Private is what is individually owned and possessed. A business, strictly speaking, is not "public." The public doesn't own it. Private individuals do. The public doesn't shop at a business (unless the business does business with the government). Private individuals do.

Except that those "individuals" are actually a group, i.e., the public. The sum of the individuals is what comprises the public.

Collectively and as a totality, I will grant this. But, as I said above, the public doesn't shop at walmart. Private individuals do. "The public" builds parks, promulgates lesiglation, etc.

Thus if a person opens their business door to a single person walking on the street they are open to the public.

There's no reason to assume this.

Thus they must subject to the good of the public.

Strictly speaking, every positive private good must be "subject" to the public good; but note, however, in my answer to TH, that the public good is very definite. The public or common good, the "bonum commune," is that which is held in common.

A park or a school is a public or common good. Civil peace is a public good. Roads are a public good.

You get the idea.

But you can't push this idea too far. If everything must be "subject to the good of the public," and you counterpose this public good to the private good, then you're in danger of abrogating the private good entirely, and you have communism.

In order to have a robust notion of the common good on the one hand aand a private good on the other hand, you must find limits and proper places for each. The common good is properly the good of the State (and with it of the entire people collectively). The private good is properly the good of the individual.

There is no public good/common good at variance with the right of the private individual/business owner to dispense with his private goods as he pleases (thus, serving or not serving black people).

They should not arbitrarily disservice the public to which it prior opened its doors.

"The public" doesn't go to the deli. John and Bob and Mary do. Furthermore, no disservice is done by the deli in refusing to serve black people. Would the deli owner have done a "disservice" to anyone by refusing to open up his deli in the first place? No. He merely would have been failing to render a service which he was never compelled to offer in the first place. Likewise, he does no disservice in refusing to serve black people. He merely fails to render them a service which he doesn't owe them to begin with.

Once you accept that your trades are done in a public setting then you are subject to the good of the public.

I don't accept that. A privately owned building is not a public setting.

You cannot disservice parts of the public based on a particular belief.

Service vs. disservice vs. failure to render a service.

My right to life supersedes the rights of a businesses denial of service.

Your right to life is not infringed by the business' denial. My refusal to sell you a sandwich infringes against your right to life no more than my refusal to give you a sandwich for free would infringe against your right to life.

My right to life is guaranteed inherently. However, the rights of denial of service arbitrarily, violates this inherent right. That right is guaranteed as a function of business and must bow down to those rights which are inherently guaranteed.

Your right to life was't infringed before deli owner A opened shop, was it? It's no more infringed now that he's opened shop, but is refusing to serve you. :idunno:

If my purchasing power is viewed as an extension as the right

It isn't.

This is why I posed the question in such a form. You either have to choose that individuals (the public) has greater rights than the business owners rights or vice versa. I think the point is exemplified by common English usage, "Businesses are built to serve the public."

Again, everyone has the same rights.

Your rights to a business are only contractual.

False. The rights to the business are inherint in the notion of a right to property. I own this sandwich. It is mine. I have a right to it. If you take it from me without paying, you are a thief.

My right to sell the sandwich flows from my right of possession over it.

In creating a business your outlying a context based on a mutual agreement between you and the public.

I deny this. See above.

And purchasing power is intrinsic to me having the right to pursuit of happiness, life, and liberty (or even greater the original right to pursue property). By discriminating you're removing that right to the pursuit of property (and I believe the right to life establishes every other fundamental right).

If I choose not to open a deli, am I infringing your rights?

Should car companies have the right to not include safety features in their cars such as seat belts, air bags, etc.?

No. But that's part of the justice of the exchange itself. It has nothing to do with property rights as I've argued so far.

Anytime, there is a "but" the thing that follows is the opposite of what has been stated... A break in reasoning? I see it may depend on your answer to the car manufacturer question.

There's no break in reasoning. There's a private good on the one hand and a public good on the other hand. Generally, the means of production are left with private owners. When private owners do not or cannot sufficiently meet the needs of the populace, it is the duty of the government to fill the need.

If farmers aren't producing enough wheat, it may be the duty of the government to build some more wheat farms and employ some people to farm them.

 

[Memento Mori]

I think there's an opposite example which cropped up recently.

Should the public have the right to not allow a business operate in an area?

 

[Traditio]

I think there's an opposite example which cropped up recently.

Should the public have the right to not allow a business operate in an area?

Let's substract the loaded terminology and say exactly what we mean:

Do you mean:

1. Should the local/state/federal government be able to say to a private individual: "You may not possess this building, this land and these goods, and exchange them to these other private individuals for money?"

2. Should the other private individuals in the area say to a private individual: "You may not possess this building, this land and these goods, and exchange them to these other private individuals for money?"

3. Should someone who owns this piece of land say to this private individual: "Oh, you want to buy this piece of land so that you can build this building, have these goods shipped in (or render these services), and exchange them to these other private individuals for money? I won't sell it to you, then."

Or do you mean something else? And once you parse out what you mean into less loaded language, why don't you attempt an answer yourself?

Presumably, you're talking about the Chicago thing, so you mean:

"Should the local government be able to forbid a private individual (or set of private individuals) from owning a piece of land, a building and several pieces of property, and then exchanging those pieces of property (fried chicken nuggets, for example) to other private citizens for money?"

 

[Memento Mori]

Let's substract the loaded terminology and say exactly what we mean:

Do you mean:

1. Should the local/state/federal government be able to say to a private individual: "You may not possess this building, this land and these goods, and exchange them to these other private individuals for money?"

2. Should the other private individuals in the area say to a private individual: "You may not possess this building, this land and these goods, and exchange them to these other private individuals for money?"

3. Should someone who owns this piece of land say to this private individual: "Oh, you want to buy this piece of land so that you can build this building, have these goods shipped in (or render these services), and exchange them to these other private individuals for money? I won't sell it to you, then."

Or do you mean something else? And once you parse out what you mean into less loaded language, why don't you attempt an answer yourself?

You think that was loaded? It was meant to be an opposite question to the OP.

Local government, a rally of people, an elected official. That which represents the public. Should it be able to tell a business person you cannot operate here whether because that business owner is black, gay, etc.?

By way of example, Chicago attempted to block Chik-fil-A from operating in the area because of Chik's position. Should the government, the people, or etc. be able to bar businesses from operation because of a business owners race, religion, or creed?

Also, I'm not sure if you missed it but TH posted a reply to you in the previous page which I haven't seen a response to.

 

[Traditio]

You think that was loaded?

"Public" is a loaded term. Also, given the previous posts, it's worth defining what it means "to operate a business."

Local government, a rally of people, an elected official. That which represents the public. Should it be able to tell a business person you cannot operate here whether because that business owner is black, gay, etc.?

No. The State represents the whole people (that includes blacks, whites, Asians, etc.). If the State were to make a law forbidding black people from owning and operating businesses, this 1. would contradict the role of the State in procuring the common good, and 2. this may be an overstepping of the State over its proper authority (that is, this may infringe personal liberty).

I'm less inclined to address the matter of gay people.

Of course, there's always the matter of the nature of the business. I do think that the State has the right to say, for example, "it is not permissible to exchange sexual relations for money." Therefore, if this "business" consisted of the exchange of sexual relations for money, I think that it's within the right of the State to shut that "business" down.

Also, I'm not sure if you missed it but TH posted a reply to you in the previous page which I haven't seen a response to.

I haven't gotten around to it yet.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Trad, I don't get where you're coming from frankly. If you're going to open up a business offering services to the general public then denying a certain element on'moral principle' is double standards at best. As soon as the doors open there'll be all manner of people availing themselves of the product(s) on offer. Whether or not it's gays, robbers, adulterers, transvestites that said business owner wants to deny, he/she/they become hypocrites once they accept transactions for the services they provide.

If you have moral objections to contraceptives then don't work in a pharmacy. If you have moral objections to a certain 'class of people' then don't open a business where you know in advance they'll be part of your customer base whether you know who they are or not. It's as simple as that.

 

[Memento Mori]

"Public" is a loaded term. Also, given the previous posts, it's worth defining what it means "to operate a business."

So pedantic...

Public would be anything which represent the public interest such as elected officials, public rallies, petitions, etc.

Operation of a business would include opening, operating, engaging with the public in trades of goods and services for money (or other goods and services, i.e., bartering).

No. The State represents the whole people (that includes blacks, whites, Asians, etc.). If the State were to make a law forbidding black people from owning and operating businesses, this 1. would contradict the role of the State in procuring the common good, and 2. this may be an overstepping of the State over its proper authority (that is, this may infringe personal liberty).

So, the public (government, rally, etc.) doesn't have the right to discriminate against businesses but the businesses (should) have the right to discriminate against the public. That is a public entity should not bar a business from operation based on arbitrary reasoning.

I'm less inclined to address the matter of gay people.

It's not a main point, just an example.

Of course, there's always the matter of the nature of the business. I do think that the State has the right to say, for example, "it is not permissible to exchange sexual relations for money." Therefore, if this "business" consisted of the exchange of sexual relations for money, I think that it's within the right of the State to shut that "business" down.

Where is the line then? We can conclude that racism, sexism, etc. are moral matters as they negatively affect a portion of society, similar to prostitution. So why can't the government step in and say "you are not allowed to discriminate arbitrarily" versus the government saying "you are not allowed to sell your body."

I haven't gotten around to it yet.

Just making sure. I know posts of the previous page tend to get lost when it is the final before striking a new page.:carryon:

 

[Memento Mori]

Ooo! I thought of a better question for the public exclusion!

Should an all white neighborhood be allowed to prohibit a black business person from setting up shop?

 

[Town Heretic]

Again, Trad:

We hold that the state can interfere in any right, including the right to life, but not without a compelling interest being served, like justice or the necessity of balancing your individual rights with the rights of your neighbors. Once you realize that you understand how the rest of our approach fails.

The rest is argument over individual notions of Utopia.

 

[bybee]

Again, Trad:

We hold that the state can interfere in any right, including the right to life, but not without a compelling interest being served, like justice or the necessity of balancing your individual rights with the rights of your neighbors. Once you realize that you understand how the rest of our approach fails.

The rest is argument over individual notions of Utopia.

His ideas are sophomorically self-serving. Like a child insisting on having his own way he is not capable of grasping the larger issues of equality in the public setting.

 

[Lee52]

Ooo! I thought of a better question for the public exclusion!

Should an all white neighborhood be allowed to prohibit a black business person from setting up shop?

So, once again, something such as skin color is being regarded as the same as sexual preference............. Too silly!

My skin color is what I wear from birth to death and is always with me. Everyone can see my skin color.

Nobody sees my sexual preferences in public unless I let them.

Skin color and sexual preferences are not the same, never were, never will be.

Even if, IF, one were to find biological proof, which to date does not exist, that GLBT is genetic, it is not the same as skin color. For one is worn on the outside of the body, the other worn on the inside of the body.

 

[bybee]

So, once again, something such as skin color is being regarded as the same as sexual preference............. Too silly!

My skin color is what I wear from birth to death and is always with me. Everyone can see my skin color.

Nobody sees my sexual preferences in public unless I let them.

Skin color and sexual preferences are not the same, never were, never will be.

Even if, IF, one were to find biological proof, which to date does not exist, that GLBT is genetic, it is not the same as skin color. For one is worn on the outside of the body, the other worn on the inside of the body.

Lighten up! He was merely using that as an example.

 

[Granite]

Trad, I don't get where you're coming from frankly. If you're going to open up a business offering services to the general public then denying a certain element on'moral principle' is double standards at best. As soon as the doors open there'll be all manner of people availing themselves of the product(s) on offer. Whether or not it's gays, robbers, adulterers, transvestites that said business owner wants to deny, he/she/they become hypocrites once they accept transactions for the services they provide.

If you have moral objections to contraceptives then don't work in a pharmacy. If you have moral objections to a certain 'class of people' then don't open a business where you know in advance they'll be part of your customer base whether you know who they are or not. It's as simple as that.

Gee. What a shocker.

"Sophomoric," "pedantic": I see you guys are finally catching on.

 

[PureX]

So, once again, something such as skin color is being regarded as the same as sexual preference............. Too silly!

My skin color is what I wear from birth to death and is always with me. Everyone can see my skin color.

Nobody sees my sexual preferences in public unless I let them.

Skin color and sexual preferences are not the same, never were, never will be.

Even if, IF, one were to find biological proof, which to date does not exist, that GLBT is genetic, it is not the same as skin color. For one is worn on the outside of the body, the other worn on the inside of the body.

That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with anything. Why one chooses to discriminate against other people isn't the issue. It could be based on anything real or imaginary. The issue is that some people think they should have the right to discriminate against other people simply because they want to. And by discriminate, we are referring to insult, inconvenience, and placing undue burdens upon specific members of the general public by businesses that are licensed and advertise themselves as being open to serve the general public. .

 

[PureX]

 

[Granite]

Exactly.

Our kids and grandkids will wonder why we even fought over this. "What were you guys thinking?"

 

[MaryContrary]

But that's not why this nation was formed: ... to maintain "order". It was formed to establish and protect equal freedom, equal opportunity, and equal justice for all who live here.

1) Show me.
2) Never mind because I don't care why this nation was formed. We were talking about what a government should do.

That's really the only way it can work. A hundred centuries of human history has shown this, and is still showing us this.

As soon as we allow one group of humans to hold power of another group, the abuse and exploitation of the powerless inevitably begins. Why on Earth would we want to deliberately create a society that behaves like that?

Hilariously, that's exactly what you're describing. A government with a vague, impossible goal and no shackles on its power in the interests of achieving it. As opposed to government set in place to simply maintain order.

I was responding to a specific post, not a conversation. Sorry.

A specific post that was in response to another specific post. Which was in response to another specific post. Etc. Back to the OP. Don't be a doofus.

 

[PureX]

But that's not why this nation was formed: ... to maintain "order". It was formed to establish and protect equal freedom, equal opportunity, and equal justice for all who live here.

1) Show me.

That's easy. The founders wrote it down for the whole world to read and understand. They called it their "Declaration of Independence".

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ....​

It says it right there in black and white: that THIS government was instituted to secure and protect our equal rights to life, freedom and opportunity. That IS IT'S PURPOSE. And the reason they stressed the idea of equality is because they understood that without equality, the majority will inevitably abuse the rights of minorities. So that it is part of the purpose of the government to make sure this doesn't happen.

2) Never mind because I don't care why this nation was formed. We were talking about what a government should do.

It's sad that you don't care, because a lot of very good and courageous people sacrificed their lives to create THIS government, and it's intent to protect those rights that you don't care about.

Hilariously, that's exactly what you're describing. A government with a vague, impossible goal and no shackles on its power in the interests of achieving it. As opposed to government set in place to simply maintain order.

Fascist governments maintain order very well. If maintaining order was all government was for, we wouldn't have needed to bother fighting two world wars. And equality of rights isn't some vague or impossible goal. It's only a difficult goal for bigots because they don't want to give up their ability to slander, insult and abuse the rights of other people.