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

[Traditio]

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

You included the term to be defined in your definition. "The public would be...public"?

In any case, whereas I disagree with some of the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas, the following articles are worth noting:

"I answer that, A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good. Now to order anything to the common good, belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs" (ST I-II, q. 90, a. 3, corpus).

"I answer that, Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that "law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens." Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6). "((ST I-II, q. 96, a. 1, corpus).

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).

I disagree with this definition. A business rarely engages with the public qua public. A business generally deals with private individuals.

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.

You've misunderstood me. The public (that is, the law) does not have the right to discriminate against individuals, since the law concerns itself with the common good of the entire people. The individual does not have the right to discriminate against the public (that is, the State). That said, the State (the public personified), since it deals with law governing the whole people and not with individual matters...

But this or that black person (or even all of them) are not the public. They are private individuals.

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."

The government has the right to say what kind of exchanges are acceptable and which are not. The government generally does not seem to have the right to compel this individual to engage in this particular exchange. The right of the individual to engage in this legally acceptable exchange rightly falls under the law as permissive, not as compulsive. [For permissive vs. compulsive, see ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2.]

 

[Memento Mori]

You included the term to be defined in your definition. "The public would be...public"?

Well I think you're being pedantic since you can't identify "public."

In any case, whereas I disagree with some of the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas, the following articles are worth noting:

:jawdrop: You disagree with your philosopher king?! What is this nonsense?!

"I answer that, A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good. Now to order anything to the common good, belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs" (ST I-II, q. 90, a. 3, corpus).

You know, when you bold and underline the vast majority of an article, it tends to undermine that reference. I would suggest only highlighting a single sentence or term which emphasizes your point and revealing the rest of the article as context.

Also, congratulations. You've said the same thing and exemplified the point of my greater example. Should an all white neighborhood be able to disallow a black businessman from operating in their area?

"I answer that, Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that "law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens." Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6). "((ST I-II, q. 96, a. 1, corpus).

See, that's much better. More succinct and eloquent. It also drives your point home much better than that a priori.

And thus a case can be made, discrimination in public accommodation violates the common good of the people. Thus we can create laws which forbid forbearing.

I disagree with this definition. A business rarely engages with the public qua public. A business generally deals with private individuals.

Individuals that comprise the public. It's like suggesting that your car doesn't deal with the road. It only deals with the contact patch of your tires.

You've misunderstood me. The public (that is, the law) does not have the right to discriminate against individuals, since the law concerns itself with the common good of the entire people. The individual does not have the right to discriminate against the public (that is, the State). That said, the State (the public personified), since it deals with law governing the whole people and not with individual matters...

So the public cannot discriminate against business owners arbitrarily but those who comprise the business can discriminate against the individuals that comprise the public?

But this or that black person (or even all of them) are not the public. They are private individuals.

Are they part of the public?

The government has the right to say what kind of exchanges are acceptable and which are not. The government generally does not seem to have the right to compel this individual to engage in this particular exchange. The right of the individual to engage in this legally acceptable exchange rightly falls under the law as permissive, not as compulsive. [For permissive vs. compulsive, see ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2.]

The government doesn't compel action in law. They forbid forbearing. They are preventing an action, i.e., discrimination.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hiya again, Trad. Given you didn't answer my last more lengthy or shorter rebuff I'm going to assume you're doing the Utopian twist, understand you misapprehended the law and foundation and I'll call it a day, as everyone is surely entitled to their daydreams, so long as they understand the distinction between that and the fact of the matter.

Have fun with him MoMo. :chuckle:

 

[Iconoclast]

Government/homos should not be imposing their morality on others.
They want to legislate their morality on others by forcing them to accept what they say is private behavior.

if you accept the homo has a right to be, then they win by default.

 

[Memento Mori]

Government/homos should not be imposing their morality on others.
They want to legislate their morality on others by forcing them to accept what they say is private behavior.

if you accept the homo has a right to be, then they win by default.

And you don't want your morality legislated?

 

[Town Heretic]

Government/homos should not be imposing their morality on others.
They want to legislate their morality on others by forcing them to accept what they say is private behavior.

if you accept the homo has a right to be, then they win by default.

Substitute Jew for homo and you'd have made a great Nazi.

 

[Memento Mori]

Substitute Jew for homo and you'd have made a great Nazi.

Wow... almost 14 pages without a previous Nazi reference... Unless I missed an earlier one... lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Wow... almost 14 pages without a previous Nazi reference... Unless I missed an earlier one... lain:

Once someone talks about the right to exist being a victory for their target/opposition it's time to play the Nazi card just for the heil of it. lain:

 

[Memento Mori]

Once someone talks about the right to exist being a victory for their target/opposition it's time to play the Nazi card just for the heil of it. lain:

lain:

Now if only I could find the UN card to UN-nazi the world.

 

[Lighthouse]

Should you have to hide your religious beliefs, not carry your Bible if you want to be served at a particular restaurant? Should you be denied service on the basis of your choice, your faith?

1. No
2. That is the choice of the service provider

 

[annabenedetti]

That photo was taken in Arkansas in 1959. . I wonder how many of them were Democrats? :think:

By 1900 the Democratic Party expanded use of the white primary in county and state elections, further denying blacks a part in the political process. Only in the primary was there any competition among candidates, as Democrats held all the power. The state was a Democratic one-party state for decades, until after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed.[38]

 

[Town Heretic]

I asked:

Should you have to hide your religious beliefs, not carry your Bible if you want to be served at a particular restaurant?

No.

Good answer, though you blow it up with your next.

Should you be denied service on the basis of your choice, your faith?

That is the choice of the service provider.

No, it isn't. It's a violation of the law if he does. And it should be.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Should you have to hide your religious beliefs, not carry your Bible if you want to be served at a particular restaurant?


Good answer, though you blow it up with your next.

Should you be denied service on the basis of your choice, your faith?

No, it isn't. It's a violation of the law if he does.

It shouldn't be. There is a difference between a government (state and federal) agency and a private business.

 

[Town Heretic]

It shouldn't be. There is a difference between a government (state and federal) agency and a private business.

Not sure I understand you, but if you're saying the private individual has the right to deny you services and/or goods because you're a Catholic or Protestant or Atheist or that he should have that right then no, he doesn't and he shouldn't. It makes a mockery of our entire compact.

If that's not what you're saying, skip the rest.

I put it to someone here, Trad I believe, that all you need is the majority feeling your sort shouldn't buy or trade or live in their area and you're done. It's mostly been used by a given majority to hold power over and dictate to a given minority. And while the majority has a way of couching this notion in a "whatever minority is being considered can discriminate too" package it's not practically possible unless that minority is only marginally so, making it possible for them to survive and thrive without using the market provided by the majority.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I am saying that yes, a business owner who does not receive any government funding should be able to deny service based on anything their heart desires.

 

[Town Heretic]

I am saying that yes, a business owner who does not receive any government funding should be able to deny service based on anything their heart desires.

Why direct funding? Why not indirect funding? Does the business owner provide his own roads, police and fire? If not he pays taxes like any other citizen. But he's subsidized by the Federal Government. It's just indirectly. And if he's subsidized by the people he is refusing service to, absent some legitimate business purpose, then he might as well be stealing from them.

But the real problem with your position as a proposition of law is that it allows the majority to hold power over the minorities, to exclude them from the power structure. That's unjust at best, however well intentioned and facilitates an evil intent at its worst.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why direct funding? Why not indirect funding? Does the business owner provide his own roads, police and fire? If not he pays taxes like any other citizen. But he's subsidized by the Federal Government. It's just indirectly. And if he's subsidized by the people he is refusing service to, absent some legitimate business purpose, then he might as well be stealing from them.

But the real problem with your position as a proposition of law is that it allows the majority to hold power over the minorities, to exclude them from the power structure. That's unjust at best, however well intentioned and facilitates an evil intent at its worst.

yes he pays personal taxes for those things like everyone else, you arent suggesting that some people should be double taxed are you? He also pays his business taxes, and provides jobs.

A minority cannot have a business and deny a majority? Why do you assume my idea of what is right is only to harm a minority? There are loads of reasons a business person might not want to serve someone and they should be able to do it.

The marketplace can correct what is wrong. Say joe blow denies this person, well person can do business with sally x - if joe is unreasonable in his business practice then eventually joes business will suffer.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

It's ironic, really, that Christ died on the cross and forgave everyone including the one's who persecuted him as he was being nailed to it,
and yet, there are Christians who can't even sell something to a homosexual.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why direct funding? Why not indirect funding? Does the business owner provide his own roads, police and fire? If not he pays taxes like any other citizen. But he's subsidized by the Federal Government. It's just indirectly. And if he's subsidized by the people he is refusing service to, absent some legitimate business purpose, then he might as well be stealing from them.

But the real problem with your position as a proposition of law is that it allows the majority to hold power over the minorities, to exclude them from the power structure. That's unjust at best, however well intentioned and facilitates an evil intent at its worst.

yes he pays personal taxes for those things like everyone else

Right: like EVERYONE else. He kicks in part of the costs of supportive service and infrastructure he needs to make his business possible/profitable. And he wants to deny access to someone whose taxes also made his business possible/profitable.

, you arent suggesting that some people should be double taxed are you?

How does anything I wrote suggest that?

A minority cannot have a business and deny a majority?

A majority doesn't need minority participation to be profitable and the market loss (to the extent applicable--not accounting "back door" business) is more than made up for by the political/social power gained from disenfranchising the minority. So sure, a black man in the segregated South could have put up a "No whites" sign (shortly before having his building torched) but to what impact? Now the majority, keeping to this theory of economics can (and did) decide where the minority lives, what goods are available, where and to what extent they are educated.

Historically the joke of separate but equal has the minority bearing the brunt of the punch line.

Why do you assume my idea of what is right is only to harm a minority?

I didn't. I noted where that argument/belief takes us. I find many decent people get behind ideas that sound reasonable but aren't if you've seen them applied.

There are loads of reasons a business person might not want to serve someone and they should be able to do it.

Actually, legitimate business reasons is something gone into in the Court's treatment/consideration. But legitimate reasons tend to single out conduct and not inherent physical attributes or religious or sexual practices which don't impact a business unless people break into either on the premises, which is likely a statutory violation in any event.

The marketplace can correct what is wrong.

But why should it? Look to the history of racial segregation for a primer on why that just didn't happen.

Say joe blow denies this person, well person can do business with sally x - if joe is unreasonable in his business practice then eventually joes business will suffer.

See, you just gave an example of rough equality. What distinguished Joe from "this person"? Nothing. Now change that person to all minorities and all you need is a strong majority to enforce its will, both on the minority and on those in the majority who want political, social and economic leverage.

Again, the South is a perfect example for anyone interested. :e4e:

 

[Angel4Truth]

I disagree with you TH, sorry.