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

[MaryContrary]

A business enters into the realm of services and goods offered to the public for sale, therefore governed by those laws which apply to the common good.
I believe it is quite different from my rights as a homeowner.

My point would be that is shouldn't be different. And I challenge the assumption that it should be. Why should it be different?

Your wording calls to mind stepping out of one's private grounds and into the public...but that's not the case with a business, is it? Do you not own the business itself? And so I'd argue not public at all. Open to the public, yes, but still your business. And so it seems to me still under your sovereignty, certainly to the extend that you should be able to decide who can and cannot do business with you there.

If you were doing business on government property or public property, then I think that's a great argument. The government and/or public would have every reason to govern how business is done there. But in one's own business? I just can't see that as anything other an inimical to liberty.

Not to mention the "common good" makes me uneasy. Who gets to decide that?

 

[bybee]

My point would be that is shouldn't be different. And I challenge the assumption that it should be. Why should it be different?

Your wording calls to mind stepping out of one's private grounds and into the public...but that's not the case with a business, is it? Do you not own the business itself? And so I'd argue not public at all. Open to the public, yes, but still your business. And so it seems to me still under your sovereignty, certainly to the extend that you should be able to decide who can and cannot do business with you there.

If you were doing business on government property or public property, then I think that's a great argument. The government and/or public would have every reason to govern how business is done there. But in one's own business? I just can't see that as anything other an inimical to liberty.

Not to mention the "common good" makes me uneasy. Who gets to decide that?

The Constitution and the law of the land?

 

[Town Heretic]

Town Heretic, I reiterate my question, which, in my view, was quite possibly the most important point of the entire post:

8 farms. 1 family moves away. A new family moves into their place. Should the other 7 farming families be under any legal obligation to the 8th new family to provide the (free and voluntary) services they rendered to the initial family?

No. Not unless it was an understood basis of the bargain and they stood in some relation to the seller and with understanding of the representation and remained silent.

Do you understand what I was saying here:

The point of the law is its impact, not its adherence to some strictly particular notion of logical symmetry. Laws are about people first. So while it may be just and equitable that all men who drive ninety miles an hour are treated the same and in keeping with a principle, we don't treat the pregnant wife's husband as we do the youngster taking his new sports car for a "test drive" in the same fashion. And we shouldn't. The law in this regard is like our language, a cobbled thing serving a purpose, not a perfectly structured and immutable grammar.​

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Do you understand what I was saying here:

The point of the law is its impact, not its adherence to some strictly particular notion of logical symmetry. Laws are about people first. So while it may be just and equitable that all men who drive ninety miles an hour are treated the same and in keeping with a principle, we don't treat the pregnant wife's husband as we do the youngster taking his new sports car for a "test drive" in the same fashion. And we shouldn't. The law in this regard is like our language, a cobbled thing serving a purpose, not a perfectly structured and immutable grammar.​

Hmmm... :think:

 

[bybee]

No. Not unless it was an understood basis of the bargain and they stood in some relation to the seller and with understanding of the representation and remained silent.

Do you understand what I was saying here:

The point of the law is its impact, not its adherence to some strictly particular notion of logical symmetry. Laws are about people first. So while it may be just and equitable that all men who drive ninety miles an hour are treated the same and in keeping with a principle, we don't treat the pregnant wife's husband as we do the youngster taking his new sports car for a "test drive" in the same fashion. And we shouldn't. The law in this regard is like our language, a cobbled thing serving a purpose, not a perfectly structured and immutable grammar.​

Agreed!

 

[Traditio]

No. Not unless it was an understood basis of the bargain and they stood in some relation to the seller and with understanding of the representation and remained silent.

Do you understand what I was saying here:

The point of the law is its impact, not its adherence to some strictly particular notion of logical symmetry. Laws are about people first. So while it may be just and equitable that all men who drive ninety miles an hour are treated the same and in keeping with a principle, we don't treat the pregnant wife's husband as we do the youngster taking his new sports car for a "test drive" in the same fashion. And we shouldn't. The law in this regard is like our language, a cobbled thing serving a purpose, not a perfectly structured and immutable grammar.​

Alright. Good. Now that I have an answer to the main question of my previous post, I'll copy/paste your answer to your other reply, and I'll address them both at the same time.

 

[Traditio]

I'd say it's reasoned, it moves on principle. I'm not sure that it finds its origin in logical necessity at every point. In fact, I'd say it not only doesn't, but that historically (here and importantly there) it has run, in the particular, contrary to its aim in the general.

Let me try this again. When I say that "law is a dictate of reason," what I mean is that a law is the apprehension of some point of practical reason. For example: "Thou ought not to commit murder." When a law is issued, the idea is that the law has a basis on some rational principle. At least in some manner of speaking, it's a dictate of prudence.

So, if I make a law that murderers shall be imprisoned for life, I am saying the following: 1. it is wrong to commit murder, 2. murderers pose a threat to society and deserve punishment and 3. it is just to imprison them for life.

It does not originate from the mere will of the lawmaker. You can't just make up any law that you want. If a lawmaker does that, then the law runs the risk of being a bad law. Consider ST I-II, q. 95, a. 2, corpus:

"I answer that, As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (91, 2, ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.

But it must be noted that something may be derived from the natural law in two ways: first, as a conclusion from premises, secondly, by way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated conclusions are drawn from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that whereby, in the arts, general forms are particularized as to details: thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to some particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g. that "one must not kill" may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that "one should do harm to no man": while some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.

Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human law. But those things which are derived in the first way, are contained in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also. But those things which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human law."

Right. The law restricts, either by obligation or, more frequently, by injunction.

You're confusing the four acts of law. The four acts of law are permitting, commanding, forbidding and punishing. See ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2.

In any case, the running of a business rightly falls under the law as permissive, not under the law as preceptive or prohibitive. You can either run a business or not. It's a free enterprise.

No, you're still missing the point. When you ask "What injury?" that question is answered by illustration in the history and impact of what you suggest in an isolated, conceptual ideal.

If you can "illustrate it," then you can explain it briefly and succinctly. :idunno:

So if you inquire as to the injury done by applying a notion of separate but equal, the response beyond the injury done to the person restrained for no better reason than the ignorant bias of a majority is found in the myriad of damages done the minority, from self perception (since the fiction of minority usage has been addressed prior) to a grotesquely impaired economic empowerment and opportunity and the pursuant expectation or want of in the injured party, to the harm/injury done the actual notion of equality, there being little of it found in the implementation and effect by example and upon mature examination.

1. What "restraint" are you talking about? I don't restrain someone by refusing to sell him a product.

2. Self-perception is a non-argument. I fail to see how this should be considered a legal harm. "He made me feel bad! BOO HOO!" I mean, really? :idunno:

3. You've failed to show that "impaired economic empoerment and opportunity," etc. involved the infringement of a right.

You get the idea.

The point of the law is its impact, not its adherence to some strictly particular notion of logical symmetry.

Supra.

Laws are about people first. So while it may be just and equitable that all men who drive ninety miles an hour are treated the same and in keeping with a principle, we don't treat the pregnant wife's husband as we do the youngster taking his new sports car for a "test drive" in the same fashion. And we shouldn't. The law in this regard is like our language, a cobbled thing serving a purpose, not a perfectly structured and immutable grammar.

The law must be applied equally to equal cases ceteris paribus. A philosopher would have noted that the above is not a case of two different cases of the law being applied differently. Rather, one of these cases is simply a case in which the law does not apply. See ST I-II, q. 96, a. 6.

You demonstrate the insufficiency of your consideration and understanding of the law and why lawmakers are those trained to understand what you miss and why philosophers are not law makers as well as a want of considered and informed opinion on the subject of the real and observable and generational harm inflicted.

Is there the infringement of a right or not? If these so called "harms" do not involve the transgression of legal right, then this is a moral matter, not a legal matter.

Completely untrue. They're general recognition of a particular impact with sociological and psychological realities framing that generational harm to the emotional and economic reality of the impacted minorities, which you'd know if you presumed less and read more.

Supra.

No. Not unless it was an understood basis of the bargain and they stood in some relation to the seller and with understanding of the representation and remained silent.

And yet the newcomer is rendered unable to live there because he has failed to obtain the aid of the other 7. The refusal of businesses to serve a portion of the population is merely the farm example writ large. If it's not a legal matter in the case of the farm, then it shouldn't be a legal matter in the case of the businesses.

The principle shines out in both cases: the law ought not compel us to enter into economic exchanges. Private property rights must be respected.

Even if that means that others might be "shut out."

 

[bybee]

Let me try this again. When I say that "law is a dictate of reason," what I mean is that a law is the apprehension of some point of practical reason. For example: "Thou ought not to commit murder." When a law is issued, the idea is that the law has a basis on some rational principle. At least in some manner of speaking, it's a dictate of prudence.

So, if I make a law that murderers shall be imprisoned for life, I am saying the following: 1. it is wrong to commit murder, 2. murderers pose a threat to society and deserve punishment and 3. it is just to imprison them for life.

It does not originate from the mere will of the lawmaker. You can't just make up any law that you want. If a lawmaker does that, then the law runs the risk of being a bad law. Consider ST I-II, q. 95, a. 2, corpus:

"I answer that, As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (91, 2, ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.

But it must be noted that something may be derived from the natural law in two ways: first, as a conclusion from premises, secondly, by way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated conclusions are drawn from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that whereby, in the arts, general forms are particularized as to details: thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to some particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g. that "one must not kill" may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that "one should do harm to no man": while some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.

Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human law. But those things which are derived in the first way, are contained in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also. But those things which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human law."



You're confusing the four acts of law. The four acts of law are permitting, commanding, forbidding and punishing. See ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2.

In any case, the running of a business rightly falls under the law as permissive, not under the law as preceptive or prohibitive. You can either run a business or not. It's a free enterprise.



If you can "illustrate it," then you can explain it briefly and succinctly. :idunno:



1. What "restraint" are you talking about? I don't restrain someone by refusing to sell him a product.

2. Self-perception is a non-argument. I fail to see how this should be considered a legal harm. "He made me feel bad! BOO HOO!" I mean, really? :idunno:

3. You've failed to show that "impaired economic empoerment and opportunity," etc. involved the infringement of a right.

You get the idea.



Supra.



The law must be applied equally to equal cases ceteris paribus. A philosopher would have noted that the above is not a case of two different cases of the law being applied differently. Rather, one of these cases is simply a case in which the law does not apply. See ST I-II, q. 96, a. 6.



Is there the infringement of a right or not? If these so called "harms" do not involve the transgression of legal right, then this is a moral matter, not a legal matter.



Supra.



And yet the newcomer is rendered unable to live there because he has failed to obtain the aid of the other 7. The refusal of businesses to serve a portion of the population is merely the farm example writ large. If it's not a legal matter in the case of the farm, then it shouldn't be a legal matter in the case of the businesses.

The principle shines out in both cases: the law ought not compel us to enter into economic exchanges. Private property rights must be respected.

Even if that means that others might be "shut out."

Boycott's are legal too, as are strikes and sit-in's.
If personal rights are to be applied across the board what about the sidewalk in front of my house? I maintain that sidewalk. Should I have to shovel it in the winter?
What about garbage? Can I leave my garbage out in my yard?
Can I have an open swimming pool with no fence regardless of neighborhood children's safety?

 

[Town Heretic]

Let me try this again.

No need to. I understood you and answered you by illustration. The law is no grammar, not a neat thing reduced to this particular principle, not a formula but an aspiration. All law is fashioned to some purpose and the seat of that purpose is mostly the accommodation and protection of a right.

...the idea is that the law has a basis on some rational principle. At least in some manner of speaking, it's a dictate of prudence.

I said the law is reasoned, is rational within its life and context.

So, if I make a law that murderers shall be imprisoned for life, I am saying the following: 1. it is wrong to commit murder, 2. murderers pose a threat to society and deserve punishment and 3. it is just to imprison them for life.

You're mostly saying that every man is entitled to his life, absent violation of the compact or some circumstance that overwhelms that right (see: the draft in time of war to preserve the compact). And that the unlawful taking of that right requires punishment. It's a sort of bent ethic. We take some measure of value we believe equal to the violation/deprivation. We use wrong to note an unlawful taking of that which the offending party had no right to deprive the offended party of. We do that to preserve rights between parties and to stabilize the compact. I'm taking our usage away from the idea and into the point.

It does not originate from the mere will of the lawmaker.

That's a bit tricky, given we are the law makers. It arises from our will and will not be sustained absent it. So...

You can't just make up any law that you want. If a lawmaker does that, then the law runs the risk of being a bad law.

Happens with some regularity, which is why we have a system of checks and balances. And even those fail now and then and bad law remains in force until that original will is broken.

"I answer that, As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all"

The law doesn't bend to Augustine. Just is as amorphous a turn as any valuation. What is just? Depends on your context. Within the religious it's readily definable. Within the secular it's negotiable.

: wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice.

The law rests on the authority/power of the lawmaker and the consent/agreement of the people governed, at least in our republic, ultimately.

You're confusing the four acts of law.

I'm not confusing anything, Trad. I'm not accepting your context. I'm teaching, or attempting to teach you something you're unlettered in. The box you mean to force into place here won't find a purchase. That's why I used the grammar illustration. English is littered with the exceptional because we're not a pure language. We're cobbled. The law is very much like that.

In any case, the running of a business rightly falls under the law as permissive, not under the law as preceptive or prohibitive. You can either run a business or not. It's a free enterprise.

Not a thing argued. Of course you can run a business. But you are not free to run that business in any way that pleases you. You cannot pay your workers five cents an hour. You can't operate your business, with an invitation to the public, in an unsafe or unsanitary fashion. And so on.

If you can "illustrate it," then you can explain it briefly and succinctly. :idunno:

I answered and illustrated. It's not a simple thing with a one sentence response. Again, you have reading to do. Do it or don't do it, as it pleases you. But if you don't, you'll continue in error, however you feel about the error you continue in.

1. What "restraint" are you talking about? I don't restrain someone by refusing to sell him a product.

Of course you do. You sell hot dogs. I desire to buy and have the capacity to purchase a hot dog. I am constrained, restrained, forbidden to do so by your actions. I am denied the satisfaction of that horrible meal and for no reason that serves your business or distinguishes me from the next fellow in any objective or rational context relating to that business. To that, noting that the compact is served by fulfilling its promise of as neatly unfettered a pursuit of our happiness as it can supply, one predicated on the equality of men before the law, the law says: beans.

2. Self-perception is a non-argument.

Like I've said, you don't understand the law. Pain and suffering, which are purely matters of self perception on an emotional level, can and are recoverable under law.

I fail to see how this should be considered a legal harm. "He made me feel bad! BOO HOO!" I mean, really? :idunno:

I've noted your willful and continuing want of understanding on that point and pointed you toward the stuff that will act as a curative.

3. You've failed to show that "impaired economic empoerment and opportunity," etc. involved the infringement of a right.

Rather, I've offered them as the damage that flows from the unjustified segregation of the right to own what property is offered to the public for sale. You don't get that because you don't understand the background here.

Re: the law distinguishes/mitigates.

The law must be applied equally to equal cases ceteris paribus.

The law is letter and spirit. The violation of the letter of that law is the same. What distinguishes them is intention and that goes to the law's spirit. And the law recognizes and mitigates.

A philosopher would have noted that the above is not a case of two different cases of the law being applied differently.

That's why philosophers, even those holding doctorates, aren't licensed to practice law.

Rather, one of these cases is simply a case in which the law does not apply.

Well, no. That's not it at all.

Is there the infringement of a right or not? If these so called "harms" do not involve the transgression of legal right, then this is a moral matter, not a legal matter.

Certainly they infringe on your right to the foundational equality that makes every right meaningful. The harm illustrates the violation and consequence of that right. How you choose to dispose of your property is heavily guided by the law. I've noted wage and safety, etc. in passing.

And yet the newcomer is rendered unable to live there because he has failed to obtain the aid of the other 7. The refusal of businesses to serve a portion of the population is merely the farm example writ large.

No. In your example we're talking about an affirmative act of charity, an obligation of neighbors to provide him with some duty unowed except as I noted in response. In my case we're talking about a prohibition set against him from acquiring the means made available to all other neighbors. Very different animals.

The principle shines out in both cases: the law ought not compel us to enter into economic exchanges. Private property rights must be respected.

That's a clever enough way of muddling the facts more clearly distinguished prior. Economic exchanges instead of sale because it allows you to draw in a bit of smoke disguised as principle. Horsefeathers. No one is telling the merchant that he doesn't own his goods or forcing him to part from them. But if he is offering those goods for public sale then he cannot discriminate against those who require and/or desire his goods absent a compelling business interest, or the law recognizes that the act/prohibition is not one aimed at commerce, but at harming the individual so denied, at excluding him to some other purpose. It must be this harm is intended or the business man, set to the task of selling his goods, would not willfully incur an economic deprivation that runs contrary to his own fiscal interests.

But for a more particular and likely better, clearer answer you really should go to the case law.

 

[Lighthouse]

Since my complaint was that your two opinions conflict, you're wrong again.

No they don't.

But after dealing with you for the past few years I'm not surprised you're dumb enough to think they do.

Or, in your opinion you shouldn't have to hide your religious beliefs to be served and the server should be able to deny you service because of your religious beliefs.

:thumb:

You tried to play a word game with a lawyer.

The fail here is that you're a lawyer.

 

[MaryContrary]

The Constitution and the law of the land?

Isn't the Constitution supposed to protect us from the law of the land, so to speak?

I would think the Constitution would stand on my side here, limiting the government to somewhere that side of telling me who I must do business with.

 

[Town Heretic]

No they don't.

Sure they do and I set that out clearly enough, your devastating "Nuh-uh" notwithstanding.

But after dealing with you for the past few years I'm not surprised you're dumb enough to think they do.

Like being called shorty by a midget. Go figure.

The fail here is that you're a lawyer.

I agree that the failure here is rooted in education, after a fashion. :e4e:

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm right on the facts and law though

Right on the law, but wrong on the facts (unless you are claiming there are in fact unjust laws).

So what legitimate reason would a business owner have to exclude a class of people as opposed to a conduct regardless of class?

Because the people in question are a class based on their behavior. And even if the law does not correctly realize the behavior to be wrong, the law should protect a person's property, and not force a citizen to use their property as dictated by the state.

Lastly, the history of the South remains a good model for seeing how separate but equal works out and how the majority can use its authority to subjugate a minority in every meaningful sense.

No. Separate but equal is a way to show how government leaders can be unjust. Since skin color is not a behavior, the law should not discriminate against it.

That being said, a person that owns their property can discriminate for any reason. And they are even more morally correct if they discriminate against a person because of their bad behavior.

 

[Granite]

No they don't.

But after dealing with you for the past few years I'm not surprised you're dumb enough to think they do.


:thumb:


The fail here is that you're a lawyer.

You're an overgrown baby in over your head.:loser:

 

[Town Heretic]

Right on the law, but wrong on the facts (unless you are claiming there are in fact unjust laws).

Are and have been and will be. That's why we have a process to get at them. What facts do you think I have wrong? Set them out. I'm game.

Because the people in question are a class based on their behavior.

No and no. What I mean is sexuality begins as a state or orientation. The action follows. Say you were a celibate priest who had never had relations. You wouldn't cease to be heterosexual, assuming the inclination. Else, unless that sexuality is being expressed IN YOUR PLACE of business it isn't a business basis for your rejection. And you can have rules against conduct. You don't want people making out, don't let them.

And even if the law does not correctly realize the behavior to be wrong, the law should protect a person's property, and not force a citizen to use their property as dictated by the state.

You're wrong on that but I've already set out the why fully enough prior. From shared taxes to marginalization. Feel free to take on any or all of it. Again, I'm game.

No. Separate but equal is a way to show how government leaders can be unjust. Since skin color is not a behavior, the law should not discriminate against it.

I agree you can't have separate but equal. Its application does the sort of things I noted that work harm against the class being discriminated against. Glad (and unsurprised) that you don't care for at least one form of class discrimination. But all class discrimination against lawful citizenry, however we feel about it, is the same sort of violation. And given it isn't against the law to be a homosexual, that argument sustains itself there as well.

That being said, a person that owns their property can discriminate for any reason.

They really can't. I've set out any number of legal restrictions to that, provided we're still talking about business. You can keep anyone you like out of your yard.

And they are even more morally correct if they discriminate against a person because of their bad behavior.

The law isn't an instrument to judge your moral standing, only your actions in relation to rights.

 

[bybee]

Are and have been and will be. That's why we have a process to get at them. What facts do you think I have wrong? Set them out. I'm game.


No and no. What I mean is sexuality begins as a state or orientation. The action follows. Say you were a celibate priest who had never had relations. You wouldn't cease to be heterosexual, assuming the inclination. Else, unless that sexuality is being expressed IN YOUR PLACE of business it isn't a business basis for your rejection. And you can have rules against conduct. You don't want people making out, don't let them.


You're wrong on that but I've already set out the why fully enough prior. From shared taxes to marginalization. Feel free to take on any or all of it. Again, I'm game.


I agree you can't have separate but equal. Its application does the sort of things I noted that work harm against the class being discriminated against. Glad (and unsurprised) that you don't care for at least one form of class discrimination. But all class discrimination against lawful citizenry, however we feel about it, is the same sort of violation. And given it isn't against the law to be a homosexual, that argument sustains itself there as well.


They really can't. I've set out any number of legal restrictions to that, provided we're still talking about business. You can keep anyone you like out of your yard.


The law isn't an instrument to judge your moral standing, only your actions in relation to rights.

Do you feel like Atlas? :sigh:

 

[Town Heretic]

Do you feel like Atlas? :sigh:

:chuckle: More Sisyphus in this thread, though I have been shrugging a good bit while reading through some of the posts. oly:

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

The law isn't an instrument to judge your moral standing, only your actions in relation to rights.

Very well put TH.

The smiley resembles TH a little.

 

[bybee]

:chuckle: More Sisyphus in this thread, though I have been shrugging a good bit while reading through some of the posts. oly:

I didn't want to imply that you were in Hades!

 

[NewDay]

=Knight;3164063]The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 31st, 2012 09:07 AM

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

Depends if the business owner is a christian, or non christian.

When you become a christian, you put your earthly rights away, to follow HIS WILL.

..and, in all things, but it does not mean you do all of them at once. It is a process of growth, so the question is almost impossible to answer, with the limited context.




Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.