Should a business be allowed to discrimate on the basis of a customer's sexual orientation?

[The Thriller]

https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.
"I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."

Where's Kicky on this? Isn't Utah Jr. his home state?

Many complain that their legislature isn't representing what most citizens believe. Some, are applauding this bill as a way to stand up for religion, small business owners, and to stick it to the gays.

Where do you stand on this?

Do you believe business owners have a right to refuse service to anyone? Should they be compelled to serve someone they don't want to? Does baking a gay couple a cake violate their religious beliefs? What is a religious belief? Just how far can this be taken?

 

[Hantlers]

If somebody doesn't want to serve somebody something, then that's fine. They will either get less business, or more business because of it.

It's called a business decision, and the way people react to it will determine the profits the business makes because of that decision.

You see, if they don't want to serve gay and lesbian people, the government doesn't need to do anything...people just need to quit going there, and eventually the business sees that they are losing money and they either go out of business or change their business plan. It always ends up fixing itself in situations like this.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

My question is why this is narrowed to only the LGBT community? Why not just be generic? They say they're protecting religious beliefs. There are some religious beliefs that require discrimination against black people. Where's the legislation for that?

 

[infection]

If somebody doesn't want to serve somebody something, then that's fine. They will either get less business, or more business because of it.

It's called a business decision, and the way people react to it will determine the profits the business makes because of that decision.

You see, if they don't want to serve gay and lesbian people, the government doesn't need to do anything...people just need to quit going there, and eventually the business sees that they are losing money and they either go out of business or change their business plan. It always ends up fixing itself in situations like this.

This, mostly.

I think the problem is they like laws to be one-size-fits all and it doesn't apply well in this context. For instance, I don't think someone should be denied service at a grocery store because they're Jewish, gay, or middle-eastern, but I think it's well within someone's rights to not participate in something that they feel goes contrary to their values. For instance, I don't think a hipster, vegan photographer should be forced to do a promo shoot for the new local McDonald's to advertise in the town paper. I also expect McDonald's to feel likewise, not really care, and take their business elsewhere. I think most people, in more spheres than just veganism, would understand this. Our current culture has politicized homosexuality to such an extent that we're forced to view everything through that political lens.

If you disagree with their morals or view them out of touch then that's also within your right. Let the market punish them. A homosexual who owns a catering business shouldn't be forced to cater at a proposition 8 rally, for instance. I would find it terribly wrong to force someone into that situation.

 

[LogGrad98]

It seems every business I have ever been in has a sign that says, more or less, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". Is this saying that statement is untrue? Can a business be forced to serve everyone whether they agree with it or not?

If that's the case then I am dropping my pants and going back to that 7-11 and telling them to stick their "no shirt no shoes" sign where the sun don't shine.

 

[Hantlers]

My question is why this is narrowed to only the LGBT community? Why not just be generic? They say they're protecting religious beliefs. There are some religious beliefs that require discrimination against black people. Where's the legislation for that?

Go for it.

If a restaurant wants to say they're not going to serve black people, I think they should have every right to do so. They'll see the consequences in their pay stubs. These situations generally fix themselves.

 

[The Thriller]

It seems every business I have ever been in has a sign that says, more or less, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". Is this saying that statement is untrue? Can a business be forced to serve everyone whether they agree with it or not?

If that's the case then I am dropping my pants and going back to that 7-11 and telling them to stick their "no shirt no shoes" sign where the sun don't shine.

Good question but here is how I understand it:

Businesses in general can deny you service based on behavior. If you were to drop your pants or come in swearing, they could potentially deny you service without fear of losing in court. Folks who don't wear pants or swear like sailors aren't considered a "protected class."

However, the Civil Rights Act of... 1964? I believe... Declared that service cannot be denied based on religious affiliation, appearance, sex, and of course RACE.

Clearly aimed (mostly) at racial discrimination. Blacks are considered a "protected class/persons."

The question then becomes, are gays a protected class? 20-30 years ago I think many courts would say no. Homosexuality is more of a choice or behavior. Today? It has swung the other way and I think most courts would consider sexual preference the same as race. Meaning, gays are a protected class and cannot be discriminated against.

It's a slippery slope argument.

Why? Well it's like gay marriage:

You declare gays a protected class where does it end? Slippery slope argument declares that business owners have to rights to discriminate. You can then make up whatever wacko scenarios you can. Will Christian business owners be forced to photograph gay polygamist anti-American atheists punk rockers who burn crosses and bibles for fun?

You declare laws empowering business owners to discriminate? Well, what's stopping them from turning back the clock and discriminating against anyone and everyone? Why should blacks be protected and not gays? Why should Mormons be protected and not gays? Why should Catholics be protected and not gays? Etc etc etc....

 

[dodo]

If somebody doesn't want to serve somebody something, then that's fine. They will either get less business, or more business because of it.

It's called a business decision, and the way people react to it will determine the profits the business makes because of that decision.

You see, if they don't want to serve gay and lesbian people, the government doesn't need to do anything...people just need to quit going there, and eventually the business sees that they are losing money and they either go out of business or change their business plan. It always ends up fixing itself in situations like this.

I see you're response above that you're ok with racial discrimination. There is really nothing to argue further after such response. I am just glad that majority of the country doesn't think like you.

 

[Hantlers]

I see you're response above that you're ok with racial discrimination. There is really nothing to argue further after such response. I am just glad that majority of the country doesn't think like you.

I see from your response that you lack both reading comprehension and grammar skills.

I never said I was ok with racial discrimination, but what do you think is going to happen to a restaurant that doesn't allow colored people? How many people are going to eat at a restaurant that openly discriminates like that? Essentially nobody would eat there, they go out of business, story finished. Again, these problems fix themselves.

 

[dodo]

I see from your response that you lack both reading comprehension and grammar skills.

I never said I was ok with racial discrimination, but what do you think is going to happen to a restaurant that doesn't allow colored people? How many people are going to eat at a restaurant that openly discriminates like that? Essentially nobody would eat there, they go out of business, story finished. Again, these problems fix themselves.

What if this restaurant is in area full of white people that don't give a damn about black ppl and form the majority of the customer base. What if colored people are minority. Your view of "the market will fix the human rights violations" will not work. How would you feel if your local utility is bought by a baptist owner and decides that serving LDS customers violates their religious freedom?

 

[dodo]

It seems every business I have ever been in has a sign that says, more or less, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". Is this saying that statement is untrue? Can a business be forced to serve everyone whether they agree with it or not?

If that's the case then I am dropping my pants and going back to that 7-11 and telling them to stick their "no shirt no shoes" sign where the sun don't shine.

They can refuse service to any for any reason except when it is against the law. Same as the "right to work" state. Business in Utah can terminate employment with you at any time for any reason unless it's against the labor laws which say they cannot do it for racial, religious, gender, etc reasons...

 

[Hantlers]

What if this restaurant is in area full of white people that don't give a damn about black ppl and form the majority of the customer base. What if colored people are minority. Your view of "the market will fix the human rights violations" will not work. How would you feel if your local utility is bought by a baptist owner and decides that serving LDS customers violates their religious freedom?

How many areas are full of people like what you explained? Rural southern areas? Probably not many black people anyways, and guess what...that **** happens anyways? But if it did happen, it would make national news. They wouldn't need the government to fix it for them, negative press, less business and angry people would fix that problem. It's really simple.

I'm not LDS, so I imagine I would be alright in that scenario.

Anyways, other businesses would open up to replace that one. They would probably offer competitive prices and get more customers from the other business as well. You see, most businesses don't want to lose money. Once they start losing money, they're going to stop doing whatever it was that caused them to lose money.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

What if this restaurant is in area full of white people that don't give a damn about black ppl and form the majority of the customer base. What if colored people are minority. Your view of "the market will fix the human rights violations" will not work. How would you feel if your local utility is bought by a baptist owner and decides that serving LDS customers violates their religious freedom?

Well...if he lives in an area with only Mormons, that utility would have issues staying in business. Utilities also have different rules as a public entity. Not a good argument. They're talking only about the private sector. And in the restaurant scenario, the public backlash from an open discrimination policy would hurt the business owner no matter his clientele.

 

[dodo]

Well...if he lives in an area with only Mormons, that utility would have issues staying in business. Utilities also have different rules as a public entity. Not a good argument. They're talking only about the private sector. And in the restaurant scenario, the public backlash from an open discrimination policy would hurt the business owner no matter his clientele.

Utilities are not public entities. They are private for profit enterprises. As natural monopolies, they are subject to heavy regulations. So my argument stays.

So both of you rely on public backlash to fix a human rights violations. What if there is no public backlash? There was no public backlash when the LDS didn't let blacks to be their members, but that doesn't make it more right...

 

[LogGrad98]

Googled out of curiosity.

https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.

Interesting read to be sure.

My opinion is that a business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason and then reap the benefits or suffer the consequences. Don't want gays in your B&B? Fine then accept the fact that many people will boycott it. But, if it is in Utah or some place similar, this might get you an uptick in bookings.

 

[Hantlers]

Utilities are not public entities. They are private for profit enterprises. As natural monopolies, they are subject to heavy regulations. So my argument stays.

So both of you rely on public backlash to fix a human rights violations. What if there is no public backlash? There was no public backlash when the LDS didn't let blacks to be their members, but that doesn't make it more right...

Not everybody wants to be in a church, most people are going to want to eat in a restaurant. That was also a different time period...you gonna tell me that with all the technology and information spreading we have today that a restaurant wouldn't get backlash from not allowing a colored person eat there? I know you're not that stupid.

Anyways, you already called me a racist, which really isn't a term you should throw around lightly. You may get some backlash that causes people to think differently of you. See how that works? Before I never gave you any thought, now I think that you're a less than intelligent prick who likes to throw around the term 'racist'.

 

[dodo]

Not everybody wants to be in a church, most people are going to want to eat in a restaurant. That was also a different time period...you gonna tell me that with all the technology and information spreading we have today that a restaurant wouldn't get backlash from not allowing a colored person eat there? I know you're not that stupid.

Anyways, you already called me a racist, which really isn't a term you should throw around lightly. You may get some backlash that causes people to think differently of you. See how that works? Before I never gave you any thought, now I think that you're a less than intelligent prick who likes to throw around the term 'racist'.

"If a restaurant wants to say they're not going to serve black people, I think they should have every right to do so."

If this statement is not racist, I don't know what else is. You are racist, yes.

And I gave you a valid example of a business that would make you're argument of capitalistic approach to human rights invalid. You keep coming back to trivial businesses as restaurants and coffee shops. I am done arguing with idiots.

 

[Hantlers]

"If a restaurant wants to say they're not going to serve black people, I think they should have every right to do so."

If this statement is not racist, I don't know what else is. You are racist, yes.

And I gave you a valid example of a business that would make you're argument of capitalistic approach to human rights invalid. You keep coming back to trivial businesses as restaurants and coffee shops. I am done arguing with idiots.

You're does not equal your. Please learn the difference. If you're from a foreign country, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you were born and raised in America, then shame on you.

Anyways, my statement did not denote racism, it denoted the freedom to believe or do what we believe in. If I said that I thought it was acceptable and proper for a restaurant to not serve black people, that would be racist. Instead, I said that they should have the freedom to do so. Do you see the difference? I certainly hope so.

If you want to be done, then that's fine...but I'll be damned if some guy (or woman) who doesn't know the difference between "you're" and "your" calls me an idiot. One more thing...I never mentioned coffee shops, and I wouldn't exactly say restaurants are trivial businesses. They do ya know, feed people. Plus, I dismantled your "valid" example of a business with ease, and since you never responded to it, I'm going to assume you had nothing to say.

 

[dodo]

If you think my "idiotic" typo topples your view that denying someone service because of their skin color is OK, then so be it. I am sure your 3700 posts on this site are flawless in every way and lack any grammatical errors. It still doesn't make you less racist.

 

[infection]

What if this restaurant is in area full of white people that don't give a damn about black ppl and form the majority of the customer base. What if colored people are minority. Your view of "the market will fix the human rights violations" will not work. How would you feel if your local utility is bought by a baptist owner and decides that serving LDS customers violates their religious freedom?

What would I do? Not sure. But if they made a law mandating this guy serve Mormons, i doubt that would make me patronize the place. Perhaps if it was much more convenient. I'm assuming in your hypothetical that this is the only place in town and it would significantly affect my quality of life. But in reality, I'm not seeing a whole lot of parallels, as mentioned above. So far, all we've got, to my knowledge, is a photographer and a baker not providing services.