Businesses Refusing Service To Certain Customers

[Mycroft]

Why is it that the left gets up in arms if businesses wish to refuse service to certain customers but then we get incidences where lefties want to refuse service to police officers?

Why?

Because they see no problem being raving, unrepentant, two-faced hypocrites...as long as they perceive a political advantage from it.

 

[ludin]

And is quite a different question in most aspects to the one of whether the company can withhold service for due cause.

what is funny according to even the court system you can be sued and liable for services you don't even offer.
this country has completely gone insane and has thrown all logic out the window. you can be forced to provide
a service you don't offer.

 

[joG]

what is funny according to even the court system you can be sued and liable for services you don't even offer.
this country has completely gone insane and has thrown all logic out the window. you can be forced to provide
a service you don't offer.

I hadn't run into that one before.

 

[joG]

They're both discrimination. One is legal while the other is not. That is the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On what basis? Can you cite the law?

 

[ludin]

I hadn't run into that one before.

Dating sites that cater to hetrosexual are being forced to cater to homosexuals even though they don't offer those services.
a while ago a barber who cuts men's hair got in trouble for not cutting a women's hair even though he doesn't cut women's hair.

the stupidity of society is amazing.

 

[Moderate Right]

Translation: you STILL have ZERO facts that make this a "leftie" thing and you got caught falsely, dishonestly and illogically grouping people all together with an issue that doesnt actually pertain to anybody.
One again thank you, thats what I thought :laughat:

Translation: You have the time to harass me but don't have the time to read through the whole thread!

 

[Moderate Right]

Dating sites that cater to hetrosexual are being forced to cater to homosexuals even though they don't offer those services.
a while ago a barber who cuts men's hair got in trouble for not cutting a women's hair even though he doesn't cut women's hair.

the stupidity of society is amazing.

Yeah. That's just ridiculous. There are dating sites that cater to just African Americans so I guess that's discrimination against white people.

 

[joG]

Dating sites that cater to hetrosexual are being forced to cater to homosexuals even though they don't offer those services.
a while ago a barber who cuts men's hair got in trouble for not cutting a women's hair even though he doesn't cut women's hair.

the stupidity of society is amazing.

It feels as though the legal system is risking its functionality and legitimacy.

 

[Visbek]

what is funny according to even the court system you can be sued and liable for services you don't even offer.

Incorrect.

The requirement is that a business offer the services equally. There is no requirement to offer services that the business chooses not to offer.

• If a barber provides haircutting services, he cannot declare "I will cut men's hair, but I will not cut women's hair."

• If a barber does not offer to color anyone's hair, then no one can force him to offer that service.

• If a dating service offers to match up men and women for dates, then it also has to offer to match up men and men, just in the same way it has to offer to match up white men and black women, or older men and younger women.

• "Dating services for straight people" is not a different service than "dating services for LGBT." Dating services are dating services are dating services. The inability to recognize this merely shows the depths of the bias in question.

• If you bake cakes, but do not want to make wedding cakes for anyone, no one can sue you to require that you offer wedding cakes.

this country has completely gone insane and has thrown all logic out the window.

Odd, it seems to me that it's the objections to anti-discrimination laws that are growing increasingly untethered from the real world.

 

[blaxshep]

It feels as though the legal system is risking its functionality and legitimacy.

When your legal system is based on jurisprudence it only a matter of time before any law means anything you want it to mean.

 

[sangha]

Why is it that the left gets up in arms if businesses wish to refuse service to certain customers but then we get incidences where lefties want to refuse service to police officers?

Why is that you constantly attack the left by making up crap?

There's no evidence that anyone on the left wants to refuse service to police officers

 

[sangha]

Thanks!

Clearly those incidents have been properly dealt with, and rightly so.

And none involve leftists.

 

[Indypendent]

Because lefties know police officers won't target those businesses and then file lawsuits, nor will the mainstream media and every leftwing business in America with an agenda glob on and support the feigned outrage of it all.

 

[joG]

When your legal system is based on jurisprudence it only a matter of time before any law means anything you want it to mean.

It is less the jurisprudence that is the problem. It is precedent that leads to slippage. That is why it is so important to make sure that the laws are well formulated and that the courts cannot break with the definition of terms, as they have been doing increasingly of late. Instead the court should demand a clarification from the legislative. This is especially vital to the system, where Constitutional law is concerned, as slight shifts in the interpretation of a word will lead to enormous changes down stream.

 

[Visbek]

Yeah. That's just ridiculous. There are dating sites that cater to just African Americans so I guess that's discrimination against white people.

Incorrect.

There are dating sites marketed to different communities. This does not violate any anti-discrimination laws as long as they do not prevent the rest of the public from joining.

For example, JDate is a Jewish dating site, that has never blocked non-Jews from signing up and being matched with other users. BlackSingles is a black-oriented dating site, that does not block anyone from signing up or being matched on the basis of race.

 

[ludin]

It feels as though the legal system is risking its functionality and legitimacy.

it has been doing that for a while. it is nothing more than a laughing stock.

 

[joG]

it has been doing that for a while. it is nothing more than a laughing stock.

Which is a very bad sign.

 

[ludin]

Incorrect.

100% correct.

The requirement is that a business offer the services equally. There is no requirement to offer services that the business chooses not to offer.

Yet I don't offer the service you want. Sure there is. it has happened constantly.

• If a barber provides haircutting services, he cannot declare "I will cut men's hair, but I will not cut women's hair."

If he is not trained to cut women's hair then he isn't trained to cut women's hair and therefore cannot offer that service.
you are wrong.

• If a barber does not offer to color anyone's hair, then no one can force him to offer that service.

you are not being consistent in your argument.

• If a dating service offers to match up men and women for dates, then it also has to offer to match up men and men, just in the same way it has to offer to match up white men and black women, or older men and younger women.

Not if it doesn't offer that service.

• "Dating services for straight people" is not a different service than "dating services for LGBT." Dating services are dating services are dating services. The inability to recognize this merely shows the depths of the bias in question.

Sure it is as there are different dynamics to the relationship. the filter codes provide the best possible matches and are geared toward men and women.
those aspect changes when you start including same sex partners. the programming has to be redesigned and retooled to calculate for those things.

however you are wrong is someone doesn't offer those services then you can't force them to offer those services.

• If you bake cakes, but do not want to make wedding cakes for anyone, no one can sue you to require that you offer wedding cakes.

Technically now they can.

Odd, it seems to me that it's the objections to anti-discrimination laws that are growing increasingly untethered from the real world.

nope they are based in reality. the people that continue to push these appeals to emotion are the ones untethered.
forcing businesses to offer services they don't offer is not based in reality.

 

[Cephus]

What do mean by disrupt? Harm the business?

Yes. To harm the businesses ability to do business and make money, which is, in fact, the whole reason businesses exist in the first place.

 

[Mason66]

Ohio restaurant serves glass in police officer's sandwich | Columbus Ledger-Enquirer

There was also the teriyaki place in Washington or Oregon that was in the news all last week for refusing to serve cops. There have been LOTS of stories recently though it tends to happen on occasion all over the place.

What the employee did here is a criminal offense.

I hope it was handled as such.

 

[Visbek]

Yet I don't offer the service you want. Sure there is. it has happened constantly.

And yet, you show no evidence thereof.

If he is not trained to cut women's hair then he isn't trained to cut women's hair and therefore cannot offer that service.
you are wrong.

lol

Try again. Hair is hair is hair, but saying "I will cut the hair of men but not women" is clearly discriminatory.

The barber cannot be required to offer the woman specific hair care services he does not offer anyone, such as coloring or perms or manicures. He can even say "I haven't cut a woman's hair in 6 years, so I can't guarantee I'll do a good job." But he cannot refuse.

I've also seen women in a barber shop, and the barbers don't bat an eye. They simply provide the same services they offer anyone else, as they should.

you are not being consistent in your argument.

Wrong. I am being fully consistent and factually accurate.

"Cutting hair" and "coloring hair" are different services." "Cutting hair" and "cutting hair" are the same service.

Not if it doesn't offer that service.

The service is "matching people up for dates." Hence, if they offer that service to the public, they cannot offer it to some people (straights) and not others (LGBT).

We do not say "serving food to white men" is a different service than "serving food to women" or "serving food to blacks." It's just "serving food."

Sure it is as there are different dynamics to the relationship. the filter codes provide the best possible matches and are geared toward men and women.

those aspect changes when you start including same sex partners. the programming has to be redesigned and retooled to calculate for those things.

Let's assume you are correct. That doesn't change the fact that the service is the same: Matching people up for dates.

It is irrelevant that the company needs to make some adjustments to existing services in order to comply with the law. It's the equivalent of taking down a sign saying "NO BLACKS, NO JEWS, NO IRISH," and does not change the actual service in question.

In contrast, marriage counseling is not a service provided by most dating services, and no one can sue a dating service for not providing marriage counseling.

And yes, the law in some states clearly does bar dating services from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. That's why eHarmony agreed to set up a same-sex service years ago, and Christian Mingle agreed to allow same-sex matches a few weeks ago.

Technically now they can.

Incorrect.

If you make wedding cakes for straight white Christian people, then as long as you operate as a public accommodation, you are legally obligated to make them for interracial couples, for interfaith couples, and in some states for same-sex couples.

If you do not offer ANYONE wedding cakes, you don't have to make one for anyone. Go ahead, look it up, find us an example of a bakery that never makes wedding cakes, that was or is being sued by someone for not making wedding cakes.

Feel free to let us know when you rejoin us in the real world.

 

[Moderate Right]

100% correct.



Yet I don't offer the service you want. Sure there is. it has happened constantly.



If he is not trained to cut women's hair then he isn't trained to cut women's hair and therefore cannot offer that service.
you are wrong.



you are not being consistent in your argument.



Not if it doesn't offer that service.



Sure it is as there are different dynamics to the relationship. the filter codes provide the best possible matches and are geared toward men and women.
those aspect changes when you start including same sex partners. the programming has to be redesigned and retooled to calculate for those things.

however you are wrong is someone doesn't offer those services then you can't force them to offer those services.



Technically now they can.



nope they are based in reality. the people that continue to push these appeals to emotion are the ones untethered.
forcing businesses to offer services they don't offer is not based in reality.

Interesting point on the hair thing. Many blacks have specific hair needs, different than whites, so I guess a black person can sue a hair salon if they are unable to provide those specific services that some blacks need in hair care. Probably in the eyes of the law hair care is just hair care so you can't discriminate against a black person because you don't have the knowledge or experience to take care of those specific needs. And then if you do provide them and screw up you can be sued for screwing up.

 

[ludin]

Interesting point on the hair thing. Many blacks have specific hair needs, different than whites, so I guess a black person can sue a hair salon if they are unable to provide those specific services that some blacks need in hair care. Probably in the eyes of the law hair care is just hair care so you can't discriminate against a black person because you don't have the knowledge or experience to take care of those specific needs. And then if you do provide them and screw up you can be sued for screwing up.

same goes for women's hair. it is not the same as men's hair. what works on a guys hair might not work on a women's hair.
it could damage or not turn out the same unless you are doing a straight buzz cut.

yet people are sued because well they aren't trained to cut women's hair.

dating sites are sued because their software is geared toward hetrosexual's not homosexuals.
they don't offer services.

that is like walking into a jewish deli and suing them because they don't offer ham as a option
because they are a jewish deli.

technically that is discriminating against non-jews.
the logic these people jump through to come to their conclusions is a task in idiocy itself.

it would be the same as sueing a tailor because he doesn't do dresses but suits.
he doesn't offer dress sizing. their logic is stupid.

 

[ludin]

And yet, you show no evidence thereof.

I did you just ignored it which is typical.

Try again. Hair is hair is hair, but saying "I will cut the hair of men but not women" is clearly discriminatory.

No hair is not just hair. there are many different types of hair and women's hair is different than men's hair.
the barber might not be trained in cutting women's hair screw it up and get sued anyway.

The barber cannot be required to offer the woman specific hair care services he does not offer anyone, such as coloring or perms or manicures. He can even say "I haven't cut a woman's hair in 6 years, so I can't guarantee I'll do a good job." But he cannot refuse.

there you go again not being consistent again.

I've also seen women in a barber shop, and the barbers don't bat an eye. They simply provide the same services they offer anyone else, as they should.

anecdotal is anecdotal.

Wrong. I am being fully consistent and factually accurate.

Not really.

"Cutting hair" and "coloring hair" are different services." "Cutting hair" and "cutting hair" are the same service.

there is differences in how hair is cut. there are different styles and ways that hair is cut.
women's hair is different than men's hair you can ask any barber or even stylist.

The service is "matching people up for dates." Hence, if they offer that service to the public, they cannot offer it to some people (straights) and not others (LGBT).

not if their software is not geared to match homosexual people.

We do not say "serving food to white men" is a different service than "serving food to women" or "serving food to blacks." It's just "serving food."

good thing we aren't talking about serving food. however you can't go into a chicken place and sue them for not serving steak.
or denying you in serving you steak.

Let's assume you are correct. That doesn't change the fact that the service is the same: Matching people up for dates.

I am correct. nope the software matches specific people based on male and female traits.
they would have to re-write or add code to do something else. that is a huge business expense
to offer a service that they don't offer.

It is irrelevant that the company needs to make some adjustments to existing services in order to comply with the law. It's the equivalent of taking down a sign saying "NO BLACKS, NO JEWS, NO IRISH," and does not change the actual service in question.

not at all. just like you can't sue a tailor but now you can for not altering dresses when he doesn't offer services to altering dresses.

In contrast, marriage counseling is not a service provided by most dating services, and no one can sue a dating service for not providing marriage counseling.

according to your logic they can.

And yes, the law in some states clearly does bar dating services from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. That's why eHarmony agreed to set up a same-sex service years ago, and Christian Mingle agreed to allow same-sex matches a few weeks ago.

those cases were wrong and political cases. they violated a busiensses marketing plan and forced thousands of dollars of expenses to offer something they were not in the business of offering.

Incorrect.

If you make wedding cakes for straight white Christian people, then as long as you operate as a public accommodation, you are legally obligated to make them for interracial couples, for interfaith couples, and in some states for same-sex couples.

If you do not offer ANYONE wedding cakes, you don't have to make one for anyone. Go ahead, look it up, find us an example of a bakery that never makes wedding cakes, that was or is being sued by someone for not making wedding cakes.

Feel free to let us know when you rejoin us in the real world.

yes please join the real world the liberals keep destroying it.

 

[sangha]

Interesting point on the hair thing. Many blacks have specific hair needs, different than whites, so I guess a black person can sue a hair salon if they are unable to provide those specific services that some blacks need in hair care. Probably in the eyes of the law hair care is just hair care so you can't discriminate against a black person because you don't have the knowledge or experience to take care of those specific needs. And then if you do provide them and screw up you can be sued for screwing up.

Do you just make it up as you go?

No one has ever been successfully sued because their business did not provide a specific service to anyone. They get sued when they provide the service to some people but not others based on race, gender,ethnicity, etc