- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,863
- Reaction score
- 30,126
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Okay, so arguing antidiscrimination laws made me think of this.
If a business that unknowingly provides a product or service to someone they would otherwise deny that product or service to had they known about the purchaser's intended use, but they find out about it later, should they be able to sue the customer for use of their product at an event they would not have endorsed had they known?
Examples (assumption is that each seller would have denied service had they known more about the future use of the item):
KKK member purchases cake for KKK rally. Doesn't inform the baker (it isn't like they are all identifiable as KKK members and nothing was written on cake).
KKK member purchases wood and/or gasoline or other supplies from hardware store. Definitely wouldn't say what it was used for.
Gay gay orders cake for anniversary, at least one name is androgynous. Posts pictures after on face book celebrating event or baker finds out from someone else the guy is gay and married.
Gay guy has sister order cake for his wedding, pretending to be the one getting married.
Interracial couple order cake for their wedding via a parent, claiming the couple is going to be out of town til the wedding/live somewhere else, and that she is making all the arrangements because they suspect (and with this as part of my questioning, quite rightly) that the bakery is run by someone who disapproves morally of interracial marriage.
Interracial couple really does live out of town and is having a parent take care of the arrangements and they simply didn't feel it was an important detail.
So, should the provider of the goods or services listed above be able to sue based on defamation of their product or something to that affect, for someone using their product at an event they would not approve of had they known? Does type of deceit matter? Maybe whether they are protected explicitly or not by a law or doctrine of the state? What if there was no actual intended deceit, they simply didn't share information?
Okay, so arguing antidiscrimination laws made me think of this.
If a business that unknowingly provides a product or service to someone they would otherwise deny that product or service to had they known about the purchaser's intended use, but they find out about it later, should they be able to sue the customer for use of their product at an event they would not have endorsed had they known?
Examples (assumption is that each seller would have denied service had they known more about the future use of the item):
KKK member purchases cake for KKK rally. Doesn't inform the baker (it isn't like they are all identifiable as KKK members and nothing was written on cake).
KKK member purchases wood and/or gasoline or other supplies from hardware store. Definitely wouldn't say what it was used for.
Gay gay orders cake for anniversary, at least one name is androgynous. Posts pictures after on face book celebrating event or baker finds out from someone else the guy is gay and married.
Gay guy has sister order cake for his wedding, pretending to be the one getting married.
Interracial couple order cake for their wedding via a parent, claiming the couple is going to be out of town til the wedding/live somewhere else, and that she is making all the arrangements because they suspect (and with this as part of my questioning, quite rightly) that the bakery is run by someone who disapproves morally of interracial marriage.
Interracial couple really does live out of town and is having a parent take care of the arrangements and they simply didn't feel it was an important detail.
So, should the provider of the goods or services listed above be able to sue based on defamation of their product or something to that affect, for someone using their product at an event they would not approve of had they known? Does type of deceit matter? Maybe whether they are protected explicitly or not by a law or doctrine of the state? What if there was no actual intended deceit, they simply didn't share information?
Unless you become contractually obligated to use said product for a set of uses / purposes then a business has no right to dictate what you do with said product.
For instance: I publish books so I do a lot of cover art. I purchase the right to use images. In order to use them legally I have to abide by the rules in the contract. Example: I can't use the images for anything which might be deemed pornographic. If I do use an image for said purpose the company has a list of repercussions.
If I do I therefor am in violation of my user agreement and can be sued.
However, if I go to a bakery and pick up a box of donuts there is often no user agreement. It's a fair exchange for monies and the only stipulations (often printed on the receipt) are the use policy / return policy / and the warranty (if there is one at all).
So - if a business wants to provide food and write up a legal contract that the customer must sign in order to purchase said food - they can do so. But only if they have done so can such an entity hold the customer liable for said uses.
Unless you become contractually obligated to use said product for a set of uses / purposes then a business has no right to dictate what you do with said product.
For instance: I publish books so I do a lot of cover art. I purchase the right to use images. In order to use them legally I have to abide by the rules in the contract. Example: I can't use the images for anything which might be deemed pornographic. If I do use an image for said purpose the company has a list of repercussions.
If I do I therefor am in violation of my user agreement and can be sued.
However, if I go to a bakery and pick up a box of donuts there is often no user agreement. It's a fair exchange for monies and the only stipulations (often printed on the receipt) are the use policy / return policy / and the warranty (if there is one at all).
So - if a business wants to provide food and write up a legal contract that the customer must sign in order to purchase said food - they can do so. But only if they have done so can such an entity hold the customer liable for said uses.
Even then I'd think the person in at least some instances could claim duress in signing the contract. Or illegal terms of the contract. Contract law doesn't allow for people to have anything put in their contract automatically be legal.
Maybe this is what people that own businesses should start doing. Post a sign on the front door stating that in order to buy X product you must sign a contract agreeing to X terms and then on each receipt have that contract written down on it and they have to sign it in order to buy the product. If the contract isn't signed then people have a legal reason for not selling X product as the person buying the product agreed to the contract stipulations.
Yep - true - contracts must pass legal muster and be enforceable.
The only thing not outwardly stipulated in a contract are things like libel and slander - if you use someone's product to slander them then that might be a violation of various codes - etc - and on and on. Something to be decided in court.
Why would you want to do this?
Why would you want to do this?
Maybe he has a fear of success?
:roll: Hardly. Perhaps you should take a thorough look at my post history to see what my stance is on various things before making any assumptions OK?
Uh, I thought we were talking about a hypothetical business owner. I didn't know the subject of the OP was actually you.
Public accommodation laws date back hundreds of years, and the basis of modern anti-discrimination laws was passed in the late 1960s. These types of laws have been in effect for nearly 50 years now. There's nothing new here.Because I believe in peoples right to association, right to free speech etc etc. All of which are seemingly being dismantled, or people are attempting to dismantle them, for owners of private businesses more and more.
No. Because once I buy your product it is mine.Okay, so arguing antidiscrimination laws made me think of this.
If a business that unknowingly provides a product or service to someone they would otherwise deny that product or service to had they known about the purchaser's intended use, but they find out about it later, should they be able to sue the customer for use of their product at an event they would not have endorsed had they known?
Examples (assumption is that each seller would have denied service had they known more about the future use of the item):
KKK member purchases cake for KKK rally. Doesn't inform the baker (it isn't like they are all identifiable as KKK members and nothing was written on cake).
KKK member purchases wood and/or gasoline or other supplies from hardware store. Definitely wouldn't say what it was used for.
Gay gay orders cake for anniversary, at least one name is androgynous. Posts pictures after on face book celebrating event or baker finds out from someone else the guy is gay and married.
Gay guy has sister order cake for his wedding, pretending to be the one getting married.
Interracial couple order cake for their wedding via a parent, claiming the couple is going to be out of town til the wedding/live somewhere else, and that she is making all the arrangements because they suspect (and with this as part of my questioning, quite rightly) that the bakery is run by someone who disapproves morally of interracial marriage.
Interracial couple really does live out of town and is having a parent take care of the arrangements and they simply didn't feel it was an important detail.
So, should the provider of the goods or services listed above be able to sue based on defamation of their product or something to that affect, for someone using their product at an event they would not approve of had they known? Does type of deceit matter? Maybe whether they are protected explicitly or not by a law or doctrine of the state? What if there was no actual intended deceit, they simply didn't share information?
Gee, I thought the same thing. Until you responded to a post that was asking me a direct question about myself with an assumption.
Your presentation of an innocent face might be more believable if there were not horns holding up that halo.
Public accommodation laws date back hundreds of years, and the basis of modern anti-discrimination laws was passed in the late 1960s. These types of laws have been in effect for nearly 50 years now. There's nothing new here.
E.g. it's well established that if you want to exercise your right to association in a discriminatory fashion, you need to do it in the context of a private club. Doing so in a public accommodation hasn't been legal for almost 50 years.
The only thing that's new is that some states are extending anti-discrimination protections to homosexuals. It's mildly amusing to watch how thoroughly the opposition to homosexuality has collapsed in the past ~15 years, to the point where conservatives have to fight rear-guard actions over relatively trivial items like baking a cake for a wedding.
I.e. there isn't some grand tide of new legislation which revokes rights to association or free speech. There's a moderate change in social attitudes, which resulted in an incremental change in laws.
I guess I didn't follow the flow of quotes closely enough. I wasn't referring to you specifically. I apologize.
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=mulrBold: I'd like to see this history please.
Moving the goalposts, I see. Nice try.As for the rest, lots of things have been legal or illegal for 50+ years in the US and has/had SCOTUS backing....
Fortunately, I'm not making any such claim. I'm certainly not saying "the laws exist, therefore the laws are ethical." Nor can any of my comments be reasonably construed as making any such assertion.Doesn't mean that those cases/laws are in the right. So making an appeal to authority isn't a valid excuse.
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=mulr
The concept of public accommodation laws have their roots in English Common Law, and were part of early American law as well.. Explicit anti-discrimination laws for protected classes are relatively new, meaning "nearly 50 years old."
Moving the goalposts, I see. Nice try.
You posited a slippery-slope or declinist claim: "I believe in peoples right to association, right to free speech etc etc. All of which are seemingly being dismantled, or people are attempting to dismantle them." I'm pointing out that anti-discrimination laws are nearly 50 years old, and the only real change lately is extending protections on the basis of sexual orientation. Even that isn't a slam-dunk, as many states don't consider sexual orientations as protected classes.
Fortunately, I'm not making any such claim. I'm certainly not saying "the laws exist, therefore the laws are ethical." Nor can any of my comments be reasonably construed as making any such assertion.
Unless you become contractually obligated to use said product for a set of uses / purposes then a business has no right to dictate what you do with said product.
For instance: I publish books so I do a lot of cover art. I purchase the right to use images. In order to use them legally I have to abide by the rules in the contract. Example: I can't use the images for anything which might be deemed pornographic. If I do use an image for said purpose the company has a list of repercussions.
If I do I therefor am in violation of my user agreement and can be sued.
However, if I go to a bakery and pick up a box of donuts there is often no user agreement. It's a fair exchange for monies and the only stipulations (often printed on the receipt) are the use policy / return policy / and the warranty (if there is one at all).
So - if a business wants to provide food and write up a legal contract that the customer must sign in order to purchase said food - they can do so. But only if they have done so can such an entity hold the customer liable for said uses.
I agree, it's a bit amusing to cite an opponent of civil rights laws to point out how long they've been around. However, I linked it to show that public accommodation laws have been around for a long, long time, so I'm OK with it. I was also very clear that the nature of those laws changed substantially in the 1960s.I concede that public accommodation laws are fairly old. But by any chance did you fully read the link that you provided?
Then apparently you aren't reading the posts in this thread.And yes, by referring to common law you are making an appeal to authority.... there has been no moving of the goal posts. If you look at my posts on this subject you'll note that I've said the same thing several times.
You know I do understand Christians are bit whacked out; but which Christian honestly believes that serving muffins to the KKK is the moral equivalent of middle aged lesbians getting married?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?