When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a customer?

[AGENT J]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

ANSWER: whenever the citizen has a reasonable alternative.....a restaurant should be able to refuse to be part of the transaction for ANY reason, the electric company should not.

"reasonable alternative"?
who gets to decide that? LOL

also what other rights and laws should we be allow people to infringe on and break if their victims have "reasonable alternatives"
Sounds like a horrible idea that will allow peoples rights to be violated

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

"reasonable alternative"?
who gets to decide that? LOL

also what other rights and laws should we be allow people to infringe on and break if their victims have "reasonable alternatives"
Sounds like a horrible idea that will allow peoples rights to be violated

Asked and answered, the collective, and this will change with time I expect.

Business owners rights are currently being violated, because citizens are promised the right to choose to not associate with those whom they dont care to associate with. SCOTUS got this wrong many decades ago, I would have to go back and look to see where exactly but I think it was 1960's civil rights cases where they scrubbed whites only clubs. They expanded the wrong by scrubbing men only clubs.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

1.)Asked and answered, the collective, and this will change with time I expect.
2.)Business owners rights are currently being violated, because citizens are promised the right to choose to not associate with those whom they dont care to associate with.
3.)SCOTUS got this wrong many decades ago
4.) I would have to go back and look to see where exactly but I think it was 1960's civil rights cases where they scrubbed whites only clubs. They expanded the wrong by scrubbing men only clubs.

1.) the collective, so basically its a system where the majority could violate the rights of the minority. No thanks thats a horrendous idea
2.) no they factually are not, they still have the right not to associate and thats not infringed on in anyway.
3.) thats a nice opinion which you are free to have but the laws, rights and cour precedence all disagree with you.
4.) You seemed confused, i could open up a whites only and mens only club right now and thats not illegal. Club just has to be private and not public access.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

1.) the collective, so basically its a system where the majority could violate the rights of the minority. No thanks thats a horrendous idea
2.) no they factually are not, they still have the right not to associate and thats not infringed on in anyway.
3.) thats a nice opinion which you are free to have but the laws, rights and cour precedence all disagree with you.
4.) You seemed confused, i could open up a whites only and mens only club right now and thats not illegal. Club just has to be private and not public access.

When I say SCOTUS got it wrong you can assume that the laws are wrong, one follows the other.

The just in the last sentence is hilarious.

"Over the last 20 years, societal pressures have led to a steady narrowing of what qualifies as a private organization, free from antidiscrimination laws," says Robert Duston, a Washington attorney who specializes in defending discrimination cases.

Private Clubs That Aren't Private Under the Law - WSJ

In any case the subject of this thread is business not club, I only used club rulings to indicate a timeframe where the courts went wrong.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

1.)When I say SCOTUS got it wrong you can assume that the laws are wrong, one follows the other.
2.)
The just in the last sentence is hilarious.


Private Clubs That Aren't Private Under the Law - WSJ
3.)In any case the subject of this thread is business not club, I only used club rulings to indicate a timeframe where the courts went wrong.

1.) yes I know you feel that way and you are free too
2.) and yet I can still open a male white only club
3.) and a club can be a buinsess, like bars that are private clubs.

Like i said you are allow to have your opinions, ill stick with our rights being protected and the law since your system of the majority being able to violate the rights of the minority I dont agree with.

 

[devildavid]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

A totally laissez-faire marketplace would not address moral or ethical issues at all. The marketplace doesn't deal with such issues. Our collective society is concerned with these issues and the marketplace is part and parcel of collective society. That is why we have government and religions and social organizations to influence the moral and ethical makeup of society and how we conduct ourselves in all aspects of it. The idea that the marketplace could solve all social issues over time is a libertarian pipe dream. The marketplace can just as easily reflect all our prejudices and still give businesses no motivation to change. Issues of individual freedom are being confused with the public marketplace. Choosing a church, a political party, or an organization to join is entirely different from choosing where to buy groceries. An individual in any community should not have to wonder if the public marketplace is open to them. It should simply be an accepted part of a moral and ethical society. The idea that we should be free to pick and choose who we let participate in the public marketplace would lead to social organizations having to step in to correct it. Which in the real world is what has happened. The public marketplace has no inherent wisdom.

 

[sangha]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Asked and answered, the collective

Then you have already gotten what you asked for because "the collective" has already decided that there is no "reasonable alternative" to banning discrimination

 

[roguenuke]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

As when most things when it comes to collective dynamics the line should be set by the majority, and it will move over time.

Your point, while true, is not a major problem for the scheme.

At the moment, the majority sets the limit at no discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, sex, and other things. Regardless of whether there are other options available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

At the moment, the majority sets the limit at no discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, sex, and other things. Regardless of whether there are other options available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given the rise of Trump you should not assume that this is the majority view, maybe the people who dont agree have been bullied into silence. Who would have ever though before Trump that so many of us want a pause in Muslim immigration, and then new rules when we start it up again?

 

[sangha]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Given the rise of Trump you should not assume that this is the majority view,

No assumptions are being made. It's a fact - anti-discrimination laws are supported by a solid majority which helps explain why they are increasing in number

maybe the people who dont agree have been bullied into silence.

Awww, poor babies!!

And exactly how are these delicate flowers being "bullied"? Has anyone been lynched for opposing anti-discrimination laws? Anyone beaten? Anyone fired from their jobs?

Or does this so-called "bullying" consist of nothing more than the majority considering them to be the assholes that they are for having such a douche-bag opinion?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

No assumptions are being made. It's a fact - anti-discrimination laws are supported by a solid majority which helps explain why they are increasing in number



Awww, poor babies!!

And exactly how are these delicate flowers being "bullied"? Has anyone been lynched for opposing anti-discrimination laws? Anyone beaten? Anyone fired from their jobs?

Or does this so-called "bullying" consist of nothing more than the majority considering them to be the assholes that they are for having such a douche-bag opinion?

Usually it runs along the lines of " The fact that you would say that means that you are defective, shut up now, and if you dont do as your told you will be hurt. You are a WORM to me, do you understand!".

Something like that. Conversation and combat of ideas not required nor usually allowed....agree or keep quiet, those are the only options, that is how America rolls circa 2016.

Till Trump came along. Now us "insects are rising to the surface" (might be paraphrased, would need to go back and look) as I read one writer yesterday or day before say. .

 

[Moot]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a customer?

1) Anytime they want, for any reason.
2) For things the customer can control, i.e. dress, attitude, hygiene, etc., but not for things they cannot control, i.e. sex, race/ethnicity, etc.
3) Never.
4) Somewhere in between. (Please elaborate)

I think if a business puts a sign out that says "open to the public" and depends on the public for profit...then it should not be allowed to discriminate against individuals or groups that are members of the public.

But I also think a business has a right to set standards for its business such as attire, hygiene, behavior, etc.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Here is the quote talked about in post #261:

That’s when I realized what had been there all along. This campaign, whose success has long been attributed to the forgotten working and middle classes, the so-called Silent Majority, has been, and always will be, an unholy alliance between the Hateful and the Privileged, the former always on a never-ending search for new venues for their poison and the latter enjoying, for the first time since Reagan’s ’80s, an opportunity to get out and step on some necks in public.

I considered the odd pairing and its implications as I left the lot and turned onto Coliseum Boulevard. Trump can be defeated, and most likely he will be, but elections cannot cure this disease. It’s always been here and perhaps it always will be. Trump’s narcissistic quest to “Make America Great Again” has only drawn the insects to the surface, and there’s plenty of room to wonder whether he’s driving the movement or if it’s driving him.

https://newrepublic.com/article/134329/american-horror-story

When I am confident that Americans are speaking their minds true then I will accept what ever the majority opinion appears to be, but not now, not when I am reading crap like this written about those who dare to "think wrong". The elite numbskulls better get it through their heads that insane is by definition far outside the norms. If About half the citizens (CITIZENS! The rest dont count) want a pause in Muslim immigration dont roll out some crappolla about how that is "Not who we are", because it is exactly who we are.

I'll tell you want folks, we had better learn soon to respect other peoples opinions, and their right to their own minds, and learn that us not liking those opinions makes not one tinker's damn bit difference unless the speaker is insane.

"We dont talk about that in polite company, nor allow others to talk about it" is off the table till such time as our rights to free thought and free speech have been reestablished. I will not then be reading at a somewhat major online news site that I am a hateful insect because I support a unapproved POTUS candidate.

After communication and freedom make a return THEN and only THEN can we talk about what the consensus in America is re the thread topic.

THank You for your time.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Given the rise of Trump you should not assume that this is the majority view, maybe the people who dont agree have been bullied into silence. Who would have ever though before Trump that so many of us want a pause in Muslim immigration, and then new rules when we start it up again?

The rise of Trump means very little to this issue because many of those people would still keep many of the same public accommodation laws in place. Not only that but Trump isn't nearly as popular with all his ideas as people think. He is playing on people's fears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Usually it runs along the lines of " The fact that you would say that means that you are defective, shut up now, and if you dont do as your told you will be hurt. You are a WORM to me, do you understand!".

Something like that. Conversation and combat of ideas not required nor usually allowed....agree or keep quiet, those are the only options, that is how America rolls circa 2016.

Till Trump came along. Now us "insects are rising to the surface" (might be paraphrased, would need to go back and look) as I read one writer yesterday or day before say. .

I guarantee that the start of your proposed other side of a conversation was not "I oppose public accommodation laws", nor even a more specific "I think public accommodation should only apply when a person has few to no other options". Please show me a specific incident where some large group threatened violence against other Americans for not supporting public accommodation laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Here is the quote talked about in post #261:



https://newrepublic.com/article/134329/american-horror-story

When I am confident that Americans are speaking their minds true then I will accept what ever the majority opinion appears to be, but not now, not when I am reading crap like this written about those who dare to "think wrong". The elite numbskulls better get it through their heads that insane is by definition far outside the norms. If About half the citizens (CITIZENS! The rest dont count) want a pause in Muslim immigration dont roll out some crappolla about how that is "Not who we are", because it is exactly who we are.

I'll tell you want folks, we had better learn soon to respect other peoples opinions, and their right to their own minds, and learn that us not liking those opinions makes not one tinker's damn bit difference unless the speaker is insane.

"We dont talk about that in polite company, nor allow others to talk about it" is off the table till such time as our rights to free thought and free speech have been reestablished. I will not then be reading at a somewhat major online news site that I am a hateful insect because I support a unapproved POTUS candidate.

After communication and freedom make a return THEN and only THEN can we talk about what the consensus in America is re the thread topic.

THank You for your time.

Here's the issue you have, refusing a group entry, equal protection based on their religion, violates a very solid right guaranteed by our Constitution, several in fact. Something that requires more than a majority, more than simply half to do. Many, most in fact supported internment of Japanese in this country during WWII, does that make it right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

People should go to some of the "Chinatowns" in this country and see how this works. I have a friend works as an accountant a couple of blocks from one such area in his city and he tells me the Korean grocers there will not serve Cambodians or Laotians. No one complains, they just shop at the Cambodian grocery down the street.

https://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4

Ignoring the political commentary...he went in and pretended to be gay in a Muslim bakery and was refused for it. What the hell is the Liberal mindset here?

Of course...we all know that liberals only attack the groups their leaders tell them too. Hence the double standard when liberals hate Christians because they are anti gay on one hand, and support Hilary who is getting campaign donations from nations that still murder gay people like they are animals in a slaughter house.

 

[Visbek]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Five minutes of Wikilaw research on the Supreme Court's compelled-speech decisions does not make you informed about them.

lol... I don't use Wikilaw, and never said I was a lawyer. Meanwhile, your routine cherry-picking of rulings isn't terribly persuasive.

Wooley v. Maynard is very much relevant to state public accommodations laws which require private persons to express, in any way, their approval of homosexual conduct when they do not approve of it.

It's not relevant, among other reasons, because it was the state directly coercing a private citizen to display a specific message which can be reasonably interpreted as ideological in nature. Or, as Rehnquist wrote:

Wooley, however, was a case in which the government itself prescribed the message, required it to be displayed openly on appellee's personal property that was used "as part of his daily life," and refused to permit him to take any measures to cover up the motto even though the Court found that the display of the motto served no important state interest. Here, by contrast, there are a number of distinguishing factors. Most important, the shopping center, by choice of its owner, is not limited to the personal use of appellants. It is instead a business establishment that is open to the public to come and go as they please. The views expressed by members of the public in passing out pamphlets or seeking signatures for a petition thus will not likely be identified with those of the owner. Second, no specific message is dictated by the State to be displayed on appellants' property. There consequently is no danger of governmental discrimination for or against a particular message. Finally, as far as appears here, appellants can expressly disavow any connection with the message by simply posting signs in the area where the speakers or handbillers stand. Such signs, for example, could disclaim any sponsorship of the message and could explain that the persons are communicating their own messages by virtue of state law.

And to be clear, this depends greatly on local anti-discrimination statutes. If elements like ideology or sexual orientation are not explicitly or implicitly protected, they aren't protected.


Anyway, back to Pruneyard. It is critical to note that the scenario in Pruneyard is substantively different than a gay couple requesting a wedding cake, or a Neo-Nazi walking into Kinko's and using their services to print up flyers -- and then walking out the door. It says nothing about whether a commercial service that operates as a public accommodation can refuse to serve a customer on the basis of ideology or religious views.

Pruneyard would be much more directly applicable if the Neo-Nazi printed up 500 flyers at Kinko's, then spent all day inside the store handing out ideological flyers to customers. In that specific scenario, the Pruneyard concurrence might apply. Kinko's did not set itself up as offering a privately-owned public space; and it would be very easy for a customer to assume that individual has the sanction of the business owner.

(Of course, the Neo-Nazi can stand on a public sidewalk right in front of the store, and hand out flyers all day long, and print up more at Kinko's when he runs out.)

And the part that applies to these types of cases? The New Mexico court in Elane Photography says that ".[as in ] PruneYard, Elane Photography is free to disavow, implicitly or explicitly, any messages that it believes the photographs convey. Did someone mention that recently? :mrgreen:

 

[roguenuke]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

https://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4

Ignoring the political commentary...he went in and pretended to be gay in a Muslim bakery and was refused for it. What the hell is the Liberal mindset here?

Of course...we all know that liberals only attack the groups their leaders tell them too. Hence the double standard when liberals hate Christians because they are anti gay on one hand, and support Hilary who is getting campaign donations from nations that still murder gay people like they are animals in a slaughter house.

Refused for what exactly? I've watched that video and it jumps around and is highly edited. We have absolutely no idea exactly what they refused to do for him. At one point, he was requesting a cake with their picture on it (two men, supposedly him and his boyfriend), and that is not something they have to do, even if they do do that service (we don't know if they even made such cakes).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Peter King]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

A Christian candle maker cannot be forced to make Satanic candles because he does not carry those in his collection.

A baker who happens to be a Christian is bound by the laws regarding his profession so he is not allowed to discriminate against customers just for being gay/women/other religions. But if say the KKK came in and wanted a burning cross cake, or a Muslim came with the request to make an discriminatory cake with slurs, etc. and things they do not produce than he is free to refuse. They should bake cake for a gay wedding but as they do not carry 2 gay men or 2 gay women on top the cake, they cannot be ordered to order such a thing or produce that. If a gay couple wants that they can buy that themselves and put it on themselves.

There are companies who are banned by law to discriminate (like a baker) and if you happen to own such a company you are not allowed to discriminate. However, every baker has artistic freedom, for example to not make a male member cake, boobs cake, racist/discriminatory cakes, etc. etc. etc. but a regular wedding cake or regular cup cakes (as they would make for any other customer) cannot be denied to someone.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Here's the issue you have, refusing a group entry, equal protection based on their religion, violates a very solid right guaranteed by our Constitution, several in fact. Something that requires more than a majority, more than simply half to do. Many, most in fact supported internment of Japanese in this country during WWII, does that make it right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

THat is no different than the concept of rights ever is, they not only come into conflict, but the line of conflict is constantly changing with time. The problem we have is that we consider some COnstitutionally guaranteed rights sacrosanct, but the right to free association (most importantly the right to choose to not associate with particular individuals) null and void.

The problem at base is that SCOTUS has become a political body rather than a law body, it is part of the grand rot of America.

EDIT: I see the internment camps as a reasonable solution to a wartime situation.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

THat is no different than the concept of rights ever is, they not only come into conflict, but the line of conflict is constantly changing with time. The problem we have is that we consider some COnstitutionally guaranteed rights sacrosanct, but the right to free association (most importantly the right to choose to not associate with particular individuals) null and void.

The problem at base is that SCOTUS has become a political body rather than a law body, it is part of the grand rot of America.

EDIT: I see the internment camps as a reasonable solution to a wartime situation.

There is no right to safety guarantees by the Constitution. You do not have a right to deny people entry into the US based solely on their religion, simply because others who claim that same religion have done bad things. Those Muslims who haven't killed Americans or anyone else far outnumber those who have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Refused for what exactly? I've watched that video and it jumps around and is highly edited. We have absolutely no idea exactly what they refused to do for him. At one point, he was requesting a cake with their picture on it (two men, supposedly him and his boyfriend), and that is not something they have to do, even if they do do that service (we don't know if they even made such cakes).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice. Gotta do the double backflip to keep from offending a major Hillary campaign donor right? Never mind that it is "only Christians." Right? Lmao. This is great. Just like the Orlando shooting was the fault of white Christians NRA members. :eye roll:

 

[roguenuke]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Nice. Gotta do the double backflip to keep from offending a major Hillary campaign donor right? Never mind that it is "only Christians." Right? Lmao. This is great. Just like the Orlando shooting was the fault of white Christians NRA members. :eye roll:

So absolutely no comment on the actual video content, which doesn't do what you say it does.

I don't support anyone refusing service to gays for being gay or anyone for who they marry. However I also do not support assholes playing games because I want evidence of things actually happening not trumped up video that shows very little of the claim. The flaws have been pointed out by others and this guy is notorious for doing crap like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

There is no right to safety guarantees by the Constitution. You do not have a right to deny people entry into the US based solely on their religion, simply because others who claim that same religion have done bad things. Those Muslims who haven't killed Americans or anyone else far outnumber those who have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have the right to deny entry to anyone and everyone we want, for any reason we want, this is OUR COUNTRY.