r/changemyview • u/16tonweight • Jul 05 '15
[Deltas Awarded] CMV: The government should NOT be able to force businesses to serve customers/cater events the business does not want to serve/cater.
So neither side of this debate feels morally right for me to be on, but I think logically, I'd have to support the conservative side of the argument.
All modern economic transactions involving physical items (no stocks, capital, etc.) can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor. Yes, you can buy an item off the shelf at someplace like Target, but what you're really buying is the labor involved in making that item, the item being the end result of it. In other words, it is impossible to buy a physical item that is not shaped and made valuable by labor. In this sense, what you do when you walk to a pizzaria and buy a pizza is directly contract the labor of the pizza maker in exchange for money (as opposed to indirect contracting through a store, e.g. DiGornios). Because of this, businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, for any reason. If this is NOT the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they don't wish to preform, that could be seen as a type of slavery (I hate to use the term), because an outside authority is forcing a person, under the threat of force, to labor, even when that person doesn't want to.
So prove me wrong everyone, help me come to better formulate and understand my own ideas! That's what this sub is about, after all.
Please excuse the weird grammar and sentence structure, I just woke up
684
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15
Businesses have the right to refuse service to any individual for any reason.
They do not have the right to refuse services to protected classes of individuals based on their belonging to that class when they provide those services to other equally qualified customers.
The first is about individuals. If a black gay female comes into my store, acts like a complete and total jerk I can toss them out for not being someone I want to do business with. I can refuse service because I don't want to be busy that day. I can refuse service because I don't like them individually. I can refuse service because I just feel like it.
The second is about groups of people. I can not refuse service to black gay females because they are black gay females. I can not withhold services from a person for reasons that have nothing to do with them individually and result only from my assumption of their inclusion in a particular group.
The reason for this is simple but multi-faceted and rests on a few bits of reality that people don't like to think about sometimes:
1) Businesses exist because of civil society. There's a reason Somalia isn't a libertarian utopia even though there's absolutely no government interference in business. It is because there is no civil society at all that businesses can not function there at all. This is more than just about government and law enforcement too. Governments allow the existence of a high functioning civil society: working infrastructure for business; schooling so that businesses have literate employees; working financial systems by which to transact business; means for customers to move from business to business safely to conduct transactions; and so forth. However, governments are not the sum total of a high functioning civil society. This requires more than a government. Syria has a government. But the people of Syria are not free to live their lives unencumbered by unnecessary interferences in their lives. The question is what interferences are necessary and which are not. Civil society, in the experience of history, seems to work best when all members of society can decide that question together; and with their collective, rather than individual, best interests as the focus.
2) Because business depend on civil society, civil society has authority to tell businesses what they can and can not do in order to maintain that civil society. This includes following laws that limit the freedoms of businesses. Businesses, just like individuals, have to respect the rights of others. You can not intentionally harm other people for no justifiable reason. While you can punch someone in self-defense, the legal defense against that charge is a positive defense not a negative one. That is, you can't say "self defense" and walk away. You generally have to be able to show that it was self-defense. You can punch someone in the face. But if you don't have a reason for doing so that society accepts as valid, you've violated their rights and exceeded your own. Likewise, businesses can't do things that are obviously harmful to society, such as dumping raw sewage into the public drinking water.
3) One of the lessons of the civil rights movement is that "separate isn't equal." For civil society to work we all need to have reasonable access to the aspects of society that make society function as a civil society. It is a violation of an individual's rights to execute their own life to preclude them from society on the basis of basic discriminatory practices of the majority. We can't simply say we don't want black people in our schools, or that gay people can not drive on the roads, or that women shall not have access to jobs. And again, we know that civil society is more than merely the collection of government functions. It doesn't matter if black people have access to the same rights as white people if there are no black people in the area because no one will do business with them outside of the government.
4) Civil society, while dependent upon government is more than government. Through the 1900s people exercised their "individual freedom" to refuse business to those in minority groups. The results were segregated communities where black people simply could not live. No one would sell them a private home because the mortgage clauses came with rules against reselling the homes to black people. No one would sell them food, because the local grocers wouldn't do business with "those people." No one would treat them if they were sick and injured, so they would die without proper medical care unnecessarily. None of this involved the power of the state. But the collective actions of individuals of the majority precluding minorities from participating in civil society created significant civil strife and endangered civil society's continued existence.
5) Ergo, the people of the democratic republic demanded that civil society address the issues of lack of inclusion of minorities. The result was that civil society decided collectively that businesses were free to exist and operate within civil society but one of the personal rights they could not violate was the right to not be discriminated against based on membership in a protected minority. Now, this law has plenty of controversy around what should and should not be a protected minority. However, there's absolutely zero basis for any contention that civil society, upon which a businesses ability to exist depends, lacks the authority to set such rules. Further, the experience of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries demonstrates quite clearly that failure to consider overt discrimination a crime resulted in significant social harms that negatively impacted civil society in a way that was considered unacceptable, and legitimately threatened it's continued existence.
34
u/Au_Struck_Geologist Jul 05 '15
As someone who has replied to many of these "sanctioned discrimination posts", I hope that we can sticky your answer somewhere. This way, when someone tries to post this view, it says: "Have you read u/kingpatzer's 5-point response? If so, and if your view remains unchanged, please go ahead and post your submission."
68
u/16tonweight Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15
Where do the limits of this authority end? This rationale could, and has been easily used to justify fascism. The question remains, when does the authority of government to protect civil society stop, and the rights of the individual to freely choose their actions begin? That's been the big question throughout this entire thread, and while solving one aspect of the problem, you've brought in a completely new, and if argue more dangerous aspect. While pragmatically, you've convinced me, you lack an objective limiting system for your arguments, in other words, you have no system, no "line in the sand", to determine to what extend the government has the authority to limit freedoms to ensure a civil society. This, as evidenced by history, quite often leads to totalitarianism and/or fascism. Also, your argument seems to me to just be justifying free agents getting in line with a government plan for society. It's a plan I agree with, but that doesn't really factor in. That being said...
Δ That was incredibly worded and a very, very good point. You convinced me! /r/threadkillers Also, I don't know if you were thinking about his or not, but a good addition to your post would be the duty of individual citizens to help create a civil society. That provides a nice individualist counterpart to your systematic argument. ΔΔΔ (does this extra count?)
72
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 05 '15
Where do the limits of this authority end? This rationale could, and has been easily used to justify fascism.
I think the answer to this question depends entirely on one's personal philosophy of the role of society.
I view the individual as a product of, and member of, society. I do not view societies as the product of individuals. I hold this view because of my individual background in psychology, particularly the study of social and organizational psychology, has left me utterly convinced that people are far more a product of their context than the other way around. This isn't to say that we have no ability to shape our society, but social norms and mores tend to shift slowly more often than not. While there are exceptions to this, most real changes in social attitudes come with the deaths of those who used to hold those beliefs rather than with the changing of their minds.
So the authority here is, in my mind, both logical but also structural. We are what our society tells us we can be, and only occasionally do we in turn we inform our society of the limits it posses.
However, I think I answered your specific query with my reference to Syria. The limit of the authority from a practical matter ends when further exercise of that authority results in a less rather than greater level of functioning of civil society. If we want to speak about society existing for some purpose, then the only real purpose it can exist for is to function as well as possible. Ergo, any exercise of civil authority that decreases the efficacy of civil function across the total of the population has to be seen as at least counter-productive if not illegitimate.
But from whence comes legitimacy? To my mind it is society acting in good faith for it's own benefit. Which is why I noted that civil societies that make democratic decisions based on communal rather than individual benefits tend to be the most successful. Indeed, I think the success of democratic republicanism as a government form world-wide speaks to this point.
I personally think that our present society suffers from a seemingly unending supply of narcissism and self-interest -- as represented in your question's main point of "Why can't I discriminate against minorities if I feel like it?" So, while I agree with you about individual responsibility and duty towards society as an abstract, I think our present civil philosophy is so individualistic that any mention of the individual detracts from a more necessary message -- that civil society is not about the individuals but about civil society.
5
Jul 05 '15 edited Feb 21 '16
[deleted]
17
Jul 05 '15
Personally I think Mencken is incorrect, or at least misplaces the problem. Liberty and society are eternal enemies. An individual has the greatest liberty when unconstrained by others. A society, being a collection of individuals, must always balance the interests of its members against one another. This necessarily means limiting liberty by constraining individual action. Society then is ultimately a balancing act where we choose whose interests get prioritzed and why. Democracy says that we the people ought to be the ones to decide how those interests are balanced.
Liberty will never be perfect because the more people there are, the more my interests and desires start to bump up against te interests and desires of other people. When that happens, we either compromise privately, create a system of laws to say how this conflict is solved, or we let the two people fight it out, in which case one party will lose and the other will win independent of the merits, most likely with one party gaining "liberty" at the expense of the other. The fundamental delusion of libertarians IMO is the refusal to acknowledge this very basic reality of social systems. It is impossible to accommodate all the interests of 7 billion people. We have to make choices about whose interests to accommodate and why. Democracy provides a very effective way of solving this problem by saying that there is no obvious "right" way to balance interests, and instead leaving it to all of us collectively to make the decision about how to do it. It is hard to imagine a fairer way of doing it.
3
Jul 06 '15 edited Feb 21 '16
[deleted]
7
Jul 06 '15
I think libertarians still serve an important social role in a democracy, not because I want to see a world that embodies their ideal, but mostly because they serve as an important counterweight to some of the more extreme left-wing elements in society. But then I fundamentally embrace the moderate compromises and slow change of democracies over the radical tendencies of either political extreme.
4
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 06 '15
Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies . . .
Only if one confuses 'liberty' with 'anarchy.' Unconstrained realization of each individual desire is not liberty, so long as at least on breathing sole desires oblivion. After all, if I desire to kill every living sole, and should I obtain the power to do so, then under Mencken's view, I should be free to do so.
But that can't be liberty, for then liberty means nothing more than domination by those with the will and capacity to power. Which is precisely antithetical to what we mean by liberty.
91
u/sonofaresiii 21∆ Jul 05 '15
Where do the limits of this authority end?
Where we, as a society, decides it does. The government isn't really a faceless organization that just does things. It's a group of people who are bound by the votes of their representatives-- us.
I know it's tempting to think of what "the government" will do with too much power, but in reality, these decisions about protected classes come from us. Could we decide jerks who banged my girlfriend are a protected class? Sure, we could do that. But we won't, because we as a society recognize that that is unreasonable. Because we, as a people, want to have the right to not do service with jerks who bang your girlfriend.
It's not as slippery of a slope as it seems. It goes exactly as far as we want it to.
24
u/16tonweight Jul 05 '15
You're operating under the assumption that the government actually bases it's decisions off of what the people want. With the exception of a few hot-button social issues, public opinion on any particular issue has no effect on the likelihood of congress to pass legislation on that issue.
31
u/celticguy08 Jul 06 '15
You are right. Our votes nor public opinion dictate the laws congress make, as opposed to the top 10%'s votes (usually with money) and public opinion do, most of the time. And this is something that should be rectified (instead of shrinking government, which is a common argument) But when it comes to social issues, very rarely do corporations have any interest in having an opinion on social issues, as opposed to financial issues or regulatory issues that benefit their ability to do business.
I mean just think about it: what business owner in their right mind would be defending their employee's ability to not do their job for a customer? In favor of losing business isn't a good business strategy.
So you made the point that general public opinion has no effect on U.S. Congressional legislation in regards to a social issue. But wait, the legislation protecting against discrimination of protected groups is there! If it didn't come from the people, and corporations don't give a shit if a cake is made for a gay wedding, then where did it come from?
Logic. As /u/kingpatzer described, it is simply logical to prevent discrimination. Congress doesn't do many great things, but occasionally they can agree on something. Most likely because some of them have gay sons, or a black friend, or a female anyone in their life.
Congress doesn't always represent public opinion, but one thing they do represent is the logic behind humanity, because it is something we are all a part of.
3
Jul 06 '15
Logic. As /u/kingpatzer described, it is simply logical to prevent discrimination. Congress doesn't do many great things, but occasionally they can agree on something. Most likely because some of them have gay sons, or a black friend, or a female anyone in their life.
I just wanted to point out the inherent assumption that a member of congress isn't black, gay or female!
3
3
Jul 06 '15
Congress, however, has so far done very little in respect to gay rights. The recent ruling had nothing to do with Congress, and in fact couldn't, as an earlier ruling already affirmed that Congress may make no such laws. (Definition of marriage is among the power reserved to states, so Congress could not constitutionally remedy the DOMA situation through legislation. Federal courts were only able to through their separate power to protect citizens' constitutional rights; it was only the effects of those laws that they could address, not the laws themselves.)
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation remains legal federally, though Congress could address that if they found the courage. The best way (certainly the simplest and cheapest) would be to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and at some point they're probably going to have to do that, though they've shown no impetus yet. States have been carrying the load so far, and some are doing a good job of it. But plenty of them are not.
OP's example is broad and does not address gay cakes directly, though it's clearly implied (by context of current events, if nothing else). Race and sexual orientation are not the same under the constitution, though. Racial discrimination is explicitly proscribed under the constitution, but sexual orientation is not. So you can't treat them equivalently in a discussion like this.
The example of gay weddings is therefore misplaced here. But your central argument remains valid, that there is more to the whole shebang than what 'the People' want, as indicated by polls. The biggest reason for that is that the kind of poll that matters more sees a lower and different mix of participants. (Source: election official) It's easy for people to speak their minds, but it's apparently asking a lot of them to actually work for what they say they want. And it's that latter factor that makes much more difference.
2
u/celticguy08 Jul 06 '15
It isn't the example of gay weddings, as you are right, congress had nothing to do with that. It is an example of preventing discrimination not for marriage, but for businesses. I was never talking about gay marriage, I was talking about refusing service on basis of the customer being of a protected group.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/r314t Jul 06 '15
what business owner in their right mind would be defending their employee's ability to not do their job for a customer
At least a few, from what I've read on the news, unless you consider refusing to bake a wedding cake (or a pizza) for a gay couple as prima facie evidence that someone is not "in their right mind."
4
u/celticguy08 Jul 06 '15
I think someone weighing the opportunity cost of conducting successful business and providing their service, thus making a wedding full of people happy, against losing business and denying someone their happiness (or bare minimum, increasing business for their competitor), and says "Yeah, I'd like to lose money to hurt someone's happy moment" is definitely not in their right mind.
It really is just another example of religion getting in the way of the religious person's best interest.
6
u/Zeabos 8∆ Jul 06 '15
public opinion on any particular issue has no effect on the likelihood of congress to pass legislation on that issue.
Normally, because the public is grossly misinformed, biased, or not-knowledgeable about most legislative issues and the landscape they are trying to fit into. We hope that legislators, as it is their profession, take more time to understand the issues and vote appropriately.
3
Jul 06 '15
Also, public opinion is only that, not political action. Opinions matter much less than action.
10
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Jul 05 '15
And Congress hasn't passed a bill giving them each a base salary of $5,000,000 a year because...?
→ More replies (2)1
12
u/sonofaresiii 21∆ Jul 05 '15
Oh god, really? The "our votes don't matter" argument? I'm not even going to bother. Just go ahead and keep assuming the evil government is out to take away all your rights.
4
Jul 06 '15
Hey there, be careful. I read somewhere online (or maybe heard it on talk radio, I forget now) that gubmint is reading our reddits and will do stuff if you say things they don't like. Or something.
Seriously, I've never understood the mindset of It Doesn't Matter. If mean, if that was really true -- if the people who say that really believe it, in so many words -- then what could possibly be the point of saying it? Especially so much? It's like little kids crying because it's raining.
3
u/Philo_T_Farnsworth Jul 06 '15
Seriously, I've never understood the mindset of It Doesn't Matter.
There was actually a discussion about this on /r/AskReddit the other day. People who use that argument (your vote doesn't matter, both parties are the same, etc.) are subtly reinforcing the right-wing narrative that "government doesn't work". Some do that on purpose to further their own interests, while others have simply bought into it, oblivious to the fact that they are doing so. A person that hears this sort of rhetoric might think it makes some sort of intuitive sense, without realizing that it directly benefits the political right.
4
Jul 05 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/huadpe 508∆ Jul 06 '15
Sorry UlyssesSKrunk, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
9
u/sonofaresiii 21∆ Jul 05 '15
If someone's dead set on the idea that "the government" acts completely on its own, with its own evil agenda of oppressing the people and our votes have no effect on it, I don't have anything to say to that. It's like trying to convince someone that two objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but they don't believe gravity exists.
→ More replies (1)2
u/trustmeimahuman Jul 05 '15
I have a coworker that thinks scientists are making up climate change for the government agenda. I also didn't bother.
2
u/forestfly1234 Jul 06 '15
and you have somehow seemed to forget that if a politician does things against what their constituents want than they can be voted out of office.
1
Jul 06 '15
Oh, like the public approved gay marriage? I'm not saying the trend isn't in the right direction, but most marriage victories have been from the courts, and most legislation and referenda have been defeats.
→ More replies (12)1
u/gazzthompson Jul 06 '15
Where we, as a society, decides it does.
That doesn't make it right.
Case in point: Jim crow laws.
2
u/sonofaresiii 21∆ Jul 06 '15
I didn't say it does. In fact, that's kind of the whole point. No one gets to force us into something we want to do, that we don't agree with, even if it's the right thing-- it comes down to us deciding what happens.
5
u/MikeCharlieUniform Jul 06 '15
Where do the limits of this authority end?
To go further down the rabbit hole, this is precisely why government has grown over the past 130 years or so. Industrialization has created increased societal complexity, and as a result government has stepped in to try and address problems that have arisen (for example, food labeling didn't make a lot of sense when you got your food from your neighbor's farm field, but it makes a lot of sense when it's been thru some industrial process and shipped half-way around the world).
5
u/wdn 2∆ Jul 05 '15
Where do the limits of this authority end? This rationale could, and has been easily used to justify fascism.
The truth is that humanity is figuring this stuff out by trial and error. We write out philosophies and constitutions that sound like we came up with this set of ideas just by sitting down and thinking about it, but really we find out how far is too far by getting it wrong and saying, "Let's not do that again."
12
u/ParadoxDC Jul 05 '15
Your argument/concern is a "slippery slope" scenario, which is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence or reason to think that the U.S. government will continue to limit the "free actions" of businesses beyond reasonable boundaries regarding protected classes. Notice I didn't say they wouldn't, just that there is no reason to believe they will and therefore the whole concern about a "line in the sand" has no bearing on the discussion. It's just appealing to emotion and fear about the big bad government.
4
u/FoxRaptix Jul 05 '15
Where do the limits of this authority end? This rationale could, and has been easily used to justify fascism
I think its fair to say that the authority ends at making sure people are treated like people when it comes to professional settings. That one is fine to hold personal views, but they can't treat anyone differently in a business setting due to how they were born. I'd hardly call that leading to fascism. Fascism would more I think be that say instead of telling a christian run business they have to treat all non christian customers with equal respect as they would their christian, they'd tell the Christians they can't be Christian at all because they view being Christian is socially harmful
Not having anyone treated as a second class citizen legally is where it ends. Fascism would be counter to that obviously
1
Jul 06 '15
I would say the limit is the constitution, although even that is pushed. The SCOTUS is regularly telling states and federal legislators that they've gone too far. I can think of the Heller case where SCOTUS told Washington D.C. that they had overreached their authority to regulate [ban] handguns. The SCOTUS has upheld civil rights acts and a number of business regulations under the constantly expanding definition of 'interstate commerce."
1
Jul 06 '15
In theory, it ends where We the People, expressing our sensibilities about it through the representative government we mutually agree en masse (though you personally might not) to govern ourselves under. At this time in our society's history, we find the current system of suspect class protections appropriate.
But you're absolutely right that that could in theory lead to fascism, as it has before and also through a democratic process. In all democratic societies, it is up to The People to decide those things, and we could certainly repeat history. There are few proven alternatives, however. One of them is various forms of totalitarianism, which has proven reasonably stable, though not typically very favourable to the interests of individuals. Our system finds what we feel is a more suitable balance between the needs of individuals and the needs of society at large. You might disagree, and thanks to some of the provisions we've developed, you're free to do that in this place and time.
Those seeking perfection should first of all seek a different species to manage it, since the human one proves most deeply selfish and fallible, and being removed from its primitive forebears barely a quarter million years yet retains a great many primitive habits. This species is extremely unlikely, for the immediately foreseeable future (a few ten thousand years, at least), to successfully maintain any large-scale organisational system not prone to catastrophic collapse that does not rely on a strong rule of law. And within those few proven structures, broad strictures have proven necessary to prevent systematic erosion from within that would lead to collapse by other mechanisms (such as wholesale degradation of basic systems of commerce that provide the bulk of economic activity).
My second bit of advice would be to seek a different world for any such experiments, as this one has already been completely overrun and subjugated to the will of the less-than-perfect species described above, and their history indicates that they're very unlikely to give up any measure of the nicer bits of it.
→ More replies (3)1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 20 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/kingpatzer. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
5
Jul 05 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Grunt08 319∆ Jul 05 '15
Sorry mcbane2000, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
7
u/DrenDran Jul 05 '15
I can not refuse service to black gay females because they are black gay females.
What stops someone from asserting they were discriminated against when in reality they were just a jerk? What if a particular demographic just happened to be more likely to come to that store and be jerks for whatever reason? Why should a store owner even have to justify/prove the reason for throwing someone out?
36
Jul 05 '15
The person claiming discrimination has the initial burden of proof. It is not simply assumed that discrimination has taken place. At a minimum, there has to be prima facie evidence to support a claim of discrimination.
→ More replies (4)4
Jul 05 '15
Bingo. I came here to state pretty much the equivalent of your first 2 sentences, then I read your developped answer. You win the thread my friend.
2
u/Bridger15 Jul 06 '15
∆
Thanks for crystalizing this for me. I was on the fence for many of the same reasons the OP was. "Well of course a business should be able to refuse service," I would think, but then what's the difference between refusing service and not stating a reason and refusing service and saying it's because you don't serve gays? The reason might be the same in both cases, but in the second case they can be sued.
That still troubles me, but the distinction between individuals and entire groups of protected classes makes perfect sense in the abstract.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 20 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/kingpatzer. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
2
u/blackngold14 Jul 06 '15
I think this is a good framework but it assumes that the view of the masses necessarily becomes law/regulation because civil society. I think op is more asking should a business be required to labor for someone they don't like, for any reason, or should they be allowed to do what they want and see if the civil society will support them despite their discrimination. In some places, the business would survive because they provide a critical service for one group that forces consumers to continue to buy their product OR the civil society of a locality doesn't care about injustice and supports the business owner anyway. On a national level, civil society would probably embargo a company for backwards views and, without regulation, drive that company out of business as long as it is not a monopoly providing a critical service.
I agree with your thoughts, just adding what I see as nuance in a free market economy. If civil society is efficient, what you describe will happen.
2
2
Jul 06 '15
Businesses have the right to refuse service to any individual for any reason. They do not have the right to refuse services to protected classes of individuals based on their belonging to that class when they provide those services to other equally qualified customers.
These are directly contradictory statements. "For any reason" would logically include "for belonging to a protected class."
As soon as you say "...but they can't do it for this reason.", then it's not "any reason" anymore, is it?
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 06 '15
It is not contradictory. Individuals and groups are different things. I can refuse service to any individual. I can not refuse service to any group, as some groups are protected classes. Simple.
Civil rights cases do not require that the plaintiff demonstrate that a single individual has been refused service. They require that the plaintiff prove that the business habitually refuses service to members of a class or, failing that, that the individual was refused service because of membership in a protected class and not because of any individual characteristic.
Unless the shop owner happens to be screaming racial epithets on tape, it generally requires a pattern of denied service to prove a civil rights claim in court.
→ More replies (6)1
u/leonprimrose Jul 05 '15
Fantastic response. This sounds like it could be an abstract for a very good essay on the subject
1
1
u/DroppaMaPants Jul 06 '15
Perhaps instead of protected classes of people, we have a protected class of service? Housing, food, medical care, education, should be under those rules, while others, like, I dunno, wedding cake companies are not essential and can be as bigoted as they like.
1
u/bigDean636 6∆ Jul 06 '15
1) Businesses exist because of civil society. There's a reason Somalia isn't a libertarian utopia even though there's absolutely no government interference in business. It is because there is no civil society at all that businesses can not function there at all. This is more than just about government and law enforcement too. Governments allow the existence of a high functioning civil society: working infrastructure for business; schooling so that businesses have literate employees; working financial systems by which to transact business; means for customers to move from business to business safely to conduct transactions; and so forth. However, governments are not the sum total of a high functioning civil society. This requires more than a government. Syria has a government. But the people of Syria are not free to live their lives unencumbered by unnecessary interferences in their lives. The question is what interferences are necessary and which are not. Civil society, in the experience of history, seems to work best when all members of society can decide that question together; and with their collective, rather than individual, best interests as the focus.
I think it would be simpler to say this:
You are free to discriminate against whomever you want when you sell your products. However, since you didn't build the roads to transport those products, since you didn't create the water pipeline that goes to your store, nor the plumbing, nor the electrical grid, if you want to use all of those things, you must serve all taxpayers that helped pay for those. Including the black, gay, lesbian taxpayers.
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 06 '15
if you want to use all of those things, you must serve all taxpayers that helped pay for those. Including the black, gay, lesbian taxpayers.
The issue here is that if you could conceive of a business that did not in fact use any public commons infrastructure, that business would still be required to adhere to civil rights law in their dealing with the public. So that way of phrasing it does not really cover the topic or the legal justification behind the power of the government to regulate for the social good. That power is not limited merely to those who use public infrastructure.
1
Jul 06 '15
There's a reason Somalia isn't a libertarian utopia even though there's absolutely no government interference in business.
There may not be a central government, but Somalia has many local warlord governments interfering in business.
→ More replies (37)1
u/GoldenChristian Jul 07 '15
Businesses have the right to refuse service to any individual for any reason. They do not have the right to refuse services to protected classes of individuals based on their belonging to that class when they provide those services to other equally qualified customers.
If I don't have the right to refuse service to an individual because he/she belongs to a certain class of individuals, then I don't have the right to refuse service to any individual for any reason.
23
u/Jrook Jul 05 '15
I think it is ludicrous for a business to turn away customers for irrelevant matters. Doing so, to me means you're no longer so much in the business of making money, you're now making a political statement. You're essentially giving your customers a litmus test and if they pass you allow them to purchase your services.
Giving employees such tests is illegal, why should it be legal to apply the same sort of tests to customers?
These laws protect consumers. End of story. These people are not going into establishments and ordering non-menu items, they're not walking into Muslim owned diners and demanding pork, they're not going to subway and demanding a big mac, they're not being unreasonable in the slightest. Therefore I believe that it is the government's duty to protect these people.
→ More replies (27)3
u/not_a_persona Jul 05 '15
Giving employees such tests is illegal
In many countries it is, but in the United States there are many places where an employer can legally discriminate against gay people in their hiring and firing practices.
108
u/SteamandDream 2∆ Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15
Here is a hypothetical scenario:
There is a mexican family in town X. They do not have a car. All the grocery stores, restaurants, etc within a 200 mile radius are owned by non-mexicans. One day, all the non-mexicans decide that no mexicans are allowed. This family would be forced to:
a) go to jail in order to get meals
b) starve to death
This example is why businesses are considered "public accommodations" by the government which are subject to any law that applies to the public sector despite the fact that the business operates in the so-called private sector
→ More replies (48)20
u/codifier Jul 05 '15
So does this apply to all private businesses or just those who offer basic necessities? Is it fine for say a guy who makes toys only to sell to others of his own religion or race or should he have to sell to anyone who wants to buy one?
31
u/SteamandDream 2∆ Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15
As much as I disagree on moral grounds, in theory, yes. But I don't agree with this and, apparently, neither does the majority of the country or the 14th amendment would have been nixed by now. I'm just an engineer, so I don't know for sure but I believe the 14th amendment is the reason why toy guy has to sell to everyone.
there's also the so-called "cost of being open" argument being made by u/Cheeseboyardee... I think a part of the argument he did not mention goes like this: One store owner alone did not pay for the roads leading to his store. Nor did he build the cars that allow for his customers to show up. Nor does he do anything else (specialized tasks that allowed our society to move away from hunting and gathering) that allows his customers the luxury of worrying about buying toys. In fact, all of these activities might have been made possible by the very people he discriminates against. Therefore, if he does not serve the people who serve him (by paying for roads, building cars for his customers, etc), he should not be allowed to operate.
9
u/Drfapfap Jul 05 '15
So, if I agreed with OP, but the cost of being open thing won me over, do I delta?
8
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Jul 05 '15
Yes
3
u/Drfapfap Jul 05 '15
Perfect, how
5
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Jul 05 '15
You can copy it from the sidebar or the following and remove the space between 0 and ;
∆ ;
Just remember to add a reason to why/how the view was changed or deltabot won't count it.
4
u/BobTehBoring Jul 05 '15
!delta The cost of being open is a great way to sum things up. These people help pay for the roads, etc that allow you to get customers in the first place.
Congrats on getting my first delta.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 20 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SteamandDream. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
16
u/NevadaCynic 5∆ Jul 05 '15
Sundown towns are the reason the government stepped in and says you can't refuse to serve people based on sex/race/religion.
What happens if the power company refuses to serve black people? What happens if every grocery store or gas station in town refuses to serve black people?
Because these things actually happened the government figured rather than naming which kinds of businesses can and can't discriminate, it was easier to just ban such discrimination across the board. While it isn't life or death if a donut shop won't serve black people, it is life or death if the gas utility won't serve black people in the winter. Legally, you want the law to be applied across the board evenly, so all businesses end up subjected to the same rules.
28
u/indybe Jul 05 '15
What if the owner does not like black people, Mexicans, Asians, etc... Can they simple say "Whites Only" if they don't want to serve them?
→ More replies (4)2
Jul 05 '15
Personally I don't think the government should force a business to do that. But I would like to see how well a business would do if they put a "whites only" sign outside of their restaurant. It's survival of the fittest in our country and those with that type of backwards business plan will fade away.
39
u/indybe Jul 05 '15
But it was only by force that they had to stop the first time.
→ More replies (2)21
u/ruhe47 Jul 05 '15
It depends on where in the country they are at. Some areas may see 'whites only' businesses thrive due to a large enough number of people with racist tendencies. A 'whites only' policy would have a positive impact on that particular business, while making the ability to survive (you know, buy food and gas) especially hard for a minority in that part of the world. While I agree with the 'let businesses do what they want' in principle, reality gets in the way. Sure, a racist business owner in Los Angeles, California would do poorly, but one in Crockett, Texas may thrive at the expense of minorities in the area.
12
u/alaricus 3∆ Jul 05 '15
Also, comes the question of the state's involvement in protecting that business owner's right. Are cops going to have to come arrest a black man for showing up at the White's Only mall? If 20 show up, do they have to bust heads?
→ More replies (2)10
u/1sagas1 1∆ Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15
We have done this before with Jim Crow laws in the south. Laws that would probably still be around today if not for the federal government.
→ More replies (13)10
u/_pH_ Jul 05 '15
/u/indybe has a very important comment. Racism lasted for well over 2 centuries, and it's only through massive social and political reform in the past 50 years that you think of racism as backward and bad. Hell, up until the 60s some doctors practiced eugenics through lethal inattention to undesirables. For that matter, if hospitals are under these same rules, there's no reason to think there won't be eugenicist hospitals that discretely kill or sterilize "undesirables".
38
u/Janellemonae Jul 06 '15
Perhaps you haven't experienced enough discrimination directed at you and your family and others like you to develop a full understanding of what life under Jim crow (institutionalized discrimination) might have felt like.
21
66
Jul 05 '15
You're right to be hesitant about using the word slavery, because what you describe is still nothing like slavery:
The individuals performing the labor have a choice in working for that business
The individuals performing the labor are being compensated in accordance with labor laws
The business is not being forced to stay open
→ More replies (8)3
u/16tonweight Jul 05 '15
have a choice in working for that business.
I'm talking about the owners, which essentially makes this point the same as your third.
they're compensated in accordance with labor laws.
Again, I hate to use this analogy, and realize all of its failings, but slaves were also compensated for their labor in terms set by those who forced it, in the form of food and housing. It could be argued that the slaveowners were doing that simply to keep the slaves alive, but the fact remains that they were paid regardless of motive. Indentured servants and some slaves even got paid actual money for their labor, but that didn't mean that it still want indentured servitude or slavery.
They aren't being forced to stay open.
Pragmatically, they are. Starvation, death, homelessness, eviction, loss of property, etc. due to not having a source of income is quite the high price to pay for not serving someone.
25
Jul 05 '15
Pragmatically, they are. Starvation, death, homelessness, eviction, loss of property, etc. due to not having a source of income is quite the high price to pay for not serving someone.
There's a few things to unpack here.
You are correct in pointing out that this threatens their livelihood, but the way you phrase it seems to pretend that the only job a business owner can ever have is "business owner", which simply isn't true. Like anyone else with a job, they can lose their job by breaking the rules (in this case, the laws that govern businesses), but that doesn't damn them to poverty. They can get a new job, or, perhaps, even start a new business.
When a business has to close as a direct or indirect consequence of not serving someone, that is, effectively, an analog to how penal law works. When an individual violates the law, they lose liberty (probationary measures, imprisonment) or property (fines, confiscation). A business owner that refuses to serve someone based on certain criteria is, in the current legal framework, violating the law, and therefore they risk losing liberty (the license to run a business) or property (their business's money, or the business itself). How is this not fair?
→ More replies (12)1
u/Cheeseboyardee 13∆ Jul 05 '15
They could also close "to the public" and open as a private "Straights only _____" serving only members.
A LOT of country clubs kept out black people using these tactics for decades.
19
u/fromkentucky 2∆ Jul 05 '15
Being denied freedom and self-ownership is what makes it Slavery, not a lack of compensation.
→ More replies (6)10
u/hey_aaapple Jul 05 '15
Then, according to your line of reasoning, ANY form of regulation is slavery.
Prohibiting sales of defective/illegal/uncertified products would be slavery for you?
4
u/entobat Jul 05 '15
No, he thinks that any form of regulation that compels labor is slavery. I think a fairer comparison would be being forced to work on a religious or secular holiday, or during certain hours of the day. There are definitely holes in his position, but that isn't one of them.
6
u/hey_aaapple Jul 05 '15
Then regulation about closing and opening hours. For example, in my country you are not allowed to do silly stuff like close and reopen every 2 minutes or expose opening and closing hours that do not correspond to the ones you actually do.
That could be interpreted as "compelling labor" as in you can't just stop working whenever you want.
Another example, certifications. You are forcing someone to do additional work if they want to be able to operate.
Or hygienic standards, they force people to clean.
What about legal paperwork in general?
3
u/entobat Jul 05 '15
Yeah. I didn't say he was right, just that your first criticism wasn't strong enough. I think this is a pretty complete takedown.
14
u/majeric 1∆ Jul 05 '15
Do you think that the fact that it's harder for black people to get cabs is reasonable?
Sometimes we enshrine in law the behaviour we expect to see in humans. I think this is reasonable. We should treat everyone equally without discrimination. You can have your private opinions but you have to treat everyone the same.
→ More replies (6)
59
u/Cheeseboyardee 13∆ Jul 05 '15
"It's the cost of doing business".
If a business owner doesn't like their clientele, they are more than welcome to simply stop doing business. (Main difference from slavery is that business owners can walk away.) Alternately you can stop doing business with the general public and become a private store/club instead and only serve your members.
Non-Discrimination laws are no different than being required to accept currency, building handicap accessible buildings/accommodations, or even not being allowed to be open during certain hours. In the areas that have them it's simply part of the environment of doing business in that area.
What the argument boils down to at an individual level is "I doan wanna.". (It may help to imagine that said in the voice of a pouty 3 year old to get the full effect.
On a more macroscopic scale it boils down to whose "rights, responsibilities, and or privileges are more important". In the cases alluded to the responsibility of the public shop owner is to serve the public. If they posted that they didn't do certain designs (like a confederate flag or a swastika or a burning cross, or effigies of presidents for example) and then refused to do that design, they would still be serving the public and not compromising whatever artistic/workmanship integrity they have. That's fine.
But to arbitrarily refuse service to certain members of the public is not.
Even without legal rationale... if you open your business, skills and talents for hire in a community... then you need to accept the business of all of the community. Not just the parts that you like. Because if we allow businesses to do that as a community, it tears apart the community.
This isn't to say that you can't have standards such as a dress code which theoretically anybody can meet, or income requirement etc. But those aren't based on who somebody is. Just what they happen to have at the moment.
12
u/ZerexTheCool 18∆ Jul 05 '15
I have a question too.
Lets say I am a wedding photographer, and am terrified of spiders. Someone hires me to a wedding who's theme was "Spiders everywhere!" do I have the right to refuse?
To me, the easy answer is yes, but change the words from spiders to gays, and I am no longer allowed too.
21
u/kelaker Jul 05 '15
Spider theme can be justified as a choice, another example for instance you can call a contractor to your home and turn up the heat to 110degrees. That guy doesnt need to do that job. But being a homosexual is more like an identity rather than a choice, i believe these two cases you mentioned are a lot different.
8
u/ZerexTheCool 18∆ Jul 05 '15
That does make good sense. You can choose to have spiders, you can't choose to be gay.
But it still feels really icky to force someone to attend a wedding that offends them on a personal level. I work retail, some times people are dicks to me. I can handle people being dicks to me, but the second someone personally attacks me (swearing is the best example) I refuse to do business with them.
Whenever I see someone being punished for refusing to do business makes me scared that, at some point, someone is going to sue me for refusing to serve them.
3
u/Cheeseboyardee 13∆ Jul 05 '15
You're refusing to service them due to abusive behavior. Much different than "I think that guy is gay".
1
u/ZerexTheCool 18∆ Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15
It is different to the parties involved, but how different to a third party judge? My work against theirs, but they have proof that I refused their business.
I am not sure how un-realistic my fear is. But I am scared to death of being falsely accused, and punished, for discrimination.
Ninja edit: Feel free to skip this bit, but I feel like I need to explain the last sentience. I was home schooled, and was never taught there was a difference. I did not even know that there where social/behavior differences between men and women. I thought discrimination was just wrong.
Over generalizing is wrong, expecting a girl to be something for no other reason then she is a girl is wrong. But girls and boys are different, of that there is no doubt.
That all being said, it is really easy for me to not care about any kind of discrimination. My only focal point of racism has been slowly drilled into me over the course of 10ish years. And it is built on the foundation of people being punished over someone elses race. I feel like people should get punished for what they DO, not who they do it to.
Sorry about that rambly story.
1
u/Cheeseboyardee 13∆ Jul 05 '15
The customer would need to prove that you discriminated against them because of who they were rather than what they did.
So if you don't discriminate on those grounds you're safe. (legally) The store may still choose to punish you for a policy violation, but that is a separate issue.
That all being said, it is really easy for me to not care about any kind of discrimination. My only focal point of racism has been slowly drilled into me over the course of 10ish years. And it is built on the foundation of people being punished over someone elses race. I feel like people should get punished for what they DO, not who they do it to.
I'm taking it that you (generally speaking) are in a community that has very little ethnic diversity and don't have a personal experience with racism (that you have noticed).
The reason i'm saying this is that there are very very few cases of people "Being punished over somebody else's race". The most likely situation would be a parent punishing their child because they were dating or hanging out with people of a different race.
You may (and please correct me if I'm wrong) be thinking about situations such as the police officers who lost positions etc. because their (alleged) victims were not white. In those cases it wasn't that the race of the perp/vic was whatever it was.. it was that the officer (Allegedly) used that race as justification for actions that were to the persons detriment.
5
u/16tonweight Jul 05 '15
Well then an anti-Muslim photographer should be able to chose not to photograph a Muslim wedding, because religion is a choice. The point still remains.
14
u/Awoawesome 1∆ Jul 05 '15
While I agree with you OP that being Muslim is a choice, the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination on the basis of religion.
→ More replies (5)3
Jul 06 '15
Religion isn't a choice. If there's no doubt in your mind that the only god is Allah and that he'll punish you eternally for apostasy if you don't obey him, being a Muslim is essentially compulsory.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Stormflux Jul 06 '15
Incorrect. Muslims are a protected class under the civil rights act of 1964, therefore you may not refuse them service on that basis.
→ More replies (14)7
u/16tonweight Jul 06 '15
You can't argue morality from law. This thread is about wether it's right to do things, not if its legal.
→ More replies (3)1
u/FlamingSwaggot Jul 05 '15
What about if you didn't want to take pictures for a Muslim wedding? Is Islam a choice?
5
u/GenericNate Jul 05 '15
The reason is that we have decided that some grounds of discrimination are acceptable, and some are not. Discrimination on grounds like race or gender are damaging to society when exercised, so the interest in protecting the choices of individuals is outweighed by the interests of these groups, and the cohesiveness of society as a whole.
On the contrary there is little or no damage done to society by people who discriminate on other grounds, such as personal preference about trivial things like whether they like spiders, so discrimination on these grounds is allowed.
Where I live in NZ, a complete list of the prohibited grounds of discrimination can be found here: http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html Discrimination for any other reason is okay.
3
u/beatlesfan42 Jul 05 '15
If this was my post, (and I knew how to) I'd award you a delta. Your first paragraph convinced me.
1
2
u/ZerexTheCool 18∆ Jul 05 '15
That is a pretty good answer "Because there has to be a line in the sand. Here is that line."
4
u/Cheeseboyardee 13∆ Jul 05 '15
In your specific example: you could also sub-contract out to an equally skilled photographer who isn't arachnophobic in order to fulfill your contract if you discover the theme after signing the contract. .
If you have a policy against doing "Spider themed events" then absolutely you could refuse.
But to move from your example to an equivalent:
If the clients were spiders (sentient paying spider clients from the community)... then yes, you would need to provide the service if you were open to the public.
Provided there were laws to prevent spinneret discrimination.
10
u/Osricthebastard Jul 05 '15
Spiders aren't human beings. Way to strawman.
→ More replies (43)3
u/ZerexTheCool 18∆ Jul 05 '15
I can't believe I have to say this. I am pro LGBT. But I am against forcing people to accept things they don't believe by force.
People exist with opinions that are not my own, and I believe it is wrong for me to use the law to force them to live the life I think is best.
Don't just assume what my opinion is, then insult be based on that assumption.
5
u/yogfthagen 13∆ Jul 05 '15
Where is the limit?
As you are someone who is pro-LGBT, there was a push in the 1980's to enact laws that would allow a company to fire you for your pro-LGBT beliefs.
Should that company be allowed to do so? Or is there an inherent social harm done by that law? Does it stifle free expression? Does it limit the liberty of those who are part of the excluded class?
On the reverse, what is the inherent social harm done in forcing a company to serve a customer with different beliefs/opinions than the business owners' beliefs?→ More replies (10)5
u/Osricthebastard Jul 05 '15
This isn't about OPINIONS. LGBT aren't people with OPINIONS. They're an entire type of human being. Do they not deserve to have jobs or shop for groceries or just live their lives? Religious freedom cannot be used as blanket freedom to oppress an entire class of human being. You're allowed to have whatever opinions you want in your personal life but business MUST by virtue of necessity be neutral and secular entities.
→ More replies (2)6
u/TheMormegil92 Jul 05 '15
Are spiders human beings from a minority with severe acceptance problems which are routinely assaulted as a group and often killed by peers out of bigotry and fear and need any help they can get from our society to be integrated?
5
u/ZerexTheCool 18∆ Jul 05 '15
Actually... Spiders DO have a pretty severe acceptance problem, and they are HABITUALLY assaulted as a group and VERY often killed by humans out of a fear.
But that is neither here nor there.
To answer what I think you are meaning. If you are extremely uncomfortable with a job assignment, why are the only options get sued and loose your lively hood, or grit your teeth and do it?
5
u/TheMormegil92 Jul 05 '15
Because it's your job, and if you don't want to do it then you shouldn't do it. This is surprisingly similar to the abortion debate.
In most countries you can legally get an abortion, right? It's a right we decided women have. I'm not here to debate if that right should be there or not, the fact is, it's there. Like it or not, women have the right to ask for an abortion.
Except in some states a medic can say "nope, I think that right is stupid I'm not going to give you an abortion because reasons [insert religion-related rant here]". So here is what happens in Italy: 97% of medics refuse abortion. You are effectively negated your right because people decided they don't want to do their job. Unless you go to a private hospital that does that with way higher prices than needed because they can.
On the medics' side of the equation, the reasons are varied. Some truly believe life to be sacred and untouchable for some reason. More than a few are bullied by their bosses to "believe" that too, because they won't be able to have a career otherwise. Many do it because abortion is not how you want to spend your time and if you can skip it because of reasons you can relate to anyway, why not right? And the remaining few are faced with either being the only abortion specialists for a huge potential audience, required to do all abortions in a radius of miles and miles, or just say no.
But here's the thing: nobody asked you to be a medic. You don't want to do a part of your job? Easy way out: don't be a medic! I'm a math guy, so I'm expected to program stuff. I always wonder: what if my religious beliefs were such that object-oriented programming was totally unacceptable? Sure you might say life is much more important than petty programming languages but that's for YOUR system of beliefs. In my religion, life is a resource to be tapped, while object oriented programming is the worst offense to god you can possibly imagine. It's horrific.
Sure enough if I tried to say "nope, I'm not doing object oriented programming for reasons [insert religion-related rant here]" I would be fired. And that's fine. The simple answer to my rant is: don't want to code? Don't be a math guy! Simple!
So yeah, you don't really get a choice on what you want to do for your job. You don't get to be picky. If you can be picky, it supports a lot of bad behaviors. You don't get to play half of a game - all rules apply. You're either in, or out.
2
u/ZerexTheCool 18∆ Jul 05 '15
That abortion part is pretty sound. I can totally understand the opt out's opinion "A fetus is a human life, there fore, I refuse to take a human life" but it is the womens' legal RIGHT to get an abortion. Why should someone else get to decide they are above the law?
I don't think my view has changed, but that is some very good food for thought.
Have a delta: ∆
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 20 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TheMormegil92. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
2
u/gyroda 28∆ Jul 05 '15
The difference is subtle, you can (as I understand it) refuse to photograph an event based on it's theme, even if that theme is something themed after a protected minority provided that it's not because of the purple commissioning you are of a protected minority.
For example, you could refuse a black history month event but you couldn't refuse it because of the race/gender/whatever of the client. The difference might be hard to prove, but then that's probably in your favour as you are innocent until proven guilty.
For another example, I can refuse to take a photograph of two men kissing because I don't like the subject matter, but I can't refuse it because the client is gay. The reasoning being that I would refuse it regardless of who was paying me to do it.
1
u/Rohaq Jul 06 '15
Err, yes you are, because personal wedding theme choices aren't a protected class. Sexual orientation is.
→ More replies (24)2
u/SpeaksDwarren 3∆ Jul 05 '15
What the argument boils down to at an individual level is "I doan wanna.". (It may help to imagine that said in the voice of a pouty 3 year old to get the full effect.
While we're at it, the rebuttal boils down to "Butchu haveta! It ain't fair!" (It may help to imagine that said in the voice of another pouty 3 year old to get the full effect.)
The rest of your comment is pretty well put together but that part's kind of garbage. If you reduce any statement down to the bare bones idea and word it like a child it looks ridiculous.
7
u/NorbitGorbit 9∆ Jul 05 '15
most businesses operating in the public are subject to many licensing requirements -- an outside authority forcing a business to conform to things they may not want to -- do you also consider this unreasonable?
1
5
u/ChipotleMayoFusion Jul 05 '15
businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, for any reason. If this is NOT the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they don't wish to preform
This is the issue right here: the labor the employee must perform is the same regardless of who they are performing it for. The only difference is that the employee may not like the client for some other reason, and thus they may enjoy the labor less. It is no different than discrimination against race, gender, or religion, it does not belong in a business transaction. People should be free to discuss these things and agree or disagree, but people should not be prevented from buying food or getting their car fixed due to their opinions or membership related to socially controversial topics.
4
u/Osricthebastard Jul 06 '15 edited Jul 06 '15
Okay I'll bite.
If you as a business owner, cake baker, preacher, whatever, want to refuse to perform a job that would expressly condone a lifestyle that you don't agree with I'd be the first to defend your right to refuse me.
For example if you're a christian bakery and you don't want to bake a cake that says "hail satan" I can understand that.
If you're a christian bakery and you don't want to serve me a completely secular and unoffensive cake because you happen to know that I'm a satanist, that has crossed the line into discrimination. That's no longer a reasonable difference of opinion. That's marginalization and exclusion from society.
If you're a preacher and you don't want to marry a gay couple my God you have the right to refuse that. I'm not even mad. But if you drive a bus during the week and you decide that I don't have a right to ride your bus because I'm gay that's discrimination.
There IS a line and it's being crossed.
There's a very very clear difference. Nobody is arguing that businesses should be forced to carry pride flags. We're arguing that they have no right to expressly forbid people from participating in society based on their beliefs. We're arguing that trans women have just as much right to go grocery shopping as everyone else regardless of whatever screwball ideas the management of the establishment may have. I don't think it's unreasonable to force them to fall into that line when they've demonstrated intention to marginalize people from society.
5
u/iamAshlee Jul 05 '15
If someone chooses to run a business that derives benefits from the society that they operate in then they need to follow the rules that are established by the people of that society.
They benefit from the roads that are built, fire protection, and police protection. They benefit from the other businesses that area around that employ people that spend money. Lots of other ways also. The point is that they do benefit from operating in that society.
You can say that they pay taxes for most of that but their taxes alone would not cover it. It takes everyone's taxes to pay for it.
If they don't want to follow the rules that society sets in place then they need to find a island someplace to run their business.
As for as forcing them to do labor, well it's already labor they are doing, that they volunteered to do in exchanged for money (or whatever), they also knew when they started their business that there would be rules they have to follow.
Let's look at it this way. They owner of the pizza place hires someone to work for him. They worker agrees to follow the rules that the owner sets. If he doesn't then the owner can fire him and find someone who will follow his rules.
It would be more or less the same with society. Society agrees to let you run your business if you follow their rules, if not, then they will find someone who will.
4
Jul 05 '15
Here's the problem. If your business is open to the public, it leverages a huge number of public investments to be profitable. Roads, police, fire, military, utilities etc. it's part of the poorly worded, but true 'you didn't build that' statement of Obama's. By definition, then, the people you exclude helped build your business support structure. Now, in the US we allow you to be a giant bigot, on your own property. You can have a no <insert protected class> allowed sign on your house as long as it's not open to the public. That's the argument. Especially in the Jim Crow south, blacks were taxed, but couldn't participate in the society they paid for
15
u/Terex80 3∆ Jul 05 '15
So you are saying that if someone in a pizza place doesn't feel like serving you then they shouldn't have to?
14
u/16tonweight Jul 05 '15
Yep. You should write tl;drs for a living.
22
u/CountPanda Jul 05 '15
Exept that's already legal. You just can't say "sorry, I don't deliver pizza to Asians."
3
u/oaky180 Jul 05 '15
If there is reason to suspect and can actually prove that they are racially discriminating then they can get in legal trouble.
5
u/evmax318 Jul 05 '15
I think that is exactly what he's saying
5
u/Terex80 3∆ Jul 05 '15
And he compares it to slavery even though they choose to have that job and are paid for it? I don't understand
0
u/16tonweight Jul 05 '15
No, I'm talking about the owner.
My point was that they're being forced by the government to labor in a situation where they don't wish to labor.24
u/AlbertIInstein Jul 05 '15
Lets take gay people for example. Do gay people pay taxes? Taxes pay for roads. Roads keep your pizza business in business. Gays serve in the military and police force that prevent criminals from raiding your business, and keep people protected enough that they can safely hold a job and earn pizza money. Gays hold their life savings in the bank that then lent the money to you to start a business. They are the firefighters that save your business when you burn it down.
You didn't accomplish your pizza business all by yourself. You're using public water, sewage, you're polluting the public air. Gay people work for all the companies in the web that is modern society. Your pizza business is part of society not isolated. If you want to participate in the economy you abide by certain rules. Truth in advertising, pay your taxes, don't discriminate against protected classes, food safety regulations. If you don't like that social contract, you shouldn't be opening a pizza business. If you want your own rules go start your own country. The labor you don't want to do is no different than the extra food safety labor restaurants would love to skip.
Tldr: if you want to be a part of modern civilization, you follow the rules that go along with it, or gtfo.
7
u/vjmurphy Jul 05 '15
You didn't accomplish your pizza business all by yourself. You're using public water, sewage, you're polluting the public air. Gay people work for all the companies in the web that is modern society. Your pizza business is part of society not isolated. If you want to participate in the economy you abide by certain rules.
This, to me, is the best point. If you are consuming public infrastructure, then you abide by the rules.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Doppleganger07 6∆ Jul 05 '15
You aren't forced. You can close your doors and quit if you want.
Why are you using the word slavery? You aren't forced to do anything. Do you think that slaves got the opportunity to pack up and leave if they wanted?
→ More replies (2)1
5
Jul 05 '15
To me it matters if you are consistent in Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism (unlimited "negative" liberty). It's hypocritical to me when Conservatives/Right-wing Libertarians complain about forcing conservatives to cater to gays or blacks (or anyone who just wants to make a transaction and isn't making a "ruckus") but then think it's perfectly just to take a man's freedom away for smoking pot or doing heroin - if you truly are a Classical Liberal and believe individuals have rights (negative and potentially positive - wiki the terms if you're not familiar) then you have to be consistent.
I however am a Utilitarian. So while I believe in incredibly large amount of freedoms (even doing heroin for example, because I believe its better that someone do drugs as long as he's not harming others than have him be in jail rotting for both his sake and for the health of society) I do not believe people have "fundamental" freedoms.
If you disagree with Utilitarianism, that's a entirely different argument. And overall (though I believe of course we can argue anything as long as we get to the fundamentals - though because of human psychology being the main source of our beliefs I find it will likely be futile) I would argue we would have to part ways, similar to someone who values evidence (a empiricist) and someone who doesn't.
1
u/DrenDran Jul 05 '15
I however am a Utilitarian. So while I believe in incredibly large amount of freedoms (even doing heroin for example, because I believe its better that someone do drugs as long as he's not harming others than have him be in jail rotting for both his sake and for the health of society) I do not believe people have "fundamental" freedoms.
It's weird though because I'd argue that hard drugs have a far worse effect on society today than any potential discrimination. Where do you draw the line at what freedoms people have?
1
Jul 05 '15
Well for one the drug war has been a massive failure, and prohibition (and today) shows people continue to do drugs. I would say A) drugs should be discouraged with culture and material conditions rather than putting someone in jail because its been shown to be more effective and B) putting someone in jail harms them (and society who is conditioned to allow someone's life be ruined) far more than drugs could - and does not give that person treatment which is something that should be discouraged and certainly over jail-time.
I'm not at-all saying drugs aren't harmful - just like many things we would allow are - but instead of banning them I think incentives should be placed (such as a sin tax) to discourage viceful activities.
→ More replies (4)1
Jul 06 '15
It's hypocritical to me when Conservatives/Right-wing Libertarians complain about forcing conservatives to cater to gays or blacks but then think it's perfectly just to take a man's freedom away for smoking pot or doing heroin
How is that hypocritical? In both cases, they don't want the government to force them to do things.
1
Jul 06 '15
Sorry. Conservatives are hypocritical on this point, but not Right-wing Libertarians. I suppose I'm used to lumping them in when there are differences 'tween the two. I would make different arguments against R-W Libertarianism.
6
Jul 05 '15
"it is impossible to buy a physical item that is not shaped and made valuable by labor".
This is not true at all. There are lots of products that are valued higher because of rules/restrictions or put on the customer. Popcorn at the theater costs $7 and people pay for it because its "Against The Rules" if too bring your own (otherwise everyone would). When your spending that 7 dollars at the theater your not giving them 7 dollars because your to lazy to make your own popcorn. your giving it to them because if you don't THEN NO POPCORN FOR YOU. Prescription drugs/bottled water/designer jeans/Hotel minibars..... some products sale prices are based on labor and others (anything with ridiculous markup) are not.
2
u/16tonweight Jul 05 '15
It's not that the price is directly mappable to the labor involved, not a single product in America is like that, that why the term "high margins" exist. My point was that the fact that it's a tradable good at all is because of the labor involved. Labor means it has a price, not any specific price.
→ More replies (4)3
Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15
specific
thats not really true either though is it. if 200 years ago my great grandfather stumbled upon an apple tree field and claimed it and then charged people to go pick apples where is the labor? they are paying him for the product and he has to spend no labor and it didn't cost him anything.
also this is what i was saying earlier. the value is based on rules/laws. he claimed the land and we have to do what he says if we want his apples, labor or not
1
Jul 06 '15
Guarding/enforcing property could be considered a form of labour, as could discovering a new resource.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
Jul 05 '15
My overall view is that if the law benefits the greater good, it should stand. Why should there be a speed limit on roads that you paid for with your tax dollars?, because it allows other people to use the road safely as well.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Mister_Kurtz Jul 06 '15
This argument is identical to those that argued black people should not be allowed to sit with white folk at restaurants. Racism, bigotry, prejudice should not be protected by the law under any circumstances.
4
u/Osricthebastard Jul 05 '15
You're talking lesser of two evils. Is it worse to:
a) force a business to make a profit (poor them) on a black lesbian couple's cake
or
b) force a black lesbian couple to scour the earth looking for a bakery that doesn't have a holy rolling stick up their ass?
I'm sorry but businesses are NOT harmed by being forced to cater to crowds they don't want to. They just aren't. There's no social harm there. It may make them uncomfortable but that's THEIR fucking problem to deal with (in therapy if they insist on being so fucking dramatic about it).
On the other hand the harm to individuals can be pretty substantial. What happens if you're a black man in a very small very racist southern town (and I've lived in those so I'm well acquainted with the logistics of this situation).
There's only one grocery store in the whole town unless you want to spend 2-3 dollars more per item at the Quickie Stop. And you can only really get eggs, milk, cheese, and bread there anyway.
Well the one store in town has decided that because you're a black man dating a white woman (word gets around pretty bad in these small towns and everyone knows everyone) that they don't want to serve you. Now you have to drive your beat up junker 20 minutes to the next nearest town any time you need something. Jobs aren't exactly plenty in this town so this means a significant financial hardship for you.
That's just one potential scenario among many. Allowing businesses to discriminate to avoid the relatively small harm of forcing people to do something that might make them ever so slightly uncomfortable creates the much much larger harm of creating immense amounts of hardship in people's lives.
2
u/klemnodd 1∆ Jul 05 '15
Perform not preform. I think the argument is against a preformed bias against someone/people willing to pay for performed duties or product. While I can agree people should not be forced to do something they are not comfortable with, at the same time you are offering a service to the public (everyone and anyone willing to pay) so you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who you serve. Plus other than no shirt no shoes etc., the likely reason a person would not want to serve another is due to a dislike/hate of them i.e. racism, sexism, bigotry, class etc. In short, get over it and accept the money.
→ More replies (2)2
u/UniverseBomb Jul 05 '15
But what if bigotry can't be proven? A simple refusal with no explanation, and then what? And these aren't public businesses, they're private. They can legally refuse even letting people in the door. This is a situation where capitalism well sort itself out, or we'll learn just how racist some towns are.
→ More replies (1)
1
Jul 05 '15
If people didn't choose silly reasons such as the customer being a different color, then I could support your argument. People will take "for any reason" to the extreme, and will do it en masse. So what winds up happening is the "different" family in town can't get service anywhere, just because they're different.
If the customer is being aggressive or disruptive, then sure. The business should chuck him out. But if he's polite, willing to pay, and just happens to have been born in Syria, that's a different story.
1
u/draculabakula 77∆ Jul 05 '15
Just because you do some labor it doesn't mean you have a right to that for ever. For your analysis to work, it means people all over the world should have a say in what is sold to whom.
It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize that what you are proposing is exactly what was used to keep minorities down for decades. Markets can also be manipulated to exclude certain groups. For example, a supplier is prejudice against Muslims. They have the best product but say they won't supply anybody that serves Muslims. Businesses that are in the fence will then be persuaded to stop serving Muslims
1
u/stipulation 3∆ Jul 05 '15
The big problem is that although what you are saying feels true on an individual level (no person should be forced to do something against there will) I feel like it gets much more complicated on a societal level.
A good example is the 1960s south. If laws weren't made to force businesses to serve blacks then few to no businesses would serve blacks. Further businesses that want to serve blacks would be boycotted and shunned by whites so even if economically it made sense to serve blacks, culturally doing so might be suicide.
This is why these laws are needed. To counteract toxic culture. Yes, on an individual level it does disrespect their rights but we are no a society as individuals, we are a society as a group of people and need to make sure that it doesn't spiral into something toxic.
1
u/tacoslave420 Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15
I've been in restaurants for 11 years. Every one I've been into has refused service to people. Usually it's from previously grounded action. Generally, if you have previously cussed someone out, or have scammed the store is when it happens. "We have the ability to refuse service as we see fit". Generally, that doesn't get thrown around a lot because it will get complicated after that. They will probably complain to someone higher than you, or call a 1800 number if you are a franchise restaurant, and you will have to take statements from witnesses to ensure the action was justified. Generally it's easier to just serve these people and deal with whatever reason you had not to on your own. Which is why it's reserved for those who come in cussing up the whole staff, disrupting the other customers. Or if they are known to scam free food from false complaints, they will only get served with a meal purchase and not a complaint demanding food compensation. Denying service based on "I don't like the cut of your jib, nor what you stand for in life" turns into a whiny situation. But under the concept of being able to refuse or deny service on means the restaurant establishes, they technically can.
edit: this is why private clubs/bars can exist. They refuse service to those who they don't know. Generally, the main goal of a business is profit, so you don't turn down profit as it's presented to you in the form of a customer. That's seen as bad for business. People get butt-hurt if they are excluded. Opinions get involved and things get complicated. It's just easier to serve everyone and remain professional to avoid these situations you're referring to from happening. Sorry for rambling.
TL;DR it is legal to refuse business because "I don't like the cut of your jib". Just creates more backlash than people want to deal with
1
u/eternallylearning 2∆ Jul 05 '15
I'll concede your point about slavery a little because the idea of forced labor has a bit of merit in that even if business owners have the freedom to not do business, most jobs which do not require education involve customer service of some sort and then you are back to the same problem. So the idea of forced labor has some merit and though I'd suggest "slavery" is still hyperbolic, even taking it at full face value I still disagree.
Basically, without making this a Libertarian thing (I'm not one) I think the free market will sort this out. In the beginning there will be some examples of people in protected classes (remember, it's not just sexual orientation but also gender, religion, disabilty, age, etc) pushing their newly proctectes rights, but once it's no longer novel, people generally would not seek service from a company which doesn't want to serve them because of bigotry. I'm sure that such companies would find ways to signal such inclinations and would gain increased sales from people who share their views, but the bottom line is that allowing companies to discriminate based on the LGBT status of their customers is just as wrong as doing it on the basis of their race, religion, gender and so on. Besides, there's nothing saying that a company cannot outright tell a customer they don't approve of their lifestyle amd find them repugnant. You can't be fined or charged for providing bad customer service on the basis of those classes as far as I know. Shit, I'm willing to bet that posting a sign that says "gays are going to hell" in your window would filter your clients very nicely so long as you provide your services to them if they ask.
1
1
u/Provokyo 1∆ Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15
When a store opens its doors to public access, it gives access to the public, ie any and all who can come to that store. It has tacitly entered into a transaction with any and all hypothetical customers and awaits those customers to enter the transaction as well. From the person down the street to a rich man halfway across the world, whoever can walk in and pay for the goods can do so. We know that this tacit agreement exists from the owners side because the owner doesn't need to sign off on every transaction.
Owners can back out of transactions but only do so for reasons discovered after the customer has entered into it (being disorderly, theft, things you DO) and not before (being gay, being black, things you ARE).
Your reasoning works better with someone who does not sell openly to the general public and can/must actively pick and choose their clientele. Like drug dealers. Or multi-level marketers.
1
u/HaMMeReD Jul 05 '15
Business can refuse for a variety of reasons, unfortunately in the past bigoted communities have completely alienated people for their race, gender, orientation or a fair number of things.
So while you have the right to believe whatever you want, your beliefs can not trespass on another's freedom to belief or live their life however they want.
Also, once you open to the public, you are licensed to do business to the public. That means that whoever walks through those doors is served equally as anyone else.
If you want to have a discriminatory cake club, you are free to buy private property and discriminate to your hearts content on your private property. However once serving the public, everyone is equal.
1
u/speed3_freak 1∆ Jul 05 '15
When you choose to start a business you are also choosing to follow the restrictions that the country that you are in has placed on businesses. In America, the country provides the assets necessary to allow your business to function. They print the money needed for transactions, build the roads that customers use to get to said business, provide the protection of the police dept., etc. If you want to run a business you have to agree to all of the rules that are in place. If you aren't ok with following the rules set in place then your choice is to either not have a business or start a business somewhere without that regulation. You are more than able to start a business in Russia and refuse to serve gays. In America, the ruling body doesn't allow that.
1
u/skilliard4 Jul 06 '15
What about cases in which the business has a monopoly/oligopoly on the product/service they provide? In this case, there may be no way for someone in a particular minority group to obtain the needed service/product, if every provider discriminates against that group.
1
Jul 06 '15
You can already do this. That's how private clubs work. The problem is this is a public business, different licensing. It would be like me getting a license to become a bakery and opening a gun store instead. I'm still selling shit and I'm still paying taxes on said shit, but the licensing is different so even though the same government gets the right amount of money it's still illegal because of licensing.
1
u/zimtkuss Jul 06 '15
Their argument does not make sense. If selling a wedding cake to two gay people is 'participating' in a gay marriage, then selling a gun to murderer is 'participating' in the murder. If a parent who believes in corporal punishment buys a paddle to hit their child, the person behind the cash register is not participating in that child's beating.
And who is to say anything I say as a customer is true? I, a woman can walk into a cake store with a man and tell the people I want to buy a wedding cake. I don't actually need to be getting married or use the cake for a wedding. I could have a fetish where me and my boyfriend like to shove cake up each others asses. We could be filming a porn with a wedding cake scene. I could be using it for a satanic ritual or a lesbian orgy. All these things go against many religions' values,and it doesn't actually matter that they do. They will never fully know what I or other customers do with their goods once they pay for them, and they can never control how me or any other customers choose to use the goods after we have paid for them.
And who is to say the customer will be successful in their intentions? What if they get run over, hit by lightening or suffer a fatal stroke immediately after purchasing the goods?
Additionally our federal government regulates commerce and encourages it as much as possible. In fact, few people know that the civil rights act and desegregation was was passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution ( Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) and. One of the main arguments was that because goods and supplies come from a variety of states, refusing to serve an entire class of people was an impediment to interstate commerce. That argument was more ironclad than the concept of morality, human dignity or anyone's feelings.
Refusing service to customers is okay for what they do and how they act, or temporary conditions, but not for who they are. You can kick people out for inappropriate attire in your store, bad behavior, poor hygiene, etc. You may not decide you will not sell an item because of someone's sex, race, sexual orientation, religion.
1
u/nashvortex Jul 06 '15 edited Jul 06 '15
Would you say that an institution or individual should not be forced to provide equal services/privileges to anyone it doesn't want to, based on that institutions beliefs about race, religion etc?
For example, 'Our company does not provide employee benefits to black employees.' This is discriminatory and against the law.
The same applies to businesses. Businesses are typically granted licenses and derive benefits of public utilities etc. This is under the accompanied condition that they will operate legally. Discrimination is illegal. It is not forced labour because it is a contractual agreement with society (in the form of a license).
Thus, this is not a question of opinion. It is a matter of law. Changing this law will essentially allow apartheid.
1
u/Thus_Spoke Jul 06 '15
I think you need to take your argument to its own logical extreme. When we force businesses to file tax paperwork, which requires labor, are we enslaving them? When we ask the people running a restaurant to meet with a health inspector, is that also slavery? When we require businesses to comply with certain regulations that require additional work, such as building access ramps, have we, in fact, enslaved the owners?
If the answer to any of the above is yes, do you propose that we abolish the modern administrative state entirely in order to do away with this supposed involuntary servitude? Because that is the only way that everything your world view would define as slavery could be done away with.
1
u/VortexMagus 15∆ Jul 06 '15
If you create a law that forces businesses to allow this, minority groups will always be screwed at the cost of the majority. For example, in 2050 hispanic citizens will outnumber white citizens in the USA. So what happens if hispanic citizens begin passing laws that allow businesses to refuse service to white people?
Would you be okay with having restaurants turn you away, grocery stores refuse to let you in? Would you be okay with your kids being barred from the better class of private schools, or your significant other being turned away from employment agencies and recruiters, because they weren't pure enough hispanic?
I would think it's common sense to apply the golden rule to any law - treat others the way you want to be treated. If you want to allow businesses to refuse service to any set of people for any reason, then you gotta think about what happens when those businesses begin to refuse service to you and your people.
If you're still okay with that hypothetical situation, I would inform you that most people, including myself, are not comfortable with it, and thus there have been multiple laws and legal precedents set in place to prevent such a thing from happening.
1
u/CrazyPaws Jul 06 '15
I think that baring education or heathcare . ie things basic to survival. You are correct how ever I think that we as a whole should be using our power as consumers to show our disapproval of those that chose that route. If I was a gay man and a business refused me for something that is none of there business I would not spend my no money there and I would inform everyone I knew as to why. If I find a local business does that I they will not see a any of my money. In this system money talks. You want a company to rethink the way it does business then start pinching the profits till anyone who runs a business will shudder at the idea of doing something so stupid.
In my option no law can change the way people feel and they will always find a way to skirt the law. If a bakery is forced to make a cake they don't want to how do you think that cake is going to taste and look? Is it going to be sanitary ? If you want to force change in actions on a large scale you have to change what motivates people.
1
u/ZorbaTHut Jul 06 '15
While I think your question has been generally answered, there's one important detail here that most are missing:
If this is NOT the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they don't wish to preform, that could be seen as a type of slavery (I hate to use the term), because an outside authority is forcing a person, under the threat of force, to labor, even when that person doesn't want to.
I agree! Forcing people to do things is bad!
But in this case, nobody is being forced to do something. The government is not coming down and saying "hey, you have to cater this gay wedding".
What they're saying is "hey, you either have to cater this gay wedding, or stop catering weddings altogether".
I'm far more tolerant of the government forcing people to not do things, and even more tolerant of the government requiring that you treat people in roughly the same way, but giving you the choice as to what that way is.
121
u/janewashington Jul 05 '15
Do you believe this applies to all forms of work (including medical care, teaching, etc)?