EPTA store can refuse to serve you if you do not wear shoes. Well what if my religion says I cannot wear shoes? Wouldn't the store be discriminating against me because of my religion?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1811
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
A store can refuse to serve you if you do not wear shoes. Well what if my religion says I cannot wear shoes? Wouldn't the store be discriminating against me because of my religion? | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 04 2015 12:13 Millitron wrote: What says a customer has the right to force a business to provide service against their will? A store can refuse to serve you if you do not wear shoes. Well what if my religion says I cannot wear shoes? Wouldn't the store be discriminating against me because of my religion? No shirt, no shoes no service is already a thing. You're allowed to refuse service based on what a customer does in your establishment, not who the customer is. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On April 04 2015 12:08 Lord Tolkien wrote: Also, generally yes, unless there is a reasonable case why you can refuse service. Eg. disruption of business, disruption of service or the infringement of rights of others, etc. If a reasonable case can be made outside of "I don't like X group", then there you go. Religious organizations are, obviously, exempt from this. I guess I'm just a huge proponent of no means no. I guess not everyone feels the same. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On April 04 2015 12:13 Millitron wrote: What says a customer has the right to force a business to provide service against their will? A store can refuse to serve you if you do not wear shoes. Well what if my religion says I cannot wear shoes? Wouldn't the store be discriminating against me because of my religion? One, no, they can't necessarily refuse service to shoeless persons. There is no legal or health code prohibitions against going barefoot currently in most states. It is considered common courtesy ("no shoes, no shirts, no service"), but it is no federal law that guarantees that (only a few states do). Secondly, it depends. Unless evidence can be found that the religious group is specifically being targeted, then not necessarily if there is a good reason otherwise. Eg., my religion demands I carry a weapon; however, a bank can clearly refuse service to me if I try to carry a weapon into a bank. A poignant case regarding dress code was nearly tried in Williamsburg New York (ended in a settlement in favor of the customers). http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-01-21/no-shirt-no-shoes-no-civil-rights- It also has the perfect summation for this inane debate. Under the Constitution, I have a perfect right to be as racist, sexist and exclusionary as I like in my private life and affairs. But business is fundamentally different. Even if I own my store and work there myself, the fact that I am open to the public puts me in the category of commerce, which Congress may regulate if it affects interstate business and the local government may regulate regardless of its reach. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 04 2015 11:55 Plansix wrote: So if the only local supermarket refuses to sell a gay couple food, they should have the any legal options to remedy that? I'm okay with the lack of a legal option honestly. The gay couple is free to tell their friends, tell the news station (small town papers and media outlets eat that shit up) and otherwise run the bigots out of business. Much more effective option. I mean, with the law itself the public voice is ultimately having a much bigger effect than filing a suit against it. In these cases, the court of the public opinion seems to be a better recourse than the legal courts. Legal courts would cost significant time and money, this is much more expedited. Now, I'm okay with forcing "businesses" which provide some sort of essential or unique service to serve everyone based on utilitarian grounds (like a clinic can't turn away a gay guy who is suffering kidney failure and a power company can't refuse service to a transgender person), but a restaurant can pick and choose clientele. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 04 2015 11:53 ticklishmusic wrote: While I think the law is a step backwards, I think it's fine to let businesses decide who to serve or not if they want. Let me be clear I'm against discrimination, but if a business wants to risk the shit press and so forth, then they have the right to be stupid. One of the biggest problems with that method is that in some areas (small towns) there are natural monopolies (monopoly because the market is too small too support more than one of the business). | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 04 2015 12:35 zlefin wrote: One of the biggest problems with that method is that in some areas (small towns) there are natural monopolies (monopoly because the market is too small too support more than one of the business). I feel like this is only semi-true, though my perspective is limited by having lived in cities most of my life. First, essential services like utilities and medical facilities are pretty much required to serve everyone by law. Second, other non-essential things are exactly that: non-essential. No one died from not being able to go to a pizza joint, and if people stopped going to the one pizza joint because it had homophobic owners, a new pizza restaurant would probably spring up. Or people would just go and eat tacos. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 04 2015 12:35 zlefin wrote: One of the biggest problems with that method is that in some areas (small towns) there are natural monopolies (monopoly because the market is too small too support more than one of the business). Exactly. My home town was a 20 minute drive to the closest food store. 45 to the next. If someone refused to serve a couple for being gay, they would have a rough life. Which is why it's not legal. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 04 2015 12:44 Plansix wrote: Exactly. My home town was a 20 minute drive to the closest food store. 45 to the next. If someone refused to serve a couple for being gay, they would have a rough life. Which is why it's not legal. Yes, better for the gay couple to give their money and patronage to homophobes rather than patronize businesses who aren't homophobic. Brilliant! This is what I never got about this. Why on Earth do people want to patronize businesses who are openly hostile. I want businesses to advertise their biases so I know who to patronize and who not to, rather than how it is now where it's much harder to discern racist, etc. establishments. There's also the argument about private property itself and the ridiculous idea that if you allow individuals other than yourself/family onto said private property it suddenly becomes 'public' and not yours to dispose of as you wish anymore (which is asinine but I digress). | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 04 2015 12:34 ticklishmusic wrote: I'm okay with the lack of a legal option honestly. The gay couple is free to tell their friends, tell the news station (small town papers and media outlets eat that shit up) and otherwise run the bigots out of business. Much more effective option. I mean, with the law itself the public voice is ultimately having a much bigger effect than filing a suit against it. In these cases, the court of the public opinion seems to be a better recourse than the legal courts. Legal courts would cost significant time and money, this is much more expedited. Now, I'm okay with forcing "businesses" which provide some sort of essential or unique service to serve everyone based on utilitarian grounds (like a clinic can't turn away a gay guy who is suffering kidney failure and a power company can't refuse service to a transgender person), but a restaurant can pick and choose clientele. To be clear here, the entire discussion started because a news article was trying to talk about how terrible it was that bigoted business owners were getting publicly shamed. Companies getting sued into oblivion because they discriminate against people is extremely rare, if there have ever been cases of that. And anti-discrimination laws are in place because of when the minorities are being targeted by the majorities. It's easy to talk about the free market and shaming business owners out of town when the majority are against them. What happens when there are enough bigots to sustain or even increase your bottom line? | ||
|
rararock
United States41 Posts
On April 04 2015 13:52 Wegandi wrote: Yes, better for the gay couple to give their money and patronage to homophobes rather than patronize businesses who aren't homophobic. Brilliant! This is what I never got about this. Why on Earth do people want to patronize businesses who are openly hostile. I want businesses to advertise their biases so I know who to patronize and who not to, rather than how it is now where it's much harder to discern racist, etc. establishments. There's also the argument about private property itself and the ridiculous idea that if you allow individuals other than yourself/family onto said private property it suddenly becomes 'public' and not yours to dispose of as you wish anymore (which is asinine but I digress). The problem is, if you are a business that lives in a bigoted area, you will be pressured into discriminating. Imagine being a business owner in 1950s Alabama. Even if you aren't racist, if you become the first business to serve blacks you will face massive boycotts by the majority white culture. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11752 Posts
On April 04 2015 09:57 cLutZ wrote: No, YOU don't understand how the law works. Every law is enforced, in the end, by the threat of imprisonment carried out by a police force. Thus, you should understand that you are deciding between that and the other social evil you are outlawing. In civil law, for instance, a contract is you consenting to have the courts adjudicate disputes between the two parties in this manner, or in tort law we have determined that this is a better result than allowing people to go around injuring people without making financial remissions. This is such a silly argument. One could make that exact same point over, for example, parking tickets. "You have to choose what is worse, people parking in some mildly inconvenient place, or people getting jailed over parking in some mildly inconvenient place" Equating any sentence to a prison sentence just because if you do not comply with that sentence, you might eventually (After a REALLY long time of not complying, and i am not sure if that even happens) go to prison is just plain silly. A fine is not a prison sentence. A court order to do x is not a prison sentence. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23664 Posts
On April 04 2015 18:32 Simberto wrote: This is such a silly argument. One could make that exact same point over, for example, parking tickets. "You have to choose what is worse, people parking in some mildly inconvenient place, or people getting jailed over parking in some mildly inconvenient place" Equating any sentence to a prison sentence just because if you do not comply with that sentence, you might eventually (After a REALLY long time of not complying, and i am not sure if that even happens) go to prison is just plain silly. A fine is not a prison sentence. A court order to do x is not a prison sentence. Well, in fairness in places like Ferguson citizens who were/are actually trying to pay their tickets were/are being thrown in jail . So it's not quite as ridiculous as it should be. Somehow most of the defenders of the constitution are practically silent about the bevy of constitutional violations involved in those areas though. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 04 2015 18:32 Simberto wrote: This is such a silly argument. One could make that exact same point over, for example, parking tickets. "You have to choose what is worse, people parking in some mildly inconvenient place, or people getting jailed over parking in some mildly inconvenient place" Equating any sentence to a prison sentence just because if you do not comply with that sentence, you might eventually (After a REALLY long time of not complying, and i am not sure if that even happens) go to prison is just plain silly. A fine is not a prison sentence. A court order to do x is not a prison sentence. Eric Garner died for selling loose cigarettes. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 04 2015 18:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Well, in fairness in places like Ferguson citizens who were/are actually trying to pay their tickets were/are being thrown in jail . So it's not quite as ridiculous as it should be. Somehow most of the defenders of the constitution are practically silent about the bevy of constitutional violations involved in those areas though. Do or do not, there is no try. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
Right, because everyone has the money to pay tickets. Or you the punishing monthly payments from debt collections if they cant.. There is very much such a thing as trying to pay tickets, Yoda or not. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On April 05 2015 01:09 Millitron wrote: Eric Garner died for selling loose cigarettes. I thought his cause of death was ruled eumelanin overabundance? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18854 Posts
| ||
| ||
