|
On January 19 2013 04:07 peekn wrote:Isn't it the private business' right to refuse service to anyone? At least this is what I thought before reading the thread. Show nested quote +"We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody," these signs are illegal and provide a way for a business to excuse illegal discrimination against certain consumers. I had no idea that these signs were illegal. I would be pissed if I was a business owner, and there was some dick a-hole at my store and it would be illegal for me to refuse their business regardless of how much of a douche the person is. I'm sure that there are places that do in fact refuse peoples' business based on their race, sexual orientation, religion etc.
Refusing business to someone because they are acting like a douche=perfectly legal, just ask any lawyer if they wanna take that case.
Refusing business to someone on the basis of their religion, race, disability, and, in theory, sexual orientation=illegal
Edit: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody" signs are as legalistically relevant as the confederate flag.
|
On January 19 2013 03:54 sc4k wrote:
The history of your country is relevant because there is a huge difference between disallowing blue eyed people into your shop and disallowing black people. Your view insensitive because you probably don't know what it's like to be discriminated against on the grounds of your race and any responsible and caring individual would see why it's not acceptable to allow people in a public setting to express their racism by barring people from their establishment.
Your view is unsophisticated because it is the standard, 'I've just watched a bunch of Milton Friedman videos on Youtube' response that will come from someone who is interested in the concept of the government getting out of the way of the common man. The damage you will do to society is FAR greater if you allow people the right to exclude blacks from their shops than if you don't allow it. Like I say, the intractable, zealous attachment to completely unregulated free speech belongs in 1776, not in 2012. I get where you are coming from, but it is NOT a responsible attitude. And there are some things the 'free market' is not the only and best solution to.
There you go, assuming things. What race am I? Where did I grow up? What was the racial distribution of my community? My schools?
You don't know shit about my past, and it is not relevant to the OP's topic, so why focus on that? I could tell you about my experiences where I was targeted because of my race, but you wouldn't believe me. I could talk about being spit on, shoved down stairs, kicked, punched, had items stolen and vandalized purely because of the color of my skin, but why would you believe me when you've already got your opinion set? I could tell you I have a scar on my neck from where a knife was held to my throat for "being a ____ in the wrong fuckin neighborhood" but you would call BS.
Last post. Not gonna defend myself to someone who assumes they know everything about my past and what discrimination I've experienced because of the color of my skin/faith/sexual orientation/accent/clothes.
|
i have this urge to derail the thread with racist jokes, just to lighten to the mood. lol
|
On January 19 2013 04:14 jinorazi wrote:
i have this urge to derail the thread with racist jokes, just to lighten to the mood. lol
I don't know why...but this made me die laughing
On Topic: The service wouldn't even be an option for ANYONE if the business did not provide it in the first place. When being denied you're no worse off than if it didn't exist. Customer has NO right to demand the right to conduct business with someone. Only to safely receive what they paid for.
Edit: Just to clarify, there is nothing wrong with people protesting a businesses choices, or organizing a boycott of w/e. I just don't believe it should be legislated that they can't discriminate.
|
On January 19 2013 04:12 MooseyFate wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:54 sc4k wrote:
The history of your country is relevant because there is a huge difference between disallowing blue eyed people into your shop and disallowing black people. Your view insensitive because you probably don't know what it's like to be discriminated against on the grounds of your race and any responsible and caring individual would see why it's not acceptable to allow people in a public setting to express their racism by barring people from their establishment.
Your view is unsophisticated because it is the standard, 'I've just watched a bunch of Milton Friedman videos on Youtube' response that will come from someone who is interested in the concept of the government getting out of the way of the common man. The damage you will do to society is FAR greater if you allow people the right to exclude blacks from their shops than if you don't allow it. Like I say, the intractable, zealous attachment to completely unregulated free speech belongs in 1776, not in 2012. I get where you are coming from, but it is NOT a responsible attitude. And there are some things the 'free market' is not the only and best solution to.
There you go, assuming things. What race am I? Where did I grow up? What was the racial distribution of my community? My schools? You don't know shit about my past, and it is not relevant to the OP's topic, so why focus on that? I could tell you about my experiences where I was targeted because of my race, but you wouldn't believe me. I could talk about being spit on, shoved down stairs, kicked, punched, had items stolen and vandalized purely because of the color of my skin, but why would you believe me when you've already got your opinion set? I could tell you I have a scar on my neck from where a knife was held to my throat for "being a ____ in the wrong fuckin neighborhood" but you would call BS. Last post. Not gonna defend myself to someone who assumes they know everything about my past and what discrimination I've experienced because of the color of my skin/faith/sexual orientation/accent/clothes.
Perhaps sc4k and I went about it the wrong way, but we are only acting on the surprise that follows from hearing someone say that the government ought not stipulate terms of societal conduct in regards to discriminatory practices when our history so loudly tells us that it should. Intolerance of homosexuality is more or less the last bastion of pronounced societal discrimination (though racism is still alive and well, that's another topic), and I think gays are to be afforded the same public business regard as anyone.
Edit: Clan, you might want to link the civil rights act in the OP, because it seems a great many people do not understand what it says about public business.
|
On January 19 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 04:07 peekn wrote:Isn't it the private business' right to refuse service to anyone? At least this is what I thought before reading the thread. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody," these signs are illegal and provide a way for a business to excuse illegal discrimination against certain consumers. I had no idea that these signs were illegal. I would be pissed if I was a business owner, and there was some dick a-hole at my store and it would be illegal for me to refuse their business regardless of how much of a douche the person is. I'm sure that there are places that do in fact refuse peoples' business based on their race, sexual orientation, religion etc. Refusing business to someone because they are acting like a douche=perfectly legal, just ask any lawyer if they wanna take that case. Refusing business to someone on the basis of their religion, race, disability, and, in theory, sexual orientation=illegal Edit: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody" signs are as legalistically relevant as the confederate flag.
Ok that makes more sense then. Thanks for clarifying.
|
On January 19 2013 04:22 farvacola wrote:
Clan, you might want to link the civil rights act in the OP, because it seems a great many people do not understand what it says about public business.
Great idea. Done.
|
On January 19 2013 03:37 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:31 SpiZz wrote:On January 19 2013 02:36 SgtCoDFish wrote:
Discriminating against people for the way they were born (i.e. homophobia, racism, sexism) is stupid as fuck and should never be allowed, customer or not. That's it. All the people who say "Oh, the owner of the shop can do whatever he wants ..." directly admit that they support racism, sexism etc. but if he does it, and people protest it, then the community discusses it and thinks about it, isn't that progress? No, progress would be preventing him from doing it in the first place while educating people about the stupidity of groundless intolerance.
To the people saying that businesses should have the right to kick douchebags and/or jerks out of their premises: that's not discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of prejudice or preconceived idea of what a person is like prior to any actual interaction. The difference between acting on preconceived notions of a person and acting on what a person displays on-premises has to be distinguished here.
The poll's results are shocking. Are people here seriously accepting the fact that we should allow businesses to disallow certain people from entering? There're only two possible ways one could argue for this: from simply being prejudicial and bigoted (which I highly doubt, seeing as the community on TL is generally pretty accepting), and from the argument that businesses should be allowed to kick out people who are a nuisance and/or douchebags.
How do you even define what 'douchebaggery' is? The idea's completely and utterly subjective, and as a result, permitting this to happen is the beginning of a very slippery slope. A guy is incessantly loud. You don't like it, you kick him out. A girl acts like a ditz. You don't like it, you kick her out. A group of people come in speaking a foreign language. You don't like it, you kick them out. A guy walks in wearing an EG shirt. You kick him out, for sure. All of these people are a result of their own subcultures. Do we blame them for acting in the way they were brought up and accustomed to? Is that just?
I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't be forbidden from doing so, I'm just ensuring that the people who support this kind of discriminatory behavior realize that permitting this to happen on the grounds of removing douchebags - who are essentially subjectively undesirable people will in no way lead to a good outcome, only to close-mindedness and hatred.
|
So, well.... lady's night in clubs? Free entry to clubs for women?
It's not refusing men, but it's discriminating men for having them pay more (just like the political orientation thing)
Isnt that the same thing basically?
My company also refuses to sell to bookstores, since the majority of bookstores who order for their customers have shown in the past that they dont pay their bills (and the amount is too low to go the legal route). Same applies to customers where shipments are "lost" multiple times (more than 2).
So I definitely think it should be allowed to discriminate. But we should be really careful and let others monitor ourselves.
|
On January 19 2013 04:38 epicanthic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:37 sam!zdat wrote:On January 19 2013 03:31 SpiZz wrote:On January 19 2013 02:36 SgtCoDFish wrote:
Discriminating against people for the way they were born (i.e. homophobia, racism, sexism) is stupid as fuck and should never be allowed, customer or not. That's it. All the people who say "Oh, the owner of the shop can do whatever he wants ..." directly admit that they support racism, sexism etc. but if he does it, and people protest it, then the community discusses it and thinks about it, isn't that progress? No, progress would be preventing him from doing it in the first place while educating people about the stupidity of groundless intolerance.
Yes, but my point is how is this accomplished? I think it's a trickier problem than people really give credit for (and an ideological obsession with formal isonomy is often a sort of blinders). The goal is NOT to "prevent discrimination," the goal is to change the culture such that preventing discrimination is unnecessary. What's the best way to do this? Hard question.
|
While I do not possess a definite answer to many questions, I don't think that this issue is as complex as many present it to be. I might be mistaken but if one shares certain premises (for instance the value of human rights), I cannot understand the results of the poll and the answers that many advanced.
With the assumption that discrimination is necessarily based on prejudice (such as bias based on race/gender/sexuality/beliefs), and assuming that such behaviour it is not something that societies desire, it would be paradoxical to allow 'private businesses' to freely discriminate against whomever they wish. The same goes for 'homes' (something that was mentioned by previous users). Should we permit a sexist husband to abuse his family members just because it occurs within the 'private' confines of his house? Or should certain values be upheld regardless of context? Now of course the values in each case might differ, but it is the same logic. So in the end, at least in my eyes, it is a question of how you prioritise the value of non-discriminatory practices.
Like I said, I don't have a definite answer but it seems to me that giving business owners free reign to do as they please would go against certain values that presumably are shared by most "western" societies.
|
On January 19 2013 04:42 Zocat wrote:
So, well.... lady's night in clubs? Free entry to clubs for women?
It's not refusing men, but it's discriminating men for having them pay more (just like the political orientation thing)
Isnt that the same thing basically?
My company also refuses to sell to bookstores, since the majority of bookstores who order for their customers have shown in the past that they dont pay their bills (and the amount is too low to go the legal route). Same applies to customers where shipments are "lost" multiple times (more than 2).
So I definitely think it should be allowed to discriminate. But we should be really careful and let others monitor ourselves.
If the first case, the ladies night at clubs, were to occur in the US, it is reasonable to assume that the ensuing court case (granted that a lawyer takes it, which is unlikely) would revolve around the judgement of the reasonability of the discount, and would probably include the pricing history of the club and the market standards of the surrounding area. If the cost of entry for men is deemed unreasonably high in relation to the free entry for women, the court may find that the club must change its policy and pay damages. On the other hand, if door entrance fees are in line with clubs in the area and have not been suddenly hiked alongside the ladies night discount, the court may find that the club is doing no wrong.
The latter is a clear example of legal business practice; implementing knowledge of past behavior when choosing clients is obviously quite sensible.
|
On January 19 2013 03:31 SpiZz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:36 SgtCoDFish wrote:
Discriminating against people for the way they were born (i.e. homophobia, racism, sexism) is stupid as fuck and should never be allowed, customer or not. That's it. All the people who say "Oh, the owner of the shop can do whatever he wants ..." directly admit that they support racism, sexism etc.
No they do not. What you are doing here is a false dilemma or a propositional fallacy. I am not a racist just because I do not share your oppinion as a non-racist.
What is racism anyway? It is generalisation of people base on race. By saying I don't like black people for the sole reason that they are black is racist and irrational, that is why we don't like racists.
You are saying that you don't like any racists for the sole reason that they are racist. That is the exact same reasoning if you ask me. This has always been an ironic relationship in my oppinion. As long as someone isn't doing something to other people, I can accept discriminatory oppinions. I don't like them, but they are everywhere so I really cannot afford to take offense all of the time.
Besides, if someone is racist and that makes them undesireable to you, would you not prefer that they are allowed to demonstrate that with their behaviour? If we force racists to hide that they are racist we might end up supporting such store owners without even knowing about it. If I was gay, I would not like to buy a cake from a militant homophobe even if I could.
A law against racism only makes people not talk about it, it will not remove racism itself. Same goes for all of the above mentioned disciminatory convictions.
|
On January 19 2013 04:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 04:38 epicanthic wrote:On January 19 2013 03:37 sam!zdat wrote:On January 19 2013 03:31 SpiZz wrote:On January 19 2013 02:36 SgtCoDFish wrote:
Discriminating against people for the way they were born (i.e. homophobia, racism, sexism) is stupid as fuck and should never be allowed, customer or not. That's it. All the people who say "Oh, the owner of the shop can do whatever he wants ..." directly admit that they support racism, sexism etc. but if he does it, and people protest it, then the community discusses it and thinks about it, isn't that progress? No, progress would be preventing him from doing it in the first place while educating people about the stupidity of groundless intolerance. Yes, but my point is how is this accomplished? I think it's a trickier problem than people really give credit for (and an ideological obsession with formal isonomy is often a sort of blinders). The goal is NOT to "prevent discrimination," the goal is to change the culture such that preventing discrimination is unnecessary. What's the best way to do this? Hard question.
I agree with you in the sense that progress ought to be the primary goal of any normative societal legal regard, but I am very suspicious of the efficacy of allowing the performance of prejudicial behavior as a catalyst for positive change. Historical reference is not entirely reliable, but I've the nagging feeling based on phenomena such as the Chik-Fil-A "celebrate our chicken and distaste for gay marriage" day that the spectacle of discrimination does more to further divide and entrench rather than loosen and ameliorate.
|
On January 19 2013 04:42 Zocat wrote:
So, well.... lady's night in clubs? Free entry to clubs for women?
It's not refusing men, but it's discriminating men for having them pay more (just like the political orientation thing)
Isnt that the same thing basically?
My company also refuses to sell to bookstores, since the majority of bookstores who order for their customers have shown in the past that they dont pay their bills (and the amount is too low to go the legal route). Same applies to customers where shipments are "lost" multiple times (more than 2).
So I definitely think it should be allowed to discriminate. But we should be really careful and let others monitor ourselves.
Businesses discriminate all the time, particularly with price. Some are socially acceptable (seniors/students/coupons/etc) and some have been socially unacceptable but legal (coke tried to have vending machines alter the prices based on the temperature outside). Outside of civil rights legislation, there really is very little that determines what businesses can do outside of social pressures.
Just think about all the different ways that business engage in some sort of discrimination or price discrimination and you'll realize that there are loads of them. Clubs that have dress codes or ladies nights; providing discounts to members of a professional organization; businesses not selling to rivals... the list can really go on. The only thing outside of legislation that determines what businesses do is social pressure. The number of legal requirements on discrimination is pretty low in most countries/states. Outside of these legal requirements, businesses really can discriminate all they want. It's up to consumers and the public at large whether or not they will tolerate the specific types of discrimination done by a business.
|
Yeah, I feel you man, I just despair of the thought of enforcing such things legally  It seems to descend into these terrifying angel-counting aporia...
edit: because we're setting up this spectacle vs. the angel-counters thing, when I think maybe the correct answer is to fight fire with fire and make some spectacle of our own, if that makes any sense.
edit; fuck it idk
edit: this is why they should make me God-Emperor of education and then I can just brainwash everybody into getting the fuck along.
|
On January 19 2013 04:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 04:42 Zocat wrote:
So, well.... lady's night in clubs? Free entry to clubs for women?
It's not refusing men, but it's discriminating men for having them pay more (just like the political orientation thing)
Isnt that the same thing basically?
My company also refuses to sell to bookstores, since the majority of bookstores who order for their customers have shown in the past that they dont pay their bills (and the amount is too low to go the legal route). Same applies to customers where shipments are "lost" multiple times (more than 2).
So I definitely think it should be allowed to discriminate. But we should be really careful and let others monitor ourselves. If the first case, the ladies night at clubs, were to occur in the US, it is reasonable to assume that the ensuing court case (granted that a lawyer takes it, which is unlikely) would revolve around the judgement of the reasonability of the discount, and would probably include the pricing history of the club and the market standards of the surrounding area. If the cost of entry for men is deemed unreasonably high in relation to the free entry for women, the court may find that the club must change its policy and pay damages. On the other hand, if door entrance fees are in line with clubs in the area and have not been suddenly hiked alongside the ladies night discount, the court may find that the club is doing no wrong. The latter is a clear example of legal business practice; implementing knowledge of past behavior when choosing clients is obviously quite sensible.
And if we replaced men in this example with black people, gay people or the disabled? Assuming the rest of it still holds water, is it still legal business practise?
Edit: Jakethesnake kindof beat me to the punch here, but I would like to propose a slightly different question. If there is a difference in social or cultural pressure that dictates which acts of discrimination that are considered "bad", how can that be objective or quantifyable at all? It just feels like anything but a complete prohibition of discrimination is a problem waiting to happen one way or the other.
|
On January 19 2013 04:57 jakethesnake wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 04:42 Zocat wrote:
So, well.... lady's night in clubs? Free entry to clubs for women?
It's not refusing men, but it's discriminating men for having them pay more (just like the political orientation thing)
Isnt that the same thing basically?
My company also refuses to sell to bookstores, since the majority of bookstores who order for their customers have shown in the past that they dont pay their bills (and the amount is too low to go the legal route). Same applies to customers where shipments are "lost" multiple times (more than 2).
So I definitely think it should be allowed to discriminate. But we should be really careful and let others monitor ourselves. Businesses discriminate all the time, particularly with price. Some are socially acceptable (seniors/students/coupons/etc) and some have been socially unacceptable but legal (coke tried to have vending machines alter the prices based on the temperature outside). Outside of civil rights legislation, there really is very little that determines what businesses can do outside of social pressures. Just think about all the different ways that business engage in some sort of discrimination or price discrimination and you'll realize that there are loads of them. Clubs that have dress codes or ladies nights; providing discounts to members of a professional organization; businesses not selling to rivals... the list can really go on. The only thing outside of legislation that determines what businesses do is social pressure. The number of legal requirements on discrimination is pretty low in most countries/states. Outside of these legal requirements, businesses really can discriminate all they want. It's up to consumers and the public at large whether or not they will tolerate the specific types of discrimination done by a business. The problem with that is that if the public is comprised of a bunch of bigots, things don't bode well.
|
On January 19 2013 05:00 Fenris420 wrote:
If there is a difference in social or cultural pressure that dictates which acts of discrimination that are considered "bad", how can that be objective or quantifyable at all?
It's definitely not objective, but a reasonably good way to measure societal revulsion toward specific kinds of discrimination is whether there are laws against it. If there is, society (read: voters) deem it unacceptable.
A good example is Obamacare and "pre-existing conditions". Health insurance companies are no longer allowed to refuse business with people who have previously been ill, because it has been deemed abhorrent.
|
On January 19 2013 05:00 Fenris420 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 04:51 farvacola wrote:On January 19 2013 04:42 Zocat wrote:
So, well.... lady's night in clubs? Free entry to clubs for women?
It's not refusing men, but it's discriminating men for having them pay more (just like the political orientation thing)
Isnt that the same thing basically?
My company also refuses to sell to bookstores, since the majority of bookstores who order for their customers have shown in the past that they dont pay their bills (and the amount is too low to go the legal route). Same applies to customers where shipments are "lost" multiple times (more than 2).
So I definitely think it should be allowed to discriminate. But we should be really careful and let others monitor ourselves. If the first case, the ladies night at clubs, were to occur in the US, it is reasonable to assume that the ensuing court case (granted that a lawyer takes it, which is unlikely) would revolve around the judgement of the reasonability of the discount, and would probably include the pricing history of the club and the market standards of the surrounding area. If the cost of entry for men is deemed unreasonably high in relation to the free entry for women, the court may find that the club must change its policy and pay damages. On the other hand, if door entrance fees are in line with clubs in the area and have not been suddenly hiked alongside the ladies night discount, the court may find that the club is doing no wrong. The latter is a clear example of legal business practice; implementing knowledge of past behavior when choosing clients is obviously quite sensible. And if we replaced men in this example with black people, gay people or the disabled? Assuming the rest of it still holds water, is it still legal business practise?
Well, each of those forms of discrimination needs to have a different assessment of reasonability, but I'm not entirely sure how a court would decide in such a case, and it would likely depend on the region, judge, and jury.
Edit: The law is the objectification of justification. While the judicial system is meant to be utterly objective in a certain sense, it necessarily relies upon a certain degree of subjective influence, in this case an assessment of propriety and reasonability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
