EPTIt's also important to consider that although denial of service is one way to discriminate, lower quality of service is another. It's very common for homosexuals or people of color to be given subpar service because of the prejudice of business owners. Personally, I would much rather those businesses deny service outright, or be held to higher standards if they do accept the customer.
Customer Discrimination: Okay or Not? - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
It's also important to consider that although denial of service is one way to discriminate, lower quality of service is another. It's very common for homosexuals or people of color to be given subpar service because of the prejudice of business owners. Personally, I would much rather those businesses deny service outright, or be held to higher standards if they do accept the customer. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
Public Property = no right to discriminate My opinion in a nutshell. If I own something, I get to decide how I use it, so long as I am not harming anyone else. Opportunity cost does not qualify as harm. | ||
|
Lightswarm
Canada967 Posts
| ||
|
AmericanNightmare
United States98 Posts
On January 19 2013 07:29 bonifaceviii wrote: I find it interesting that you think I'm on the side of the gay couple in this. I'm very much on the side of the store owner, much like I think it's perfectly reasonable for churches to refuse to perform same-sex marriages or Muslim barber shop owners to refuse to cut womens' hair. For curiosity's sake, what made you think I was on the gay couple's side? I found it interesting that I think no such thing. I didn't put you on either side of the story but I think your on the side of "some discrimination is cool" I'll assume you're cool with certain groups being refused permits to express their 1st amendment because they are who they are. Should a group perceived as hateful, apply for a permit to rally against illegal immigration.. we should automatically reject it because they are haters and we don't want others to think we're OK with haters. Once again.. let's hate the haters.. it'll fix 'um... | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On January 19 2013 07:58 Severedevil wrote: Or such places become bigot havens, and profit off a niche. In the end there's nothing wrong with that though. People should have the freedom to associate with whoever they want, so long as they are not doing anything to directly harm those they despise. If the people end up electing representatives, who in turn, having their own leader, end up passing certain laws that would end discrimination, then it seems to me that their general attitudes should also be reflected in the market. BUT, I think the problem is just that the market isn't really being held to any standards unless the government steps in, so that's why you need laws to ensure that what the people want (an end to discrimination against X group) is actually being enforced. I think the question as to what should be considered the next "thing" that people can't discriminate against you for is something that the people will answer over time, and again you will see the results reflected in government and in the market. I think for now religion still plays an important role, but I suspect that the majority of Americans (just because America is a good example) would be against discriminating against gay people, and so that will be changed. I am always concerned with the question of the rights of religious (or non-religious) people to discriminate against gays, or at least married gays. Its not comfortable to think that the majority can decide whether your right to discriminate will become illegal. But really, what other way is there to run a country? It should reflect the will of the people. There is no real measure of fairness or equality, its just arbitrarily determined. We are to some extent, at the mercy of the majority. Welp, that's the end of that ramble  | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4379 Posts
On January 19 2013 07:58 Severedevil wrote: Or such places become bigot havens, and profit off a niche. Doesn't work that way in Japan, signs like these are everywhere | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On January 19 2013 09:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Doesn't work that way in Japan, signs like these are everywhere "everywhere" formerly known as "almost nowhere." | ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:47 NEOtheONE wrote: I agree with the general principle that if there are alternative options to the business that is refusing services then the business can go ahead and refuse services. If the business discriminates based on race, gender, or disability then there is the possibility that the business could be taken to court over the matter. (Though could you imagine someone trying to sue over Ladies Night? They would get laughed right of the court room) People have sued over ladies night and won: http://www.state.nj.us/lps/Gillespie.Order.06.01.04.html While my immediate thought is no, people should not be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation etc, there are many cases where this is common and accepted in our society. Ladies night, student & pensioner discounts, women only gyms etc. There are plent examples where this is complicated. Should a church be forced to marry a gay couple? Should a doctor be forced to perform an abortion if he is againt them personally? Should a jewish baker be forced to bake a cake with "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!" on it? Should a bar be forced to serve alcohol to an already heavily intoxicated person? Essentially, it's complicated. Edit: Also we are missing the bigger picture. There is a guy with a smoothie bar called "I Love Drilling" who sells drinks such as "Oil Creek". Hmmmm appetising. | ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
On January 19 2013 08:38 liberal wrote: Private Property = right to discriminate Public Property = no right to discriminate My opinion in a nutshell. If I own something, I get to decide how I use it, so long as I am not harming anyone else. Opportunity cost does not qualify as harm. I came here to post exactly this. It's the decision of the owner (of the privately owned business), it's their right to conduct business (or not) with whomever they please. Personally though I don't think any (realistic) obvious or visible actions / beliefs a potential customer does or has would dissuade me from doing business with them. I imagine it would have to be an extremely deeply held belief for other people too, to forgo payment for the service they offer based only on a personal aspect about someone that very likely doesn't even have an impact on completing the service / transaction. Just seems kinda crazy to me. | ||
KwarK
United States43505 Posts
On January 19 2013 08:36 Cel.erity wrote: In my opinion, a business should be able to operate however they wish. Racism is foolish, but it should not be illegal. If your restaurant has a dress code, you're going to deny service to anybody who walks in with torn jeans and a tank top. However, if that person happens to be black, they are protected and refusing to serve them would be discriminatory in the eyes of the law. This is stupid. How are you people not getting this? If a black guy comes in wearing torn jeans and a tank top and you refuse to serve him because of his dress that's absolutely fine. And if he then goes "is it cause I is black!?!?" you can turn round and politely say "no sir, it is because of your inappropriate attire which does not conform with the rules of this establishment". If a white guy wearing the same shit comes in and you serve him the black guy might decide that you were lying to him but otherwise you're in the clear. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On January 19 2013 12:41 Phenny wrote: I came here to post exactly this. It's the decision of the owner (of the privately owned business), it's their right to conduct business (or not) with whomever they please. Personally though I don't think any (realistic) obvious or visible actions / beliefs a potential customer does or has would dissuade me from doing business with them. I imagine it would have to be an extremely deeply held belief for other people too, to forgo payment for the service they offer based only on a personal aspect about someone that very likely doesn't even have an impact on completing the service / transaction. Just seems kinda crazy to me. Except it's really not, if you're conducting business. Engaging in business completely differentiates the matter from if you were just kicking it with friends. When you conduct business, you are inviting the public to your premise. By doing so, you owe any person who comes upon your premise certain things (safety, etc.). The right not to be discriminated against is one of those things you agree to when opening up to the public. In fact, even if you don't open up your premises to the public, you still owe potential trespassers some duty. If you've created an artificial hazard on your premise and it is not easily noted and a trespasser hurts himself from it, you actually are legally liable. (While I don't necessarily believe this should be true, this is how common law has always functioned in the past, and I'm probably derailing). Having a "no blacks allowed" policy from something like a restaurant directly deprives black people of that option. You cannot simply rely on other options because other options may be highly limited, especially due to the irrationality of the actual market in practice. And this is going beyond the fact that such policies have very negative repercussions on society in terms of causing animosity between races, etc. especially upon children (inferiority, anger, fear). You do not have any right to discriminate in this sense, regardless of if you're a private company or not. What an individual does have is the right to not be discriminated upon for matters such as race, sex, etc. (with some limited exceptions). This does indeed restrict freedom, as many have pointed out, but it restricts in a way that promotes far better relations and conflict amongst the people in society. I'm a libertarian, loosely speaking, but the notion of "more freedom is always better" is highly overvalued. I find the argument much more compelling of "why can't two individuals engage in a business transaction without being taxed" far more compelling. If I want to pay you to do something, and we can come to an agreement of an exchange of services, taxation only makes the exchange far less likely to happen. I know the answer to this obviously and I don't mean to derail, I'm just saying in comparison of "personal freedoms"... | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On January 19 2013 13:12 bo1b wrote: It's mind boggling to me how many people wish for the government to decide who they can/cant sell to. Perhaps more so are people arguing that legislating against hate speech will remove racism, or even slightly slow it down. The people who are genuinely racist are going to be so no matter what law is passed. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On January 19 2013 13:16 FabledIntegral wrote: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Care to illuminate me? | ||
|
dNa
Germany591 Posts
Charging certain customers more for your service or flatout denying service to make a political statement will always hurt your income by alot in the end, because it alienates other customers as well if they don't share your bigotted view on things. I don't see any reason to not allow people to do that though. Why should there be a law that forbids you to tank your own business, unless you happen to be running a Hospital or anything. And the other thing that was described (charging different people more or less) is a really fucking old way to reel people into your business. For example "Lady's night" is a good way to get more female customers into your club. Which in turn makes males more interested in your club because of the whole "i wanna get laid"-thing that we boneheads have. And the same way it works with other situations: Students and other demographic groups tend to have less money, so you give them discounts to make them more interested, everyone has always done that everywhere, it's the most normal thing and I am not even sure that "discrimination" is the right word to describe those kinds of behavior. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
This is one place where Capitalism does work, if you have any faith in humanity. Really, there is no profit in denying a good or service to people who want it. If one business refuses, another business will step in to provide. edit: However, this is one reason why services critical to any society, such as healthcare, should not be at all privatized. | ||
|
TheToaster
United States280 Posts
And in the words of MLK (considering it's almost MLK Day): Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
Should it be LEGAL to discriminate? I would say yes, as long as the company isn't publicly traded. Should they do it? No, it's horrifically irresponsible, and morally wrong on many levels. An example of a perfectly reasonable discrimination policy is a delivery company that refuses to deliver to people living more than given distance away. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
Have you not seen the drastic strides society has made since the Civil Rights movement? Do you think that progress would have been made without government action? You'd be a fool to assume so. When it's not permitted, the young generation grows up with a completely different environment and mindset, even if their parents hold some prejudice. It dies out quicker, easily. Especially when it's shunned by the rest of society. | ||
| ||
