|
Companies and businesses have discriminated for or against customers based on many characteristics throughout time. Stories crop up regularly where a certain business owner is accused of prejudiced practices.
The events of the Civil Rights Movement in America provide great examples of this. Segregation drew a line between whites and non-whites wherever people went. Restaurants would force separation of the races or refuse service. In the below photo, at least one black citizen “sits-in” at a diner in protest of the discrimination expressed by the establishment, peacefully fighting for equal treatment as paying a customer.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JJH3i.gif)
(While the people at the bar are being mistreated by the surrounding onlookers, and despite the obvious importance of that, please focus instead on the relationship between diner owner and customer.)
More recently, certain bakers have refused to offer some of their products for weddings between same-sex couples, usually stemming from a personal disagreement with the morality of marrying two members of the same sex.
Source.
LAKEWOOD, Colo. (CBS4) – Chick-fil-A’s president spoke out against gay marriage last week, sparking a huge uproar in the gay community, and now the issue is spilling over to a Colorado bakery.
The owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood refused to bake a wedding cake for a local gay couple and now people are pushing a boycott against the owner.
Shop owner Jack Phillips probably didn’t think he was going to be wading into a civil rights debate a week ago when he told the gay couple that he would not make a cake for their wedding, but that’s exactly what has happened.
Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig say they dated for nearly two years before getting engaged. They went into the Masterpiece Cake Shop thinking they’d spend a full day trying cakes for their ceremony. Instead the meeting lasted a few seconds.
“My first comment was, ‘We’re getting married,’ and he just shut that down immediately,” Craig said.
Mullin and Craig were stunned. They went online and posted their experience on Facebook. The response has been huge.
Dozens of protesters gathered outside the shop on Saturday and were very angry.
It wasn’t the first time the shop turned down gay couples who wanted a cake. Phillips has received more than 1,000 angry messages about his stance.
“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips said. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”
“I support local business, I think it’s really important to our community to support local business,” protester Cate Owen said. “If it has to do with discrimination I don’t think we should support it. I think we should want to change their policies. It’s not like we want to shut them down.”
Some customers said they are now ordering cakes at the shop specifically because of the stance against gay marriage.
“We would close down that bakery before we closed our beliefs, so that may be what it comes to … we’ll see,” Phillips said.
A larger protest is scheduled to take place next Saturday.
Just this past week, reports have confirmed that the owner of a smoothie bar called “I Love Drilling” charges customers differently based on their political worldview, reinvigorating this topic once again, which prompted me to start this thread originally. Conservative customers are charged $4.95, while liberal clients are charged one dollar more at $5.95. Members of the crew team are charged lower than both at $3.95.
Source. Additional video source.
A juice and smoothie bar owner in Utah is charging liberals an extra dollar for drinks.
George Burnett, owner of I Love Drilling Juice & Smoothie Bar, says he's trying to make a point about fiscal responsibility.
“We have a fiscal problem in this country. We’ve got to deal with it or we don’t have a country, so to kind of help make that point, just a little bit, I charge liberals just a little bit more. Really what I’m focused on is the fiscal differences between big government/small government and liberal ways, as far as entitlements and spending,” said Burnett, in a KSL.com report.
Burnett says the extra money will go to support the conservative Washngton-based think tank, The Heritage Foundation.
Burnett, also a pro-oil and gas activist, plainly lists prices for his drinks, with colorful names like Drakes Well, Oil Creek and Old American. Conservatives: $4.95, Liberals: $5.95, and Crew Team Members: $3.95.
Not all are finding his "liberal tax" sweet tasting. Some have criticized the move on Facebook saying it is "pathetic" and "offensive." One user, Justin Olson, wrote: “If you own a business, you don’t insult half of your potential customers. That’s Econ 101.”
But many don't appear to mind the extra charge.
Another user Splinter Baker wrote: "I LOVE what you're doing! Never back down! keep it up!
Many would agree that it is unwise for a business owner to affiliate an otherwise neutral enterprise with any brand of political, moral, or religious worldview. It is generally seen as unnecessary and bothersome when considering most paying customers only desire basic transactions of compensation for goods and services.
However, more than a few businesses discriminate in a manner that society views as courteous and righteous. The mere premise of a “ladies’ night” at a bar, where women (but only women) are treated to a discount on such occasions, is a clear act of discrimination. Students, veterans, and senior citizens are often incentivized with costs that are a fraction of the normal price. As a student myself, if I show my student ID, the majority of fast-food restaurants will grant me a discount when I place my order.
Breakdown Of The Views:
Support:
+ Show Spoiler +1. Owners have the freedom to operate their business however they please and should not be forced to serve someone they have no contract with for whatever reason they wish.
2. No one is forcing customers or clients to do business with companies that implement prejudiced practices in the way they serve them. Such individuals always have the freedom to do business elsewhere, or begin their own business that conducts its practices more in line with their own views.
Oppose:
+ Show Spoiler +1. Clients and customers can be too easily given the “short end of the stick,” so to speak, if the person or business they wish to purchase a good or service from denies said good or service. As an example, doctors could choose to withhold vital medical treatment for reasons their patients do not agree with. The customer has a right to the product or service they desire and pay for no matter what it is, so long as it complies with the law.
2. There are some traits that should never be used to prejudice consumers, namely race, gender, and sexual orientation. Such unequal treatment is not what is best for society. The Civil Rights Movement fought to eradicate this blatant discrimination, and we should not support this prejudice now either.
What The Law Currently Says:
Civil Rights Act of 1964: link.
Source.
According to Attorney Craig Fagan, a business cannot refuse service to anyone that the Civil Rights Act deems a "protected class." This would include discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, creed, national origin or disability. Fagan asserts that, although many businesses hang signs stating, "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.
Source.
While consumers are not a protected class, with respect to anti-discrimination laws, some laws do apply to consumers in certain situations. For example, creditors may not decline an otherwise qualified mortgage applicant solely on the basis of their skin color. Similarly, a department store issuing credit cannot charge a higher interest rate to a customer with a foreign accent. This section covers the basics of discrimination as it pertains to consumers; how to file complaints with the appropriate government agency; contact information; and more.
Another "Great Wall of Text," but it's from Cornell's Law School, so here's a link.
I conclude this OP with a question to further complicate matters to further stimulate your thinking: Do we see these acts as benevolent discounts for certain individuals, or unfair price hikes for others? What should we see these as?
+ Show Spoiler +Well, and a poll. Because everyone loves polls. 
Poll: Should businesses be able to discriminate service to consumers?Yes. (123) 49% No. (80) 32% Depends on what is being discriminated. (46) 18% 249 total votes Your vote: Should businesses be able to discriminate service to consumers? (Vote): Yes.
(Vote): No.
(Vote): Depends on what is being discriminated.
|
No. Open to the public means open to the public.
|
Sooo... How does he tell how much he has to charge? Do you have to bring a certificate to prove your conservative mindset? And where are those issued?
|
I feel there is a difference between getting denied service at a brand store (like a McDonalds) and then a store/business affiliated with just 1 "store" like your local sandwich shop.
But yes, despite being on the receiving end of it my entire life (because of the country I live in combined with my ethnicity), I feel the single businesses have the right to do what they want, while I expect bigger chains/brands to give the same service in all their stores. Granted that service can also be descriminatory.
I guess I'm asking for consistency.
|
On January 19 2013 01:37 Severedevil wrote:
No. Open to the public means open to the public.
But its not open to the public: Its a private business. Just like your home, someone owns it and its their private property. So yes.
Besides, its a dumb business plan to discriminate anyways. The people who do wont last.
|
On January 19 2013 01:37 Severedevil wrote:
No. Open to the public means open to the public.
What if you say that you're only open to straight people and not the general public itself?
|
Personal opinion:
+ Show Spoiler +I have to wonder what the guy would charge a libertarian, hahaha! Halfway between the two ends of the price range? I’m in the “support” camp, as I believe both clients and business owners have the right to choose how and with whom they want to conduct business. I believe it is rather unwise of owners to discriminate based on, what I see as, ultimately unnecessary factors, but it is their freedom to do so if they want to. Likewise, I believe customers who take offense to any practices of the business may do their business elsewhere, and should have the freedom to do so. I realize I’m biased on this, and I don’t feel I’ve given enough to the breakdown of the views, especially to the “oppose” side. If someone posts a particularly good reason either for or against customer prejudice, I’ll add it to the OP.
|
Depends is the only one that makes sense to me. We have laws against racist speech and we should have laws against racist actions. For the good of society and to allow bigoted morons less of a chance to attempt to divide society. The liberals and conservative thing is hilarious (how do you test it) but shouldn't be illegal.
|
On January 19 2013 01:37 Severedevil wrote:
No. Open to the public means open to the public.
If someone has come in specifically to disrupt service and be a nuisance, than a business should have the right to deny services. That is a fine line, but most restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to someone without giving an explanation. Once you walk in, it is like agreeing to a ToS agreement. Seriously, I've seen a lot of restaurants do this (that is mostly due to my area) and yet, being able to deny service to some is necessary for some business. Now I don't think that extends this level of descrimination, but completely getting rid of that is definitely too extreme.
|
|
|
In North America we dont have any laws against racist speech.
"I dont agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it" kinda thing. So just apply that same rule to property, because whats the point of freedom of speech if your not free to excersize your beliefs in any material sense.
Racist homophobes will be dealt with by social ostracism and people voting with their dollars. Its 2012, we dont need laws for that anymore. IMO.
|
It depends.
Makes sense that your local church would discriminate in favor of its religion and members, or insurance companies discriminate between high and low risk customers. But I don't think anyone would think it should be legal for hospitals or emergency centers to refuse treatment due to race, religion, or political views.
|
Denying something that you have a monopoly on is just wrong.
If somone however denies something that he doesnt have a monopoly on, he should be allowed to do so simply because that actually protects the person who is being denied from getting a low quality product.
Higher prices based on political views are also not a problem for me as long as that is said so people who do it have the freedom to run their buisness into the ground as they deserve.
Generally I'd say the statement about monopolies applies from my point of view, as long as it isnt getting actually inconvinient for the custommer.
|
On January 19 2013 01:57 sc4k wrote:
Depends is the only one that makes sense to me. We have laws against racist speech and we should have laws against racist actions. For the good of society and to allow bigoted morons less of a chance to attempt to divide society. The liberals and conservative thing is hilarious (how do you test it) but shouldn't be illegal.
I assume they ask you at the register. It looks like their policy is plastered pretty plainly so there's no misunderstanding.
|
On January 19 2013 02:00 Equity213 wrote:
In North America we dont have any laws against racist speech.
"I dont agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it" kinda thing. So just apply that same rule to property, because whats the point of freedom of speech if your not free to excersize your beliefs in any material sense.
Racist homophobes will be dealt with by social ostracism and people voting with their dollars. Its 2012, we dont need laws for that anymore. IMO.
I'm glad we don't deal with it in that way here. By allowing racists to deny services to certain races you are condoning racist and divisive gestures, even as much as you say you are against them and that social ostracism will deal with it. For many of them, the goal will be to make a statement more than to improve business. They will probably take any loss in revenue as the price of putting their vile bigotry out there.
It's an unnecessary provocation and a ferocious insult to the past to hang a sign saying 'no blacks or dogs' in your shop window (for example), and it hasn't stopped being like that since that sort of sign was commonplace back in America or SA. In terms of 'no liberals', that's just funny...but racism is not funny. There should not exist a sacrosanct right to hang such a sign in your window. I believe that's outdated thinking and just not sensitive to the modern world. It belongs in 1776 not 2012.
On January 19 2013 02:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 01:57 sc4k wrote:
Depends is the only one that makes sense to me. We have laws against racist speech and we should have laws against racist actions. For the good of society and to allow bigoted morons less of a chance to attempt to divide society. The liberals and conservative thing is hilarious (how do you test it) but shouldn't be illegal. I assume they ask you at the register. It looks like their policy is plastered pretty plainly so there's no misunderstanding.
So I assume you can just say 'yes, I am a conservative. I love me some guns, I hate me some immigants, the south shall rise again. Can I have my burger now.'
I'm actually still laughing at the conservative/ liberal price difference. I love how it's only one dollar. Like...I'm going to insult you and make you pay more for your food...but not that much more so really it's quite a reasonable penalty for being liberal. Haha.
|
I think yes, but to an extent. If I have a fancy restaurant where I want rich arrogant white people to come eat, I can maximize my profits by not allowing black or Asian people there, because if my customers are racist, I will be scaring away my rich customers by having other people there.
I think it's my legal right to do that, however, this would stir up a lot of racism in society which could result in violence etc, which is the main counter-argument, because this could pretty much lead to slavery again.
On the other hand, I do think there is nothing wrong with having designated countries, where you would not be allowed to live there, unless you were a certain religion, a certain race, and not mentally disabled. Humans should have to right to surround themselves with people they prefer, and if someone thinks "I don't want to sit on this bus because the guy next to me smells really bad", he should have an alternative to live elsewhere, where that wouldn't be an issue.
It'd all come down to an international agency controlling this regulation, so everyone can have a home...
AND never-mind, scratch everything I said, more I realize, all situations are going to be bad, the one I just started talking about would yield to pretty extreme nationalism, and currently the western human morality has no way to make this a viable environment to live in. Might seem bad that you're a business owner and you HAVE to sell to everyone, but honestly, it just makes everything so much more peaceful and safer.
For my final point, I think it should be only okay in very rare situations, such as churches, race culture clubs, political discussion clubs and such. Anything very for profit or something that others feel they are really missing out on will lead to bad things.
|
I'm pretty torn on the issue, like at the level of whether government should even get in the way. It could really get out of control one way or the other, and the Bible says it will in the future, "...so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark..." Rev. 13:17a
I don't know, tough call. I don't think it's possible to definitively lump all cases into either "yes" or "no." Some are "yes," some are "no."
|
Absolutely as long as it does not infringe on your basic human rights via racism etc.
I have every right to refuse service to someone who I think is a total douchebag, weather it be because they are gay, slept with my wife, or otherwise.
|
On January 19 2013 02:19 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:00 Equity213 wrote:
In North America we dont have any laws against racist speech.
"I dont agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it" kinda thing. So just apply that same rule to property, because whats the point of freedom of speech if your not free to excersize your beliefs in any material sense.
Racist homophobes will be dealt with by social ostracism and people voting with their dollars. Its 2012, we dont need laws for that anymore. IMO. I'm glad we don't deal with it in that way here. By allowing racists to deny services to certain races you are condoning racist and divisive gestures, even as much as you say you are against them and that social ostracism will deal with it. For many of them, the goal will be to make a statement more than to improve business. They will probably take any loss in revenue as the price of putting their vile bigotry out there. It's an unnecessary provocation and a ferocious insult to the past to hang a sign saying 'no blacks or dogs' in your shop window (for example), and it hasn't stopped being like that since that sort of sign was commonplace back in America or SA. In terms of 'no liberals', that's just funny...but racism is not funny. There should not exist a sacrosanct right to hang such a sign in your window. I believe that's outdated thinking and just not sensitive to the modern world. It belongs in 1776 not 2012. Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:On January 19 2013 01:57 sc4k wrote:
Depends is the only one that makes sense to me. We have laws against racist speech and we should have laws against racist actions. For the good of society and to allow bigoted morons less of a chance to attempt to divide society. The liberals and conservative thing is hilarious (how do you test it) but shouldn't be illegal. I assume they ask you at the register. It looks like their policy is plastered pretty plainly so there's no misunderstanding. So I assume you can just say 'yes, I am a conservative. I love me some guns, I hate me some immigants, the south shall rise again. Can I have my burger now.' I'm actually still laughing at the conservative/ liberal price difference. I love how it's only one dollar. Like...I'm going to insult you and make you pay more for your food...but not that much more so really it's quite a reasonable penalty for being liberal. Haha.
I would argue they're only tolerating the freedom to be racist, not the racism itself.
For the smoothie shop, I'm sure you could lie about your political inclination and pay the lower price. I doubt they do background checks or check voting histories on customers to make sure they are telling the truth, lol. And if they charged too much, they wouldn't get any money from liberal consumers ever. He's trying to make a point first, minimally exploit certain-minded individuals second.
You misspelled "immigrants," by the way. I honestly cannot tell if that was intentional however, lol.
|
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.
The guy doing the "liberal tax" is just trying to get publicity. He's basically telling half his potential customer base to go fuck themselves hoping it'll make the other half buy more to support him. Business decision which I'd think would backfire, but I don't see much of an issue with it morally.
I'd fully support any business that discriminates against assholes and morons, though. E.g. tech support gets a call from an angry clueless computer user who claims to "know computers" but actually knows nothing, I'd be happy if the business just told him exactly where to stick it. If the same guy had rung up and asked politely for help, they'd serve him. That I'm cool with. But it doesn't happen and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
|
You misspelled "immigrants," by the way. I honestly cannot tell if that was intentional however, lol.
Intentional, quoting Moe from the Simpsons.
Episode 3f20 'Much Apu About Nothing' fyi.
"Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them."
|
If your business is a private business and on your private property you can allow or disallow anyone you want based on whatever you want. Just like you can allow or disallow anyone you want into your private home.
It's a private property issue.
|
Sucks but it is a right for the owner of the business.
"We have the right to refuse business to anyone."
|
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)
|
On January 19 2013 02:43 TheWorldToCome wrote:
If your business is a private business and on your private property you can allow or disallow anyone you want based on whatever you want. Just like you can allow or disallow anyone you want into your private home.
It's a private property issue.
So you are okay with this? You can't see why there would be any reason for a civilised responsible society to prevent this sort of thing?:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
It's up to the government to determine which forms of discrimination are permissible or not. Simply saying "businesses should not be able to discriminate any of their practices based on any factor at all, under any circumstances" is not A) possible or B) ideal.
Example: in 2010 the CBC started kicking up a fuss because home insurance companies were using their customers' credit ratings to determine their rates:
The funny thing about it was that it was already illegal for car insurance companies to discriminate based on credit rating in certain provinces. Why the disconnect? If a car insurance company can't make the (actuarially reasonable) assumption that you're going to make claims because you're a deadbeat, why can a home insurance company?
Also, you might remember we all laughed at the guy who wrote a nasty letter to his car insurance company for giving him a higher quote because he was male but the European Court agrees with him.
TLDR: it's complicated
|
On January 19 2013 02:49 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:43 TheWorldToCome wrote:
If your business is a private business and on your private property you can allow or disallow anyone you want based on whatever you want. Just like you can allow or disallow anyone you want into your private home.
It's a private property issue. So you are okay with this? You can't see why there would be any reason for a civilised responsible society to prevent this sort of thing?: + Show Spoiler +
If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants.
Thats why our laws are pretty terrible, since there is so much overlap and gray area in things like this
|
On January 19 2013 02:49 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:43 TheWorldToCome wrote:
If your business is a private business and on your private property you can allow or disallow anyone you want based on whatever you want. Just like you can allow or disallow anyone you want into your private home.
It's a private property issue. So you are okay with this? You can't see why there would be any reason for a civilised responsible society to prevent this sort of thing?: + Show Spoiler +
If the owner of a private business is dumb enough to put up that sign, then he can deal with the consequences. Anyone who isn't an ignorant racist would boycott the business and they would no longer be a business. It's that simple. Society as a whole isn't that stupid.
We don't need the government to bubble wrap everything in the world so that no one ever gets offended by anything ever again. If someone wants to discriminate against people who don't tie their shoes in a certain fashion, they can. But everyone has just as much right to call them out on their ignorant bullshit and not give them their money. Let the people speak for themselves (democracy) instead of forcing people to hold to a government prescribed morality.
|
On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:49 sc4k wrote:On January 19 2013 02:43 TheWorldToCome wrote:
If your business is a private business and on your private property you can allow or disallow anyone you want based on whatever you want. Just like you can allow or disallow anyone you want into your private home.
It's a private property issue. So you are okay with this? You can't see why there would be any reason for a civilised responsible society to prevent this sort of thing?: + Show Spoiler + If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. Thats why our laws are pretty terrible, since there is so much overlap and gray area in things like this
Actually, the ambiguity of our laws and the necessity for contextual interpretation is one of their greatest strengths, but that is neither here nor there. A public storefront and a private home are different entities; a store might be private property but if it is open to the general public for business different rules apply, i.e. the civil rights act of 1964. If the bakery owner wishes to change his business to an entirely private affair without an open storefront and accordingly deny gays wedding cakes, that is his right. But the matter becomes more complicated if his business is to remain open to the public.
|
On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote:
If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants.
You are trying to make out like there are no other social issues at play here, but there are. Have you studied anything about the history of racism in your country? It's not about the simple legal right to prevent access to your property.
On January 19 2013 02:59 MooseyFate wrote:
We don't need the government to bubble wrap everything in the world so that no one ever gets offended by anything ever again.
You can't seriously think that outlawing 'no coloureds allowed' signs is bubble wrapping 'everything in the world'.
This isn't just about offence. It speaks to the history of your country, the goals of a civilised country, the desire for everyone to suppress racist provocation. Your approach is extremely insensitive and unsophisticated, in my opinion.
|
|
|
On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:49 sc4k wrote:On January 19 2013 02:43 TheWorldToCome wrote:
If your business is a private business and on your private property you can allow or disallow anyone you want based on whatever you want. Just like you can allow or disallow anyone you want into your private home.
It's a private property issue. So you are okay with this? You can't see why there would be any reason for a civilised responsible society to prevent this sort of thing?: + Show Spoiler + If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. Thats why our laws are pretty terrible, since there is so much overlap and gray area in things like this
What kind of comparison is that lmao. That's not discrimination, you have the right to remove EVERYONE from your property. If it was only black people, then yeah, shit would hit the fan.
If it holds for everyone, we meet a mutual acceptance, and people are happy with it because "I wont go in peoples' houses, and they wont go into mine, sounds good". If it was "white people can come into my house, and I can't come into theirs". That's when it gets bad. A balance of fairness and equality must be there.
|
To those who support: Are there certain aspects that some would prejudice against (namely gender or race) that you believe would prove more harmful to society than the freedom to discriminate is worth?
To those who oppose: What is your opinion on discounts, like those offered to senior citizens, students, and members of the armed forces? It is necessarily discrimination (albeit more positive discrimination), but is that a form of discrimination you would accept?
|
On January 19 2013 02:47 heroyi wrote:
Sucks but it is a right for the owner of the business.
"We have the right to refuse business to anyone."
That doesn't mean what you think it does. It is illegal to refuse service based on race, color, religion, sex or disability. In some states it goes even further including sexual orientation.
|
On January 19 2013 03:09 cLAN.Anax wrote:
To those who oppose: What is your opinion on discounts, like those offered to senior citizens, students, and members of the armed forces? It is necessarily discrimination (albeit more positive discrimination), but is that a form of discrimination you would accept?
As far as I'm concerned, the "discount" nature of those mild forms of discrimination changes the manner in which they are legally regarded; if the general public is still offered a normal, unchanged price for goods and services, than preferential discounts are probably ok. In the case of the smoothie shop, the fact that political inclination possibly entails a fee or a higher than baseline price if one belongs to a particular group seems like obvious evidence of an illegally discriminatory business practice. And outright refusal of business in the case of the bakery owner seems utterly inexcusable, at least if the business is to be open to the public. Ultimately, it is the legal recognition of a private business entity's being "open to the public" that is most important here.
|
On January 19 2013 03:09 cLAN.Anax wrote:
To those who support: Are there certain aspects that some would prejudice against (namely gender or race) that you believe would prove more harmful to society than the freedom to discriminate is worth?
To those who oppose: What is your opinion on discounts, like those offered to senior citizens, students, and members of the armed forces? It is necessarily discrimination (albeit more positive discrimination), but is that a form of discrimination you would accept?
There is certain "discrimination" we tolerate, because our beliefs and values give us respect for certain people and we feel they deserve to be rewarded. This like you said includes senior citizen, and retired military. If you look a couple hundred years back, a portion of the people in the US believed they were better than black people, and deserved more, just as Hitler believed his "Aryan Race" was better and deserved more.
Don't really understand why people are trying to make this complicated when it isn't. Severe inequality leads to Racism, Religious Intolerence, and Political View Intolerence. This eventually leads to extreme nationalism and violence.
Nothing else can really be added to this situation, logically looking at it, there's no real other outcomes.
|
It is my belive that private buisness should be able to discimanate any way it wants. Be it skin color, faith, height, weight, color of pants, or ability to integrate. It should however lose this right, if its owned by governemnt (even in 0,001%), is benefiting from governemnt grants, or grants by governemnt sponsored organization, or benefiting from any tax reduction or exemption which purpose might be in contradiction with such discrimantion.
|
On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:49 sc4k wrote:On January 19 2013 02:43 TheWorldToCome wrote:
If your business is a private business and on your private property you can allow or disallow anyone you want based on whatever you want. Just like you can allow or disallow anyone you want into your private home.
It's a private property issue. So you are okay with this? You can't see why there would be any reason for a civilised responsible society to prevent this sort of thing?: + Show Spoiler + If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. Thats why our laws are pretty terrible, since there is so much overlap and gray area in things like this
lol that's not a gray area. Private business "open to the public" =/= private homeowner living in the privacy of his home. The only gray area is how to define "open to the public," not whether the two situations should be treated the same way.
|
On January 19 2013 03:19 Silvanel wrote:
It is my belive that private buisness should be able to discimanate any way it wants. Be it skin color, faith, height, weight, color of pants, or ability to integrate. It should however lose this right, if its owned by governemnt (even in 0,001%), is benefiting from governemnt grants, or grants by governemnt sponsored organization, or benefiting from any tax reduction or exemption which purpose might be in contradiction with such discrimantion.
In a situation where many believe that big multi-national companies have enough money to "buy" spots in government, I'm sure it happens to an extent, to how much, I don't know. This seems like an awful idea.
Crazy people running the show can do lots of harm, only way against this would be people constantly campaigning against companies with such policy, which just defeats the purpose.
|
If an entire sector or something all asked what your political affiliation was and wanted proof, and this service was a "basic necessity", would that be considered an invasion of privacy? What if I don't want people to know my political standing, but I must use their services or someone else's in the industries? I mean, sure, I can not buy a car, have insurance and inspection, but I live in a city where I need a car to get around.
|
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.
|
On January 19 2013 03:30 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
If an entire sector or something all asked what your political affiliation was and wanted proof, and this service was a "basic necessity", would that be considered an invasion of privacy? What if I don't want people to know my political standing, but I must use their services or someone else's in the industries? I mean, sure, I can not buy a car, have insurance and inspection, but I live in a city where I need a car to get around.
I'm almost certain that such a practice would be found illegal, though I am not familiar with any precedent on the matter.
|
On January 19 2013 03:03 sc4k wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote:
If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. You are trying to make out like there are no other social issues at play here, but there are. Have you studied anything about the history of racism in your country? It's not about the simple legal right to prevent access to your property. Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:59 MooseyFate wrote:
We don't need the government to bubble wrap everything in the world so that no one ever gets offended by anything ever again. You can't seriously think that outlawing 'no coloureds allowed' signs is bubble wrapping 'everything in the world'. This isn't just about offence. It speaks to the history of your country, the goals of a civilised country, the desire for everyone to suppress racist provocation. Your approach is extremely insensitive and unsophisticated, in my opinion.
How so? Because I think the public is intelligent enough to make this decision themselves instead of having the government mandate it?
Let me say this: I do NOT think it is acceptable in any way to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin/nationality/sexual orientation or anything like that. But I also don't think it is necessary to have the government step in and prevent someone from hanging a sign that says "No one with Blue Eyes allowed!". I have faith in my fellow man that they will see how ridiculous such thing is and anyone without their head up their ass will realize such things are no longer tolerated. And those folks with their heads sufficiently up their own sphincter aren't gonna listen to the government anyway.
Also, please don't assume I (or anyone from the US) don't know anything about the racist past of the US. I don't assume that you don't know about the massive amounts of racism still present in the UK, and the massive amounts of racism in its past. Suffice it to say, your shit also stinks, so lets keep the criticism with the subject at hand and not where I was born.
|
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.
but if he does it, and people protest it, then the community discusses it and thinks about it, isn't that progress?
|
So, if a man comes into my store, shit faced and half gone. I should still sale him liquor ? Why does it have to be a race issue?
|
On January 19 2013 03:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:09 cLAN.Anax wrote:
To those who oppose: What is your opinion on discounts, like those offered to senior citizens, students, and members of the armed forces? It is necessarily discrimination (albeit more positive discrimination), but is that a form of discrimination you would accept? As far as I'm concerned, the "discount" nature of those mild forms of discrimination changes the manner in which they are legally regarded; if the general public is still offered a normal, unchanged price for goods and services, than preferential discounts are probably ok. In the case of the smoothie shop, the fact that political inclination possibly entails a fee or a higher than baseline price if one belongs to a particular group seems like obvious evidence of an illegally discriminatory business practice. And outright refusal of business in the case of the bakery owner seems utterly inexcusable, at least if the business is to be open to the public. Ultimately, it is the legal recognition of a private business entity's being "open to the public" that is most important here.
But how do you objectively interpret those discounts or price increases? I mean, what if the price in the smoothie shop is "always" $5.95, but he offers conservatives a one dollar discount? (I'm aware that this is not the case in this instance as the owner specifically said "liberals pay one dollar extra," but hopefully I'm making my point. What if these "increases" for some are supposed to actually be seen as "discounts" for the other?)
|
On January 19 2013 03:33 MooseyFate wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:03 sc4k wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote:
If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. You are trying to make out like there are no other social issues at play here, but there are. Have you studied anything about the history of racism in your country? It's not about the simple legal right to prevent access to your property. On January 19 2013 02:59 MooseyFate wrote:
We don't need the government to bubble wrap everything in the world so that no one ever gets offended by anything ever again. You can't seriously think that outlawing 'no coloureds allowed' signs is bubble wrapping 'everything in the world'. This isn't just about offence. It speaks to the history of your country, the goals of a civilised country, the desire for everyone to suppress racist provocation. Your approach is extremely insensitive and unsophisticated, in my opinion. How so? Because I think the public is intelligent enough to make this decision themselves instead of having the government mandate it? Let me say this: I do NOT think it is acceptable in any way to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin/nationality/sexual orientation or anything like that. But I also don't think it is necessary to have the government step in and prevent someone from hanging a sign that says "No one with Blue Eyes allowed!". I have faith in my fellow man that they will see how ridiculous such thing is and anyone without their head up their ass will realize such things are no longer tolerated. And those folks with their heads sufficiently up their own sphincter aren't gonna listen to the government anyway. Also, please don't assume I (or anyone from the US) don't know anything about the racist past of the US. I don't assume that you don't know about the massive amounts of racism still present in the UK, and the massive amounts of racism in its past. Suffice it to say, your shit also stinks, so lets keep the criticism with the subject at hand and not where I was born.
How could he not assume that you don't know a thing about the racist past of the United States when you claim to "have faith in my fellow man" in regards to discriminatory business practice? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is literally a legislative denial of the notion that "faith in my fellow man" is enough when it comes to societal toleration of discrimination.
|
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.
What an absurdly ridiculous statement, obviously with no basis in logic or reality. Some people value human rights and freedom of opinion and belief. The fact that you feel the need to try and incite a feeling of guilt in people who read this atrocity of a post is pathetic.
Letting ignorant bigots be ignorant bigots will prove itself far more beneficial in the long run than censorship. If their views and beliefs prove to be antiquated or otherwise deemed unworthy by the community, the respective people will just fall to the wayside and fade into irrelevance. But that doesn't lend itself to as much abuse as censorship would, since in one case it's the general population that gets to dictate what happens to the person, and in an indirect fashion (such as not buying their product or service and boycotting their activity, as opposed to outright fining or jailing them) whereas in the other whoever is in charge can get to a point where they dictate what you can and can't say.
-_-
|
On January 19 2013 03:41 cLAN.Anax wrote:
But how do you objectively interpret those discounts or price increases? I mean, what if the price in the smoothie shop is "always" $5.95, but he offers conservatives a one dollar discount? (I'm aware that this is not the case in this instance as the owner specifically said "liberals pay one dollar extra," but hopefully I'm making my point. What if these "increases" for some are supposed to actually be seen as "discounts" for the other?)
The "frustration fee" that an Australian electronics retailer charges for IE7 users could (as I suggested in my response to that topic) be easily turned around and presented more positively as a discount for people who use up-to-date browsers.
Similarly the "cash discounts" offered at retail establishments are actually the real price of the goods in question, with the retailer not adding a small mark-up to offset charges from their credit card provider.
|
The wedding cake scenario is different from most cases. Assuming the cakes are individually created with personalisation, that's not the same as refusing to sell the same product to someone simply because you don't like something they do or are. So, for instance, I have no right to refuse to sell a neo-Nazi a cake from the shelf, but if he wants me to write a message on it about how terrible Jews are, I have every right to refuse it.
Assuming people agree with this scenario, I think it can be expanded to all viewpoints, even ones we may find distasteful, such as anti-homosexual views.
|
On January 19 2013 03:41 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:16 farvacola wrote:On January 19 2013 03:09 cLAN.Anax wrote:
To those who oppose: What is your opinion on discounts, like those offered to senior citizens, students, and members of the armed forces? It is necessarily discrimination (albeit more positive discrimination), but is that a form of discrimination you would accept? As far as I'm concerned, the "discount" nature of those mild forms of discrimination changes the manner in which they are legally regarded; if the general public is still offered a normal, unchanged price for goods and services, than preferential discounts are probably ok. In the case of the smoothie shop, the fact that political inclination possibly entails a fee or a higher than baseline price if one belongs to a particular group seems like obvious evidence of an illegally discriminatory business practice. And outright refusal of business in the case of the bakery owner seems utterly inexcusable, at least if the business is to be open to the public. Ultimately, it is the legal recognition of a private business entity's being "open to the public" that is most important here. But how do you objectively interpret those discounts or price increases? I mean, what if the price in the smoothie shop is "always" $5.95, but he offers conservatives a one dollar discount? (I'm aware that this is not the case in this instance as the owner specifically said "liberals pay one dollar extra," but hopefully I'm making my point. What if these "increases" for some are supposed to actually be seen as "discounts" for the other?)
Well this is where the legal concepts of "fair" and "reasonable" are to be regarded with a great deal of importance, or else that sort of price wangling will occur. In keeping with the history of the genesis of legal precedent, I can only assume that it would be a matter of time before a case with exactly the sort of behavior you describe comes before the Supreme Court, and I think they would come to the conclusion that arbitrary price manipulation in pursuit of discriminatory business practice is illegal. Giving some women half off drinks seems far more legally defensible than coming up with some sort of silly pricing scheme in order to charge people of a certain identification more money.
|
On January 19 2013 03:47 MasterOfPuppets 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. What an absurdly ridiculous statement, obviously with no basis in logic or reality. Some people value human rights and freedom of opinion and belief. The fact that you feel the need to try and incite a feeling of guilt in people who read this atrocity of a post is pathetic. Letting ignorant bigots be ignorant bigots will prove itself far more beneficial in the long run than censorship. If their views and beliefs prove to be antiquated or otherwise deemed unworthy by the community, the respective people will just fall to the wayside and fade into irrelevance. But that doesn't lend itself to as much abuse as censorship would, since in one case it's the general population that gets to dictate what happens to the person, and in an indirect fashion (such as not buying their product or service and boycotting their activity, as opposed to outright fining or jailing them) whereas in the other whoever is in charge can get to a point where they dictate what you can and can't say. -_-
The history of the United States tells us this is simply not true. And, in the US, our legal system relies on historical precedent.
|
On January 19 2013 03:41 Hodgyy wrote:
So, if a man comes into my store, shit faced and half gone. I should still sale him liquor ? Why does it have to be a race issue?
You can refuse service to someone who is intoxicated. You however cannot refuse service solely on his race. How can you possibly have trouble understanding this?
|
Just take your money and business elsewhere.
|
On January 19 2013 03:41 farvacola wrote:
How could he not assume that you don't know a thing about the racist past of the United States when you claim to "have faith in my fellow man" in regards to discriminatory business practice? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is literally a legislative denial of the notion that "faith in my fellow man" is enough when it comes to societal toleration of discrimination.
That was 50 years ago, a lot has changed since then. Look at Europe 70 years ago. Notice any similarities?
Yes, I still have faith that reasonable minds will prevail. I happen to like people and think they are a lot better at working things out among themselves than the government/media would like us to believe.
And if me having faith in humanity = me being ignorant to racism in my country's past then I'm just gonna have to check out of this discussion.
I read your post often farva (you tend to post a lot in the controversial threads, which I like reading) so don't take this the wrong way, but you sometimes dig in and get into mud slinging instead of discussion. Not in the mood for that.
|
depends...out of hatred is bad (for anything) but for better of the business, its understandable and done quiet often. "we have the right to refuse service to anyone" is justified. businesses that dont want to deal with blacks or gays and whatnot, if its not illegal to be an asshole, why should the owner being an asshole be illegal? its their business, let them do what they want and the consequences will be applied upon them via poor business or hatred towards them from the discriminated group.
shit, the building i work in is kicking all small businesses in suites out in favor of corporations taking whole floors, this community of 100 years is about to be dispersed, people are pissed but can't take legal action because its not illegal.
|
On January 19 2013 03:09 cLAN.Anax wrote:
To those who support: Are there certain aspects that some would prejudice against (namely gender or race) that you believe would prove more harmful to society than the freedom to discriminate is worth?
To those who oppose: What is your opinion on discounts, like those offered to senior citizens, students, and members of the armed forces? It is necessarily discrimination (albeit more positive discrimination), but is that a form of discrimination you would accept?
I really appreciate your questions; you sound like a teacher at heart.
However, I take issue with, "albeit more positive discrimination." Discrimination is discrimination. it just is what it is. In order to have positive discrimination, you have to have negative. The very definition implies the segregation of two things, the differentiation between two things, the discrimination between two things. Discrimination is not inherently bad. It's just a catchword now-a-days for the evilest of evils - so says society.
The baker didn't want to bake a cake for the gay couple because he thought it was wrong for them to get married. Is that wrong? I suspect most people would say 'yes.'
What if a murderer had just killed 10 young children, got off on some extreme technicality (go with me -.-), and then came in and wanted a cake but the same guy refused him as well. Would that be wrong? I suspect most people would say 'no.'
These are only two scenarios but there are an infinite number possible. Don't be so hasty to look at it only from your point of view. There will always be two sides to this question. The people sitting on the bar stools, and the people pouring flour on their heads.
These decisions become very difficult in a society where truth is all relative.
|
On January 19 2013 03:33 MooseyFate wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 03:03 sc4k wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote:
If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. You are trying to make out like there are no other social issues at play here, but there are. Have you studied anything about the history of racism in your country? It's not about the simple legal right to prevent access to your property. On January 19 2013 02:59 MooseyFate wrote:
We don't need the government to bubble wrap everything in the world so that no one ever gets offended by anything ever again. You can't seriously think that outlawing 'no coloureds allowed' signs is bubble wrapping 'everything in the world'. This isn't just about offence. It speaks to the history of your country, the goals of a civilised country, the desire for everyone to suppress racist provocation. Your approach is extremely insensitive and unsophisticated, in my opinion. How so? Because I think the public is intelligent enough to make this decision themselves instead of having the government mandate it? Let me say this: I do NOT think it is acceptable in any way to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin/nationality/sexual orientation or anything like that. But I also don't think it is necessary to have the government step in and prevent someone from hanging a sign that says "No one with Blue Eyes allowed!". I have faith in my fellow man that they will see how ridiculous such thing is and anyone without their head up their ass will realize such things are no longer tolerated. And those folks with their heads sufficiently up their own sphincter aren't gonna listen to the government anyway. Also, please don't assume I (or anyone from the US) don't know anything about the racist past of the US.
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.
|
@danl9rm: Thanks for the kind words and correction. I didn't want to sound biased towards those that oppose it, but you're correct. Sometimes I think too hard when I comment. >_<'
@sc4k: I lol'ed at the "I've just watched a bunch of Milton Friedman videos on YouTube" remark. I've done that before, watch Milton Friedman videos I mean.
|
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.
|
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.
|
As long as there are sexist laws or someone is legally getting preferential treatment(same as discrimination) by state or private enteties, based on their race(affirmative action), etnicity(organisations giving scolarships only for certain etnicity), or gender(Violence Against Women Act), private enterprises should have right to segregate customers in any way they want.
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all.
|
On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
As long as there are sexist laws or someone is legally getting preferential treatment(same as discrimination) by state or private enteties, based on their race(affirmative action), etnicity(organisations giving scolarships only for certain etnicity), or gender(Violence Against Women Act), private enterprises should have right to segregate customers in any way they want.
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all.
Seriously? So if it is ok to give a discount to seniors or war vets then it is ok to deny service to black people or the disabled? You really think that those two things are equal?
|
On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all.
Stay out of politics please; we don't need any more of this kind of thinking...
|
First get rid of anti-male discrimination everywhere. Then we can talk about the trivial issue of stupid entrepreneurs driving themselves out of business.
|
Customers have the right to not buy from businesses if they don't like the way the behave/their products/etc.
So yes, businesses should be allowed to do this, because you're not being forced to buy from them. Unless this is being done by some sort of government service, I don't see an issue.
|
Being very pragmatist, I voted "it depends" even though I don't have any moral appreciation for it.
It's really just another form of corruption and favoritism that has existed as long as society has. Although I don't like it, it's not going to go away either because this flawed way of perceiving and doing things is too ingrained in human nature.
All I can do is to avoid being an asshole as much as possible.
|
We have some customer discrimination in the netherlands though not a lot.
The supermarket where i get my grocerys is close to a highschool and they dont let in more then 5 kids at a time when they come there during lunchbreak,probably because the fear of shoplifting.
Am not sure am ok with this but can understand it somewhere from the supermarket.
Dicsrimination on gender or race or sexual preference i am not ok with, dancings and clubs sometimes discriminate man (women can always get in, man often get refused) here and from a business point of vieuw i can understand that.
Maybe they also discriminate on race at times, its hard to tell as they can refuse people without reason.
But ya, am not ok with customer discrimination in general, though i also think everyone has the right to do business with who he wants,its a bit difficult.
|
On January 19 2013 05:28 jakethesnake wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
As long as there are sexist laws or someone is legally getting preferential treatment(same as discrimination) by state or private enteties, based on their race(affirmative action), etnicity(organisations giving scolarships only for certain etnicity), or gender(Violence Against Women Act), private enterprises should have right to segregate customers in any way they want.
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all. Seriously? So if it is ok to give a discount to seniors or war vets then it is ok to deny service to black people or the disabled? You really think that those two things are equal?
Yes, giving discounts to seniors/wets/disabled for being seniors/wets/disabled is wrong, since they are making profit by discriminating. If the organisations/goverment want to help them, they can use their right to contribute to charity.
On January 19 2013 05:28 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all. Stay out of politics please; we don't need any more of this kind of thinking...
I like it where you`re going. Only people that share my oppinion should be engaged in politics.
|
Business is business. Business owners should be free to do whatever they want; customers can do whatever they want such as organise boycotts. (Nothing illegal, of course.) Why regulate something that's fine at regulating itself?
|
It is his business and he can charge accordingly. That being said I voted depends, because I don't believe such a pricing discrepancy to be appropriate in the case of sexuality, religion, race, etc. While rather cumbersome publicity in the short term, the business owner should recognize that in the long run this won't benefit his business.
|
On January 19 2013 05:46 ThomasjServo wrote:
It is his business and he can charge accordingly. That being said I voted depends, because I don't believe such a pricing discrepancy to be appropriate in the case of sexuality, religion, race, etc. While rather cumbersome publicity in the short term, the business owner should recognize that in the long run this won't benefit his business.
How did you figure?
In a very conservative state, it may not be a problem, at all.
|
How does the smoothie guy determine whether someone is liberal or conservative?
In general, unless violence, name calling and other things are involved I'm all for letting the businesses handle stuff like this themselves. A night club has the right to say "You're not getting in here", a restaurant has the right to say "Please leave" - a cakemaker should be able to say "No cake for you". If in any of these cases someone adds "Because you're gay / black / white / fucked my wife" it suddenly is a thin line because now he starts to project his believes/perspective on the person openly for the public to discuss. Since in pretty much all cases the reason is obvious to most people in the first place I don't think this should be treated differently by authorities/law.
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there.
|
On January 19 2013 05:44 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 05:28 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all. Stay out of politics please; we don't need any more of this kind of thinking... I like it where you`re going. Only people that share my oppinion should be engaged in politics.
You got me dude; I want to abolish the dreaded scourge of credit reports (because it discriminates against people who don't pay their bills) and the foul plague of background checks (because it discriminates against people who lie their ass off on resumes) and need my ideological enemies purged in order to bring about my pure egalitarian utopia. Not to mention the crypto-fascist standard door height and how it dehumanizes those who are nine feet tall.
Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive.
|
On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 05:44 naastyOne wrote:On January 19 2013 05:28 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all. Stay out of politics please; we don't need any more of this kind of thinking... I like it where you`re going. Only people that share my oppinion should be engaged in politics. Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive. So, you want to hairsplit discrimination and want to silence people that do not agree with you. Ok. But since it wourks both ways, why wouldn`t you shut yourself for your unproductive vieves?
|
It's his private business, he is allowed to do as he pleases with it. It's no different than, for instance, "Ladies' Night" at a bar. The man thinks that by establishing that his bar is a good place (Where he lives they might like conservatives) by charging more to liberals he can gain more conservative business. Or he might be trying to make a political point. Both are perfectly acceptable, and he can do what he wants regardless of people's feelings being hurt, it's not a government-run business.
|
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic?
|
On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic?
Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge.
|
On January 19 2013 04:54 Fenris420 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. 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.
Talk about irrational. The guy (baker) said he would sell them a cake for a birthday or whatever, he just wouldn't make them a cake for a homosexual wedding, since it goes against his beliefs to support such a thing. That makes him a "militant homophobe?"
To add, you claim the reason "we don't like racists" is that they are "racist and irrational." The fact that they are irrational is irrelevant. We don't agree with racists because, and you got it right here, they are racist. And, racism is wrong.
|
On January 19 2013 06:29 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:44 naastyOne wrote:On January 19 2013 05:28 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all. Stay out of politics please; we don't need any more of this kind of thinking... I like it where you`re going. Only people that share my oppinion should be engaged in politics. Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive. So, you want to hairsplit discrimination and want to silence people that do not agree with you. Ok. But since it wourks both ways, why wouldn`t you shut yourself for your unproductive vieves?
I think he's trying to point out that not everything in life is black and white, this or that. There are some grey areas and discrimination is one of those. I personally believe it's ok to discriminate. You have that right to. In the end the public will vote with their money and internet "civil movements", and as long as you're up for the challenge you can be a total Nazi and ban all Jews from your shop or something. Just be prepared for backlash
|
On January 19 2013 06:18 r.Evo wrote:
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there.
Saying "it's probably best [...] to move along" is horrible victim blaming bullshit. Should women not fight for equal pay from businesses? Should minorities have left the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts? Should homosexuals just leave the states that have voted against gay marriage, or leave any town where there's an anti-gay crime? Bigotry should be challenged, not acquiesced.
On January 19 2013 06:29 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:44 naastyOne wrote:On January 19 2013 05:28 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all. Stay out of politics please; we don't need any more of this kind of thinking... I like it where you`re going. Only people that share my oppinion should be engaged in politics. Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive. So, you want to hairsplit discrimination and want to silence people that do not agree with you. Ok. But since it wourks both ways, why wouldn`t you shut yourself for your unproductive vieves?
Yes, we're going to "hairsplit" discrimination because the USA has created and upheld legislation that does precisely that. In what way are his views "unproductive?" Your false dichotomies and vague accusations go a lot farther in shutting down discussion than anything he's doing.
|
On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge.
Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already.
|
On January 19 2013 06:29 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:44 naastyOne wrote:On January 19 2013 05:28 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all. Stay out of politics please; we don't need any more of this kind of thinking... I like it where you`re going. Only people that share my oppinion should be engaged in politics. Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive. So, you want to hairsplit discrimination and want to silence people that do not agree with you. Ok. But since it wourks both ways, why wouldn`t you shut yourself for your unproductive vieves?
I see both of your points.
I don't believe he is hair-splitting, but he is indeed wrong if he thinks that no one fully believes that discrimination is either right or wrong, utterly. I enjoyed FiWiFaKi's post at the beginning of the thread where he left his line of thought unedited. I think that would be most people's reasoning if they just thought about it for a while before slapping down a post. This is not an easy topic, and it's further confused by society's modern use of the words "discrimination" and "intolerance," in my opinion.
|
On January 19 2013 06:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already.
Don't you understand that accepting students to a university based on academic results is discrimination? Yes, it's silly, but that is where the rabbit hole goes.
|
On January 19 2013 07:00 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already. Don't you understand that accepting students to a university based on academic results is discrimination? Yes, it's silly, but that is where the rabbit hole goes.
That's how meritocracy should work.
Problem is that "discrimination" is simply a mistaken interpretation of meritocracy based on lies and bias.
|
Discrimination is by definition based on prejudice and not informed decision making, I don't see how most of the examples being used to support "discriminatory practices" are even remotely the same thing. It's a completely different prospect to say "it's with in the rights of an individual to chose who he or she services and how" as a supporting argument for discrimination because that involves actual decision making based on factual evidence.
If a bank refuses to service an individual because of bad credit rating and firm knowledge that he or she is unable to pay back the specific amount of money with in the time period of a loan and thus makes the informed decision to refuse service and gives the reasoning why or why not, or offers another alternative service, that's fine.
If a bank refuses to service an individual based on the basis of personal or organizational prejudice against a specific group of people with out rationality then it is discrimination, and that's bloody bigoted and also contrary to the actual interest of the bank to maximize profit.
Note that in the above example, there's a distinct difference between investigating an individual's past financial history, checking his occupation and financial status, etc, to discriminating against somebody simply because you "think" or "perceive" based on his appearance or race or what ever arbitrary reason.
|
On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:
Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive.
I'd like to ask if you think it's fine to discriminate against people who discriminate? If it OK to you if a municipality/city/state chose to deny permits for KKK rallies/parades for the simple fact that they are KKK and don't want their area to be associated with such a group? A little fighting fire with fire.. some reverse psychology.. IF we hate the haters, maybe just maybe, it will hurt them into seeing the error of their ways and get them to open their arms. Would you be upset if this owner refused to make a cake for a(n) grand dragon/imperial wizards wedding and they made a big stink about it?
Store/business owners have a responsibility to protect their brand. A wedding cake from that exact store is not a necessity for the wedding. Did they call off the wedding and refuse to proceed any further until that store makes them the cake? I'd say there's probably plenty of cake makers who would jump for the chance to make the cake. Hell, if they paid me I'd make them a cake.
|
On January 19 2013 06:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already.
What world are you living in? Most colleges are prejudiced, even in other parts of the world, usually against Asians. I know in my country, Auckland University increase the marks of Maori students (a minority) by 15% for med school (they even ANNOUNCED THIS in the medsci paper first year) and have a much higher standard applied to asians and indians particularly. Maoris on average need a B to B+ to get into Med, whereas asians usually need at least A to A+ to even be considered for interviews.
|
On January 19 2013 07:10 fuzzy_panda wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already. What world are you living in? Most colleges are prejudiced, even in other parts of the world, usually against Asians. I know in my country, Auckland University increase the marks of Maori students (a minority) by 15% for med school (they even ANNOUNCED THIS in the medsci paper first year) and have a much higher standard applied to asians and indians particularly. Maoris on average need a B to B+ to get into Med, whereas asians usually need at least A to A+ to even be considered for interviews.
I have no knowledge of what happens at Auckland University but it sounds like the policy you are talking about is similar to affirmative action which i talked about earlier.Open up the thread and you will see that i said affirmative action was racist and schools should accept students based on academic outcomes only with race being a non issue.
|
On January 19 2013 07:05 Caihead wrote:
Discrimination is by definition based on prejudice and not informed decision making, I don't see how most of the examples being used to support "discriminatory practices" are even remotely the same thing. It's a completely different prospect to say "it's with in the rights of an individual to chose who he or she services and how" as a supporting argument for discrimination because that involves actual decision making based on factual evidence.
If a bank refuses to service an individual because of bad credit rating and firm knowledge that he or she is unable to pay back the specific amount of money with in the time period of a loan and thus makes the informed decision to refuse service and gives the reasoning why or why not, or offers another alternative service, that's fine.
If a bank refuses to service an individual based on the basis of personal or organizational prejudice against a specific group of people with out rationality then it is discrimination, and that's bloody bigoted and also contrary to the actual interest of the bank to maximize profit.
Note that in the above example, there's a distinct difference between investigating an individual's past financial history, checking his occupation and financial status, etc, to discriminating against somebody simply because you "think" or "perceive" based on his appearance or race or what ever arbitrary reason.
I'm not singling out that one half-sentence and ignoring the rest, but I think it summarizes what you were trying to convey.
You bring in rationale again. However, if someone is irrational, what makes them know that they are irrational? Let me ask a different way. Have you ever known someone that was racist? They are constantly spewing hateful speech to the point where you're just sick of hearing it and you have to speak up. You tell them, maybe, something like, "Dude, stop beginning everything you say with 'I'm not racist, but...' because you are. You're racist, so man up and admit it." If you've had this conversation before, I have with a few people, you may notice that their most typical response is, "No, seriously, I'm not racist, my best friend is black, etc."
Point is, they are rational. To themselves, they are rational. What they are saying is completely sound thinking, thought-out and intellectually purposed. To us, it's just plain old racism, no two ways about it. To us, likewise, we are being rational.
So, what makes something of an entirely moral substance rational or not? This isn't math, as much as we'd like it to be. This is a moral issue at its core.
|
On January 19 2013 06:57 Reedjr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:18 r.Evo wrote:
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there. Saying "it's probably best [...] to move along" is horrible victim blaming bullshit. Should women not fight for equal pay from businesses? Should minorities have left the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts? Should homosexuals just leave the states that have voted against gay marriage, or leave any town where there's an anti-gay crime? Bigotry should be challenged, not acquiesced.
Precisely because I value personal freedom and democracy highly I do believe that personal freedom should end where someone else's begins, even in a case like this. The baker doesn't want to sell you cake because of anything? Well, go to someone who does. Your state doesn't want to let you marry? Go somewhere where you can.
The sad thing is that the issue at hand is NOT that someone refused to make a gay couple a wedding cake, it was that he was honest about his personal reasoning. He could have opted to simply say "Please leave my backery", he has no reason to justify himself for this decision. I would rather have things like this in the open where people can deal with it as they please than opt for the "politically correct" excuse to refuse someone service.
|
On January 19 2013 07:06 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:
Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive. I'd like to ask if you think it's fine to discriminate against people who discriminate? If it OK to you if a municipality/city/state chose to deny permits for KKK rallies/parades for the simple fact that they are KKK and don't want their area to be associated with such a group? A little fighting fire with fire.. some reverse psychology.. IF we hate the haters, maybe just maybe, it will hurt them into seeing the error of their ways and get them to open their arms. Would you be upset if this owner refused to make a cake for a(n) grand dragon/imperial wizards wedding and they made a big stink about it? Store/business owners have a responsibility to protect their brand. A wedding cake from that exact store is not a necessity for the wedding. Did they call off the wedding and refuse to proceed any further until that store makes them the cake? I'd say there's probably plenty of cake makers who would jump for the chance to make the cake. Hell, if they paid me I'd make them a cake.
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 think the shop owners may have stupid/ignorant/whatever views that I don't agree with but it is their store I guess? Just don't go there as in todays world there likely will be alternate options. The whole higher prices for liberals is a stupid and petty thing to make a point and is presumptuous that his PoV is the right one but in the end who cares.
|
On January 19 2013 06:52 danl9rm wrote:
Talk about irrational. The guy (baker) said he would sell them a cake for a birthday or whatever, he just wouldn't make them a cake for a homosexual wedding, since it goes against his beliefs to support such a thing. That makes him a "militant homophobe?"
To add, you claim the reason "we don't like racists" is that they are "racist and irrational." The fact that they are irrational is irrelevant. We don't agree with racists because, and you got it right here, they are racist. And, racism is wrong.
I did not formulate myself properly. I did not intend for it to sound as if the actual baker was militant, I meant "a" baker. The point I made still stands though.
Irrationality is when you belive in something without objective reasoning. If there is no science telling you that black people are somehow not as good as white people, being a racist is irrational. If there was solid evidence of white supremacy in every way imaginable, being racist would be rational. We don't have to like it, but it would be true.
By saying something is cathegorically wrong with no attempts to falsify it even a little (I used the irrationality argument for that) you are not scoring any points with me, even if I agree with what you say.
Maybe we are at a stage now where this kind of discrimination being wrong is considered trivial by many. Amongst such peers it makes no sense to prove every statement. However, we are obviously not living in a world where everyone considers "our" morals to be trivial or even correct. I feel that if someone applies the scientific model to something, this kind of problem would not occur, but judging by intelligent design advocates, it would appear as if I was wrong in that regard.
|
On January 19 2013 07:16 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:57 Reedjr wrote:On January 19 2013 06:18 r.Evo wrote:
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there. Saying "it's probably best [...] to move along" is horrible victim blaming bullshit. Should women not fight for equal pay from businesses? Should minorities have left the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts? Should homosexuals just leave the states that have voted against gay marriage, or leave any town where there's an anti-gay crime? Bigotry should be challenged, not acquiesced. Precisely because I value personal freedom and democracy highly I do believe that personal freedom should end where someone else's begins, even in a case like this. The baker doesn't want to sell you cake because of anything? Well, go to someone who does. Your state doesn't want to let you marry? Go somewhere where you can. The sad thing is that the issue at hand is NOT that someone refused to make a gay couple a wedding cake, it was that he was honest about his personal reasoning. He could have opted to simply say "Please leave my backery", he has no reason to justify himself for this decision. I would rather have things like this in the open where people can deal with it as they please than opt for the "politically correct" excuse to refuse someone service.
Answer my second example. By your logic, they should have left en masse. Is it more noble to pick up and leave everyone I know so I can be happy, or to stay and make my voice heard so that others like me right here can be happy too? I don't see how letting a bigot dictate how/where someone lives his/her life could possibly be construed as "democratic." I'm commenting only on the "people should move" tangent you went on. Going to another bakery and packing up for another state are hardly comparable.
|
The free market will ensure that discriminatory practices that society disagrees with will meet with hard financial times or closure. No need to protest, no need to ban. Yes, businesses can discriminate as much as they like. Society's response will be reflected in their bottom line. Any company that wants the most amount of profit will discriminate the least. The end.
|
On January 19 2013 07:41 StarStrider wrote:
The free market will ensure that discriminatory practices that society disagrees with will meet with hard financial times or closure. No need to protest, no need to ban. Yes, businesses can discriminate as much as they like. Society's response will be reflected in their bottom line. Any company that wants the most amount of profit will discriminate the least. The end.
Or such places become bigot havens, and profit off a niche.
|
On January 19 2013 07:36 Slaughter wrote:
I think the shop owners may have stupid/ignorant/whatever views that I don't agree with but it is their store I guess? Just don't go there as in todays world there likely will be alternate options. The whole higher prices for liberals is a stupid and petty thing to make a point and is presumptuous that his PoV is the right one but in the end who cares.
Burnett, from the smoothie joint, says, "Really what I’m focused on is the fiscal differences between big government/small government and liberal ways, as far as entitlements and spending." The point he's trying to make is that if liberals want a larger government that is able to dish out more entitlements, liberals would be more willing to part with a greater portion of their own money to see that end met. Basically a "put your money where your mouth is" sort of thing, not even really an "I'm right and you're wrong" statement.
But at the end of the day, and as it pertains to this topic, you're right; they discriminate, but it's their own business, and they may run it using as much (or as little) wisdom as they so choose.
|
On January 19 2013 07:16 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:57 Reedjr wrote:On January 19 2013 06:18 r.Evo wrote:
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there. Saying "it's probably best [...] to move along" is horrible victim blaming bullshit. Should women not fight for equal pay from businesses? Should minorities have left the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts? Should homosexuals just leave the states that have voted against gay marriage, or leave any town where there's an anti-gay crime? Bigotry should be challenged, not acquiesced. Precisely because I value personal freedom and democracy highly I do believe that personal freedom should end where someone else's begins, even in a case like this. The baker doesn't want to sell you cake because of anything? Well, go to someone who does. Your state doesn't want to let you marry? Go somewhere where you can. The sad thing is that the issue at hand is NOT that someone refused to make a gay couple a wedding cake, it was that he was honest about his personal reasoning. He could have opted to simply say "Please leave my backery", he has no reason to justify himself for this decision. I would rather have things like this in the open where people can deal with it as they please than opt for the "politically correct" excuse to refuse someone service.
I kinda hope we end up with a town where everyone refuses to pay black people for work and charges them 2x for food and gas because it's their personal opinion that they are useless monkey niggers. If anything just to see where it goes.
I would bet that in a town with majority whites, not enough people would ignore this town to stop business.
|
All businesses reserve the right to refuse service for whatever reason. Most wouldn't, for the simple reason that turning away customers leads to bad PR and loss of money.
Can they charge whatever they want, to whoever they want? Sure. But if someone tried charging me more for the same product they just sold to someone else, it would, without doubt, be the last time I ever set foot in that store.
kind of off topic, but somewhat related:
As a retail supervisor, I can tell you that I'm much more willing to work with and help a customer who is polite and easy-going compared to a customer that is mean and rude. The irony is that usually the asshole customers are the ones that managers take care of (price adjustments, returns, etc), simply to avoid having to deal with the customer complaining to corporate.
|
On January 19 2013 07:39 Reedjr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 07:16 r.Evo wrote:On January 19 2013 06:57 Reedjr wrote:On January 19 2013 06:18 r.Evo wrote:
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there. Saying "it's probably best [...] to move along" is horrible victim blaming bullshit. Should women not fight for equal pay from businesses? Should minorities have left the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts? Should homosexuals just leave the states that have voted against gay marriage, or leave any town where there's an anti-gay crime? Bigotry should be challenged, not acquiesced. Precisely because I value personal freedom and democracy highly I do believe that personal freedom should end where someone else's begins, even in a case like this. The baker doesn't want to sell you cake because of anything? Well, go to someone who does. Your state doesn't want to let you marry? Go somewhere where you can. The sad thing is that the issue at hand is NOT that someone refused to make a gay couple a wedding cake, it was that he was honest about his personal reasoning. He could have opted to simply say "Please leave my backery", he has no reason to justify himself for this decision. I would rather have things like this in the open where people can deal with it as they please than opt for the "politically correct" excuse to refuse someone service. Answer my second example. By your logic, they should have left en masse. Is it more noble to pick up and leave everyone I know so I can be happy, or to stay and make my voice heard so that others like me right here can be happy too? I don't see how letting a bigot dictate how/where someone lives his/her life could possibly be construed as "democratic." I'm commenting only on the "people should move" tangent you went on. Going to another bakery and packing up for another state are hardly comparable.
I think it's just the logical extension. I think not selling a couple a cake because of that reason is retarded. What can I do against it? Not buy there. Same with a nightclub who doesn't let in people I would like them to let in.
If I would live in a city where the majority of people doesn't like me (for whatever reason), I would leave, plain and simple. You can't force people to stop hating on you you for stupid reasons, you can only force them to use incorrect reasons for not serving you if you bring laws into this.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
|
its dumb for business so no
|
On January 19 2013 07:29 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 07:06 AmericanNightmare wrote:On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:
Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive. I'd like to ask if you think it's fine to discriminate against people who discriminate? If it OK to you if a municipality/city/state chose to deny permits for KKK rallies/parades for the simple fact that they are KKK and don't want their area to be associated with such a group? A little fighting fire with fire.. some reverse psychology.. IF we hate the haters, maybe just maybe, it will hurt them into seeing the error of their ways and get them to open their arms. Would you be upset if this owner refused to make a cake for a(n) grand dragon/imperial wizards wedding and they made a big stink about it? Store/business owners have a responsibility to protect their brand. A wedding cake from that exact store is not a necessity for the wedding. Did they call off the wedding and refuse to proceed any further until that store makes them the cake? I'd say there's probably plenty of cake makers who would jump for the chance to make the cake. Hell, if they paid me I'd make them a cake. 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...
|
On January 19 2013 07:58 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 07:41 StarStrider wrote:
The free market will ensure that discriminatory practices that society disagrees with will meet with hard financial times or closure. No need to protest, no need to ban. Yes, businesses can discriminate as much as they like. Society's response will be reflected in their bottom line. Any company that wants the most amount of profit will discriminate the least. The end. 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 
|
On January 19 2013 07:58 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 07:41 StarStrider wrote:
The free market will ensure that discriminatory practices that society disagrees with will meet with hard financial times or closure. No need to protest, no need to ban. Yes, businesses can discriminate as much as they like. Society's response will be reflected in their bottom line. Any company that wants the most amount of profit will discriminate the least. The end. Or such places become bigot havens, and profit off a niche.
Doesn't work that way in Japan, signs like these are everywhere
![[image loading]](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQaY0Fizp4t8HjYsdeT7edtuowKUEwkaIEUBvle-xlf64LVNaiySt5KwLZm)
|
On January 19 2013 09:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 07:58 Severedevil wrote:On January 19 2013 07:41 StarStrider wrote:
The free market will ensure that discriminatory practices that society disagrees with will meet with hard financial times or closure. No need to protest, no need to ban. Yes, businesses can discriminate as much as they like. Society's response will be reflected in their bottom line. Any company that wants the most amount of profit will discriminate the least. The end. Or such places become bigot havens, and profit off a niche. Doesn't work that way in Japan, signs like these are everywhere
"everywhere" formerly known as "almost nowhere."
|
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.
|
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.
|
United States42689 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.
|
On January 19 2013 12:41 Phenny wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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"...
|
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.
|
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.
|
Really, these discussions should be under a much broader topic as it's not really about the right to discriminate or free speech or owning guns etc. It's about whether or not democracy is the right path to take.
|
On January 19 2013 13:16 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Care to illuminate me?
|
in my opinion everyone should be able to do with his business as he likes. If they are deliberately hurting their business to make a political statement whatever, if that statement is stupid enough it will hurt the business enough for it to fail.
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.
|
Segregation wasn't a private policy, it was a public policy. I think private businesses can discriminate and shun their customers as much as the please. It's their loss.
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.
|
What would happen if numerous corporations decided to discriminate against a certain ethnicity? Wouldn't that just put us back where America was 60 years ago? Blacks were unable to receive service from many businesses back then. The idea of customer discrimination might seem like a fair idea on a small scale, but in reality, it only serves to catalyze more racism.
And in the words of MLK (considering it's almost MLK Day):
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
|
United States7483 Posts
Discrimination is occasionally okay based on certain things (super rare but occasionally, depends more on the business and what the discrimination is based on), but almost always the answer should be "No, fuck you you discriminating prick."
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.
|
On January 19 2013 13:17 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 13:16 FabledIntegral wrote: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. Care to illuminate me?
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.
|
On January 19 2013 13:56 TheToaster wrote:
What would happen if numerous corporations decided to discriminate against a certain ethnicity? Wouldn't that just put us back where America was 60 years ago? Blacks were unable to receive service from many businesses back then. The idea of customer discrimination might seem like a fair idea on a small scale, but in reality, it only serves to catalyze more racism.
And in the words of MLK (considering it's almost MLK Day):
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Kinda like what they used to believe in america 50 years ago:
communism anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere
|
There are a lot of laissez-faire ideas in here, but I think we are kind of skimming things a bit. To go deeper, people in the south denied blacks the right to use bathrooms, and other more important parts of public life, simply because they are black. Equal protection under law (part of the 14th ammendment) stopped this. A lot of what we are saying in here goes against the civil rights acts and the post-civil war ammendments. They denied people something as a private business, but through Judicial review, the Warren court proved that the government does have a right to meddle in private business, especially after Baron v. Baltimore proved the federal government could meddle in states rights. The thing we need to think about here isn't who can be descriminated against, since there are very specific laws that allow private business to descriminate for very specific reasons, but not for others. The government serves the people, but even they can descriminate based on some criterion. Instead of arguing about whether or not business can do this (since they can, and are within their rights to) we should argue what constitutes something good enough to refuse business for.
|
^ good post, that's why the only reasonable answer in this poll is 'it depends' and the discussion should be about what it depends on.
|
Wished they made it more consistent in the laws. A big MNC cannot discriminate who they offer their services to but they can or sometimes even forced to discriminate based on race who they hire (yes I hate affirmative action).
|
I disagree with my friend's statement, but he said that the freedom to associated is also the freedom to dissociate.
|
On January 19 2013 14:19 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 13:56 TheToaster wrote:
What would happen if numerous corporations decided to discriminate against a certain ethnicity? Wouldn't that just put us back where America was 60 years ago? Blacks were unable to receive service from many businesses back then. The idea of customer discrimination might seem like a fair idea on a small scale, but in reality, it only serves to catalyze more racism.
And in the words of MLK (considering it's almost MLK Day):
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Kinda like what they used to believe in america 50 years ago: communism anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere
You're taking an MLK quote, disgustingly altering it, then applying it to 1950's politics?
First off: Why?
Second off: How high were you when you wrote that?
|
On January 19 2013 14:19 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 13:56 TheToaster wrote:
What would happen if numerous corporations decided to discriminate against a certain ethnicity? Wouldn't that just put us back where America was 60 years ago? Blacks were unable to receive service from many businesses back then. The idea of customer discrimination might seem like a fair idea on a small scale, but in reality, it only serves to catalyze more racism.
And in the words of MLK (considering it's almost MLK Day):
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Kinda like what they used to believe in america 50 years ago: communism anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere
What's your point, here? Are you agreeing with him or disagreeing with him?
|
Huh, apparently sexual orientation does not seem to be a protected class (yet) in the United states.
That said, I think that discriminating service based on certain traits (such as those mentioned as a protected class) seems to be wrong and should not be allowed. It's an interesting clash of freedom, but overall there's no significant reason to deny service aside from the person doing, being, or believing something different, which is not relevant or fair. I feel weary saying this though; perhaps someone could give an example where such prejudice is relevant. I guess the whole pregnancy thing can be relevant as an employer, and having lots of young kids is relevant for someone coming to a restaurant/other-facility (paintball, go-kart) for service.
Something I thought was interesting that the OP didn't mention, was a case a while ago (that presumably still occurs), where the owner of a shop (I think car repair/service?) will give you a discount if you read a verse from the bible (John 3:16 I think). This seems acceptable to me, because it's just an action someone has to do, not a trait someone has to have, or a believe someone has to have. Even if the verse was different, such as the sentence "I am a homosexual" or "I hate homosexuals", while it does get into gray area, I still think that they are just words, one could maybe start calling it hate speech if the right phrase(s) is present, but still even then, it's a generally private thing said on the premises of a private property; the owner in question is not asking people to make a sign and display a message in a park or on the internet, just to read it on their property, which seems reasonable.
|
The default case is that businesses should not be allowed discriminate, and any specific type of discrimination they want to invoke must be justifiable, and they must be willing and able to justify it to a court if their decision is challenged.
Denying alcohol to some one who is heavily intoxicated is a form of discrimination that has a very reasonable chance of being justified. The subjectivity of the decision if called into question becomes a matter for the judicial system to decide.
|
On January 19 2013 15:03 No_Roo wrote:
The default case is that businesses should not be allowed discriminate, and any specific type of discrimination they want to invoke must be justifiable, and they must be willing and able to justify it to a court if their decision is challenged.
Denying alcohol to some one who is heavily intoxicated is a form of discrimination that has a very reasonable chance of being justified. The subjectivity of the decision if called into question becomes a matter for the judicial system to decide.
I know it's not the point you're making, but I'm not sure how denying someone alcohol that's extremely intoxicated could be construed as discriminatory, specifically because it's illegal to continue to serve an overly intoxicated person and if you choose to do so anyways you become partially legally liable for their subsequent actions.
|
For me the divide on this issue comes down to whether you feel that moving away from your home and family is a reasonable expectation when subject to such discrimination. So called "voting with your feet" is a popular conservative mantra.
In big cities with a lot of competition discrimination is never a good business practice in the long run. The problem is in small like-minded communities. In these communities, being known as a shop owner who upholds Christian values (for instance) actually brings in more business and enhances customer loyalty. Racism may be less overt these days but other forms of discrimination have taken its place.
This could also be an issue in rural communities which lack a competitive environment. Is it okay for the one grocery store within 60 miles of you to deny you business?
|
If a business publicly makes a stance on something, they deserve the full force of whatever PR movement it invokes. Sure, they're free to act however they want in their business, but they better be prepared to deal with the consequences of speaking up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://hannahsarahlewis.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/no-colored-allowed-black-americana-cast-iron-sign-10x4_220665307171.jpg)
