Author Topic: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs  (Read 5994 times)

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 35
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #150 on: July 05, 2018, 08:38:35 PM »
In general I believe that private enterprises should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

I think the law should be by exception only that a business must allow any class of folks in - and that exception should be based on harm/inability to receive the service.

So, for the Colorado baker to refuse service to gays or blacks or anyone should be legal in my view. Why? Because there are plenty of other shops that are willing and able to provide the service.

If that was the only bakery in Colorado or the couple couldn't get to another one without significant cost, then they could sue the bakery for damages (increase in cost to go to another bakery because it's further away or whatever).

As I'm typing this I'm sure there is something wrong with my logic here in that getting to this place (a place where we have bakeries that will cater to everyone) doesn't come automatically and hence the civil rights laws were created. But... we are in that place now (a place where a homosexual couple in Colorado can easily find a bakery for a wedding cake).

I think people need to show actual damage to infringe upon what someone else does with their private property/business.

Does anyone know if that couple was able to find cake? I'm googling and can't find it. (not being a smartass - I just want to find the actual additional cost/hardship to get the cake made)

You do understand that there was a time when “a homosexual/black/X couple in Y state could not easily find a Z business to serve them?”

The level of ignorant complacency in statements like this never ceases to boggle my mind.

Yes, I understand this hence my sentence in my post about getting to where we are may have required those laws. Also, if that is the case today (i.e. there is no easy way for them to get a baker in Colorado) they can sue for damages. But if they are in San Francisco, and there is an anti-gay baker refusing to serve homosexuals, or if there is a racist against blacks baker in Harlem, what harm are they actually causing the homosexuals in San Francisco looking for cakes or the black folks in Harlem looking for cakes?

Don't you think there should be actual harm before we compel people to do things?

Note that while the SC opinion was decided on a technicality, they did have an interesting point in there on the basis of the tribunal's bias:

Quote
Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.

i.e. Are you OK with compelling a homosexual owner of a bakery to write anti-gay messages on a cake?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3029
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #151 on: July 05, 2018, 08:49:56 PM »
In general I believe that private enterprises should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

I think the law should be by exception only that a business must allow any class of folks in - and that exception should be based on harm/inability to receive the service.

So, for the Colorado baker to refuse service to gays or blacks or anyone should be legal in my view. Why? Because there are plenty of other shops that are willing and able to provide the service.

If that was the only bakery in Colorado or the couple couldn't get to another one without significant cost, then they could sue the bakery for damages (increase in cost to go to another bakery because it's further away or whatever).

As I'm typing this I'm sure there is something wrong with my logic here in that getting to this place (a place where we have bakeries that will cater to everyone) doesn't come automatically and hence the civil rights laws were created. But... we are in that place now (a place where a homosexual couple in Colorado can easily find a bakery for a wedding cake).

I think people need to show actual damage to infringe upon what someone else does with their private property/business.

Does anyone know if that couple was able to find cake? I'm googling and can't find it. (not being a smartass - I just want to find the actual additional cost/hardship to get the cake made)

You do understand that there was a time when “a homosexual/black/X couple in Y state could not easily find a Z business to serve them?”

The level of ignorant complacency in statements like this never ceases to boggle my mind.

Yes, I understand this hence my sentence in my post about getting to where we are may have required those laws. Also, if that is the case today (i.e. there is no easy way for them to get a baker in Colorado) they can sue for damages. But if they are in San Francisco, and there is an anti-gay baker refusing to serve homosexuals, or if there is a racist against blacks baker in Harlem, what harm are they actually causing the homosexuals in San Francisco looking for cakes or the black folks in Harlem looking for cakes?

Don't you think there should be actual harm before we compel people to do things?

Note that while the SC opinion was decided on a technicality, they did have an interesting point in there on the basis of the tribunal's bias:

Quote
Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.

i.e. Are you OK with compelling a homosexual owner of a bakery to write anti-gay messages on a cake?

FFS.

Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 35
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #152 on: July 05, 2018, 09:03:34 PM »
In general I believe that private enterprises should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

I think the law should be by exception only that a business must allow any class of folks in - and that exception should be based on harm/inability to receive the service.

So, for the Colorado baker to refuse service to gays or blacks or anyone should be legal in my view. Why? Because there are plenty of other shops that are willing and able to provide the service.

If that was the only bakery in Colorado or the couple couldn't get to another one without significant cost, then they could sue the bakery for damages (increase in cost to go to another bakery because it's further away or whatever).

As I'm typing this I'm sure there is something wrong with my logic here in that getting to this place (a place where we have bakeries that will cater to everyone) doesn't come automatically and hence the civil rights laws were created. But... we are in that place now (a place where a homosexual couple in Colorado can easily find a bakery for a wedding cake).

I think people need to show actual damage to infringe upon what someone else does with their private property/business.

Does anyone know if that couple was able to find cake? I'm googling and can't find it. (not being a smartass - I just want to find the actual additional cost/hardship to get the cake made)

You do understand that there was a time when “a homosexual/black/X couple in Y state could not easily find a Z business to serve them?”

The level of ignorant complacency in statements like this never ceases to boggle my mind.

Yes, I understand this hence my sentence in my post about getting to where we are may have required those laws. Also, if that is the case today (i.e. there is no easy way for them to get a baker in Colorado) they can sue for damages. But if they are in San Francisco, and there is an anti-gay baker refusing to serve homosexuals, or if there is a racist against blacks baker in Harlem, what harm are they actually causing the homosexuals in San Francisco looking for cakes or the black folks in Harlem looking for cakes?

Don't you think there should be actual harm before we compel people to do things?

Note that while the SC opinion was decided on a technicality, they did have an interesting point in there on the basis of the tribunal's bias:

Quote
Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.

i.e. Are you OK with compelling a homosexual owner of a bakery to write anti-gay messages on a cake?

FFS.

Oh, yes, that old argument. Note that I'm not making some moral equivalence between bigots and people who are seeking equal treatment. I'm simply saying there should be harm before we compel private individuals to certain actions.

I'm also making the point that once you allow the government to compel private citizens on their private property to do things they don't want to do it could have unintended consequences once said government becomes nutso - like today. So while you may like forcing people to do the right thing today, the government can then force people to do the wrong thing tomorrow. Maybe Trump will say "hey, Ariziona is now a majority-minority state, so whites are getting discriminated against, let's make all the Latino businesses give whites a discount". You think it's crazy, I think it could happen and they'd use your arguments as a stepping stone.

It's kind of like affirmative action - yes, it's a great idea to give people who would otherwise not have a chance a chance... but wait, what about all those OTHER people who immigrated here with nothing, why are we fucking them? Meh, cause they tried too hard and too many of them got in. Harvard's affirmative action program (and probably others) is now disadvantaging primarily Asians - unintended consequences.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7851
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #153 on: July 06, 2018, 06:42:20 AM »

Oh, yes, that old argument. Note that I'm not making some moral equivalence between bigots and people who are seeking equal treatment. I'm simply saying there should be harm before we compel private individuals to certain actions.

I'm also making the point that once you allow the government to compel private citizens on their private property to do things they don't want to do it could have unintended consequences once said government becomes nutso - like today. So while you may like forcing people to do the right thing today, the government can then force people to do the wrong thing tomorrow. Maybe Trump will say "hey, Ariziona is now a majority-minority state, so whites are getting discriminated against, let's make all the Latino businesses give whites a discount". You think it's crazy, I think it could happen and they'd use your arguments as a stepping stone.

It's kind of like affirmative action - yes, it's a great idea to give people who would otherwise not have a chance a chance... but wait, what about all those OTHER people who immigrated here with nothing, why are we fucking them? Meh, cause they tried too hard and too many of them got in. Harvard's affirmative action program (and probably others) is now disadvantaging primarily Asians - unintended consequences.

I'm certainly sensitive to government overreach, and I'm skeptical whenever there's an attempt to legislate behavior.  However I think there is a big difference between Affirmative Action and requiring service be given to everyone. The former intentionally skews hiring in an attempt to correct for past inequalities, whereas the latter seems to echo the justification given to form our nation ("we hold these truths to be self evident / that all men are created equal / that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...).  For that same reason I see an inherent distinction between trying to legislate "good" actions like wearing helmets or limiting soda intake or any of a number of good-intentioned measures which limit personal freedom, and requiring that service cannot be denied based on your sexual preferences (as well as race, religion, sex, etc).

Finally, you brought up the issue of 'harm' (as in the legal standards of Duty/Breach/Cause/Harm). It seems to me that harm has already been caused when a person has fewer options available to them, not unlike how blacks were harmed when there were clubs they could not enter or water fountains they could not drink from.

"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11027
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #154 on: July 06, 2018, 07:17:36 AM »
In general I believe that private enterprises should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

I think the law should be by exception only that a business must allow any class of folks in - and that exception should be based on harm/inability to receive the service.

So, for the Colorado baker to refuse service to gays or blacks or anyone should be legal in my view. Why? Because there are plenty of other shops that are willing and able to provide the service.

If that was the only bakery in Colorado or the couple couldn't get to another one without significant cost, then they could sue the bakery for damages (increase in cost to go to another bakery because it's further away or whatever).

As I'm typing this I'm sure there is something wrong with my logic here in that getting to this place (a place where we have bakeries that will cater to everyone) doesn't come automatically and hence the civil rights laws were created. But... we are in that place now (a place where a homosexual couple in Colorado can easily find a bakery for a wedding cake).

I think people need to show actual damage to infringe upon what someone else does with their private property/business.

Does anyone know if that couple was able to find cake? I'm googling and can't find it. (not being a smartass - I just want to find the actual additional cost/hardship to get the cake made)

You do understand that there was a time when “a homosexual/black/X couple in Y state could not easily find a Z business to serve them?”

The level of ignorant complacency in statements like this never ceases to boggle my mind.

Yes, I understand this hence my sentence in my post about getting to where we are may have required those laws. Also, if that is the case today (i.e. there is no easy way for them to get a baker in Colorado) they can sue for damages. But if they are in San Francisco, and there is an anti-gay baker refusing to serve homosexuals, or if there is a racist against blacks baker in Harlem, what harm are they actually causing the homosexuals in San Francisco looking for cakes or the black folks in Harlem looking for cakes?

Don't you think there should be actual harm before we compel people to do things?

This is an interesting idea that you've put forth, so I've got a few questions about it.

- You've indicated that a racist baker in Harlem doesn't cause harm because there are other bakers who can be visited instead.  If there's a single bakery in town that serves black people, is that enough?  Two?  What is your minimum threshold until you believe that harm is created by the racist baker?

- How far should minorities have to travel to find a non-bigoted place of business before it does harm?  1 mile?  10 miles?  100 miles?  1000 miles?  If the person being discriminated against has a disability that prevents him/her from driving/walking easily, does this number change?

- I'd argue that bigoted service refusals are actively harmful, as they are quite embarrassing and upsetting to the people being discriminated against as they find out that a particular place is racist.  Would you support a regulation requiring that places refusing service for racist/homophobic/sexist reasons post their policy on their front door?  This would make the business owners intentions quite clear, and prevent the harm that they would otherwise cause.
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 35
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #155 on: July 06, 2018, 09:41:34 AM »

Yes, I understand this hence my sentence in my post about getting to where we are may have required those laws. Also, if that is the case today (i.e. there is no easy way for them to get a baker in Colorado) they can sue for damages. But if they are in San Francisco, and there is an anti-gay baker refusing to serve homosexuals, or if there is a racist against blacks baker in Harlem, what harm are they actually causing the homosexuals in San Francisco looking for cakes or the black folks in Harlem looking for cakes?

Don't you think there should be actual harm before we compel people to do things?

This is an interesting idea that you've put forth, so I've got a few questions about it.

- You've indicated that a racist baker in Harlem doesn't cause harm because there are other bakers who can be visited instead.  If there's a single bakery in town that serves black people, is that enough?  Two?  What is your minimum threshold until you believe that harm is created by the racist baker?

- How far should minorities have to travel to find a non-bigoted place of business before it does harm?  1 mile?  10 miles?  100 miles?  1000 miles?  If the person being discriminated against has a disability that prevents him/her from driving/walking easily, does this number change?

- I'd argue that bigoted service refusals are actively harmful, as they are quite embarrassing and upsetting to the people being discriminated against as they find out that a particular place is racist.  Would you support a regulation requiring that places refusing service for racist/homophobic/sexist reasons post their policy on their front door?  This would make the business owners intentions quite clear, and prevent the harm that they would otherwise cause.

Yeah, these are all good questions that I'm probably not equipped to answer. In general courts refer to what a "reasonable" person thinks. I think for the number/distance of the service should be dependent upon the average someone not of that class experiences. Some areas will have no bakeries just because they are rural etc. But really I think that only "essential services" (like groceries/hospitals) should be forced to serve folks. Again it comes down to my (perhaps warped) definition of "harm". Is anyone really harmed by not being allowed to buy a cake?

The embarrassing/upsetting nature of it isn't really of much concern to me when using government to force someone else to act - there is no right to not be upset or not be embarrassed. I don't think we should use government to force signage indicating their bigotry either; though this is much less of an intrusion on the private business than forcing them to serve folks they don't want to serve so it may be a middle ground that would be acceptable. But this approach requires the bigot to know all of their bigoted stances in advance. e.g. Maybe they didn't even think of not serving Chinese people until one walked in the door. These days with social media I think the message would be out there pretty fast regardless of any sign on the establishment.

I think the proper response to a private business having bigoted views is to protest and boycott and make other folks aware (which is my position on the topic of this thread). I don't think the answer is to use the power of the government to force private individuals/businesses into the action we desire.

Freedom2016

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #156 on: July 06, 2018, 10:18:52 AM »
I don't think we should use government to force signage indicating their bigotry either; though this is much less of an intrusion on the private business than forcing them to serve folks they don't want to serve so it may be a middle ground that would be acceptable.

Wait. Wut? You're cool with sign like the one below?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11027
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #157 on: July 06, 2018, 10:35:23 AM »

Yes, I understand this hence my sentence in my post about getting to where we are may have required those laws. Also, if that is the case today (i.e. there is no easy way for them to get a baker in Colorado) they can sue for damages. But if they are in San Francisco, and there is an anti-gay baker refusing to serve homosexuals, or if there is a racist against blacks baker in Harlem, what harm are they actually causing the homosexuals in San Francisco looking for cakes or the black folks in Harlem looking for cakes?

Don't you think there should be actual harm before we compel people to do things?

This is an interesting idea that you've put forth, so I've got a few questions about it.

- You've indicated that a racist baker in Harlem doesn't cause harm because there are other bakers who can be visited instead.  If there's a single bakery in town that serves black people, is that enough?  Two?  What is your minimum threshold until you believe that harm is created by the racist baker?

- How far should minorities have to travel to find a non-bigoted place of business before it does harm?  1 mile?  10 miles?  100 miles?  1000 miles?  If the person being discriminated against has a disability that prevents him/her from driving/walking easily, does this number change?

- I'd argue that bigoted service refusals are actively harmful, as they are quite embarrassing and upsetting to the people being discriminated against as they find out that a particular place is racist.  Would you support a regulation requiring that places refusing service for racist/homophobic/sexist reasons post their policy on their front door?  This would make the business owners intentions quite clear, and prevent the harm that they would otherwise cause.

Yeah, these are all good questions that I'm probably not equipped to answer. In general courts refer to what a "reasonable" person thinks. I think for the number/distance of the service should be dependent upon the average someone not of that class experiences.

So if there are three bakeries, all three will serve white people, and one will serve black people . . . is that reasonable or not?  What if a disabled black person moves into the neighbourhood, and is unable to physically get to the one bakery that will save him?  I think most reasonable people would say that this is unacceptable.  So, do we just get new lawsuits whenever this disabled black guy moves to a new neighbourhood under your rules?


Some areas will have no bakeries just because they are rural etc. But really I think that only "essential services" (like groceries/hospitals) should be forced to serve folks. Again it comes down to my (perhaps warped) definition of "harm". Is anyone really harmed by not being allowed to buy a cake?

Buying a cake is certainly not a life or death issue.

Fundamentally though, the entire country is being harmed when a person is refused service due to bigotry.  It reduces trade, discourages collaboration, and damages sense of community.


The embarrassing/upsetting nature of it isn't really of much concern to me when using government to force someone else to act - there is no right to not be upset or not be embarrassed.

There is no right to open a bakery either.  If you fail to comply with health and safety laws in your bakery, it will be closed down. If you fail to comply with zoning permits for your bakery, it will be closed down.  If you fail to comply with sexual harassment laws with your employees, it will be closed down.

Nobody has attempted to force the bigoted baker to do anything, that's a straw man . . . but if the baker wants to retain the privileged of licensing his business to be open to the public, he needs to follow all rules and guidelines that this entails.


I don't think we should use government to force signage indicating their bigotry either; though this is much less of an intrusion on the private business than forcing them to serve folks they don't want to serve so it may be a middle ground that would be acceptable. But this approach requires the bigot to know all of their bigoted stances in advance. e.g. Maybe they didn't even think of not serving Chinese people until one walked in the door. These days with social media I think the message would be out there pretty fast regardless of any sign on the establishment.

If you want to take a bigoted stance on an issue, I think that you should be able to.  I don't think you should be able to hide your bigotry though . . . and am not aware of any right to do so guaranteed in the constitution.  My suspicion is that by being very public and up front about bigotry in this manner, some of the problem would sort itself out in a free market based manner.


I think the proper response to a private business having bigoted views is to protest and boycott and make other folks aware (which is my position on the topic of this thread). I don't think the answer is to use the power of the government to force private individuals/businesses into the action we desire.

That's why I'm surprised that you don't support signage or something similar.  I don't share your faith that most people check social media before entering every store in case there are bigots working there.  That means that bigots would often be protected from the impacts of their actions by obscurity, as many folks patronizing a place will not be aware.
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 35
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #158 on: July 06, 2018, 11:03:59 AM »
I don't think we should use government to force signage indicating their bigotry either; though this is much less of an intrusion on the private business than forcing them to serve folks they don't want to serve so it may be a middle ground that would be acceptable.

Wait. Wut? You're cool with sign like the one below?

No, I'm not cool with it. In a discussion with GuitarStv we were discussing the possibility of, *given* a bigoted establishment, should they be forced to let their bigotry be known to everyone who walks by rather than be clandestine about it and only refuse service once someone has already entered. Having a sign would allow patrons who disagree with their views but who are not in the discriminated class the ability to not patronize the establishment and would allow for less embarrassment/upset of the folks being discriminated against.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11027
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #159 on: July 06, 2018, 11:24:34 AM »
I don't think we should use government to force signage indicating their bigotry either; though this is much less of an intrusion on the private business than forcing them to serve folks they don't want to serve so it may be a middle ground that would be acceptable.

Wait. Wut? You're cool with sign like the one below?

No, I'm not cool with it. In a discussion with GuitarStv we were discussing the possibility of, *given* a bigoted establishment, should they be forced to let their bigotry be known to everyone who walks by rather than be clandestine about it and only refuse service once someone has already entered. Having a sign would allow patrons who disagree with their views but who are not in the discriminated class the ability to not patronize the establishment and would allow for less embarrassment/upset of the folks being discriminated against.

Not forced.

You keep using the term "forced", but nobody is forced to do anything unless they want something from the government first (in this case to open a public business).  If they don't want to publicly proclaim their bigotry, they aren't forced to.
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 35
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #160 on: July 06, 2018, 11:27:40 AM »
So if there are three bakeries, all three will serve white people, and one will serve black people . . . is that reasonable or not?  What if a disabled black person moves into the neighbourhood, and is unable to physically get to the one bakery that will save him?  I think most reasonable people would say that this is unacceptable.  So, do we just get new lawsuits whenever this disabled black guy moves to a new neighbourhood under your rules?

Yeah, I don't know. It seems like lawsuits would be the best remedy given my earlier positions. But again the lawsuit would have to show some harm has been caused. What actually happens today if a black person is refused service because they're black? Do they just close the business or does the business get sued by the justice department for cash?

Buying a cake is certainly not a life or death issue.

Fundamentally though, the entire country is being harmed when a person is refused service due to bigotry.  It reduces trade, discourages collaboration, and damages sense of community.

Yeah I agree it's not good, I just don't agree that the government should legislate the not-goodness in this area. Let's say some business discriminated against you because of your color, and then were forced by the justice department (or however that works) to serve you. Would you then actually patronize that business? It seems like either way you're not going to get the service there. At least when they refuse you service you can be happy you didn't give them your money. If the business owner is racist and is forced to serve you, you are unwittingly giving a racist money!

There is no right to open a bakery either.  If you fail to comply with health and safety laws in your bakery, it will be closed down. If you fail to comply with zoning permits for your bakery, it will be closed down.  If you fail to comply with sexual harassment laws with your employees, it will be closed down.

Nobody has attempted to force the bigoted baker to do anything, that's a straw man . . . but if the baker wants to retain the privileged of licensing his business to be open to the public, he needs to follow all rules and guidelines that this entails.

Hrm, I'm not sure I agree there is no right to open a bakery/business because the government is then limiting your freedom. My position is that government services must be available to all because they are public, but private businesses shouldn't have the same constraints. Yes failing to comply with certain rules and regulations have consequences, but we've determined that not complying is likely to cause harm to the business patrons/employees. Refusing service isn't likely to cause harm to anyone in my view, especially for cakes/non-essential services.

That's why I'm surprised that you don't support signage or something similar.  I don't share your faith that most people check social media before entering every store in case there are bigots working there.  That means that bigots would often be protected from the impacts of their actions by obscurity, as many folks patronizing a place will not be aware.

Yeah, I'm just against telling people what signs they must put up on their private property unless it's preventing harm. But i'm not as against that since it's less of an intrusion.

P.S. Man those quotes took so long to edit, is there an easier way for the embedded quotes?!
« Last Edit: July 06, 2018, 11:29:34 AM by dividendman »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11027
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #161 on: July 06, 2018, 11:47:29 AM »
So if there are three bakeries, all three will serve white people, and one will serve black people . . . is that reasonable or not?  What if a disabled black person moves into the neighbourhood, and is unable to physically get to the one bakery that will save him?  I think most reasonable people would say that this is unacceptable.  So, do we just get new lawsuits whenever this disabled black guy moves to a new neighbourhood under your rules?

Yeah, I don't know. It seems like lawsuits would be the best remedy given my earlier positions. But again the lawsuit would have to show some harm has been caused. What actually happens today if a black person is refused service because they're black? Do they just close the business or does the business get sued by the justice department for cash?

Closing the business and then giving the money from the lawsuit to the aggrieved party to make up for the hardship would seem to be the fairest approach.


Buying a cake is certainly not a life or death issue.

Fundamentally though, the entire country is being harmed when a person is refused service due to bigotry.  It reduces trade, discourages collaboration, and damages sense of community.

Yeah I agree it's not good, I just don't agree that the government should legislate the not-goodness in this area. Let's say some business discriminated against you because of your color, and then were forced by the justice department (or however that works) to serve you. Would you then actually patronize that business? It seems like either way you're not going to get the service there. At least when they refuse you service you can be happy you didn't give them your money. If the business owner is racist and is forced to serve you, you are unwittingly giving a racist money![/quote]

Nobody has ever been forced to serve someone they don't want to.  If they don't want to serve someone due to bigotry, they can't keep their buisness open.  If they decide that making money is more important than being a bigot then they choose to serve everyone fairly.  Either scenario is good.


There is no right to open a bakery either.  If you fail to comply with health and safety laws in your bakery, it will be closed down. If you fail to comply with zoning permits for your bakery, it will be closed down.  If you fail to comply with sexual harassment laws with your employees, it will be closed down.

Nobody has attempted to force the bigoted baker to do anything, that's a straw man . . . but if the baker wants to retain the privileged of licensing his business to be open to the public, he needs to follow all rules and guidelines that this entails.

Hrm, I'm not sure I agree there is no right to open a bakery/business because the government is then limiting your freedom. My position is that government services must be available to all because they are public, but private businesses shouldn't have the same constraints. Yes failing to comply with certain rules and regulations have consequences, but we've determined that not complying is likely to cause harm to the business patrons/employees. Refusing service isn't likely to cause harm to anyone in my view, especially for cakes/non-essential services.

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.  If you fail to follow the rules for opening a business (and there are a shit ton - especially for a bakery) you will be closed down.  Nobody has the right to open any business they want.  You do so as a privilege granted by the government.


That's why I'm surprised that you don't support signage or something similar.  I don't share your faith that most people check social media before entering every store in case there are bigots working there.  That means that bigots would often be protected from the impacts of their actions by obscurity, as many folks patronizing a place will not be aware.

Yeah, I'm just against telling people what signs they must put up on their private property unless it's preventing harm. But i'm not as against that since it's less of an intrusion.

Kicking someone out of your store because they're black does harm.  If it didn't do any harm, there wouldn't be any hard feelings and nobody would be upset about it.

The signs prevent this harm from being done.  Again though, the business owner is free not to put up the signs if they don't want to . . . they just can't be a bigot.


P.S. Man those quotes took so long to edit, is there an easier way for the embedded quotes?!

Not that I know of.  :P
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.