Do Businesses Have the Right to Refuse Service Based on Moral/Religious Objections?

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by BullDog

No one is forcing anyone to offer goods and/or services to the public. If someone's religious views precludes them from offering goods and/or services to someone based solely on the fact of someone's sexual orientation, race, religion or other individual characteristics that are protected by law, they can choose not to go into business in the first place. Maybe they should work in some isolated cubicle somewhere where they don't have to deal with people at all.

These laws are to protect against discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion and other characteristics that have been historically discriminated against. Why are people arguing against having laws that protect homosexuals/same sex couples from being discriminated against and being denied goods and services?

Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.

I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).

(ps.....I have a libertarian streak )

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.

I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).

(ps.....I have a libertarian streak )

Actually no I wasn't responding to your post. So you think it's ok for someone to deny offering their services to someone based on their sexual orientation or race?

[Soon]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Would people like this protection presently afforded the interracial couple removed b/c they believe the business owner's moral and religious beliefs should take precedence over their right to service?

I knew I would overlook one along the same idea.

If I missed others, I think the point involved in these series of questions is apparent. (?)

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Actually no I wasn't responding to your post. So you think it's ok for someone to deny offering their services to someone based on their sexual orientation or race?

My personal feelings are not really the point. However.........no I don't think it's right and yes I would do my best to avoid giving them my money or time.

Folks/business DO have the right to discriminate against queers or folks who like sparkly stuffed ponies/poodles. However the government certainly cannot reward said business/individuals for having discriminatory practices. No personal or business tax breaks. If your tax bracket is 37%. then 37% of your personal and business income (and I mean ALL income....no deductions ever allowed. Period. Full Stop.)

The government cannot discriminate or reward those who do. Individuals and organizations certainly can, but at a pretty big cost in the area of taxes and government programs.

[BullDog]

Toughy, I am a former accountant so I am familiar with the tax code. Beyond that, I don't know what you are saying.

[Toughy]

to help stop discrimination you must make it less profitable because passing laws is not very effective......

well..........you know all those tax deductions you and every other accountant get for your clients..,those deductions that lower the actual percentage of taxes paid by said business? If one of those clients has discriminatory practices or policies then they get NO tax deductions on their income taxes......they are not eligible for any deductions and will pay exactly what their tax bracket is by law....it works this way:

business tax bracket is 37% of total income
deductions/breaks/subsidies/etc lower percentage payed to 5%
business gets a 32% tax deduction.

business discriminates & tax bracket is 37%
therefore business MUST pay 37% of all income as taxes
because they discriminate they get NO deductions.

as an individual I will do my best to avoid patronizing said business because I do not agree with the business plan, practices, and/or policies

I am talking about governments laws practices and policies vs business practices and policies. Tax deductions are a privilege not a right. deductions are an incentive toward good business practices. The government should not reward repugnant businesses with tax breaks/deductions/subsidies/programs.


This is a capitalist society......profit is king......discrimination makes you pay more taxes and you get less profit,,,,,,,,, business will stop discriminating because it is less profitable

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.

I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).

(ps.....I have a libertarian streak )

Toughy,

Doesn't your government already tell you that you cannot discriminate in your private business against certain groups of people?

Didn't your government intervene to stop unfair and prejudicial business practices with Title 2 of Civil Rights Act?

I am asking if people believe that private businesses should be allowed to deny services based on that owner's religious or moral beliefs.

Because of the Civil Rights Act, isn't it true that a local store cannot deny a Muslim couple goods and services just because the owners don't approve of non-Christians?

I thought that since this law has been in place since 1964 that people would largely agree that a private business cannot deny service--regardless of the owner's moral or religious beliefs--to someone based on that person's, race, religion, gender, or ethnicity....and, consequently, support a queer couple's right to goods and services as well.

[adorable]

I think there is a difference in reserving the right to refuse service to anyone and discrimination.

As a manager I have refused service to people. All kinds of people, for a variety of reasons. But I have not targeted a specific group of people except when I have....like "locals." I manage a hotel. We don't like locals. We don't want locals staying at the property. There are exceptions of course, some people are remodeling their house, there might be a water or some other type of emergency....but overall locals are staying with us because there is something that they don't want to do at home. Whether it's set up a meth lab, cheat, deal drugs, prostitute or throw a party. It's never anything good for my business.

But we can't have a blatant no locals policy. The reason we can't is because of a case where a hotel owner refused to let locals stay. The reason they did it is because high school kids were reserving rooms for huge parties, trashing the hotel, throwing up in the halls and generally causing a huge headache.
Because most of the kids were local - they just said "No locals." The only problem with that policy was that the geographic area for locals was populated mainly by minorities. (Even though the high school kids they were really trying to keep away were mostly white.) The hotel owner lost a huge lawsuit because the courts decided it was a discriminatory policy.

I rent to people I can't stand personally all the time. Church groups and hunters are a couple big ones. I hate guns. I hate seeing a bunch of strangers walking around the hotel with shotguns which are "too expensive to be left in the truck." People saying to me "Praise Jesus, God is good." Every single time they interact with me in large numbers is just as strange to me as the guys talking to me with shotguns on their shoulders. I smile and nod just the same. Oh, and thank them for coming so that they come back next year.

The good of the business dictates that I don't turn away good customers, regardless of how I feel about their belief's, views or politics. It's best not to discuss it. That is different then people who I feel may put other guests happiness and enjoyment of the property in jeopardy. I have had people set up meth labs (which can level and entire city block,) drug dealers raided by swat, pimps beating up the prostitutes, drunken contractors fist fighting in the halls, college kids on three day crack binges....race has nothing to do with any of it. In fact, no one could guess what goes on in someone's room based on how they look. I have had very wealthy appearing people check in, only to have the FBI check in right behind them and want to be in the room across the hall. Ugh. Anything that brings the police to the property = bad. That hurts business. Paying customers that don't cause drama and are spending money - we want. I don't have to live with them, they eventually check out.

[Soon]

/snipped/

Originally Posted by Toughy

to help stop discrimination you must make it less profitable because passing laws is not very effective......

I have to disagree that passing laws isn't very effective in preventing or reducing discrimination.

I think when businesses realized (and public school boards -- who lately are getting sued a lot due to discriminations against LGBT students) that they can be CHARGED by the federal government, as well SUED by the consumer, due to existing legislation, it makes a very large impact!

Do we see any more signs that say whites only?

If a business did that today they would be charged and sued -- EVEN if the owner's personal beliefs didn't approve of different races mingling.

I think laws were and are necessary to prevent this kind of discrimination.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Toughy,

Doesn't your government already tell you that you cannot discriminate in your private business against certain groups of people?

yes it does, however that does not mean I agree with the laws

Didn't your government intervene to stop unfair and prejudicial business practices with Title 2 of Civil Rights Act?

I'll take your word that it's Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act. I'm not so sure the goal has been accomplished.....depending on where you live.

I am asking if people believe that private businesses should be allowed to deny services based on that owner's religious or moral beliefs.

YES I do think private business should be allowed to deny services based on religious or moral beliefs. I don't believe they should get any tax break or any other governmental monetary reward for doing so. It needs to be a bad business model to deny services to anyone in a discriminatory fashion.

Because of the Civil Rights Act, isn't it true that a local store cannot deny a Muslim couple goods and services just because the owners don't approve of non-Christians?

Yeppers that is a true stateent. Ask any Muslim how it's working for them.

I thought that since this law has been in place since 1964 that people would largely agree that a private business cannot deny service--regardless of the owner's moral or religious beliefs--to someone based on that person's, race, religion, gender, or ethnicity....and, consequently, support a queer couple's right to goods and services as well.

As Gomer Pyle used to say SIR PRIZE SIR PRIZE with that goofy ass look on his face.

The problem with having protected classes is every time a new group gets added to the protected classes, a huge ass long nasty hateful debate occurs prior to adding them. Lines are drawn and folks are shoved in various boxes. The government finally adds them or doesn't add them and the nasty crap continues for at least 50 years.

It's not safe in parts of many states for a POC to be walking around....same goes for queers, muslims, jews, and _____ . It's been close to 60 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed. In many places the effect of that has been violence moving underground and folks still not safe.

In hind sight, one could argue that the Civil Rights Act has in some ways made it worse for the black community. Once integration passed and white businesses were forced to allow blacks in their businesses, thousands of black businesses went bankrupt. A booming black middle class came to a screeching halt as black business owners lost customers by the hundreds and had to close go bankrupt.

It's a hella big conundrum. What would have happened if instead of forced integration and decimation of black businesses, the government had allowed whites only business to continue, and had taken away every single tax deduction those white business were allowed? What if it had hurt the bottom line for those business?

These are just some thoughts that run through my head.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

/snipped/





I have to disagree that passing laws isn't very effective in preventing or reducing discrimination.

I think when businesses realized (and public school boards -- who lately are getting sued a lot due to discriminations against LGBT students) that they can be CHARGED by the federal government, as well SUED by the consumer, due to existing legislation, it makes a very large impact!

Do we see any more signs that say whites only?

If a business did that today they would be charged and sued -- EVEN if the owner's personal beliefs didn't approve of different races mingling.

I think laws were and are necessary to prevent this kind of discrimination.

actually there are still whites only signs in this coutry.......go about 300 miles north of SF and you will find them.......

Business that did change did so because they lost MONEY. It's all about the money in capitalism. They did not change because their hearts changed or because it was against the law. They changed because of money.

I also think there is a second discussion about the role of government in business and in business regulation.

[betenoire]

We do have freedom of religion in Canada, but there are limits placed on that freedom. I'm okay with that. What if your religion said that you could (and should!) have several wives (all of whom are under the legal age at the time that you marry them)? That's what the limits on freedom of religion are for. You're free to believe what you want, assemble with other believers, talk about your belief - up to the point that your religious practices break the law or harm someone else. I don't think that's unfair.


Just for fun:

Toronto printing press owner refused to print out letterheads and envelopes with the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives logo on them because he's a "born again Christian". They sued. He lost. He had to pay the Archives 5k and also had to pay their legal fees on top of his own legal fees.

This little tidbit should be interesting to the people from the "omg but that would mean that I can be forced to make milkshakes with the blood of virgins at my place of business because I'm not allowed to say no to anything!!!!" camp: While it was ruled that he could not refuse to do letterheads for them, it was also ruled that he was welcome to refuse to print out literature that was against his religion.

[BullDog]

Toughy, you sound like Ron Paul, the Conservative Republican Congressman from Texas who opposed the renewal of the Civil Rights Act in 2004.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Son Rand is following in his footsteps and is part of the Tea Party Movement. Oh yes, and I believe they are both Libertarians as well.

[Martina]

It is true that corporations' desire for gay people's money and the talents of gay folks as employees has created faster change than legal interventions would have. Still we need legal protections.

[betenoire]

Toughy,

I gotta give you mad props for answering. Every other person who was opposed to LGBT folks becoming a protect class who I asked if they thought there should be no protected classes refused to answer. (Not sure why?)

That's what I like about you. Unafraid to say something that could potentially be unpopular or misunderstood takes guts. I like guts. I like your guts.

I'm not going to lie, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Because I'm not American, I'm young enough that I wasn't alive when it happened, and because I'm White. Fuck, I'll own that. I've got that very White tendency to not know how things actually are - I try, but when it boils down to it I'm still pretty ignorant.

But, you know, not so ignorant that I don't get that there was backlash and is backlash. I also get that if "sexual orientation" becomes a protected class that there will be backlash to that too - but baby the times are a changin' and I want to believe that the immediate ugly wouldn't be as bad now as it was then.

And to me backlash (or the potential that there will be backlash) isn't reason enough to not want protection for my queer friends in the US.

In Canada sexual orientation was added to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1995, and in 96 we were added to the Human Rights Act. The 90s were wicked-heavy on culture wars issues (which I guess was our backlash) but I can't see any evidence that becoming protected has harmed my community in any way.

[adorable]

Having a protected class is important for me personally because it draws attention to the bigger issue.

My grandfather is 82 years old. He is prejudice and racist. Not according to him mind you. One thing that I've always found very interesting that he said is that "if blacks would just assimilate they wouldn't have all these problems."

Well, alrighty! Why didn't black people just think of that? He hated the Irish and Italians just as much. Because when he was little, most of the Italians and Irish in our town were immigrants that couldn't speak English well. As a town, everyone hated them. They were different. But, goes my grandfather's argument, they assimilated so now no one hates the Italians and Irish anymore.

He did drop out of school in the 3rd grade.

Black people and hispanics cannot "assimilate." Arabs and, I would argue, Jews struggle too. Neither can most gays, queers, fags, dykes, lesbians or the rest of our little rainbow. They stand out. This is where a protected class matters. Is there a backlash? Sure. The south is still a very different place then the north.

Over time, things slowly change because there is no government tolerance of hate. When any government has a policy of hate and discrimination or there is a silence on such things, obscene things are allowed to happen. WWII Germany is a good example. Segregation in this country is too. Lynching, slavery, murder - all things bad that were allowed by the government. Don't ask don't tell, outward discrimination towards of all people, our military. Sexual harassment of women at work or flat out refusing to hire women...There are a million examples but it's too early for me to think of more right now.

There was a time when the KKK was a powerhouse in this country. Today? They are more of an annoyance during their occasional march. They were marginalized because as a country we decided to move past it. The way we do that is by passing laws that unify us against stupidity. Forcing the issue, makes it an actual issue that people can no longer deny. It also makes crime and discrimination against a protected class EXPENSIVE. Once it's not easy to discriminate, companies change their policies and people's attitudes slowly change.

Sloooowly. There is still prejudice, discrimination, hate, and ignorance. With a protected class, we say "These people here, THESE people, they belong to us - leave them alone." There are laws. It's not enough. Attitudes change slowly over generations only with constant reminders from the government (which WE are a part of.) The government is more then an annoying bureaucracy it's also a collective majority with the power to change lives through legislation.

It does and has changed all of our lives. We CAN march. We CAN vote. We CAN work. We CAN own property. And if anyone questions our right to do that we CAN sue the shit out of them. People CAN be charged with hate crimes for hurting one of us.

I personally don't care if someone doesn't like me because I'm queer. We can't force people to like each other. But I do care very much that the government doesn't discriminate against me and that they not send a message that it's ok for others to do the same. I can "assimilate" until I go apply for a marriage license, join the army, end up in the hospital, want a raise, or want to adopt. Blacks and Hispanics, have no problem getting marriage licenses as long as their straight, but have a much harder time getting a job regardless of sexual orientation.

As minority groups we are not all in the same place at the same time but we are all in the same boat. Any in roads help us all, and setbacks hurt us all.

[Chancie]

I am perfectly comfortable refusing my personal help or services to a someone with whom I have a serious ideological difference.

As a public school teacher,

I am morally and legally obligated to extend my professional efforts to all of my students, regardless of their ill thought out offensive opinions.

But, I will not extend myself to a student who is being disciplined for calling someone a 'dyke' or a 'nigger' the way I would extend myself to a student who was in trouble for failing a math test.

I would certainly withhold my expertise from someone who wished to hire me privately.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Toughy, you sound like Ron Paul, the Conservative Republican Congressman from Texas who opposed the renewal of the Civil Rights Act in 2004.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Son Rand is following in his footsteps and is part of the Tea Party Movement. Oh yes, and I believe they are both Libertarians as well.

Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul (recently elected to the US Senate from Kentucky) both claim Libertarian over conservative Republican. There is a difference between the two. I don't understand why Libertarians have moved to the Republican side since their views on individual rights are certainly more in line with Democrats.

On the surface what I suggested certainly does sound like the Pauls. It's not anywhere near their politics. Libertarians don't believe in Government at all. No Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury (and the Federal Reserve), Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security and a whole bunch of other Cabinet level jobs.

What I suggested is the role of government (in this instance) is to motivate business to act right by costing them that all mighty profit. And it's not limited to discrimination. All the big oil, big agriculture (ADM, Monsanto), ________ companies get government subsidies even though they damn sure don't need them...what the fuck is that about. WalMart pays less in taxes than I pay....and yes that is true......yet has the largest class action discrimination lawsuit ever filed in this country. Why are they getting subsidies, tax deductions from the Government? Cities and States (and federal) routinely give very profitable businesses big ass tax breaks to locate plants, headquarters, etc in their city/states. Why???? And why are they getting those breaks when they are being sued for discriminatory practices? Filing a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar business will only drain money out of the Treasury, because those businesses can pay off anyone/everyone and flood tons and tons of paperwork on the plantiff. I'm willing to bet if they had to pay ALL their taxes no exceptions, some of their practices will certainly change. It's a law, but a law attacking a different method of changing abhorrent business practices.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Toughy,

I gotta give you mad props for answering. Every other person who was opposed to LGBT folks becoming a protect class who I asked if they thought there should be no protected classes refused to answer. (Not sure why?)

That's what I like about you. Unafraid to say something that could potentially be unpopular or misunderstood takes guts. I like guts. I like your guts.

I'm not going to lie, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Because I'm not American, I'm young enough that I wasn't alive when it happened, and because I'm White. Fuck, I'll own that. I've got that very White tendency to not know how things actually are - I try, but when it boils down to it I'm still pretty ignorant.

But, you know, not so ignorant that I don't get that there was backlash and is backlash. I also get that if "sexual orientation" becomes a protected class that there will be backlash to that too - but baby the times are a changin' and I want to believe that the immediate ugly wouldn't be as bad now as it was then.

And to me backlash (or the potential that there will be backlash) isn't reason enough to not want protection for my queer friends in the US.

In Canada sexual orientation was added to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1995, and in 96 we were added to the Human Rights Act. The 90s were wicked-heavy on culture wars issues (which I guess was our backlash) but I can't see any evidence that becoming protected has harmed my community in any way.

Under our current system, there is no choice but to have protected classes and I support having protected classes.

I was just trying to get at the problem in a different way, which ain't ever gonna happen. Thinking outside the box if you will.

I do not believe in assimilation..........this country should not be a melting pot.......it should be a salad bowl. Our differences make us stronger..........assimilation makes us weaker.

(I feel the same way about you)

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul (recently elected to the US Senate from Kentucky) both claim Libertarian over conservative Republican. There is a difference between the two. I don't understand why Libertarians have moved to the Republican side since their views on individual rights are certainly more in line with Democrats.

On the surface what I suggested certainly does sound like the Pauls. It's not anywhere near their politics. Libertarians don't believe in Government at all. No Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury (and the Federal Reserve), Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security and a whole bunch of other Cabinet level jobs.

What I suggested is the role of government (in this instance) is to motivate business to act right by costing them that all mighty profit. And it's not limited to discrimination. All the big oil, big agriculture (ADM, Monsanto), ________ companies get government subsidies even though they damn sure don't need them...what the fuck is that about. WalMart pays less in taxes than I pay....and yes that is true......yet has the largest class action discrimination lawsuit ever filed in this country. Why are they getting subsidies, tax deductions from the Government? Cities and States (and federal) routinely give very profitable businesses big ass tax breaks to locate plants, headquarters, etc in their city/states. Why???? And why are they getting those breaks when they are being sued for discriminatory practices? Filing a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar business will only drain money out of the Treasury, because those businesses can pay off anyone/everyone and flood tons and tons of paperwork on the plantiff. I'm willing to bet if they had to pay ALL their taxes no exceptions, some of their practices will certainly change. It's a law, but a law attacking a different method of changing abhorrent business practices.

I certainly don't think the current tax code is fair. However, I also don't think significant social change is going to happen through tweaking the tax code.

We shouldn't have to have protected classes but until racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia are done away with, I do think that Civil Rights Acts and Equal Protection under the law is necessary and worth fighting for.

Your previous post sounded to me as though you thought we would be better off without the Civil Rights Act.