Private property / public establishments

I've gone around this ring a couple of times with my more PC-oriented acquaintances. They contend that privately-owned businesses should be forced to serve everyone. I contend that the First Amendment (which they support) gives people the right to hold and state opinions that may be truly assholic in nature, and that is the cost of freedom of speech. I further contend that this same logic entitles a business owner, tradesperson, or professional the absolute right to choose who they accept as customers or clients, and who they allow into their establishments. Would they be ignorant asses to turn away business based on personal bigotry? Sure. Should they be allowed to be ignorant asses if they choose to be? Sure. The alternative is the PC hell we are currently voting our way towards.

Discuss. Politely, please.

They should be able to say anything I agree with and allow anyone I like but ban anyone or any speech that offends me.

your freedom (or any resemblance thereof) only extends to the boundaries of the next guy's rights. Freedom for some to do whatever the berk they please looks a lot like Mogadishu. The right to serve only blue-eyed people interferes with green-eyed people's right to be treated equally. So if you choose to serve the public, you've chosen to serve all of em - although green-eyed owners, serving mostly green-eyed people the products green-eyed folk want will probably not have a big contingent of blue-eyed customers...

Duke wrote: They contend that privately-owned businesses should be forced to serve everyone.

I think Priavte businesses should be allowed to do as they wish inside the confines of the law(discrimination, EOH, etc.) Now, market forces might make the business change its mind pretty fast, but that's another story.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:

So, in other words, you think that businesses should be forced to serve people they may not want to serve.

that is just it.. if your doors are open for anybody to walk in (i.e. the public) you have to serve them all. If you are running a "club" where you have to pay to be a member, that is a different story

mad_machine wrote: that is just it.. if your doors are open for anybody to walk in (i.e. the public) you have to serve them all. If you are running a "club" where you have to pay to be a member, that is a different story

Why, out of curiosity? If the establishment is your business and your property, why should you be required to serve any particular person if you don't want to?

Duke wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: So, in other words, you think that businesses should be forced to serve people they may not want to serve.

No. I just don't think they should do anything illegal. For example, families.. You could put a No small kids outside a store. Age is only a protected class under the law over 40. You can turn down service to people without shirts or smelly people or homeless people or rich people.. but not their race, sex, age(within law limits) religion, etc..

I understand what you are saying, but it's a slippery slope to "No * people" signs on the front door.

nah.

I can vote with my dollar and not shop at places I don't like (or where I don't like their politics) and businesses that don't like me or my politics can ask me to leave.

They shouldn't be "forced" to do anything they don't want to do, and neither should I (within reason, that is).

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 See Title II and VII

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

In reply to mad_machine:

Not true. If someone is swearing up a storm, half naked, drunk, and so on you don't have to serve them.

I'm of the opinion that if you own the business you can refuse business to whomever you want for any reason you deem fit.

oldtin wrote: your freedom (or any resemblance thereof) only extends to the boundaries of the next guy's rights. Freedom for some to do whatever the berk they please looks a lot like Mogadishu. The right to serve only blue-eyed people interferes with green-eyed people's right to be treated equally. So if you choose to serve the public, you've chosen to serve all of em - although green-eyed owners, serving mostly green-eyed people the products green-eyed folk want will probably not have a big contingent of blue-eyed customers...

I think this sums it up beautifully

As far as the law goes, Apexcarver hit it. If you look at our history, I think that it is a slippery slope and I won't patronize places that limit who may enter based on sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. I'm a PCA member and honestly wish they would let in anyone and not just p-car owners. Although, a 924 parts car is usually practically free so.....

In reply to Datsun1500:

So, is a bartender providing a product, or a service?

bartender is selling you a drink

What about a caterer that runs a reception hall?

I throw people out occasionally because they drive German cars, or they are cheap, or stupid. I don't throw people out because they are brown, or have boobs bigger than mine.

If I provided a necessity that wasn't available somewhere else, I'd have to serve cheap, stupid BMW owners.

Datsun1500 wrote: Retail business, I am selling you goods for money and can not refuse to sell it to you for the marked price.

Not necessarily. You can refuse service to anyone as long as it isn't based on race, or anything covered in civil rights legislation. I have refused service to several people, both in retail and service industries, but never based on what they look like or whether they were sitters or standers.

In a retail setting it was because the people in question were shiny happy people and were impossible to please. I finely told them, they needed to find another supplier, that I wouldn't not sell to them any longer. Race, sex etc. didn't enter into it. Just a friendly GTFO, I can't afford you as a customer anymore.

In a service industry, I have refused service to several people. Usually based on failure to pay, or slow to pay invoices. Again, race, sex, etc. didn't enter into it.

So refusal to serve isn't the issue, it's the reason for not serving that will get you bent.

As to the federal government getting into who a business has to serve, lets just say I don't think the country isn't as free as it should be on a national level and leave it at that.

In reply to Toyman01: "As to the federal government getting into who a business has to serve, lets just say I don't think the country is as free as it should be on a national level and leave it at that."

Well said.

A business can refuse to serve anyone as long as it's not for race, sex or religious reasons. Having said that, it's financial suicide to start doing customers like that, the word gets around and believe me the retail establishment will ALWAYS- ALWAYS- lose. Even if the customer is being an azzhole. Seen it too many times. I can recount war stories where people were azzholes, in the wrong from the starting gun, we bent over backwards and yet still got a crappy Google review. I got one from a guy who went in UP FRONT admitting he broke a door panel yet tried to squeeze us for it, over and over. Documented on the RO. STILL tried again and again, said we broke it worse.

Just another reality of day to day life because people today are manipulative greedy self centered E36 M3s who have no intention of accepting responsibility for their actions and they have been trained that way since birth. I despair of the future of humanity.

So: If you are gonna eject or fire a customer, have an excellent reason and document hell out of it.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

That only seems to apply if you are a car dealership.

Anti-discrimination laws are explicitly in conflict iwth individual property rights and freedom of association, in order to try to change certain irrational, but commonly-held historic beliefs.

This tension becomes most obvious if you consider anti-discrimination housing laws in the context of being a homeowner and renting out a room in one's house. Imagine the homeowner is a woman -- should she be allowed to specify that she will only accept women as housemates, or should the gender discrimination laws force her to accept anyone who applies and passes the credit check, even if that person is male? If the former, then why does the fact that she also lives in the house she's renting out mean that it's OK to discriminate?

Toyman01 wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: That only seems to apply if you are a car dealership.

Pretty much, yeah. Tell you what: you wanna learn about how people really tick? Write service for a few years.

About the roommate thing: that's a bit different from retail. Inviting someone to share your home for money, you should be able to have some input into who you want since your personal safety is at stake.

Now, if renting to the general public you have to have documentation of WHY you rejected a tenant. It can be done for financial reasons (credit report, etc) or other things like that but NOT on grounds of race, religion etc and that is a big part of why background and financial checks should always be run. I will be honest and say that I have seen tenants rejected on what I would call 'secondary' background check reasons, that's because eviction is a bastard to do no matter what anyone tells you. It's sometimes better to nip it in the bud, one deal from several years ago sticks out because the prospective tenant was a well known voodoo witch doctor. And no I am not making that up.

Duke wrote:

mad_machine wrote: that is just it.. if your doors are open for anybody to walk in (i.e. the public) you have to serve them all. If you are running a "club" where you have to pay to be a member, that is a different story

Why, out of curiosity? If the establishment is your business and your property, why should you be required to serve any particular person if you don't want to?

so you own a diner … and a black woman walks in and wants to be served … you're saying it's ok (because you own the diner) to refuse her service because you're a bigoted racist ?

because that's where this would end up if it is deemed ok to refuse service

In reply to wbjones:

Or it could be a woman that has horrible hygiene, is half naked, and is attempting to pay with sweaty boob money but happened to be white......IDGAF what race you are, I'd politely say we wouldn't accept her payment and ask her to leave. If she didn't leave for whatever reason, call the cops. You can be asked to leave from any private establishment at any time for several reasons, failure to comply is criminal trespass. Posting signs at the door pertaining to race, religion, gender, or disabilities is where you can get in trouble.