Right to service

[Wufnu]

An article linked in the anti-gay thread got me thinking: what do the people on this forum think about a business owners right (or lack of) to selective serve customers?

On one hand, I personally feel that any business owner should be able to manage their business how they see fit and if they don't want blacks, gays, jews, whiteys, or drunks in their business they should be able to not serve them... however, I also think that's just wrong as hell.

Should the government mandate they serve all people equally or should we let the dollar make them do it? Would legal discrimination of services lower the quality of life for the people they refuse to serve? Does it actually do them harm?

If they should be allowed free reign, would there be an exceptions? Health care, for example.

[HackerX]

Refusal of Service != Discrimination.

If a business owner, say, refuses to serve any gay person in their business then they would get hit with a discrimination law suit, not because of refusal of service.

So a business owner is free to refuse service to anybody, but they can't use a discriminatory reason to do it.

An example perhaps:
A business owner may refuse service to a drunk person. That's perfectly legal, since being drunk doesn't fall under any discrimination laws. It could be for safety reason's, local liquor laws etc. Doesn't matter.
A business owner may refuse service to one black drunk person. That's also perfectly legal, for the same reasons.
A business owner may not refuse service to all black people, unless his reason is that they were all drunk at time. A history of refusal to service any person, regardless would be his only saviour there. And he'd have a hard time proving that they were "all" drunk. Even bias one way or the other would be enough to get him for discrimination.

[blueback]

There are protected classifications that you cannot use to make a decision. For example, race, ethnicity, etc without first proving that the classification has a direct effect on some sort of performance. You can discriminate based on sex, for example, but only if you can prove that it matters. The standard of proof is high enough to protect people from being discriminated against but not so high as to become an absurd, arbitrary standard.

Legally this is stretched to include the idea that a business owner must take steps to make a job accessible for someone who would otherwise not be suited to the job. If a person can only work from home for medical reasons, and they apply for a job, the business must prove that it cannot restructure the job to allow the handicaped person to fill it because otherwise they will lose the lawsuit.

Sometimes people have to be forced to get along. I think it's ultimately good for us.

[Undead Bonzi]

Refusal of Service != Discrimination.

If a business owner, say, refuses to serve any gay person in their business then they would get hit with a discrimination law suit, not because of refusal of service.

So a business owner is free to refuse service to anybody, but they can't use a discriminatory reason to do it.

I think his general question/idea was sort of a 'should they be allowed to discriminate based on race/religion/sexuality ect/' rather than wondering if it would be considered 'discrimination' by law or if they would be allowed to.



The curious part of me wants to see discrimination legalized if for no other reason than to see all the hidden racisim and hate come boiling to the surface. I think a few people would be suprised just how much is hidden under the surface or held in check by anit-discrimination laws. Would brining this hate out in the open be the begining of the end of racisim or would it make it worse than ever I wonder? On one hand any discriminatory business would be shooting itself in the foot, but you also have to wonder if such places wouldn't also gain a new and different clientel to replace those that they refuse to serve. Also such laws would open opportunities for the savy and undiscriminating business owners to scoop up clientel from other businesses.

Back in the 60's the blatant and allowed discrimination served as fuel for social change, but now that such discrimination is more hidden there is less motivation for change. I think if they legalized discrimination today we would see new battlelines drawn and today I don't think it would be as simple as it was in the 60's.

[Wufnu]

Yes, I was asking more of a "should they be allowed to discriminate and if they were what would the effects be."

[blueback]

No. They should not.
The effects would be civic unrest and decreased economic efficiency at a minimum.

[Indy]

Well, "discriminination" isn't inherently illegal. Semantically, when I only like my beef rare, instead of medium or well-done, I'm "discriminating" on cooking time and there thousands examples like it. You discriminate on height in amusement parks, on age in movies, etc.
They discriminate 'un-cool people' in clubs.
So you always deal with some calculation of social well-being when you make this legal decision

Banning drunk people from business establishments seems reasonable, since they tend to disturb other customers. Although I think the 'Wasted Alliance for America' might have a different opinion.

But what if you're local bar has an extremely hill-billy clientele. Certainly the entrance of 'colored' man would disturb other customers.

Or gay men in a nude sauna could be considered to be uncomfortable for some of those who would attend it.

Or Russian sailors like they tried to ban in a Japanese bath-house a few years ago.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree with Wufnu that discrimination on race, sex or religion is just wrong as hell, but determining the boundaries can be hard and subjective.

Making it legal altogether would bring major, world-wide, condemnation and a gigantic step back altogether.

[SShack]

My position on this attitude has evolved quite a bit. I used to think that yes, we need anti-discrimination policies when it comes to business/customer relations. But, now I don't really think so and perhaps it's because our society has evolved so much.

I think the market fixes the problem just fine right now. If a business doesn't to deal with person X because of Y, there are likely plenty of others who will. So businesses with more open policies will therefore make more money and potentially outnumber those who don't, who will then go out of business. Discriminating businesses will also likely face negative public responses, causing them to lose additional business.

The problem is when a particular type of discrimination is so widespread within one particular type of business or venture that those discriminated against have no alternatives in the market at all. But I think, over time, we've developed more "rational" business leaders that somebody is going to realize they can make plenty of money serving the underserved.

[blueback]

Discriminating businesses will also likely face negative public responses, causing them to lose additional business.

...But I think, over time, we've developed more "rational" business leaders that somebody is going to realize they can make plenty of money serving the underserved.
This theory only works when it is illegal to discriminate or when no one wants to.

People are not rational. If they are discriminating openly it means that the public supports them, or at least the portion of the public that matters. This means that people will actually give more business to someone who discriminates than to someone who doesn't.

The reason you put "rational" in quotes is that you knew it was the wrong word to use. What you should have written was "non-bigoted." When people don't want to discriminate they don't. When the public doesn't want to discriminate it will force the business owners who do to stop it.

We have to force people to deal with each other because it is the only way to overcome the fear and hatred of the unknown and the different that fuels bigotry. Once they have overcome their bigotry the rules won't matter any more. We won't know that we've overcome racism (or any other 'ism') because people are calling for more freedom to discriminate. We will know we've overcome bigotry when people have to be reminded of what it is.

[Silence]

As a business owner, I reserve the right to choose my clientele. I meet them on the phone first, and from questioning, I determine if a) I can provide the services they need, b) they actually know and understand what they need, c) if there is a problem with legality, they understand that fact, and d) if they are an a$$hole, I don't deal with them. Period.

Fortunately, there sems to be no laws against discriminating against a$$holes.

[Monte314]

When I was a young software engineer, there was a hotel that a bunch of us used to stay at in Huntsville, Alabama. There was a waitress there, about 40 or so, who was always in a terrible mood. We called her "the Hostess from Hell" (HFH).

Anyway, one time one of our new hire engineers was along with us... this woman was an absolutely gorgeous blonde, perfectly groomed and dressed. We went down to breakfast at the hotel and all sat at the same table. The HFH took our order, but would not acknowledge, look at, or speak to our new friend. One of us had to order for her.

We hypothesized that the HFH had probably been "displaced by a newer model", and found herself waiting tables to make ends meet. We think our new coworker was experiencing a little backlash!

[SShack]

This theory only works when it is illegal to discriminate or when no one wants to.

People are not rational. If they are discriminating openly it means that the public supports them, or at least the portion of the public that matters. This means that people will actually give more business to someone who discriminates than to someone who doesn't.

The reason you put "rational" in quotes is that you knew it was the wrong word to use. What you should have written was "non-bigoted." When people don't want to discriminate they don't. When the public doesn't want to discriminate it will force the business owners who do to stop it.

We have to force people to deal with each other because it is the only way to overcome the fear and hatred of the unknown and the different that fuels bigotry. Once they have overcome their bigotry the rules won't matter any more. We won't know that we've overcome racism (or any other 'ism') because people are calling for more freedom to discriminate. We will know we've overcome bigotry when people have to be reminded of what it is.

Do you realize that nothing you've posted here actually requires laws against discrimination to happen? Social pressures and market forces are what causes this to happen, not an order from the government.

[blueback]

Do you realize that nothing you've posted here actually requires laws against discrimination to happen? Social pressures and market forces are what causes this to happen, not an order from the government.



If they are discriminating openly it means that the public supports them...

...When people don't want to discriminate they don't. When the public doesn't want to discriminate it will force the business owners who do to stop it.

...We have to force people to deal with each other because it is the only way to overcome the fear and hatred of the unknown and the different that fuels bigotry.


My point, in brief, is that market forces are driven by bigotry, not the other way around. If people are bigoted, their business decisions will be affected. Therefore, the government has to step in and force people to get along until they realize that other people aren't really that different.

[SShack]

My point, in brief, is that market forces are driven by bigotry, not the other way around. If people are bigoted, their business decisions will be affected. Therefore, the government has to step in and force people to get along until they realize that other people aren't really that different.

And my response is that market forces are driven by money, not bigotry. People may be driven by bigotry, but if they make discriminatory decisions and get their bottom lines hit hard enough, that's a much better (and probably faster) way of bringing about change than laws.

Read about the bus boycott issue back in the civil rights days to get what I'm talking about it. The bigoted white government stepped in to try to put a stop to it because it was successful. The reason we needed to pass civil rights legislation to end desegregation was not because of the business community, but because bigoted government leaders were using the law to protect bigoted business leaders from the consequences of their racist decisions.

In other words, government needs to step in to stop discrimination caused by the government, but the private market can police itself -- as long as the government doesn't protect bigots.

[blueback]

Read about the bus boycott issue back in the civil rights days to get what I'm talking about it. The bigoted white government stepped in to try to put a stop to it because it was successful.

The reason it was successful was that the bus companies depended on the blacks commuting from their homes to their jobs. So when the blacks started walking the bus companies weren't making any money.

But wait, didn't the blacks make the boycott decision because of bigotry? Didn't they allow their financial decisions to be swayed by their feelings? They didn't like being discriminated against, so they spoke with their wallets. . .that sounds just like what I said about "market forces being driven by bigotry."

In other words, government needs to step in to stop discrimination caused by the government, but the private market can police itself -- as long as the government doesn't protect bigots.

Nope. People will make their financial decisions with their bigotry. However, they can be forced to get over their bigotry by the government.

[SShack]

The reason it was successful was that the bus companies depended on the blacks commuting from their homes to their jobs. So when the blacks started walking the bus companies weren't making any money.

But wait, didn't the blacks make the boycott decision because of bigotry? Didn't they allow their financial decisions to be swayed by their feelings? They didn't like being discriminated against, so they spoke with their wallets. . .that sounds just like what I said about "market forces being driven by bigotry."

Nope. People will make their financial decisions with their bigotry. However, they can be forced to get over their bigotry by the government.

The boycott decision was because they were receiving unequal treatment for paying the same amount as whites, which is also a market issue. Equality in the marketplace is fundamentally an issue of receiving the same services for the same money as others.

Your belief that the government "forces people to get over their bigotry" is so fundamentally naive that I just don't know what to say. There are all sorts of ways for businesses to get around discrimination laws if they're that committed to their ideology.

[Minxz]

This may sound naive and lacking in accurate detail but government (supposedly) can only make the rules when majority wants them. So when the majority wants something pressure is placed on those in power and leverage is usually attained through finances either with negative (boycott) or positive reinforcement (contributions).

THEN once the law is in place the job of making sure its enforced tends to fall to those who care... All around us every day laws are being broken but until one that matters to us personally is broken we tend to ignore it.

So the law is a tool. Discrimination laws can never accurately cover every scenario and some people will misuse them. I think the idea is good though the execution will always be flawed...

I believe that every human being regardless of race, culture or lifestyle should be treated with a modicum of dignity. That does not mean I agree with every lifestyle but that we all have the right to choose. If I provide a service as long as the people using the service are following that principle there is no reason to deny them service.

[blueback]

The boycott decision was because they were receiving unequal treatment for paying the same amount as whites, which is also a market issue. Equality in the marketplace is fundamentally an issue of receiving the same services for the same money as others.

Whatever. You didn't actually address my point.

1) Blacks felt discriminated against
2) Blacks boycotted buses

That is pretty obviously a financial decision inspired by bigotry. Another example would be:

1) Whites don't like Blacks
2) Whites refuse to serve them

Again, a financial decision based on bigotry. The opposite process makes no sense:

1) Whites decide to stop serving Blacks for no particular reason
2) Whites become bigoted

This doesn't happen. The financial decisions are inspired by the feelings of bigotry. The Blacks used more than financial pressure to get the laws changed. Once the laws were changed, people gradually accepted each other, at least to a greater extent than they had before. If the laws hadn't changed the two groups would have just hated each other more.

Your belief that the government "forces people to get over their bigotry" is so fundamentally naive that I just don't know what to say. There are all sorts of ways for businesses to get around discrimination laws if they're that committed to their ideology.

Businesses aren't committed to any ideology; people are. People are bigoted, not businesses. People make the decision not to serve other people, for whatever reason.

If the government doesn't allow people to refuse to serve other people for lame reasons like "I hate Black people" it forces them to swallow their hatred. Because they can't act on it openly the law results in greater equality. Greater equality means that the barriers to acceptance are lower, which results in more acceptance. More acceptance gradually results in people realizing that things like skin color don't matter.

When people realize that they stop making bigoted decisions.

[SShack]

Your tossing around of the word "bigotry" is what is confusing me. Yes, it's true that people are making business decisions based on bigotry. But these are poor business decisions that ultimately damage the business's bottom line by artificially limiting the customer base. Without the support of government endorsing and protecting such behavior, such businesses would either have to change or possibly perish. During the boycott, blacks started their own cab services and undercut prices of the competition, a smart business move to develop a client base. The bigots responded by using the government to try to force the blacks to raise their prices.

If the local government had not gotten involved, what would have happened then? These companies would have had to change their policies or face possible extinction. When it comes to inappropriate behavior by businesses, people seem to ignore the role that the government has played in propping up this behavior in the first place with abuse of the law. That's what I mean when I say the government should be responsible for policing discrimination from within the government.

If the government doesn't allow people to refuse to serve other people for lame reasons like "I hate Black people" it forces them to swallow their hatred. Because they can't act on it openly the law results in greater equality. Greater equality means that the barriers to acceptance are lower, which results in more acceptance. More acceptance gradually results in people realizing that things like skin color don't matter.

When people realize that they stop making bigoted decisions.

This is your personal belief in what happens. It is not supported by facts or evidence and I don't agree with your assertion. Certainly interacting with people of different races and cultures does play probably the biggest role in eliminating discrimination, but the government has nothing to do with it.

[blueback]

Certainly interacting with people of different races and cultures does play probably the biggest role in eliminating discrimination, but the government has nothing to do with it.
You just agreed that I was right, except that you disagree that the government can force people to "interact wiht people of different races." Why do you disagree?

[SShack]

Because the government can't force people to believe things. It doesn't make any sense.

[blueback]

I didn't say "force them to believe" an neither did you. We both said "interact."

If it's illegal for a business owner to refuse service to someone because they are Black, then they will be forced to interact with Black customers. They are still free to now want to, but if they want to stay in business they will have to swallow their bigotry and deal with the people they hate. They might not ever hate one iota less, but their customers will also have to deal with the scary, different people. Most of the people who are forced to interact with the "others" will realize that they're normal people, and therefore not worth hating.

The more people get to know each other the less room is available for fear and hate.

QED.

[SShack]

I didn't say "force them to believe" an neither did you. We both said "interact."

If it's illegal for a business owner to refuse service to someone because they are Black, then they will be forced to interact with Black customers. They are still free to now want to, but if they want to stay in business they will have to swallow their bigotry and deal with the people they hate. They might not ever hate one iota less, but their customers will also have to deal with the scary, different people. Most of the people who are forced to interact with the "others" will realize that they're normal people, and therefore not worth hating.

The more people get to know each other the less room is available for fear and hate.

QED.

And what I am saying is that all of these changes will happen without government involvement. Prior to desegregation, there was plenty of conflict between Anglo immigrant ethnic groups in America, particularly in big cities popular with immigrants. We got over it, mostly, and it didn't take antidiscrimination laws to make it happen. We didn't have to pass a law to forbid discrimination against the Irish or the Italians or the Polish.

Your argument is that the government is the solution to the problem. My argument is that the government is often the cause of the problem and if it didn't sanction discrimination, the market would fix it on its own.

The big discrimination risk is against groups that are so small that there's very little financial incentive to accommodate them. Transgendered folks come to mind. They're concerned about getting left out of the gay/lesbian rights movement because they lack the numbers to make it financially foolish to snub them.

[blueback]

Your argument is that the government is the solution to the problem. My argument is that the government is often the cause of the problem and if it didn't sanction discrimination, the market would fix it on its own.

There is no need to restate my position. I've made it quite clear in my own words.

By tring to restate it all you did was strawman it. I never said the government was the solution, I said that laws were a solution. Seriously, it's not a falbergasting idea. You've already supported it with your own example.

The big discrimination risk is against groups that are so small that there's very little financial incentive to accommodate them. Transgendered folks come to mind. They're concerned about getting left out of the gay/lesbian rights movement because they lack the numbers to make it financially foolish to snub them.

So, are you saying that the market will not spontaneously help these people?

Wherever there is bigotry, there is discord, unrest. Businesses generally shy away from unrest because it makes investment decisions very risky and hard to calculate. When people are forced to get along, businesses can invest in the area. When people are allowed to fight each other, and unret ensues, businesses stay away.

[SShack]

???

laws = government.

[blueback]

laws <= government

This is a form follows function moment. I don't care what form the laws take, just what function they perform.

[SShack]

Well ... I don't care what you do or don't care about. When you talk about laws, you're talking about the government. If you can't realize and accept that, there's not even a point in continuing this discussion and I'll take my leave of this thread.

[blueback]

ATo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . .did I hurt your "E"?

Here, just because it's you, I'll lay out my argument very carefully:

1) People hate what they don't know
2) People are capable of knowing more than they are inclined to seek out
3) Capitalism is an exchange of values
4) People can't value what they don't know
5) People won't choose to know, and overcome hate, voluntarily
6) Laws can force people to know because it is better than punishment
7) Once people know, they can value
8) When people can value they can engage in capitalism
9) Capitalism gives everyone something practical to worry about
10) People start hating the rich

Please note that laws are a small portion of my argument. I don't care where they come from. You are getting side-tracked.

Of course, now I'm curious if you're actually going to abandon the thread or if you're going to respond. . .the tension is killing me.

[SShack]

I'm more than content to just leave things as they are and let those who read the thread decide who has made a rational argument based on historical analysis, and who is arguing emotionally with nothing to back it up other than a personal belief in how people behave.

Good luck!

[Undead Bonzi]

I vote for.....ME! I win at everything forever!

I stand by my point that I would like to see the anti-discrimination laws removed just to watch all the hate so many people deny come boiling right back to the surface. I think it would be a wake-up call to many who have grown complacent.