NationStates Jolt Archive

Well?

We can discuss the legal realities, sure, but let's focus on the arguments themselves. Do you believe that private business owners should have the unfettered right to deny service? Why or why not? Should there be some limits? Complete limitation?

yes. if for any reason he feels uncomfortable with a potential customer he can turn him away.

As a person who is generally in favor of the free market, I'd have to say no, because discrimination blows and I don't want to see a bunch of signs everywhere saying "whites only" or some other similar nonsense.

Of course there are the usual exceptions for safety, sanitation, and whatever, but generally speaking, no.

Errrm... I really don't know...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/SaintB/1193920787163.jpg

I feel that any refusal of service should have to be bona fide. For example, service rendered would likely result in harm coming to employees, or to property. There could be other bona fide reasons for refusal of service...a daycare centre with limited space refusing more children, a business specialising in aiding adults with mental disabilities refusing a healthy adult service etc. Whims, prejudices, or simple ill temper should never be grounds for refusal.

You can argue that in a free market system, the market will 'punish' business owners who make bad decisions in regards to service, but hey, the 'free market' is a pipe dream, and frankly, I don't think we should be enabling idiots, douchebags, or stupid dumbfucks just because they 'went into business for themselves'.

As a person who is generally in favor of the free market, I'd have to say no, because dicrimination blows and I don't want to see a bunch of signs everywhere saying "whites only" or some other similar nonsense.

Of course there are the usual exceptions for safety, sanitation, and whatever, but generally speaking, no.

This. I think that they can turn away individuals but not based on certain groups (race, gender, orientation that sort of thing).

I feel that any refusal of service should have to be bona fide. For example, service rendered would likely result in harm coming to employees, or to property. There could be other bona fide reasons for refusal of service...a daycare centre with limited space refusing more children, a business specialising in aiding adults with mental disabilities refusing a healthy adult service etc. Whims, prejudices, or simple ill temper should never be grounds for refusal.

You can argue that in a free market system, the market will 'punish' business owners who make bad decisions in regards to service, but hey, the 'free market' is a pipe dream, and frankly, I don't think we should be enabling idiots, douchebags, or stupid dumbfucks just because they 'went into business for themselves'.

This is basically a much better version of my opinion on the subject.

When you open yourself up to the public, you accept that you will be dealing with the public.

When you open yourself up to the public, you accept that you will be dealing with the public.

Way to say nothing.

Way to say nothing.

actually I said exactly a response to your post. People open businesses for their own benefit, they seek to make money. Thus they seek to benefit from the public of the free society outside their door. In exchange, they agree to do so fairly. It's part of the arrangement, if you want to reap the benefits of a free and open society, namely that anyone can walk into your door and buy stuff from you, then you have to accept the consequences, you have to be willing to sell to whomever walks in your door willing to buy stuff from you.

When you open your doors to the public, you accept that it is the public that will walk in, in all its various and sundry forms

actually I said exactly a response to your post. This sentence shall be taken out back and shot.

People open businesses for their own benefit, they seek to make money. Thus they seek to benefit from the public of the free society outside their door. In exchange, they agree to do so fairly. It's part of the arrangement, if you want to reap the benefits of a free and open society, namely that anyone can walk into your door and buy stuff from you, then you have to accept the consequences, you have to be willing to sell to whomever walks in your door willing to buy stuff from you. When you open your doors to the public, you accept that it is the public that will walk in, in all its various and sundry forms

What if you are the type of businessman that actively seeks out specific clientele then? As a door-to-door saleswomyn, I go peddling my love potions, but only to black lesbian jews. Is this okay because I'm not relying on the public to wander into my store?

This sentence shall be taken out back and shot.


What if you are the type of businessman that actively seeks out specific clientele then? As a door-to-door saleswomyn, I go peddling my love potions, but only to black lesbian jews. Is this okay because I'm not relying on the public to wander into my store?

you can market to any group you want. But if a white christian male walks up and wants to buy one, he has a right to, provided you have stock to sell.

you can market to any group you want. But if a white christian male walks up and wants to buy one, he has a right to, provided you have stock to sell.

And if I run away from him?

What gives the white christian male the right to buy the love potions I specifically brewed for black lesbian jews, especially since I'm not implicitly opening up my services to the public at large?

I voted "unfettered," but I might have meant more "limited." I feel that essential services (like hospitals or pharmacies) should be required to accept everyone. On the other hand, more luxury type things (like restaurants or liquor stores) should have unlimited right to discretion.
Of course, that just leaves me with the question of "what makes a service essential," and that's a bit more amorphous. I'd say something like a hotel is "essential" after dark, a grocery store would be "essential" if there isn't another one within 5 miles.

Why is it okay to deny someone a ball of yarn simply because they're wearing a yellow raincoat?

Conversely, why would this not be okay?

if someone comes in to your business and causes a scene, or attempts to rip you off, you have every right to ask them to leave and to not come back.

Why is it okay to deny someone a ball of yarn simply because they're wearing a yellow raincoat?
Because it is my goddamn yarn, and I ain't gonna have no yellow mac'd fools running off with it and ruining the carefully constructed brand image I've spent 20 years working on.

Because it is my goddamn yarn, and I ain't gonna have no yellow mac'd fools running off with it and ruining the carefully constructed brand image I've spent 20 years working on. if he wants it he can send one of his better dressed friends in to buy it, then purchase it from them on the secondary market... which brings up the question should businesses have any control of what happens on the secondary market to their products?

Ahhh...like...should the producer of a trademarked children's toy have any recourse if a consumer turns around and sells said children's toy as a sex toy to depraved adults?

*wiggles eyebrows*

I would go with the flow here, in disruptive or dangerous cases, then yes, but based on superficial characteristics, no.

So if you would be comfortable with the government saying 'no denying service because of someone's race', why would it be okay beyond that to deny service to someone with a ring in their nose?

So if you would be comfortable with the government saying 'no denying service because of someone's race', why would it be okay beyond that to deny service to someone with a ring in their nose?

It wouldn't be. I said all superficial characteristics, so any denial of appearance based on things like piercings, tattoos, ect, would also be prohibited. Dress, however would not be covered, so "no shoes/shirt" and fancy places would be covered as well.

Yes, so long as they don't breach any anti-discrimination laws.

well, yes, that's kind of the point. We're discussing the type of anti-discrimination laws there should be.

I am of two minds on this, while I agree that private citizens should be allowed some degree of freedom to do as they please, I also feel that in order for the government to protect the rights of various groups of people, it has to sometimes step on the allowence of freedom.

I wouldn't want to let people discriminate on the bases of, say, Religion or skin color, but people should still be allowed to refused business with people who look shady or could pose a risk to the other patrons.

Ahhh...like...should the producer of a trademarked children's toy have any recourse if a consumer turns around and sells said children's toy as a sex toy to depraved adults?

Who buys used sex toys? On second thought, it might be better not to ask.

Rolling squid;13988169]It wouldn't be. I said all superficial characteristics, so any denial of appearance based on things like piercings, tattoos, ect, would also be prohibited. Dress, however would not be covered, so "no shoes/shirt" and fancy places would be covered as well.

Clothes or the the lack thereof aren't superficial characteristics?

Yes, so long as they don't breach any anti-discrimination laws.

hahaha

The sole and only purpose of a business is to make money. Discrimination against any type of customer is not a good way to make money, so discrimination is usually a bad idea. Given that, if the company's owners choose to do so, nobody outside the company, especially the government, has any right whatsoever to tell them they cannot do so. Who a company chooses to have as its clientele is no one else's business.

I have the perfect solution: People can discriminate who they service based on race, but doctors can do the same to said people. That way, while the bigot is there bleeding to death, the black doctors can stand there and watch until he croaks slowly and painfully and that way EVERYBODY wins! :D

I think companies should be able to send anyone way they so choose, with out having to provide a reason. Imagine you run a toy store. you are a African American toy store owner, but you willing sell to anyone. However due to location of the store and the focus of the business (say Kwanzaa type toys or whatever) the vast majority of your customers are also African American. At your store you take pride in allowing children to run around freely and try to toys so often children are unaccompanied by their parents as they roam around the store for sometimes as long as an hour interval, while their parents buy them Kwanzaa gifts(do they even give gifts?) in secret. Well one day a White male enters your store. At first you think he is just curious are looking to add some multiculturalism to his kids life. however after about 30 minutes it appears he is only pretending to look at the items your selling, instead he is staring at the children.

I as a owner of private property should be able to kick him out and not tell him why, because to do so would threaten my business. Imagine what would happen to business if word got out some sicko child molester was in the store.

Completely private businesses, that are on land not purchased by any government entity, that pay no taxes, that have no relations whatsoever to any form of government entities, can do what they wish. Thus, there are no completely private businesses in the strict sense of the word; they are all controlled or heavily to slightly influenced by the government.

I'm a capitalist and a proponent of free market. That said, I am very much aware that complete freedom in any endeavor can, and will be, abused. So, while as an idealist, I favor laissez-faire capitalism, as a realist I know that it can never work equitably. There have to be constraints and limits. A merchant can refuse service, in my opinion, if he has a reasonable and demonstrable expectation that 1. he won't be paid: 2. the customer will steal from him or destroy property: 3. the customer is there for other illicit purposes (say drug dealing or prostitution) that will drive off legitimate customers. He cannot refuse service, again in my opinion, for reasons of race, religion, gender, gender preference or choice of legitimate employment. There has to be a balance between free trade and fair trade. If the merchant won't do it voluntarily, then the government must impose it.

Say you own a business. The product in the store is your property. You can sell it to whomever you choose. How can anyone have the right to your product/property?

Simple. It's NOT your property. You're on government land. Everyone who is alive is on technical government land. Whether the government enforces its right to sovereignty and land is up to that government.

Say you own a business. The product in the store is your property. You can sell it to whomever you choose. How can anyone have the right to your product/property?

Exactly! I don't want darkies in my hospital! I don't want darkies sitting in the front of the bus, going to school and damn they shouldn't have to eat with the white people! Oh for the days of separate entrances!

:rolleyes:

Should be limited rights as it is now in the US. If you don't put some restrictions on refusing service you are asking for trouble. We are talking humans here.

Simple. It's NOT your property. You're on government land. Everyone who is alive is on technical government land. Whether the government enforces its right to sovereignty and land is up to that government.

Sorry, that's my mistake. I'm saying property as in the product you're selling. Unless you're talking about product as in saying that the product you own and are selling is actually the governments?

Drunk and playing devil's advocate:)

Exactly! I don't want darkies in my hospital! I don't want darkies sitting in the front of the bus, going to school and damn they shouldn't have to eat with the white people! Oh for the days of separate entrances!

:rolleyes:

Hospitals = Not really sure if there is a private owner
Public transportation = Government operated
Public school = Government operated
Restaurants = Private

Sure, the government could never get away with segregation. Suppose there were different hospitals and establishments for different races/genders/sexuality, they'd get the same amount of business in a world that's split down the middle because it's privately owned and entrepreneurs would fill the need.

All I'm saying is that a private owner is selling their property, they should sell it to whoever they want. I'm in no way advocating racism/sexism/whatever.

Hospitals = Not really sure if there is a private owner
Public transportation = Government operated
Public school = Government operated
Restaurants = Private

Sure, the government could never get away with segregation. Suppose there were different hospitals and establishments for different races/genders/sexuality, they'd get the same amount of business in an ideal world because it's privately owned and entrepreneurs would fill the need.

There are private hospitals.

If you allow for segregation in the private sector then you allow for it in the public sector.

The free market is a quixotic dream at best.

Even in your example. If I don't like darkies then I wouldn't want the local government to grant permits to have businesses setting up to help them. After all they can get that somewhere else! Better they move away then spoil my community!

Say you own a business.
I do.
The product in the store is your property.
It is.
You can sell it to whomever you choose.
Well, there's the little matter of them choosing me. It's in my self-interest to make my product as attractive as possible to the largest group of people, so that I can maximize sales and therefore profits. Not all of my competitors have grasped that simple concept.

Being a sensible businessman, I specifically package my merchandise to potential customers that have been disenfranchised elsewhere. It's amazing to me how many Southern US businesses do their best to turn away gay clientèle. Childless professionals are an ideal audience for semi-luxury goods like the books and games that I sell. They're the ones with the disposable incomes, you see.

I have and will continue to refuse service to disruptive assholes that cost me business. I turn away the idiots who expect a full-service storefront to match internet pricing (and non-existent profit margins). It's not like they're likely to be my customers anyway - you can find everything I sell cheaper somewhere else, but you might not be able to get the instant gratification of a walk-in purchase.

Yeah, I have the right to refuse service. I just don't exercise it very often. That's why I'm still profitably in business after 28 years.

I have and will continue to refuse service to disruptive assholes that cost me business. I turn away the idiots who expect a full-service storefront to match internet pricing (and non-existent profit margins). It's not like they're likely to be my customers anyway - you can find everything I sell cheaper somewhere else, but you might not be able to get the instant gratification of a walk-in purchase.

Yeah, I have the right to refuse service. I just don't exercise it very often. That's why I'm still profitably in business after 28 years.

This! is what the right to refuse service is about! This is not discrimination.....

I feel that any refusal of service should have to be bona fide. For example, service rendered would likely result in harm coming to employees, or to property. There could be other bona fide reasons for refusal of service...a daycare centre with limited space refusing more children, a business specialising in aiding adults with mental disabilities refusing a healthy adult service etc. Whims, prejudices, or simple ill temper should never be grounds for refusal.

You can argue that in a free market system, the market will 'punish' business owners who make bad decisions in regards to service, but hey, the 'free market' is a pipe dream, and frankly, I don't think we should be enabling idiots, douchebags, or stupid dumbfucks just because they 'went into business for themselves'.
Indeed. That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter as well.

As a person who is generally in favor of the free market, I'd have to say no, because discrimination blows and I don't want to see a bunch of signs everywhere saying "whites only" or some other similar nonsense.

Of course there are the usual exceptions for safety, sanitation, and whatever, but generally speaking, no.This.

The problem with the free-market solution to discrimination is that it leads to people being stuck in ghettos (due to the fact that the only businesses that will serve them are in "their" areas), and from that, the disenfranchisement and de facto loss of freedom-of-travel of those discriminated against. I don't want a return to the world of "this area's businesses serve whites, the black part of town is down there (and vice versa)!"

I do.

It is.

Well, there's the little matter of them choosing me. It's in my self-interest to make my product as attractive as possible to the largest group of people, so that I can maximize sales and therefore profits. Not all of my competitors have grasped that simple concept.

Being a sensible businessman, I specifically package my merchandise to potential customers that have been disenfranchised elsewhere. It's amazing to me how many Southern US businesses do their best to turn away gay clientèle. Childless professionals are an ideal audience for semi-luxury goods like the books and games that I sell. They're the ones with the disposable incomes, you see.

I have and will continue to refuse service to disruptive assholes that cost me business. I turn away the idiots who expect a full-service storefront to match internet pricing (and non-existent profit margins). It's not like they're likely to be my customers anyway - you can find everything I sell cheaper somewhere else, but you might not be able to get the instant gratification of a walk-in purchase.

Yeah, I have the right to refuse service. I just don't exercise it very often. That's why I'm still profitably in business after 28 years.

righteous. and beautiful. thanks. peace.

We can discuss the legal realities, sure, but let's focus on the arguments themselves. Do you believe that private business owners should have the unfettered right to deny service? Why or why not? Should there be some limits? Complete limitation?
Generally, yes, with possible limitations only in the most severe and cases. Such a case used to be the "black issue", but that's it. Refusing service to people without jackets, for instance - perfectly within their right.

Still, I see it as permissible to run a business that only caters to a limited group of people. Say, you wouldn't cry out "discrimination!" if a cinema declared the first rows of seats will only be sold to people shorter than 5'4", would you? Even though they have no choice of what height they are.


Ultimately, I believe the anti-discrimination system should work as tax breaks for those complying with the policies, rather than blanket bans and criminal proceedings against those non-complying.

Ahhh...like...should the producer of a trademarked children's toy have any recourse if a consumer turns around and sells said children's toy as a sex toy to depraved adults?

*wiggles eyebrows*
you mean like this:
http://www.randomimage.us/files/41edaf58815a8.jpg
Hello Kitty dildo.

you mean like this:
Hello Kitty dildo.
I've seen sites selling these, but it's not a dildo, it's a VIBLATOR.

I've seen sites selling these, but it's not a dildo, it's a VIBLATOR.
viblator? wtf is a viblator? ;)

you mean like this:
http://www.randomimage.us/files/41edaf58815a8.jpg
Hello Kitty dildo.

Not exactly. She's talking about actual toys that were originally intended to played with by children being repacked and then remarked as sex toys, not taking something like the Hello Kitty character and using it as an inspiration for a sex toy.

Not exactly. She's talking about actual toys that were originally intended to played with by children being repacked and then remarked as sex toys, not taking something like the Hello Kitty character and using it as an inspiration for a sex toy.
I figured that. I just wanted an excuse to post a pic of a vibrator.
strange needs and all that.


Back to what Nees said, then it'd be a clear case of copyright infringement - nothing to do with serving people or not.

Why is it okay to deny someone a ball of yarn simply because they're wearing a yellow raincoat?

Conversely, why would this not be okay?

Maybe you have a terror-inducing fear of people in yellow raincoats. Maybe a raincoat-clad maniac killed your family. *nod*

you have to be willing to sell to whomever walks in your door willing to buy stuff from you.



Isn't that just basic common sense if you're a business owner?

I don't think any universals can be applied here, it relies on the opinion of whether the autonomy of business is more or less important than the possible discrimination some people might suffer. But that's really all it comes down to.

Yeah, I have the right to refuse service. I just don't exercise it very often. That's why I'm still profitably in business after 28 years.
You're older than I thought.


On topic: I support safety-related restrictions (no fireworks sold to people below a certain age), hygiene-related restrictions (no public swimming pool visits for people with infectious skin diseases), security reasons (person is threatening other patrons or staff) and financial prudence reasons (person can be shown to not be likely to pay). I am against all sorts of restrictions that are imposed due to the facility owner's preferences in clientèle, up to and including such things as "no shoes/no shirt", dress codes etc. A disruption of the facility's regular ambiance that is not clearly a security or hygiene concern can certainly be uncomfortable for the facility owner, but should IMHO be no grounds for refusing service.

I figured that. I just wanted an excuse to post a pic of a vibrator.
strange needs and all that.


Back to what Nees said, then it'd be a clear case of copyright infringement - nothing to do with serving people or not.

No, there might be issue with abuse of trademark, but it has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.

You're older than I thought.


On topic: I support safety-related restrictions (no fireworks sold to people below a certain age), hygiene-related restrictions (no public swimming pool visits for people with infectious skin diseases), security reasons (person is threatening other patrons or staff) and financial prudence reasons (person can be shown to not be likely to pay). I am against all sorts of restrictions that are imposed due to the facility owner's preferences in clientèle, up to and including such things as "no shoes/no shirt", dress codes etc. A disruption of the facility's regular ambiance that is not clearly a security or hygiene concern can certainly be uncomfortable for the facility owner, but should IMHO be no grounds for refusing service.

So you're in support of bona fide restrictions, and nothing more.

Seems simple enough, dunnit?

So you're in support of bona fide restrictions, and nothing more.

Seems simple enough, dunnit?

Is that sarcasm I hear winging its way from gazillions of miles away?

Is that sarcasm I hear winging its way from gazillions of miles away?

From me!? Unlikely in the extreme.

You and I appear to be the only sane ones in this thread m'dear.

So you're in support of bona fide restrictions, and nothing more.

Seems simple enough, dunnit?

I know business owners who can turn any form of discrimination into a "bona fide restriction". Black guy walks in, picks up an item to purchase, only to be told, "Sorry, sir, that's already been sold." Or they simply ignore him until he wanders off in disgust. Or follow him so closely (the Suspected Shoplifter Syndrome) that he leaves. Or simply stares at him.

You don't need to prop up a Whites Only sign to enforce Jim Crow laws in the South. And yeah, the attitude still exists, despite laws to the contrary. However, any savvy racist can find adequate and 'reasonable' explanations why he's not being racist, just careful. Nobody buys the excuses, of course, but that doesn't prevent him from denying service.

Nothing is that simple. You ought to know better.

From me!? Unlikely in the extreme.
Liar, liar!

You and I appear to be the only sane ones in this thread m'dear.

It doesn't bode well for any thread, or humanity in general, when *I* am the designated bastion of sanity.

I know business owners who can turn any form of discrimination into a "bona fide restriction". [...]
You don't need to prop up a Whites Only sign to enforce Jim Crow laws in the South.

I know that is so, and it is terrible, but does not really address the issue of the thread, does it? What you're describing is how people manage to legally circumvent laws, but what I understood Sin to ask is what laws there (not) supposed to be - regardless, for the moment, of their implementation, or effectiveness in practice.

I know business owners who can turn any form of discrimination into a "bona fide restriction". Black guy walks in, picks up an item to purchase, only to be told, "Sorry, sir, that's already been sold." Or they simply ignore him until he wanders off in disgust. Or follow him so closely (the Suspected Shoplifter Syndrome) that he leaves. Or simply stares at him.

You don't need to prop up a Whites Only sign to enforce Jim Crow laws in the South. And yeah, the attitude still exists, despite laws to the contrary. However, any savvy racist can find adequate and 'reasonable' explanations why he's not being racist, just careful. Nobody buys the excuses, of course, but that doesn't prevent him from denying service.

Nothing is that simple. You ought to know better.

Any savvy racist can try to circumvent existing anti-discrimination laws already. The 'bona fide' justification can defeat claims of discrimination in relation to those enumerated areas.

So, if you extend anti-discrimination to basically cover everyone, it doesn't change the fact that smart bigots will get around it...but it does mean that if you have a business owner with a hate on for goths and emos, those goths and emos will have the same chance to file a complaint as a black person. Will they be any more successful? It really depends.

It depends upon the business; let us examine prostitution....

It depends upon the business; let us examine prostitution....

The beauty of the concept of bona fide refusal is that it is industry and situationally specific. Where it might make complete sense for one business owner to refuse service to minors (let's say, a liquor store), another may not be able to justify it (an indoor playplace). So imagining a regulated sex industry, the reasons for bona fide refusal of service would be quite unlike those acceptable in other industries.

This is kind of a difficult subject for me, because I can kind of agree with arguments on both sides. On the one hand, nobody should be discriminated against for a stupid reason. On the other, while it may be stupid for a business owner to do so, I do think they should generally have the right to be stupid.

One thing I can definitely agree on is that discrimination should not be allowed in instances of necessity. A hospital should not be allowed to refuse emergency treatment on any basis but inability to provide it. A store selling luxury items, on the other hand, should probably have more leeway.

I believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose as long as they do not violate any laws.

however, the results of such a choice is not something I can complain about as long as they too, do not violate any laws.

If I find a Hotel that refuses to cater to a certain group due to some property of that group. I can choose to accept their policy and stay there, or I can choose to reject their policy and stay somewhere else. and it is my choice on whether or not to let others know of that Hotel's policies.

I believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose as long as they do not violate any laws.
Most importantly, they also have the right not to open the business in the first place - thus refusing service to everyone at all.
Discrimination, if problematic, should rather be opposed by stimulating equal service, not by excess regulation.


A hospital refusing treatment is already a breaking of the Hippocratic Oath, which, while not a criminal offense, is one of the worst steps one can do in the profession.

Most importantly, they also have the right not to open the business in the first place - thus refusing service to everyone at all. or they can be "by appointment only" or "by referral only."
Discrimination, if problematic, should rather be opposed by stimulating equal service, not by excess regulation.and should the public refuse to turn to businesses who discriminate leads to that business going out of business... all the better. there shouldn't be any protection from bad business practices.
A hospital refusing treatment is already a breaking of the Hippocratic Oath, which, while not a criminal offense, is one of the worst steps one can do in the profession.Hospitals, generally are NOT Private Businesses unless they specifically state they are.

Doctors take the Hippcratic oath, not Hospitals.

and yes, open discrimination is one of the worst steps one can do in any profession.

They should be able to refuse service to anyone they want to. This is where one of my few supported taxes comes in, the "Bigot tax":D

Joking of course. I think that they should be able to refuse service to anyone they want, but I'd love to see what happens when said store gets some media attention... This ain't the 50's any more.

or they can be "by appointment only" or "by referral only."
Like many are. BTW, the job position I have... [well, used to have, but will have again soon] is open only to people who have attended the courses you could only attend in a few specific universities (and usually only with a special contract), and who have also enrolled in another program, also limited to a number of establishments. In other words, to people picked as they were only finishing high school, and among the children of people who already are or have been serving in specific positions in the Navy or employed by the company.
There was no racial discrimination, but no laws could possibly prevent it, if they wanted to. Hey, they presented individual offers, and that's it.


and should the public refuse to turn to businesses who discriminate leads to that business going out of business... all the better. there shouldn't be any protection from bad business practices.
Hospitals, generally are NOT Private Businesses unless they specifically state they are.
Even when and where they are, one denying emergency aid for some discriminatory reason would suffer SEVERE public displeasure, if not an outcry.


Doctors take the Hippcratic oath, not Hospitals.
Yes, but hospitals consists of medics.

and yes, open discrimination is one of the worst steps one can do in any profession.
Not in *any*. Say, a band denying membership to whites with "Niggas only, dude!" is perfectly fine.
But in the medical profession, it's a long-standing ethic (and long predating any governmental regulation!).

Like many are. BTW, the job position I have... [well, used to have, but will have again soon] is open only to people who have attended the courses you could only attend in a few specific universities (and usually only with a special contract), and who have also enrolled in another program, also limited to a number of establishments. In other words, to people picked as they were only finishing high school, and among the children of people who already are or have been serving in specific positions in the Navy or employed by the company.
There was no racial discrimination, but no laws could possibly prevent it, if they wanted to. Hey, they presented individual offers, and that's it. and your point...

Even when and where they are, one denying emergency aid for some discriminatory reason would suffer SEVERE public displeasure, if not an outcry. see, now you are adding conditioners. from the OP's statement about PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES, you're now going into emergency aid. quite a leap from PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES to public services

Yes, but hospitals consists of medics.and are hospitals PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES?

Not in *any*. Say, a band denying membership to whites with "Niggas only, dude!" is perfectly fine. and should word get out that the band only wants "niggas" then the people can choose to not listen to that band.

But in the medical profession, it's a long-standing ethic (and long predating any governmental regulation!). the medical profession is one of the few execptions where they are regulated even while owning their own practice.

and your point...
Not as much arguing as adding an example to the point that anti-discriminatory laws can be circumvented.


see, now you are adding conditioners. from the OP's statement about PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES, you're now going into emergency aid. quite a leap from PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES to public services
The point in case is, even for a private medical facility, it makes sense to help those in need of emergency aid, regardless of color.


and should word get out that the band only wants "niggas" then the people can choose to not listen to that band.
I would probably rather say the band's likely to lose its fans if it gives up its requirements. That's one of the rare cases where racial discrimination is justified. They're a black band, they need the "kewl niggas" image, they can't be an equal opportunity employer.

OTOH, if it's an actual industrial company that refuses employment to people outside a certain race, they're likely to face at least being considered crazy.

Not as much arguing as adding an example to the point that anti-discriminatory laws can be circumvented. ahh. I see. ok.

The point in case is, even for a private medical facility, it makes sense to help those in need of emergency aid, regardless of color.two points.
EMERGENCY AID, is different than just being a patient.

Usually, Private Medical Facilities have set hours of operations. the doctors tend to be notifyable at the hospitals. it's the EMS's fault if they drive a patient to a Private Medical Facility(PMF) and not a hospital or area designated to recieve emergency patients. PMF's are usually NOT equipped to handle emergencies... infact, most PMF's are not equipped to deal with any form of surgury at all.

I would probably rather say the band's likely to lose its fans if it gives up its requirements. That's one of the rare cases where racial discrimination is justified. They're a black band, they need the "kewl niggas" image, they can't be an equal opportunity employer. can you provide an example of one such band with their statement saying they won't take anyone according to race?

OTOH, if it's an actual industrial company that refuses employment to people outside a certain race, they're likely to face at least being considered crazy.at the very least... ;)

Usually, Private Medical Facilities have set hours of operations. the doctors tend to be notifyable at the hospitals. it's the EMS's fault if they drive a patient to a Private Medical Facility(PMF) and not a hospital or area designated to recieve emergency patients. PMF's are usually NOT equipped to handle emergencies... infact, most PMF's are not equipped to deal with any form of surgury at all.
It's more along the lines of a theoretical fully private healthcare system, rather than the current status quo.


can you provide an example of one such band with their statement saying they won't take anyone according to race?
I don't see a need to... Most band are all the same color, and it's how their listeners like them. They don't hire at all, but when they change members, color tends to stay the same. That's just how it works. And it's OK, because color does matter on the stage. Like you wouldn't hire Gary Niger to play Snow White.

Discrimination is bad when it's unfair and unsubstantiated; when you discriminate by a factor that doesn't matter for the job.

It's more along the lines of a theoretical fully private healthcare system, rather than the current status quo.ah, theoretical.

there's still a big difference between a PMF and a Hosptial. ;)

I don't see a need to... Most band are all the same color, and it's how their listeners like them. They don't hire at all, but when they change members, color tends to stay the same. That's just how it works. hmmm... so that is proof that it's discrimination on the part of the band and not the fact that perhaps no person of differental race applied with the skill set they were looking for.
And it's OK, because color does matter on the stage. Like you wouldn't hire Gary Niger to play Snow White.again, two points.
1) the character is named Snow White because supposidly her skin was fair like snow. to place someone who doesn't come close is re-writing the story.

Brandi played Cinderella. her Prince was Asian with an African American father and a European mother... so anything is possible.

Discrimination is bad when it's unfair and unsubstantiated; when you discriminate by a factor that doesn't matter for the job.and no where did I say discrimination was good. you're the one saying 'well, discriminating for a musical group is good'.

hmmm... so that is proof that it's discrimination on the part of the band and not the fact that perhaps no person of differental race applied with the skill set they were looking for.
At least 3/4 of the bands don't really have "skill" in the equation anyway.
They're about the show, not the music.


1) the character is named Snow White because supposidly her skin was fair like snow. to place someone who doesn't come close is re-writing the story.
Exactly. So you see, sometimes you have to take race and gender into the equation, because hiring a bald black man to play Snow White would really affect the play.

We don't have choice about many variables - not just color and gender, but also, for instance, height. And some jobs require low height (submarine and tank crews), some high. Discrimination is fully acceptable, and actually well accepted in these cases. It's only an evil when it's about a factor not related to job performance.


and no where did I say discrimination was good. you're the one saying 'well, discriminating for a musical group is good'.
Of course, it's me saying that in some very special cases racial discrimination is acceptable. Such as playing Snow White. Or being in a "Harlem Niggas" rap band.

Exactly. So you see, sometimes you have to take race and gender into the equation, because hiring a bald black man to play Snow White would really affect the play. but taking those into account because of preset qualifiers is not discrimination.

We don't have choice about many variables - not just color and gender, but also, for instance, height. And some jobs require low height (submarine and tank crews), some high. Discrimination is fully acceptable, and actually well accepted in these cases. It's only an evil when it's about a factor not related to job performance.that is not discrimination. that's job performance. will a 6 ft man be able to do his job in a 5 ft space?

Of course, it's me saying that in some very special cases racial discrimination is acceptable. Such as playing Snow White. Or being in a "Harlem Niggas" rap band.Snow White ( a published work mind you) is far different than a rap band.

now if one is doing a parody of 'Snow White' titled "Pitch Black and the Seven Huge Honkies" would you consider that discrimination.

but taking those into account because of preset qualifiers is not discrimination.
It is. Even when a company refuses to hire a high school kid as the senior manager, demanding qualifications and experience, it's discrimination. Just the fair kind.

that is not discrimination. that's job performance. will a 6 ft man be able to do his job in a 5 ft space?
No - that's the issue with tank crews. Same with a black man being unable to play Snow White, or a white girl being unable to properly fit into a band named "Harlem Nigga Dudes".

Simple. It's NOT your property. You're on government land. Everyone who is alive is on technical government land. Whether the government enforces its right to sovereignty and land is up to that government.

Maybe in a Communist country, but in America, the government does not own the property private businesses exist on. Government should stick to its purpose of keeping citizens safe from physical harm by other people, and stop trying to intrude on the free market's operation.

Remember the Golden Rule - whoever has the gold males the rules. We live in an age where corporations exert more and more control over our lives by virtue of the near strangleholds they exert over government and the major paties that infest it. Our politicians and judges are increasing bought and pass laws in the name of "freedom" that are anything but.
The question of the "right to refuse service" conjures up some mad/drunk/difficult customer rolling up to a shop and being obnxious. Or an habitual thief that it would be very sensible to bar. Our sympathies are with the small shopkeeper or bar-owner in these cases. But what if the person is simply being discriminated against on ethnic, religious, gender or gender-preference grounds. Well it gets a lot more complicated.
In my state of Victoria, a group of young gay activists wanted to hold a convention at a seasite campsite. Unfortunately for them, the campsite was owned by the Christian Bretheren whoes religion forbids homosexuality. The gays were told that they couldn't book the camsite, so the homosexual group took the matter to the equal opportunity commission. Later on, the gay group got a booking with (that old Village People hit) the YMCA!
The Christian Bretheren is a tax-exempt organisation and as a religion, it is not restricted by the same equal opportunity legislation as an ordinary company (that would probably be in contravention of the equal opportunity laws). What do you think should happen in this case?

The Federal Government had a pretty long winning streak going, as far as quashing businesses' attempts to refuse service, until U.S. vs. Morrison in 2000. At least, that's how I remember it. I'm not sure where things stand post-Rehnquist, but I would be *very* cautious if I were a businessman planning on excluding any class of people.

What i find ammusing is sport/fitness
There are female only gyms but not male only
Sport teams can have an age lower and upper limit as well as a gender gap

Should sports be seen as unique.

The other one is religion. Can a religous organization refuse to serve/employ those who arnt religous?

I personally believe the government should allow businesses to restrict the service for both.

Remember the Golden Rule - whoever has the gold males the rules. We live in an age where corporations exert more and more control over our lives by virtue of the near strangleholds they exert over government and the major paties that infest it. Our politicians and judges are increasing bought and pass laws in the name of "freedom" that are anything but.
The question of the "right to refuse service" conjures up some mad/drunk/difficult customer rolling up to a shop and being obnxious. Or an habitual thief that it would be very sensible to bar. Our sympathies are with the small shopkeeper or bar-owner in these cases. But what if the person is simply being discriminated against on ethnic, religious, gender or gender-preference grounds. Well it gets a lot more complicated.
In my state of Victoria, a group of young gay activists wanted to hold a convention at a seasite campsite. Unfortunately for them, the campsite was owned by the Christian Bretheren whoes religion forbids homosexuality. The gays were told that they couldn't book the camsite, so the homosexual group took the matter to the equal opportunity commission. Later on, the gay group got a booking with (that old Village People hit) the YMCA!
The Christian Bretheren is a tax-exempt organisation and as a religion, it is not restricted by the same equal opportunity legislation as an ordinary company (that would probably be in contravention of the equal opportunity laws). What do you think should happen in this case?

Its private grounds. Let the religion decide. Running something completely opposed to the owners morals/beliefs is just asking for trouble. The campsite owners should be able to restict it.

If not can someone who believes gays are evil march into a gay owners coffee shop with a group of simular people wearing t-shirts that says god hates gays, and read aloud from the bible where it says homosexuality is wrong.

What you are really dealing with here tho is not so much the right to use a service but the right of protest. If I was a business owner I would keep the business as apolitical as possible.

If this were an ideal PC world, it would require a valid reason.

For example if a hotelier regularly had drunken military types having giant orgies on their premises then they may refuse service to all military types.
They cannot however refuse service because the military stands for something they don't like.

This is not an ideal world however, and the process of trying to decide if a reason is valid or not would involve far more screwing around. Which leads us to say that a private operator has the right to refuse service to anyone they choose. We live in a world of people with consciences, and as such if an operator is dodgy, they will lose business.

A smart business operator has nothing to gain for turning down a group of people for no reason. They do have something to lose however if they are forced to serve them and they have bad intentions.

Businesses have the right to refuse service and should. If someone was caught shoplifting from a store, the store owners should be able to keep them out of the store in the future. If someone is getting drunk and belligerent at a bar, the bartenders and waitstaff have the right (and responsibility actually) to stop service and call up a cab and ask them to get in and if this person does this repeatedly, the establishment has the right to keep him or her out in the future.
Similarly, places have the right to try and keep people with a certain look if they want (it tells me which places to avoid... dress codes usually occur in horrible clubs) or age (there are a couple of bars that I've seen that are 25+ which is fair because a lot of kids who just started drinking are morons about it). Hell, places can refuse service due to lack of membership or employment (or lack of employment) in a profession if they want.