"Laws on the books that apply to that business" are what determine who gets service. If the law permits you to discriminate against black people, you can do so. The rights of a business owner are totally subject to the standards of te community.
Does a business owner have a right to say, "Don't come back?"
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
[double post removed]
It may be that this particular group is considered a "protected class."
http://www.oregon.gov--Civil Rights Division
And further reading...
http://www.oregon.gov--Protected
What is this "specific group?" Is it, by any chance, "black people?"
A business isn't private property? It's "leased" from the community?
This doesn't make any sense - at all.
If you wanted to say, open up a clothing store selling your fashion and you OWNED a storefront, then you place YOUR clothing in it, and people come into YOUR property, that YOU OWN and make a trade. You didn't lease the store from the community, it's didn't even exist before you invented it/started it. YOU own it. Not the State. You don't work FOR the State. You work for yourself. You OWN your own labor for Christ's sake.
Example #1
Suppose you open an on-line store in country X. No one knows where you live. You just so happen to be a misandrist. You just don't do business with people unless they're women. So? What? Who did they lease this store from? How are YOU going to stop them from only selling to women. What are you going to do - police the internet? Jackboot them out of their own home!? YOU don't own your home, it's leased by the State!
Example #2
Suppose you live in KSA and you open a car dealership. You're, by law, NOT allowed to sell a car to a woman or a Christian. Oh, YOU don't own that car dealership, you're leasing it from the community.
Can you see how using State force is immoral? I hope, for our sake, that you do.
These civil right laws are actually making things worse. In a true democracy ALL people are protected - even misandrists. The will of the people is reflected in each and every dollar they spend. Direct democracy by the dollar.
Private property is itself a social construct in the first place.
Any such business would necessarily depend on a variety of public goods provided by the state in order to operate. The very phrase "storefront" indicates that you are facing onto a public area - and so depending on access to public sidewalks, streets and other thoroughfares, not to mention police and fire protection, courts that will enforce contracts, access to the workforce educated and sustained by society, a system of laws that creates and defends private property in the first place, etc. If you don't want to play by society's rules, then society is not under any compulsion to provide you access to all of those things that you require to run a business, and your "private property" is worthless.
I like the answer you put. I think signs are not usually a good thing. But security cameras are. In case there is trouble you have proof.
There was a case..I think it was in California, where an Asian restaurant owner noticed his black customers never tipped, so he started adding a mandatory gratuity to black peoples checks...I'll have to look up the details.
No, it's not race. I'm trying to keep it vague so I can get a general idea how people feel. The people involved are a minority and, in my opinion, live on the fringes of common culture. As I said, in my opinion, it is discrimination, but then again, the guy is trying to run a business. I feel as though he has a interest in its success.
That's an interesting take. Made me laugh.
Well, it depends a lot on how the group in question is defined. If it's "a violent street gang" then that's one thing. If it's "minorities" or "disabled people" then it's another thing.
Are we talking about homosexuals? Punk rockers? The homeless?
Not all discrimination is illegal or problematic. Discriminating against groups of people that cause genuine problems in their own right is one thing. Discriminating against groups of people because, say, society generally is biased towards them is a different thing. The former is a legitimate business interest, the latter represents catering to nasty attitudes and bigotry and so empowering and sustaining them.
Let's assume that the bulk of your clientele avoid your place of business because of four or five people who decide to make it their watering hole. Would that give reason for concern? I'm just saying, if you're trying to survive as a business, what would be your options? If I was a business owner who was trying to earn a living, I would cater to the larger customer base, regardless of their personal bigotries. I personally wouldn't want to know, but maybe it shows with their dollars.
But do you understand how the answer to your questions depend entirely on whom you're talking about? If the four or five people who make it their watering hole are avoided because they're black and the establishment is a country club populated by racist white people, then denying those black people service would be illegal because it would be based on their race. Or if the four people were gay, and the owner felt having gays in his business reflected poorly on him, denying them service would be illegal. However, if the people being denied service are loud and rowdy, or dirty and smelly, or half-naked, then the owner is within their rights to boot them.
Context is everything. The answer to the question "If people don't come to your business because of these customers, can't you ban them" hinges entirely on the specifics, so broad-basing the question isn't going to get you anywhere. Unless you're sort of just hoping someone will be dumb enough to say "Yes," so you can spring a "Gotcha!" on them.
AND???
A discussion around what is private property is in order? Do we remember where we got to last time? It seems, if I recall, in between your name calling your accused me of being a reductionist.
One thing, I hope, we in the West can all agree on is that our bodies are our property. Sure, other countries that's not the case. But, in our society - we accept our bodies as being ours. We own them. Now, can you imagine if the State passed a law that said you had to let everyone do what they want with your body? AND their argument on why this was OK was this - YOU USE THE ROADS!
Am I making ANY headway with you?
Any at all?
Well, you're making a great case for Communism. And you know what? In Communist countries the State has the State-given right to take your kidney from your body. And that's no shit. You get accused of a crime against the State (speaking your mind). You get put in prison where you die. The State takes your kidney 'for the betterment of the society'.
Is that going to happen in the USA anytime too soon? I don't think so. But, it might happen. I could see how politicians could demagogue the public on the issue. Say a young innocent child were suffering and in need of a kidney. You were the only match. Say you didn't want to give up your kidney. Well well well.... YOU USE THE ROADS! It's costing a lot to keep this poor young innocent child on dialysis. For the "Good of the Nation (and the Gods)' we're going to need to force you to give up your kidney.
Libertarianism, the notion initiation of force is immoral even if it's for the good of the Gods (or the State) is the natural state of the human condition. It is what creates society and separates us from barbarism. We will return to it... even if it means dragging you little State-bots kicking and screaming into a moral world (metaphorically of course
)
I don't have a "Gotcha!" in my back pocket. I was hoping to get an honest reaction based on the facts. I didn't want peoples' pet passions to get involved here. That's why I'm being stingy with the identity of those at play. In my opinion, the owner of the establishment did discriminate, even though he claims there were other factors involved. I feel as though he has a right to protect his business interest; however, he probably should have consulted a lawyer before taking action.
But you didn't provide the facts. You were vague, and the answers you received have been, basically, "Well, it depends." If you're looking for something more than that, you need to be more specific. Reason being, this isn't a matter that can be discussed in such broad terms.
If you would just share the example, we can give you our opinions of whether or not this guy was in the right.
You called?
It's his business- Private establishment- means he can be a bigot or be discriminating or whatever he wants. Whether he's justified or totally unjustified. If it's unjustified, it can cut into his profit margin.
If it's justified, maybe his profits will increase.
I'm comfortable with the terms of the discussion. Maybe the subject of discrimination has a broad definition and broad terms. We all fall under the umbrella of "protected class" in one way or another, so nobody is truly excluded from the law.
What I meant is that banning someone from a restaurant for being unhygenic is different than banning someone for being gay. That's why "Protecting your interests" is too broad of a phrase.
And if you're comfortable with the terms of the discussion, I can only assume you aren't actually here to discuss anything. What could you hope to learn without knowing the specifics?