Does a business owner have a right to say, "Don't come back?"

[Balerion]

You called?

Not surprised.

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.

Wrong. The Federal Civil Rights Act mandates that no one can be discriminated from any establishment that serves the public on the basis of their race, gender, or religion. This also now applies to disabled people. There are state laws that take this mandate even further, such as in California, which disallows refusal of service based on "unusual dress" and sexual orientation.

 

[Neverfly]

Wrong. The Federal Civil Rights Act mandates that no one can be discriminated from any establishment that serves the public on the basis of their race, gender, or religion. This also now applies to disabled people. There are state laws that take this mandate even further, such as in California, which disallows refusal of service based on "unusual dress" and sexual orientation.

Yeah well, I gave my opinion. Funny though- as a consumer- I avoid Chick-fil-a because I discriminate against their proselytizing me with their religion inside their restaurants.

 

[Balerion]

Yeah well, I gave my opinion.

Well, no, you made a factual claim. You said "he can..." which is incorrect. But if you're saying now that you think he should be able to, fine, but I couldn't disagree more. No one should be refused service based on who they are as a human being.

Funny though- as a consumer- I avoid Chick-fil-a because I discriminate against their proselytizing me with their religion inside their restaurants.

There's no irony there, because you're providing a service.

 

[Bowser]

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?

I think it's specific enough: In my opinion, a business owner bans a group of people whose mere presence is bad for business. And yes, in my opinion, it IS discrimination. The original questions are below...

Why should anti-discrimination laws trump the livelihood of a business?
If the presence of one group effectively drains your business of paying customers, shouldn't you have the right to ask them not to return?

Maybe the second question should be: If the presence of one group effectively drains your business of paying customers, shouldn't you have the right to tell them not to return?

 

[Balerion]

I think it's specific enough: In my opinion, a business owner bans a group of people whose mere presence is bad for business.

And as I've said three times now (and others have said as well) it depends. You're not going to get the answer you're looking for here. Not without specifics.

Maybe the second question should be: If the presence of one group effectively drains your business of paying customers, shouldn't you have the right to tell them not to return?

Surprise: It depends. If you run a bookshops that specializes in white supremacist propaganda, and the presence of a Mexican customer puts off your base, you are not legally able to ban them. Nor should you be.

Of course, this is kind of a silly question, because chances are that people aren't avoiding your establishment because you allow gays or blacks or some other minority to patronize it. In other words, I doubt there are many examples that would match the hypothetical scenario you're presenting, where a class of people are banned because they are bad for business. I'm guessing that the example you're withholding is one of actual discrimination that has absolutely nothing to do with a diminishing customer base.

 

[Michael]

There's no irony there, because you're providing a service.

???

 

[Read-Only]

I think it's specific enough: In my opinion, a business owner bans a group of people whose mere presence is bad for business. And yes, in my opinion, it IS discrimination. The original questions are below...

No, it's not. It's FAR to vague. We are having, in legal terms, to "accept facts not in evidence." Actually, it's WORSE than that - we are having to ASSUME conditions that may or may not exist!! And since the "ruling" depends *entirely* on someone's imagination, any discussion is completely pointless.

Your case here is no different than if you said: "Tom shot Bill. Should Tom receive the death sentence?"

Do you see my point?? It could have been that Bill broke into Tom's house and was threatening him with a gun/knife. OR it could be that Tom has been stalking Bill for days and finally caught him out in the open. AND it depends where it happened - many states don't have the death penalty.

So without more information, each answer we give is nothing more than a wild guess, a shot in the dark. <shrug>

 

[Neverfly]

Well, no, you made a factual claim. You said "he can..." which is incorrect. But if you're saying now that you think he should be able to, fine, but I couldn't disagree more. No one should be refused service based on who they are as a human being.

Very well- maybe the claim was incorrect. I'll look into it when I feel like it.
Question, can a serial killer be refused service at a Knife Shop?
No one should be refused service because of who they are, you say- can a convicted felon walk into a gun shop and buy a rifle or shotgun for rabbits or rattlesnakes on his mountain property? That is, after-all, who they are.

There's no irony there, because you're providing a service.

No, they are. I'm providing the custom. Or not.

 

[Balerion]

Very well- maybe the claim was incorrect. I'll look into it when I feel like it.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Question, can a serial killer be refused service at a Knife Shop?

No. Then again, not many convicted serial killers walking the street, are there?

No one should be refused service because of who they are, you say- can a convicted felon walk into a gun shop and buy a rifle or shotgun for rabbits or rattlesnakes on his mountain property? That is, after-all, who they are.

Moot question. There is a federal law that makes it illegal for a felon to own a gun, so the question isn't whether or not they're being denied a service. They're not eligible for that service.

And they aren't being denied anything based on who they are, but what they've done. If you've been convicted of a felony, then you lose some rights.

No, they are. I'm providing the custom. Or not.

Exactly. And there is no law that says you must provide custom to everyone regardless of what they sell, or what race, creed, or color the owner is.

EDIT: I see now that I made a typo in the sentence you were responding to in the quote above. I meant to say "There is no irony because you're not providing a service."

 

[Neverfly]

No.
Moot question. There is a federal law that makes it illegal for a felon to own a gun, so the question isn't whether or not they're being denied a service. They're not eligible for that service.

And they aren't being denied anything based on who they are, but what they've done. If you've been convicted of a felony, then you lose some rights.
Exactly. And there is no law that says you must provide custom to everyone regardless of what they sell, or what race, creed, or color the owner is.

This smacks of "The law is the law."
You say the question is moot, simply because a law is not on the books to deal with a customer discriminating against a business owner.

A felon is discriminated against for his behavior. Heavily.
Now, while I may see that side of it, I must point out that is an accurate description of what is going on, regardless of politics.
A person being discriminated against simply because he's gay is nonsense. But if he was a gay rapist that grabbed men in that store, violating their space- he can and would be thrown out of the store and probably would have charges filed against him as well.
Who he is- a grabber- is as much a part of who he is -a gay man- except it's ok to discriminate against one but not ok to discriminate against the other because one is harmless and one violates.

The question for Bowser is- is it the behavior of certain patrons that got them barred? The O.P. suggests that may be the case.
Now, using the analogy, if the behavior of a group of gays in the store causes them to be barred from the store, then they file a discrimination case claiming it's only because they were gay they were barred- it becomes a Politically Correct Mumbo Jumbo event rather than the simple example of the felon in the gunshop. Business owners need a certain amount of legal coverage, too.

While I can agree with you 100% that a person should not be discriminated at an establishment for being a gender or having a preference that is no one else's business or for being a certain race- I cannot agree that business should never discriminate against behavior, even if those behaving badly hide behind a false claim.

Bowser- by the way- more details are definitely needed. And this is why. You don't necessarily need to say whether it's race, creed, gender- but define if it's a behavior issue, whether it's a judgment issue (For example, he's losing business because local homophobes saw a gay man in the establishment and boycotted the place), or whether it's a discrimination issue (Is he barring people because he is a bigot and he's using the fear of lost business as an excuse.)

 

[Balerion]

This smacks of "The law is the law."
You say the question is moot, simply because a law is not on the books to deal with a customer discriminating against a business owner.

What? No I didn't. I said the question was moot because a convicted felon cannot legally own a gun, and so he isn't eligible for the service you're saying he shouldn't be denied. You're confused again.

A felon is discriminated against for his behavior. Heavily.
Now, while I may see that side of it, I must point out that is an accurate description of what is going on, regardless of politics.
A person being discriminated against simply because he's gay is nonsense. But if he was a gay rapist that grabbed men in that store, violating their space- he can and would be thrown out of the store and probably would have charges filed against him as well.
Who he is- a grabber- is as much a part of who he is -a gay man- except it's ok to discriminate against one but not ok to discriminate against the other because one is harmless and one violates.

I would argue that being a "grabber" is not as much of a person's identity as their sexual orientation, but whatever. You're trying to turn this into a semantic argument, so let's make it simple: No one can be, nor should they be, discriminated against based their race, creed, or color--in other words, who they are. I would take it further to say that their physical capability and their sexual orientation should also be exempt from discrimination--and it is, in many places. In practice, I think those two classes are treated as being "in the spirit" of the original act, just as gay rights advocates are trying to argue that gay marriage is "in the spirit" of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment.

While I can agree with you 100% that a person should not be discriminated at an establishment for being a gender or having a preference that is no one else's business or for being a certain race- I cannot agree that business should never discriminate against behavior, even if those behaving badly hide behind a false claim.

That's a straw man. I never said they should be. You've invented a hypothetical scenario and somehow attributed it to me. I'm sorry, but I'm not biting. If a shop owner wants to discriminate based on a customer's behavior, provided that it's actually disruptive and not something like "He's acting like a fag," then they have that legal right. As they should. If an owner discriminates against a gay person because they're overly loud or disruptive, however, that's different. Sure, it might end up going to court, but the law will be on the owner's side.

 

[Neverfly]

Basically, we're on the same page, then. Now- to wait on Bowser.

 

[Balerion]

Basically, we're on the same page, then. Now- to wait on Bowser.

I don't think you're going to get any satisfaction on that count. He seems to be looking for someone to simply say "Yes" or "No." He wants to deal in absolutes.

 

[Buddha12]

Business owners have the right to refuse a customer for legitimate things not just because of age or ethnic background. Of course when a business does refuse a customer they must be prepared to put up a fight in court to determine if they are "discriminating" or not. In many instances the courts have upheld the business side because of their right to allow customers onto their own property to do business within that area. There have also been cases where the customer has won and the business had to "adjust" their ways and pay fines. So it really depends upon the situation that presents itself and should be always looked at by a case by case example.

 

[Gustav]

sci will be implementing a nude only posting environment
enforcement will require a mandatory video feed

possible name change....

Sciforian Fields

???

 

[quadraphonics]

I was hoping to get an honest reaction based on the facts.

And yet, you keep refusing to supply relevant, salient facts in response to direct requests for such. If you won't give me the basic facts relevant to the formulation of my reaction, then what is the point?

I'm comfortable with the terms of the discussion.

But others are not. Maybe this is because you possess all of the relevant facts, and are keeping the rest of us in the dark.

 

[quadraphonics]

Wrong. The Federal Civil Rights Act mandates that no one can be discriminated from any establishment that serves the public on the basis of their race, gender, or religion. This also now applies to disabled people.

You forgot national origin.

 

[sideshowbob]

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.

Not leased, licensed. Without a license from the community, you can't operate any business. Unless you comply with community standards, you won't be licensed. You don't set the standard, the community does. Period.

Can you see how using State force is immoral?

Immorality has nothing to do with it. We're talking about reality - what is not what "should be".

 

[Neverfly]

I don't think you're going to get any satisfaction on that count. He seems to be looking for someone to simply say "Yes" or "No." He wants to deal in absolutes.

And yet, you keep refusing to supply relevant, salient facts in response to direct requests for such. If you won't give me the basic facts relevant to the formulation of my reaction, then what is the point?
But others are not. Maybe this is because you possess all of the relevant facts, and are keeping the rest of us in the dark.

Considering the sometimes rabid political correctness I've seen on this board, I cannot say I blame him.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I'm asking this question because we have had a local business fall into trouble based on a charge of discrimination. Now, I can understand the owners concern, which is that a specific group of people were patronizing his business and, if I understand his position correctly, affected his business negatively. Now, there seems to be a claim that this group of people was wild and unruly, which chased away other patrons, but I suspect it had more to do with this groups' peculiarities. In my opinion, I think it was specifically because of their peculiarities, and the fear that their peculiarities made other patrons uncomfortable. Why should anti-discrimination laws trump the livelihood of a business? If the presence of one group effectively drains your business of paying customers, shouldn't you have the right to ask them not to return?

I don't know what country you live in, but in the USA the answer to this question is Yes, except in a very small number of categories which took a couple of hundred years to settle, and only in specific circumstances.

In the USA you may not discriminate against people because of their ethnicity (skin color, national origin, etc.), religion, sex (limited to biological male/female) or age (i.e., old like me). In the arena of housing, in addition to those you may not discriminate against single people, married people or people with children.

Some municipalities have begun to include sexual preference/orientation in that list, but as a nation that issue has not been settled.

These rules only apply to public enterprises, including stores, apartment houses, etc. They do not apply in private situations, and the distinction between public and private has a messy legal definition. For example, if you own a duplex (two residences in the same building with no physical connection), live in one side and rent out the other, it is considered a separate home rented to the public, and you may not discriminate. But I own a townhouse and live in the basement while renting out the main floors. Since these are not separate residences (for example the laundry facilities are down in my quarters and if there's deep snow outside I have to use the upstairs doorway, and there's no locking door between our quarters due to fire safety regulations), the law says that I am taking lodgers into my own home so I have complete freedom to choose my house-mates. A single woman, for example, might not feel comfortable sharing her home with a single man.

As for your question, "Why?" surely by now you should know that this question is meaningless when it concerns the arcane decisions made by governments. But the stated reason is that a certain demographic group has been discriminated against for so long (most famously in my country Afro-Americans, who not long ago were actually slaves) that it has been effectively denied the opportunities for education, homes in nice neighborhoods, business contacts, and the sheer ability to learn the ins and outs of the mainstream community, which puts them at a disadvantage culturally and commercially. It is reasoned that the lesser of two evils is to give them this opportunity in a strained, artificial, controversial manner, in the hope that after a couple of generations they will be reasonably well integrated so that the artificial guidance can be eliminated. We've learned that A) it takes more than a couple of generations (the slaves were freed 150 years ago but our first Afro-American president is only now sitting in the White House) and B) so-called "affirmative action" has its down side, as the beneficiaries begin to feel like pets or mentally handicapped children who can't make it in the real world without help.

In other words, there's no good answer to your question. My wife the Buddhist would probably say, "Some things are neither right nor wrong. They just are."

This reminds me of an article I read about an "all you can eat" buffet in England banning two guys who, the business owner claims, ate too much and never tipped, never bought any other entree off the menu, and never ordered anything to drink other than water.

This is terrible business and the owner is a moron. Those guys tell everybody they know what a great time they had at the place and how reasonable the prices are. Their friends will come in, eat a normal amount of food, order something off the menu too, and tip. My father was a big eater and always went back to a buffet for fourths and fifths. The staff in those places always treated him like royalty because they knew he was going to be a walking advertisement for their business.

...and for failure to wear shirt/shoes.

"Shirt and shoes required." Don't you believe it! They will ALWAYS send you home for pants.

A business isn't "private property". It's licensed by the local community and must operate according to the standards of the local community, not vice versa.

Wow, a genuine European-style socialist! We just don't think like that in America. We put great effort and ingenuity into not paying our taxes, not complying with zoning laws, not observing highway speed limits, not getting business licenses, and not complying with drug prohibition.

Private property is itself a social construct in the first place.

Another Euro-socialist.

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.

If they don't fall into one of the specific groups I mentioned at the top of this post (and any that I may have inadvertently omitted), then he is welcome to discriminate against them. It's as simple as that. And as complicated.

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 )

Hey, I'm both a small-l libertarian and a Capital-L member of the Libertarian party, and have been for 28 years. But even I understand that there are no absolutes in the real world. Life is a series of compromises.

As Jon Stewart so nicely put it in his rant about the Christians being up in arms over a municipal government ruling against a church in some issue or other, "One of the things you have to accept about the way America works is that nobody gets everything they want."