No, just pointing out an obvious, incontrovertable fact.
I notice that nobody - including Michael - has materially disputed the observation in question.
Does a business owner have a right to say, "Don't come back?"
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
No, just pointing out an obvious, incontrovertable fact.
I notice that nobody - including Michael - has materially disputed the observation in question.
Maybe I approached this in the wrong way, since everybody is focusing on the legalities involved. Maybe we should ask for our personal feelings regarding the questions I offered. There is an ethical question that involves the survival of your business and the civil rights of a minority. Personally, I think the survival of my business would take priority, but that's just me.
I will still need to know the salient facts that I have repeatedly requested of you. My personal feelings align pretty closely with the law - except for the part where the law (in the USA) allows you to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.
I think the identity of the players is irrelevant. They could be any protected class of people. We could even switch it around and assume that you cater specifically to that particular class of people, and that the presence of white males is an issue. If I could operate a successful business that appealed to a specific crowd, I damn well would do it--their money is as good as any others.
But what I gather from your reply is that you would let your business fail on principle.
So we are talking about a group defined by race, gender, religion, national origin, age or disability, then.
First of all, I reject the presumption that any business is going to "fail" because it does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, age and/or disability.
Second of all, you are talking about committing a federal crime punishable by heavy fines and even prison, along with liability for heavy civil penalties. I find it hard to believe that losing the business of bigots would outweight such severe consequences.
Finally, if you really can't do without discrimination, you can always operate as a private club and discriminate all you want. But that will also severely limit your access to the public and so your bottom line.
And again, if the patrons in question are engaged in some behavior that is problematic as such - they are not simply scaring away bigoted customers through their mere presence - then it is unproblematic to refuse them business on that basis.
All that said: yes, if some local bigots present me with a choice between losing their business and acting as an enforcer for their nasty prejudices, I will opt for the former. In fact, I'd go so far as to tell them that they are not welcome in my business, and will be refused service and asked to leave if they ever return. There is no law against discriminating against racist/sexist/whatever-ist shitheads, happily.
They are a minority that, I believe, stand out from the general population.
Yet, in my opinion, this is exactly what is at risk; otherwise, it wouldn't be an issue for this particular business.
We understand that your personal feelings align well with federal and some state laws that regulate civil liberties. But those laws might be contrary to the efforts of those trying to sustain a profitable business. So the opinions of some people might not mesh with your own personal convictions, even though you find confirmation in federal and state laws.
I could be wrong, but I think there are limitations on private clubs too--not certain, to be honest.
Again, should you choose to starve your business on principle, that would be a noble sacrifice.
It's a curiosity that many bars attract a specific crowd, and thereby build on the clientele who patronize the business. Near my home there is a biker bar that, from all appearances, is strictly a biker bar. There are at least a dozen Harleys parked in front on any given day. Why is it so popular with the bikers? I don't know why. On the same road there are at least a dozen other bars and taverns that they could try, yet they choose this one specific bar. I think it is very likely for a business to become dependent on its regulars, and when you take away those paying customers, the business begins to falter.
The point is that said laws will ensure that discrimination ends up being at least as unprofitable as losing the business of bigots. The choice isn't "discriminate or lose business," it's "go to jail or lose business."
They don't have total leeway, but you can discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc.
Again, I reject the assumption that losing the business of bigots is going to hamstring anybody. We systematically banned this kind of crap decades ago, without widespread failure of businesses. Bigots gotta shop/eat/drink somewhere, so as long as there is no discrimination allowed anywhere no particular business owner is facing a loss.
Maybe if you'd give some specifics we might see what you're talking about, but otherwise this just looks like a stilted premise.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
That's the whole point. You're just not getting it. Personal feelings conflict with the notion of right and wrong. This is why we don't live in an ultra-libertarian chaos where everybody gets to do what he wants and if an entire class of citizens is harmed in the process it's just tough shit.
I remember the days when Afro-Americans were not allowed in the department stores and restaurants downtown. They had to stay in their ghetto where quality, selection, and value for the dollar were lower, in smaller stores and diners with lower volume and higher overhead. Their children weren't allowed to go to the top schools so it was difficult for them to reach their full potential. They could not join the Elks, Masons, etc., where they'd make professional contacts that would allow them to expand their businesses. Not even the motherfucking Boy Scouts!
Is this the kind of society you want to live in? One in which twelve percent of the members are relegated to a permanent underclass of second-class citizens?
We fought this battle in the 1960s and 70s. You lost. Get over it.
You have still not told us anything about them. If what you don't like about them is the color of their skin, their religion, their ancestry, or anything they were born with (yes, most people are born into their religions; conversion and apostasy are so rare as to be negligible in any statistical context), then you're talking about discriminating against them for something over which they have no choice. As a society we've ruled that it's immoral and uncivilized to do that, regardless of the number of people who would place their own selfish desire for profit over the larger societal goal of righting ancient wrongs and creating a better nation for our great-great-grandchildren.
That's approximately the number of generations it took the United States to progress from Uncle Tom's Cabin to Barack Obama's White House. Do you really want your great-great-grandchildren to live in a world in which discrimination of that nature still takes place, just so you can have a few more dollars of motherfucking profit??? Are you that selfish and short-sighted???
But if they are a minority who chooses to be different by adopting strange customs, slang, music, hobbies, food preferences, manner of dress, etc., then we have something entirely different. They are not a protected minority and you can do what you want to them. If they don't like being discriminated against, they can decide whether their strange habits and idiosyncrasies are worth the cost. They can choose not to be different. It may be unfair to ask them to give up their music and their style of dress, but at least it is possible. People with different-colored skins and other physical identifiers (and for all practical purposes religions) cannot make that choice.
This is why we have governments. So that society improves even if some of us have to make sacrifices along the way. At least this is what we say. It's been working more-or-less that way so far, although there have been occasional setbacks. So it must be the right way to go.
From a practical standpoint, it comes down to the size of the club, and whether because of that size, membership is the key to success in the community. And of course if there is more than one club of this type, a pattern of discrimination among all of them becomes the issue rather than the rules of any individual organization. If a Jewish American is not allowed to join the Lions or the Moose or the Rotary Club or the Shriners or any of the twelve other fraternal organizations in the city, then they are, in effect, a cabal, and they all have to be turned upside-down, shaken, and told to join the 21st century or go to hell.
And of course that's the issue. Most people aren't that noble. So the government has to step in. If all the businesses in town would agree to drop their racist policies at the same time, the bigots in the town would have to get used to rubbing shoulders with Latino shoppers and find out that they're just people trying to take care of their families like everybody else. The government has the power to make them do that, all at the same time, so no one is at a strategic disadvantage. This is about as fair as it can get!
You have steadfastly refused to tell us anything about this "minority group" that has got you so riled up. I think this far into the discussion it's fair to ask you to finally please stop being so coy and give us all the facts. You're not helping your cause at all. Everyone around you is trying in earnest to get to the bottom of this and it's time for you to do the same by sharing all the information.
I'm sure I speak for some of the other members who have posted on this thread, when I wonder what the hell your reason is for not giving us the whole truth. You make it seem like there's some deep dark secret you don't want to reveal about your own preferences and prejudices. When it comes to a complex, sensitive, controversial topic like discrimination, the devil truly is in the details.
It's starting to look to me some like kinda "gotcha!" tactic. Like, he gets people to say that discrimination is okay because think-of-the-poor-businessman, and then reveals that it's racial discrimination. Or maybe he gets people to say "discrimination sucks!" and then reveals that the group in question is a violent street gang that is scaring away customers.
Of course, for it to be a "gotcha!" he'd have to eventually reveal the details. So maybe it's not, really. Or maybe nobody has taken the appropriate bait, yet.
What about prostitutes? Suppose a disgusting convicted gang-banger shows up and want's some sex. According to the logic of most everyone around here, as a business owner she does not have the right to refuse a customer for things like age or ethnic background. She should just give up her civil right to say no to servicing this paying customer.
No one in their right mind would agree to that.
... now it seems a little like maybe she shouldn't have to serve just any ole Tom, Dick and Harry. Maybe she does have the right to chose who she services.
Why is the 7-11 business owner any different? Actually, they're not. It's just we have a big problem with civil liberties when they clash with our own sense of fairness. Which is why, IMO, so-called "Progressives" are Fundamentalist fanatics only their superstition isn't backed by an illusionary God, which can be ignored, but by an all too real State - which makes them much much much more dangerous to civil liberties.
Yes, a business owner should be able to refuse anyone for whatever reason they choose.
Some of the core principals that made America a unique prosperous country, that being private property, civil liberties and free-market capitalism are not well understood or even cherished by the majority of the citizens that make up our society. Some people confuse the customer thinking THEY provide the service? I mean WTF??? I suppose if you lived your whole life being told how great YOUR consumerism is for society you probably would begin to think YOU were the business owner. That you're providing the service.
I mean look here, I'm doing all the shopping. I deserve my fair share!
The coming (actually already here) decline in standard of living in the USA must seem so confusing...
No one in their right mind would agree to that.
... now it seems a little like maybe she shouldn't have to serve just any ole Tom, Dick and Harry. Maybe she does have the right to chose who she services.
Why is the 7-11 business owner any different? Actually, they're not. It's just we have a big problem with civil liberties when they clash with our own sense of fairness. Which is why, IMO, so-called "Progressives" are Fundamentalist fanatics only their superstition isn't backed by an illusionary God, which can be ignored, but by an all too real State - which makes them much much much more dangerous to civil liberties.
Yes, a business owner should be able to refuse anyone for whatever reason they choose.
Some of the core principals that made America a unique prosperous country, that being private property, civil liberties and free-market capitalism are not well understood or even cherished by the majority of the citizens that make up our society. Some people confuse the customer thinking THEY provide the service? I mean WTF??? I suppose if you lived your whole life being told how great YOUR consumerism is for society you probably would begin to think YOU were the business owner. That you're providing the service.
I mean look here, I'm doing all the shopping. I deserve my fair share!
The coming (actually already here) decline in standard of living in the USA must seem so confusing...
back to hats.....
/sneer
Many superstitions are associated with hats, several now being modified into rules for manners and etiquette.
* A hat left on a bed is bad luck. You should expect a quarrel in the household before the day is over.
* Leaving a hat on a table is bad luck.
* Wearing a hat indoors will give you a headache.
* Putting a hat on backwards will bring bad luck, unless you go out right away and buy a new hat to reverse the luck.
* A bridegroom who forgets his hat for the wedding will turn into an unreliable husband.
* A lady putting on a gentleman's hat is waiting to be kissed.
* Women wearing hats in a church will be visited by ill-fortune.
* Wearing a hat this is too tight will cause hair loss.
* A hat left on a bed is bad luck. You should expect a quarrel in the household before the day is over.
* Leaving a hat on a table is bad luck.
* Wearing a hat indoors will give you a headache.
* Putting a hat on backwards will bring bad luck, unless you go out right away and buy a new hat to reverse the luck.
* A bridegroom who forgets his hat for the wedding will turn into an unreliable husband.
* A lady putting on a gentleman's hat is waiting to be kissed.
* Women wearing hats in a church will be visited by ill-fortune.
* Wearing a hat this is too tight will cause hair loss.
/sneer
I think some people have no clue how difficult it is to maintain a business. Financial investments and 16 hour days...it requires more than most would give, yet we place the burden of society's conscience on those who keep our economy functioning. That's why I would never do business face-to-face with the general public. There are too many liabilities, plus you become a servant of local and federal policies.
Last edited:
I think it is irrelevant to the conversation, as I've told you before. What should it matter what there differences are? I've already told you that, in my opinion, it IS discrimination, and I believe it's discrimination as defined by the law. Why give a shit about their minority status? I've been trying very hard to keep it from becoming the focus of this discussion. In my opinion, it's simply a case of discrimination for the sake of business interests. Sheesh!
I'm not riled up...not in the least. I was simply wondering how people felt about the matter. My personal feelings are that a business owner should have control over his establishment. As for the minority group, I could care less what they do, but then again, I don't own a business that depends on regular customers.
True there are businesses that tend to cater to a certain crowd, but that does not automatically mean that the business owner is discriminating, ie, banning certain people from patronizing the business based on gender, race, etc.
I have seen biker bars like you mention. I am not a biker. I'm a computer nerd. But I have gone into biker bars and have never once been asked to leave because I pulled up in a minivan. Back when I was a practicing muslim in full burqa I went into Hooters, an establishment that caters to westernized males who like to look at boobs, enjoy sports, and drink beer while they eat. I certainly did not fit that criteria. But I was not stopped at the door, asked to leave, or refused service. I was greeted with a smile as I bellied up to the bar and ordered their famous hotwings to go. I would have stayed there to eat but my husband, now my ex, was waiting outside the doors with our kids. I was treated kindly, and given the same type of service I assume they gave to anyone else that came in there. Yes, almost everyone in there did more than a double take and watched me but I just assumed they were confused because they never expected someone like me in there. But I was not kicked out or asked not to come back. On the contrary, they thanked me for my business and said, "Please come again".
In the case of special interest businesses, it isn't really so much forceful discrimination on the part of the business owner, they simply create an environment that appeals to the crowd they want. A biker bar may have a rough looking exterior, an old juke box, pool tables, and they don't serve fruity mixed drinks. They may have only rock music playing. Bikers like these things. Bikers also tend to intimidate other personality types by their mere appearance. A bar owner doesn't have to tell yuppies not to come there. Yuppies see the Harleys and know what type of people they will find and decide for themselves that they don't like that crowd and go somewhere else.
That being said, I don't know of any business that would depend on the owner forcefully discriminating against people of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Chick filet makes discriminating statements all the time. They are openly homophobic. I can't see how that helps their business. My kids beg to go there all the time but I refuse to go because they proselytize with christian fundy literature on the packaging of the food and because of their openly homophobic stance. So their discrimination cost them my business and I am sure it has cost them more than just mine.
What business, if you don't mind, do you see benefiting from being discriminatory?
What's the difference? Prostitution is not a legal business in most places. The 7-11 is a legal business. She could be arrested just for conducting her "business" with anyone at all. Try some other comparison because that was utterly ridiculous.
And I think that is true for most establishments. The bars that I haunt are probably a pull from the local community. They look to be average people, a mix of characters--white, black, Asian and Hispanic. I wouldn't know whether there are any other categories there, possibly because I've never noticed.
You know, sometimes when I drive by, I wonder what might disturb their nest, but I don't have the balls to test that curiosity.
Hooters is a big corporation. I suspect they are well versed in customer care.
And you would think that most people would look for an establishment that is aligned towards their own preferences.
My wife has heard of them but I'm not familiar. They must cater to someone if they are still in business.
Can't say I'm aware of any. As I said, those places I visit are open to the general public. There's nothing unusual about them, and I've never seen anything that made me feel uncomfortable, except for one gentleman who thought he could sing country music.
In some European countries, it is legal. It would be something to learn how civil rights plays out in that profession there.
I had to check out the Chic-fil-A website, being that it has come up a couple times in this thread. All I see is a link to the WinShape Foundation, which appears to have some religious leanings. I don't know what to make of it. My wife tells me that there's one in the local mall, but I have never been to the restaurant. I'm now tempted to give it a try and see what all the fuss is about.
You're creating a false dichotomy in saying that your options are only to discriminate based on race, gender, or other protected criteria, or lose your business. That's not the case anywhere. The example I gave of a white supremacist bookstore certainly isn't going to have to worry about turning away black folks, because black folks aren't going to give it their business.
You're protecting this false dichotomy by withholding the details of the case. Yes, you've said it's discrimination, but you insist upon it being "in the best interests of the company" without allowing us to judge that for ourselves.
But if you're going to play this game, all I can say is that if you're running a business that requires you to discriminate against people based on that criteria, I don't think you deserve to be in business. You're clearly appealing to a clientele that I wouldn't want to be in the same room with, if the presence of a woman or minority made them quit your establishment, and so I could care less if failing to discriminate makes you lose your business. I would actively root against you, in fact. And I don't want to hear this crap about "You guys don't know how hard it is to run a business," because that's bullshit. It's not so hard that you have to turn people away based on their skin color, or gender, or sexual preference. And if it is, you're doing it wrong.