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

[Michael]

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.

So in other words in the case of prostitution you think it should be a woman's choice who she conducts business with but if this very same woman were selling a back massage then you change your opinion.


This is the reason we have all these problems around these sorts of discussions. The facts is a business is private property, just like our bodies. The State has no moral right to tell you how you conduct non-violent voluntarily trade with your property.

So, this means a business owner can tell whomever she like to get the f*ck off her or out of her shop for any damn reason she so chooses - race, ethnicity, looks, smell, accent, whatever. Then it's up to the free market to determine whether she can earn a living or not.


If you don't like that, move to a Communist country where the State can take your kidney if it's deemed in the interest of society. That's not our culture. Although, I'm pretty sure another decade or two of Progressive State-bot-ism and we'll probably be there. France isn't even Communistic - they banned free citizens from wearing Burkas. Why? Because they're socialists. It could easily happen in the USA. But, so far times have be somewhat OK to us and we have retained a sense of civil liberty and private property rights.

BUT when times get tough in the USA, and they're going to get tough everywhere in the West - that's when real prejudices may arise. That's when people who were forced to do something against their wishes vote for the demagogues sociopath who targets the minorities.


Anyway, it's much better to let one bigot run a business into the ground than to give away one ounce of personal liberty.

 

[Michael]

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".

And that's what over time a free-market produces. Which is why free-market societies are generally liberal/progressive. State-run economies are generally NOT so progressive. They can't be. Because the State has it's nose into everything, efficiency is shit, productivity is substandard and society is generally poor. Everyone is suspicious of everyone else and freeloaders or outsiders (out-group) are generally not trusted. Thus, they are generally not progressive.

That's something to think about.

The camels nose under the tent might seem harmless, but, just wait until the camel is in there.


Not to mention, most people would prefer to have an honest exchange and send our business to where it's valued rather than go somewhere we weren't desired.

 

[Bowser]

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.

Once again, I think it best to withhold the specifics in this discussion. I apologize if that hinders your argument.

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.

It's my opinion, in this situation, that the proprietor is under the gun. He is simply trying to keep his doors open. Of course we should curse him for trying.

 

[Bowser]

Not to mention, most people would prefer to have an honest exchange and send our business to where it's valued rather than go somewhere we weren't desired.

Yes, and that is often the case. The only problems I've encounter have revolved around my smoking addiction. Unfortunately, the state has banned me from every establishment.

 

[Balerion]

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.

Did you really think you could slip that non-sequitur past anyone? Is she turning him away because he's a disgusting gang-banger, or because of his age and/or ethnic background? Since the two sentences are entirely unrelated, let's disregard the set-up and just deal with the question:

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.

Correct. Presuming prostitution is legal where she's practicing it, she would not have the right to discriminate based on age or ethnic background. I suppose there could be some consideration given to elderly clientele, but I'm not aware of any government oversight in the legal prostitution industry.

She should just give up her civil right to say no to servicing this paying customer.

The point is that she doesn't have the civil right o say no to servicing a paying customer based on things like age, race, or religion.

... 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? What is the basis for the belief that she shouldn't have to service anyone? Remember, we're not talking about choosing mates here, we're talking about her selling sex as a service. In this context, it becomes no different than selling anything else.

Yes, a business owner should be able to refuse anyone for whatever reason they choose.

Again, why? Why does a business owner's "right" to discriminate against customers based on race or religion take precedence over a customer's right to choose where they shop? You talk about civil rights, yet what you're actually arguing for is a mechanism that takes them away. You really think the "fair" scenario is a Jewish person having to drive to the other side of town to have a beer because the six bars closest to their house all have signs on the door reading "No Heebs?" That's the world you want to live in?

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 don't think you understand any of those concepts at all, given how you've misused the terms in this discussion. Or perhaps you do, but intentionally obfuscate the matter, as you did above by trying to equivocate "disgusting gang-banger" and discrimination based on "age or race."

I mean look here, I'm doing all the shopping. I deserve my fair share!

What is this supposed to mean? What is "fair share?" You're advocating that store owners have the right to refuse service to people based on any criteria, which will--as it did before the various civil rights movements--manifest itself in terms of racial minorities and women not being allowed the same services as white males.

This is the reason we have all these problems around these sorts of discussions. The facts is a business is private property, just like our bodies. The State has no moral right to tell you how you conduct non-violent voluntarily trade with your property.

Of course they do. There must be standards, or else there will be inequity. I should have the right to give my custom to any establishment that services the public. I should have access to that, the right to choose. And, unsurprisingly, this doesn't just benefit me, but it also benefits business in general, because everyone has a wider customer base. Of course, the owner retains the right to refuse service if I'm doing something that violates any codes of conduct or laws or whatever, so he or she is fully protected from me being a negative force against their business. The only thing they can't do is refuse me because of my race, or my skin color. That's not an option because to deny on that criteria is immoral.

So, this means a business owner can tell whomever she like to get the f*ck off her or out of her shop for any damn reason she so chooses - race, ethnicity, looks, smell, accent, whatever. Then it's up to the free market to determine whether she can earn a living or not.

No, they don't. They do not have that right.

 

[seagypsy]

So in other words in the case of prostitution you think it should be a woman's choice who she conducts business with but if this very same woman were selling a back massage then you change your opinion.

I didn't say anything at all like what you are saying. I gave no opinion on how a prostitute should be allowed to conduct business at all. I pointed out that you compared a legitimate business to one that (at least in the USA) is illegal in most of the country. Don't try to derive hidden meaning from what I said. As far as the rest of your post is concerned it is irrelevant to me because you likely based it on the above bullshit conclusion you invented from my statement.

 

[Bowser]

I didn't say anything at all like what you are saying. I gave no opinion on how a prostitute should be allowed to conduct business at all. I pointed out that you compared a legitimate business to one that (at least in the USA) is illegal in most of the country. Don't try to derive hidden meaning from what I said. As far as the rest of your post is concerned it is irrelevant to me because you likely based it on the above bullshit conclusion you invented from my statement.

If it were legal in the US, what would your position be?

 

[seagypsy]

If it were legal in the US, what would your position be?

I think the human body is way more personal than private property. In some states, we have the right to defend private property with a certain amount of force, meaning if someone is intruding on our private property (ie land) we have the right to forcefully remove them or have the police to remove them. If someone is intruding on our body, forcing themselves on us we are allowed to use any force we feel necessary to keep us safe from harm, up to and including deadly force.

Obviously private property and our bodies are not regarded equally. We can't kill someone for trespassing, but we can use deadly force if we are being assaulted.

Prostitution puts the prostitute, whether male or female, in a special situation where his or her body will be violated and put at high risk. I watched a documentary about brothels in Las Vegas a long time ago. The madam said that some of her girls were not suited for certain types of client whether for personality clashing or physical endowments. She would personally select a handful of girls for the john to pick from but she never offered him anyone that would be opposed to servicing him for any reason, even if it were discriminatory. Sex is very psychological, if someone is terribly put off for some bigoted reason, performance will wane. It would be in the best interest of the customer then to not have a prostitute that hated them for some discriminatory reason. And for the prostitute to be forced to do so would be making the customer a rapist and the fed gov an accessory to rape.

A bigot is bad, a rapist is worse. I don't think any honest, moral solicitor of prostitutes wants to be made into a rapist because he or she forced a prostitute who did not want to service him/her into having sex with them.

I can't think of any other businesses where this type of special circumstance exists.

Bottom line, the human body is way more than simple private property, so public business laws should not apply.

 

[Bowser]

I think the human body is way more personal than private property. In some states, we have the right to defend private property with a certain amount of force, meaning if someone is intruding on our private property (ie land) we have the right to forcefully remove them or have the police to remove them. If someone is intruding on our body, forcing themselves on us we are allowed to use any force we feel necessary to keep us safe from harm, up to and including deadly force.

Obviously private property and our bodies are not regarded equally. We can't kill someone for trespassing, but we can use deadly force if we are being assaulted.

Prostitution puts the prostitute, whether male or female, in a special situation where his or her body will be violated and put at high risk. I watched a documentary about brothels in Las Vegas a long time ago. The madam said that some of her girls were not suited for certain types of client whether for personality clashing or physical endowments. She would personally select a handful of girls for the john to pick from but she never offered him anyone that would be opposed to servicing him for any reason, even if it were discriminatory. Sex is very psychological, if someone is terribly put off for some bigoted reason, performance will wane. It would be in the best interest of the customer then to not have a prostitute that hated them for some discriminatory reason. And for the prostitute to be forced to do so would be making the customer a rapist and the fed gov an accessory to rape.



A bigot is bad, a rapist is worse. I don't think any honest, moral solicitor of prostitutes wants to be made into a rapist because he or she forced a prostitute who did not want to service him/her into having sex with them.

I can't think of any other businesses where this type of special circumstance exists.

Bottom line, the human body is way more than simple private property, so public business laws should not apply.

Interesting. Thank you for your answer. It was an honest reply.

In contrast we have the following...

Correct. Presuming prostitution is legal where she's practicing it, she would not have the right to discriminate based on age or ethnic background. I suppose there could be some consideration given to elderly clientele, but I'm not aware of any government oversight in the legal prostitution industry.

Hmm...

 

[Balerion]

In contrast we have the following...



Hmm...

Where's the contrast. As I said, I'm not familiar with how legal prostitution actually works, but nothing I said contradicts seagypsy's post. Even though the madam (or pimp, I guess, would be the male equivalent) selects certain girls (or boys) based on their level of attraction (or lack of revulsion, maybe?) of a given customer, the service itself isn't being denied. I suppose if you wanted to get technical, and the man demanded a certain girl and was refused, it could be considered denying a service, but as seagypsy pointed out sex is likely to be treated differently in a court of law. In other words, denying a customer access to a particular girl because she finds him gross isn't the same as denying a customer access to a particular lawnmower because the salesman doesn't like fat people.

This is why seagypsy is right in doing what I didn't do, which is calling Michael out on his false equivocation of the human body and other goods and services.. He likely chose it for its moral ambiguity and because he could appeal to a person's sense of repulsion at the idea of a woman "having" to have sex with a customer regardless of his looks or character. He did this because he has no argument otherwise.

 

[Bowser]

Correct. Presuming prostitution is legal where she's practicing it, she would not have the right to discriminate based on age or ethnic background.

Possibly I misunderstood.

I think one's business is also a personal matter, which might have been Michael's point, drawing on a parallel that Seagypsy might understand.

 

[Balerion]

Possibly I misunderstood.

I think one's business is also a personal matter,

But it isn't. At least not in the sense you mean. When you offer services to the public, there are certain standards you, as the proprietor, have to meet. Whether it's health codes, or applying for a liquor license, or making your services available to everyone regardless of race, religion, and other attributes. I mean, it would be cheaper for a restaurant to ignore health codes, if they could get away with it. Do you really think they should be allowed to?

which might have been Michael's point, drawing on a parallel that Seagypsy might understand.

But it's a false equivocation. Our businesses aren't our bodies.

 

[Bowser]

I have worked for a company that has passed to its third generation: grandfather, father, and son. I worked for the last two and have watched the business grow over the years. Yes, a business can be a very personal venture for its owner(s).

 

[seagypsy]

Possibly I misunderstood.

I think one's business is also a personal matter, which might have been Michael's point, drawing on a parallel that Seagypsy might understand.

With all due respect, Bowser, Balerion and I clash enough as it is. Please don't try to pit us against each other on this one. We have different perspectives, thought it seems only slightly in this case, and our communication style is different, but we really aren't contradicting each other. As he said, in the case of the brothel, the client would still not be denied services. A brothel, in Las Vegas, is a legal business. The prostitute is just an employee of the brothel. Now if a prostitute walking the street makes a choice to descriminate, being that she is self employeed and has only one employee, I am sure the law would allow her to have personal discretion considering her product is her personal body, not a product that is separate from her self. As a web developer, I can work for a firm or be freelance. A firm could not discriminate but as a single employee proprietor, I could probably get away with discriminating though it still would be unethical, illegal and not good for my business. As an atheist, one may assume that I would not want to make web pages that proselytize faith. And I wouldn't want to. but I wouldn't refuse to. I would however let the client know that I am an atheist and give them the opportunity and the right to discriminate against me. They could reasonably worry that I would not give them as high a quality product as I would for anyone else because I would lack the inspiration. And religious organizations usually prefer to give business to people of their own faith.

 

[Bowser]

Wow, our last posts must of hit at the same time. Anyway...

But it isn't. At least not in the sense you mean. When you offer services to the public, there are certain standards you, as the proprietor, have to meet. Whether it's health codes, or applying for a liquor license, or making your services available to everyone regardless of race, religion, and other attributes. I mean, it would be cheaper for a restaurant to ignore health codes, if they could get away with it. Do you really think they should be allowed to?

Good point, and a hard one to argue. To equate health codes and public safety with selective service? I think they are different issues altogether. Yes, both are regulated by the government, but maybe both should be addressed as two separate matters. Keeping a clean facility is, I would think, a good thing--good for business. However, there are those that fall very short and would not benefit their customers without the occasional inspection. On the other hand, who you choose to serve should be your business, in my opinion. I think selective discrimination could be a good thing or a bad thing for a business, depending on the individual circumstances.

But it's a false equivocation. Our businesses aren't our bodies.

It might depend on your commitment to the enterprise. Ask someone who is married to an investment in which they have pinned all their hopes.

 

[Bowser]

With all due respect, Bowser, Balerion and I clash enough as it is. Please don't try to pit us against each other on this one. We have different perspectives, thought it seems only slightly in this case, and our communication style is different, but we really aren't contradicting each other. As he said, in the case of the brothel, the client would still not be denied services. A brothel, in Las Vegas, is a legal business. The prostitute is just an employee of the brothel.

I'm not trying to pit you two against each other. Again, possibly I misunderstood. So you feel that a brothel prostitute is obligated to service anybody who walks through the door. Please clarify.

 

[seagypsy]

It might depend on your commitment to the enterprise. Ask someone who is married to an investment in which they have pinned all their hopes.

Sure, ok. A guy sinks his life savings into a business. Someone comes along and burgles his storefront taking everything. Insurance gives some excuse, a loop hole for why they don't have to pay out. Courts side with the insurance company. They guy is financially ruined. but his body is still in tact, he is not physically injured in anyway, and he can continue with his life. Depressed maybe, but he will live. And the burglar will be arrested if caught.

A prostitute gets burgled (raped) because she is forced to give service to someone she didn't want to. She is traumatized and injured physically (when a woman doesn't want to have sex, her organs do not supply necessary lubrication). She is unable to continue her business, possibly suffering physical damage that affects her personal life. And her customer has gotten away with state mandated rape.

Do you see any difference here between a person's body and a person's business?

 

[seagypsy]

I'm not trying to pit you two against each other. Again, possibly I misunderstood. So you feel that a brothel prostitute is obligated to service anybody who walks through the door. Please clarify.

No I don't feel the prostitute working in a brothel is obligated to provide service but the brothel itself is obligated to produce a willing prostitute. If a client were to be discriminated against at a brothel, the client would sue the brothel not the employees of the brothel. So it would behoove the madam to make sure she hires prostitutes of varying tastes in order to be able to accommodate anyone who comes through the door.

 

[Balerion]

Wow, our last posts must of hit at the same time. Anyway...



Good point, and a hard one to argue. To equate health codes and public safety with selective service? I think they are different issues altogether. Yes, both are regulated by the government, but maybe both should be addressed as two separate matters. Keeping a clean facility is, I would think, a good thing--good for business. However, there are those that fall very short and would not benefit their customers without the occasional inspection. On the other hand, who you choose to serve should be your business, in my opinion. I think selective discrimination could be a good thing or a bad thing for a business, depending on the individual circumstances.

The reason the two issues are relevant is because your argument for discrimination was that it could be good for business. So is saving money on things like keeping your kitchen clean. Now you're saying it's about a owner's rights? What's the argument for that?

It might depend on your commitment to the enterprise. Ask someone who is married to an investment in which they have pinned all their hopes.

It's got nothing to do with that. You're talking about something being personal versus being a part of your person. Music is personal to me, but that doesn't mean it's a part of my body.

 

[Bowser]

Sure, ok. A guy sinks his life savings into a business. Someone comes along and burgles his storefront taking everything. Insurance gives some excuse, a loop hole for why they don't have to pay out. Courts side with the insurance company. They guy is financially ruined. but his body is still in tact, he is not physically injured in anyway, and he can continue with his life. Depressed maybe, but he will live. And the burglar will be arrested if caught.

A prostitute gets burgled (raped) because she is forced to give service to someone she didn't want to. She is traumatized and injured physically (when a woman doesn't want to have sex, her organs do not supply necessary lubrication). She is unable to continue her business, possibly suffering physical damage that affects her personal life. And her customer has gotten away with state mandated rape.

Do you see any difference here between a person's body and a person's business?

It's a strange journey, but I think I'm following. Now, back to my last question...

So you feel that a brothel prostitute is obligated to service anybody who walks through the door. Please clarify.