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.
In general in the USA every business owner is free to discriminate against anyone for any reason
except ethnicity, age, sex and marital status (and in some jurisdictions also sexual orientation). There are plenty of bars where only bikers are welcome and there are also some in which bikers are unwelcome, although if you ride up on a sewing-machine-quiet BMW instead of a Harley they'll probably let you in. Hell, there are clubs in Hollywood, Manhattan and other places where the doorman looks you over and if he doesn't think you'll add to the cachet of the place, he won't let you in. But it had better not be because of your ethnicity, age, etc.
Chick-Fil-A 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.
The hundreds of articles about this controversy made it clear that the corporation did in fact not discriminate against LGBT either as employees or as customers.
What business, if you don't mind, do you see benefiting from being discriminatory?
This is why I keep demanding that he stop being so deliberately obtuse and tell us exactly
who he wants to discriminate against. No one has disputed my explanation of U.S. law, which is that you can legally discriminate against anyone you want for any reason except ethnicity, religion, etc., and even that is waived if you're interviewing people to share your home. Bowser refuses to tell us whether these people he finds so offensive are offensive because they are members of an unpopular religion or ethnicity, or because they wear tattoos and speak Pig Latin. It's a fundamental difference.
Furthermore, no one has disputed my summary of the history of discrimination in America, which comes down to a consensus that the harm done by forcing us to get used to hanging out with people of other ethnicities and religions, and allowing women to go everywhere men go, is the lesser of two evils when compared to the life I observed in this country in the early 1950s. Bowser refuses to tell us whether he in fact would like to reinstitute Jim Crow, which would make him a first-class asshole, or to merely ban punk-rockers from his bar, which would make him the President of Russia.
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.
Prostitution is legal in the rural counties in Nevada. To my knowledge each woman has the right to turn down any customer she wants to. There are others to fill the void, and if they all say no to a particular guy, the management will trust their judgment and give him a refund and an escort out the door. There are a few women who charge more and are willing to put up with activities that the others are not, but (again based on hearsay) they all draw the line at violence. They're very fussy about health and hygiene and they all get a medical exam monthly, and are trained to do the best possible layman's job of washing genitals and examining them for signs of illness. This can be treated as part of the foreplay if you pay enough, otherwise it's like having your nurse practitioner give you a very matter-of-fact exam and then start taking her clothes off. I'm sure some guys think that's fun.
They also get paid vacations, sick leave and health insurance. Many are working their way through college and think the money is a worthwhile tradeoff against the "respectable" minimum-wage jobs they could get instead.
Once again, I think it best to withhold the specifics in this discussion. I apologize if that hinders your argument.
It's destroying your credibility. You absolutely come across as either A) somebody who's playing games with us and will decide what his "minority" group is
after we all weigh in on one side or the other, or B) somebody who's embarrassed to tell us what sorts of people coming into his shop would make him uncomfortable.
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.
I, and a few others, have spoken to your concern. You have failed to respond to ours: that ethnic, religious and gender discrimination have caused so much damage to civilization that it's better for the human race to sacrifice the profits of a few entrepreneurs.
I'm not sure if I've read every single post on this thread, but I've read most of them and
no one has suggested cursing at an individual proprietor who feels that his livelihood depends on being able to conform to the 19th-century prejudices of his clientele. I'm probably speaking for them all when I say we feel sorry for the poor guy, but sometimes you're standing in the way of progress and you just have to get the hell out of the way.
Frankly I feel much more sympathy for the people who put a lot of effort and capital into opening legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California, only to have Barack may-he-rot-in-hell Obama change his position on the issue and start busting them.
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.
Well you can take that up with the Baby Boomers. No one in my generation wanted to ban smoking or transfats or perfume or peanut butter or extra-large sodas. We think the sissies are taking over. I'm a non-career musician and bar bands have suffered since the banning of tobacco in bars. They're taking in less money so they can't afford to book a live band as often as they used to.
These are the people who go home and smoke pot.
Bottom line, the human body is way more than simple private property, so public business laws should not apply.
I would say this fits in exactly the same category as renting out the spare bedroom in your home. Your personal space, your rules.
true a business can refuse anyone but they can't always admit why they are doing it.
Yes. A big company nearby (whose commercials you often see on TV) is becoming notorious for finding ways to fire older employees so they can hire younger ones who will work for less. They always wait until the employee does something... anything... that could conceivably be construed as poor performance or inappropriate behavior. Then they coax some of his co-workers into attesting that they observed it and that it was a lot worse than it actually was. They've been getting away with it for years, but the local government is getting wise and has a lot of evidence which, in aggregate, will probably result in millions of dollars in reparations and perhaps even a public apology. A couple of local law firms are just dying to take this case. It would be their equivalent of bringing down Bin Laden.
Talk about an issue one should strive not to be on the wrong side of. We old folks will be the majority in a few years!
