Scratchtown Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 17 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said: I think they definitely should be able to refuse service to someone, within the limits of what we as a society determine are protected classes. With regard to the Sanders situation, I think @methodical had a good post in another thread about this: I saw someone tweet out something similar yesterday as well. Accountability is merely an afterthought in the Trump administration. We the people have very little if any recourse against Donald Trump or Scott Pruitt grifting from their official position, Jared Kushner screwing up his financial disclosure forms multiple times, Ivanka getting herself Chinese trademarks or SHS lying to our faces at press briefings. There's no accountability. This incident, in spite of all the pearl clutching from pundits and politicians, actually demonstrates someone effectively using leverage against a Trump admin official for their awful behavior. The owner handled everything the right way. The way I heard it, she actually asked her workers, who as a group decided they were uncomfortable with Trump administration people on the basis of their anti-LGBT agenda, so the owner asked her to leave on the basis of her employees' wishes. She politely stated a moral objection to Sanders eating there & comped the cheese plate & drinks the group had already ordered. I guess I don't see how the same folks who applaud a baker's right to refuse based on religion & designed bathroom bills on the basis of gender can get upset about this. Yea, you're right. You can't forget to also mention those on the left who are applauding Sanders being kicked out who are still crying about the bakery. But, it's huskerboard so we can't show any sort of neutrality can we. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share Posted June 26, 2018 19 minutes ago, Coach Power'T said: Yea, you're right. You can't forget to also mention those on the left who are applauding Sanders being kicked out who are still crying about the bakery. But, it's huskerboard so we can't show any sort of neutrality can we. You could model the neutrality you desire to see. 3 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 20 minutes ago, Coach Power'T said: Yea, you're right. You can't forget to also mention those on the left who are applauding Sanders being kicked out who are still crying about the bakery. But, it's huskerboard so we can't show any sort of neutrality can we. Yes you can and it's shown on here all the time by some people. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 22 minutes ago, Coach Power'T said: Yea, you're right. You can't forget to also mention those on the left who are applauding Sanders being kicked out who are still crying about the bakery. But, it's huskerboard so we can't show any sort of neutrality can we. I mean, I'm still iffy on the bakery decision but I understand the decision. I didn't lose a lick of sleep over Sanders being asked to leave either. There are those of us who are fairly reasonable. Most of us, I'd estimate. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 Chick-fil-a and Hobby Lobby are companies I support and I support their owners right to voice their opinion on political and non-political issues. It is a business decision to speak out and they may lose some customers as a result. What I would not support is a litmus test on who they would serve as a company. Neither business has such a litmus test and all are welcomed. I've always found employees to be friendly and helpful in both places - both promoting a friendly culture. Chick's sandwiches are good for fast food - nothing out of the world but beats a burger if you are tired of burgers. Hobby Lobby is like Walmart - full of stuff from China. I'd prefer to see more Made in USA labels. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 11 hours ago, knapplc said: Perhaps not. But if the effect of what you're saying - and I don't dispute that it's a reasonable stance - is that evil is emboldened by silence, doesn't that silence itself become evil? Not saying to be silent. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 Business owners should have the right to refuse service. But unless the customer is abusive or overly difficult, I'm not sure why you pass up money. It's why you start a business in the first place. 1 Link to comment
HuskerInLostWages Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 I refuse service all the time, including from my own clientele. I will NOT work on a home PC for anyone, I will not support a home PC for anyone, including my business clients. No matter what you do, something is always missing, can't be found or just "gone" when dealing with home users who have royally f'd up their computer(normally because they are lucky to even be able to turn the damn thing on). Any business owner should be able to deny service to anyone, anytime for any reason, they should also be able to accept the bad press and loss of business if they so choose. I do not believe a business should have any public political views, a business does not have a vote, it's not a person. Businesses should keep their political views to themselves as the company has employees who do vote, and I can promise you, not all of them have the same opinion. 2 Link to comment
NUance Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 It seems like a lot of people in this thread are weighing in against being forced to serve clientèle they would prefer not to serve? What about race? Should a restaurant owner owner be allowed to have a whites-only policy? I thought we were past that. 2 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 12 hours ago, Day by Day said: What a business owner 'should do' and 'does do' are two different things. Just understand that it goes both ways. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for someone they disagree with, morally, then they should have that right. It doesn't mean that their decision is the best one for all, just maybe the best for them. The same goes for a restaurant that doesn't agree with a patron, morally. They have the same right. If you refuse to sell/make something for someone you disagree with, then don't be surprised if certain people stop buying your product. My biggest problem is that some people look at the one situation and think that it's bad but then applaud the other. You vote with your wallet. If I don't agree with how someone runs their company, then I just won't buy their product. Supply and Demand or something like that. Both sides (extremes) are blinded by their own views and can't see the other viewpoint. Personally, I would have made the cake and served Sanders at the restaurant, but I also understand that each owner had the right to refuse to do so. As @knapplc posted earlier (maybe it was a different thread), there's a really big difference between the baker refusing to make cakes for gay couples and the restaurant owner refusing SHS service. The first is discriminatory because it's not based on the person or their actions but rather based on a protected class. The second is about Sanders as a person and her specific actions. 3 hours ago, Coach Power'T said: Yea, you're right. You can't forget to also mention those on the left who are applauding Sanders being kicked out who are still crying about the bakery. But, it's huskerboard so we can't show any sort of neutrality can we. If you want neutrality, then shouldn't you also criticize those on the right that are crying about the same issue? Hypocritical statements aren't very convincing. 1 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 20 minutes ago, NUance said: It seems like a lot of people in this thread are weighing in against being forced to serve clientèle they would prefer not to serve? What about race? Should a restaurant owner owner be allowed to have a whites-only policy? I thought we were past that. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by a privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. What it seems to not cover from the religion stand point is the discrimination if it's based on your own religion, ie the baker in Colorado. In addition, gays are not federally protected. It also doesn't seem to cover anyone if you just don't like them, ie the press secretary. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 33 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said: The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by a privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. What it seems to not cover from the religion stand point is the discrimination if it's based on your own religion, ie the baker in Colorado. In addition, gays are not federally protected. It also doesn't seem to cover anyone if you just don't like them, ie the press secretary. Federal appeals court ruled that homosexuality is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/appeals-court-homosexuality-is-a-protected-class-like-race-and-sex Quote A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a law prohibiting discrimination based on one’s sex also applies to “sexual orientation.” The case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., was over whether homosexuality is a protected class under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it is, going against the Trump administration’s plain reading of the law. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Federal appeals court ruled that homosexuality is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/appeals-court-homosexuality-is-a-protected-class-like-race-and-sex You should have read that a little further. "The ruling applies to discrimination in the workplace, housing, and schools, but does not mention public accommodations such as public bathrooms." Public accommodations includes businesses Link to comment
RedDenver Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said: You should have read that a little further. "The ruling applies to discrimination in the workplace, housing, and schools, but does not mention public accommodations such as public bathrooms." Public accommodations includes businesses Here's a detailed summary of the cases affecting LGBTQ+ rights and the Civil Rights Act: https://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/summer2004/irr_hr_summer04_protectlgbt.html Basically, courts have ruled both ways on the issues but have been trending towards more protections for LGBTQ+. But it looks like you are correct that the rulings have been more about workplace discrimination and not about public accommodations like how businesses treat customers. Link to comment
Recommended Posts