Jump to content
knapplc

Should a business owner have the right to refuse service to customers?

Recommended Posts

Two high-profile situations have hit the news in the past couple of weeks.  First, the Supreme Court ruled on the gay wedding cake story:

 

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

 

Then, over the weekend, we got this:

 

Sarah Huckabee Sanders asked to leave Virginia restaurant

 

Lots of opinions have been floated around about both situations.  Some feel the bakery owner's religious beliefs allow him to discern who he'll serve and why (or why not). Some feel the restaurant owner's political beliefs allow her to discern who she'll serve and why (or why not).  Some feel the opposite is true of both cases.

 

We're all familiar with signs like these:

 

neWywb3.gif

 

JMRNtJU.jpg

 

 

 

So we're all familiar with the concept of places of business refusing service, for whatever reason(s).  Is this OK?  When is/isn't it justifiable to refuse someone service?

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe, a private business should have the right to say no to a customer.   Extreme examples using the cater as example, should a black caterer be forced to make a cake for a nazi family that says "F-bomb all N-Bombs"?   No, they should have the right to say, we will not serve you.   Public positions should have to serve everyone.  For example, the state cannot have individuals denying marriage licenses because it's against the religion they believe in, but that same person, if they owned a floral shop, could say, no we won't provide flowers for a gay wedding.

As long as there is no physical harm, a business should be able to choose to do business with whomever they wish.  If it hurts their business, that's on them.  And people also the right to make those biases public knowledge so someone who doesn't share those biases can choose where to spend their money.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe a business should be able to refuse to serve a customer.  I honestly think it's a legal issue and financial issue for the business.  Prime example.  I have refused to quote projects because I flat out didn't want to do business with the person.  

 

a)  I was doing a quote a project when I lived in Des Moines.  I was on the quote and in the last 10 minutes of the meeting, the home owner totally changed attitudes and was a total jack ass.  I had a bad feeling that I was being set up by the customer to be totally screwed.  I didn't even write the quote even though the guy kept leaving nasty messages for me because I wouldn't quote it.

 

b)  I didn't quote a project one time because I knew another contractor the customer screwed in paying.  

 

c)  I also have refused quoting projects because I thought the project would end up in a lawsuit some how.

 

I also know of a situation where when Ted Turner and Jane Fonda bought a ranch in the Sandhills, they went into town to the local bar.  The local bar owner was a Vietnam Vet and refused to allow Jane into his bar.  I honestly don't have a problem with that.

 

I would also have to say, that if I had to make a decision and knowing what we all know now about the case, I would probably have to side on the side of cake baker.  He didn't refuse to sell to gay people.  I just refused to be a part of that one event he wasn't comfortable with.

 

This situation with Sanders and the restaurant and the congresswoman asking for everyone to confront Trump people in public makes me uncomfortable because of where we are right now  as a country.  I don't feel one bit sorry for Sanders or anyone in the administration even if not one restaurant would serve them.  Screw them.  BUT....the tensions in America are so high right now, I think we need to pick our fights.  I think the anti Trump people can win better and cause less problems if they prove they are above the crap the Administration is spewing.

 

It seems like right now, each side is making this a race to the gutter.

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

Quote

I don't particularly care if a business owner decides a trump administration official isn't welcome.  It gives them a taste of the agenda they push for others and the divisiveness they play to in order to rile up Trump's base.  They should be held accountable for what they do and the policies they push.


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.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure...but if I ran a business I am selling to anyone that wants to buy my s#!t.  Assuming they got the cash, because BRB brought up some good points about other hassles that can/do happen.

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As discussed in the other thread - I'm uncomfortable wt people being refused service based on a purely political differences.  I say that under normal conditions.  We might be in 'unnormal times' when it comes to political partisan talk, policy, and "demigodry".  Can one however look at the Sanders situation from a moral/values situation and say that it is similar to the cake baker situation?? Evidently so.  The Red Hen owner felt it was a moral issue.  That is a judgement call.   As a private business they will take the hits positive or negative for taking the stance.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing with the Sanders issue.  I don't think it actually accomplishes anything.  Seriously...what does it accomplish??
 

I'll guarantee you it doesn't change Sanders's mind on anything.  If anything, it makes her dig her heals in more by proving in her mind that the other side is unreasonable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Here's the thing with the Sanders issue.  I don't think it actually accomplishes anything.  Seriously...what does it accomplish??
 

I'll guarantee you it doesn't change Sanders's mind on anything.  If anything, it makes her dig her heals in more by proving in her mind that the other side is unreasonable.

 

 

 

So we shouldn't take a stand because it might make the people we're taking a stand against more resolute?

 

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a business should be forced to sell anything to anyone. If the business doesn't like the customer or doesn't like what the customer is requesting them to provide, sure, refuse service.  My business is quite a bit different than a public bakery or a restaurant and I would never refuse service based on political or religious grounds or some protected status (as per the examples in the OP) but I have refused to quote jobs because the customer was a dick or because I didn't feel we could provide what they were requesting in a satisfactory manner or because we were just too busy. 

 

I've got a bit of a personal problem with businesses that refuse to provide based on their religious beliefs or bigotry, orientation etc. but I think that is when we let free enterprise control and let them suffer from their own decisions. But I don't think forcing them to do something they don't want to do is a very good policy. I mean if you are a gay couple looking for a wedding cake (as an example) and the business owner has said he doesn't want to provide it, why on earth would you pursue it any further? Take your business to somebody that wants and appreciates it.

 

However, this is one I don't have a problem with- I don't think any entity should be forced to provide abortions or birth control if they do not want to. I guess Ireland just legalized abortion and they are trying to force Catholic healthcare providers to provide them. Uh yeah, good luck with that.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

So we shouldn't take a stand because it might make the people we're taking a stand against more resolute?

 

 

Not what I said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Comfortably Numb said:

However, this is one I don't have a problem with- I don't think any entity should be forced to provide abortions or birth control if they do not want to. I guess Ireland just legalized abortion and they are trying to force Catholic healthcare providers to provide them. Uh yeah, good luck with that.

It depends what you mean by "forced". This is one of those gray areas that seems simple on the surface (just don't force money for abortions or birth control) but is actually a very slippery slope. We're all forced to do or pay for things we don't want to. Think of all the things that people could decide are things they don't want to be forced to pay for. The easiest example is war. If I have a religious/moral/ethical aversion to war, then can I say I shouldn't be forced to pay for war? And I'm sure you can think of other examples on all parts of the political spectrum.

 

I'm not saying what people should or shouldn't be forced to do but rather just that there's nuance to that discussion. And that there's a lot of room between abortions and birth control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a flipped question...would you give your business to a place that didn't believe/think/act like you do?

 

 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, teachercd said:

What about a flipped question...would you give your business to a place that didn't believe/think/act like you do?

 

 

 

For me it depends how critical it is. I think if my contribution to a bigoted business would make or break something, my principles would take over and I'd not frequent that business.  Dollar Vote, and all that.

 

But I shop at Hobby Lobby, and once in a blue moon I get Chik-Fil-A, meaning I understand principles go so far, and convenience and ease have a say as well.

 

It's why I posed the question. It's not an easy answer. And I can see the "right" side of a lot of different arguments in these situations.

 

A professor once told my class, "Your rights end where my rights begin."  And that was a clever enough phrase when I was 18.  But that boundary isn't straight; it's a jagged edge that loops and twists around itself. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Not what I 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, teachercd said:

What about a flipped question...would you give your business to a place that didn't believe/think/act like you do?

 

In some cases, ya. I won't shop at Wal-mart, although that's probably not a good example because it's specifically because of their business practices. Chik-Fil-A is a good example. I have been there a few times but mostly avoid it.

I've owned a business with a store front before, and I like to think I would tell any of the Trumps to get the hell out, but it's also possible I'd chicken out, or just kinda see what they were like by acting normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

For me it depends how critical it is. I think if my contribution to a bigoted business would make or break something, my principles would take over and I'd not frequent that business.  Dollar Vote, and all that.

 

But I shop at Hobby Lobby, and once in a blue moon I get Chik-Fil-A, meaning I understand principles go so far, and convenience and ease have a say as well.

 

It's why I posed the question. It's not an easy answer. And I can see the "right" side of a lot of different arguments in these situations.

 

A professor once told my class, "Your rights end where my rights begin."  And that was a clever enough phrase when I was 18.  But that boundary isn't straight; it's a jagged edge that loops and twists around itself. 

I think I have had Chik twice...only because I really don't think about it all that much.   If there was one right next to my house and if they had a dollar menu (Do they?) I would get it more often I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, teachercd said:

I think I have had Chik twice...only because I really don't think about it all that much.   If there was one right next to my house and if they had a dollar menu (Do they?) I would get it more often I think.

 

It's not bad, but it's more hype than anything. A buddy grew up in the South and he was crazy excited when they came to Lincoln. I went a couple of times... it's OK.

 

Some of the dudes I follow on the Twitter are insane for Popeye's.  I've had them a couple of times and... eh. It's OK.  It's just fried chicken.  I don't get the hype.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

It's not bad, but it's more hype than anything. A buddy grew up in the South and he was crazy excited when they came to Lincoln. I went a couple of times... it's OK.

 

Some of the dudes I follow on the Twitter are insane for Popeye's.  I've had them a couple of times and... eh. It's OK.  It's just fried chicken.  I don't get the hype.

Funny you say that...Popeyes is almost legendary but I am not sure why.  It has decent seasoning but that is really about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :lol: 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. 

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

It depends what you mean by "forced". This is one of those gray areas that seems simple on the surface (just don't force money for abortions or birth control) but is actually a very slippery slope. We're all forced to do or pay for things we don't want to. Think of all the things that people could decide are things they don't want to be forced to pay for. The easiest example is war. If I have a religious/moral/ethical aversion to war, then can I say I shouldn't be forced to pay for war? And I'm sure you can think of other examples on all parts of the political spectrum.

 

I'm not saying what people should or shouldn't be forced to do but rather just that there's nuance to that discussion. And that there's a lot of room between abortions and birth control.

 

I wasn’t attempting to delve into the being forced to pay for it angle. That’s another issue with other considerations. However, I don’t think there is any nuance at all to the issue of forcing Catholic institutions to perform abortions. Seems like a straight forward no-brainer to me. And as far as Catholics are concerned (officially) I don’t think there is any room between abortions and birth control. I can’t for the life of me fathom why anyone desiring either of those two things would begin to think a Catholic run facility would be the place to go to acquire either one. Pretty simple, just go somewhere else. I said “officially” because that is the position of the church and not necessarily all Catholics. I happen to be opposed to abortion in most cases (not all...) but I think preventative birth control should not only be readily available but encouraged. Where that one starts to get gray fast is with things like the day after pill. Anyway I just don’t understand why people feel the need to force others into doing things they don’t want to do. Aren’t there plenty of places that can willfully provide those things? I would need it explained to me how someone else’s right to have an abortion would or should supercede my right to refuse to perform one. No one should have to commit murder if that is what they feel it is and if they really feel that way I fail to see how the issue could ever be forced.

 

Sorry, I really don’t want to derail this topic into the black hole of abortion but it seemed strongly related to the topic. I’m guessing that there are many people that feel just as strongly opposed to same sex marriage etc. Not sure what is to be gained as a society in forcing the issue.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes 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. :lol: 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. 

Amen!

I am not opening a business to make a stance...I am opening a business to make dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody explain what the issue is with Chick-fil-A? I guess I’m aware they are kind of a “Christian” beliefs organization and I know they are closed on Sundays but have they done something else that causes certain people to avoid them? I happen to really like their fried chicken sandwich and waffle fries. Get it fairly regularly. It doesn’t have anything to do with what they stand for etc., I just like them and around here it’s one of the few fast food places that can actually not F up your order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

Can somebody explain what the issue is with Chick-fil-A? I guess I’m aware they are kind of a “Christian” beliefs organization and I know they are closed on Sundays but have they done something else that causes certain people to avoid them? I happen to really like their fried chicken sandwich and waffle fries. Get it fairly regularly. It doesn’t have anything to do with what they stand for etc., I just like them and around here it’s one of the few fast food places that can actually not F up your order.

 

The CEO thinks that being gay is a sin. I'm sure there is more to it than that, but I believe that is what started it. I also believe he said it 6 years ago, and it was his personal belief, not a business stance. I will say, as someone that lives in the ATL area and has many friends that work at the corporate office, they have many people working there from many different walks of life and religious beliefs. Not everyone that works for Chick-fil-a the corporation is a Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's not bad, but it's more hype than anything. A buddy grew up in the South and he was crazy excited when they came to Lincoln. I went a couple of times... it's OK.

 

Some of the dudes I follow on the Twitter are insane for Popeye's.  I've had them a couple of times and... eh. It's OK.  It's just fried chicken.  I don't get the hype.

 

The ones around the ATL area are definitely way better than the ones that open up other places. When I go home to NE it's just not the same. The food is decent, but the service is what sets it apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

Can somebody explain what the issue is with Chick-fil-A? I guess I’m aware they are kind of a “Christian” beliefs organization and I know they are closed on Sundays but have they done something else that causes certain people to avoid them? I happen to really like their fried chicken sandwich and waffle fries. Get it fairly regularly. It doesn’t have anything to do with what they stand for etc., I just like them and around here it’s one of the few fast food places that can actually not F up your order.

 

The family that owns the company in the past gave millions to dollars to anti-LGBT groups promoting Christian values, specifically working against same sex marriage. The founders son went on to make some comments about their values that ticket people off. They've pretty much backed off public stances on the matter since then & it appears the founders foundation stopped donating to the anti-LGBT groups.  You can read more about it here.

 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Some of the dudes I follow on the Twitter are insane for Popeye's.  I've had them a couple of times and... eh. It's OK.  It's just fried chicken.  I don't get the hype.

 

My dad is odd. Very often when we get to Omaha, he makes us swing by Popeye's and buy a box of gizzards. Don't know what his deal with them is. They don't have very many Popeye's in Iowa where they live though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Day by Day said:

 

The CEO thinks that being gay is a sin. I'm sure there is more to it than that, but I believe that is what started it. I also believe he said it 6 years ago, and it was his personal belief, not a business stance. I will say, as someone that lives in the ATL area and has many friends that work at the corporate office, they have many people working there from many different walks of life and religious beliefs. Not everyone that works for Chick-fil-a the corporation is a Christian.

 

5 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

The family that owns the company in the past gave millions to dollars to anti-LGBT groups promoting Christian values, specifically working against same sex marriage. The founders son went on to make some comments about their values that ticket people off. They've pretty much backed off public stances on the matter since then & it appears the founders foundation stopped donating to the anti-LGBT groups.  You can read more about it here.

 

 

Thanks guys. I guess that does sound familiar now. I can see why people may feel compelled to not support that....and I suppose some want to support that. I just like their chicken and typically good service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, knapplc said:

Some of the dudes I follow on the Twitter are insane for Popeye's.  I've had them a couple of times and... eh. It's OK.  It's just fried chicken.  I don't get the hype.

 

I loved Popeyes in college. Their spicy chicken and red beans and rice are awesome. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. :lol: 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.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HuskerInLostWages said:

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.

In a broad sense, Citizens United basically gave corporations person-hood when it comes to campaign donations.  But that is a different topic. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat related as it goes to the topic of free speech.  The SC overturned a California law that required pro-life crisis pregnancy organizations to promote abortion.  That would be like

asking the NAACP to talk about the virtues of the KKK.  I was not aware of this case and find it abhorrent that such a law existed.  I find it incredibly concerning that the left leaning judges on the SC do not see the 1st amendment implications of the law regardless of the parties involved..  It shows their blinded loyalty to a liberal sacred cow more so to a clearly defined 1st Amendment right.  It is one thing to give full medical disclosure before a medical procedure (as should be the case of abortion providers) but another in dictating the speech of an organization that is in violation of its very reason to exist.  

 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/pro-life-leaders-react-supreme-court-striking-down-california-abortion-promotion-law-225403/page1.html
 

Quote

 

Pro-lifers are celebrating a ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that a California law that forced crisis pregnancy centers to promote abortion was unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision released Tuesday, the highest court in the land decided that California's Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act "unduly burdens protected speech."

"The unlicensed notice imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that is wholly disconnected from California's informational interest," read the majority opinion.

"California has offered no justification that the notice plausibly furthers. It targets speakers, not speech, and imposes an unduly burdensome disclosure requirement that will chill their protected speech."

 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/california-cannot-force-pro-life-centers-advertise-abortion-services-supreme-court-rules-nifla-becerra-225390/

Quote

 

Thomas also wrote that the law not only forced pro-life centers to promote abortion, but to do so while diminishing their own message on pregnancy care.

"As California conceded at oral argument, a billboard for an unlicensed facility that says 'Choose Life' would have to surround that two-word statement with a 29-word statement from the government, in as many as 13 different languages," continued Thomas.

"In this way, the unlicensed notice drowns out the facility's own message. More likely, the 'detail required' by the unlicensed notice 'effectively rules out' the possibility of having such a billboard in the first place."

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan.

In 2015, California passed Assembly Bill 775 or the FACT Act. The law mandated that all licensed pregnancy health centers, among other things, include a sign that refers patients to abortion clinics.

"The notice shall state: 'California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women,'" read AB 775.

Failure to comply with the law could result in a $500 fine on the first offense and then a $1,000 fine for each offense thereafter.

In Oct. 2015, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a complaint in district court against California over the law on behalf of a few California-based pregnancy care centers.

In Oct. 2016, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, agreeing with a lower court decision that the FACT Act "survives any level of scrutiny" and "does not discriminate based on viewpoint."

"Instead, the Act applies to all licensed and unlicensed facilities, regardless of what, if any, objections they may have to certain family planning services," read the Ninth Circuit opinion.

In March 2017, the ADF filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. Last November, the high court agreed to hear the appeal, with oral arguments being held in March.

"Even if you are not pro-life, do you want the government setting up its own advertising mandates for nonprofit organizations and then punishing any who disagree?" stated ADF CEO Michael Farris following oral arguments.

"The First Amendment does not allow the government to force you to speak its message. That's especially true when you are pursuing a religious mission of simply providing resources and support to women free of charge."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

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.

 

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.

 

It was already taken care of, I was just acknowledging what was omitted instead of reiterating what was already said in the quote I was responding to.

 

I appreciate calling me hypocritical which I am not.

 

i forgot I’m in the extreme left tribal echo chamber 

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Coach Power'T said:

i forgot I’m in the extreme left tribal echo chamber

Good Lord.

 

If you would actually spend a little time here, you would realize there are quite a few of us that are fairly middle of the road or lean conservative.  And...on some issues, quite conservative.

 

But...flyby posts like this don't allow you to realize that.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the Sanders situation. Mike Huckabee, Sarah's dad, reported that the protest to Sarah Sanders didn't stop at the Red Hen

One problem with Huckabee's statement is what I put in bold.  Trump has been a poor example of civil exchange and could be

pointed to as the person who started this recent public bad mouthing - starting in the primaries and continuing during his presidency.

 

We also have the Florida attorney general being harassed by protesters as she left the Mr Rogers movie over the weekend.  This may be off topic again-

but it just represents the ugly climate we are in.  

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/mike-huckabee-red-hen-owner-followed-sarah-sanders-family-across-street-heckled

 

Quote

 

While national media have reported Sarah Sanders’ ouster from the restaurant on Friday, “There’s a part of that story that has not been told,” Mike Huckabee told radio host Laura Ingraham on Monday:

“Once Sarah and her family left – of course Sarah was asked to please vacate – Sarah and her husband just went home, they’d had enough. But, the rest of her family went across the street to a different restaurant.

“The owner of the Red Hen – nobody’s told this – then followed them across the street, called people and organized a protest, yelling and screaming at them from outside the other restaurant and creating this scene.”

A family member - who is ardently anti-Trump – then went outside to confront and rebuke her fellow liberals, Huckabee says:

“One of the members of Sarah’s in-laws who were there – by the way, most of her in-laws, not her mother in-law and father in-law, but most of them are very liberal. And, one of them walked out and said: 'Look, I don’t like Trump. I’m not a supporter. I’m a far – considered liberal – but, you guys are embarrassing me and you’re not helping your cause.'”

“It was ironic, and he said, ‘Sarah’s not even here; you’re yelling and screaming at somebody who’s not here.’"

Huckabee warned that Americans need to be wary of how dangerous this type of harassment is:

“This is what the Left has been reduced to – it’s really tragic. And, it is dangerous and that’s what I think people need to recognize.”

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×