112
113

[Deltas Awarded]CMV: The government should NOT be able to force businesses to serve customers/cater events the business does not want to serve/cater. (self.changemyview)

16tonweight が 投稿

So neither side of this debate feels morally right for me to be on, but I think logically, I'd have to support the conservative side of the argument. All modern economic transactions involving physical items (no stocks, capital, etc.) can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor. Yes, you can buy an item off the shelf at someplace like Target, but what you're really buying is the labor involved in making that item, the item being the end result of it. In other words, it is impossible to buy a physical item that is not shaped and made valuable by labor. In this sense, what you do when you walk to a pizzaria and buy a pizza is directly contract the labor of the pizza maker in exchange for money (as opposed to indirect contracting through a store, e.g. DiGornios). Because of this, businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, for any reason. If this is NOT the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they don't wish to preform, that could be seen as a type of slavery (I hate to use the term), because an outside authority is forcing a person, under the threat of force, to labor, even when that person doesn't want to.
So prove me wrong everyone, help me come to better formulate and understand my own ideas! That's what this sub is about, after all. Please excuse the weird grammar and sentence structure, I just woke up

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 204
並べ替え:
Q&A (提案されたアイデア)
ベストトップ新着論争中古い順

[–]kingpatzer13Δ [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Businesses have the right to refuse service to any individual for any reason.

They do not have the right to refuse services to protected classes of individuals based on their belonging to that class when they provide those services to other equally qualified customers.

The first is about individuals. If a black gay female comes into my store, acts like a complete and total jerk I can toss them out for not being someone I want to do business with. I can refuse service because I don't want to be busy that day. I can refuse service because I don't like them individually. I can refuse service because I just feel like it.

The second is about groups of people. I can not refuse service to black gay females because they are black gay females. I can not withhold services from a person for reasons that have nothing to do with them individually and result only from my assumption of their inclusion in a particular group.

The reason for this is simple but multi-faceted and rests on a few bits of reality that people don't like to think about sometimes:

1) Businesses exist because of civil society. There's a reason Somalia isn't a libertarian utopia even though there's absolutely no government interference in business. It is because there is no civil society at all that businesses can not function there at all. This is more than just about government and law enforcement too. Governments allow the existence of a high functioning civil society: working infrastructure for business; schooling so that businesses have literate employees; working financial systems by which to transact business; means for customers to move from business to business safely to conduct transactions; and so forth. However, governments are not the sum total of a high functioning civil society. This requires more than a government. Syria has a government. But the people of Syria are not free to live their lives unencumbered by unnecessary interferences in their lives. The question is what interferences are necessary and which are not. Civil society, in the experience of history, seems to work best when all members of society can decide that question together; and with their collective, rather than individual, best interests as the focus.

2) Because business depend on civil society, civil society has authority to tell businesses what they can and can not do in order to maintain that civil society. This includes following laws that limit the freedoms of businesses. Businesses, just like individuals, have to respect the rights of others. You can not intentionally harm other people for no justifiable reason. While you can punch someone in self-defense, the legal defense against that charge is a positive defense not a negative one. That is, you can't say "self defense" and walk away. You generally have to be able to show that it was self-defense. You can punch someone in the face. But if you don't have a reason for doing so that society accepts as valid, you've violated their rights and exceeded your own. Likewise, businesses can't do things that are obviously harmful to society, such as dumping raw sewage into the public drinking water.

3) One of the lessons of the civil rights movement is that "separate isn't equal." For civil society to work we all need to have reasonable access to the aspects of society that make society function as a civil society. It is a violation of an individual's rights to execute their own life to preclude them from society on the basis of basic discriminatory practices of the majority. We can't simply say we don't want black people in our schools, or that gay people can not drive on the roads, or that women shall not have access to jobs. And again, we know that civil society is more than merely the collection of government functions. It doesn't matter if black people have access to the same rights as white people if there are no black people in the area because no one will do business with them outside of the government.

4) Civil society, while dependent upon government is more than government. Through the 1900s people exercised their "individual freedom" to refuse business to those in minority groups. The results were segregated communities where black people simply could not live. No one would sell them a private home because the mortgage clauses came with rules against reselling the homes to black people. No one would sell them food, because the local grocers wouldn't do business with "those people." No one would treat them if they were sick and injured, so they would die without proper medical care unnecessarily. None of this involved the power of the state. But the collective actions of individuals of the majority precluding minorities from participating in civil society created significant civil strife and endangered civil society's continued existence.

5) Ergo, the people of the democratic republic demanded that civil society address the issues of lack of inclusion of minorities. The result was that civil society decided collectively that businesses were free to exist and operate within civil society but one of the personal rights they could not violate was the right to not be discriminated against based on membership in a protected minority. Now, this law has plenty of controversy around what should and should not be a protected minority. However, there's absolutely zero basis for any contention that civil society, upon which a businesses ability to exist depends, lacks the authority to set such rules. Further, the experience of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries demonstrates quite clearly that failure to consider overt discrimination a crime resulted in significant social harms that negatively impacted civil society in a way that was considered unacceptable, and legitimately threatened it's continued existence.

[–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Where do the limits of this authority end? This rationale could, and has been easily used to justify fascism. The question remains, when does the authority of government to protect civil society stop, and the rights of the individual to freely choose their actions begin? That's been the big question throughout this entire thread, and while solving one aspect of the problem, you've brought in a completely new, and if argue more dangerous aspect. While pragmatically, you've convinced me, you lack an objective limiting system for your arguments, in other words, you have no system, no "line in the sand", to determine to what extend the government has the authority to limit freedoms to ensure a civil society. This, as evidenced by history, quite often leads to totalitarianism and/or fascism. Also, your argument seems to me to just be justifying free agents getting in line with a government plan for society. It's a plan I agree with, but that doesn't really factor in. That being said...

Δ That was incredibly worded and a very, very good point. You convinced me! /r/threadkillers Also, I don't know if you were thinking about his or not, but a good addition to your post would be the duty of individual citizens to help create a civil society. That provides a nice individualist counterpart to your systematic argument. ΔΔΔ (does this extra count?)

[–]kingpatzer13Δ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Where do the limits of this authority end? This rationale could, and has been easily used to justify fascism.

I think the answer to this question depends entirely on one's personal philosophy of the role of society.

I view the individual as a product of, and member of, society. I do not view societies as the product of individuals. I hold this view because of my individual background in psychology, particularly the study of social and organizational psychology, has left me utterly convinced that people are far more a product of their context than the other way around. This isn't to say that we have no ability to shape our society, but social norms and mores tend to shift slowly more often than not. While there are exceptions to this, most real changes in social attitudes come with the deaths of those who used to hold those beliefs rather than with the changing of their minds.

So the authority here is, in my mind, both logical but also structural. We are what our society tells us we can be, and only occasionally do we in turn we inform our society of the limits it posses.

However, I think I answered your specific query with my reference to Syria. The limit of the authority from a practical matter ends when further exercise of that authority results in a less rather than greater level of functioning of civil society. If we want to speak about society existing for some purpose, then the only real purpose it can exist for is to function as well as possible. Ergo, any exercise of civil authority that decreases the efficacy of civil function across the total of the population has to be seen as at least counter-productive if not illegitimate.

But from whence comes legitimacy? To my mind it is society acting in good faith for it's own benefit. Which is why I noted that civil societies that make democratic decisions based on communal rather than individual benefits tend to be the most successful. Indeed, I think the success of democratic republicanism as a government form world-wide speaks to this point.

I personally think that our present society suffers from a seemingly unending supply of narcissism and self-interest -- as represented in your question's main point of "Why can't I discriminate against minorities if I feel like it?" So, while I agree with you about individual responsibility and duty towards society as an abstract, I think our present civil philosophy is so individualistic that any mention of the individual detracts from a more necessary message -- that civil society is not about the individuals but about civil society.

コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

    [–]romandhj [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    "it is impossible to buy a physical item that is not shaped and made valuable by labor".

    This is not true at all. There are lots of products that are valued higher because of rules/restrictions or put on the customer. Popcorn at the theater costs $7 and people pay for it because its "Against The Rules" if too bring your own (otherwise everyone would). When your spending that 7 dollars at the theater your not giving them 7 dollars because your to lazy to make your own popcorn. your giving it to them because if you don't THEN NO POPCORN FOR YOU. Prescription drugs/bottled water/designer jeans/Hotel minibars..... some products sale prices are based on labor and others (anything with ridiculous markup) are not.

    [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    It's not that the price is directly mappable to the labor involved, not a single product in America is like that, that why the term "high margins" exist. My point was that the fact that it's a tradable good at all is because of the labor involved. Labor means it has a price, not any specific price.

    [–]Aclopolipse1Δ [スコア非表示]  (25子コメント)

    You're right to be hesitant about using the word slavery, because what you describe is still nothing like slavery:

    • The individuals performing the labor have a choice in working for that business

    • The individuals performing the labor are being compensated in accordance with labor laws

    • The business is not being forced to stay open

    [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (16子コメント)

    have a choice in working for that business.

    I'm talking about the owners, which essentially makes this point the same as your third.

    they're compensated in accordance with labor laws.

    Again, I hate to use this analogy, and realize all of its failings, but slaves were also compensated for their labor in terms set by those who forced it, in the form of food and housing. It could be argued that the slaveowners were doing that simply to keep the slaves alive, but the fact remains that they were paid regardless of motive. Indentured servants and some slaves even got paid actual money for their labor, but that didn't mean that it still want indentured servitude or slavery.

    They aren't being forced to stay open.

    Pragmatically, they are. Starvation, death, homelessness, eviction, loss of property, etc. due to not having a source of income is quite the high price to pay for not serving someone.

    [–]Aclopolipse1Δ [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

    Pragmatically, they are. Starvation, death, homelessness, eviction, loss of property, etc. due to not having a source of income is quite the high price to pay for not serving someone.

    There's a few things to unpack here.

    You are correct in pointing out that this threatens their livelihood, but the way you phrase it seems to pretend that the only job a business owner can ever have is "business owner", which simply isn't true. Like anyone else with a job, they can lose their job by breaking the rules (in this case, the laws that govern businesses), but that doesn't damn them to poverty. They can get a new job, or, perhaps, even start a new business.

    When a business has to close as a direct or indirect consequence of not serving someone, that is, effectively, an analog to how penal law works. When an individual violates the law, they lose liberty (probationary measures, imprisonment) or property (fines, confiscation). A business owner that refuses to serve someone based on certain criteria is, in the current legal framework, violating the law, and therefore they risk losing liberty (the license to run a business) or property (their business's money, or the business itself). How is this not fair?

    [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

    Well, no one is denying that. The issue is whether them being prosecuted is morally justified, not legally justified.

    [–]Aclopolipse1Δ [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

    And how is it not? There is demonstrable harm in one particular group inherently having less access to goods and services (which is, and always will be, a natural consequence of allowing discrimination). Where is the demonstrable harm to a business owner by banning it? Disgust at handling the money of someone they don't like? It's hard to see that as "harm" when the end result is their business having more customers.

    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

      [–]fromkentucky [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      Being denied freedom and self-ownership is what makes it Slavery, not a lack of compensation.

      [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      Yes, that's my point.

      [–]toccobrator1∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      It's still not slavery though, because you still have a choice. You could start a private membership club where you approve individual members based on whatever criteria you like. But if you get a public business license and open a public business, you should know what you're getting into -- serving the public.

      In the same sense as your OP, taxation is slavery. But it's not! You have choices - pay taxes or leave the country. Do real slaves have that choice? No.

      [–]fromkentucky [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      The reason Slavery isn't a good comparison is because business owners choose that path and can choose to leave it at any time. Yes there may be dire financial consequences, but they will not be imprisoned or killed simply for closing down.

      [–]hey_aaapple [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      Then, according to your line of reasoning, ANY form of regulation is slavery.

      Prohibiting sales of defective/illegal/uncertified products would be slavery for you?

      コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

        [–]Cheeseboyardee [スコア非表示]  (57子コメント)

        "It's the cost of doing business".

        If a business owner doesn't like their clientele, they are more than welcome to simply stop doing business. (Main difference from slavery is that business owners can walk away.) Alternately you can stop doing business with the general public and become a private store/club instead and only serve your members.

        Non-Discrimination laws are no different than being required to accept currency, building handicap accessible buildings/accommodations, or even not being allowed to be open during certain hours. In the areas that have them it's simply part of the environment of doing business in that area.

        What the argument boils down to at an individual level is "I doan wanna.". (It may help to imagine that said in the voice of a pouty 3 year old to get the full effect.

        On a more macroscopic scale it boils down to whose "rights, responsibilities, and or privileges are more important". In the cases alluded to the responsibility of the public shop owner is to serve the public. If they posted that they didn't do certain designs (like a confederate flag or a swastika or a burning cross, or effigies of presidents for example) and then refused to do that design, they would still be serving the public and not compromising whatever artistic/workmanship integrity they have. That's fine.

        But to arbitrarily refuse service to certain members of the public is not.

        Even without legal rationale... if you open your business, skills and talents for hire in a community... then you need to accept the business of all of the community. Not just the parts that you like. Because if we allow businesses to do that as a community, it tears apart the community.

        This isn't to say that you can't have standards such as a dress code which theoretically anybody can meet, or income requirement etc. But those aren't based on who somebody is. Just what they happen to have at the moment.

        [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        They can just close up shop.

        And lose their only source of income? Starve? I think that's putting quite the condition on refusing to labor.

        And your point about making a swastika pizza applies to the Pizza makers in my example. They didn't "arbitrarily refuse to serve some members of the community", they refused to cater to a certain type of event. It's like an atheist pizza maker refusing to cater a "God hates sinner atheists" event.

        Δ However, you did make some excellent points, which, after lots of thought, led me to initially agree with you, but later adopt a modified version of my initial view. (Yay, this sub works!) You make a very good point about not being able to refuse members of the public, especially considering that the business, in order to labor, uses services (roads, water, etc.) that the public pays for, but even if I agreed with you on this point, I still believe there's a difference between serving and catering. For the sake of the argument, everything I just said about public utilities was true. The fact remains that, when catering, the owner is required to use skills and resources that the public does not pay for, such as a car, design and planning, etc, so, in this situation, the owner regains the right to refuse the use of those services. However, I disagree with even that initial proposition, that I accepted for the sake of the argument. Utilities such as water are sponsored by the public, but when he owner pays their bills, the ownership changes to them. If we were willing to accept that anyone who played a part in the process of making a pizza in any way has a say in how that pizza gets distributed, then a migrant worker on a large Peruvian tomato farm could have the final say in who a pizza gets distributed to! The fact remains that, when money is exchanged for labor/services, the original (now slightly richer) owner of the product of those services has no right to that product any more. If you buy a pizza from someone, they have no right to demand you feed them a slice, because they made it. Also, since members of the public voluntarily chose to come into a business and request the labor of the owner, the owner has a right to refuse service if, and only if, it happens on their own private property. If this exchange happened in a booth in a public park, I would completely agree with you. Creating a private or "members only" club would be no different in practice, the owner would just only give out memberships to the people they approved of.

        [–]ZerexTheCool [スコア非表示]  (46子コメント)

        I have a question too.

        Lets say I am a wedding photographer, and am terrified of spiders. Someone hires me to a wedding who's theme was "Spiders everywhere!" do I have the right to refuse?

        To me, the easy answer is yes, but change the words from spiders to gays, and I am no longer allowed too.

        [–]kelaker [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

        Spider theme can be justified as a choice, another example for instance you can call a contractor to your home and turn up the heat to 110degrees. That guy doesnt need to do that job. But being a homosexual is more like an identity rather than a choice, i believe these two cases you mentioned are a lot different.

        [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

        Well then an anti-Muslim photographer should be able to chose not to photograph a Muslim wedding, because religion is a choice. The point still remains.

        [–]Awoawesome1∆ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

        While I agree with you OP that being Muslim is a choice, the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination on the basis of religion.

        コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

          [–]Osricthebastard5Δ [スコア非表示]  (27子コメント)

          Spiders aren't human beings. Way to strawman.

          [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (17子コメント)

          Fine, change Spiders to "Biker gangs" and you have the same argument

          [–]putyrhandsup [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Oddly, I'd suggest that the spider analogy was better, because people who like spiders, don't choose to like spiders, they just like spiders. Whereas those in a biker gang, choose to be in a biker gang. Though admittedly liking bikes, is probably a core part of their person in the same way.

          Shit, i just confused myself.

          [–]Osricthebastard5Δ [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

          Are you seriously trying to argue that LGBT groups are somehow equivalent to criminal organizations where being around and serving them runs the potential of you encountering dangerous situations? How is my life threatened by photographing a gay wedding?

          You're still knee-deep in the straw-man.

          コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

            コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

              コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                [–]Jrook [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

                I think it is ludicrous for a business to turn away customers for irrelevant matters. Doing so, to me means you're no longer so much in the business of making money, you're now making a political statement. You're essentially giving your customers a litmus test and if they pass you allow them to purchase your services.

                Giving employees such tests is illegal, why should it be legal to apply the same sort of tests to customers?

                These laws protect consumers. End of story. These people are not going into establishments and ordering non-menu items, they're not walking into Muslim owned diners and demanding pork, they're not going to subway and demanding a big mac, they're not being unreasonable in the slightest. Therefore I believe that it is the government's duty to protect these people.

                [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                I agree with you in principle, but I have to say that without an objective, unchanging rule or set of rules, it's easy to make small, incremental steps towards forced labor or total public control. We need a reason behind our actions, not just a subjective "they aren't being unreasonable!" In short, we need a definite place to draw the line, and a reason for having it.
                Δ Although you did make me consider, with your employee comment, where the line between respecting the rights of the laborer and trying to correct systematic oppression are. That's the real question were all going to have to face in the coming future, and a surprisingly good measuring stick for judging how (to use the binary American scale) economically liberal or conservative someone is.

                [–]pheen0 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                The slippery slope as you use it here is a logical fallacy. There is absolutely no reason to believe that preventing business owners from discriminating will lead to "total public control," whatever that means.

                Businesses must abide by numerous regulations, and any one of them could be seen (by a business owner) as undue government overreach. But we, as a society, say "hey, you know what? It's important to us that your restaurant be inspected for health code violations" for example. This is just us as a society saying, "Hey, you know what? It's important to us that you not deny people goods and services because of bigotry and hatred."

                [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                I'm nperfectly aware of the slippery slope fallacy, here's one you might be interested in My point isn't that it's likely to happen, it's that it's possible, so therefore must be considered.

                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                  [–]Terex80 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

                  So you are saying that if someone in a pizza place doesn't feel like serving you then they shouldn't have to?

                  [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  Yep. You should write tl;drs for a living.

                  [–]evmax318 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                  I think that is exactly what he's saying

                  [–]Terex80 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                  And he compares it to slavery even though they choose to have that job and are paid for it? I don't understand

                  [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  No, I'm talking about the owner.
                  My point was that they're being forced by the government to labor in a situation where they don't wish to labor.

                  [–]SteamandDream1Δ [スコア非表示]  (30子コメント)

                  Here is a hypothetical scenario:

                  There is a mexican family in town X. They do not have a car. All the grocery stores, restaurants, etc within a 200 mile radius are owned by non-mexicans. One day, all the non-mexicans decide that no mexicans are allowed. This family would be forced to:

                  a) go to jail in order to get meals

                  b) starve to death

                  This example is why businesses are considered "public accommodations" by the government which are subject to any law that applies to the public sector despite the fact that the business operates in the so-called private sector

                  [–]majeric [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                  Do you think that the fact that it's harder for black people to get cabs is reasonable?

                  Sometimes we enshrine in law the behaviour we expect to see in humans. I think this is reasonable. We should treat everyone equally without discrimination. You can have your private opinions but you have to treat everyone the same.

                  [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                  No, because they use the public utility of roads without paying for it, the public utility which said black person, who can't catch a cab, partially owns.

                  [–]fromkentucky [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  Yes, and business owners utilize mail, law enforcement, contract law, trade agreements and property rights, among many other things. That alone should be enough to answer your question.

                  [–]majeric [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  All businesses are are given permission to run by the public (via the state) through business license. By getting a business license, they agree to follow the rules defined by the public. If a business serves the public, then it's not unreasonable that it must treat the public equally.

                  [–]janewashington1Δ [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

                  Do you believe this applies to all forms of work (including medical care, teaching, etc)?

                  [–]ChipotleMayoFusion [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, for any reason. If this is NOT the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they don't wish to preform

                  This is the issue right here: the labor the employee must perform is the same regardless of who they are performing it for. The only difference is that the employee may not like the client for some other reason, and thus they may enjoy the labor less. It is no different than discrimination against race, gender, or religion, it does not belong in a business transaction. People should be free to discuss these things and agree or disagree, but people should not be prevented from buying food or getting their car fixed due to their opinions or membership related to socially controversial topics.

                  [–]indybe [スコア非表示]  (23子コメント)

                  What if the owner does not like black people, Mexicans, Asians, etc... Can they simple say "Whites Only" if they don't want to serve them?

                  [–]Deedb4creed [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

                  Personally I don't think the government should force a business to do that. But I would like to see how well a business would do if they put a "whites only" sign outside of their restaurant. It's survival of the fittest in our country and those with that type of backwards business plan will fade away.

                  [–]16tonweight[S] [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

                  I completely agree, that's why I don't feel too and about my view, because I know, wether through the fast market putting them out of business, or slow cultural change affecting new generations of owners, that business will eventually change their policy.

                  [–]janewashington1Δ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  I think asking people to wait generations for equal access to goods and services is inappropriate and it ignores the social and economic impact discrimination can actually have.

                  We are talking about things like children not being able to go to the movies, families having to plan travel around access to hotels, people not being able to buy food. These situations happened in the lifetime of people alive today.

                  [–]Thefelix01 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  You put far too much faith in the free market. Sure that is true for big businesses and chains, but in a local setting it is not. In small towns/districts which are predominantly a particular race/religion/whatever it could very well be of financial benefit to them to exclude certain other groups.

                  [–]1sagas1 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                  Then why did Jim Crow laws in the south last for so long? The only way they ended was through the force of the federal government. You want people to wait decades before getting treated like equal human beings?

                  [–]mcbane20003Δ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  History and present-day politics teach the exact opposite. Millions of people alive today can remember exactly how "market-fit" it is to be a racist scumbag. Anyone alive today who reads/watches the news can see how alive racism and its siblings are today.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                    コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                      [–]Osricthebastard5Δ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      You're talking lesser of two evils. Is it worse to:

                      a) force a business to make a profit (poor them) on a black lesbian couple's cake

                      or

                      b) force a black lesbian couple to scour the earth looking for a bakery that doesn't have a holy rolling stick up their ass?

                      I'm sorry but businesses are NOT harmed by being forced to cater to crowds they don't want to. They just aren't. There's no social harm there. It may make them uncomfortable but that's THEIR fucking problem to deal with (in therapy if they insist on being so fucking dramatic about it).

                      On the other hand the harm to individuals can be pretty substantial. What happens if you're a black man in a very small very racist southern town (and I've lived in those so I'm well acquainted with the logistics of this situation).

                      There's only one grocery store in the whole town unless you want to spend 2-3 dollars more per item at the Quickie Stop. And you can only really get eggs, milk, cheese, and bread there anyway.

                      Well the one store in town has decided that because you're a black man dating a white woman (word gets around pretty bad in these small towns and everyone knows everyone) that they don't want to serve you. Now you have to drive your beat up junker 20 minutes to the next nearest town any time you need something. Jobs aren't exactly plenty in this town so this means a significant financial hardship for you.

                      That's just one potential scenario among many. Allowing businesses to discriminate to avoid the relatively small harm of forcing people to do something that might make them ever so slightly uncomfortable creates the much much larger harm of creating immense amounts of hardship in people's lives.

                      [–]fat_genius [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      When you want to maintain a stable society, there are times when the consequences of a course of action are more important than the principles.

                      Your reasoning is exactly what was used to justify racial segregation in the U.S. under Jim Crow laws. The consequences of segregation follow basic economic principles

                      • Prices of goods: When some stores opt not to sell to a group of people, that reduces the supply of those goods for that group. If the demand from that group cannot shrink to compensate (like for food and housing), then the result of a decreased supply and stable demand is an increase in price. Goods will cost more for the group that is discriminated against
                      • Value of labor: When some businesses decide not to hire from a group, that decreases the demand for their labor. The supply of labor from the group does not decrease because everyone still needs to work (potentially even more so because of the increased cost of goods). A decreased demand with stable supply means that value of labor from the group will decrease and members of the group will earn less money

                      When one group in a society earns less money for their labor and has to pay more for their goods, they quickly become impoverished in comparison to the other groups. This is a well documented consequence of Jim Crow segregation, and it will continue to happen wherever discrimination is institutionalized.

                      A society that systematically impoverishes certain groups will not be stable for long, so the consequence of discrimination (the destabilization and destruction of society) is much more important that the principle of it.

                      If you still need a principled reason for anti-discrimination laws, it is this: anti-discrimination laws only effect businesses that wish to utilize publicly funded resources to conduct their business. The governments provide roads to help customers reach your business, interstate highways to transport your supplies to you, communications exchanges to transport your phone calls and web traffic between providers, electricity grids to supply reliable power to your business, and currency to facilitate your trade. It is justified and imperative that governments create rules for the use of public resources for private gain that support a stable society.

                      If a business owner wanted to go off the grid and conduct their discriminatory business in the woods without using any public resources, nobody would bother them.

                      [–]NorbitGorbit5Δ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      most businesses operating in the public are subject to many licensing requirements -- an outside authority forcing a business to conform to things they may not want to -- do you also consider this unreasonable?

                      [–]sirziggy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      So you want to start a business. To begin the process, you may be thinking about what kind of products you want to sell, how the business should be run, etc. The obstacle that is in your way is to get a business license. These are essentially pieces of paper that say you are allowed to operate business within the boundaries of the country. If you decide against getting a license, well you have the potential to get fined or have your business shut down. You could try to argue against this, but this is the current system as to how businesses are regulated in this country.

                      And as a legitimate business that is operating in this country, you have to follow a certain set of rules. You can argue all you want about the parallels to structure functionalism (for those of you who don't know, that is a sociological theory) in that if this business isn't oprating within the social norms of society, it is doomed to fail and/or another entity will take its place. /u/xcrissxcrossx's comment is, generally, what this social theory constitutes. But, in the end, if you are a business that does not want to serve and cater to certain people, like a business that decides not to serve gays because it is a christian organization, you will likely face massive litigation. Laws like this can vary state by state, like in Oregon.

                      Generally speaking, if you decided not to sell your goods and services to certain people, you would be breaking the law(s) that you signed up for when applying for a business license. Just keep in mind that it will be more nuanced than this in the real world- this kind of issue isn't always going to be black and white.

                      [–]iamAshlee [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      If someone chooses to run a business that derives benefits from the society that they operate in then they need to follow the rules that are established by the people of that society.

                      They benefit from the roads that are built, fire protection, and police protection. They benefit from the other businesses that area around that employ people that spend money. Lots of other ways also. The point is that they do benefit from operating in that society.

                      You can say that they pay taxes for most of that but their taxes alone would not cover it. It takes everyone's taxes to pay for it.

                      If they don't want to follow the rules that society sets in place then they need to find a island someplace to run their business.

                      As for as forcing them to do labor, well it's already labor they are doing, that they volunteered to do in exchanged for money (or whatever), they also knew when they started their business that there would be rules they have to follow.

                      Let's look at it this way. They owner of the pizza place hires someone to work for him. They worker agrees to follow the rules that the owner sets. If he doesn't then the owner can fire him and find someone who will follow his rules.

                      It would be more or less the same with society. Society agrees to let you run your business if you follow their rules, if not, then they will find someone who will.

                      [–]Hoppmjac000[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      To me it matters if you are consistent in Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism (unlimited "negative" liberty). It's hypocritical to me when Conservatives/Right-wing Libertarians complain about forcing conservatives to cater to gays or blacks (or anyone who just wants to make a transaction and isn't making a "ruckus") but then think it's perfectly just to take a man's freedom away for smoking pot or doing heroin - if you truly are a Classical Liberal and believe individuals have rights (negative and potentially positive - wiki the terms if you're not familiar) then you have to be consistent.

                      I however am a Utilitarian. So while I believe in incredibly large amount of freedoms (even doing heroin for example, because I believe its better that someone do drugs as long as he's not harming others than have him be in jail rotting for both his sake and for the health of society) I do not believe people have "fundamental" freedoms.

                      If you disagree with Utilitarianism, that's a entirely different argument. And overall (though I believe of course we can argue anything as long as we get to the fundamentals - though because of human psychology being the main source of our beliefs I find it will likely be futile) I would argue we would have to part ways, similar to someone who values evidence (a empiricist) and someone who doesn't.

                      [–]shivasprogeny [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      We have already seen what it looks like when businesses are allowed to discriminate against clientele. Society tried that experiment in the 20th century when black Americans were denied service at many southern businesses. It is also a perfect example of the market not working to put those companies out of business.

                      We decided that was hateful and that people should not be subjected to that type of treatment. If someone values their bigotry more than they value the rights of all people to participate in the economy, then that person is more than welcome to sell or close their business and find a different job. No government will force them to stay in business.

                      Please keep in mind that this does not mean a business must be forced to do something they otherwise do not do. For example, if a bakery does not make wedding cakes and therefore declines to cater a gay wedding, that is not discrimination.

                      [–]Trent_Boyett [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                      In addition to the other posts in this thread, local business owners all benefit from government infrastructure. From city water sources, to road access, zoning laws, police protection and the fire department. The trade off is that they are expected to serve all the residents of the cities they inhabit. If someone acts like a jerk in your place of business, you're more than welcome to throw them out, but to preemptively deny service to a segment of the population goes against this social contract.

                      Maybe to be fair, if I fall under the category of person that your pizzeria is refusing to serve, can I ask that my tax money not be used to support the infrastructure that you use?

                      [–]klemnodd [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                      Perform not preform. I think the argument is against a preformed bias against someone/people willing to pay for performed duties or product. While I can agree people should not be forced to do something they are not comfortable with, at the same time you are offering a service to the public (everyone and anyone willing to pay) so you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who you serve. Plus other than no shirt no shoes etc., the likely reason a person would not want to serve another is due to a dislike/hate of them i.e. racism, sexism, bigotry, class etc. In short, get over it and accept the money.

                      [–]fromkentucky [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      One of the fundamental measures of equality is inclusion and participation in general society. In local communities, being able to eat in the same restaurants, shop in the same stores, attend the same religious services and generally do all the same things as everyone else is in itself a demonstration of freedom and proof of equal legal status.

                      Being excluded from such activities singles out individuals in a manner that is not only humiliating but also subjugates those being excluded by denying them the same freedom as everyone else.

                      We already exclude and/or remove criminals and those adjudicated mentally defective (or whatever term you prefer) when they demonstrate either a willingness or inability to participate in society in a responsible, trustworthy and/or equitable manner, but only after we can demonstrate that fact according to strict rules and procedures in the judicial system. These rules and structures are in place precisely because the unjust or arbitrary exercise of power, especially to deny the freedom of others, or to otherwise violate their rights, is the very definition of Oppression.

                      Liberty is the ability to live, speak or otherwise act freely, especially without retribution or oppression.

                      We all have a right to Liberty.

                      In the context of America and the philosophy of Individual Rights, which is the basis of our legal system, power and authority are derived from the function of the institutions that exercise that power. Cops can't arbitrarily arrest people for being ugly, they must conduct arrests in accordance with the laws and structures that empower them.

                      Similarly, individual citizens cannot arbitrarily exercise power or authority over other citizens.

                      A gay person entering a business with the intention of paying for services or products is not inherently damaging to a business. Denying such a person service based on the individual beliefs of an owner or employee would be an arbitrary exercise of power, in direct violation of the customer's Right to Liberty. Denying said customer legal recourse against such arbitrary exclusion would indirectly legitimize such exclusion and establish a de facto second class of citizens, which is inherently unconstitutional and blatantly harmful for what should be obvious reasons.

                      It doesn't matter if the "Free Market" would deal with the problem (which btw, does not happen in areas of the country where such beliefs prevail). Excluding people due to personal beliefs is a violation of the Right to Liberty.

                      [–]no_en [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      All modern economic transactions involving physical items (no stocks, capital, etc.) can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor.

                      Rights supersede economic transactions. Your argument, such as it is, appears to be the typical libertarian one.

                      Premise: "what you're really buying is the labor involved in making that item"

                      Conclusion: "businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, for any reason"

                      The argument is invalid because it is simply not even an argument. It is a bald assertion. Contrary to your claim that you think logically this argument is not even remotely logical. It is the antithesis logic. You have failed to demonstrate that any connection at all exists between the fact that economic transactions trade money for labor and your claim that one side of the transaction should be able to deny others the opportunity to purchase the item or make the trade.

                      Since your argument is invalid and you claim to be driven by logical necessity you are therefore morally required to abandon your claim.

                      Your fallacious claim rests on several false premises. There is no general right to own and operate a business. Markets are created by the state. The license to own and operate a business is a privilege granted to some by the state. States derive their just authority by the consent of the governed. The people, through their representatives in the state have decided that racial or other forms of discrimination are morally repugnant. Therefore the state is morally justified in ordering businesses to comply with the duly passed laws of the land and prohibit discrimination based on race, sex or sexual orientation.

                      You have no case.

                      [–]eternallylearning2∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      I'll concede your point about slavery a little because the idea of forced labor has a bit of merit in that even if business owners have the freedom to not do business, most jobs which do not require education involve customer service of some sort and then you are back to the same problem. So the idea of forced labor has some merit and though I'd suggest "slavery" is still hyperbolic, even taking it at full face value I still disagree.

                      Basically, without making this a Libertarian thing (I'm not one) I think the free market will sort this out. In the beginning there will be some examples of people in protected classes (remember, it's not just sexual orientation but also gender, religion, disabilty, age, etc) pushing their newly proctectes rights, but once it's no longer novel, people generally would not seek service from a company which doesn't want to serve them because of bigotry. I'm sure that such companies would find ways to signal such inclinations and would gain increased sales from people who share their views, but the bottom line is that allowing companies to discriminate based on the LGBT status of their customers is just as wrong as doing it on the basis of their race, religion, gender and so on. Besides, there's nothing saying that a company cannot outright tell a customer they don't approve of their lifestyle amd find them repugnant. You can't be fined or charged for providing bad customer service on the basis of those classes as far as I know. Shit, I'm willing to bet that posting a sign that says "gays are going to hell" in your window would filter your clients very nicely so long as you provide your services to them if they ask.

                      [–]Divinityfound2∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      One of my own personal favorite litmus tests to see if something is reasonable as a statement or an idea is to change the identity of a party, example:

                      "Rich White men are ruining the country!" Something most people are desensitized to hear... but what if one says ---

                      "Poor Black Jews are ruining the country!" Then we have some moral outrage. But in reality, both situations are asinine.

                      The same logic applies here:

                      "A fundamentalist christian company specializing in church events should be forced to serve the lgbt communities events."

                      "A LGBT focused company specializing in LGBT events should be forced to serve a fundamentalist christian event."

                      My point is that there shouldn't be the need to change your view. Trying to change your view to want to change your view if you will.

                      If a company wishes to make a political statement, it is free to do that. Freedom of speech and what not. But there is another thing about freedom of speech: Freedom of others to criticize your exercise of freedom of speech.

                      If a government chooses to start forcing companies to serve clientel it is not comfortable with... we usually imagine the conservatives refusing service to the liberals --- we need to remember that the narrative only needs to be flipped and ask ourselves, "Why would that seem offensive to us?"

                      In short --- allowing people to choose their clientel is the more compassionate choice we can allow for people. We will always have the right to be offended, to move, or take our business elsewhere. Making additional laws in regards to it is more than likely to hurt.

                      [–]tacoslave420 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      I've been in restaurants for 11 years. Every one I've been into has refused service to people. Usually it's from previously grounded action. Generally, if you have previously cussed someone out, or have scammed the store is when it happens. "We have the ability to refuse service as we see fit". Generally, that doesn't get thrown around a lot because it will get complicated after that. They will probably complain to someone higher than you, or call a 1800 number if you are a franchise restaurant, and you will have to take statements from witnesses to ensure the action was justified. Generally it's easier to just serve these people and deal with whatever reason you had not to on your own. Which is why it's reserved for those who come in cussing up the whole staff, disrupting the other customers. Or if they are known to scam free food from false complaints, they will only get served with a meal purchase and not a complaint demanding food compensation. Denying service based on "I don't like the cut of your jib, nor what you stand for in life" turns into a whiny situation. But under the concept of being able to refuse or deny service on means the restaurant establishes, they technically can.

                      edit: this is why private clubs/bars can exist. They refuse service to those who they don't know. Generally, the main goal of a business is profit, so you don't turn down profit as it's presented to you in the form of a customer. That's seen as bad for business. People get butt-hurt if they are excluded. Opinions get involved and things get complicated. It's just easier to serve everyone and remain professional to avoid these situations you're referring to from happening. Sorry for rambling.

                      TL;DR it is legal to refuse business because "I don't like the cut of your jib". Just creates more backlash than people want to deal with

                      [–]FeydorTol [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      "...forcing a person, under the threat of force, to labor, even when that person doesn't want to."

                      This type of thinking, which can also be used to call taxation theft, only makes sense from a hyper-individualistic perspective.

                      The key to understanding laws like these is to think in terms of "the public good." Almost any successful business drives away similar businesses in the area. For example, in a small town, there is likely to be only one hardware-store. So the question becomes, if the population can only support one hardware-store, is it important that that store be willing to serve all of the members of the community? A business which practices active discrimination in who they are willing to serve actively hurts the public good. It drives people of the group being discriminated against out of the community.

                      So the question becomes, which liberty is of greater value, a business owners freedom to discriminate or an individuals liberty to procure goods and services? Only in the USA, where our culture is obsessed with individualism, is this a real question.

                      [–]its_good [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      The fact there may be labor involved isn't really important, since the question is should businesses be able to discriminate. Individuals may run/own the business, but usually they are separate legal entities. Should the business be a length to discriminate based on a persons characteristics?

                      I don't think they should. Most businesses take advantage of the various government services that we all pay for, the cost is they shouldn't be able to not serve a class of folks because they are bigots.

                      They aren't being "forced" since it's a service they were providing anyways. For instance a blond lady buys a wedding cake, at delivery (on the wedding day) the baker finds out her husband to be is black - should the baker be able to not provide the goods and refund the money? They weren't forced, they already did the work, they're just being bigots.

                      [–]stipulation3∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      The big problem is that although what you are saying feels true on an individual level (no person should be forced to do something against there will) I feel like it gets much more complicated on a societal level.

                      A good example is the 1960s south. If laws weren't made to force businesses to serve blacks then few to no businesses would serve blacks. Further businesses that want to serve blacks would be boycotted and shunned by whites so even if economically it made sense to serve blacks, culturally doing so might be suicide.

                      This is why these laws are needed. To counteract toxic culture. Yes, on an individual level it does disrespect their rights but we are no a society as individuals, we are a society as a group of people and need to make sure that it doesn't spiral into something toxic.

                      [–]andjok7∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      In a capitalist system, the person who would be making decisions about who the business serves is most often not the person who is actually dealing with the customers. So in most cases this discrimination would involve a boss telling his employees not to serve certain people. In a hypothetical non-capitalist, non-hierarchal society (whether or not you believe such a society would be feasible), this might be more about free association, and non-discrimination laws might not be as necessary as you could ask any other worker to help you. But in a capitalist world, there is a higher risk that a business owner could be preventing a certain group of people from accessing an important resource. And I can't see it as "enslaving" a business owner to prevent him or her from having a policy that certain groups of people should be refused service.

                      [–]neurn2 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      Here's the problem. If your business is open to the public, it leverages a huge number of public investments to be profitable. Roads, police, fire, military, utilities etc. it's part of the poorly worded, but true 'you didn't build that' statement of Obama's. By definition, then, the people you exclude helped build your business support structure. Now, in the US we allow you to be a giant bigot, on your own property. You can have a no <insert protected class> allowed sign on your house as long as it's not open to the public. That's the argument. Especially in the Jim Crow south, blacks were taxed, but couldn't participate in the society they paid for

                      [–]commandrix [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      The first rule is simply to keep your mouth shut about exactly why you're refusing service to someone except in cases where they're being unruly, refusing to adhere to minimum standards of decency/hygiene, or anything else where somebody in your store is going to drive other customers away. Then you're well within your rights to call the cops and have them removed from your store -- in fact, you probably should do so in cases where the unruly customer is a member of a protected class so you have a police report to back yourself up. Always remember that you're not that bartender from Star Wars who can discriminate against 'droids with no consequences.

                      [–]draculabakula5Δ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      Just because you do some labor it doesn't mean you have a right to that for ever. For your analysis to work, it means people all over the world should have a say in what is sold to whom.

                      It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize that what you are proposing is exactly what was used to keep minorities down for decades. Markets can also be manipulated to exclude certain groups. For example, a supplier is prejudice against Muslims. They have the best product but say they won't supply anybody that serves Muslims. Businesses that are in the fence will then be persuaded to stop serving Muslims

                      [–]passeanonym [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      Certain products or services not necessary for basic survival and development like a Pizza place or a spa-resort may not have a major impact, but if you extend that philosophy to business and services and generalize then people would

                      a) be unable to function b) take proper care of themselves and others beyond minimum existence c) be used as a tool to keep people "in check" (politically, philosophically)

                      A portion of your freedom will affect others in an unreasonable way and is therefore taken away to ensure a minimum of stability and progress. Slavery would be an inappropriate term as you are not forced to do the job you willingly got. If it was slavery you would have to be forced to take the job in the first place without the possibility to quit and often physically leave the place. Slavery is more comparable to work camp for inmates or sentenced to clean the streets (but that's a punishment for a crime and still not slavery).

                      [–]salthecrawfish [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      If people didn't choose silly reasons such as the customer being a different color, then I could support your argument. People will take "for any reason" to the extreme, and will do it en masse. So what winds up happening is the "different" family in town can't get service anywhere, just because they're different.

                      If the customer is being aggressive or disruptive, then sure. The business should chuck him out. But if he's polite, willing to pay, and just happens to have been born in Syria, that's a different story.

                      [–]madein1986 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      My overall view is that if the law benefits the greater good, it should stand. Why should there be a speed limit on roads that you paid for with your tax dollars?, because it allows other people to use the road safely as well.

                      [–]huadpe84Δ[M] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      Sorry mcbane2000, your comment has been removed:

                      Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.

                      If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.

                      [–]IAmAN00bie13Δ[M] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      Removed comment chain below for rule 2.