Mississippi governor signs law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay couple

[Deleted]

You're looking at individuals, when we're talking about groups. Individuals vary in individual merit. Unless you're arguing that groups vary in merit, your argument doesn't hold up.



They're both "mechanisms that help you survive".

Culture is a thing, different people in different cultures value different things. Even within small countries there are major differences between villages not 2 miles from each other. And don't forget that a lot of groups historically where low wage workers to begin with, so to make any meaningful comparison you should compare them only to people from similar standings in society from the moment they have arrived. As an example, you can't compare a child born to someone who sought asylum in a country to a native born with well off parents. The second generation child will not have the amount connections that the native child has, simply because of the means of the parents and because they have roots there. It isn't because the second generation child is of a different culture or anything like that, but rather because they have less connections and money.

Not really, greed isn't really something that helped us surviving, we are a herd animal, or a pack animal, depends on how you define humans. The one thing that made us so successful is that we can work together and share. And greed and violence aren't mechanisms that make you think in a certain way, like it does with us discriminating.

[Ahovv]

He is saying that you can think what ever you like, but taking the action of having slaves is illegal.

I'm not at all disputing the fact that it's perfectly legal to think what you like. The government isn't going to intervene because of speech (usually). I'm suggesting that if someone is a hateful bigot and preaches that gays will burn in Hell, I probably wouldn't want to serve that individual. You think I'm committing some heinous crime by not wanting to serve them?

[Kujako]

I'm not at all disputing the fact that it's perfectly legal to think what you like. I'm suggesting that if someone is a hateful bigot and preaches that gays will burn in Hell, I probably wouldn't want to serve that individual. You think I'm committing some heinous crime by not wanting to serve them?

Actually, you're fine not serving someone who acts in a way that you find disruptive or simply don't like. Where you run into problems is when you ban an entire class of people. Ban them one by one, once you get to know someone you'll find there's all kinds of reasons to dislike them beyond superficial things like skin color.

[melodramocracy]

A part of me feels that businesses *should* be allowed to discriminate, and the consumer market should be able to sort it out themselves, rather than having laws to force things.

If a business loses money by not serving a certain percentage of clients for whatever reason, and then folds, things are working exactly as intended. And the inverse is also true.

[Vanyali]

"Protected Class" or not, if a business is a PRIVATELY OWNED business that has no STOCK HOLDERS and is not PUBLICLY TRADED, that is considered a private business. Private businesses (aka mom & pop shops) are allowed to the right to refuse service to people if in providing that service goes against their beliefs. It is not strickly towards gays, but could be towards anybody as stated above. A business opens that refuses to serve straight men, ok then. That is also protected because it would go against the beliefs of the business owner.

What cannot happen is publicly traded companies and business refusing service. However this part goes both ways, as technically a publicly tradded company (say PayPal) cannot legally pull out of a state simply because of what laws they have enacted. This however does go unseen because all the time you hear it from companies that the Left support, so they are applauded for their "stance" against whatever is happening, when they technically cannot have an opinion in the matter as they are a public company and therefore have to abide by government laws. If another company did what PayPal did (or Disney in GA), but it was reversed for the reasons like X company pulls out of Mississippi because such and such law allowing trans in restrooms of their choice, a massive sh*t storm would happen.

This is wrong and has nothing to do with anything. Ownership has fuckall to do with the law.

If you are a place of public accommodation, you serve the PUBLIC. Not the part public that you want to serve. You can be privately owned and yet be a place of public accommodation, because ownership means zilch.

If you are a place of private accommodation, you CAN discriminate.. ie, if you're a club for men, you can refuse all non-men. you CANNOT, however, refuse black men. If you wanted to make a club for straight-white men only, you can! And it's 100% legal, because it is NOT a place of public accommodation. However, you can't violate that just because you want more customers; that's setting yourself up for a discrimination lawsuit.


Your ranting about publically traded companies not being able to refuse to conduct business in a state is similarly confused. Businesses are not obligated by law to have their services nation-wide. You can shutter your doors in whatever state for whatever reason you chose regardless of publically or privately owned, or public or private accommodation.

Learning the actual laws helps a great deal in understanding these issues.

[May90]

A part of me feels that businesses *should* be allowed to discriminate, and the consumer market should be able to sort it out themselves, rather than having laws to force things.

If a business loses money by not serving a certain percentage of clients for whatever reason, and then folds, things are working exactly as intended. And the inverse is also true.

I also think that in the ideal world businesses should be allowed to discriminate, and people are free not to use their services, if they disagree with it. In the real world though, cases of such discrimination tend to send wrong messages to the society, slowing down, or sometimes even turning backwards, the social progress. So, as much as I am for freedoms for businesses to choose who they serve - in this case, I make an exception.

[Endus]

"Protected Class" or not, if a business is a PRIVATELY OWNED business that has no STOCK HOLDERS and is not PUBLICLY TRADED, that is considered a private business. Private businesses (aka mom & pop shops) are allowed to the right to refuse service to people if in providing that service goes against their beliefs.

This is categorically incorrect in just about every way.

If you serve the public, you're a public accommodation, and you cannot deny service on grounds that are listed as protected classes. It has nothing to do with whether there's a sole owner or not, it has to do with whether you're open to the public or not.

I'm not at all disputing the fact that it's perfectly legal to think what you like. The government isn't going to intervene because of speech (usually). I'm suggesting that if someone is a hateful bigot and preaches that gays will burn in Hell, I probably wouldn't want to serve that individual. You think I'm committing some heinous crime by not wanting to serve them?

You're free to ban individuals on the grounds of their poor behaviour, particularly if they have harassed you, someone you know, or your customers.

What you're not free to do is ban all Christians (for example) because you assume they're all homophobes.

[Lenonis]

Private businesses (aka mom & pop shops) are allowed to the right to refuse service to people if in providing that service goes against their beliefs. It is not strickly towards gays, but could be towards anybody as stated above. A business opens that refuses to serve straight men, ok then. That is also protected because it would go against the beliefs of the business owner.

No. They aren't. And I constantly wonder where this belief comes from.

Here is the litmus test. Is a mom and pop shop allowed to hang a sign in their window that says "no blacks allowed"? Clearly the answer is no, thus the beliefs of the business owner are not allowed to be applied in a discriminatory manner.

Period. End of sentence.

Once again, terminology is important.

Private can mean:
-Private ownership between one or more business owners.
-A business that has exclusive membership to select people.
-Not run by the government.

Public can mean:
-Business owned by a group of shareholders (publicly traded)
-A business that serves the general public
-Run by the government.

It's important to distinguish what is meant. Only a business with exclusive membership can legally discriminate. The rest cannot.

[Machismo]

Then why have a law to ban murder? It is a blanket law in order to deal with a very small number of possible outliers, after all.

- - - Updated - - -



You are confusing the mathematical definition with the legal one.

The blanket law affects all murders, which is clearly a harmful act. If you wish to argue that discrimination is a harmful act, then ban all discrimination. But that's not what happens, is it? Instead, discrimination is used to determine which forms of discrimination should be illegal. Yes, that means laws that ban discrimination are inherently discriminatory.

[Felya]

I'm not at all disputing the fact that it's perfectly legal to think what you like. The government isn't going to intervene because of speech (usually). I'm suggesting that if someone is a hateful bigot and preaches that gays will burn in Hell, I probably wouldn't want to serve that individual. You think I'm committing some heinous crime by not wanting to serve them?

No, but if you didn't serve all Christians, because of that one person, then you have an issue. Instead, you can ban people from service for inflammatory language in your store. Not only would it cover that one guy, it would cover everyone who's opinion you do not want expressed in your store. The differance would be a ban on the action in your store, not a group of people that person claims to represent.

[Stacyrect]

This is categorically incorrect in just about every way.

If you serve the public, you're a public accommodation, and you cannot deny service on grounds that are listed as protected classes. It has nothing to do with whether there's a sole owner or not, it has to do with whether you're open to the public or not.


You're free to ban individuals on the grounds of their poor behaviour, particularly if they have harassed you, someone you know, or your customers.

What you're not free to do is ban all Christians (for example) because you assume they're all homophobes.

You can refuse service to anyone at anytime in America. A store owner, manager, or worker with the authority to do so can refuse service, ask the customer to leave, and then call the police to have the person removed for trespassing if they have not left. As soon as a person or business says it's refusing service to (insert group here) because they are (X), then they are in the wrong. Stupid as it may seem, giving no reason is perfectly ok, giving a reason is not ok.

[Barbariangreataxe]

Rights end where other people's rights begin. Funny how that works.

And yet you do not apply that logic to groups you don't like. Would you tell a hotel they have to rent a ballroom for a KKK meeting?

[Felya]

And yet you do not apply that logic to groups you don't like. Would you tell a hotel they have to rent a ballroom for a KKK meeting?

I don't see anyone saying they shouldn't. Unless they take some sort of action, there is no issue with KKK members renting ballrooms. I don't see any sort of groundswell to deny KKK service...

[Stone the Crow]

And yet you do not apply that logic to groups you don't like. Would you tell a hotel they have to rent a ballroom for a KKK meeting?

I dislike bigots, racists, and fascists. With a passion.

I still think businesses in the free market should be able to turn away absolutely anyone they want to for any reason they want to. I don't see why people like you think its okay for them to turn away a customer who's not wearing a shirt or whose sporting a pair of flip-flops, let alone the "you must be wearing a tie" upscale restaurants, but turning them away for some other equally superficial reason is somehow a crime against humanity.

If some asshole is running a business and decides to turn someone away because they think they're gay, they should have their right. They also have the right to go out of business when they get boycotted by anyone who thinks that's an absolutely assholish thing to do.

People don't have the right to buy whatever they want. You can't walk up to someone and demand they sell you their jeans right then and there, and if they refuse they should be punished. It's exactly the same thing, just with a different spin.

This self-entitled bullshit people seem to have is ridiculous.

I won't get into my personal belief that people shouldn't even be able to tell if someone is straight or gay, and that they generally only out themselves when they act like an absolute clown in public (sorry, but men who enjoy having sex with other men doesn't mean they have to lisp, change their voice to a higher octave, flail their wrists around, act sassy, and/or otherwise act like a flaming homosexual). If I ran a business, I know I wouldn't want to actually do business with that sort of person anymore than I would anyone acting absolutely ridiculous and then getting offended when people treat them exactly the way they should be treated for acting that way.

(Well, apparently I will get into that, but it's irrelevant.)

[Lenonis]

You can refuse service to anyone at anytime in America. A store owner, manager, or worker with the authority to do so can refuse service, ask the customer to leave, and then call the police to have the person removed for trespassing if they have not left. As soon as a person or business says it's refusing service to (insert group here) because they are (X), then they are in the wrong. Stupid as it may seem, giving no reason is perfectly ok, giving a reason is not ok.

You are a little contradictory here -- in that you can turn an individual away for any reason as long as that reason isn't discriminatory. Telling a black man to get out because he's black is just as illegal as hanging a "whites only" sign in the window.

- - - Updated - - -

I still think businesses in the free market should be able to turn away absolutely anyone they want to for any reason they want to.

It just doesn't work in rural America -- because essentially it isn't a free market because there are local monopolies as only one store exists for XYZ.

I don't see why people like you think its okay for them to turn away a customer who's not wearing a shirt or whose sporting a pair of flip-flops, let alone the "you must be wearing a tie" upscale restaurants, but turning them away for some other equally superficial reason is somehow a crime against humanity.

Because people can put on a shirt or shoes or a tie but they can't change their orientation or skin color.

People don't have the right to buy whatever they want.

Except we have a capitalist system in which places of public accommodation get supported by the public via tax dollars and the like. So it is entirely reasonable to expect those businesses to serve the public. Your analogies are falling apart -- of course you can't go up to someone and demand to buy their jeans. They aren't in the business of selling jeans. There is no reason to not expect you can walk into a jeans store and buy jeans.

This self-entitled bullshit people seem to have is ridiculous.

How, exactly, is it more self entitled to say "I want to buy jeans at a jeans store" than to say "I want to start a business that benefits from the public but only sell to people I want to sell to." Yes, the self-entitled bullshit is indeed ridiculous but you are point the finger at the wrong party.

I won't get into my personal belief that people shouldn't even be able to tell if someone is straight or gay, and that they generally only out themselves when they act like an absolute clown in public

There are masculine acting gay men and feminine acting straight men. It's a terrible barometer for orientation and has been that way basically since the whole metrosexual movement.

[Endus]

You can refuse service to anyone at anytime in America.

Not for any reason, they can't. There's a host of justifications for denying service that are illegal.

A store owner, manager, or worker with the authority to do so can refuse service, ask the customer to leave, and then call the police to have the person removed for trespassing if they have not left. As soon as a person or business says it's refusing service to (insert group here) because they are (X), then they are in the wrong. Stupid as it may seem, giving no reason is perfectly ok, giving a reason is not ok.

They don't have to give a reason. The way civil courts work, if an accusation seems reasonable, you need to provide a positive defence that provides a more reasonable alternative. If someone says you kicked them out because they're black, say, you need to be able to explain what actual reason you had to kick them out, other than their race. If you can't provide such an explanation, they will rule against you.

And yet you do not apply that logic to groups you don't like. Would you tell a hotel they have to rent a ballroom for a KKK meeting?

The KKK aren't a protected class, so that's a pretty silly comparison.

[Stone the Crow]

There are masculine acting gay men and feminine acting straight men. It's a terrible barometer for orientation and has been that way basically since the whole metrosexual movement.

I'm well aware. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with homosexuals who act like normal human beings. I just think people should be free to not do business with anyone they want for any reason they want. If that reason is because you don't want to do business with someone acting like a clown, you sure as fuck should be allowed to.

Otherwise, you might as well say that you should be free to go to a job interview wearing a pair of swimming trunks and clown wig, and then expect to be treated exactly like everyone else. You're not, and you shouldn't.

[Lenonis]

I'm well aware. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with homosexuals who act like normal human beings. I just think people should be free to not do business with anyone they want for any reason they want. If that reason is because you don't want to do business with someone acting like a clown, you sure as fuck should be allowed to.

Otherwise, you might as well say that you should be free to go to a job interview wearing a pair of swimming trunks and clown wig, and then expect to be treated exactly like everyone else. You're not, and you shouldn't.

Moving past the point that an interview has zero comparability to going shopping to your actual point -- I don't think anyone is arguing against denying service for specific reasons that are non-discriminatory. Creating disturbances, etc.

But going so far as to just throw your hands up and say "hey, let's let businesses discriminate and let the market decide" only works when there is a variety of choices run by a variety of ideologies. As the Jim Crow era showed, that's a horribly flawed assumption.

I know there are a lot of free market ideologues on these boards, but when you put the ideology of a free market before what actual real people would suffer in that scenario, I just can't get on board.

The only thing preventing a fair number of business owners from being total dicks is the law...not the market.

[Felya]

I'm well aware. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with homosexuals who act like normal human beings. I just think people should be free to not do business with anyone they want for any reason they want. If that reason is because you don't want to do business with someone acting like a clown, you sure as fuck should be allowed to.

Otherwise, you might as well say that you should be free to go to a job interview wearing a pair of swimming trunks and clown wig, and then expect to be treated exactly like everyone else. You're not, and you shouldn't.

No one is saying you shouldn't ban the act that defines them acting as a clown. Want to ban gay people? How about not permitting public displays of effection, which is completley within guidelines.

[Stone the Crow]

No one is saying you shouldn't ban the act that defines them acting as a clown. Want to ban gay people? How about not permitting public displays of effection, which is completley within guidelines.

Actually, yes they are since if a flaming homosexual acting like a complete clown (which most of them do pretty much by definition) walks into your store and you deny them a service, it's clearly because they're gay and not because they're acting like a complete clown.

I in no way advocate banning homosexuals or anyone else due to their gender, race, or nationality. None of that has to do with BEHAVIOR, however, which I think is a completely valid thing to use to determine whether or not you want to do business with someone.

- - - Updated - - -

But going so far as to just throw your hands up and say "hey, let's let businesses discriminate and let the market decide" only works when there is a variety of choices run by a variety of ideologies.

Not in a world where literally anyone can start a business for any reason. No one in a small town has a monopoly unless you allow them to. In fact, competition is a great thing, and it's one of the primary driving forces that keeps people from discriminating.

As the Jim Crow era showed, that's a horribly flawed assumption.

How on earth do you think that's even remotely relevant?