The right way to do business with groups you don't like

[Deletedaccount1]

Is it?

A business owner refuses to serve, say, a gay person cause he disagrees with homosexuality on religious grounds.

A business owner refuses service to a Klansmen cause the latter thinks little and actively tries to supress black individuals.

Why is it inconsistent to deny the first owner his business and allow the second to keep working? What am i missing here?

Because the reasoning shouldn't matter for why you refuse service to someone. The government shouldn't have the ability to regulate the individual choices a person makes with their business because it offends a group.

- - - Updated - - -

Legally, you can refuse a klans member because they are not protected. You can't refuse all whites though, big difference. Line is drawn when you refuse because of their inherent traits, but otherwise you could refuse anyone you've had beef with. A person can refuse their ex, someone who curses too much, or someone who is simply giving you a hard time. The line is drawn when protected classes come into play.

Why do protected classes deserve special treatment? What if I really don't like Jehovah's Witnesses because they believe weird stuff and their refusal of medical treatment offends me. Can I deny them service or do I have to serve them because they aren't one of the Left's privileged little voting blocs?

[kail]

Why do protected classes deserve special treatment? What if I really don't like Jehova's Witnesses because they believe weird stuff and their refusal of medical treatment offends me. Can I deny them service or do I have to serve them because they aren't one of the Left's privileged little classes?

Legally? You can. Me personally? Blurs the line too much. Public businesses are public. Expect to serve the public, not just people you agree with.

[Grimbold21]

Because the reasoning shouldn't matter for why you refuse service to someone. The government shouldn't have the ability to regulate the individual choices a person makes with their business because it offends a group.

Of course it should matter why one refuses service. In one case, you have an individual's refusal based on illogical grounds, supressing the identity of the potential customer.

On the other hand, there's an owner refusing service to a customer he knows has an agenda that consists of limiting and, potentially, harming someone else's freedom and well being, based, once again, on illogical motives.

[Deletedaccount1]

Legally? You can. Me personally? Blurs the line too much. Public businesses are public. Expect to serve the public, not just people you agree with.

That is not what a public business is. A public business is publicly traded and has shareholders which is not what we are talking about. A private business (virtually all small businesses) also serve the public and are privately owned. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it should matter why one refuses service. In one case, you have an individual's refusal based on illogical grounds, supressing the identity of the potential customer.

On the other hand, there's an owner refusing service to a customer he knows has an agenda that consists of limiting and, potentially, harming someone else's freedom and well being, based, once again, on illogical motives.

Why do you get to draw the line? Why does the government get to decide whether something is based on illogical grounds or not? Refer to my Jehovah's Witnesses example. Plenty of them indirectly cause others to die because they refuse medical treatment. That fits your definition of "an agenda that potentially harms someone's else's freedom" but of course the Left doesn't actually care because they want to take away certain people's rights to prop up the rights of those who support their agenda.

[kail]

That is not what a public business is. A public business is publicly traded and has shareholders which is not what we are talking about. A private business (virtually all small businesses) also serve the public and are privately owned. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Private businesses still serve the public and abide by the same laws. The main difference between public and private businesses are who owns and invests. When I said "public" it was meant to fit the adjective but I guess it doesn't matter in the end. If you want to run an exclusive organization, run it as non-profit. You can pick and choose any members you want for any reason imaginable.

[Deletedaccount1]

Private businesses still serve the public and abide by the same laws. The main difference between public and private businesses are who owns and invests. When I said "public" it was meant to fit the adjective but I guess it doesn't matter in the end. If you want to run an exclusive organization, run it as non-profit. You can pick and choose any members you want for any reason imaginable.

Non-profits still serve the public. Saying that they "serve the public" is a shitty reason to coerce someone into doing something simply because a few groups are disadvantaged in the country.

[Ycarene]

The entire argument of people who say that you can't deny service to someone because you disagree them fails when you inverse the reasoning for why you don't serve them. You wouldn't force a black person to serve food to a group of Klansmen, you wouldn't force a gay person to serve a congregation of Westboro Baptist Church members. It is logically inconsistent.

As a matter of fact, I would, at least for the WBC example. (I don't think that the KKK qualifies under the civil rights act)

[Delekii]

That is not what a public business is. A public business is publicly traded and has shareholders which is not what we are talking about. A private business (virtually all small businesses) also serve the public and are privately owned. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -



Why do you get to draw the line? Why does the government get to decide whether something is based on illogical grounds or not? Refer to my Jehovah's Witnesses example. Plenty of them indirectly cause others to die because they refuse medical treatment. That fits your definition of "an agenda that potentially harms someone's else's freedom" but of course the Left doesn't actually care because they want to take away certain people's rights to prop up the rights of those who support their agenda.

As has always been the case, you draw the line at where society currently believes social acceptability ends; the same is true for literally every law in existence.

[Sunseeker]

It's the same bullshit alcohol and cigarette companies do, make billions on business that is damaging to society, then spend a pittance on "counter campaigning". South Park said it best:

[May90]

This sounds like a good idea, but it probably works only for donations a company wants to do anyway; otherwise a company just loses profit by manufacturing something they aren't going to benefit from.

[Garnier Fructis]

It's the same bullshit alcohol and cigarette companies do, make billions on business that is damaging to society, then spend a pittance on "counter campaigning". South Park said it best

Well, at least for the company in the article it seems they spent all of the profit from this particular sale on the donation, not just a piece.

[Powerogue]

No. Just let people serve or don't serve who they want. By not serving, they lose business but are not coerced into acting against their own will.

This follows your own logic since there is a tradeoff, although in a negative way instead of a positive one.

It's difficult to find the medium, because this sounds pretty darn reasonable until you remember we have laws that are there for good reason against organizations, say, not serving black people.

So I'm inclined to lean towards the rights of the customer, no matter how stupid these customers may be.

[kail]

Non-profits still serve the public. Saying that they "serve the public" is a shitty reason to coerce someone into doing something simply because a few groups are disadvantaged in the country.

Eh, they don't. Non-profits and not for profit organizations are simply organizations. The serve their own agenda and can be entirely exclusive. Boy Scouts for example were allowed to deny gays and atheists. I can run my own organization based entirely on fishing. I decide who's in.

Businesses, private and public, are open to the public.

[Sunseeker]

Well, at least for the company in the article it seems they spent all of the profit from this particular sale on the donation, not just a piece.

Regardless, they still publish the message. That will promote it anti-evolution far more than some pro-science/evolution group will ever do with 100k.

[kail]

I don't understand this conservative utopia of opening a business and then not doing business with people.

On the business side, the right tends to favor more freedom for businesses and less government involvement. I take issue when it starts to affect innocent civilians. Letting businesses openly practice discrimination does just that. Serve whoever comes through your door and collect the money. A win-win in the end.

[Polyxo]

I would say that at the very least, the company in question has a legitimate interest in not producing what is essentially a message leading to inevitably false information.

[Deleted]

Why do protected classes deserve special treatment? What if I really don't like Jehovah's Witnesses because they believe weird stuff and their refusal of medical treatment offends me. Can I deny them service or do I have to serve them because they aren't one of the Left's privileged little voting blocs?

I'll give you a small example, by way of using yours, as to why it is sometimes needed. Some Drs/practices/institutions would be unwilling to take on JWs due to how "tricky" things might get should a certain intervention be needed. You might then have a situation arising where that group is partially excluded from access to medical care based upon religious belief and so also suffers by not readily having access to procedures and treatments with which they have no issue. Considering this might also include minors in such families this is particularly delicate. This has issues past any detrimental effect on the patient. You are perhaps leading down a road that means people inappropriately present at Casualty/ER (so impacting on others being treated there) not because they didn't think to go to their GP but because they are disenfranchised from the system.

It was some wise dudes a while back decided it was probably "a bad thing" to make decisions regarding access to treatment based on which flavour space fairy someone sent their wish list to. I can see this should apply to anything that affects minors, those with limited capacity, or relates to infrastructure; so medicine, govt, education, transport, law enforcement and legal process, should be protected from discrimination against groups.

Stuff like people not wanting to bake a cake for someone I don't really care about. If someone has a bee in their bonnet about what someone does with their dangly bits or some backwards views about ethnicity and cultures let them say "no" if they feel they must. I'd prefer it if they had to state this was their stance though for all to see so that in turn I don't give business to the odious little shits. Sure, signs saying "No blacks, no travellers, no dogs, no Irish" on a hotel might put a damper on a trip to the seaside but I'd rather know than not know the people that harbour this backwards shit and I think it would be better if everyone else did too.

[Wildtree]

I'll take someones money regardless of how I feel about them and their beliefs.

There's a certain satisfaction in taking the money of those I don't like. It's easier than with those I do like.
For the latter I might wanna work for free or give them a break accordingly to their needs and situation.
For the former, nothing sweeter than having them pay a "dislike tax".. Something I admit doing, when I am aware that I deal with an asshole.
There's something Robin Hood'esque to it lol

[Slybak]

No. Just let people serve or don't serve who they want. By not serving, they lose business but are not coerced into acting against their own will.

This follows your own logic since there is a tradeoff, although in a negative way instead of a positive one.

Of course anyone who makes this argument never supports the logical corollary; if a business refuses to provide services to the public, then the public should refuse to provide services to said business. Services like recognition of exclusivity over intellectual property. Or access to public infrastructure. Or... oh, I dunno... police protection of physical property.