Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are businesses allowed to discriminate?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:04:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And, more importantly, should they be able to?

This applies more to American businesses, but I am wondering if anyone knows any businesses that REFUSE to service certain groups?

I know there are certain businesses that ONLY hire certain people, like women at Hooters or strip clubs. So, would it be too far if the business ONLY catered to men, and flat out refused to allow women in?

Businesses that refuse service to groups:
Nightclubs - only allow "cool" people in
Dating services - only allow Christians/elderly/blacks/gays to be matched (I've seen commercials for all)
Restaurants - refusing to allow children in
Various groups - like the AARP, United Negro College Fund, or even charities that help ONLY the poor
Hotels/tourism - places like Sandals that do not allow children

Why is it okay to discriminate against these groups, but not okay to discriminate against other groups? I mean, if I want to create a certain atmosphere (romantic) I don't want kids around, and that is perfectly fine, legally. However, if I want to create a certain atmosphere (no whites, read: golf club), why can't I refuse blacks, legally?

Is it illegal to do this?
I am aware it is bigoted and bad business, but I am under the impression that certain groups must be served. I find this aggravatingly annoying and hypocritical.

Why do, say age laws, protect ageist policies in hiring, but not in patronage?
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:16:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 11:04:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
And, more importantly, should they be able to?

This applies more to American businesses, but I am wondering if anyone knows any businesses that REFUSE to service certain groups?

I know there are certain businesses that ONLY hire certain people, like women at Hooters or strip clubs. So, would it be too far if the business ONLY catered to men, and flat out refused to allow women in?

Businesses that refuse service to groups:
Nightclubs - only allow "cool" people in
Dating services - only allow Christians/elderly/blacks/gays to be matched (I've seen commercials for all)
Restaurants - refusing to allow children in
Various groups - like the AARP, United Negro College Fund, or even charities that help ONLY the poor
Hotels/tourism - places like Sandals that do not allow children

Why is it okay to discriminate against these groups, but not okay to discriminate against other groups? I mean, if I want to create a certain atmosphere (romantic) I don't want kids around, and that is perfectly fine, legally. However, if I want to create a certain atmosphere (no whites, read: golf club), why can't I refuse blacks, legally?

Is it illegal to do this?
I am aware it is bigoted and bad business, but I am under the impression that certain groups must be served. I find this aggravatingly annoying and hypocritical.

Why do, say age laws, protect ageist policies in hiring, but not in patronage?

Discrimination laws, at least in the US have a list of protected classes which cannot be discriminated against. These are picked because it is viewed that there is no socially justified reason to do so. Though they do sometimes allow work a rounds. Such as strip clubs do not need to hire male strippers to show that they are not sexist.

As a society, we said that certain environments (like all white) are not acceptable to force upon people. So even if you want such a golf club, society says "Yuck Fou!"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:18:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If that doesn't make sense blame the war between ethanol and my neurotransmitters.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:25:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 11:16:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/20/2013 11:04:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
And, more importantly, should they be able to?

This applies more to American businesses, but I am wondering if anyone knows any businesses that REFUSE to service certain groups?

I know there are certain businesses that ONLY hire certain people, like women at Hooters or strip clubs. So, would it be too far if the business ONLY catered to men, and flat out refused to allow women in?

Businesses that refuse service to groups:
Nightclubs - only allow "cool" people in
Dating services - only allow Christians/elderly/blacks/gays to be matched (I've seen commercials for all)
Restaurants - refusing to allow children in
Various groups - like the AARP, United Negro College Fund, or even charities that help ONLY the poor
Hotels/tourism - places like Sandals that do not allow children

Why is it okay to discriminate against these groups, but not okay to discriminate against other groups? I mean, if I want to create a certain atmosphere (romantic) I don't want kids around, and that is perfectly fine, legally. However, if I want to create a certain atmosphere (no whites, read: golf club), why can't I refuse blacks, legally?

Is it illegal to do this?
I am aware it is bigoted and bad business, but I am under the impression that certain groups must be served. I find this aggravatingly annoying and hypocritical.

Why do, say age laws, protect ageist policies in hiring, but not in patronage?

Discrimination laws, at least in the US have a list of protected classes which cannot be discriminated against. These are picked because it is viewed that there is no socially justified reason to do so. Though they do sometimes allow work a rounds. Such as strip clubs do not need to hire male strippers to show that they are not sexist.

As a society, we said that certain environments (like all white) are not acceptable to force upon people. So even if you want such a golf club, society says "Yuck Fou!"

I get that society, hopefully, frowns upon this. I've made a thread about hiring practices, but this is about customers.
But, who is forcing anything on another? Why can't I not serve you because I don't want to, for whatever reason? Obviously, if it is solely because you are black, that isn't a good reason not to merit scorn, but the clothes on your back are?

What ever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at anytime"?

Does anyone know for a fact that my concern is even valid?
Is it illegal to not serve someone?
My work here is, finally, done.
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 1:44:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 11:25:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/20/2013 11:16:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/20/2013 11:04:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
And, more importantly, should they be able to?

This applies more to American businesses, but I am wondering if anyone knows any businesses that REFUSE to service certain groups?

I know there are certain businesses that ONLY hire certain people, like women at Hooters or strip clubs. So, would it be too far if the business ONLY catered to men, and flat out refused to allow women in?

Businesses that refuse service to groups:
Nightclubs - only allow "cool" people in
Dating services - only allow Christians/elderly/blacks/gays to be matched (I've seen commercials for all)
Restaurants - refusing to allow children in
Various groups - like the AARP, United Negro College Fund, or even charities that help ONLY the poor
Hotels/tourism - places like Sandals that do not allow children

Why is it okay to discriminate against these groups, but not okay to discriminate against other groups? I mean, if I want to create a certain atmosphere (romantic) I don't want kids around, and that is perfectly fine, legally. However, if I want to create a certain atmosphere (no whites, read: golf club), why can't I refuse blacks, legally?

Is it illegal to do this?
I am aware it is bigoted and bad business, but I am under the impression that certain groups must be served. I find this aggravatingly annoying and hypocritical.

Why do, say age laws, protect ageist policies in hiring, but not in patronage?

Discrimination laws, at least in the US have a list of protected classes which cannot be discriminated against. These are picked because it is viewed that there is no socially justified reason to do so. Though they do sometimes allow work a rounds. Such as strip clubs do not need to hire male strippers to show that they are not sexist.

As a society, we said that certain environments (like all white) are not acceptable to force upon people. So even if you want such a golf club, society says "Yuck Fou!"

I get that society, hopefully, frowns upon this. I've made a thread about hiring practices, but this is about customers.
But, who is forcing anything on another? Why can't I not serve you because I don't want to, for whatever reason? Obviously, if it is solely because you are black, that isn't a good reason not to merit scorn, but the clothes on your back are?

What ever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at anytime"?

Does anyone know for a fact that my concern is even valid?
Is it illegal to not serve someone?

Essentially it is illegal to not serve certain groups without reason. Like if you opening a bowling alley, but only wanted white bowlers, it wouldn't fly. There is no "actual" reason to not serve a black man. If you wanted to start a business that catered to certain groups (like strip clubs) then you have a justifiable reason to not allow groups in. So you cannot say no to people based on ethnic background, or gender, unless there is reason for doing so. Because they are black is not a reason, as black people among other ethnic groups are equal with white people. Legally there is no difference between a white man and a black man.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 4:00:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 11:04:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
And, more importantly, should they be able to?

This applies more to American businesses, but I am wondering if anyone knows any businesses that REFUSE to service certain groups?

The US has protected classes, mainly race, religion, and national origin, but discrimination is generally allowed. Gender discrimination is allowed when gender is related to job requirements

MENSA, a club for smart people, is not required to admit stupid people. Many professional associations require credentials for admission. As to serving the general public, age is the restriction that comes to mind. AARP has a minimum age of something like 45, although they seem to start soliciting people when they are about 14. Banks require financial qualifications to get a loan. Many colleges have admission requirements.

Years ago, a landlord in New York refused to rent to a black women lawyer, who then sued him. The landlord proved that he had many black tenants and never discriminated on grounds of race. However, he never rented to lawyers and none were ever admitted. He won his case. There is no law against discriminating against lawyers.

Most businesses want as many customers as possible, so they do not want to exclude anyone, but there are cases that make business sense.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 4:05:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 4:00:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/20/2013 11:04:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
And, more importantly, should they be able to?

This applies more to American businesses, but I am wondering if anyone knows any businesses that REFUSE to service certain groups?

The US has protected classes, mainly race, religion, and national origin, but discrimination is generally allowed. Gender discrimination is allowed when gender is related to job requirements

MENSA, a club for smart people, is not required to admit stupid people. Many professional associations require credentials for admission. As to serving the general public, age is the restriction that comes to mind. AARP has a minimum age of something like 45, although they seem to start soliciting people when they are about 14. Banks require financial qualifications to get a loan. Many colleges have admission requirements.

Years ago, a landlord in New York refused to rent to a black women lawyer, who then sued him. The landlord proved that he had many black tenants and never discriminated on grounds of race. However, he never rented to lawyers and none were ever admitted. He won his case. There is no law against discriminating against lawyers.

Most businesses want as many customers as possible, so they do not want to exclude anyone, but there are cases that make business sense.

So, is it illegal to refuse service based on race? I get that it's bad business sense, but is it a crime? Or, is it just a lawsuit, and not criminal? What are the damages to be won? A sandwich you didn't pay for?
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 4:18:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 4:05:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/23/2013 4:00:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/20/2013 11:04:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
And, more importantly, should they be able to?

This applies more to American businesses, but I am wondering if anyone knows any businesses that REFUSE to service certain groups?

The US has protected classes, mainly race, religion, and national origin, but discrimination is generally allowed. Gender discrimination is allowed when gender is related to job requirements

MENSA, a club for smart people, is not required to admit stupid people. Many professional associations require credentials for admission. As to serving the general public, age is the restriction that comes to mind. AARP has a minimum age of something like 45, although they seem to start soliciting people when they are about 14. Banks require financial qualifications to get a loan. Many colleges have admission requirements.

Years ago, a landlord in New York refused to rent to a black women lawyer, who then sued him. The landlord proved that he had many black tenants and never discriminated on grounds of race. However, he never rented to lawyers and none were ever admitted. He won his case. There is no law against discriminating against lawyers.

Most businesses want as many customers as possible, so they do not want to exclude anyone, but there are cases that make business sense.

So, is it illegal to refuse service based on race? I get that it's bad business sense, but is it a crime? Or, is it just a lawsuit, and not criminal? What are the damages to be won? A sandwich you didn't pay for?

Damages are usually statutory in these cases, that is, they're like "fines" paid to the individual rather than the state itself, as opposed to actual recompense directly tied to "making whole".

In general, it seems that the protected classes are those of your life, as opposed to "little decisions". Granted, a career isn't really a "little decision", but you could quit your job tomorrow. You couldn't, though, become a different race, gender, or (at least on the "change tomorrow" grounds) sexual orientation. These big life concepts are such that it is felt that you can't live if businesses choose to discriminate based on that. There's a compelling state interest because what one business is allowed to do, they ALL might do (see the mandatory binding arbitration SCOTUS cases' effect on the business world).

Would we think it okay for businesses to discriminate against a black person to the extent they starve to death? That they die from exposure? That they become homeless? Where is that line properly drawn?

Those who argue against anti-discrimination laws often seem to ignore this broader possibility, on the grounds that they feel it's unlikely. Maybe...but at the same time, I have NO problem believing in the likelihood of the impossibility of living in certain entire communities if you're one of the protected class...and is it appropriate for THAT to be the case?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 4:20:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, and I believe the reason the damages are usually paid to the individual rather than the state is because the system is set up that the state doesn't (usually) do the executive enforcement; that's up to the individual to bring up, and so they reap the restitutive act of having done so.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 4:42:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 4:18:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Damages are usually statutory in these cases, that is, they're like "fines" paid to the individual rather than the state itself, as opposed to actual recompense directly tied to "making whole".
Okay, so it isn't illegal, per se, since it is a civil action. Like a business not given a refund for shoddy work.

In general, it seems that the protected classes are those of your life, as opposed to "little decisions". Granted, a career isn't really a "little decision", but you could quit your job tomorrow. You couldn't, though, become a different race, gender, or (at least on the "change tomorrow" grounds) sexual orientation. These big life concepts are such that it is felt that you can't live if businesses choose to discriminate based on that. There's a compelling state interest because what one business is allowed to do, they ALL might do (see the mandatory binding arbitration SCOTUS cases' effect on the business world).
Keep in mind that there are life decisions that people make that truly can land them in the street that are "legal" discriminatin, like having bad credit or a felony. These can cost you jobs and living places.

Would we think it okay for businesses to discriminate against a black person to the extent they starve to death? That they die from exposure? That they become homeless? Where is that line properly drawn?

The line should not be drawn anywhere.
People and/or businesses (not government) should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason.
Now, if people get together and, say, starve the blacks by not letting them shop at the grocery stores in a certain city, the government, IMO, shouldn't force the companies to sell, but instead, back a loan and streamline to start a business that expressly won't discriminate to blacks. Also, there are charities and whatnot that can get involved (white people buying groceries for blacks).

Is it cool that people do this? Not generally.
But, if a business owner only wants a certain atmosphere or clientele, why shouldn't they be able to? Again, only hotties in the club is kosher, but not only whites (or males) in the golf club?

Those who argue against anti-discrimination laws often seem to ignore this broader possibility, on the grounds that they feel it's unlikely. Maybe...but at the same time, I have NO problem believing in the likelihood of the impossibility of living in certain entire communities if you're one of the protected class...and is it appropriate for THAT to be the case?

It is an unfortunate side effect of freedom, that haters are gonna hate. Generally, I don't think people will do things that would likely cause one's death, but I could be wrong. It is a world of difference from selling you a sandwich and not allowing you to buy groceries.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 4:46:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 4:42:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/23/2013 4:18:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:


Damages are usually statutory in these cases, that is, they're like "fines" paid to the individual rather than the state itself, as opposed to actual recompense directly tied to "making whole".
Okay, so it isn't illegal, per se, since it is a civil action. Like a business not given a refund for shoddy work.

In general, it seems that the protected classes are those of your life, as opposed to "little decisions". Granted, a career isn't really a "little decision", but you could quit your job tomorrow. You couldn't, though, become a different race, gender, or (at least on the "change tomorrow" grounds) sexual orientation. These big life concepts are such that it is felt that you can't live if businesses choose to discriminate based on that. There's a compelling state interest because what one business is allowed to do, they ALL might do (see the mandatory binding arbitration SCOTUS cases' effect on the business world).
Keep in mind that there are life decisions that people make that truly can land them in the street that are "legal" discriminatin, like having bad credit or a felony. These can cost you jobs and living places.

Would we think it okay for businesses to discriminate against a black person to the extent they starve to death? That they die from exposure? That they become homeless? Where is that line properly drawn?

The line should not be drawn anywhere.
People and/or businesses (not government) should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason.
Now, if people get together and, say, starve the blacks by not letting them shop at the grocery stores in a certain city, the government, IMO, shouldn't force the companies to sell, but instead, back a loan and streamline to start a business that expressly won't discriminate to blacks.

That seems rather more invasive, actually.

Also, there are charities and whatnot that can get involved (white people buying groceries for blacks).

Manna could also fall from heaven, and its possibility is equally irrelevant.

But, if a business owner only wants a certain atmosphere or clientele, why shouldn't they be able to? Again, only hotties in the club is kosher, but not only whites (or males) in the golf club?

"Hotties" is not a protected class yet. Perhaps some day it will be.

It is an unfortunate side effect of freedom, that haters are gonna hate. Generally, I don't think people will do things that would likely cause one's death, but I could be wrong. It is a world of difference from selling you a sandwich and not allowing you to buy groceries.

Not really.

Further, you're supposing that businesses have equal rights as actual people. I do not believe they should, or that they do.

Businesses are limited in MANY ways under the idea of the government's compelling interest in ensuring public accomodation. It seems strange to me that you'd think it's okay to compel the use of taxpayer money to fund a competition, but not to compel the business itself.

Do you have similar feelings about things like handicapped parking spaces?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 4:49:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And please remember that there are ALWAYS ways around it, if you really want to do so. Private organizations are allowed, and in those respects membership requirements are allowed. Look at the BSA.

So what the anti-discrimination laws really are is the requirement for business to follow certain rules if they're going to be generally public, otherwise they're free to discriminate, but they have go about it differently.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 4:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 4:49:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And please remember that there are ALWAYS ways around it, if you really want to do so. Private organizations are allowed, and in those respects membership requirements are allowed. Look at the BSA.

So what the anti-discrimination laws really are is the requirement for business to follow certain rules if they're going to be generally public, otherwise they're free to discriminate, but they have go about it differently.

I've got to go to work soon, so I'll comment more later.
However, where do you draw the line?
If I am renting a room in my house, can I discriminate against, say, a woman?
If I own a duplex, can I?
At what point can I no longer say: no women allowed?
Did you know that I am legally not allowed to smoke in my home in MN? There is a smoking ban, and since my home is open to the public, I cannot smoke.

It's kind of the same thing. At what point is the line drawn between my business and what I can do regarding how/if I treat my clientele.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:17:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
BTW, Bladerunner, at what point is an entity private?

Anyone can join the BSA, unless you are a girl. So, this private group that is open to the public can discriminate.

Augusta National Golf Course can not allow women to be members, even though it is open to the public to who is a member, as long as there is an open slot and you can afford it.

United Negro College Fund is a non-profit that discriminates its services based on race, yet is a public entity.

But, a private restaurant that is open to the public, is somehow devoid of its right to refuse service as it sees fit?
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 7:40:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 4:59:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/23/2013 4:49:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And please remember that there are ALWAYS ways around it, if you really want to do so. Private organizations are allowed, and in those respects membership requirements are allowed. Look at the BSA.

So what the anti-discrimination laws really are is the requirement for business to follow certain rules if they're going to be generally public, otherwise they're free to discriminate, but they have go about it differently.

I've got to go to work soon, so I'll comment more later.
However, where do you draw the line?
If I am renting a room in my house, can I discriminate against, say, a woman?
If I own a duplex, can I?
At what point can I no longer say: no women allowed?

Housing law is very different than normal business law.

Did you know that I am legally not allowed to smoke in my home in MN? There is a smoking ban, and since my home is open to the public, I cannot smoke.

It's not your home, it's the landlords, in this case the government, who has decided for safety and damages reasons not to allow smoking, right?

It's kind of the same thing. At what point is the line drawn between my business and what I can do regarding how/if I treat my clientele.

The line is drawn at the business level, right? The smoking ban is an example of your principle in action.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 7:46:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:17:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
BTW, Bladerunner, at what point is an entity private?

Anyone can join the BSA, unless you are a girl. So, this private group that is open to the public can discriminate.

Or gay or an atheist. It's a private club (with religious trappings too), that does not discriminate once you're in the club. It's basically a membership issue.

Augusta National Golf Course can not allow women to be members, even though it is open to the public to who is a member, as long as there is an open slot and you can afford it.

Then it's not open to the public. It's open to members only.

United Negro College Fund is a non-profit that discriminates its services based on race, yet is a public entity.

Charities are not businesses, and are allowed to discriminate in their charitable work.


But, a private restaurant that is open to the public, is somehow devoid of its right to refuse service as it sees fit?

Nope. They are open to the public as a public accomodation. The American Legion operates as a sort of bar, often, but I can't go in as I'm not a member....they are only open to members, and I am not one.

In general, if there is a barrier to entry, that's fine...as long as you become members only, and that barrier is to membership.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:59:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 7:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:17:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
BTW, Bladerunner, at what point is an entity private?

Anyone can join the BSA, unless you are a girl. So, this private group that is open to the public can discriminate.

Or gay or an atheist. It's a private club (with religious trappings too), that does not discriminate once you're in the club. It's basically a membership issue.

Augusta National Golf Course can not allow women to be members, even though it is open to the public to who is a member, as long as there is an open slot and you can afford it.

Then it's not open to the public. It's open to members only.

United Negro College Fund is a non-profit that discriminates its services based on race, yet is a public entity.

Charities are not businesses, and are allowed to discriminate in their charitable work.


But, a private restaurant that is open to the public, is somehow devoid of its right to refuse service as it sees fit?

Nope. They are open to the public as a public accomodation. The American Legion operates as a sort of bar, often, but I can't go in as I'm not a member....they are only open to members, and I am not one.

In general, if there is a barrier to entry, that's fine...as long as you become members only, and that barrier is to membership.

Strange indeed.
Okay, so I found a loophole, then.
If I were to open a restaurant, and I wanted to avoid a specific type of customer, then all I would have to do is require a membership of $1.00 to eat there.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 5:05:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 7:40:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/23/2013 4:59:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/23/2013 4:49:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And please remember that there are ALWAYS ways around it, if you really want to do so. Private organizations are allowed, and in those respects membership requirements are allowed. Look at the BSA.

So what the anti-discrimination laws really are is the requirement for business to follow certain rules if they're going to be generally public, otherwise they're free to discriminate, but they have go about it differently.

I've got to go to work soon, so I'll comment more later.
However, where do you draw the line?
If I am renting a room in my house, can I discriminate against, say, a woman?
If I own a duplex, can I?
At what point can I no longer say: no women allowed?

Housing law is very different than normal business law.
But, isn't my renting out property my business?
Or, is this a layman distinction?

Did you know that I am legally not allowed to smoke in my home in MN? There is a smoking ban, and since my home is open to the public, I cannot smoke.

It's not your home, it's the landlords, in this case the government, who has decided for safety and damages reasons not to allow smoking, right?

It is my home, well, mine and the bank's.
I prepare taxes, and as such, people come to my home. Since I am a "public" business, and smoking is illegal indoors at places of business, I cannot smoke in my home. The law was more designed for day cares, but unintentional consequences and all that...

If I was renting, that would be a separate issue, as it is part of the contract.

It's kind of the same thing. At what point is the line drawn between my business and what I can do regarding how/if I treat my clientele.

The line is drawn at the business level, right? The smoking ban is an example of your principle in action.
I'm confused by your comment, but also by my own question...I've had a rough day :/
My work here is, finally, done.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 2:10:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 4:05:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
So, is it illegal to refuse service based on race? I get that it's bad business sense, but is it a crime? Or, is it just a lawsuit, and not criminal? What are the damages to be won? A sandwich you didn't pay for?

It is illegal. The government can bring criminal charges. I don't know what the penalties are prescribed in the law. I presume fines and jail time. There does not have to be specific damages. It's like the police stopping someone for going over the speed limit. The person is fined whether or not they actually caused specific damage.

Lawsuits are also possible if there are specific damages. For example, discrimination in hiring might bring a suit for lost wages.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 2:20:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 4:42:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
But, if a business owner only wants a certain atmosphere or clientele, why shouldn't they be able to?

Why should they?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 2:35:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:20:11 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 8/23/2013 4:42:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
But, if a business owner only wants a certain atmosphere or clientele, why shouldn't they be able to?

Why should they?

Because it is their business, and should be run the they see fit.

Tell me, do you have a problem with discriminating against ALL groups, or only protected ones? Isn't it hypocritical to allow discrimination against some (like hotties in a club, or children in a restaurant) and not against others (blacks, women, etc.)?

Which extreme should be allowed?
A business being forced to serve everyone, or anyone they see fit.
My work here is, finally, done.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 2:44:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Discrimination is a broad concept. It depends on what it is.

I'd really like to see a Libertarian defend why businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race.

Businesses are a public service. It may be alright for a business to primarily profit its founder. But it doesn't make tactical sense to give them complete control. They are not the only person affected by it. Resources are best controlled by the people who are affected by it, in proportion to how they are affected. This is why public oversight exists.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 2:52:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:44:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Discrimination is a broad concept. It depends on what it is.

I'd really like to see a Libertarian defend why businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race.

Businesses are a public service. It may be alright for a business to primarily profit its founder. But it doesn't make tactical sense to give them complete control. They are not the only person affected by it. Resources are best controlled by the people who are affected by it, in proportion to how they are affected. This is why public oversight exists.

In the context of this thread, discrimination is refusing service.
Now, when you talk about a doctor, things get dicey, but a restaurant, it really shouldn't matter, IMO.

Keep in mind, most utilities are public, so they are basically partners of the government (which gives them a monopoly), therefore, they are not allowed to discriminate.
My work here is, finally, done.
BlackSand
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 7:04:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why should someone force me to serve someone I don't want to serve? It goes back to the non-aggression principle. I am not violating your right by not serving you. To say that I must serve someone, even if you pay me to do so, is akin to slavery. You are taking away my liberty to think, to act, to choose, by force.

However, I hope that we've reached a point in society where such racism would cause such scorn, that it wouldn't make economic sense to do so. I know I for one would refuse to eat at restaurant that I thought was blatantly racist.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 12:13:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 4:59:58 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/23/2013 7:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:17:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
BTW, Bladerunner, at what point is an entity private?

Anyone can join the BSA, unless you are a girl. So, this private group that is open to the public can discriminate.

Or gay or an atheist. It's a private club (with religious trappings too), that does not discriminate once you're in the club. It's basically a membership issue.

Augusta National Golf Course can not allow women to be members, even though it is open to the public to who is a member, as long as there is an open slot and you can afford it.

Then it's not open to the public. It's open to members only.

United Negro College Fund is a non-profit that discriminates its services based on race, yet is a public entity.

Charities are not businesses, and are allowed to discriminate in their charitable work.


But, a private restaurant that is open to the public, is somehow devoid of its right to refuse service as it sees fit?

Nope. They are open to the public as a public accomodation. The American Legion operates as a sort of bar, often, but I can't go in as I'm not a member....they are only open to members, and I am not one.

In general, if there is a barrier to entry, that's fine...as long as you become members only, and that barrier is to membership.

Strange indeed.
Okay, so I found a loophole, then.

Yup.

If I were to open a restaurant, and I wanted to avoid a specific type of customer, then all I would have to do is require a membership of $1.00 to eat there.

Sort of; it's a bit more complicated, but in general yes.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 12:18:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 5:05:20 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It is my home, well, mine and the bank's.

Gotcha. Thought you were saying you lived in public housing, which, as I understand it, has that rule in MN.

I prepare taxes, and as such, people come to my home. Since I am a "public" business, and smoking is illegal indoors at places of business, I cannot smoke in my home. The law was more designed for day cares, but unintentional consequences and all that...

I also wager, however, that you couldn't be cited if it's happening after business hours. I'd have to know the specifics of the law in question...

Fundamentally, though, you did make your home part of your business, which was your choice. It could just as properly be called your business, and you happen to sleep there, as it could be called your home, where you also do business.

If I was renting, that would be a separate issue, as it is part of the contract.

That's what I thought you were saying. Thanks for clarifying.


It's kind of the same thing. At what point is the line drawn between my business and what I can do regarding how/if I treat my clientele.

The line is drawn at the business level, right? The smoking ban is an example of your principle in action.
I'm confused by your comment, but also by my own question...I've had a rough day :/

Lol. I got confused 'cause you didn't specify it was your business, so I assumed it was the public-housing rule.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 12:27:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 12:18:33 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/24/2013 5:05:20 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It is my home, well, mine and the bank's.

Gotcha. Thought you were saying you lived in public housing, which, as I understand it, has that rule in MN.

I prepare taxes, and as such, people come to my home. Since I am a "public" business, and smoking is illegal indoors at places of business, I cannot smoke in my home. The law was more designed for day cares, but unintentional consequences and all that...

I also wager, however, that you couldn't be cited if it's happening after business hours. I'd have to know the specifics of the law in question...

You could be right, but I am not sure. I don't smoke, so it doesn't really affect me, so I haven't looked too deeply in it (i.e. I don't know if I can smoke after hours or not, although I am pretty sure I can't, since the second hand smoke may linger)

Fundamentally, though, you did make your home part of your business, which was your choice. It could just as properly be called your business, and you happen to sleep there, as it could be called your home, where you also do business.

I do business in one room, not the entire house. I cannot smoke in the entirety of my house, because of one room. Regardless, the issue is that I should be allowed to smoke at my business if I want, or disallow smoking if I want.

If I was renting, that would be a separate issue, as it is part of the contract.

That's what I thought you were saying. Thanks for clarifying.

The smoking ban does actually forbid smoking in apartment buildings, though. Which I find appaling. (residents who rent cannot smoke in their homes, because of the law, not owner discretion)


It's kind of the same thing. At what point is the line drawn between my business and what I can do regarding how/if I treat my clientele.

The line is drawn at the business level, right? The smoking ban is an example of your principle in action.
I'm confused by your comment, but also by my own question...I've had a rough day :/

Lol. I got confused 'cause you didn't specify it was your business, so I assumed it was the public-housing rule.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 12:32:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 12:27:40 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/25/2013 12:18:33 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/24/2013 5:05:20 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It is my home, well, mine and the bank's.

Gotcha. Thought you were saying you lived in public housing, which, as I understand it, has that rule in MN.

I prepare taxes, and as such, people come to my home. Since I am a "public" business, and smoking is illegal indoors at places of business, I cannot smoke in my home. The law was more designed for day cares, but unintentional consequences and all that...

I also wager, however, that you couldn't be cited if it's happening after business hours. I'd have to know the specifics of the law in question...

You could be right, but I am not sure. I don't smoke, so it doesn't really affect me, so I haven't looked too deeply in it (i.e. I don't know if I can smoke after hours or not, although I am pretty sure I can't, since the second hand smoke may linger)

We'd have to look at the law.

And second hand smoke doesn't "linger" like that, just as a heads up...the smell might, but not in terms of carcinogens etc.

Fundamentally, though, you did make your home part of your business, which was your choice. It could just as properly be called your business, and you happen to sleep there, as it could be called your home, where you also do business.

I do business in one room, not the entire house. I cannot smoke in the entirety of my house, because of one room. Regardless, the issue is that I should be allowed to smoke at my business if I want, or disallow smoking if I want.

Again, let's see that law to understand it. In terms of the "entirety of your house", the smoke does travel while you're actively smoking. Therefore, if it's disallowed in the place, it's usually also disallowed in certain distances.

You aren't allowed to disallow it because the idea is, again: what if every business did it?

If I was renting, that would be a separate issue, as it is part of the contract.

That's what I thought you were saying. Thanks for clarifying.

The smoking ban does actually forbid smoking in apartment buildings, though. Which I find appaling. (residents who rent cannot smoke in their homes, because of the law, not owner discretion)

I think you are incorrect. I believe it only applies to public housing, in which the "landlord" is the government.



It's kind of the same thing. At what point is the line drawn between my business and what I can do regarding how/if I treat my clientele.

The line is drawn at the business level, right? The smoking ban is an example of your principle in action.
I'm confused by your comment, but also by my own question...I've had a rough day :/

Lol. I got confused 'cause you didn't specify it was your business, so I assumed it was the public-housing rule.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 12:46:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 12:32:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/25/2013 12:27:40 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/25/2013 12:18:33 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/24/2013 5:05:20 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It is my home, well, mine and the bank's.

Gotcha. Thought you were saying you lived in public housing, which, as I understand it, has that rule in MN.

I prepare taxes, and as such, people come to my home. Since I am a "public" business, and smoking is illegal indoors at places of business, I cannot smoke in my home. The law was more designed for day cares, but unintentional consequences and all that...

I also wager, however, that you couldn't be cited if it's happening after business hours. I'd have to know the specifics of the law in question...

You could be right, but I am not sure. I don't smoke, so it doesn't really affect me, so I haven't looked too deeply in it (i.e. I don't know if I can smoke after hours or not, although I am pretty sure I can't, since the second hand smoke may linger)

We'd have to look at the law.

We've successfully derailed the thread, but I don't care.
Here's the law, well, a fact sheet anyway:
http://www.health.state.mn.us...

And second hand smoke doesn't "linger" like that, just as a heads up...the smell might, but not in terms of carcinogens etc.

If a restaurant can't have a designated smoking area (either for customers or staff), then it stands to reason that I couldn't smoke in another room outside business hours.

Fundamentally, though, you did make your home part of your business, which was your choice. It could just as properly be called your business, and you happen to sleep there, as it could be called your home, where you also do business.

I do business in one room, not the entire house. I cannot smoke in the entirety of my house, because of one room. Regardless, the issue is that I should be allowed to smoke at my business if I want, or disallow smoking if I want.

Again, let's see that law to understand it. In terms of the "entirety of your house", the smoke does travel while you're actively smoking. Therefore, if it's disallowed in the place, it's usually also disallowed in certain distances.

You aren't allowed to disallow it because the idea is, again: what if every business did it?
MN law may be different from your law, if you have one.
However, looking at this other fact sheet, I read it wrong, since I have no employees.
http://www.health.state.mn.us...
(and it appears to be anywhere in the home, but only during business hours)

If I was renting, that would be a separate issue, as it is part of the contract.

That's what I thought you were saying. Thanks for clarifying.

The smoking ban does actually forbid smoking in apartment buildings, though. Which I find appaling. (residents who rent cannot smoke in their homes, because of the law, not owner discretion)

I think you are incorrect. I believe it only applies to public housing, in which the "landlord" is the government.
My work here is, finally, done.