It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should venues deny services to people based on their race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

MystikMushroom
Another thought...

Not engaging in commerce with someone because the owner's religion tells them homosexuality is wrong is just stupid. Does anyone really think Jesus himself would have a problem? How is selling flowers or a cake to someone who's gay make the owner less of a Christian or whatever faith they are?

Is the owner going to catch something from selling a product to a gay person?

If I sold donuts and some skinheads walked in, I'd sell them donuts (as long as they were polite and non-disruptive). Who they are and what their values are is none of my business. My business is to make money selling a product.

Selling something to someone who I can't stand doesn't make me a worse person -- in fact I would say it makes you a better person, you chose to look beyond your prejudices. Also, it makes you a good capitalist, and we all know how many staunch conservative/pro-capitalist members there are here!


Of course it is stupid. The only color that should matter to a business owner is green. OTOH, in a free society people should be allowed to be stupid. If their business fails because of stupid business decisions, then it is their own fault and no sympathy here. But there should be a law (yet ANOTHER law) preventing it.




posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Pixiefyre
Well after reading through all the posts in this thread, it seems that the biggest argument in favor of denying services to people based on race, religious affiliation, and so forth, is focused on the argument that a privately run business should be able to refuse service to a customer who they dislike due to differences in religious values, race, gender, sexual orientation or simply just because they don't like the way they look.

When you are the owner and operator of said business I can understand one feeling that this business is their own personal private possession, no different then the underwear they choose to wear or throwout. But after doing some reading I found that legally such is not the case and a valid explanation as to why the two...the underwear and the business are not viewed, treated, or accepted as equally a private object in which one can do as he wishes.


Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons? No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property? Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal? Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.

Source

Businesses that depend on the public demand for their product as a primary means of financial gain and stability for their businesses, rely heavily on serving the public (ie become deeply entangled in their roll as a place of public accommodation else they will miserably fail ) , such as grocery stores, florists, bakers, restauranteurs, night clubs, etc, etc, etc, Their businesses success being so dependent upon ensuring that their customers desires (the public) are effectively accommodated, necessitates the business taking on the mantle of "being a place of public accommodation" and becoming subject to the equal protection laws

Hope that clarifies things a bit


However, I've always disagreed with that particular bit of statist mumbo-jumbo. That the state declares your private property (in essence) public property and can force you under color of law to do business is an antithesis to the intent and wording of the Constitution. Just because the concept has been upheld by courts does not make it moral, just, nor Constitutional.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

muse7
Why would we erase 50 years of hard work by civil right leaders who fought hard so everyone in this country could live their life without being discriminated based on the color of their skin or sexual orientation?

It's such a shame that the pro-prejudice and pro-discrimination sentiment is still very popular amongst a large portion of the population


Right, I mean freedom of choice and freedom of association are so last century .



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
It's not a very American thing to do, but on the other hand, if I owned a Waffle House, McDonalds, or Chuck E. Cheese............................



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Obviously i disagree with you, i see it as an issue of prejudice with the potential to persecute others and make their life a misery. Not all people/regions have a large market, and i feel that alot of the people who agree with these measures would feel very differently if they were on the reciving end of such treatment and were not in possesion of other options. It's a very slippery slope.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


But it happens a lot with a lot of businesses.

I don't go into a Halal grocery and ask for bacon, for example. If I did and they said they didn't carry it, are they discriminating?

I didn't go to gay bars to try to pick up men. I didn't because it would have doubtless been awkward for everyone involved. If I had and they had asked me to leave for being disruptive, would that have been discriminating? Heck how about this gay bar? They banned bachelorette parties. Are they discriminatory? And this one in LA isn't alone. Here they are doing it in Chicago.

So, are these bars being discriminatory? How about the Halal grocery? What about if I want non-Kosher food from a Kosher deli?

How ridiculous do we have to get before you admit it's all pretty stupid and that some businesses cater to certain clienteles with certain tastes and preferences and maybe that's not a bad thing, and we should just let well enough alone. They all serve their niche and shouldn't be forced out of it because you think that niche is wrong.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


So if I want to be a pedophile and never force myself on anyone unwilling you think I should be able to sue when im told I cant go to Lego Land and hit on the youngsters. Before you say yes I will say...try going to Lego Land as a male adult without kids with you...bet you waste a trip when they refuse you service.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

ketsuko
I don't go into a Halal grocery and ask for bacon, for example. If I did and they said they didn't carry it, are they discriminating?


They didn't want bacon at a kosher store- they wanted flowers at a flower store, but thanks for playing.


If I had and they had asked me to leave for being disruptive, would that have been discriminating? Heck how about this gay bar? They banned bachelorette parties. Are they discriminatory?


You seem to have a very consistent grasp on the fact that proprietors may set a code of conduct for their establishment and that behavior that disrupts their business can be forbidden, and yet you never point out any conduct that took place which was inconsistent with normal business at a flower store. What you are doing is equating actions which impact others to a passive state of being.

What you are saying is that if I go to buy some fine china, carefully select it without incident, carry it to the counter, and mention to the shopkeeper that I have a bull back home, that the shop keeper could reasonably blow a gasket at me for having a bull in a china shop.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


I already also pointed out twice, once with an actual quote with link, that selling flowers was not the problem. She had already sold them flowers many times, nor was it their orientation as she knew they were gay. The problem was when they asked her to participate in something she felt would make her violate her personal morals - the wedding. Had they made a really large flower order and not told her what it was for or asked her to participate in it, I'll bet it would not have been a problem. In other words, their activity become disruptive to her in the same manner that a bunch of bachelorettes would be disruptive in a gay bar.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by skalla
 


But it happens a lot with a lot of businesses.

I don't go into a Halal grocery and ask for bacon, for example. If I did and they said they didn't carry it, are they discriminating?

I didn't go to gay bars to try to pick up men. I didn't because it would have doubtless been awkward for everyone involved. If I had and they had asked me to leave for being disruptive, would that have been discriminating? Heck how about this gay bar? They banned bachelorette parties. Are they discriminatory? And this one in LA isn't alone. Here they are doing it in Chicago.

So, are these bars being discriminatory? How about the Halal grocery? What about if I want non-Kosher food from a Kosher deli?

How ridiculous do we have to get before you admit it's all pretty stupid and that some businesses cater to certain clienteles with certain tastes and preferences and maybe that's not a bad thing, and we should just let well enough alone. They all serve their niche and shouldn't be forced out of it because you think that niche is wrong.


Sure, you could complain about not being able to buy a car at a lumber yard but thats just daft, there is a difference to providing a certain service or product and denying service to someone on the grounds of prejudice. But i'm sure you know that.
As for you picking up gay men, i have no idea of your gender or sexuality so how can i comment. What do you think of the gay bar issue?

Thing is, a business serves a customer - no their behaviour or beliefs out side of their wish to make a purchase or the business property.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


You hit a valuable point re the batchelorettes here (is that a UK hen party? i.e. a ladie's pre-marriage bash??) - their behaviour is likely to disrupt their normal business, and therefor it seems fair to turn that away on those grounds.

ETA: i just read your post properly rather than glancing a detail - i fail to see how the flower order is disruptive.


edit on 7-11-2013 by skalla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


They gay bar issue? That's their business and their right. If they want to turn away business, so be it. I can't understand why bachelorettes would have parties there; my understanding is that they feel it's a "safe" environment, but if you're about to get married, why would you be worried? Shouldn't you all be faithful? Or are they thinking that gays are less likely to be sexual predators on women ... At any rate, I never understood people's need to get falling down drunk as a sign of celebration, but then, I spent a lot of time drugged out for migraine reasons and never thought it was a good thing to lose control of one's faculties. For me it always meant I was sick.

Again though, this florist had a consistent record of business with this customer, even knew he was gay. She only balked when asked to participate in his ceremony because she didn't want to violate her conscience and morals.

So, is she discriminating against him or simply refusing to participate in something she finds morally objectionable?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RickyD
 


I've been to lego land windsor prior to becoming a dad, man i love lego!

Didnt pick up a kid either. Never even tried, but then again i do work in child protection and tend to go for women of my own years.

And Britain has a fair bit of paedo hype too, yet there i was, loving the lego.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


Because you are asking someone to violate their personal morals by participating in something with which they do not agree.

Again, it's not the customer or his orientation at issue, but the question of whether or not she should be compelled to provide service to and at a marriage ceremony she believes is false and against the dictates of her faith and conscience. If you can't think of how that's disruptive to a person, have you never been in a situation where you were being called upon to go against your morals and conscience?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


She wasnt really participating in the ceremony, she was providing someone with flowers.

Which she has done before, and to be plain, what did she think the flowers were for on previous occaisions?

Celebrating their love of course, or hoping to get some.

EDIT: re you above post, i have been asked to work with people who have done some pretty awful things such as abuse and violence, and have treated them in a professional manner and done my chosen role. The constitutional matter that others here talk of are a matter i respect as it's a different country to where i live, but i'm stating my own ethical approach.


edit on 7-11-2013 by skalla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Yes, I've seen the article, your analogies are still ridiculously obtuse, and now you are adding things that aren't in the article to try and shore them up.

No where does the article suggest that she was "asked to participate" in the wedding. By the standard of participation you are applying, the kid at the McDonald's drivethru window participates in a child pornography ring every time a pervert orders french fries.

She was asked to do exactly the same thing she always has done without incident and nothing more. That is not analogous to straight women making unwelcome advances at a gay bar. It's more closely analogous to minding your own business in a gay bar, letting everyone do their normal thing, then the bar tender comes up to you and says go home with someone here or never come back. Your side is the one going out of its way to force a very intimate change of values on someone, not the other way around.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 

Asking to provide a service for, is asking someone to participate, or contribute to. People have different tastes, and expecting everyone to service everyone, and ignore their personal belief systems in favor of making a few bucks is absurd.

Is it wrong for JayZ to refuse to perform at a KKK rally if he was offered a paid gig? Is it wrong for a chucky cheeze to refuse to rent out their business to a convicted child rapist? Is it wrong for Ricky Martin to refuse to do a performance for the westboro idiots? Is it wrong for a bingo hall to refuse to rent out their space for a eugenics convention?

Do you own your own business? Would you really do work for someone you found repugnant, and sacrifice you own personal ethics for a few bucks?



edit on Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:28:20 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
What's interesting is that this Florist has been doing business with these men for years, so she certainly didn't refuse them service until it came to their wedding. She's an older woman, with a strong religious believe that gay marriage goes against her "GOD", and it's her right to believe this.

I think for these men to sue a little old lady who owns a flower shop is completely outrageous, and I have zero respect for them! Find another florist, some of best floral designers in the world are gay men, I know having been in the business most of my adult life.

I personally would have done the wedding, as I don't care who marries who, but their were times I did refuse orders because it offended me, an example being some guy who wanted to send a dozen decapitated roses to his ex, and another case where some guy wanted to send dead roses to an ex. She had every right to refuse that order IMHO.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 




I've seen this argument played out before, and it never fails that a few highly indoctrinated people are so obtuse that they cannot concede why we already have laws that cover this stuff going back to the civil rights movement.

What you are saying, when someone in your community comes to you with his wages and you tell him they're not good for anything at your business, is essentially "You've done your part for this society- either you trucked in my food or you built my house or picked up my garbage so I don't get some horrible disease, but that doesn't count because of who you are- you're out of the group and we're stealing the work that you did and leaving you holding green paper that nobody is going to honor".


This.

If you are offering services to the public, that covers everyone... even skinheads and pedophiles (yuck). There are of course obvious exceptions. A childless adult going into a business which is designed for children to play at (Legoland etc...) or person or group is suspected of doing some kind of harm at your place business.

Using your example of grocery stores... imagine a known pedophile has done his/her time in prison... a grocer can't refuse to sell them food because they might starve. That's torture.

Discrimination is illegal, as it should be. End of story.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Kali, I agree. I'm not sure if you took me to be arguing the opposite, but I was in fact illustrating exactly the problems with discrimination that you seized upon.

TKDRL, you are once again using the example of someone attempting a harmful or distasteful act in the establishment as equivalent to a mere state of being.

Your one interesting example is the idea of the KKK trying to hire Jay-Z, but it revolves around the idea of Jay-Z going onto their turf and participating in their event- it would hold if the florist was being asked to participate as the flower girl at the wedding, but not to handing flowers across a counter and having no participation.

As for my own business, though I do not own one at the moment, I have done some independent contracting and of course engage in quite a bit of commerce every day. Like everyone else I encounter people I find offensive for various reasons all the time. People try to convert me to Christianity while I'm working for one thing, which is far more disruptive than anything this gay couple did and I don't discriminate against them. I give them the basic courtesy anyone deserves and conclude my business with the as quickly as possible.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join