Why is it okay?

[emilynghiem]

This thread is for anyone to post any issue from any side
that questions "why is it okay to refuse business or boycott"
in one situation but not another.

===============================================
For example: WHY IS ONE OKAY BUT NOT THE OTHER:

Here's a situation where a family could not hire a contractor
who displayed a Stars and Bars flag on his truck:
Black family fires contractor who shows up to job with Confederate flag on truck: 'I cannot pay you'

Here's another story where a bride refuses to hire a lesbian make up artist for her wedding:
'How can you be gay?: Bride refuses to hire lesbian make-up artist

 

[JoeMoma]

As a consumer, I get to pick how I direct my money and who I do business with. That being said, I'm not into boycotts.

 

[tycho1572]

The GF and I stopped shopping at Target when they started allowing guys into the women restrooms.

 

[toobfreak]

This thread is for anyone to post any issue from any side
that questions "why is it okay to refuse business or boycott"
in one situation but not another.

===============================================
For example: WHY IS ONE OKAY BUT NOT THE OTHER:

Here's a situation where a family could not hire a contractor
who displayed a Stars and Bars flag on his truck:
Black family fires contractor who shows up to job with Confederate flag on truck: 'I cannot pay you'

Here's another story where a bride refuses to hire a lesbian make up artist for her wedding:
'How can you be gay?: Bride refuses to hire lesbian make-up artist

Why is free choice OK? If you are going to hire and pay someone, why should you have the choice to hire, or not hire, anyone you want or let them go for any reason or no reason at all? Because they are working for you? Because you have a right to hire whomever you want?

Ask yourself then why most every job you get hired for by any employer is "at will" under the very same conditions?

 

[caddo kid]

In many states it is perfectly legal for an employer to fire an employee, without notice, and without reason.

Why shouldn't it be legal for any business to deny service to any potential customer; no reason needed?

I have seen signs in many businesses that state, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

I don't have a problem with that; why should the government have an issue with it?

 

[task0778]

Are you okay with restaurants denying service to conservatives? How about liberals?

Should we allow any public establishment to discriminate against blacks? Women? Military or Police? Christians? Handicapped? Ugly people? Old people? Or any other segment of our society?

Are we not divided enough as it is? To allow discrimination or favoritism in the public arena, is that the best idea?

 

[emilynghiem]

NOTE task0778
There is a MAJOR LEGAL difference between
discriminating against customers vs. discrimination in what SERVICES are offered to customers.

What I suggest is that businesses make their policies clear to customers,
such as if they have certain dress codes or firearm policies,
or special places if people smoke, have service animals, or need other accommodations such as disabled access.

For issues of services, such as wedding services that may or may not accommodate
same sex ceremonies or printing services that may have objections to political content, what I recommend is that businesses have clients or potential clients sign user agreements up front that include MEDIATION waivers: in case of disputes involving personal differences, beliefs or creative decisions involving artistic content, BOTH parties agree to conflict resolution to resolve the disputes amicably to avoid legal action or expenses.

If they cannot resolve the dispute by free mediation, they agree to refrain from conducting business relations. This way, neither side is punished or punishes the other because of differences in beliefs or preferences including creative decisions. This is to prevent discrimination by either side, where they both hold each other faultless over differences but either agree to resolve conflicts or agree not to do business together to avoid legal issues.

 

[task0778]

There is a MAJOR LEGAL difference between discriminating against customers vs. discrimination in what SERVICES are offered to customers.

First, there are many who argue for the right to fully discriminate, like "it's my business and I should be able to choose who I do any business with". I don't think that's an acceptable position, JMO.
Second, with respect to what services are offered, that's kind of a slippery slope I think. Who decides what is not offered and to whom and for what reason? I think each state will have to make the criteria for that, which is maybe the only acceptable way out of this mess. The SCOTUS has ruled however, that said criteria and resulting decisions must be made impartially, without bias one way or the other.
Third, if it's me, I think any judgment made should include the circumstances of availability. It's one thing if you're the only baker within 50 miles, but it's another if there are 50 other bakers within like 10 miles. Will the baker create a basic cake for you but not decorate it? Am I to believe the complainants can't find somebody to decorate a wedding cake? You can buy same the plastic sex wedding couple thing that you put on top yourself for like $10. We oughta get back to live and let live and stop trying to use the law as a weapon IMHO.


What I suggest is that businesses make their policies clear to customers, such as if they have certain dress codes or firearm policies, or special places if people smoke, have service animals, or need other accommodations such as disabled access.

Maybe we need a clearly posted and large sign that says your business is fully accommodating, or is limited. There are already laws for dress, cleanliness, guns, smoking, and the rest. Nothing wrong with requiring shoes and a shirt. And pants or skirt or dress.


For issues of services, such as wedding services that may or may not accommodate same sex ceremonies or printing services that may have objections to political content, what I recommend is that businesses have clients or potential clients sign user agreements up front that include MEDIATION waivers: in case of disputes involving personal differences, beliefs or creative decisions involving artistic content, BOTH parties agree to conflict resolution to resolve the disputes amicably to avoid legal action or expenses.

God Damn lawyers! [No offense if you are one] IMHO, if you post a clear and large sign that says you are a Limited Accommodation business and you will provide basic products to all but not necessarily artistic services, then you oughta be covered. I'd require a sign that says you are a Christian business and you will bake a basic cake to anyone but not decorate or deliver it. Be upfront about it, it's hard to believe that the happy couple doesn't know anybody that can make or buy the cake besides teh Christian business.


If they cannot resolve the dispute by free mediation, they agree to refrain from conducting business relations. This way, neither side is punished or punishes the other because of differences in beliefs or preferences including creative decisions. This is to prevent discrimination by either side, where they both hold each other faultless over differences but either agree to resolve conflicts or agree not to do business together to avoid legal issues.

I think we need to get the courts out of the business of deciding who has been damaged and who hasn't, and I think it starts with a declaration for all customers to see, that tells them up front what the deal is.

 

[jknowgood]

In many states it is perfectly legal for an employer to fire an employee, without notice, and without reason.

Why shouldn't it be legal for any business to deny service to any potential customer; no reason needed?

I have seen signs in many businesses that state, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

I don't have a problem with that; why should the government have an issue with it?

I'm buying a lottery ticket. I agree with you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination with regard to the workplace and in public accommodations as a matter of Federal law.

State laws prohibit discrimination with regard to the workplace and in public accommodations affording protections based on sexual orientation absent in Federal law.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

 

[anynameyouwish]

This thread is for anyone to post any issue from any side
that questions "why is it okay to refuse business or boycott"
in one situation but not another.

===============================================
For example: WHY IS ONE OKAY BUT NOT THE OTHER:

Here's a situation where a family could not hire a contractor
who displayed a Stars and Bars flag on his truck:
Black family fires contractor who shows up to job with Confederate flag on truck: 'I cannot pay you'

Here's another story where a bride refuses to hire a lesbian make up artist for her wedding:
'How can you be gay?: Bride refuses to hire lesbian make-up artist

View attachment 267416

As a rational liberal-progressive i support every person's right to association.

They can pick and choose who they are willing to do business with.

I, personally, would NEVER do business with any business that discriminates against gays.

If enough people stopped doing business with bigots then perhaps the bigots would either stop being bigots or just go away.