The right to refuse

[Rum_Pirate]

Re the Chik-Fil-A issue

In the USA, does a business have the right to refuse to serve any customer?

If they have that right, and they decline/refuse to serve any customer, do they have to (by law) give a reason?

[Paul Pless]

Re the Chik-Fil-A issue

its never going to end. . .

In the USA, does a business have the right to refuse to serve any customer?

Sure. four examples:

no shirt no shoes no service

restaurants and bars often refuse service to intoxicated patrons

if providing service puts a business over capacity

I refuse to work for a$$holes.

[Rum_Pirate]

Thanks.

[Ian McColgin]

Yes, a business can refuse to serve, HOWEVER a business may not refuse service (list varies a little in various circumstances) on the basis of race, religion, national origon, sex, or sexual orientation. If a business refuses service to a gay person, the burden of proof is on the business that there is actually a legitimate reason. Like if the gay person had no shoes. The moving burden of proof is an area of legal controversy since some courts have accepted almost any crock made up by a business, like, "I didn't hire her because she has red hair which does not go well with the uniform, certainly not because she's a lesbian."

[Paul Pless]

The moving burden of proof is an area of legal controversy since some courts have accepted almost any crock made up by a business, like, "I didn't hire her because she has red hair which does not go well with the uniform, certainly not because she's a lesbian."

the question is about service, not employment law. . .

[Kaa]

Generally, yes, a business can refuse to serve a customer UNLESS that constitutes discrimination against one of the so-called "protected classes" which basically means no discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. And yes, the rules are slightly different in different cases (e.g. in housing, in banking, if the business is a government agency, etc.)

Kaa

[Ian McColgin]

Sorry to confuse you Paul. The laws on public accomodation and hiring are written in much the same way and appelate law from one gets used as precedent in the other. But if you like, let us say that the resteraunter says that he denied service because the guy's jeans were Mick Jagger tight, and not because he thought the guy with the rainbow T shirt was a fag.

[Paul Pless]

I wasn't confused.

[Ian McColgin]

So would you deny service to a guy who's jeans are so tight the don't just show his sex, but show his religion also?

[Kaa]

So would you deny service to a guy who's jeans are so tight the don't just show his sex, but show his religion also?

LOL. Someone (or better yet, a few someones) from a gay pride parade wandering into a family-oriented Christian-values place might cause things to become... lively :-)

As a practical matter, businesses which have a habit of refusing customers rarely stay in business for long :-)

Kaa

[Paul Pless]

LOL. Someone (or better yet, a few someones) from a gay pride parade wandering into a family-oriented Christian-values place might cause things to become... lively :-)

I wonder if organized and flamboyantly gay patronage might be a better 'form of protest' then a boycott.

[Kaa]

I wonder if organized and flamboyantly gay patronage might be a better 'form of protest' then a boycott.

I am pretty sure this idea is circulating through a few heads :-)

On the other hand, it looks to me like the issue has been blown all out of proportion as there's zero evidence that any Chick-Fil-A location has any problems with serving LGBT customers. So all that "boycott" would lead to is increased sales :-) well, and maybe a few broken-bottle fights with local rednecks :-D

Kaa

[Ian McColgin]

" . . . businesses which have a habit of refusing customers rarely stay in business for long . . . ' [#10] Now there's real news to some bars I can think of in Southie, Charlestown, et cetera.

Discrimination for so many stupid reasons is alive and well all over because it's great for business.

[Kaa]

Discrimination for so many stupid reasons is alive and well all over because it's great for business.

I am not so sure of that. Arranging your business so that it's attractive to some subgroups and unattractive to others is completely normal, but that's different from refusing customers. If I set up a novelty bar themed around Black Mass and satanism does that constitute discrimination against Catholics? I don't think so.

Kaa

[Ian McColgin]

Both exist.

The racist and homophobic bars (often the same) I can think of don't so much turn people away at the bar as simply freeze them while inside and have well placed faith that some customers will at least terrorize, perhaps even really harm, them out on the street. Doesn't take long.

On the Cape there are some golf courses that dropped their explicit "No Jews" policy twenty or thirty years ago but just happen not to have any jewish or black members.

[Kaa]

The racist and homophobic bars (often the same) I can think of don't so much turn people away at the bar as simply freeze them while inside and have well placed faith that some customers will at least terrorize, perhaps even really harm, them out on the street. Doesn't take long.

...and how many hetero men would you find in explicitly gay bars? :-)

On the Cape there are some golf courses that dropped their explicit "No Jews" policy twenty or thirty years ago but just happen not to have any jewish or black members.

Sure. But there's a difference between businesses serving the public and effectively clubs. The boundary is fuzzy but the difference exists.

Kaa

[ccmanuals]

example: Augusta National Golf club

[Ian McColgin]

The boundry is not fuzzy. There is no right for an entity to discriminate against any of the named classes if the entity provides any commercial activity or enjoys any tax benefit of any sort. Pretty much if it's incorporated, it's covered. If you have to pay for a drink, it's covered. But yes, there are truely private entities that forego many economic and legal benefits so that they can act in accordance with their racist, sexist, and/or homophobic pathologies.

[Kaa]

But yes, there are truely private entities that forego many economic and legal benefits so that they can act in accordance with their racist, sexist, and/or homophobic pathologies.

That's a good thing, isn't it?

Societies which refuse to let such "truly private entities" exist are usually called totalitarian.

Kaa

[Ian McColgin]

As a matter of fact, it is good. Truely private entities, whether individual humans or some sort of association, are perfectly free to have, express and live by any attitudes they choose so long as they in no way enjoy the benefits of government support to disadvantage any person of one of the identified classes.

Just as my father had a perfect right to drop his then best friend and Master of Hounds because the guy got his own brother removed from the family because the brother was gay - not just dropped him but formed another hunt that supplanted the original. They both had their rights and both exercised them with great zeal. It's the sort of values clash that makes our society great.

[Kaa]

As a matter of fact, it is good.

A rare occasion on this board, a discussion that ended in agreement. Yay! :-)

Kaa

[switters]

as soon as we start protecting the rights of the rich and get equal pay men.

[Flying Orca]

When can heterosexuals become a protected class?

Where discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is expressly prohibited, they are.

[John Smith]

A business can demand a certain dress code. It can also throw out a customer based on that customer's behavior.

The business cannot put out a sign that says, "If you support gay marriage, we will not serve you."

I am truly aghast as to how few seem to understand the concept of free speech. It's really very simple. Everyone has the right to their opinion regardless of how many people disagree with that opinion.

My religious opinions are extremely opposed to those of the guy who owns these restaurants, but I see no reason not to eat there once in a while.

The concept of free speech is that the majority, or simply others who believe differently, can't impose their views on the minority.

This may be a bad analogy, but it is current. A huge difference exists between mandating an insurance company to cover contraceptives in full and mandating individual women to take them.

That is another area where religious beliefs are at the core. It is one thing for a religious person to not believe in abortion or birth control. It is quite something else when people of that belief band together, elect people, and force their views on all of us.

The entire concept of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Same sex marriage, IMO, is one of those areas where it is the sole business of the two people choosing to marry, no matter what the majority thinks, but we see it, also, as the religiously motivated to force their will on the rest of us.

This is when our nation does its worst.

[Waddie]

John Smith; It is one thing for a religious person to not believe in abortion or birth control. It is quite something else when people of that belief band together, elect people, and force their views on all of us.

Taking your logic a step further; It is one thing for a person to favor abortion on demand. It is quite something else when people of that belief band together, elect people, and force their views on all of us.

regards,
Waddie

[Ian McColgin]

Didn't know that anyone was forcing abortions on anyone. What we are doing is saying that church owned non-religious corporations may not deny emplyee health insurance that covers birth control services. These are the same non-religious church owned corporations that pay various state and federal taxes that support any number of things that are wildly against church teaching, like capitol punishment. The only issue here is right wing bishops whipping up a frenzy and the rightwing hate media having fun leading the sheep in this latest spasm of the great global culture war.

In short, the health insurance requirement has nothing to do with the free speech rights of business men to publicly hold hateful opinions or of mayors to remark on those opinions.

[Katherine]

I refuse to work for a$$holes.

Too bad you're self employed

[Paul Pless]

wth

[Katherine]

Sorry dear, for got the

[ccmanuals]

Now that's funny.

[Waddie]

Ian McColgin; Didn't know that anyone was forcing abortions on anyone.

Never said they were. I was commenting that people with shared beliefs often band together to elect officials, and pass laws that force their views on everyone. You don't even have to be religious to do it. Just responding to John Smith's comment and turning it 180.

More to the topic; the CEO of the company doesn't approve of gay marriage. It is a personal opinion apparently, as there is no company policy of refusing service to married gay people. Is he entitled to his personal opinion? Or must he conform to the PC line? Where is that tolerance liberals demand from others?

I don't give a rat's a** who marries whom, it affects me how? But I will be tolerant of people on both sides of the issue.

regards,
Waddie

[Ian McColgin]

Waddie, I'm pretty sure you've been reading and thus know the answers to your second paragraph questions. So why do you ask? It seems either that you actually have not been reading this thread and thus don't know my position, or that you have chosen for reasons of you own to disregard what I already wrote, or you did not understand, or you're fabricating some rhetorical point. Or something else my meger mind did not anticipate.

Seriously, was there a point to the questions?

[Waddie]

Ian, I think you expressed a very balanced and reasonable opinion on the subject of free speech and nothing I commented on is directed specifically at your comments, just at some of the less reasonable responses on this and the other Chik-Fil-A thread.

I also agree that free speech can have consequences - which are often appropriate so long as they are legal. Nobody can force you to buy Chik-Fil-A. Or stop you from buying it. From the looks of the line at the one near me, it might have been a great marketing strategy!!

regards,
Waddie

[Iceboy]

Ouch

Too bad you're self employed