We really do have the entire spectrum of opinion in here. From KK who thinks businesses should serve everyone, no matter what, to OR who thinks businesses should have the absolute right to refuse service to anybody for any reason.
If you're announcing it to the world then you could make an argument that it's just promoting hate in general, which probably shouldn't be allowed, but if someone wanted to enact those above rules by refusing service in their own shop then I think that's their prerogative - and I would hope they would quickly go out of business from people boycotting them.
OrangeRakoon wrote:If you're announcing it to the world then you could make an argument that it's just promoting hate in general, which probably shouldn't be allowed, but if someone wanted to enact those above rules by refusing service in their own shop then I think that's their prerogative - and I would hope they would quickly go out of business from people boycotting them.
Ah so get people in, spend time browsing the shop and then tell them to their face "Chuff off Darkie!" Much more civilised.
OrangeRakoon wrote:If you're announcing it to the world then you could make an argument that it's just promoting hate in general, which probably shouldn't be allowed, but if someone wanted to enact those above rules by refusing service in their own shop then I think that's their prerogative - and I would hope they would quickly go out of business from people boycotting them.
You genuinely believe that a business should be able to refuse to serve black people?
OrangeRakoon wrote:If you're announcing it to the world then you could make an argument that it's just promoting hate in general, which probably shouldn't be allowed, but if someone wanted to enact those above rules by refusing service in their own shop then I think that's their prerogative - and I would hope they would quickly go out of business from people boycotting them.
Ah so get people in, spend time browsing the shop and then tell them to their face "Chuff off Darkie!" Much more civilised.
No that's clearly abusive
My point is that if someone owns something it should be their choice whether they sell it or not and that transaction shouldn't be forced upon them. That might make them a horrible person if they refuse to sell their goods based on some prejudice, but it is their stuff and I don't see why they should be compelled to part with it if they don't want to.
No they shouldn't be allowed to ban certain people based on personal prejudices.
If they are a racist banana split then they are wrong and scum, it shouldn't be OK for them to push their racism into the world in a any form, same for homophobia etc. it is outright wrong to be racist, homophobic etc. so it is also wrong to not sell to people because they are gay or whatever.
All that allowing it does is validate their banana split views and spread the idea that if you don't like something that it is fine to disadvantage that group in some way.
Businesses are not separated from society in some kind of brand bubble, they are comprised of people and serve people, I think it's fine to expect responsibility and accountability on their part in supporting one view or another. The manager of the restaurant that asked Sanders to leave was sticking up for the employees and patrons who are affected by the Trump administration's racist and inhumane policies. That is the right thing to do.
There is no equivalency with bigots refusing service to minorities etc. and to suggest so is to tolerate the intolerable.
The centre is now obsessed with not rocking the boat and manufacturing a balance in the wrong place of the spectrum, in the name of civility and self preservation. All it does is give defacto support to the worst and most damaging causes.
Here's a good thread on this, specifically how the right is far more likely to be offended by their identity politics being questioned than the supposedly perpetually offended snowflake left.
OrangeRakoon wrote:If you're announcing it to the world then you could make an argument that it's just promoting hate in general, which probably shouldn't be allowed, but if someone wanted to enact those above rules by refusing service in their own shop then I think that's their prerogative - and I would hope they would quickly go out of business from people boycotting them.
Ah so get people in, spend time browsing the shop and then tell them to their face "Chuff off Darkie!" Much more civilised.
No that's clearly abusive
My point is that if someone owns something it should be their choice whether they sell it or not and that transaction shouldn't be forced upon them. That might make them a horrible person if they refuse to sell their goods based on some prejudice, but it is their stuff and I don't see why they should be compelled to part with it if they don't want to.
They are not compelled, they chose to open up a business to serve the public. If they don’t want to serve the public then they are welcome to find other employment.
Cuttooth wrote:Businesses are not separated from society in some kind of brand bubble, they are comprised of people and serve people, I think it's fine to expect responsibility and accountability on their part in supporting one view or another. The manager of the restaurant that asked Sanders to leave was sticking up for the employees and patrons who are affected by the Trump administration's racist and inhumane policies. That is the right thing to do.
There is no equivalency with bigots refusing service to minorities etc. and to suggest so is to tolerate the intolerable.
The centre is now obsessed with not rocking the boat and manufacturing a balance in the wrong place of the spectrum, in the name of civility and self preservation. All it does is give defacto support to the worst and most damaging causes.
Here's a good thread on this, specifically how the right is far more likely to be offended by their identity politics being questioned than the supposedly perpetually offended snowflake left.
There is zero, zero equivalency between the Sanders story and the bakery story. Sanders is not a member of a recognised minority. She has not been subject to consistent systematic abuse for the entirety of her life simply because she was born with a sexuality that was not accepted by the system governing her country. She has not had to fight this system in order to be recognised as an equal.
It is, in fact, the opposite: she is literally the face of an administration that seeks to enact discrimination of those minorities who do not conform to the demographic the system was built for (white, straight people). She chose to become this face, she chose to background any moral compunctions and go to work for an administration that is actively seeking to silence these minorities. She had a choice, and she chose to go to work for the bigots.
The restaurant owner was by all accounts incredibly polite in the way she asked her to leave. She listened to the misgivings of her staff, several of whom were gay, and took a vote on whether they were comfortable serving her. She politely told Sanders that they wanted her to leave, did not extend the ban to the rest of the party and comped the food and drink they had already eaten.
The bakers refused to serve a gay couple because they were homophobic. They were intolerent. They had no rational reason to refuse service beyond hatred and ignorance.
Pardon my incivility here but strawberry float anyone drawing comparisons between the two.
EDIT: strawberry float it, I'm calling you out KK. Your views here are abhorrent to me. Sorry not sorry.
Cuttooth wrote:Businesses are not separated from society in some kind of brand bubble, they are comprised of people and serve people, I think it's fine to expect responsibility and accountability on their part in supporting one view or another. The manager of the restaurant that asked Sanders to leave was sticking up for the employees and patrons who are affected by the Trump administration's racist and inhumane policies. That is the right thing to do.
There is no equivalency with bigots refusing service to minorities etc. and to suggest so is to tolerate the intolerable.
The centre is now obsessed with not rocking the boat and manufacturing a balance in the wrong place of the spectrum, in the name of civility and self preservation. All it does is give defacto support to the worst and most damaging causes.
Here's a good thread on this, specifically how the right is far more likely to be offended by their identity politics being questioned than the supposedly perpetually offended snowflake left.
There is zero, zero equivalency between the Sanders story and the bakery story. Sanders is not a member of a recognised minority. She has not been subject to consistent systematic abuse for the entirety of her life simply because she was born with a sexuality that was not accepted by the system governing her country. She has not had to fight this system in order to be recognised as an equal.
It is, in fact, the opposite: she is literally the face of an administration that seeks to enact discrimination of those minorities who do not conform to the demographic the system was built for (white, straight people). She chose to become this face, she chose to background any moral compunctions and go to work for an administration that is actively seeking to silence these minorities. She had a choice, and she chose to go to work for the bigots.
The restaurant owner was by all accounts incredibly polite in the way she asked her to leave. She listened to the misgivings of her staff, several of whom were gay, and took a vote on whether they were comfortable serving her. She politely told Sanders that they wanted her to leave, did not extend the ban to the rest of the party and comped the food and drink they had already eaten.
The bakers refused to serve a gay couple because they were homophobic. They were intolerent. They had no rational reason to refuse service beyond hatred and ignorance.
Pardon my incivility here but strawberry float anyone drawing comparisons between the two.
To put a cap on the whole false equivalency thing, the issue is people for some reason see bigoted behaviour and someone's right to existence being separate 'arguments' in a debate because neither conform to either their own viewpoints or own identity.
If you support someone's equal right to existence then you cannot ignore the behaviours and beliefs of those who want to take away that basic human right.
EDIT - And if you can ignore or wave away those behaviours and beliefs then it's questionable whether you actually support someone's equal right to existence.
Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT: strawberry float it, I'm calling you out KK. Your views here are abhorrent to me. Sorry not sorry.
I don’t agree with him, but KK’s views are not abhorrent. His basic argument is businesses should stay out of everything and just serve everybody no matter what. I disagree with him, but that’s not abhorrent.
OrangeRakoon’s views on the other hand are pretty abhorrent. His basic argument is that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of colour/sexuality/disability and the public can then decide on whether to use those businesses.
That is an astonishingly abhorrent viewpoint for somebody to hold (in my opinion of course).
I agree that there is nothing wrong with Sanders being asked to leave, as others have said the grounds for doing so were perfectly acceptable and it was handled by the restaurant in a civilised manner.
I also agree that comparing it to the baker story is a strange one. Being gay should not prevent you from buying a strawberry floating cake!
However I also do believe shops or people who provide a service should maintain the right to refuse service to potential customers, but only where there is some genuine, rational and sensible reason for it. I.e. a pub refusing service to a drunk, or a bookmaker refusing to take bets from someone who clearly has a gambling problem.
Jenuall wrote:However I also do believe shops or people who provide a service should maintain the right to refuse service to potential customers, but only where there is some genuine, rational and sensible reason for it. I.e. a pub refusing service to a drunk, or a bookmaker refusing to take bets from someone who clearly has a gambling problem.
Nobody has argued anything differently. Of course a pub should be able to throw out a drunk. Of course a bookies should refuse a bet from somebody with a serious gambling problem.
Being gay, or black, or trans, or disabled is in no way comparable to being a pissed up arsehole.
Jenuall wrote:I agree that there is nothing wrong with Sanders being asked to leave, as others have said the grounds for doing so were perfectly acceptable and it was handled by the restaurant in a civilised manner.
I also agree that comparing it to the baker story is a strange one. Being gay should not prevent you from buying a strawberry floating cake!
However I also do believe shops or people who provide a service should maintain the right to refuse service to potential customers, but only where there is some genuine, rational and sensible reason for it. I.e. a pub refusing service to a drunk, or a bookmaker refusing to take bets from someone who clearly has a gambling problem.
Having worked in a load of restaurants you really need the right to just turf somebody out for being a dick.
Jenuall wrote:However I also do believe shops or people who provide a service should maintain the right to refuse service to potential customers, but only where there is some genuine, rational and sensible reason for it. I.e. a pub refusing service to a drunk, or a bookmaker refusing to take bets from someone who clearly has a gambling problem.
Nobody has argued anything differently. Of course a pub should be able to throw out a drunk. Of course a bookies should refuse a bet from somebody with a serious gambling problem.
Being gay, or black, or trans, or disabled is in no way comparable to being a pissed up arsehole.
I agree 100%, I wasn't suggesting that at all.
It's the separation of who you are, and what you do. It's legitimate for someone to refuse you service for something you have chosen to do, i.e. be a pissed up arsehole, but refusing service simply based on who you are is obviously wrong.
I guess there are some potential grey areas - things like corner shops which try to enforce a "only one child allowed in the store at any one time" policy which I presume is based on the fear that kids will steal stuff? But then is it fair that a perfectly innocent child is refused access to a shop (temporarily) because some other child has stolen from that shop in the past?
Businesses operate in & are supported by a society. In the absence of society - say, a post-apocalyptic wasteland - it's difficult to imagine owning & operating a cute little bakery.
Just like we all have a social contract with those around us - fellow individuals in a society - so do businesses. We allow businesses to operate in the hope that they will add something to our communities: we want them to bake cakes, provide jobs, and reinvest some of the wealth generated.
I think an expectation I have of businesses is that they will serve people fairly -- that I can go into a shop, whoever I am, and - as long as I am not myself behaving unreasonably - get the same service as anyone else. Only if I fail to adhere to my social contract will I be refused service. Similarly, one way to deal with a business failing to adhere to its social contract - behaving in a way that society deems unacceptable - is to boycott the business and let them go broke.
The problems with relying on this mechanism are that it: 1. takes time and effort on the part of the community; 2. might fail if there are enough bad people in the community; 3. requires the wronged would-be-customers to suffer humiliation publicly, and go without the cake they wanted; 4. doesn't necessarily punish the owners of the probably limited-liability company for the bad behaviour they are responsible for.
This is why I would prefer it be illegal to refuse service to someone in unreasonable circumstances.
Being gay simply doesn't by any stretch of the imagination hurt anyone, so there's no way it's reasonable to refuse a gay person service on that basis.
Refusing service to a Nazi is - by contrast - reasonable, as they would be certainly be seen to have violated their social contract by becoming, & advertising that they are, a Nazi. Nazi ideology is inherently threatening to others, and literally embodies a desire to destroy our society as we know it. That's the big difference there.
Jenuall wrote: I guess there are some potential grey areas - things like corner shops which try to enforce a "only one child allowed in the store at any one time" policy which I presume is based on the fear that kids will steal stuff? But then is it fair that a perfectly innocent child is refused access to a shop (temporarily) because some other child has stolen from that shop in the past?
That’s not comparable either though, for many reasons.
Firstly, we are talking about people being refused service, not people having to wait while other people are served first (unless it’s a policy of serving whites before blacks of course!).
Secondly, kids are rightly discriminated against for lots of reasons. They are not allowed to buy alcohol, they are not allowed to drive cars, they are not allowed to buy cigarettes, etc. You cannot compare the right for gay people to buy cake to a newsagent not letting too many 13 year olds in at once.
