Gay coffee shop owner kicks out Christians

[Telconi]

They shouldn't, but seeing as I'm not advocating that, I fail to see the relevance.

If your saying a business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone then certain people have less rights then you. Statisticully those people discriminated against will be non-white.

So? If everyone is allowed to refuse service to any person, for any reason. That's not inequality. That is equality.

Statistics are not relevant, most Muslims in the U.S. are non-white, does that mean whites have less of a right to be Muslim?

[Telconi]

Since exactly none of that is happening in Germany, despite the BGH (Supreme Court for all matters not directly addressing the Constitution itself) having clearly ruled that the right to refuse service outweighs provisions for equal treatment and non-discrimination... yeah, you're talking out of your ass. This is paranoia, not fact.

Im really sorry to hear the court ruled that way and feels that discrimination is ok and Im also sorry you keep ignoring certain people but I digress.

You folks really need to stop with the whole "not prohibited by law" is "ok" thing.

Adultery is not prohibited by law, doesn't mean cheating on your spouse is "ok"

[Anywhere Else But Here]

So the law is oppressive because it doesn't allow to what? Nitpick every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walks through your door?

Yes.

And thankfully, private business is not oppressed in that way over here.

You're always quick to celebrate this, but I've never seen you source it. Germany has a law (the General Equal Treatment Act) that looks awfully like laws that you claim Germany doesn't have.

[San Lumen]

If your saying a business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone then certain people have less rights then you. Statisticully those people discriminated against will be non-white.

So? If everyone is allowed to refuse service to any person, for any reason. That's not inequality. That is equality.

Statistics are not relevant, most Muslims in the U.S. are non-white, does that mean whites have less of a right to be Muslim?

How is it equality for a business to treat certain people differently?

[Telconi]

So? If everyone is allowed to refuse service to any person, for any reason. That's not inequality. That is equality.

Statistics are not relevant, most Muslims in the U.S. are non-white, does that mean whites have less of a right to be Muslim?

How is it equality for a business to treat certain people differently?

It isnt, but the business is not the government. The government should treat everyone e equally, private citizens are not, and should not be expected to do so.

[Valrifell]

How is it equality for a business to treat certain people differently?

It isnt, but the business is not the government. The government should treat everyone e equally, private citizens are not, and should not be expected to do so.

Why not, tho?

[San Lumen]

How is it equality for a business to treat certain people differently?

It isnt, but the business is not the government. The government should treat everyone e equally, private citizens are not, and should not be expected to do so.

Why?

[Omnonia]

Anywhere Else is either willfully lying, or not following this thread.

A source to a 2012 case (in German): http://www.badische-zeitung.de/deutschland-1/hotelier-darf-nazi-abweisen--56795152.html
Basically: The right of a hotelier to refuse lodging outweighs a prospective guest's claim to equal treatment. The only thing the hotelier can't do is break the contract over information he got after having made the contract; but he is 100% free to refuse to make a contract to start with, over anything - he may refuse to do so at will, without even needing to give reasons for said refusal. You have no legal claim to be accepted as a guest just by going through the door.

Decision from 2012. Current equal treatment law in effect since 2006. No legal conflict.

Any more questions? No? Then sit down, and be quiet.

[Telconi]

It isnt, but the business is not the government. The government should treat everyone e equally, private citizens are not, and should not be expected to do so.

Why not, tho?

Because that's downright stupid. I buy my wife flowers, I don't buy other people flowers. I go help my friends change tires and repair brakes, I don't do this for random people. I like, and want to interact with some people, I don't others.

[The Canadian Confederacy of Provinces]

As an atheist I find this funny as hell!
We didnt want gay people discriminated against and forced religious bakers to make "gay" wedding cakes.
Now a gay shop owner refuses service to christian patrons. (I wonder if he would have done this if they were muslim?; probably not because it would be both "non progressive", as well as physically dangerous.)
Furthermore its interesting that ideological objections should be taken seriously only if its your side that has the objection!?

[San Lumen]

Why not, tho?

Because that's downright stupid. I buy my wife flowers, I don't buy other people flowers. I go help my friends change tires and repair brakes, I don't do this for random people. I like, and want to interact with some people, I don't others.

That doesn't give a business the right to refuse to serve someone. Ones race, religion or sexual orientation should not matter when going to a store or restaurant or any establishment open to the public.

[Telconi]

Because that's downright stupid. I buy my wife flowers, I don't buy other people flowers. I go help my friends change tires and repair brakes, I don't do this for random people. I like, and want to interact with some people, I don't others.

That doesn't give a business the right to refuse to serve someone. Ones race, religion or sexual orientation should not matter when going to a store or restaurant or any establishment open to the public.

Why, not. I discriminate in every other aspect of my life, why should my private business be any different?

[Omnonia]

Why, not. I discriminate in every other aspect of my life, why should my private business be any different?

Furthermore, why should anyone have a right to get service at a privately owned business, just from going through the door?

I'm glad to live in a country where no such "right" is acknowledged. It's by nature a privilege, and to treat it as if it were a right is feeding into selfish entitlement culture at the cost of giving up fundamental rights and liberties.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Anywhere Else is either willfully lying, or not following this thread.

A source to a 2012 case (in German): http://www.badische-zeitung.de/deutschland-1/hotelier-darf-nazi-abweisen--56795152.html
Basically: The right of a hotelier to refuse lodging outweighs a prospective guest's claim to equal treatment. The only thing the hotelier can't do is break the contract over information he got after having made the contract; but he is 100% free to refuse to make a contract to start with, over anything - he may refuse to do so at will, without even needing to give reasons for said refusal. You have no legal claim to be accepted as a guest just by going through the door.

Decision from 2012. Current equal treatment law in effect since 2006. No legal conflict.

Any more questions? No? Then sit down, and be quiet.

Yes, more questions. First and foremost, have you ever been taught manners?

Also, does the decision extend to all forms of discrimination? My browser's translation isn't great, but it seems to specifically be about discrimination on grounds of political views (e.g., would it have been illegal if the guest had been refused on grounds of being Jewish?) Does it apply in situations without a contract? What about those outside of hospitality? Could you legally tell a black person to get out your toy shop because he's black? Nothing I can see supports that.

You say "over anything". Where does it say that?

[Fartsniffage]

Anywhere Else is either willfully lying, or not following this thread.

A source to a 2012 case (in German): http://www.badische-zeitung.de/deutschland-1/hotelier-darf-nazi-abweisen--56795152.html
Basically: The right of a hotelier to refuse lodging outweighs a prospective guest's claim to equal treatment. The only thing the hotelier can't do is break the contract over information he got after having made the contract; but he is 100% free to refuse to make a contract to start with, over anything - he may refuse to do so at will, without even needing to give reasons for said refusal. You have no legal claim to be accepted as a guest just by going through the door.

Decision from 2012. Current equal treatment law in effect since 2006. No legal conflict.

Any more questions? No? Then sit down, and be quiet.

That article only talks about barring people for political views.

[Omnonia]

More sources, then, one from the press liaison of the BGH itself.

http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&nr=59510&linked=pm
https://www.lawblog.de/index.php/archives/2012/03/09/gericht-hausverbote-mssen-nicht-begrndet-werden/

On your private property - and yes, that absolutely does include privately owned businesses (store fronts etc.) - you may use your Hausrecht (the right to show anyone the door, excepting only cases like police with a search warrant) without even needing to give reasons. No reason needs to be given directly implies that every reason is legally valid.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

More sources, then, one from the press liaison of the BGH itself.

http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&nr=59510&linked=pm
https://www.lawblog.de/index.php/archives/2012/03/09/gericht-hausverbote-mssen-nicht-begrndet-werden/

On your private property - and yes, that absolutely does include privately owned businesses (store fronts etc.) - you may use your Hausrecht (the right to show anyone the door, excepting only cases like police with a search warrant) without even needing to give reasons. No reason needs to be given directly implies that every reason is legally valid.

I'm not sure it implies that at all. Does German law state that, or is that just your inference?

Again, either my browser's translation is particularly bad, or that says the exact opposite of what you are claiming: house bans are impermissible when the reason is "you are [protected characteristic listed in AGG]".

Methinks thou hast been talking out thine arse all this time.

[Omnonia]

It clearly says telling people to leave and refusing to serve them is a general constitutional right of the owner of a private business, and he is not under any obligation to give reasons. If he tells you to leave, you are under obligation to leave, end of story.

Das Hausrecht beruht auf dem Grundeigentum oder –besitz und ist zugleich Ausdruck der durch Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG gewährleisteten Privatautonomie. Folge dessen ist, dass der Hausrechtsinhaber, hier die Beklagte, in der Regel frei darüber entscheiden kann, wem er den Zutritt gestattet und wem er ihn verwehrt.

Auch auf Art. 3 Abs. 3 GG kann sich der Kläger nicht mit Erfolg berufen. Nach dieser Vorschrift darf zwar niemand wegen seiner politischen Anschauungen benachteiligt werden. Sie gilt aber im Verhältnis zwischen Privaten nicht unmittelbar. Im Rahmen der ihr zukommenden sog. mittelbaren Drittwirkung hat eine Abwägung mit den ebenfalls grundgesetzlich geschützten Interessen der Beklagten stattzufinden, denen der Vorrang einzuräumen ist.

Note that Art3 GG is the following:

(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.

(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.

(3) No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavoured because of disability.

There is no conflict between this and being allowed to refuse service. (Germany still interprets "equal before the law" like a reasonable person does, not in the ridiculously overextended way SCOTUS has interpreted 14A with the CRA.)

Further note how political opinion is on equal standing there with race, sex, faith etc.. If political opinion is something you may decide to refuse service over without violation Art 3.3 GG, then so is race, sex, religion etc..

Mit der Entscheidung stärkt der Bundesgerichtshof das Hausrecht von Geschäftsleuten mit Publikumsverkehr. Das Gericht betont nämlich, grundsätzlich dürfe jedermann frei entscheiden, wie er sein Hausrecht ausübt. Dementsprechend seien auch Hausverbote erlaubt. So ein Hausverbot muss nach Auffassung des Bundesgerichtshofs noch nicht einmal begründet werden. Dies bedeutet, dass ein Abgewiesener noch nicht einmal Auskunft verlangen kann, warum er keinen Zutritt erhält.

[San Lumen]

It clearly says telling people to leave and refusing to serve them is a general constitutional right of the owner of a private business, and he is not under any obligation to give reasons. If he tells you to leave, you are under obligation to leave, end of story.

Das Hausrecht beruht auf dem Grundeigentum oder –besitz und ist zugleich Ausdruck der durch Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG gewährleisteten Privatautonomie. Folge dessen ist, dass der Hausrechtsinhaber, hier die Beklagte, in der Regel frei darüber entscheiden kann, wem er den Zutritt gestattet und wem er ihn verwehrt.

Auch auf Art. 3 Abs. 3 GG kann sich der Kläger nicht mit Erfolg berufen. Nach dieser Vorschrift darf zwar niemand wegen seiner politischen Anschauungen benachteiligt werden. Sie gilt aber im Verhältnis zwischen Privaten nicht unmittelbar. Im Rahmen der ihr zukommenden sog. mittelbaren Drittwirkung hat eine Abwägung mit den ebenfalls grundgesetzlich geschützten Interessen der Beklagten stattzufinden, denen der Vorrang einzuräumen ist.

Note that Art3 GG is the following:

(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.

(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.

(3) No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavoured because of disability.

There is no conflict between this and being allowed to refuse service. (Germany still interprets "equal before the law" like a reasonable person does, not in the ridiculously overextended way SCOTUS has interpreted 14A with the CRA.)

Further note how political opinion is on equal standing there with race, sex, faith etc.. If political opinion is something you may decide to refuse service over without violation Art 3.3 GG, then so is race, sex, religion etc..

Mit der Entscheidung stärkt der Bundesgerichtshof das Hausrecht von Geschäftsleuten mit Publikumsverkehr. Das Gericht betont nämlich, grundsätzlich dürfe jedermann frei entscheiden, wie er sein Hausrecht ausübt. Dementsprechend seien auch Hausverbote erlaubt. So ein Hausverbot muss nach Auffassung des Bundesgerichtshofs noch nicht einmal begründet werden. Dies bedeutet, dass ein Abgewiesener noch nicht einmal Auskunft verlangen kann, warum er keinen Zutritt erhält.

If there is a right to refuse service for any reason including race religion or sexual orientation or whatever else then those being discriminated against are not equal before the law and the law in question is pointless because it cant be enforced. Id really like an answer from you please as i think what i asked is perfectly valid question.

[Telconi]

It clearly says telling people to leave and refusing to serve them is a general constitutional right of the owner of a private business, and he is not under any obligation to give reasons. If he tells you to leave, you are under obligation to leave, end of story.



Note that Art3 GG is the following:


There is no conflict between this and being allowed to refuse service. (Germany still interprets "equal before the law" like a reasonable person does, not in the ridiculously overextended way SCOTUS has interpreted 14A with the CRA.)

Further note how political opinion is on equal standing there with race, sex, faith etc.. If political opinion is something you may decide to refuse service over without violation Art 3.3 GG, then so is race, sex, religion etc..

If there is a right to refuse service for any reason including race religion or sexual orientation or whatever else then those being discriminated against are not equal before the law and the law in question is pointless because it cant be enforced. Id really like an answer from you please as i think what i asked is perfectly valid question.

You can't discriminate against everyone... if everyone can be denied service, then they're all being equally not protected. It is your position that is unequal, because you insist on extending legal protection to some people, and not others.

[Wysten]

Hey they can do whatever they want but it is not mine or anyone else's fault when all of a sudden they start losing money same as with the Christian baker.

[Omnonia]

Hey they can do whatever they want but it is not mine or anyone else's fault when all of a sudden they start losing money same as with the Christian baker.

Correct. Free market in effect, and I'm not going to lose a second of sleep over a business losing money due to shit they brought on themselves. Free exercise of rights doesn't mean freedom from socio-economical consquences.

I'm just against the state meddling in this - their freedom from legal consequences over their choice who to do trade with and who not should be protected.

[Aillyria]

Im really sorry to hear the court ruled that way and feels that discrimination is ok and Im also sorry you keep ignoring certain people but I digress.

You folks really need to stop with the whole "not prohibited by law" is "ok" thing.

Adultery is not prohibited by law, doesn't mean cheating on your spouse is "ok"

The problem is things that aren't good or ok should be legislated and should be illegal. Ambiguity in the legal system is ineffective and wrong.

[San Lumen]

Hey they can do whatever they want but it is not mine or anyone else's fault when all of a sudden they start losing money same as with the Christian baker.

Correct. Free market in effect, and I'm not going to lose a second of sleep over a business losing money due to shit they brought on themselves. Free exercise of rights doesn't mean freedom from socio-economical consquences.

I'm just against the state meddling in this - their freedom from legal consequences over their choice who to do trade with and who not should be protected.

You go tell that to African Americans in the South who couldn't use most shops in town because many were racist. I doubt the free market would have solved it but just keep ignoring me.

[Omnonia]

You folks really need to stop with the whole "not prohibited by law" is "ok" thing.

Adultery is not prohibited by law, doesn't mean cheating on your spouse is "ok"

The problem is things that aren't good or ok should be legislated and should be illegal. Ambiguity in the legal system is ineffective and wrong.

Who decides what is "good and ok"? Basing laws in morality is a terrible idea.

Laws should be based in rights. It violates a basic right of a private business owner if the law can force him to sell to customers he doesn't want to sell to. It does not violate any person's rights if they can't get served as customers by any privately owned shop they choose.

Therefore, I will rate a law as this as unethical, and oppose it over being oppressive.