Gay coffee shop owner kicks out Christians

[Galloism]

It has its ups and downs as a business choice.

You get exemptions from quite a few regulations by being a private club, which can make starting up easier from a certain perspective. There's fewer hoops to jump through. However, it also means you can't sell to the public, so you have to have some kind of a lure to get people to sign up as members.

It's kind of a wash from an easy/feasible standpoint. Starting a business is hard. Starting a private club is different - harder in some ways, easier in others, but probably a wash at the end.

So your answer seems to be No?

It's about as easy as a public accommodation, just different.

So "yes", I guess, but it's different. Not harder - just different.

Because presumably, it wouldn't be feasible for the vast majority of startups to face the ADDITIONAL challenge of getting people to sign up as members on top of selling to them?

For instance, I'm not going to buy my pencils from a startup if I have to sign up as a member. I'm getting it from the store next door that skips this bureaucracy. You lose your customers.

That is a perk of being a public accommodation as opposed to a private club. However, that public accommodation had more regulatory hurdles to jump through before they could start (and have more regulatory hurdles they have to continuously jump through) as a result of being a public accommodation.

It's like if you asked me "what's harder, moving a piano or replacing a car engine". Well, they're very different actions. It's difficult to directly compare the difficulty between the two because they're so different. However, if you added up time and effort and knowledge, you'd probably come out with a roughly equivalent result.

Such is the difference between a public accommodation and a private club.

[Infected Mushroom]

If Costco denied membership to LGBTQ communities, you think there wouldn't be lawsuits? Of course there would be. Again, this goes back to using government power to coerce a private organization to do your bidding.

I am not sure exactly where COSTCO falls when it comes to things, they and those golfing clubs and a few other similar clubs go to show that the model can be successful.

Okay but is it or is it not feasible for all businesses to go COSTO Mode?

If it is... and you are okay with it... then why have the extra formality of having to go COSTCO Mode? Why not just remove the formality since it would mean its a useless formality anyways?

If it's not easy, its actually very hard... then your "They can just go COSTCO" is disingenuous. You really just want to force businesses to either have a fair chance but cannot be free to discriminate, or fail if they want to discriminate. And you begrudgingly allow some COSTCOs to exist but you know damn well that the status quo doesn't give a realistic choice to most businesses.

So in either event, it doesn't help you position. You're either supporting a useless formality (anyone/nearly everyone can go COSTCO Mode at all time and get discrimination freedoms) or most businesses really don't have a choice (but you're dressing it up as a choice)

[Galloism]

Costco.

If Costco denied membership to LGBTQ communities, you think there wouldn't be lawsuits? Of course there would be. Again, this goes back to using government power to coerce a private organization to do your bidding.

I don't see what the basis would be. It's a private club - it's not subject to public accommodations rules.

I mean, they could sue I guess, but there's no legal basis for them to win that I know of.

[Galloism]

So you provide other incentives. I am not going to by the pencil from the place next door if it isn't open when I need it to be, or they aren't next door, or they don't provide the additional things I need/want. Every business model has their drawbacks.

I'm a member of Chili's bar. As a private club, you can drink there on Sundays. They're not subject to the same rules as a public accommodation.

[Infected Mushroom]

So your answer seems to be No?

It's about as easy as a public accommodation, just different.

So "yes", I guess, but it's different. Not harder - just different.

Because presumably, it wouldn't be feasible for the vast majority of startups to face the ADDITIONAL challenge of getting people to sign up as members on top of selling to them?

For instance, I'm not going to buy my pencils from a startup if I have to sign up as a member. I'm getting it from the store next door that skips this bureaucracy. You lose your customers.

That is a perk of being a public accommodation as opposed to a private club. However, that public accommodation had more regulatory hurdles to jump through before they could start (and have more regulatory hurdles they have to continuously jump through) as a result of being a public accommodation.

It's like if you asked me "what's harder, moving a piano or replacing a car engine". Well, they're very different actions. It's difficult to directly compare the difficulty between the two because they're so different. However, if you added up time and effort and knowledge, you'd probably come out with a roughly equivalent result.

Such is the difference between a public accommodation and a private club.

So if i said to you:

"Its very easy for most/all businesses to simply elect to go COSTCO Mode, not lose revenue and stay alive... with the added bonus that they can discriminate."

Would you agree or disagree with this statement?

If Yes and you are okay with that being the status quo, then what's the point of defending the status quo. Really, there is no anti-discrimination protection. If everyone tomorrow figured out this loophole, it would render the Civil Rights Act void.

If No... because most businesses can't just make the switch (or start up as COSTCO Mode) and survive... then really, businesses have no realistic choice. And really, the present status quo's choice is just an illusion for most.

[Infected Mushroom]

So you provide other incentives. I am not going to by the pencil from the place next door if it isn't open when I need it to be, or they aren't next door, or they don't provide the additional things I need/want. Every business model has their drawbacks.

I'm a member of Chili's bar. As a private club, you can drink there on Sundays. They're not subject to the same rules as a public accommodation.

Okay but my suspicion is that most businesses cannot realistically operate/survive with a membership model.

So at most you're saying, "if you want to be able to choose your customers, you are essentially restricted to a very narrow set of industries/services."

So for most people, they don't have the option.

And as I've said, in the alternative (if everyone could easily go COSTCO Mode), you're really defending a useless formality. Its also a bit absurd that its that easy to circumvent the current protections under the Civil Rights Act which you defend so much.

[Galloism]

So if i said to you:

"Its very easy for most/all businesses to simply elect to go COSTCO Mode, not lose revenue and stay alive... with the added bonus that they can discriminate."

Would you agree or disagree with this statement?

Context would make that vary a lot. Costco the private club has a LOT more revenue than my tax business, and is overall a better place to shop than Wal-Mart which isn't a private club. However, the Mexican restaurant in town which has amazing margaritas at a good price is a public accommodation, and beats Chili's bar six days a week.

A private club may be more viable, the same viability, or less viable than a public accommodation.

If Yes and you are okay with that being the status quo, then what's the point of defending the status quo. Really, there is no anti-discrimination protection. If everyone tomorrow figured out this loophole, it would render the Civil Rights Act void.

If No... because most businesses can't just make the switch (or start up as COSTCO Mode) and survive... then really, businesses have no realistic choice. And really, the present status quo's choice is just an illusion for most.

Private clubs are a different kind of an entity. Just as a car is not very useful to fly in and a plane isn't very useful to go down I-95 (not again), private clubs and public accommodations serve very different needs. We all agree a car and a plane is different - even if we could slap on some wings, rudder, and a propeller and turn a car into a plane, or we could rip off the wings, setup a drive system to the wheels and turn it into a car.

If you open a private club, your market research and your goal needs to be very different than a public accommodation - because you're taking a different kind of action.

[Neutraligon]

I am not sure exactly where COSTCO falls when it comes to things, they and those golfing clubs and a few other similar clubs go to show that the model can be successful.

Okay but is it or is it not feasible for all businesses to go COSTO Mode?

I have no idea. Like I said in my previous post I seem to recall private clubs that got passed some of the regulations on places that sell alcohol because they where membership clubs.

If it is... and you are okay with it... then why have the extra formality of having to go COSTCO Mode? Why not just remove the formality since it would mean its a useless formality anyways?

Because this is not a formality, this is legally a different type of business with different regulations that apply to it.

If it's not easy, its actually very hard... then your "They can just go COSTCO" is disingenuous.

Setting up any bussiness is very hard. In this case it might be easier in some ways to set up the club because there are s ton of regulations that clubs simply do not have to deal with that businesses do. On the other hand there are difficulties of being a private club like how to "advertise" yourself. Different types of difficulties.

You really just want to force businesses to either have a fair chance but cannot be free to discriminate, or fail if they want to discriminate.

As shown by the golf clubs they can succeed.

And you begrudgingly allow some COSTCO to exist but you know damn well that the status quo doesn't give a realistic choice to most businesses.

Nice to know you think you know how I feel about COSTCO, you might want to have the mind reading device worked on though because it really does not work. I don't care if COSTCO exists. I don't care if those golf clubs exist. I don't care if some private club bakery decides as part of the bylaws that they do not make cake for homosexual weddings. I really don't give a damn....

So in either event, it doesn't help you position. You're either supporting a useless formality (anyone/nearly everyone can go COSTCO Mode at all time and get discrimination freedoms)

Not a formality since different laws apply

or most businesses really don't have a choice (but you're dressing it up as a choice)

[/quote] Given that businesses have succeeded I fail to see why it is not a choice. Seems like you created a false dichotomy.

[Omnonia]

If you open a private club, your market research and your goal needs to be very different than a public accommodation - because you're taking a different kind of action.

This means the CRA created woefully unfair legislation.

[Neutraligon]

If you open a private club, your market research and your goal needs to be very different than a public accommodation - because you're taking a different kind of action.

This means the CRA created woefully unfair legislation.

How so?

[Galloism]

I'm a member of Chili's bar. As a private club, you can drink there on Sundays. They're not subject to the same rules as a public accommodation.

Okay but my suspicion is that most businesses cannot realistically operate/survive with a membership model.

They would need to be setup to run as a club instead of a public accommodation - which is a very different kind of an action.

It's not harder or easier per se - just different.

So at most you're saying, "if you want to be able to choose your customers, you are essentially restricted to a very narrow set of industries/services."

That's not really true either.

So for most people, they don't have the option.

Even if the above were true, this wouldn't be. Choosing to setup a public accommodation IS a choice. Some of us work jobs we would prefer not to. It's still our choice to do so.

And as I've said, in the alternative (if everyone could easily go COSTCO Mode), you're really defending a useless formality. Its also a bit absurd that its that easy to circumvent the current protections under the Civil Rights Act which you defend so much.

Private clubs and public accommodations are different and operate in different ways under different rules. Just as planes and cars are different and operate in different ways under different rules (well, not physics rules, but government rules).

[Infected Mushroom]

To put it another way...

You:

"People shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. But some/all businesses can discriminate if they go COSTCO Mode. This is a state of affairs that I support and you should be satisfied with it too (because businesses have a choice and can discriminate)."

Me:

"Is it feasible for all/most businesses to go COSTCO Mode?"

You:

(option 1): Yes it is.

(option 2): No it's not/only some businesses can easily go COSTCO Mode.

...

Me:

(in answer to option 1): Then why do you support the current state of affairs... also why should we support it? You have no reason to support it because it means its actually very easy for everyone to simply go COSTCO Mode and discriminate. We have no reason to support it because it just adds a small, pointless formality to the process (why do we even have to go COSTCO Mode if its so easy, why not just make it default? Just adds pointless paperwork).

(in answer to option 2): Then how can we agree that we are given a realistic choice? If most/many businesses can't feasibly go COSTCO Mode and work... then you have given most businesses NO realistic choice, just the illusion of one.

[Galloism]

If you open a private club, your market research and your goal needs to be very different than a public accommodation - because you're taking a different kind of action.

This means the CRA created woefully unfair legislation.

Not at all - unless the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was unfair because it ultimately resulted in different rules for planes than existed for cars.

[Infected Mushroom]

So if i said to you:

"Its very easy for most/all businesses to simply elect to go COSTCO Mode, not lose revenue and stay alive... with the added bonus that they can discriminate."

Would you agree or disagree with this statement?

Context would make that vary a lot. Costco the private club has a LOT more revenue than my tax business, and is overall a better place to shop than Wal-Mart which isn't a private club. However, the Mexican restaurant in town which has amazing margaritas at a good price is a public accommodation, and beats Chili's bar six days a week.

A private club may be more viable, the same viability, or less viable than a public accommodation.

If Yes and you are okay with that being the status quo, then what's the point of defending the status quo. Really, there is no anti-discrimination protection. If everyone tomorrow figured out this loophole, it would render the Civil Rights Act void.

If No... because most businesses can't just make the switch (or start up as COSTCO Mode) and survive... then really, businesses have no realistic choice. And really, the present status quo's choice is just an illusion for most.

Private clubs are a different kind of an entity. Just as a car is not very useful to fly in and a plane isn't very useful to go down I-95 (not again), private clubs and public accommodations serve very different needs. We all agree a car and a plane is different - even if we could slap on some wings, rudder, and a propeller and turn a car into a plane, or we could rip off the wings, setup a drive system to the wheels and turn it into a car.

If you open a private club, your market research and your goal needs to be very different than a public accommodation - because you're taking a different kind of action.

So it seems to me that you are saying:

"Running a Private Club is very different from running a Business."

So then it seems to follow that most business owners right now, cannot just easily snap their fingers and go Costco Mode. So really, they have no choice and we (the defenders of freedom of business) have no reason to support this status quo.

Using your analogy, we don't tell people who want to drive cars, "You have the option to fly a plane instead" and make that sound (disingenuously) like they have a realistic and practical choice between the two.

[Galloism]

To put it another way...

You:

"People shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. But some/all businesses can discriminate if they go COSTCO Mode. This is a state of affairs that I support and you should be satisfied with it too (because businesses have a choice and can discriminate)."

Me:

"Is it feasible for all/most businesses to go COSTCO Mode?"

You:

(option 1): Yes it is.

(option 2): No it's not/only some businesses can easily go COSTCO Mode.

It would require fundamentally changing the type of business you're running. Not necessarily your products or services, but how you run your business end to end. You would have to operate as a private club instead of a public accommodation.

Because you have to set it up to do something different.

Me:

(in answer to option 1): Then why do you support the current state of affairs... also why should we support it? You have no reason to support it because it means its actually very easy for everyone to simply go COSTCO Mode and discriminate. We have no reason to support it because it just adds a small, pointless formality to the process (why do we even have to go COSTCO Mode if its so easy, why not just make it default? Just adds pointless paperwork).

(in answer to option 2): Then how can we agree that we are given a realistic choice? If most/many businesses can't feasibly go COSTCO Mode and work... then you have given most businesses NO realistic choice, just the illusion of one.

You're creating a false dichotomy without even a base understanding of the systems or regulations involved. This is why you can't see the error in your false dichotomy.

[Galloism]

Context would make that vary a lot. Costco the private club has a LOT more revenue than my tax business, and is overall a better place to shop than Wal-Mart which isn't a private club. However, the Mexican restaurant in town which has amazing margaritas at a good price is a public accommodation, and beats Chili's bar six days a week.

A private club may be more viable, the same viability, or less viable than a public accommodation.



Private clubs are a different kind of an entity. Just as a car is not very useful to fly in and a plane isn't very useful to go down I-95 (not again), private clubs and public accommodations serve very different needs. We all agree a car and a plane is different - even if we could slap on some wings, rudder, and a propeller and turn a car into a plane, or we could rip off the wings, setup a drive system to the wheels and turn it into a car.

If you open a private club, your market research and your goal needs to be very different than a public accommodation - because you're taking a different kind of action.

So it seems to me that you are saying:

"Running a Private Club is very different from running a Business."

So then it seems to follow that most business owners right now, cannot just easily snap their fingers and go Costco Mode. So really, they have no choice and we (the defenders of freedom of business) have no reason to support this status quo.

Using your analogy, we don't tell people who want to drive cars, "You have the option to fly a plane instead" and make that sound (disingenuously) like they have a realistic and practical choice between the two.

Actually we do that all the time. When someone wants to travel at 200+ mph, we tell them "either you do 70 on the interstate, or take a plane". Because planes can do 200+ mph while cars can't.

Well, cars CAN (some anyway), it's just illegal.

Because planes are under different rules than cars, just as private clubs are under different rules than public accommodations.

[Neutraligon]

To put it another way...

You:

"People shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. But some/all businesses can discriminate if they go COSTCO Mode. This is a state of affairs that I support and you should be satisfied with it too (because businesses have a choice and can discriminate)."

No me: businesses that are open to the public should not be able to discriminate, those that are not should be allowed to do so because they are a different entity from those open to the public. Your opening remark is completely wrong.

Me:

"Is it feasible for all/most businesses to go COSTCO Mode?"

You:

(option 1): Yes it is.

(option 2): No it's not/only some businesses can easily go COSTCO Mode.

No me: I do not know but evidence from things like those private clubs that sell alcohol suggest that yes it is feasible. You really need to have whatever device you are using to read my mind fixed because it has been wrong every time.

...

Me:

(in answer to option 1): Then why do you support the current state of affairs... also why should we support it? You have no reason to support it because it means its actually very easy for everyone to simply go COSTCO Mode and discriminate. We have no reason to support it because it just adds a small, pointless formality to the process (why do we even have to go COSTCO Mode if its so easy, why not just make it default? Just adds pointless paperwork).

(in answer to option 2): Then how can we agree that we are given a realistic choice? If most/many businesses can't feasibly go COSTCO Mode and work... then you have given most businesses NO realistic choice, just the illusion of one.

[/quote] Since my answer was closer to 1 I will answer it. The reason not everyone will go that method is because while there are advantages to picking and choosing your customers like that there are also advantages to not doing so and instead being open to the public. Each business model has their advantages and disadvantages and it is up to the owner which type of model they want to use.

[Vassenor]

...wait, can you just sign up for Costco over there? Here you have to provide proof of employment in a kind of narrow list of fields.

[Infected Mushroom]

To put it another way...

You:

"People shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. But some/all businesses can discriminate if they go COSTCO Mode. This is a state of affairs that I support and you should be satisfied with it too (because businesses have a choice and can discriminate)."

Me:

"Is it feasible for all/most businesses to go COSTCO Mode?"

You:

(option 1): Yes it is.

(option 2): No it's not/only some businesses can easily go COSTCO Mode.

It would require fundamentally changing the type of business you're running. Not necessarily your products or services, but how you run your business end to end. You would have to operate as a private club instead of a public accommodation.

Because you have to set it up to do something different.

Me:

(in answer to option 1): Then why do you support the current state of affairs... also why should we support it? You have no reason to support it because it means its actually very easy for everyone to simply go COSTCO Mode and discriminate. We have no reason to support it because it just adds a small, pointless formality to the process (why do we even have to go COSTCO Mode if its so easy, why not just make it default? Just adds pointless paperwork).

(in answer to option 2): Then how can we agree that we are given a realistic choice? If most/many businesses can't feasibly go COSTCO Mode and work... then you have given most businesses NO realistic choice, just the illusion of one.

You're creating a false dichotomy without even a base understanding of the systems or regulations involved. This is why you can't see the error in your false dichotomy.

So just tell me...

Why is this a system that I should support? Why should the argument "people can just open a private club instead of a business" convince people who believe that businesses should have the freedom to discriminate to say instead, "Hey the status quo is quite cool."

In all of your posts, you've just further demonstrated the disingenuousness of the argument.

[Telconi]

The whole point is that there was no such thing as a "public accommodation" until the CRA created it. Bore this there were just businesses.

[Neutraligon]

It would require fundamentally changing the type of business you're running. Not necessarily your products or services, but how you run your business end to end. You would have to operate as a private club instead of a public accommodation.

Because you have to set it up to do something different.



You're creating a false dichotomy without even a base understanding of the systems or regulations involved. This is why you can't see the error in your false dichotomy.

So just tell me...

Why is this a system that I should support? Why should the argument "people can just open a private club instead of a business" convince people who believe that businesses should have the freedom to discriminate to say instead, "Hey the status quo is quite cool."

In all of your posts, you've just further demonstrated the disingenuousness of the argument.

A private club is a business, it is just a different form of business from those that are open to the public.

[Omnonia]

This means the CRA created woefully unfair legislation.

How so?

To exercise a natural and basic right of every private shop owner, you are required to take very different actions from being a shop owner just to conform to arbitrary impositions the legislator threw in your way. There should not be a 'different kind of action'. You are still aiming for operating a plain old regular shop, like anyone else.

How can anyone think that is not an unfair imposition?

[Infected Mushroom]

So just tell me...

Why is this a system that I should support? Why should the argument "people can just open a private club instead of a business" convince people who believe that businesses should have the freedom to discriminate to say instead, "Hey the status quo is quite cool."

In all of your posts, you've just further demonstrated the disingenuousness of the argument.

A private club is a business, it is just a different form of business from those that are open to the public.

I agree with you but since many businesses won't have a realistic choice to discriminate under the current system (since those businesses can't go COSTCO Mode and operate like they do now), why should this be something that true supporters of business freedom get behind?

Where's the part where I'm supposed to bite and say, "Wow the current system is actually a good thing. This technicality is great for me."

[Vassenor]

How so?

To exercise a natural and basic right of every private shop owner, you are required to take very different actions from being a shop owner just to conform to arbitrary impositions the legislator threw in your way. There should not be a 'different kind of action'. You are still aiming for operating a plain old regular shop, like anyone else.

How can anyone think that is not an unfair imposition?

Pretty sure discrimination is an unfair imposition on the person being discriminated against based on something they have no control over.

[Galloism]

It would require fundamentally changing the type of business you're running. Not necessarily your products or services, but how you run your business end to end. You would have to operate as a private club instead of a public accommodation.

Because you have to set it up to do something different.



You're creating a false dichotomy without even a base understanding of the systems or regulations involved. This is why you can't see the error in your false dichotomy.

So just tell me...

Why is this a system that I should support? Why should the argument "people can just open a private club instead of a business" convince people who believe that businesses should have the freedom to discriminate to say instead, "Hey the status quo is quite cool."

In all of your posts, you've just further demonstrated the disingenuousness of the argument.

You know, we did things for a reason.

There was actually a fascinating book published in the early 1960s... don't recall the name of it. It was a directory of places where black people could get critical things while on the road like food, fuel, and so forth. It even provided guides that if you were going to travel on certain routes, where to buy extra fuel for your gas cans because there were no nondiscriminatory businesses for well beyond the range of a tank of gas. It told about where you would need to carry extra food for the same reason - there were no nondiscriminatory places to get food for hundreds of miles.

Black people sometimes died for lack of medicine because all the pharmacies around would refuse to fill a prescription because they were black.

We decided this was a bad state of affairs and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

EDIT: And as a small business owner myself, I am so very glad for the Civil Rights Act.