Gay coffee shop owner kicks out Christians

[Neutraligon]

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?

Again with the natural rights thing. Since I don't think they exist that argument is useless to me. Simple, I think that private clubs and businesses open to the public should be treated as the different entities they are. those private clubs, they exist because of the very freedom of association you keep harping on. Different types of businesses all have different types of regulations applying to it and different ways of applying to become that type of business.

[Omnonia]

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.

A car is not a plane.

A bakery where the baker makes use of his natural right to refuse to serve customers at his own discretion is still a plain old bog-standard bakery, and not a sodding "private club".

Your analogy would only hold true if you needed a pilot's license to drive certain kinds of cars, say, four-door sedans, and your driver's license only allows you to drive two-doors.

[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.

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.

Do all Western countries with minorities have such similar legislation?

[Galloism]

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.

A car is not a plane.

Correct. Also, a private club is not a public accommodation.

A bakery where the baker makes use of his natural right to refuse to serve customers at his own discretion is still a plain old bog-standard bakery, and not a sodding "private club".

You're right - a bakery that makes use of his "natural right" to refuse to serve customers based on protected reasons is not operating a private club. He's operating a public accommodation in violation of the law.

Private clubs are operated differently.

Your analogy would only hold true if you needed a pilot's license to drive certain kinds of cars, say, four-door sedans, and your driver's license only allows you to drive two-doors.

Well, I have a pilot's license for a plane and a driver's license for a car. The driver's license allows me to operate cars (and other larger things) and the pilot's license allows me to operate planes. Plane = private club, car = public accommodation, in this illustration.

[Telconi]

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.

If I asked you out on a date Vassenor. And you declined. Have you pushed an unfair imposition upon me for something I cannot control?

[Galloism]

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.

Do all Western countries with minorities have such similar legislation?

I think so. Canada's appears to be stricter than ours at first blush, although I haven't dug into it yet.

[Galloism]

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

If I asked you out on a date Vassenor. And you declined. Have you pushed an unfair imposition upon me for something I cannot control?

Vassenor is not a public accommodation courtesan.

[Omnonia]

Again with the natural rights thing. Since I don't think they exist that argument is useless to me.

Are you against slavery? If yes, why? What actual argument can you offer for the opinion that a black man should not be treated as property, like a mule or ox?

If it's "that's illegal"... well, it was legal then, but folks still raised a big damn fuss over it, didn't they?

Simple, I think that private clubs and businesses open to the public should be treated as the different entities they are. those private clubs, they exist because of the very freedom of association you keep harping on. Different types of businesses all have different types of regulations applying to it and different ways of applying to become that type of business.

These regulations are a travesty of justice, and utterly oppressive.

[Vassenor]

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

If I asked you out on a date Vassenor. And you declined. Have you pushed an unfair imposition upon me for something I cannot control?

Depends if you think a business being closed is discrimination or not.

[Neutraligon]

Again with the natural rights thing. Since I don't think they exist that argument is useless to me.

Are you against slavery? If yes, why? What actual argument can you offer for the opinion that a black man should not be treated as property, like a mule or ox?

Depends what type of argument you are talking about, do you mean moral, do you mean monetarily? Are you asking for what my basis is for rights, or asking for why I think certain things should be rights?

If it's "that's illegal"... well, it was legal then, but folks still raised a big damn fuss over it, didn't they?

Since I do not claim what is legal is the same as what I view as right ow wrong this is irrelevant. Rights are dealing with legal situations. That is, if slavery was legal then then there is no right to not be a slave. Whether I think that right should exist is a different question.

Simple, I think that private clubs and businesses open t
These regulations are a travesty of justice, and utterly oppressive.

I disagree I think they are a reasonable solution to a problem that exists and existed in American society. Also, like I said, businesses already have to apply for different things based on the type of business they are.

[Omnonia]

Do all Western countries with minorities have such similar legislation?

Germany doesn't, thank goodness. The right to refuse service is constitutionally protected, although with some exceptions. Hausrecht outweighs equal treatment provisions. If the shop owner say leave, you leave - it doesn't matter if you're black or white, gay or straight, etc., you get your ass out of the door or he can have you removed by the cops.

Correct. Also, a private club is not a public accommodation.

A bakery that does not sell to all comers is not a private club by any sane and reasonable definition. It is the exact same thing as a bakery that you rate as a "public accomodation". It's only the idiocy of the CRA that tries to pretend otherwise.

You're right - a bakery that makes use of his "natural right" to refuse to serve customers based on protected reasons is not operating a private club. He's operating a public accommodation in violation of the law.

A disgusting and oppressive law. I don't think this is in any way better, or more just, than Jim Crow.

Well, I have a pilot's license for a plane and a driver's license for a car. The driver's license allows me to operate cars (and other larger things) and the pilot's license allows me to operate planes. Plane = private club, car = public accommodation, in this illustration.

If it has four doors, it's now legally a plane because some idiotic law said so. If you didn't have the pilot's license, you wouldn't be allowed to drive it. You may be in the privileged position to have both. But what about a person who only has a driver's license? How is he supposed to drive his "plane" on the road?

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

No, it's not. They have no right to the service in question, as the service is a privilege and not a right. No rights of theirs are violated by refusing them access to it. Discrimination should obviously not ever be forbidden where it doesn't interfere with a person's right.

If you would forbid discrimination, period, it would have to be illegal for a straight man to refuse sex with a gay men if the gay man wants it from him... because turning him down over his sex is discrimination, no if no but. And thank goodness, this discrimination is 100% legal in literallly every single legal system I know.

[Omnonia]

Since I do not claim what is legal is the same as what I view as right ow wrong this is irrelevant. Rights are dealing with legal situations. That is, if slavery was legal then then there is no right to not be a slave.

Alright, that answers my question sufficiently. At least you seem to be logically consistent, then.

[Galloism]

Correct. Also, a private club is not a public accommodation.

A bakery that does not sell to all comers is not a private club by any sane and reasonable definition. It is the exact same thing as a bakery that you rate as a "public accomodation". It's only the idiocy of the CRA that tries to pretend otherwise.

Right - which is why such a public accommodation is in violation of the laws that govern his business. He didn't take the steps to actually operate as a private club, so it isn't one. It's just in violation of the law.

You're right - a bakery that makes use of his "natural right" to refuse to serve customers based on protected reasons is not operating a private club. He's operating a public accommodation in violation of the law.

A disgusting and oppressive law. I don't think this is in any way better, or more just, than Jim Crow.

Well, Congress had a choice. It was an ugly choice, but it was a choice. Either they could protect nondiscriminating business owners from the public, or protect discriminating business owners from the government. They chose the former. I think it's a good choice, and as a business owner myself, I am thankful for the CRA.

Many people who wanted to be nondiscriminatory in business were forced by the public to be discriminatory before the passage of the CRA. The CRA protected business owners. As a business owner myself, I'm thankful for it.

Well, I have a pilot's license for a plane and a driver's license for a car. The driver's license allows me to operate cars (and other larger things) and the pilot's license allows me to operate planes. Plane = private club, car = public accommodation, in this illustration.

If it has four doors, it's now legally a plane because some idiotic law said so. If you didn't have the pilot's license, you wouldn't be allowed to drive it. You may be in the privileged position to have both. But what about a person who only has a driver's license? How is he supposed to drive his "plane" on the road?

Get a pilot's license. Incidentally, this isn't all that different than what we do now. To drive a taxicab, a bus, or a semi all require different levels of licenses. A taxicab is a class C license, a bus is a class B license, and a semi is a class A license. I don't see the practicality of separating a four door car from a two door car (the size difference isn't that significant), but if you did, you could split the C license into a C1 and C2 license, and it would be totally valid.

[Omnonia]

Right - which is why such a public accommodation is in violation of the laws that govern his business. He didn't take the steps to actually operate as a private club, so it isn't one. It's just in violation of the law.

These laws are oppressive.

Well, Congress had a choice. It was an ugly choice, but it was a choice. Either they could protect nondiscriminating business owners from the public, or protect discriminating business owners from the government.

At least you admit it was ugly.

And I still disagree that this was a black-and-white (no pun intended) binary choice.

Get a pilot's license. Incidentally, this isn't all that different than what we do now. To drive a taxicab, a bus, or a semi all require different levels of licenses. A taxicab is a class C license, a bus is a class B license, and a semi is a class A license. I don't see the practicality of separating a four door car from a two door car (the size difference isn't that significant), but if you did, you could split the C license into a C1 and C2 license, and it would be totally valid.

And the fact that he already has a driver's license that perfectly enables him to handle a car that is 100% identical in every way but for the number of doors, that four-door cars have very few things naturally in common with what a reasonable person would call a "plane", and getting a pilot's license costs time and money should simply not matter? The state is in its right to decree such bullshit, just because?

[Neutraligon]

Right - which is why such a public accommodation is in violation of the laws that govern his business. He didn't take the steps to actually operate as a private club, so it isn't one. It's just in violation of the law.

These laws are oppressive.

No more so then having other different types of businesses have to declare their different type of business. Something that is rampant in US law.

And I still disagree that this was a black-and-white (no pun intended) binary choice.

Given the cultural climate at the time, it was.

[Galloism]

Right - which is why such a public accommodation is in violation of the laws that govern his business. He didn't take the steps to actually operate as a private club, so it isn't one. It's just in violation of the law.

These laws are oppressive.

Well, Congress had a choice. It was an ugly choice, but it was a choice. Either they could protect nondiscriminating business owners from the public, or protect discriminating business owners from the government.

At least you admit it was ugly.

And I still disagree that this was a black-and-white (no pun intended) binary choice.

Well, it was - at least in the south. I'm going to bring back an oldie but a goodie from an old-timer where I live. He died a couple years ago, but still, I tell his story:

Stupid statists ruining muh markets ;_;

He died not that long ago, but I knew a guy who used to run a grocery store and a pharmacy in the south before the Civil Rights Act.

Like most people running a store, he had a rather large loan on the property. In that loan paperwork, all the local banks who would actually finance businesses included a clause that if they sold to black people, their note could be called within 7 days.

This was legal and common practice in many areas of the south.

He used to make deliveries in the middle of the night to black families that needed groceries or medicine so as not to be caught. If he was caught, he would lose his store. He loved the civil rights act - which enjoined him from treating black people differently (which he didn't want to) and the banks from treating businesses differently that discriminated. The businesses that allowed black people in the same as whites were routinely boycotted and went out of business. Even banks that financed them faced social backlash and loss of accounts - hence the clauses.

This is capitalism at work.

Get a pilot's license. Incidentally, this isn't all that different than what we do now. To drive a taxicab, a bus, or a semi all require different levels of licenses. A taxicab is a class C license, a bus is a class B license, and a semi is a class A license. I don't see the practicality of separating a four door car from a two door car (the size difference isn't that significant), but if you did, you could split the C license into a C1 and C2 license, and it would be totally valid.

And the fact that he already has a driver's license that perfectly enables him to handle a car that is 100% identical in every way but for the number of doors, that four-door cars have very few things naturally in common with what a reasonable person would call a "plane", and getting a pilot's license costs time and money should simply not matter? The state is in its right to decree such bullshit, just because?

Private clubs are very different than public accommodations. They have very different rules and a number of different regulations that apply to them that don't apply to public accommodations and vice versa.

A public accommodation can't put a membership card and become a private club - it requires a fundamental restructure of how the business works. It's not better or worse, just different. That's why I use "car" vs "plane", because it really is a different kind of a setup and operates under very different rules.

You are simplifying the difference to the point of utter falsity.

[Omnonia]

And I still disagree that this was a black-and-white (no pun intended) binary choice.

Well, it was - at least in the south. I'm going to bring back an oldie but a goodie from an old-timer where I live. He died a couple years ago, but still, I tell his story:

He died not that long ago, but I knew a guy who used to run a grocery store and a pharmacy in the south before the Civil Rights Act.

Like most people running a store, he had a rather large loan on the property. In that loan paperwork, all the local banks who would actually finance businesses included a clause that if they sold to black people, their note could be called within 7 days.

This was legal and common practice in many areas of the south.

He used to make deliveries in the middle of the night to black families that needed groceries or medicine so as not to be caught. If he was caught, he would lose his store. He loved the civil rights act - which enjoined him from treating black people differently (which he didn't want to) and the banks from treating businesses differently that discriminated. The businesses that allowed black people in the same as whites were routinely boycotted and went out of business. Even banks that financed them faced social backlash and loss of accounts - hence the clauses.

This is capitalism at work.

Still my same answer. Give tax breaks as incentive to businesses who voluntarily (!!!) decline their right to discriminate. If that still doesn't solve the problem, open government-run businesses to compete with them.

But don't oppress private business owners by impeding their basic natural right to pick and choose who they agree to do business with.

Private clubs are very different than public accommodations. They have very different rules and a number of different regulations that apply to them that don't apply to public accommodations and vice versa.

A public accommodation can't put a membership card and become a private club - it requires a fundamental restructure of how the business works. It's not better or worse, just different. That's why I use "car" vs "plane", because it really is a different kind of a setup and operates under very different rules.

You are simplifying the difference to the point of utter falsity.

That. Is. The. Point.

The difference between a shop that serves all comers and a shop that picks and chooses is that minimal. They are both the exact same type of establishment - a simple store front, operating as any bog-standard store front does in places that don't have these silly American regulations in place. To require the latter to turn itself into a "private club" just to be allowed to legally operate is utterly ludicrous, and oppressive.

[Omnonia]

No more so then having other different types of businesses have to declare their different type of business. Something that is rampant in US law.

You would only have a point if the only difference required would be to hang a "This is a private club" sign into the store window. No membership cards, no difference in application from any other store, no nothing. Just a change of name tag.

If it requires more than that, this argument is intellectually dishonest.

[Galloism]

Well, it was - at least in the south. I'm going to bring back an oldie but a goodie from an old-timer where I live. He died a couple years ago, but still, I tell his story:

Still my same answer. Give tax breaks as incentive to businesses who voluntarily (!!!) decline their right to discriminate. If that still doesn't solve the problem, open government-run businesses to compete with them.

But don't oppress private business owners by impeding their basic natural right to pick and choose who they agree to do business with.

Yeah that isn't going to happen. Government run businesses are communism in our country.

I mean, that's not communism, but it's communism.

Private clubs are very different than public accommodations. They have very different rules and a number of different regulations that apply to them that don't apply to public accommodations and vice versa.

A public accommodation can't put a membership card and become a private club - it requires a fundamental restructure of how the business works. It's not better or worse, just different. That's why I use "car" vs "plane", because it really is a different kind of a setup and operates under very different rules.

You are simplifying the difference to the point of utter falsity.

That. Is. The. Point.

The difference between a shop that serves all comers and a shop that picks and chooses is that minimal. They are both the exact same type of establishment - a simple store front, operating as any bog-standard store front does in places that don't have these silly American regulations in place. To require the latter to turn itself into a "private club" just to be allowed to legally operate is utterly ludicrous, and oppressive.

They aren't required to operate as a private club. They are required to operate as a private club if they want to operate under private club rules, which allows discrimination. Private club rules also allow lots of other things. They also don't allow a lot of things operating as a public accommodation does.

I mean, you're essentially said cars and planes are both the same because they use a reciprocating engine to move through the air. It is true they both use a reciprocating engine to move through the air, but that's simplifying to the point of utter misstatement. There's a lot more different between planes and cars, just as there's a lot more different between private clubs and public accommodations besides "one can discriminate and the other can't".

If they want to not be a public accommodation then they cannot operate as a public accommodation. You'd think that would be simple, but I guess it isn't.

[Neutraligon]

No more so then having other different types of businesses have to declare their different type of business. Something that is rampant in US law.

You would only have a point if the only difference required would be to hang a "This is a private club" sign into the store window. No membership cards, no difference in application from any other store, no nothing. Just a change of name tag.

If it requires more than that, this argument is intellectually dishonest.

Not really since again different types of businesses already have to use different forms to get their businesses started and already have to jump through different hoops. A corporation is different from a mom and pop shop, which is different from a sole proprietorship. They are legally treated as different types of entities.

[Galloism]

You would only have a point if the only difference required would be to hang a "This is a private club" sign into the store window. No membership cards, no difference in application from any other store, no nothing. Just a change of name tag.

If it requires more than that, this argument is intellectually dishonest.

Not really since again different types of businesses already have to use different forms to get their businesses started and already have to jump through different hoops. A corporation is different from a mom and pop shop, which is different from a sole proprietorship. They are legally treated as different types of entities.

Given mom and pop shop is not a legal designation, a mom and pop shop could be a corporation, a partnership, or a qualified joint venture which is reported like dual operating sole proprietorships.

All which have different rules and operate in different ways, I just want to add.

[Neutraligon]

Not really since again different types of businesses already have to use different forms to get their businesses started and already have to jump through different hoops. A corporation is different from a mom and pop shop, which is different from a sole proprietorship. They are legally treated as different types of entities.

Given mom and pop shop is not a legal designation, a mom and pop shop could be a corporation, a partnership, or a qualified joint venture which is reported like dual operating sole proprietorships.

All which have different rules and operate in different ways, I just want to add.

True. Since I was speaking in legal terms I should have used the correct legal term. I was more thinking of a general partnership.

[Omnonia]

Yeah that isn't going to happen. Government run businesses are communism in our country.

I mean, that's not communism, but it's communism.

And yet, you fail to see that your idea of "Public accomodations" are far closer to communism than to free market capitalism. It is insane that the CRA is accepted in a cultural climate of "commies are bad".

They aren't required to operate as a private club. They are required to operate as a private club if they want to operate under private club rules, which allows discrimination. Private club rules also allow lots of other things. They also don't allow a lot of things operating as a public accommodation does.

It is ridiculous and unethical to forbid "public accomodations" to discriminate (as long as they are privately owned non-essential businesses). Choosing who to do trade with is a fundamental right; it should not be abridged by law in such a scandalous way.

I mean, you're essentially said cars and planes are both the same because they use a reciprocating engine to move through the air. It is true they both use a reciprocating engine to move through the air, but that's simplifying to the point of utter misstatement. There's a lot more different between planes and cars, just as there's a lot more different between private clubs and public accommodations besides "one can discriminate and the other can't".

I didn't say that. Your laws say that, by pretending that refusing service to people who come through the door magically turns you from a "public accomodation" to a "private club". It doesn't. It is the same damn storefront. Nothing has changed, the legislators just created an idiotic and arbitrary distinction that makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't ethically justifiable.

[Neutraligon]

Yeah that isn't going to happen. Government run businesses are communism in our country.

I mean, that's not communism, but it's communism.

And yet, you fail to see that your idea of "Public accomodations" are far closer to communism than to free market capitalism. It is insane that the CRA is accepted in a cultural climate of "commies are bad".

Since communism is that the worker own the means of production it is not in anyway more like communism.

They aren't required to operate as a private club. They are required to operate as a private club if they want to operate under private club rules, which allows discrimination. Private club rules also allow lots of other things. They also don't allow a lot of things operating as a public accommodation does.

It is ridiculous and unethical to forbid "public accomodations" to discriminate (as long as they are privately owned non-essential businesses). Choosing who to do trade with is a fundamental right; it should not be abridged by law in such a scandalous way.

And that right exists, if you set up a private club. Once again different types of businesses fall under different sorts of laws.

I mean, you're essentially said cars and planes are both the same because they use a reciprocating engine to move through the air. It is true they both use a reciprocating engine to move through the air, but that's simplifying to the point of utter misstatement. There's a lot more different between planes and cars, just as there's a lot more different between private clubs and public accommodations besides "one can discriminate and the other can't".

I didn't say that. Your laws say that, by pretending that refusing service to people who come through the door magically turns you from a "public accomodation" to a "private club". It doesn't. It is the same damn storefront. Nothing has changed, the legislators just created an idiotic and arbitrary distinction that makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't ethically justifiable.

Something has changed, the regulations under which they are restricted have changed. That is not arbitrary.

[Infected Mushroom]

Do all Western countries with minorities have such similar legislation?

Germany doesn't, thank goodness. The right to refuse service is constitutionally protected, although with some exceptions. Hausrecht outweighs equal treatment provisions. If the shop owner say leave, you leave - it doesn't matter if you're black or white, gay or straight, etc., you get your ass out of the door or he can have you removed by the cops.

Correct. Also, a private club is not a public accommodation.

A bakery that does not sell to all comers is not a private club by any sane and reasonable definition. It is the exact same thing as a bakery that you rate as a "public accomodation". It's only the idiocy of the CRA that tries to pretend otherwise.

You're right - a bakery that makes use of his "natural right" to refuse to serve customers based on protected reasons is not operating a private club. He's operating a public accommodation in violation of the law.

A disgusting and oppressive law. I don't think this is in any way better, or more just, than Jim Crow.

Well, I have a pilot's license for a plane and a driver's license for a car. The driver's license allows me to operate cars (and other larger things) and the pilot's license allows me to operate planes. Plane = private club, car = public accommodation, in this illustration.

If it has four doors, it's now legally a plane because some idiotic law said so. If you didn't have the pilot's license, you wouldn't be allowed to drive it. You may be in the privileged position to have both. But what about a person who only has a driver's license? How is he supposed to drive his "plane" on the road?

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

No, it's not. They have no right to the service in question, as the service is a privilege and not a right. No rights of theirs are violated by refusing them access to it. Discrimination should obviously not ever be forbidden where it doesn't interfere with a person's right.

If you would forbid discrimination, period, it would have to be illegal for a straight man to refuse sex with a gay men if the gay man wants it from him... because turning him down over his sex is discrimination, no if no but. And thank goodness, this discrimination is 100% legal in literallly every single legal system I know.

I like the German approach.

It makes sense.