NationStates

Galloism wrote:

Ors Might wrote:You had an agreement with the hotel, your currency in exchange for service. The hotel chose to exit that agreement after gaining information that they previously didn’t have and returned to you your currency. It sucks for you, yeah, but I don’t see how in this situation you’re entitled to stay at that hotel. They broke off the agreement you had and returned your currency to you.

It's worth noting they could be liable in some circumstances for any unreasonable expenses he incurred as a result of them breaking the contract without reasonable notice.

True. Scratch that, if they’re liable for unreasonable expense, then they should pay you your money back and then some. If they do, then fair is fair.

Ors Might wrote:

Galloism wrote:It's worth noting they could be liable in some circumstances for any unreasonable expenses he incurred as a result of them breaking the contract without reasonable notice.

True. Scratch that, if they’re liable for unreasonable expense, then they should pay you your money back and then some. If they do, then fair is fair.

Economically, this problem could solve itself, provided courts were less than gracious.

Ors Might wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Why? What if I drove or flew in a long distance? I should now have to find a new hotel after I was already expecting to stay there?

You had an agreement with the hotel, your currency in exchange for service. The hotel chose to exit that agreement after gaining information that they previously didn’t have and returned to you your currency. It sucks for you, yeah, but I don’t see how in this situation you’re entitled to stay at that hotel. They broke off the agreement you had and returned your currency to you.

And they gave me no notice at all. After I payed for gas or perhaps airfare and a taxi. A hotel is a essential service is it not so why could they turn someone whose LGBT away?

What would the pro-discrimination argument even be?
Freedom of speech?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I thought freedom of speech applies to individuals, not businesses?

Terruana wrote:What would the pro-discrimination argument even be?
Freedom of speech?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I thought freedom of speech applies to individuals, not businesses?

Freedom of association.
Freedom of contract.
It’s not a pro discrimination stance, it’s anti interference.

No one should be forced to produce a product celebrating or endorsing a particular activity they don't agree with. Church organisations can also legitimately place restrictions on the types of people they wish to employ or serve.

Denying people service in a restaurant or grocery store because they're black or are/look gay are a bit different - there's no difference in the character of the services being requested, i.e. you're not requesting a Gay Meal or Black Groceries - and it's not an explicitly religious setting.

This can reasonably be disallowed because denial of service is against the wider social interest of a harmonious society where people rub along peaceably, it increases exclusion, social differences, inhibits integration, and tolerance for such things risks rabble-rousing advocacy by bigots for a collective denial of service, an "othering" stepping stone towards Even Less Nice Things.

Terruana wrote:What would the pro-discrimination argument even be?
Freedom of speech?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I thought freedom of speech applies to individuals, not businesses?

The argument is one of freedom of association: you should be able to choose who to associate or not associate with, and providing a service is a form of association (you are associating with the person who wishes to buy your product), thus one should be able to deny services to anyone they wish.

Estanglia wrote:

Terruana wrote:What would the pro-discrimination argument even be?
Freedom of speech?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I thought freedom of speech applies to individuals, not businesses?

The argument is one of freedom of association: you should be able to choose who to associate or not associate with, and providing a service is a form of association (you are associating with the person who wishes to buy your product), thus one should be able to deny services to anyone they wish.

But again, wouldn't freedom of association apply to individuals rather than businesses? A business does not have the same rights as a person or group of people.

I'm also curious about how providing a service is the same as associating with someone - could you elaborate a bit more on this line of thought?

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

Terruana wrote:What would the pro-discrimination argument even be?
Freedom of speech?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I thought freedom of speech applies to individuals, not businesses?

Freedom of association.
Freedom of contract.
It’s not a pro discrimination stance, it’s anti interference.

Again though, wouldn't freedom of association apply to individuals rather than businesses? And how does providing a service equate to association?

I'm also not sure freedom of contract would apply - contracts are not generally free from regulation (e.g. Minimum wage, price fixing, insider trading etc). Given that this is not an absolute right, why should it overrule anti-discrimination laws?

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:You had an agreement with the hotel, your currency in exchange for service. The hotel chose to exit that agreement after gaining information that they previously didn’t have and returned to you your currency. It sucks for you, yeah, but I don’t see how in this situation you’re entitled to stay at that hotel. They broke off the agreement you had and returned your currency to you.

And they gave me no notice at all. After I payed for gas or perhaps airfare and a taxi. A hotel is a essential service is it not so why could they turn someone whose LGBT away?

For the same reason they could turn anyone else away, provided they compensate you for the lack of notice. Being LGBT doesn’t make us special, dude.

Terruana wrote:

Estanglia wrote:The argument is one of freedom of association: you should be able to choose who to associate or not associate with, and providing a service is a form of association (you are associating with the person who wishes to buy your product), thus one should be able to deny services to anyone they wish.

But again, wouldn't freedom of association apply to individuals rather than businesses? A business does not have the same rights as a person or group of people.

I'm also curious about how providing a service is the same as associating with someone - could you elaborate a bit more on this line of thought?

Businesses aren’t individuals but business owners are. And since businesses are essentially property, the business owner should have the final say on whom gets to use their property.

Making contracts and agreements fall under association. One should have the freedom to refuse to enter into an agreement, right?

Edit: As for your regulation bit, we’re arguing if the law should change. The right to choose whom you associate with is greater than the desire to buy a wedding cake.

Ors Might wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And they gave me no notice at all. After I payed for gas or perhaps airfare and a taxi. A hotel is a essential service is it not so why could they turn someone whose LGBT away?

For the same reason they could turn anyone else away, provided they compensate you for the lack of notice. Being LGBT doesn’t make us special, dude.

Terruana wrote:
But again, wouldn't freedom of association apply to individuals rather than businesses? A business does not have the same rights as a person or group of people.

I'm also curious about how providing a service is the same as associating with someone - could you elaborate a bit more on this line of thought?

Businesses aren’t individuals but business owners are. And since businesses are essentially property, the business owner should have the final say on whom gets to use their property.

Making contracts and agreements fall under association. One should have the freedom to refuse to enter into an agreement, right?

Edit: As for your regulation bit, we’re arguing if the law should change. The right to choose whom you associate with is greater than the desire to buy a wedding cake.

Never said it made anyone special. I simply expect to be treated equally when I enter a business as does everyone else

Ors Might wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And they gave me no notice at all. After I payed for gas or perhaps airfare and a taxi. A hotel is a essential service is it not so why could they turn someone whose LGBT away?

For the same reason they could turn anyone else away, provided they compensate you for the lack of notice. Being LGBT doesn’t make us special, dude.

Terruana wrote:
But again, wouldn't freedom of association apply to individuals rather than businesses? A business does not have the same rights as a person or group of people.

I'm also curious about how providing a service is the same as associating with someone - could you elaborate a bit more on this line of thought?

Businesses aren’t individuals but business owners are. And since businesses are essentially property, the business owner should have the final say on whom gets to use their property.

Making contracts and agreements fall under association. One should have the freedom to refuse to enter into an agreement, right?

Edit: As for your regulation bit, we’re arguing if the law should change. The right to choose whom you associate with is greater than the desire to buy a wedding cake.

Equating a business with personal property seems like a huge oversimplification to me. How would that work with shareholders, and employee rights, and general market regulations (e.g. Food safety standards)?

I definitely agree that a person shouldn't be forced into a contract that they don't agree with though. I'm just not sure that things like retail and hospitality should fall under the same definition of a contract. But as I said, I'm hardly an expert.

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:For the same reason they could turn anyone else away, provided they compensate you for the lack of notice. Being LGBT doesn’t make us special, dude.


Businesses aren’t individuals but business owners are. And since businesses are essentially property, the business owner should have the final say on whom gets to use their property.

Making contracts and agreements fall under association. One should have the freedom to refuse to enter into an agreement, right?

Edit: As for your regulation bit, we’re arguing if the law should change. The right to choose whom you associate with is greater than the desire to buy a wedding cake.

Never said it made anyone special. I simply expect to be treated equally when I enter a business as does everyone else

And you think that everyone that isn’t LGBT can demand that hotels never cancel their agreements? Buddy, I don’t know how to tell you this but that happens to everybody.

Terruana wrote:

Ors Might wrote:For the same reason they could turn anyone else away, provided they compensate you for the lack of notice. Being LGBT doesn’t make us special, dude.


Businesses aren’t individuals but business owners are. And since businesses are essentially property, the business owner should have the final say on whom gets to use their property.

Making contracts and agreements fall under association. One should have the freedom to refuse to enter into an agreement, right?

Edit: As for your regulation bit, we’re arguing if the law should change. The right to choose whom you associate with is greater than the desire to buy a wedding cake.

Equating a business with personal property seems like a huge oversimplification to me. How would that work with shareholders, and employee rights, and general market regulations (e.g. Food safety standards)?

I definitely agree that a person shouldn't be forced into a contract that they don't agree with though. I'm just not sure that things like retail and hospitality should fall under the same definition of a contract. But as I said, I'm hardly an expert.

It’s not a cut and dry sort of deal, that’s fair. It’s something we have to hammer out into something that works. But, for the most part, those that run a business should have the final day on whom they hire and do business to. There are exceptions to this, namely the refusal to provide service posing a serious threat to one’s life. So things like hospitals and grocery stores. Again, this isn’t a perfect solution but it is an attempt to balance the rights of freedom of association and that of life.

Ors Might wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Never said it made anyone special. I simply expect to be treated equally when I enter a business as does everyone else

And you think that everyone that isn’t LGBT can demand that hotels never cancel their agreements? Buddy, I don’t know how to tell you this but that happens to everybody.

Terruana wrote:
Equating a business with personal property seems like a huge oversimplification to me. How would that work with shareholders, and employee rights, and general market regulations (e.g. Food safety standards)?

I definitely agree that a person shouldn't be forced into a contract that they don't agree with though. I'm just not sure that things like retail and hospitality should fall under the same definition of a contract. But as I said, I'm hardly an expert.

It’s not a cut and dry sort of deal, that’s fair. It’s something we have to hammer out into something that works. But, for the most part, those that run a business should have the final day on whom they hire and do business to. There are exceptions to this, namely the refusal to provide service posing a serious threat to one’s life. So things like hospitals and grocery stores. Again, this isn’t a perfect solution but it is an attempt to balance the rights of freedom of association and that of life.

I didn’t say that. What I said was canceling your reservation without notice should not be as a result of ones race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

So if a business wants only white people and writes in their job posting only Caucasians need apply that would be ok to you?

I will never understand this obsession some people have with being able to treat others as subhuman for arbitrary reasons.

Vassenor wrote:I will never understand this obsession some people have with being able to treat others as subhuman for arbitrary reasons.

A supposed right to freedom of association and that it’s a businesses right to choose who they serve

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:And you think that everyone that isn’t LGBT can demand that hotels never cancel their agreements? Buddy, I don’t know how to tell you this but that happens to everybody.


It’s not a cut and dry sort of deal, that’s fair. It’s something we have to hammer out into something that works. But, for the most part, those that run a business should have the final day on whom they hire and do business to. There are exceptions to this, namely the refusal to provide service posing a serious threat to one’s life. So things like hospitals and grocery stores. Again, this isn’t a perfect solution but it is an attempt to balance the rights of freedom of association and that of life.

I didn’t say that. What I said was canceling your reservation without notice should not be as a result of ones race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

So if a business wants only white people and writes in their job posting only Caucasians need apply that would be ok to you?

If they do cancel because of that reason, what right do you have to demand that they let you stay there regardless? We’ve already established that you aren’t inherently entitled to a room there.

I’d probably end up boycotting them but if that’s what they want to do, then that’s what they want to do.

Vassenor wrote:I will never understand this obsession some people have with being able to treat others as subhuman for arbitrary reasons.

I imagine it would be difficult for you to understand that some people care about individual liberty.

What is lost to people who are no longer allowed to discriminate in business? What do they lose when they are no longer allowed to deny customers based off their sexuality or the colour of someone’s skin?

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:What is lost to people who are no longer allowed to discriminate in business? What do they lose when they are no longer allowed to deny customers based off their sexuality or the colour of someone’s skin?

Control over their property. What’s lost to people who have to drive a few extra miles for a wedding cake?

Ors Might wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:What is lost to people who are no longer allowed to discriminate in business? What do they lose when they are no longer allowed to deny customers based off their sexuality or the colour of someone’s skin?

Control over their property. What’s lost to people who have to drive a few extra miles for a wedding cake?

Yeah, but what is lost with that control? Some freedoms can be abridged to serve society, that’s what we do with all freedoms. In this case, the freedom gives no clear gain. If we start defending freedoms just because they are freedoms, and lose sight of the underlying reasons those freedoms exist, then we end up making weird decisions.

With driving a few extra miles, one loses the right to be an equal member of society. Which freedom should be greater?

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Control over their property. What’s lost to people who have to drive a few extra miles for a wedding cake?

Yeah, but what is lost with that control? Some freedoms can be abridged to serve society, that’s what we do with all freedoms. In this case, the freedom gives no clear gain. If we start defending freedoms just because they are freedoms, and lose sight of the underlying reasons those freedoms exist, then we end up making weird decisions.

With driving a few extra miles, one loses the right to be an equal member of society. Which freedom should be greater?

I reject the notion that some people not wanting to make you a cake is an egregious denial of your rights. But let’s say that there does exist some bizarre right to be served. Which is greater, that right or the right to freedom of association?

The right to freedom of association by a long shot.

Ors Might wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Yeah, but what is lost with that control? Some freedoms can be abridged to serve society, that’s what we do with all freedoms. In this case, the freedom gives no clear gain. If we start defending freedoms just because they are freedoms, and lose sight of the underlying reasons those freedoms exist, then we end up making weird decisions.

With driving a few extra miles, one loses the right to be an equal member of society. Which freedom should be greater?

I reject the notion that some people not wanting to make you a cake is an egregious denial of your rights. But let’s say that there does exist some bizarre right to be served. Which is greater, that right or the right to freedom of association?

The right to freedom of association by a long shot.

The freedom of association means you can associate with anyone you want. It is not a right of non-association.

There is no right to be served. There is, however, a right of non-discrimination.

But we are getting off topic. I asked how anyone is hurt by not being allowed to discriminate, besides losing the right itself. If you lose the freedom of association, you can no longer express yourself freely as a person. If you lose the right of expression, you can be punished for thinking a certain way. But if you limit the right to discriminate, what horrific fate will befall humanity?

This does not mean that someoe can’t deny customers. Just not because of their intrinsic properties.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Ors Might wrote:I reject the notion that some people not wanting to make you a cake is an egregious denial of your rights. But let’s say that there does exist some bizarre right to be served. Which is greater, that right or the right to freedom of association?

The right to freedom of association by a long shot.

The freedom of association means you can associate with anyone you want. It is not a right of non-association.

There is no right to be served. There is, however, a right of non-discrimination.

But we are getting off topic. I asked how anyone is hurt by not being allowed to discriminate, besides losing the right itself. If you lose the freedom of association, you can no longer express yourself freely as a person. If you lose the right of expression, you can be punished for thinking a certain way. But if you limit the right to discriminate, what horrific fate will befall humanity?

This does not mean that someoe can’t deny customers. Just not because of their intrinsic properties.

And the freedom of speech means you can’t choose to not speak while the 2A means you have to own a firearm.

No, no this is perfectly on topic. Are you suggesting that a right to not be discriminated against exists? That’s absurd. One wouldn’t hire a blind man as a surgeon or as a school bus driver.

You lose the right to choose with whom you associate with. In other words, you can be compelled to enter into agreements and contracts with those you’d rather not, backed with the threat of losing your livelihood. That’s not a good foundation for anything to be built on.

Ors Might wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:The freedom of association means you can associate with anyone you want. It is not a right of non-association.

There is no right to be served. There is, however, a right of non-discrimination.

But we are getting off topic. I asked how anyone is hurt by not being allowed to discriminate, besides losing the right itself. If you lose the freedom of association, you can no longer express yourself freely as a person. If you lose the right of expression, you can be punished for thinking a certain way. But if you limit the right to discriminate, what horrific fate will befall humanity?

This does not mean that someoe can’t deny customers. Just not because of their intrinsic properties.

And the freedom of speech means you can’t choose to not speak while the 2A means you have to own a firearm.

No, no this is perfectly on topic. Are you suggesting that a right to not be discriminated against exists? That’s absurd. One wouldn’t hire a blind man as a surgeon or as a school bus driver.

You lose the right to choose with whom you associate with. In other words, you can be compelled to enter into agreements and contracts with those you’d rather not, backed with the threat of losing your livelihood. That’s not a good foundation for anything to be built on.

And why should that be a right? If a business has that right why not allow a racist or homophobic doctor or EMT to refuse to treat someone non white?

If you don't want to serve all you shouldnt be open to the public. Open a private members only club and you can discriminate to your heart's content. Though im not sure if even Costco could get away with saying only white people can shop here for example.

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:And the freedom of speech means you can’t choose to not speak while the 2A means you have to own a firearm.

No, no this is perfectly on topic. Are you suggesting that a right to not be discriminated against exists? That’s absurd. One wouldn’t hire a blind man as a surgeon or as a school bus driver.

You lose the right to choose with whom you associate with. In other words, you can be compelled to enter into agreements and contracts with those you’d rather not, backed with the threat of losing your livelihood. That’s not a good foundation for anything to be built on.

And why should that be a right? If a business has that right why not allow a racist or homophobic doctor or EMT to refuse to treat someone non white?

If you don't want to serve all you shouldnt be open to the public. Open a private members only club and you can discriminate to your heart's content. Though im not sure if even Costco could get away with saying only white people can shop here for example.

Because I don’t think hospitals should be privately owned, instead ran by the government. Besides, I’ve already told you that there’s a right to life that needs to be balanced with the right to freedom of association.

That “all” comes with a ton of astericks. Nobody expects any business to serve literally all comers.