In an economic system based upon free enterprise, it is assumed that a business owner should have the right to serve or not serve customers as he or she sees fit. After all, if they were to refuse to serve a certain segment of the population, and the rest of the population found that offensive, then they would not patronize the establishment. If the rest of the population was not offended, they would continue to go to the business; this is the free enterprise system at work.
Unless, of course, one is of the liberal, progressive mindset. A Knoxville, Tennessee, restaurant refused to serve a sitting State Senator, Stacey Campfield, because of his positions about gays. Martha Boggs, the owner of the restaurant, said she asked Campfield to leave, calling him "stupid and dangerous." She then posted a sign in the front of her business that said she wouldn't be serving Campfield. This action is certainly within her rights as a business owner.
But then if one lives in New Hampshire, the state legislature has proposed a bill allowing certain businesses to refuse serving certain groups of customers. The bill would allow florists, caterers, and other wedding-related businesses from serving gay couples if their religious beliefs are against same-sex marriages. This has created an outcry from the left, claiming this would lead to discrimination.
Isn't this a case of double standards by the left? In the first case, it is okay to keep people out of your business; in the second, it's not. Evidently as long as the business owner agrees with whatever the left's position is, they can do what they please, but as soon as they disagree, they are ostracized.
Business owners have the right to serve only those they wish to serve in their businesses; this doesn't necessarily make it right, but they do have that right, just as customers have the right to not shop at a business which they feel is being discriminatory. When enough people, offended by such discriminatory policies, stop patronizing the business, the business will either have to end the policy or close the doors
The scary part of this whole thing is that the New Hampshire state legislature would even have to consider such a bill in the first place.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 42
The reason business owners should not have the "right" to discriminate is that they depend on public services, and they are licensed in communities and states. There should be no exceptions to this - and I hope Stacey Campfield sues Martha Boggs.
No, NH isn't leftist, what I was referring to is the criticism by the left, where it is okay in TN to keep someone who doesn't agree with them from their business, and they are applauded, where in NH they are villified.
Actually, no more than umpires or the baseball commission runs the teams. No, they set and enforce the rules. The issue is fairness - not whether authority should exist.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If it is protected in that state by law, then he has grounds to sue.
No need to get silly. There is a federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There is no federal law re: "wealth" discrimination.
"Where does that slope end?"
There is no "slope". Just your ideological rhetoric.
"...way too much government control on what you can and cannot do."
See what I mean? Just your ideological rhetoric.
"Could I use the government to compel you do something that you thought was wrong? Think about it."
Strawman - there's no law requiring me to take a job, or keep a job, in which I am compelled to violate my ethics. And, btw, I left a job once, in which I was presented with that very dilemma.
Hypothetical, unless you're really a taxi driver. You don't know what you're going to do, until you're actually confronted with such a situation. I worked in mental health for 30 years as a therapist. I was confronted with that situation, and although one of my professional organizations told me I had to make referrals to abortion clinics, when patients brought up the issue of abortion, I never did. But I did support the decisions of two women to have abortions - given their specific situations. You do not always know how you are going to be confronted with conflicting principles. So be careful with those hypotheticals.
Once you start controlling who can sell what to whom that is socialism.
Using your statement, then, as "the alpha and omega" of reality, there is no valid argument against abortion. It's free enterprise.
As long as you agree with them everything is fine, when you don't it is not.
The group who preaches tolerance are the most intolerant.
It sounds like paranoia. All liberals are demons. You know, there is no monolithic organization called "liberals" to which all progressive people belong. Just as conservatives come in all varieties of wingnuts, liberals include people of multiple backgrounds and a wide variety of opinions. You can't use lazy, intellectual short hand to attack such separate enclaves of them.
Campfield has made various statements regarding same sex marriage and how AIDS started which rightly offended gays. I am assuming Boggs is gay but i don't know that, but since she was offended, she threw Campfield out of her restaurant.
Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to cause harm to another. And, in American history, the decision to deny service to people based upon race, creed, color, etc etc has usually been used to set up violence. Once a people are marginalized, then why would the police help them?
That is how you fight discrimination by businesses, vote with your wallet.
American businesses should have the right to accept or deny business at their choosing, and at their own detriment or success.
In the NH example, if florist A chooses to not serve gays, my guess is florist B, who is a keen capitalist, will serve gays and his business will flourish while the other doesn't. No need to move towns.
That might be a solution, if I could also choose to not have my tax dollars dedicated to police and fire protection of that business. No - Chad is not right. Depending on the locale, I may also have to pay taxes for his garbage pick-up. And those are not the only services that are paid for by tax dollars, which benefit this business owner. All of us pay those taxes, and as long as the business owner uses those services, his business is not going to be able to discriminate.
Capitalism does not exist in isolation, and it is not the only value to consider. It exists among other values, and these values have to be held in balance. Otherwise, capitalism begins to erode itself. It's like the only college on a university campus isn't the college of business. There are others - law, liberal arts, science, engineering, arts, etc.
And, no. Ultimately, it's not up to the business to deny service to someone based upon some pre-existing condition that plays no part in the business transaction. How many florists are there likely to be in a small NH town? Three? Four? And how many of them know each other? And how many of them are likely to see a significant enough business increase by offering service to gays? And how likely are they to get backlash from suppliers or other customers for having to openly identify themselves as offering service to gays when the other store(s) in town won't? Who then, is the odd man out? As soon as stores start making those delineations, they draw unnecessary lines in the sand. Those lines will then cause division. Those divisions create distrust. Distrust results in further discrimination. That further discrimination to violence. It has happened in communities across the US before. Why would you now refuse to see it?
Part of our mandate to our nation's state is to enforce our freedoms upon our fellow citizens (to make sure our freedoms are not infringed upon by our neighbors). This is a part of that enforcement. It is not free to have our fellow citizens discriminate sufficiently to run folks out of towns, or close up shops from access to minorities (regardless of the minority from which they stem). Freedoms are not just what you can do for yourself, they are also what others have for themselves from you (or anyone else).
I have been making that argument for a long time. I would have a different solution to that, but you'd say that is an infringement on "free enterprise".
"...so let's say we come up with some way for a person to designate that their tax dollars aren't used for the protection of that business. Fair enough."
Yeah, well, good luck with that. I think that the main difference here is how we view society. You think that anything having to do with society is socialism. I think that without a strong society, the country declines. I am not such a fan of the military, except in this respect. Every member of the military understands what it is to have each other's back - and no one gets left behind. The bar and grill owner, who wants to allow preference to carcinogenic producing patrons over healthy patrons (and his defenders) don't understand that "I've got your back" military principle. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and until "free marketeers" understand that, they really don't even have a free market.
Maybe like a survey form. "Which of the following do you want your tax monies applied to?"
That could get nightmarishly complicated if we let it. But I think it would be an outstanding way to get the military funded. Nobody will deny the military funding when it's their money on the line.