The Right To Serve

[mark46]

In the US, there has often been a debate on who must be served by those who are licensed by the state to provide services. I am including pharmacists, florists, motel owners, bakers, all manner of retail stores and professionals.

On what basis should we have the right to refuse service? In some states, the answer is quite clear. In others, not so much.

 

[Genersis]

Well, I know some people will say the right to refuse service should be without limit.

Which I guess makes sense if you're okay with unpopular minorities unable to get specific services at all in some areas.

I'm not okay with such, I guess that comes from my socialistic side.

Personally, I think immutable characteristics should at least be exempt from discrimination, but then I guess that wouldn't cover religion, so maybe even a little further than that; it seems pretty hard to define what protected characteristics should be.

 

[catholicbybirth]

Well, I know some people will say the right to refuse service should be without limit.

Which I guess makes sense if you're okay with unpopular minorities unable to get specific services at all in some areas.

I'm not okay with such, I guess that comes from my socialistic side.

Personally, I think immutable characteristics should at least be exempt from discrimination, but then I guess that wouldn't cover religion, so maybe even a little further than that; it seems pretty hard to define what protected characteristics should be.

But when I see a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse to serve" that seems not aimed at "unpopular minorities" but people who are offensive.

Janice

 

[mark46]

This phrase has been used for generations as a way to discriminate against minorities.

The question is who the retailer should be free to exclude. The retailer might find lots of people offensive.

=====================================
A Sikh coming in to buy fabric to make turbans for her husband might be found by many to be offensive. We all remember the killings at a Sikh temple last year.

How about a Muslim who comes to a rug store wanting to buy a rug for prayer?

We have many examples of homosexuals being refused cakes, flowers and a hotel room.

How about refusing services to young black men in hoodies?
===================

For generations, Catholics, Jews and blacks were discriminated against in the South (and less openly in the North). Now, there is less of this is the South. Posters point out that the South has changed, and it has. BUT, much of the South now discriminates against Muslims and those of Spanish descent.

In Boston, retailers and employers used to discriminate against Catholics.
==================

In the end, the law in many states limit the so-called right of a retailer to refuse service.

The open question is who should be protected. In the US, laws have been past based on past discrimination. In many states, we cannot discriminate because of race, sex, national origin, religion, disability or sexual orientation. All but the last are part of national laws with regard to employment and other matters.

But when I see a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse to serve" that seems not aimed at "unpopular minorities" but people who are offensive. Of course, for many, the Civil War is still being fought.
Janice

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If you have to cooperate with an intrinsic moral evil, as defined by the Church, you should have the right to refuse. Abortion would be an example.

Gay marriage, unless you're directly involved, I think this is a gray area which providing a service such as a cake or flowers, would not make you culpable.



Jim

 

[Tallguy88]

If you have to cooperate with an intrinsic moral evil, as defined by the Church, you should have the right to refuse. Abortion would be an example.

Gay marriage, unless you're directly involved, I think this is a gray area which providing a service such as a cake or flowers, would not make you culpable.

Jim

On the other hand, if the law forces you to comply, then you are not morally culpable for doing so. Example: if your tax money funded abortions, you could not refuse to pay taxes on moral grounds, nor would you be guilty of aiding an abortion for paying taxes.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

On the other hand, if the law forces you to comply, then you are not morally culpable for doing so. Example: if your tax money funded abortions, you could not refuse to pay taxes on moral grounds, nor would you be guilty of aiding an abortion for paying taxes.

That would be indirect involvement.

But direct involvement, i.e. you're forced to service an abortion clinic directly, could be different.

Jim

 

[Tallguy88]

That would be indirect involvement.

But direct involvement, i.e. you're forced to service an abortion clinic directly, could be different.

Jim

So, do you think an electrician has the right to refuse to fix an abortion clinics electrical problems? Or a plumber fix their toilet?

 

[Erose]

On the other hand, if the law forces you to comply, then you are not morally culpable for doing so. Example: if your tax money funded abortions, you could not refuse to pay taxes on moral grounds, nor would you be guilty of aiding an abortion for paying taxes.

There is a difference between the government taking your taxes and using them inappropriately than you as a pharmacist being forced to provide abortifacients, or a caterers being force to cater a gay wedding, via law.

 

[Erose]

So, do you think an electrician has the right to refuse to fix an abortion clinics electrical problems? Or a plumber fix their toilet?

I don't see what the problem is. Electricians and plumbers already have the ability to refuse service if they so wish.

 

[mark46]

A retailer should not be forced to sell any product, not flowers, cakes or pork.

Religion has little to do with it. This should include contraceptives. The problem is that we posit a religious right of the seller. I don't think that to be necessary. I just don't think that a pharmacist should be forced to sell any particular product. He should be able to refuse to sell aspirin if he chooses.

A service provider should not be forced to provide any particular service. No hospital should be forced to provide abortions.

If you have to cooperate with an intrinsic moral evil, as defined by the Church, you should have the right to refuse. Abortion would be an example.

Gay marriage, unless you're directly involved, I think this is a gray area which providing a service such as a cake or flowers, would not make you culpable.



Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So, do you think an electrician has the right to refuse to fix an abortion clinics electrical problems? Or a plumber fix their toilet?

I think they should have the right to refuse, but then, I'm not a law maker.

It's why the pro-choice ideology is so flawed.

We all are forced to support abortion at some level. No woman makes the choice without implicating society.

Jim

 

[mark46]

This is a slippery slope. Should I have the right no to serve pharmacies that sell contraceptives? Should I have the right no to serve divorce attorneys? Should I have the right to refuse service to certain groups?

No, this is a slippery slope.

Offering services to the public means providing that services to anyone who can pay for it.

One might be able to avoid going to the abortion clinic if it violated our religion to walk into such a place. But it would be a stretch. For example, it might be against some religion to step into a Catholic Church, so they might use this reason for refusal of service.

But, as I said above, from a legal perspective, this is a slippery slope. We should have laws requiring service to all.

So, do you think an electrician has the right to refuse to fix an abortion clinics electrical problems? Or a plumber fix their toilet?

 

[Erose]

This is a slippery slope. Should I have the right no to serve pharmacies that sell contraceptives? Should I have the right no to serve divorce attorneys? Should I have the right to refuse service to certain groups?

No, this is a slippery slope.

Offering services to the public means providing that services to anyone who can pay for it.

One might be able to avoid going to the abortion clinic if it violated our religion to walk into such a place. But it would be a stretch. For example, it might be against some religion to step into a Catholic Church, so they might use this reason for refusal of service.

But, as I said above, from a legal perspective, this is a slippery slope. We should have laws requiring service to all.

The slippery slope is the loss of freedom in this country to do what one pleases with their company. I as a small business owner am not forced by the government to provide my services to whoever demands it. I have the right to choose which jobs I want to do. The consequences for me is that I don't make the potential profit from doing that job. It is as simple as that.

Take the bakery for example. The baker refused to service the gay wedding. He or she should have the right to do so. If the baker doesn't want to provide a service and make money in doing so that is their prerogative. IMO.

When you start forcing private citizens to do things that violate their reasonable religious beliefs then you have proclaimed that the private workforce are not free people, but bondmen and women to the government.

 

[mark46]

I understand your position.

However, I assure you that we will not go back to the days when retailers could choose not to serve. We have seen quite enough of discriminating against those of other faiths, colors and nationalities.

We do have a concept of private clubs for those who do not want to offer goods and service to the public at large.

The slippery slope is the loss of freedom in this country to do what one pleases with their company. I as a small business owner am not forced by the government to provide my services to whoever demands it. I have the right to choose which jobs I want to do. The consequences for me is that I don't make the potential profit from doing that job. It is as simple as that.

Take the bakery for example. The baker refused to service the gay wedding. He or she should have the right to do so. If the baker doesn't want to provide a service and make money in doing so that is their prerogative. IMO.

When you start forcing private citizens to do things that violate their reasonable religious beliefs then you have proclaimed that the private workforce are not free people, but bondmen and women to the government.

 

[Fantine]

I think the problem lies more with our litigious society.

In the case of the baker and the gay couple, "damages" should be restricted to the actual cost incurred by the gay couple.

If there were another baker 3 miles away, and they had to drive six miles round trip to get another cake, then their "damages" are $3--at $.50 a mile.

And, except in extreme situations (a doctor refuses to treat a critically ill patient because he is a member of a racial, ethnic or gender minority, for example) it should never be a criminal offense.

 

[Erose]

I understand your position.

However, I assure you that we will not go back to the days when retailers could choose not to serve. We have seen quite enough of discriminating against those of other faiths, colors and nationalities.

How can you assure anything? Are you the President of the United States or something? If not you have no ability to assure anything.

We do have a concept of private clubs for those who do not want to offer goods and service to the public at large.

We also have the concept of individual liberty as well, which for some reason is an anathema to many.

 

[mark46]

So, it would be fine to have a sign "Whites only"? C'mon!

The question is which groups should be protected.

I agree that the CIVIL damages should be small. However, this kind of discrimination should be against the law. Would it really be OK for the cake maker to refuse to sell Catholics a wedding cake because they believed that the Catholic Church was the anti-Christ? Of course not!

I think the problem lies more with our litigious society.

In the case of the baker and the gay couple, "damages" should be restricted to the actual cost incurred by the gay couple.

If there were another baker 3 miles away, and they had to drive six miles round trip to get another cake, then their "damages" are $3--at $.50 a mile.

And, except in extreme situations (a doctor refuses to treat a critically ill patient because he is a member of a racial, ethnic or gender minority, for example) it should never be a criminal offense.

 

[Tallguy88]

How can you assure anything? Are you the President of the United States or something? If not you have no ability to assure anything.

We also have the concept of individual liberty as well, which for some reason is an anathema to many.

What about the right to equal treatment?

 

[Root of Jesse]

This phrase has been used for generations as a way to discriminate against minorities.

The question is who the retailer should be free to exclude. The retailer might find lots of people offensive.

=====================================
A Sikh coming in to buy fabric to make turbans for her husband might be found by many to be offensive. We all remember the killings at a Sikh temple last year.

How about a Muslim who comes to a rug store wanting to buy a rug for prayer?

We have many examples of homosexuals being refused cakes, flowers and a hotel room.

How about refusing services to young black men in hoodies?
===================

For generations, Catholics, Jews and blacks were discriminated against in the South (and less openly in the North). Now, there is less of this is the South. Posters point out that the South has changed, and it has. BUT, much of the South now discriminates against Muslims and those of Spanish descent.

In Boston, retailers and employers used to discriminate against Catholics.
==================

In the end, the law in many states limit the so-called right of a retailer to refuse service.

The open question is who should be protected. In the US, laws have been past based on past discrimination. In many states, we cannot discriminate because of race, sex, national origin, religion, disability or sexual orientation. All but the last are part of national laws with regard to employment and other matters.

To me, this brings up the question of why the government has the responsibility to protect against someone's perceived internal feelings.

I'm a white male, and I've been discriminated against by white males. Do I qualify?

This question of service also goes to hiring practices...Why should a health club be required to not consider someone's health when it comes to hiring?
It also goes to the Catholic priesthood.

Regarding specific businesses, such as pharmacies, you can discriminate by not providing a product, can't you? If you're a good Catholic, and you don't want to fill birth control pill prescription and you don't want to sell condoms, can you do that?

Personally, I believe every one of us discriminates in some way every day. Discrimination is placing a label on someone based on their outward appearance.

I remember this commercial on TV, these kids were in a room, and a man was serving ice cream, and one kid said he wanted some ice cream, the man said "Sorry, new customers only!". The other kid said he'd like some ice cream, and the guy said "Sure!" And the first kid said "But I'm a new customer." And the guy said, "Well, he's new.....er."

There's also 'good' discrimination. If you do something for someone, for example, giving a blind person the right of way, or help an aged woman across the street.

I try very hard not to base my views on someone's appearance. It's hard, though...like the kid with the back of his jeans closer to his knees than his butt...