Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding

[Enoch the Red]

Our next generations of white men might be a minority. Maybe then it will matter, but only after they've been denied housing, healthcare, education, jobs.

You know, I'm not too worried about it. And not because I don't think it won't affect me, but because I hope socially that issues of race and inequality will continue to be addressed, (not by governments, but by human beings in general) and eventually fade into the annals of history.

[Khendraja'aro]

You know, I'm not too worried about it. And not because I don't think it won't affect me, but because I hope socially that issues of race and inequality will continue to be addressed, (not by governments, but by human beings in general) and eventually fade into the annals of history.

Right, so the magical Fairies of Social Issues will deal with that stuff. Yes, sir, you sure are grounded in reality. Your hope and faith will surely battle racism because you have a pretty picture of how humans behave.

Real life evidence to the contrary, of course. I mean, we've had several governments break down over the last decades, obviously rationality and order were the direct results of those breakdowns and we don't work to create working governments in those countries, because, hell, governments don't actually create anything!

[Enoch the Red]

Right, so the magical Fairies of Social Issues will deal with that stuff. Yes, sir, you sure are grounded in reality. Your hope and faith will surely battle racism because you have a pretty picture of how humans behave.

I certainly think that societies have trended favorably towards more openness and tolerance when it comes to racial issues.

And I don't believe it was because legislation was passed.

Real life evidence to the contrary, of course. I mean, we've had several governments break down over the last decades, obviously rationality and order were the direct results of those breakdowns and we don't work to create working governments in those countries, because, hell, governments don't actually create anything!

Was there a point in there, somewhere?

[GGT]

You know, I'm not too worried about it. And not because I don't think it won't affect me, but because I hope socially that issues of race and inequality will continue to be addressed, (not by governments, but by human beings in general) and eventually fade into the annals of history.

I certainly think that societies have trended favorably towards more openness and tolerance when it comes to racial issues.

And I don't believe it was because legislation was passed.

That's the world as you imagine it will be one day, not as it is now. It takes generations for social attitudes to evolve. Until then, minority groups who face entrenched bigotry, racism, or exploitation do need some legal protections.

<There's supposed to be a CNN special on Sunday about assimilation of Muslims into American culture, and the intolerance they face.>

[Khendraja'aro]

I certainly think that societies have trended favorably towards more openness and tolerance when it comes to racial issues.

And I don't believe it was because legislation was passed.

Ah, the hallmark of a real wise man. You believe. That's right. No facts, no real word stuff, it's your belief and thus no need for it to be grounded in reality.

Was there a point in there, somewhere?

Well. Maybe you could take a look at the former Yugoslavia to revise your belief on how humans overcome racism and stuff on their own. Government is gone - whoops, they're at their throats. Iraq? Why, yes, the government is weak, so stuff is really peaceful down there. Afghanistan? An absolute model picture of peace.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where a weak or non-existant government is not exactly conductive towards peace, love and understanding...

[Enoch the Red]

That's the world as you imagine it will be one day, not as it is now. It takes generations for social attitudes to evolve. Until then, minority groups who face entrenched bigotry, racism, or exploitation do need some legal protections.

<There's supposed to be a CNN special on Sunday about assimilation of Muslims into American culture, and the intolerance they face.>

I agree with the need for legal protections, (that is to say, equality under the law, the same any other citizen would have) I don't agree about the extent of the legal protections.

Enoch, I disagree. You said believe. That's right. No facts, no real word stuff, it's your belief and thus no need for it to be grounded in reality. I hope you could provide examples of what your belief is founded on, for ungrounded belief isn't a strong foundation for an argument

I agree that belief alone isn't a foundation for an argument. Looking at how far racial relations have come in the West, I think it's safe to say they are trending for the better, not the worse. Compare the life of minorities to those in the 17th century. Compare their life then to those of their peers in the mid 20th century. Compare the life of those in the mid 20th century to minorities today.

Well. Maybe you could take a look at the former Yugoslavia to revise your belief on how humans overcome racism and stuff on their own. There are instances where without a strong government, people can revert to barbarism. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan. Hardly absolute models of peace.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where a weak or non-existant government is not exactly conductive towards peace, love and understanding...

Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan are hardly model representatives of freedom, democracy, and western values. Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison Khen.

[Khendraja'aro]

I agree that belief alone isn't a foundation for an argument. Looking at how far racial relations have come in the West, I think it's safe to say they are trending for the better, not the worse. Compare the life of minorities to those in the 17th century. Compare their life then to those of their peers in the mid 20th century. Compare the life of those in the mid 20th century to minorities today.

Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan are hardly model representatives of freedom, democracy, and western values. Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison Khen.

It isn't? You yourself didn't exactly limit your prophecies to western countries. And your history flashback might also profit from an analysis into what the governments looked like at that time...

... oh, and why did you mention the word "democracy"? Isn't that, like, a form of government? I thought those were unnecessary for love, peace and understanding to come about? I realize that Wikipedia isn't the end-it-all - but, well, just take a look at the very first sentence of the article defining said term.

[Enoch the Red]

It isn't? You yourself didn't exactly limit your prophecies to western countries. And your history flashback might also profit from an analysis into what the governments looked like at that time...

... oh, and why did you mention the word "democracy"? Isn't that, like, a form of government? I thought those were unnecessary for love, peace and understanding to come about? I realize that Wikipedia isn't the end-it-all - but, well, just take a look at the very first sentence of the article defining said term.

I thought I was clear, but perhaps I could be more clear. More free societies, (societies which value freedom) are, I posit, more likely to have progressive social relations than oppressed and autocratic regimes.

Governments certainly aren't necessary for love, peace, and understanding, but societies that produce democratic governments nearly universally have some appreciation of freedom. Given a benevolent dictator, I think you could see similar results. Again, I'm not exactly certain at what you're driving at, and what democracies being a form of government has to do with my argument.

[Khendraja'aro]

I thought I was clear, but perhaps I could be more clear. More free societies, (societies which value freedom) are, I posit, more likely to have progressive social relations than oppressed and autocratic regimes.

Governments certainly aren't necessary for love, peace, and understanding, but societies that produce democratic governments nearly universally have some appreciation of freedom. Given a benevolent dictator, I think you could see similar results. Again, I'm not exactly certain at what you're driving at, and what democracies being a form of government has to do with my argument.

"Democracy is a legislative system in which all citizens exercise direct and equal participation in the development, proposal and passage of legislation into law."

So much for: "Not because of legislation".

[GGT]

The US is a constitutional republic. More Wiki:

John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[2] Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[3] The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify.

Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[6]

[Enoch the Red]

But Enoch, Wikipedia says that, "Democracy is a legislative system in which all citizens exercise direct and equal participation in the development, proposal and passage of legislation into law."

So how do reconcile that with your argument?

I'll try again. A democracy is a legislative system, true but that's not really germane to the discussion at hand. People comprise a Democracy. As I said, people within democracies generally are more free than those who aren't. My argument, again, is that people within free societies are, or perhaps become more predisposed to social equality. If you had a libertarian society with a benevolent dictator who encouraged freedom, I believe it would still be fairly socially equitable. The form of government isn't as important as the importance the society places on freedom.

[GGT]

I agree with the need for legal protections, (that is to say, equality under the law, the same any other citizen would have) I don't agree about the extent of the legal protections.

Where would you change that "extent of legal protection", yet still protect minority individuals from tyranny of the majority?

[Khendraja'aro]

I'll try again. A democracy is a legislative system, true but that's not really germane to the discussion at hand. People comprise a Democracy. As I said, people within democracies generally are more free than those who aren't. My argument, again, is that people within free societies are, or perhaps become more predisposed to social equality. If you had a libertarian society with a benevolent dictator who encouraged freedom, I believe it would still be fairly socially equitable. The form of government isn't as important as the importance the society places on freedom.

And that importance is found in the morals of the society which then is expressed by laws.

Protip for you: First rule of holes - stop digging.

Now, if you believe that humans will evolve beyond their monkey-based behavioural schematics, then that is fine. But don't expect me to believe that this will happen within the next ten millenia or so. I mean, on the old boards we also had a trans-humanist who probably still believes that the singularity is right around the corner.
I think I'll rather focus on present-day problems and present-day behaviour rather than pie-in-the-sky beliefs and invisible pink unicorns.

Humans need rules. They need laws. They need boundaries. When trying to raise a child, you won't get very far without some very firm rules. And if you believe that, just because you're an adult, you can now forgo rules and laws, you're very much mistaken. Because, first of all, in an absence of rules, new rules will be created. And secondly, those new rules might not be very nice. We're still very much tribal creatures. And, yes, I used the word "creatures" consciously.

[Enoch the Red]

Enoch, wouldn't that dovetail with my argument that laws can be found in the morals of the society?

Sure, if we want to rehash that discussion, which started and ended with nebulous, undefined terms. If you want to define it that way, then I agree. Morals, as you are defining them, are important for the fabric of the legal system.

That was never the argument though, and I'm not sure why you keep returning to it.

Humans need rules. They need laws. They need boundaries. When trying to raise a child, you won't get very far without some very firm rules. And if you believe that, just because you're an adult, you can now forgo rules and laws, you're very much mistaken. Because, first of all, in an absence of rules, new rules will be created. And secondly, those new rules might not be very nice. We're still very much tribal creatures. And, yes, I used the word "creatures" consciously.

I'm not sure who or what you're arguing against here. Libertarians != anarchists.

Where would you change that "extent of legal protection", yet still protect minority individuals from tyranny of the majority?

Which is why I emphasize the importance of negative rights over positive ones.

Just a quick question: If racism is still a huge issue in this country, an issue that can only be properly addressed through legislation, why aren't there more private Honky-only clubs? Why can't we drive down the streets without seeing one on every corner?

[GGT]

You didn't answer my question.

[Illusions]

The South isn't, and wasn't homogenously pro-slavery.

I never stated it was homogenously pro-slavery, nor would it need to be. What I stated was that The South Post Civil War had enough people willing to discriminate against African Americans to effectively limit the amount to which they could exercise their own freedoms. Also the example was to argue that society is capable of exercising their freedoms in such a way as to limit the ability of another group to exercise theirs, rather than the Post Civil War South being racist/discriminatory. If you want a more modern example, there is the Westboro Baptist Church, and the incident of no local businesses assisting with repairs for them, for their slashed car tires.

In addition to that, what OG stated:

Ignoring the fact that its simply wrong (especially when taken globally), you don't need it to be homogenously, you only need the right people in the right places.

Is correct. Not everyone in a society has to agree to use their freedoms to limit those of others, just certain members.

So, again, since society is capable of using their freedoms to limit the exercise of your own, at what point do they become as bad or worse than The Government?

[Enoch the Red]

I never stated it was homogenously pro-slavery, nor would it need to be. What I stated was that The South Post Civil War had enough people willing to discriminate against African Americans to effectively limit the amount to which they could exercise their own freedoms. Also the example was to argue that society is capable of exercising their freedoms in such a way as to limit the ability of another group to exercise theirs, rather than the Post Civil War South being racist/discriminatory. If you want a more modern example, there is the Westboro Baptist Church, and the incident of no local businesses assisting with repairs for them, for their slashed car tires.

In addition to that, what OG stated:

Is correct. Not everyone in a society has to agree to use their freedoms to limit those of others, just certain members.

So, again, since society is capable of using their freedoms to limit the exercise of your own, at what point do they become as bad or worse than The Government?

It's not that they aren't bad, it's that they lack the ability to force their views on others. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't believe as a consumer you have a right to whatever property, goods, or services you want. Furthermore, I frankly wouldn't want to live in an area so heavily inundated with racists, and I doubt many minorities would either, legal protections or no.

You didn't answer my question.

Sure I did. You probably don't like the answer though. Emphasizing negative rights allow for across the board equal protection under the law.

[GGT]

It's not that they aren't bad, it's that they lack the ability to force their views on others. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't believe as a consumer you have a right to whatever property, goods, or services you want. Furthermore, I frankly wouldn't want to live in an area so heavily inundated with racists, and I doubt many minorities would either, legal protections or no.

Flesh that out a bit. If I'm using USD to buy something "anyone else" can buy.....why should a retailer have the right to refuse me? A gas station owned by super conservative Muslims could refuse to let me buy gas because I'm a woman driving a car, or I don't wear the veil?

Sure I did. You probably don't like the answer though. Emphasizing negative rights allow for across the board equal protection under the law.

No, you really didn't answer the question with anything at all specific. I asked where you'd draw the lines. Simply saying "negative rights" is vague and fluffy. Examples, please.

[Enoch the Red]

Flesh that out a bit. If I'm using USD to buy something "anyone else" can buy.....why should a retailer have the right to refuse me? A gas station owned by super conservative Muslims could refuse to let me buy gas because I'm a woman driving a car, or I don't wear the veil?

That's right GGT. You can keep throwing out hypotheticals, my response will be the same. If that's how they choose to run their business, then that's how they run their business. It can be intolerance towards gays, Muslims, blacks, Jews, Asians, or straight white conservative males, or some combination thereof. You don't have the right to dictate the terms of the contract simply because you are a client. You can choose to walk away, you can choose to boycott, but you should not be able to force them to accommodate you in their business, on their property.

No, you really didn't answer the question with anything at all specific. I asked where you'd draw the lines. Simply saying "negative rights" is vague and fluffy. Examples, please.

Perhaps that's because we've had this discussion before, and little has changed since then? Giving me a vague question and expecting specific answers seems a bit loaded.

[GGT]

It would be refreshing to see some actual examples or scenarios from you, though. Rights, freedoms, liberties....those are loaded terms with millions of interpretations. If you don't like our current Civil Rights Act or EEOC, exactly where and how would you scale them back? You say the "extent" of current laws bothers you, so you must have a concrete idea of where they should be rolled back.

You're using nebulous and undefined terms. Businesses can do whatever the hell they want. Even if that could actively hurt my right to freedom of movement, by denying me access to gas. That could actually threaten my life, if it's a snowstorm and they're the only gas station for 100 miles and I'm on E.

[Enoch the Red]

It would be refreshing to see some actual examples or scenarios from you, though. Rights, freedoms, liberties....those are loaded terms with millions of interpretations. If you don't like our current Civil Rights Act or EEOC, exactly where and how would you scale them back? You say the "extent" of current laws bothers you, so you must have a concrete idea of where they should be rolled back.

I think I've been pretty clear.

You don't have the right to dictate the terms of the contract simply because you are a client. You can choose to walk away, you can choose to boycott, but you should not be able to force them to accommodate you in their business, on their property. More specifically, this means that you don't have to provide handicap access, you don't have to serve them dusky skinned types, and you don't have to let those crazy Wikkans into your shop. You absolutely should do all of the above, not only because it's good business, but because it's the right thing to do, but by no means should you be forced, against your will, to do so.

More clear?

You're using nebulous and undefined terms. Businesses can do whatever the hell they want. Even if that could actively hurt my right to freedom of movement, by denying me access to gas. That could actually threaten my life, if it's a snowstorm and they're the only gas station for 100 miles and I'm on E.

Its a gas station in the middle of nowhere, where there are no tow trucks, police officers, or other emergency personnel? The place AAA doesn't exist? And yet you somehow think this incredibly bigoted hypothetical gas station owner, in the middle of what amounts to the Wild West, will care about the Civil Rights Act, and the services you demand, instead of rolling his eyes and flipping the open sign on the door around?

[GGT]

Yeah, clearer. Would "terms of the contract" include not being "forced" to follow health or safety laws when it comes to serving food?

Obviously, it's better for business if there isn't rat poison on the counter, or raw meat juice getting on the lettuce. But hey, better to have the freedom to cut corners or do whatever in the kitchen than be required to follow some government rules? What's a little E. coli or salmonella, anyway.

[Enoch the Red]

Yeah, clearer. Would "terms of the contract" include not being "forced" to follow health or safety laws when it comes to serving food?

Obviously, it's better for business if there isn't rat poison on the counter, or raw meat juice getting on the lettuce. But hey, better to have the freedom to cut corners or do whatever in the kitchen than be required to follow some government rules? What's a little E. coli or salmonella, anyway.

Providing safe food/eating environments could, and should be a term of the contract. Why wouldn't it?

Now, would you kindly answer both my questions?

Just a quick question: If racism is still a huge issue in this country, an issue that can only be properly addressed through legislation, why aren't there more private Honky-only clubs? Why can't we drive down the streets without seeing one on every corner?

And yet you somehow think this incredibly bigoted hypothetical gas station owner, in the middle of what amounts to the Wild West, will care about the Civil Rights Act, and the services you demand, instead of rolling his eyes and flipping the open sign on the door around?

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not sure who or what you're arguing against here. Libertarians != anarchists.

No, it's your weird belief that humans will somehow evolve into peace-loving and understanding creatures all on their own, without any intervention needed. That's absolute bullshit which flies straight in the face of our basic biology. We are tribal creatures. As such we have in-built notions to distinguish our "tribe" from other tribes. Which also means demonizing, looking down and straightout attacks on other factions. Which can be most effectively prevented by rules within the tribe to stop that kind of stuff.

Which means a law. If you're thinking that without laws and governmental intervention, humans will somehow become better people, you're very much mistaken.

Just take a look at religion, namely Christianity. What did buddy Jesus say? Love Thy Enemies? Do significant numbers actually follow that one? I mean, just look at your own country with its "Christians" - their own religion DEMANDS love, peace and understanding. And yet your country is engaged in several wars, has the highest amount of prison inmates in the world, spreads hate and bigotry on TV and has poster boys like our friend Lewk cry for the killing of even minor criminals. Yeah, that sounds like a completely positive development to me.

[Draco]

In an open society, people have the right to move about freely and conduct daily business, engage in "interstate commerce" or "public accommodations", without having to meet random, inconsistent, or exclusionary criteria. Gay people have the right to be included in every sphere of society, and not be diminished to second-class citizenship. Everyone has the right to live their own identity without being segregated or denied public participation. Gays shouldn't have to "hide in a closet" just to have access that heterosexuals do, and they shouldn't have to try and "pass" as straight.

I agree with what you're saying here, but not at the expense of a persons right to their property.

<If you substitute the word Gay or Same-Sex with the word Black in the florist story, it should be clear what's wrong with this discrimination.>

I don't like it when people discriminate or see others as just being 'gay' or 'black' or whatever. It's a primitive form of thinking, but one that has largely been filtered out to a certain extent.

Question for you: what right would the florist lose by providing flowers at a gay wedding? She can still be hateful, and still hold (what she calls) a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, and gay marriage is wrong. No one is forcing her to be gay, or marry another woman.

If she were to provide her services by her own volition, then she isn't 'losing' any right. But, if she denied them her services (as is the case here) and the government then either forced her to provide the flowers, or pay some sort of fine, then the right that she is losing is the one to her property. The fact that she would be forced to do something that she doesn't want to, with her own property, is a direct violation of property rights.

If she feels compelled to have her business reflect her religious views, she can advertise it that way. Put signs on the shop window, put them on her website or business card.....Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes.....Marriage is one man and one woman or whatever.

Well I'm not sure whether she would be able to do this in Canada. But it's a good idea to any business owner who is selective with whom they do business with.

That's not uncommon in the US. I doubt an engaged gay couple would even consider her for their wedding flowers, knowing her beliefs.

I'm glad property rights still exist in the US then.

As to your comments on privatizing schools, you should re-think that from the perspective of children and their right to an education. Even if their parents are poor or indigent. Consider what our societies used to look like when education was private pay, and poor or rural children were uneducated and ignorant. I don't think you really want to bring back the time when kids barely learned to read and dropped out after 8th grade. For a contemporary example of that --- look at migrant farm workers and their children.

I'm only being consistent with my views. I haven't done much reading into the likes of privatising education. I have a rough idea of what it was once like when education was privatised, but I think other factors came into it at the time.

I'm not saying that you don't understand our view, I'm stating that it doesn't seem like you understand why we have certain laws to begin with, or why modern governments exist the way they do today, and no, its not from you not agreeing with me.

I do understand why such laws exist. Discrimination was once rampant, and respective governments sought to stamp it out so groups of people wouldn't be marginalised. Welfare came about to help those in desperate need (it's a different story now), public education came about so the majority of people could read and write...but having said all that, I don't think it was as simple as that, as in "welfare came about to help those in desperate need" since I'm sure that many other factors came into it. And I know that I could make a convincing case for both sides of the argument, if I were to devote a lot of my time to research and then writing up an essay.

What? How is this relevant at all. I referenced African Americans living in the post Civil War American South to demonstrate that its entirely possible for society to use their freedoms to oppress either a single person or a group of people.

This doesn't answer my question at all.

What I was trying to get at in my previous post, was that you couldn't expect American society to suddenly treat African Americans as equals, when it's been ingrained in the society for generations that those African Americans are slaves, or they don't have the right to their own life, etc.

No, I'm asking, Draco specifically:

1 - Do you feel The Government is bad if it uses laws to punish businesses for exercising the freedom to discriminate?

Yes I do think that it's bad. As I've stated before, the government has no right to interfere in the matters of a persons private property.

2 - If you feel The Government is bad because it uses laws to punish businesses for exercising the freedom to discriminate, is society also bad if they use their freedoms to punish businesses for doing the exact same thing?

If a certain business makes it clear that they do not wish to engage in any form of trade with gay/black/xyz people, and if the majority of their original customers decide to take their money elsewhere (since they don't agree with discrimination), then I don't see how this is considered 'bad'? The people who boycotted the business would have done so by their own choice. And in effect, they would have set an example, that if any other business in the area wished to make it known that they discriminate against gay people, they wouldn't get many customers.

3 - If society is not bad for doing this, what is the difference you see between these two actions other than who is doing them?

The government is there to protect and guarantee the rights of its citizens. It has no right to say what one can do with their property, so long as someone is not denying another person their right to life in some way. Society as a whole is comprised of individuals, business partners, families, etc, and what each person decides to do with their own money is their choice alone.

4 - Does the difference you see make rational sense?

Yes. Whilst the government exists as a whole body to protect our rights, society is something that is made up of many individuals who have a right to live their own life as they wish.

5 - From the perspective of the person or group being punished, do you think they care about this difference you see? For example, does it matter to the shop owner whether they lose $500 to a fine imposed by The Government for discriminating against people, or lose $500 to customers no longer wanting to shop there for discriminating against people?

If I were the florist, I'd rather lose $500 to customers, than be forced to pay it to the government/whoever.

The reason I mentioned the Southern United States thing was to demonstrate that it is possible for society to, as a whole, punish a single person or a group of them for a perceived wrong doing. This was done so that Draco couldn't use the argument that society isn't capable of this feet.

I know that society or a group of people, are capable of discriminating on a mass scale. The position that I was arguing for, was that in those times, the idea that African Americans are not the same type of 'humans' as white people would have still been ingrained in society, after so many years of slavery and mistreatment. Old habits die hard as the saying goes.

And somewhat related to the topic: a short while ago I saw a documentary about the Civil War in America, and they mentioned how African Americans enlisted, however the whole "separate but equal" crap was still enforced. I thought it was sad and disgusting. <--actually I think it was to do with WWII, but the documentary was about America.

[GGT]

Providing safe food/eating environments could, and should be a term of the contract. Why wouldn't it?

And why wouldn't it be part of that contract, in doing business with the public, that the business environment is fair and open to all?

Now, would you kindly answer both my questions?

First, the number of private Honky-only clubs does not correlate to racism in general. There are exclusive country clubs and golf clubs, though. Many are the bastion of white males, mostly by where they were placed, and wealth as entry to membership. We all know that blacks weren't historically among top income brackets, by education and income default, the first barrier of racism. The 60s civil rights laws desegregated schools, opened higher education, and changed employment laws. Now affluent blacks are growing in numbers, buying into leafy suburbs and joining country clubs. That doesn't erase "soft" bigotry that still exists, similar to the white exodus seen in Detroit a few decades ago. (Much of that is currently aimed at the influx of Hispanics or Muslims now, just read the news. Or a new thread right here in this forum...)

Second, in your mind this hypothetical discriminatory gas station owner would simply put up the Closed sign and that'd be the end of it. No law would compel him to feel forced to let me buy gas anyway, so you think that makes the law itself pointless. You seem to believe the law is meant to change internal machinations about racism, forcing people to change their beliefs. I say the law's purpose is to give me legal recourse, for being victim of his inaction. Especially if my feet got frostbite walking miles in the snow to find the next gas station. If his inaction results in forcing me into a dangerous action, I should have legal recourse. We are a nation of laws.

The big Walmart gender discrimination law suit is an example of that. What they didn't do (promote or pay women the same as men) matters as an action. We could go around in circles for pages about negative or positive rights. (Might as well argue about passive/active, omission/commission, euthanasia/assisted-suicide.) I see a business owner's choice to NOT serve certain groups or individuals as an active behavior with consequences. Anti-discrimination laws mean that omission is an ACT that can harm others, and they're responsible for those actions.

[Enoch the Red]

And why wouldn't it be part of that contract, in doing business with the public, that the business environment is fair and open to all?

That also should be part of the contract. I'd definitely go out of my way to patronize places that were open to everyone.

Second, in your mind this hypothetical discriminatory gas station owner would simply put up the Closed sign and that'd be the end of it. No law would compel him to feel forced to let me buy gas anyway, so you think that makes the law itself pointless. You seem to believe the law is meant to change internal machinations about racism, forcing people to change their beliefs. I say the law's purpose is to give me legal recourse, for being victim of his inaction. Especially if my feet got frostbite walking miles in the snow to find the next gas station. If his inaction results in forcing me into a dangerous action, I should have legal recourse. We are a nation of laws.

And what legal recourse do you think you have when a gas station closes during such a dangerous blizzard?

To be frank, I think that determining inaction, in a situation where no business contract has been established, to be a crime is one in a series of steps down a very dangerous road.

[GGT]

That also should be part of the contract. I'd definitely go out of my way to patronize places that were open to everyone.

Then what's wrong with a social contract that's also a legal contract with the public, based on civil rights laws, to be open to everyone?

And what legal recourse do you think you have when a gas station closes during such a dangerous blizzard?

I said a snowstorm. With one conservative Muslim-owned gas station open for 100 miles. Refusing me service for....not wearing a veil....being a woman driving alone. That would be him forcing his religious beliefs onto me/the public. Earlier you said societal rules are better than laws because, "It's not that they aren't bad, it's that they lack the ability to force their views on others." The OP story and my hypothetical scenario say otherwise.

To be frank, I think that determining inaction, in a situation where no business contract has been established, to be a crime is one in a series of steps down a very dangerous road.

Neither of us are contract attorneys, but most people in an open society presume Open-to-Public access (or public accommodations) is an unspoken contract between merchant and consumer; an agreement that doesn't require special status or membership from the buyer, or the merchant practicing random exclusions against certain groups or individuals. That's how freeee enterprise supposedly works.

But if you believe all private property rights trump human rights or civil rights (and their laws), then I'm glad SCOTUS has disagreed. I think our anti-discrimination and anti-segregation laws have been crucial for minorities to gain "equal" treatment. I'd go even farther and add political affiliation and sexual orientation to legally protected civil rights.

[Enoch the Red]

Then what's wrong with a social contract that's also a legal contract with the public, based on civil rights laws, to be open to everyone?

The fact that you are forcing someone to do something against their will, on their own property?

I said a snowstorm. With one conservative Muslim-owned gas station open for 100 miles. Refusing me service for....not wearing a veil....being a woman driving alone. That would be him forcing his religious beliefs onto me/the public. Earlier you said societal rules are better than laws because, "It's not that they aren't bad, it's that they lack the ability to force their views on others." The OP story and my hypothetical scenario say otherwise.

And you're going to file a law suit saying he refused you service and he's going to say he closed early on account of the snow. What do you think happens then? You hire Columbo? Erin Brockovich?

Neither of us are contract attorneys, but most people in an open society presume Open-to-Public access (or public accommodations) is an unspoken contract between merchant and consumer; an agreement that doesn't require special status or membership from the buyer, or the merchant practicing random exclusions against certain groups or individuals. That's how freeee enterprise supposedly works.

That's fine, and I imagine in most cases that's how it would work. In the few cases where it doesn't, the presumed contract never existed, and shouldn't be enforced. If I assumed I had a contract with my neighbor to use his backyard as a dump, that's contract is only as good as my neighbors good will.

But if you believe all private property rights trump human rights or civil rights (and their laws), then I'm glad SCOTUS has disagreed. I think our anti-discrimination and anti-segregation laws have been crucial for minorities to gain "equal" treatment. I'd go even farther and add political affiliation and sexual orientation to legally protected civil rights.

You think being able to shop at Abercrombie and Fitch is a human right?

[GGT]

The fact that you are forcing someone to do something against their will, on their own property?

Wait, now it's about will? I can't decide if you're just glomming onto private property as the end-all be-all, or simply oppositional to anything the government does....

In the USA, if you own or operate a business, it comes with certain restrictions and rules, it's expected and necessary. Even paying taxes against your will!

And you're going to file a law suit saying he refused you service and he's going to say he closed early on account of the snow. What do you think happens then? You hire Columbo? Erin Brockovich?

That's fine, and I imagine in most cases that's how it would work. In the few cases where it doesn't, the presumed contract never existed, and shouldn't be enforced. If I assumed I had a contract with my neighbor to use his backyard as a dump, that's contract is only as good as my neighbors good will.

Don't go conflating your neighbor's backyard with a business discriminating against minorities. That's just silly.

You think being able to shop at Abercrombie and Fitch is a human right?

WTF are you on about? I think any store, as part of a mall, has a contract with the property owners to conduct business in a legal and open manner. They couldn't reject blacks, Hispanics, Jews or Muslims, old people, wheelchairs, etc. from entering and shopping around, no. That would violate our Civil Rights Act and its laws about access and equal treatment.