Do Businesses Have the Right to Refuse Service Based on Moral/Religious Objections?

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Actually no I wasn't responding to your post. So you think it's ok for someone to deny offering their services to someone based on their sexual orientation or race?

My personal feelings are not really the point. However.........no I don't think it's right and yes I would do my best to avoid giving them my money or time.

Folks/business DO have the right to discriminate against queers or folks who like sparkly stuffed ponies/poodles. However the government certainly cannot reward said business/individuals for having discriminatory practices. No personal or business tax breaks. If your tax bracket is 37%. then 37% of your personal and business income (and I mean ALL income....no deductions ever allowed. Period. Full Stop.)

The government cannot discriminate or reward those who do. Individuals and organizations certainly can, but at a pretty big cost in the area of taxes and government programs.

[BullDog]

Toughy, I am a former accountant so I am familiar with the tax code. Beyond that, I don't know what you are saying.

[Toughy]

to help stop discrimination you must make it less profitable because passing laws is not very effective......

well..........you know all those tax deductions you and every other accountant get for your clients..,those deductions that lower the actual percentage of taxes paid by said business? If one of those clients has discriminatory practices or policies then they get NO tax deductions on their income taxes......they are not eligible for any deductions and will pay exactly what their tax bracket is by law....it works this way:

business tax bracket is 37% of total income
deductions/breaks/subsidies/etc lower percentage payed to 5%
business gets a 32% tax deduction.

business discriminates & tax bracket is 37%
therefore business MUST pay 37% of all income as taxes
because they discriminate they get NO deductions.

as an individual I will do my best to avoid patronizing said business because I do not agree with the business plan, practices, and/or policies

I am talking about governments laws practices and policies vs business practices and policies. Tax deductions are a privilege not a right. deductions are an incentive toward good business practices. The government should not reward repugnant businesses with tax breaks/deductions/subsidies/programs.


This is a capitalist society......profit is king......discrimination makes you pay more taxes and you get less profit,,,,,,,,, business will stop discriminating because it is less profitable

[adorable]

I think there is a difference in reserving the right to refuse service to anyone and discrimination.

As a manager I have refused service to people. All kinds of people, for a variety of reasons. But I have not targeted a specific group of people except when I have....like "locals." I manage a hotel. We don't like locals. We don't want locals staying at the property. There are exceptions of course, some people are remodeling their house, there might be a water or some other type of emergency....but overall locals are staying with us because there is something that they don't want to do at home. Whether it's set up a meth lab, cheat, deal drugs, prostitute or throw a party. It's never anything good for my business.

But we can't have a blatant no locals policy. The reason we can't is because of a case where a hotel owner refused to let locals stay. The reason they did it is because high school kids were reserving rooms for huge parties, trashing the hotel, throwing up in the halls and generally causing a huge headache.
Because most of the kids were local - they just said "No locals." The only problem with that policy was that the geographic area for locals was populated mainly by minorities. (Even though the high school kids they were really trying to keep away were mostly white.) The hotel owner lost a huge lawsuit because the courts decided it was a discriminatory policy.

I rent to people I can't stand personally all the time. Church groups and hunters are a couple big ones. I hate guns. I hate seeing a bunch of strangers walking around the hotel with shotguns which are "too expensive to be left in the truck." People saying to me "Praise Jesus, God is good." Every single time they interact with me in large numbers is just as strange to me as the guys talking to me with shotguns on their shoulders. I smile and nod just the same. Oh, and thank them for coming so that they come back next year.

The good of the business dictates that I don't turn away good customers, regardless of how I feel about their belief's, views or politics. It's best not to discuss it. That is different then people who I feel may put other guests happiness and enjoyment of the property in jeopardy. I have had people set up meth labs (which can level and entire city block,) drug dealers raided by swat, pimps beating up the prostitutes, drunken contractors fist fighting in the halls, college kids on three day crack binges....race has nothing to do with any of it. In fact, no one could guess what goes on in someone's room based on how they look. I have had very wealthy appearing people check in, only to have the FBI check in right behind them and want to be in the room across the hall. Ugh. Anything that brings the police to the property = bad. That hurts business. Paying customers that don't cause drama and are spending money - we want. I don't have to live with them, they eventually check out.

[Soon]

/snipped/

Originally Posted by Toughy

to help stop discrimination you must make it less profitable because passing laws is not very effective......

I have to disagree that passing laws isn't very effective in preventing or reducing discrimination.

I think when businesses realized (and public school boards -- who lately are getting sued a lot due to discriminations against LGBT students) that they can be CHARGED by the federal government, as well SUED by the consumer, due to existing legislation, it makes a very large impact!

Do we see any more signs that say whites only?

If a business did that today they would be charged and sued -- EVEN if the owner's personal beliefs didn't approve of different races mingling.

I think laws were and are necessary to prevent this kind of discrimination.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

/snipped/





I have to disagree that passing laws isn't very effective in preventing or reducing discrimination.

I think when businesses realized (and public school boards -- who lately are getting sued a lot due to discriminations against LGBT students) that they can be CHARGED by the federal government, as well SUED by the consumer, due to existing legislation, it makes a very large impact!

Do we see any more signs that say whites only?

If a business did that today they would be charged and sued -- EVEN if the owner's personal beliefs didn't approve of different races mingling.

I think laws were and are necessary to prevent this kind of discrimination.

actually there are still whites only signs in this coutry.......go about 300 miles north of SF and you will find them.......

Business that did change did so because they lost MONEY. It's all about the money in capitalism. They did not change because their hearts changed or because it was against the law. They changed because of money.

I also think there is a second discussion about the role of government in business and in business regulation.

[betenoire]

We do have freedom of religion in Canada, but there are limits placed on that freedom. I'm okay with that. What if your religion said that you could (and should!) have several wives (all of whom are under the legal age at the time that you marry them)? That's what the limits on freedom of religion are for. You're free to believe what you want, assemble with other believers, talk about your belief - up to the point that your religious practices break the law or harm someone else. I don't think that's unfair.


Just for fun:

Toronto printing press owner refused to print out letterheads and envelopes with the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives logo on them because he's a "born again Christian". They sued. He lost. He had to pay the Archives 5k and also had to pay their legal fees on top of his own legal fees.

This little tidbit should be interesting to the people from the "omg but that would mean that I can be forced to make milkshakes with the blood of virgins at my place of business because I'm not allowed to say no to anything!!!!" camp: While it was ruled that he could not refuse to do letterheads for them, it was also ruled that he was welcome to refuse to print out literature that was against his religion.

[BullDog]

Toughy, you sound like Ron Paul, the Conservative Republican Congressman from Texas who opposed the renewal of the Civil Rights Act in 2004.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Son Rand is following in his footsteps and is part of the Tea Party Movement. Oh yes, and I believe they are both Libertarians as well.