Business Owners Have Few Civil Liberties?: No rights who to do business with?

[1still_waters]

Governor Jan Brewer is being pressured to veto a bill that would allow business owners to discriminate against customers for religious reasons. A Christian owner wouldn't be forced by law to do business with gay couples.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer expected to veto 'religious freedom' bill - CNN.com

We hear a lot about civil rights and civil liberties for the individual, but what about civil rights and civil liberties for the business owner?

A business owner by definition owns. They've invested their time, money, life, into their business.
Usually when you own something, you control it.

In America, people who take a gamble and start a business, are told whom they must do business with.

Why does anyone have the right to tell a business owner whom they must do business with?
It's THEIR money.
It's THEIR investment.
It's THEIR gamble.

Shouldn't those in favor of civil liberties and civil rights stand for the rights of business owners?
If you're really for "rights", can't you stand for the rights of a business owner to refrain from doing business with some people?

Ok, pardon my rhetorical bluster.
At this point you may be thinking I'm actually supporting discrimination.
I'm trying to direct you into considering rights from another angle.

I think often we only consider civil rights and civil liberties from the customer side.
But what about from the side of the person/people who actually OWN a business?
Don't they have rights too?

Under which circumstances should a business owner have the right to "discriminate"?
When does granting rights to customers cross the line into intruding upon the rights of business owners?

 

[amdg]

Your rights are subject once you choose to interact with the govt./other people. Once you decide to operate a business on a public square, you are required not to discriminate. This goes back to the Interstate Commerce clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You were never ever given unlimited domain of your business by the US govt, just the right to run it without the confiscation of property without due process.

 

[1still_waters]

Your rights are subject once you choose to interact with the govt./other people. Once you decide to operate a business on a public square, you are required not to discriminate. This goes back to the Interstate Commerce clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You were never ever given unlimited domain of your business by the US govt, just the right to run it without the confiscation of property without due process.

Does that make it right?

It used to be legal to consider humans as property.

But thank goodness that changed.

Are business owners being denied their rights currently? Does it need to change?

 

[biscuit]

Does that make it right?

It used to be legal to consider humans as property.

But thank goodness that changed.

Are business owners being denied their rights currently? Does it need to change?

It depends on state & local laws. For example, some states/cities have given gays a protection status, meaning you can't discriminate against them any more than a black person. I believe that happened in Colorado when two gays went into a cake shop and wanted a cake but the owner denied them. I believe it was either a Denver statue that gave them this protection against discrimination. Some cities & states do make it illegal to discriminate against gays. But I believe most cities & states do not protect gays. I really feel sorry for an ice cream shop, filled with family oriented customers, when two gay men with pink & blue ballerina outfits enter to order ice cream. If the city has given gays protection status, the ice cream parlor owners will likely have to serve them. However, I know for a fact that the gay community will refrain from this type of behavior because it knows that it will only ignite & unify the community against the gay agenda. Every now & then, a few of them will anger the straight community with their outrageous behavior ... but it's rare. What the gay community really want is federal protection against discrimination.

 

[amdg]

How are they being denied their rights? They chose to participate on the public square. They want to do business with the community, shouldn't they have to give deference to the minimal level of community values. I really don't want to go back to the day were I see signs saying that my ethnicity need not apply to work there.

 

[1still_waters]

How are they being denied their rights? They chose to participate on the public square. They want to do business with the community, shouldn't they have to give deference to the minimal level of community values. I really don't want to go back to the day were I see signs saying that my ethnicity need not apply to work there.

This is based on the premise that one SHOULD have to give up certain rights in order to have a business.

What if that entire premise is wrong?

What if one has an intrinsic right to decide what they do with THEIR business?
Why is it assumed that the cost of entering the "public square" involves giving up the right of who you want to do business with, with YOUR business?

I really don't want to go back to the days of discrimination either.
Yet it is interesting to ponder which side should get more consideration.
I find it interesting to find the sweet spot between owner rights and customer rights.

I think a business owner SHOULD be able to decide whom they'll do business with. But I also despise discrimination.
So which side gets chosen?

Maybe we should let the market place decide?
If a business is known for hating a certain race, then maybe they'll get pushed out of business by a non-racist business?
If we did things that way, we wouldn't need the heavy hand of government pushing around business owners.

Of course in that scenario, people could be kicked out of local grocery stores due to skin color. Which would be VERY bad if it's the ONLY grocery store in the area, and people are too poor to afford transportation.

Anyways I really find this topic intriguing. It's a very delicate balance.

 

[amdg]

Why? Because that is basic rights theory. Please explain why the community has to play by your rules...

"What if one has an intrinsic right to decide what they do with THEIR business?" They do until they enter the public square. Clubs are exempt from these rules.

"Maybe we should let the market place decide?" Because they did such a great job the last time...

Also, can you please explain why you are so indignant to the idea of serving customers who are doing something you find sinful and if you carry that over to other sins as well.

 

[biscuit]

Of course in that scenario, people could be kicked out of local grocery stores due to skin color. Which would be VERY bad if it's the ONLY grocery store in the area, and people are too poor to afford transportation

That would be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and penalties can be severe. Gays are not protected by the Civil Rights Act.

 

[1still_waters]

Why? Because that is basic rights theory. Please explain why the community has to play by your rules...

The same could be asked of the one claiming the "community rules" are the right way to do things..

Some would argue it's basic rights theory that if you invest YOUR time, YOUR money, YOUR risk, then YOU SHOULD have the RIGHT to decide what you do with all of that.

At one time in our history I could have used your own argument against you to justify discrimination. After all, at one time the COMMUNITY said discrimination was just fine.

Appealing to the community isn't always a valid premise.

Also, can you please explain why you are so indignant to the idea of serving customers who are doing something you find sinful and if you carry that over to other sins as well.

I'm just having a discussion here on the topic of customer rights vs. owner rights.

 

[1still_waters]

Of course in that scenario, people could be kicked out of local grocery stores due to skin color. Which would be VERY bad if it's the ONLY grocery store in the area, and people are too poor to afford transportation

That would be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and penalties can be severe. Gays are not protected by the Civil Rights Act.

You're kinda getting stuck in the details here.

The overall discussion is about customer rights vs. owner rights.

It's kinda an ethical discussion.

Yes current laws are what they are.

I'm not really seeking to appeal to current laws as indicators of what should be done.

I'm asking a greater question.

Is there a point where customer rights intrude on the rights of the owner?

 

[1still_waters]

Some of this comes down to who really has right over a privately owned business?
The business owner, or the community?

When the community has more rights over a privately owned business, that's closer to Communism.
Our whole economic system is built on private ownership.

But just like anything, it's all about finding the proper balance between individual/business rights, and freedom for all.

 

[biscuit]

Is there a point where customer rights intrude on the rights of the owner?

No. I agree with you but the owners need to set the guidelines to guarantee fairness. The owners deserve the right to ensure their customers are comfortable in the shop ... and that may mean some customers may be rejected or not served. For example, you have a nice restaurant serving meals when 3 contruction workers who are very dirty & smelly want to be served in a near-filled restaurant. I believe the owners have a legitimate right to turn them away. I am sure cases can't be seen differently under a microscope. It can be a 'fine line' for both groups.

 

[amdg]

The same could be asked of the one claiming the "community rules" are the right way to do things..

Some would argue it's basic rights theory that if you invest YOUR time, YOUR money, YOUR risk, then YOU SHOULD have the RIGHT to decide what you do with all of that.

At one time in our history I could have used your own argument against you to justify discrimination. After all, at one time the COMMUNITY said discrimination was just fine.

Appealing to the community isn't always a valid premise.



I'm just having a discussion here on the topic of customer rights vs. owner rights.

The community would respond with that you are free to argue about the rules, but part of having a just society is the rules have to be followed. We are convinced of X and we will argue why X should be and you are free to argue for Y but until you convince us of Y you must obey X.

And those people would be correct except you didn't just invest your time. You commingled it with society. Any decent rights theorist (such as Locke) would argue that your rights are limited once you enter society. If you want to build your grocery store in the unclaimed desert fine, but you are building it on downtown main street using the city's utilities and services.

Agreed, but that's why I would have argued to change them. However, I find the act of someone not being served far more offensive than someone's right to refuse to do business with someone based on their personal life.

 

[amdg]

Some of this comes down to who really has right over a privately owned business?
The business owner, or the community?

When the community has more rights over a privately owned business, that's closer to Communism.
Our whole economic system is built on private ownership.

But just like anything, it's all about finding the proper balance between individual/business rights, and freedom for all.

Dangerously approaching the slippery slope fallacy here. All people have argued is that non-contract based businesses cannot discriminate. That's a longshot away from communism.

As far as finding the balance goes, I'm inclined to recognize the rights given to businesses within the constitution. As they are not given the right to discriminate, I see no compelling reason to give them this right. If you have some other right you want to argue for then we can talk about a balance, but otherwise I think you need to argue the case you obviously care about which is why should business be given the right to discriminate.

 

[1still_waters]

Is there a point where customer rights intrude on the rights of the owner?

No. I agree with you but the owners need to set the guidelines to insure fairness. The owners deserve the right to insure their customers are comfortable in the shop ... and that may mean some customers may be rejected or not served. For example, you have a nice restaurant serving meals when 3 contruction workers who are very dirty & smelly want to be served in a near-filled restaurant. I believe the owners have a legitimate right to turn them away. I am sure cases can't be seen differently under a microscope. It can be a 'fine line' for both groups.

Yeah that's what I find so interesting about this topic.

It's such a fine line, and finding the fine line, is well, interesting!

A business owner can kick out smelly people, but they can't kick out other types of people because that would be discrimination.

What gives the business owner the right to kick out smelly people, but not other people?
The owner obviously has some rights, but when do those rights stop?

 

[biscuit]

Some of this comes down to who really has right over a privately owned business?
The business owner, or the community?

When the community has more rights over a privately owned business, that's closer to Communism.
Our whole economic system is built on private ownership.

But just like anything, it's all about finding the proper balance between individual/business rights, and freedom for all.

Good Post !!

 

[1still_waters]

My thought right now, is that businesses that are necessary to maintain life, should have stricter limits on owner rights.
Places like grocery stores, hospitals, transportation, should have VERY strict rules against discrimination.
Everyone NEEDS food, emergency healthcare, transportation, and the like.

On the other hand, humans won't die if they don't get a birthday cake. Maybe a cake baker can be granted more rights.

So finding the proper balance, to me, right now, is about weighing the necessity of a business for human survival.

The less a business is actually needed for human survival, the more rights the owner should be granted.

 

[amdg]

Please explain to me why you have the right to discriminate. Also, no one disagrees with the above claim, hence the various restrictions on the other groups. I think you need to justify why owners have any rights in the public square other than those granted by the bill of rights.

 

[MidniteWelder]

It would depend upon the business
An ethical business or a non-ethical business.

We have read the Lord detests uneven scales
We have read liars do not enter the kingdom


I would assert that since this is a Christian forum we are only referring to Christian businesses as opposed to money launderers for the mob or lawyers who would try to win at any cost.
In that case
What if we look at Jesus driving the moneychangers out from the temple.
Were they not engaging in business providing fair and equal opportunity for all?
If they were doing the same outside of a temple and instead in the town square would their practice have suddenly been approved of by Jesus?

Yet...we can see the practice of catering to people as being higher importance than catering to God...is what is actually unethical.
We are told that when we work, to work as if working for the Lord himself.

I would say since the love of money is the root of all evil...that conducting business in servitude to those who practice what is detestable to God.....is also contributing to, Supporting and being an advocate of evil.
Instead of doing what Christ himself did...being an advocate against evil.
We didn't see him catering to those who continued in their sin...but those who repented and followed him.

 

[amdg]

Yet...we can see the practice of catering to people as being higher importance than catering to God...is what is actually unethical.
We are told that when we work, to work as if working for the Lord himself.

I would say since the love of money is the root of all evil...that conducting business in servitude to those who practice what is detestable to God.....is also contributing to, Supporting and being an advocate of evil.
Instead of doing what Christ himself did...being an advocate against evil.
We didn't see him catering to those who continued in their sin...but those who repented and followed him.

I'm sure Paul made tents for people that did immoral things with them. I would agree that a Christian shouldn't get involved in an immoral enterprise, but that doesn't mean that we can't do business with unrepentant sinners.