EDITORIAL, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Of Course Businesses Should Be Able To Discriminate
By Joe Jarvis - May 16, 2017

You are hiring a babysitter. You can choose between a teenage girl who has no babysitting experience, or a paroled child molester who was a kindergarten teacher for 5 years. Is it discrimination to choose the less qualified candidate?

Yes. And the right to discriminate is a basic necessity of human interaction. It is about ensuring both parties in any interaction have given consent.

Okay, that was an extreme example. But what if KKK members came to the black owners of a clothing company, and forced them to make their robes? That is more reminiscent of the latest gay customer discrimination case.

A t-shirt printing company refused to print shirts for a gay pride event, citing religious beliefs. Actually, this happened five years ago, and another court just affirmed that the business does not have to provide services in this case because the owners objected to spreading the message of the group: gay pride.

This differs from the gay cake baking and flower arranging cases because in those instances the business owners were not objecting to spreading a message, but the actual behavior of the gay customers. So this case isn’t really a victory for consensual interactions, it is just a technicality.

Interactions should require consent on the part of all parties. The business owner should not be forced to provide services just as the customer is not forced to buy them (unless compelled by government, but that is another issue).

Just reverse the situation and anyone can see that the right to discriminate is necessary. What if the Westboro Baptist Church went into a gay t-shirt maker’s business and demanded 100 shirts that say “God hates fags.” Should they be forced to comply, or are they allowed to discriminate?

Making moral distinctions between what type of discrimination is okay will change with the time, place, and attitudes of the population.

The citizens, local, and state governments in various places and times throughout the country would absolutely support forcing the gay business owners to print anti-gay shirts. We shouldn’t have to depend on the majority to agree with us in order to exercise our right to discriminate. No one should be forced to do something without their consent.

The article explaining the case goes through the issue complaining the whole time that the shirts weren’t even promoting being gay, they were just acknowledging it.

But this is entirely beside the point. Having KKK cloaks made wouldn’t be promoting racism, just acknowledging it.

It doesn’t matter why the business owner wants to discriminate, they shouldn’t have to cite religious reasons, they should be able to refuse service to whomever they want, for whatever reason. Customers can decide whether they want to deal with them.

Then the article claims that since the company advertised the services, it has no right to then withdraw the offer. But when we look at consent for sexual intercourse, clearly either party has the right to withdraw consent for sex at any time, even if they previously advertised it. Just because someone says in a text that they want to have sex, doesn’t mean they can be raped if they later refuse.

If you want to be able to kick Nazis, KKK members, and child molesters out of your business, then you have to accept that some businesses will also kick out the groups they object to, whether that is right or wrong, even if they are intolerant bigots.

I personally think that businesses who refuse to serve gay people are silly. It doesn’t make any sense from a business perspective to refuse customers unless you are looking for attention or actually think serving those customers would hurt your business in the end.

I also doubt these business owners are applying their religion accurately and evenly. They probably choose to discriminate more against certain people they think are sinners (gays), versus others (adulterers).

And my personal thoughts do not matter at all. I get to choose not to go to those businesses, and I get to encourage others to boycott them. I can even write articles saying how mean and nasty and stupid the owners are if I wish.

But what I shouldn’t be able to do is use the government’s guns to get my way, and force a business to accept my money in exchange for their services.

If everyone is legally prevented from discriminating, I might inadvertently give my business to a company who actually hates gays, but is legally forced to hide that. I would personally rather have it in the open who doesn’t want my gay business.

Why on earth do some gays demand to give their money to a business who doesn’t like them? In these instances, the progressives seem to accidentally admit that businesses provide much-needed services.

But wait, I thought businesses were exploitative tricksters who oppress their employees and con their customers? Shouldn’t we be thanking the business owners for refusing to exploit the gays?

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in EDITORIAL, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • georgesilver

    Any chance of me discriminating against the government and refusing to give them money for their services?

    ps. At lot of talk about gays. Is Joe Jarvis having an internal conflict?

    • Heywood Jablome

      Government is force, if they cannot convince you that their reasoning for their actions is justified, then they will coerce you with the threat of violence, and if this fails to gain your acquiescence they will bring all the considerable violence which they have available to force their views on you. This is one of the reasons behind gun control/seizure, regulation, restriction: they do not want their monopoly on violence challenged.

    • G Anderson

      Jarvis did say “my gay dollars,” and I’m not convinced it was just hypothetical.

  • Rosicrucian32

    I’m not necessarily discriminating against Chuckie Schumer, I just want him to go screw himself……………

    • Sheila

      You and 100 million other Americans.

  • Tom Spellman

    This is the stupidity of dealing with personal services and discrimination. It just does not work and all we can do is drive wedges between people. I want you to make my cake and we are gay and I refuse your to make your cake because you are gay is not a Federal, State or even Local issue. It is personal differences and that is life and forcing oneself on another against their will gain more distrust, hatred than allowing all of us to grow with time. Corporations do not have that right nor do franchises just ma pa businesses.

    • Sheila

      Exactly.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    Discrimination should be a required and informed act by every member of society. In its true meaning it demonstrates the ability to exercise reasonable judgment over the relative benefits personally and collectively derived from anything and any human act affecting societal stability. That’s why I discriminate. It’s my moral responsibility.

    • Sheila

      So true.

  • autonomous

    In former times it was thought improper for hand-holding in public. Now, rutting is on public display. A business would even now be right to throw out would-be customers for indecent acts in their business–even if the business owner bangs his help in his office. That said, refusing to bake a cake seems bad business practice for a baker in the absence of lewd or disruptive behavior in his establishment.

  • georgesilver

    Would you seriously have a cake baked by someone who didn’t like you or your life-style. What do you think the additional ingredients would be if he had the law force you into baking it?

  • Spanky Lee

    Public accommodations sell and advertise goods and services in public spaces that are maintained by the laws and taxes of government. When I see a sign advertising groceries I want to know that when I get to the checkout line, I won’t be turned away because the store’s owners don’t like the way I think or look or speak or because of who my parents are. It seems proper that government should help ensure my personal agency by limiting the ability of public accommodations to deny me their products for personal reasons.

    • Mstrjack

      In other words, if someone doesn’t want to sell what you demand to buy, then they should be handcuffed, fined, put in a cage, and fed slop because your thugs in blue costumes are protecting you? Is that what you mean to claim?

    • Leopardpm

      ‘Public Accommodations’ my butt – these are private businesses operated on private property and no amount of twisting of words or creating different categories changes that. Whatever court first concluded that a ‘business’ was somehow partly commonly owned really screwed us for eternity, it appears. We allowed government to regulate and stick its violent nose straight into our day to day affairs for asinine reasons. If I sell my lawnmower, does that make me house some sort of ‘public’ property? It’s just plain ridiculous. No wonder folks these days FIRST turn to government to solve their problems and issues… to babysit them and to tell them right from wrong…. a bunch of infants we have become and we keep regressing with each passing year…

      • Spanky Lee

        Clubs are private. Businesses are public. Else they wouldn’t make much money.

        • Leopardpm

          semantics… businesses are ALL private property – they are actually private… we have LEGALLY made an arbitrary re-definition of business

          • MountainMan

            Exactly!

            Heck, nobody can even define what the “public” is, anyway. That’s like saying, “society.” There’s no such thing. Society is made up of individual human beings.

        • MountainMan

          Economically speaking, there is NO SUCH THING as “public.”

          ALL property should be owned PRIVATELY.

          Yes, I know; that is not the way our system works, but that just proves my point:

          ANY COUNTRY WHICH NEGATES PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR ILLEGITIMATE REASONS IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY.

    • LawrenceNeal

      I made reservations at a motel in Sedona, Arizona, and arrived there with two women. They said they didn’t accept parties of three, even with an extra charge. We went to another inn that didn’t mind. I didn’t sue.

      • Spanky Lee

        Maybe they REALLY don’t accept ANY parties of three (unlikely) or maybe they were concerned that acts of indecency would transpire under their roof. In the latter case, they should mind their own business or face a penalty. Motels offer the accommodation of shelter, not judgement.

        • LawrenceNeal

          I fully intended to be indecent… depending on which moral compass you use.

        • MountainMan

          Unless you own your own hotel, it is not for YOU to judge how owners of other hotels should be operated. It’s THEIR property, NOT YOURS!

    • Lowelltr

      Wow – seriously? I don’t want my taxes used to “help ensure your personal agency”…so there.

    • MountainMan

      How do you define “proper”?

      It is NOT proper unless the transaction is mutually agreed upon. If it is not, then that is the abrogation of property rights. You are in favor of FORCING another person to do something that he doesn’t want to do!

      And you call that a “free country”??? Think again!

      • Q46

        Quite so. Free market = voluntary exchange… both parties are free to agree terms and conditions of the exchange and both or either can opt not to make the exchange if they do not like the terms and conditions offered by the other.

    • Q46

      But that is precisely what a number of celebrities did who were asked to perform at President Trump’s inauguration.

  • darthangel

    Baking a cake is a creative work and no government has the legitimate right to make a business owner bake a certain type of cake. In other words, if a gay person goes into the cake store and orders a cake, ideally they should be able to purchase the same products anyone else does. But if they want a cake that specifically is designed for a same-sex wedding, the business owner has an absolute right to simply say, we only decorate cakes for traditional marriages.

    So no matter what one believes on discrimination, it is not discrimination to offer only some products if those products are available to any customer. It it important to remember that no one was denying gay people the right to purchase products, rather gay people demanded that a business be legally obligated to provide extra products.

    They did the same thing with Christian mingle, an online site. They were threatening to sue unless the site provided an option for “men seeking men”. This is about power to dictate what products businesses offer their customers. Any business should have a right to define which products it wishes to offer.

    Its a thoughtful article, but the issue at stake doesn’t even amount to discrimination.

  • LawrenceNeal

    I have a T-shirt business. I won’t do images that are demonic or have red eyes. I haven’t had any complaints.

  • Sheila

    Strange that it used to be a compliment to call someone a “discriminating” person. This has not been a change for the better.

    • robertsgt40

      I can still remember decades ago a slogan used in advertising of pricey products. “For the discriminating “. It implied taste and choice. I think it still holds true. If we have freedom of association, then we should have freedom of disassociation. Just me.

  • Vic Pittman

    I had a sign business for 30 years. I had one homophobic guy ask me to make an anti-gay bumper sticker. At first I said that I wouldn’t do it … he started ranting and saying that I could not legally refuse, so I told him that I would do it, but it would be $1000…

  • Praetor

    No shirt No shoes No service! What did that mean any way? There once were signs that said, ‘Whites Only/Black Only’, we now have college campuses acquiescing to segregation based on guess what, color of skin. When some one says I’m a progressive, it just means they are regressing to an earlier time.

    Multicultural Diversity is the big lie of our day, its apart of the scheme of divide and conquer. They know if the people were to come to gather, no matter the differences, they lose their power. The funny thing, those in power come in all shapes sizes color religion and who they sleep with. Its just about ‘THEIR’ power.

    I choose to discriminant and they are those in power. I also choose to discriminant against those that shove their differences in my face, because their too ignorant to see their being used.!!!

  • MountainMan

    FORCED INTEGRATION is one of the critical elements in the formation and maintenance of a POLICE STATE.

  • Q46

    Is it not about sovereignty of the individual and slavery?

    Sovereignty of the individual exists if an individual owns their body and its labour and are free to determine how – within the Law – or whether to work.

    When another can force an individual to work and specify how, that is slavery whether they receive something in return or not.

    I think making such cases about discrimination or freedom of expression hides the real issue… is slavery acceptable or not?

  • r2bzjudge

    For each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    Jim Crow laws were government enforced discrimination, i presume, as i never lived in the Jim Crow south. I am guessing that in the Jim Crow south, integrated lunch counters were not an option. Now, government enforces the opposite extreme.

  • As to adulterers, I don’t see a lot of Christians making cakes and shirts for divorce parties either, which are all the rage these days. So unfairness? Maybe, but not on the whole. I agree completely otherwise with this article of course, and have been called many names for thinking along these lines. Badges of Honor.

  • Business operates by license from the state. As such, like it or not, it agrees to abide by rules of the state. If the proprietor doesn’t like the rule, it can complain (and they do—frequently and loudly, like a batter or his manager complaining about a called third strike). It can also move its business to a place that has no such restrictions. Afghanistan might offer some such opportunities.

    Proprietors want it both ways. They want access to society (or parts of society), it wants to use public resources, and then it wants to claim its independence from all of this. This is an example of bad faith, and, frankly, society doesn’t need these people. Someone else can make a cake or a tee shirt. We don’t need these ingrate proprietors in the first place.

    • Barney Biggs

      This is just a question not an argument. Does the State rules state that
      a business is not allowed to discriminate based on religious or other criteria?
      I suspect some might but perhaps others have no such clause.
      If the State did does it apply to all issues?
      Just interesting.
      As a White Chritian Male I expect discrimination on any of my traits.
      Always get a kick out of the Ladys only health clubs.

      • I have no horse in this race and don’t know the answer to your question. Also, I believe it is the particular town that has this white list policy rather than the entire state.

        As for me, I was just commenting that one should be able to black list or white list rules. Within a technology realm, regarding access and permissions security, people have to make this decision regularly. Sometimes it makes sense to do one over another.

        White listing ensures that ALL rules are evaluated before implementation. Blacklisting means all undesireable events are evaluated.

        If I am controlling access to a system, I want to explicitly white list permissions.

        In the real world, drugs laws operate on a black list. Some chemical compound is rendered illegal, and manufacturers tweak the chemical compound, rendering the drug legal until such time as the altered compound is also blacklisted.

        • Barney Biggs

          Bry Conceptually I agree but having spent 35 years in regulatory and policy the problem was always in who was
          making the determination as to what is undesireable.
          You might have a right wing Gov. in power and only a few were considered undesireable then a Left Wing group would be in control and a whole new group would be added. The regulations were constantly changing. I am reminded a few weeks friends came back from Turkey and they were upset over the fact that several business refused to deal with the Wife nor would they talk to her but the Husband had no problem. Interesting discussion

          • I am a privileged white male. I lived in Tokyo in the early ’80s, where at the time (I can’t speak for now) there were no (or ostensibly few) discrimination laws. For me, it meant little—at least one time I was denied access to a music club; for others, it meant no service at a restaurant, inability to rent or buy property, and so on.

            As many have said here, I just said F*U and went my merry way, but as a minority member (Tokyo, remember), it mattered little to their top line—what would they be out, a few thousand yen? And, still, to me it was unfair. Some people organise boycots to address such issues. Some people sit at the front of the bus.

            I am aware of the vicissitudes of political perspective as well as the general preference of people to favour stability and fairness. This is a part of the reason some governments are designed to make change a slow process versus some sort of efficiency.

            In the end, you know that policy is only effective (for better and for worse) in application.

  • Barney Biggs

    I suspect the Gays knew in advance about this company and as they are doing elsewhere chose to push the envelope. They got the desired reaction and the publicity that goes with it and perhaps the legal action they want.
    Bad news if the courts disagree with them.

loading