Can restaurant owners refuse service to anybody who offends their beliefs?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-huckabee-sanders-got-kicked-out-of-a-restaurant-because-of-trump_us_5b2e6ee4e4b0040e27434bdc

Supreme court might make that determination soon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 03:06PM by koriwhore.

There's a difference between "who" you are and "what" you do. We generally try to protect people from things they didn't choose being used to discriminate against them. Actions people take can have consequences.

What happened to not discriminating based on "race, CREED, color, origins ..."

Creed being presumably chosen, not born into (regardless of people talking about being "born" into x or y religion)

And no, the Supreme Court will not be making a determination soon. There is no "might" about it.

In my youth many businesses hung a sign that said
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
Translated this reads
"If we don't like your skin color we won't serve you"
As I see it there are two ways to look at this.
1. It is my money and my business. I will serve whomsoever I damn well choose. OR

2. Having been licensed be the controlling government agency there is an implied contract between the agency and the owner to serve everybody.
Of course this leads to controversy and conflict.
The opinions of the members of this forum on this issue would interest me.
Please no badmouthing of each other. Just what do you think?

I really don't know what I think about this topic since there are many scenarios I can think of that cross the line - one direction or the other.

I will say it is kind of a nice object lesson for some when the tables are turned and someone is acting on their morals that may be different than yours.

Beware when you impose your morals on others because no doubt there are others who will do the same right back using the same justification you used. You may not have the support of being the majority forever. Sarah just got a big dose of pay back. Unfortunately, I suspect the lesson will go right over her head.

How this "moral" protection gets infused in to business is complicated. Are we coming to blue and red businesses based on their desire to insert their political or religious interests onto the public? I don't shop at Hobby Lobby or Chik fil A. It's not all because I disagree with their "morals" but rather because I don't like it being peddled as part of a public business.

This is an interesting topic. I fear the courts may not treat both sides of the issue fairly in the future.

People generally like to do business with those who are like themselves and maybe thats okay. Generally working class people do not like to dine in restaurants that cater to the rich and vice versa. We for some reason think that people should mix together but I think that is an impossible dream. My husband and I have been treated badly in certain restaurants because we are well to do and people resent that and wonder why you are eating there. I have tried mixing with different people but when it comes down to it people seem to prefer their own kind. Ever tried being accepted by a group of obese people when you are thin and fit?

belfastgirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People generally like to do business with those
> who are like themselves and maybe thats okay.

I was in Trader Joe's last night because I had run out of something I needed, and as I was going up-and-down the aisles, I suddenly realized the amazing diversity of the people around me--all doing the same thing, some with children of all ages, from infants up to near-adolescents, and everyone was being sincerely kind and thoughtful to each other. (It was within an hour of closing, and the store, which has a very small square footage compared to a supermarket, had way overcrowded aisles.)

People smiled to each other, motioned others to go before them, moved their shopping carts without being asked to if the carts were blocking someone from getting to the products behind the carts, were verbally saying "Excuse me" and "Thank you" to each other...and most everyone was engaging the infants and toddlers in interactions: smiles, waves, saying "Hi!, How are you?" or "What a pretty shirt you're wearing!," and giving the running toddlers right-of-way as they raced up or down the aisles or within the produce section.

Later, at home, I remarked that there had to have been more diversity on that small store floor than most people could imagine possible. It wasn't just that there was a mix of black and white and Asian, it was that there was a mixture of world ethnicities and world languages and (obviously) world religions: Polynesian and Sikh and Japanese and Hispanic and WASP and Catholic (one girl was wearing her school uniform) and the Indian sub-continent and black Americans...

Everyone in Trader Joe's last night (and this is the usual situation) was comfortable with each other, not just "conceptually" or "philosophically," but physically comfortable with each other in VERY close, and often physically clashing, quarters.

People were not just being socially polite, they were actively interacting with each other, often spontaneously helping each other, like reaching up for a top shelf item that an Asian (for example) couldn't reach...even though, because the store was overcrowded beyond normal, we were ALL "in each other's way" as we went about collecting whatever-it-was that we came in for.

This is Los Angeles, and we have "everybody" here, and I don't understand why this same thing can't be the fact everywhere in the USA.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 05:24PM by Tevai.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> belfastgirl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > People generally like to do business with those
> > who are like themselves and maybe thats okay.
>
> I was in Trader Joe's last night because I had run
> out of something I needed, and as I was going
> up-and-down the aisles, I suddenly realized the
> amazing diversity of the people around me--all
> doing the same thing, some with children of all
> ages, from infants up to near-adolescents, and
> everyone was being sincerely kind and thoughtful
> to each other. (It was within an hour of closing,
> and the store, which has a very small square
> footage compared to a supermarket, had way
> overcrowded aisles.)
>
> People smiled to each other, motioned others to go
> before them, moved their shopping carts without
> being asked to if the carts were blocking someone
> from getting to the products behind the carts,
> were verbally saying "Excuse me" and "Thank you"
> to each other...and most everyone was engaging the
> infants and toddlers in interactions: smiles,
> waves, saying "Hi!, How are you?" or "What a
> pretty shirt you're wearing!," and giving the
> running toddlers right-of-way as they raced up or
> down the aisles or within the produce section.
>
> Later, at home, I remarked that there had to have
> been more diversity on that small store floor than
> most people could imagine possible. It wasn't
> just that there was a mix of black and white and
> Asian, it was that there was a mixture of world
> ethnicities and world languages and (obviously)
> world religions: Polynesian and Sikh and Japanese
> and Hispanic and WASP and Catholic (one girl was
> wearing her school uniform) and the Indian
> sub-continent and black Americans...
>
> Everyone in Trader Joe's last night (and this is
> the usual situation) was comfortable with each
> other, not just "conceptually" or
> "philosophically," but physically comfortable with
> each other in VERY close, and often physically
> clashing, quarters.
>
> People were not just being socially polite, they
> were actively interacting with each other, often
> spontaneously helping each other, like reaching up
> for a top shelf item that an Asian (for example)
> couldn't reach...even though, because the store
> was overcrowded beyond normal, we were ALL "in
> each other's way" as we went about collecting
> whatever-it-was that we came in for.
>
> This is Los Angeles, and we have "everybody" here,
> and I don't understand why this same thing can't
> be the fact everywhere in the USA.

It's certainly the way things should and obviously can be, Tevai.

Trader Joe’s is just that way. The other day I was at Trader Joe’s and I remarked that I was getting my mother something sweet to make her feel better because she just had a medical procedure, and as I left the store Clerks arranged to give me a free dozen flowers to give to her. I wasn’t fishing for free stuff and it never occurred to me that that might happen, I was just making conversation with the person who was checking me out. I always have good conversations and get experiences with people at Trader Joe’s, which kind of makes up for the fact of how expensive a store it is, but also it provides pretty high quality merchandise.

Compare this to Walmart, dirty grimy stores that are deliberately meant to confuse you and keep you in the store longer, and where I routinely see people yelling at each other and on some occasions getting into physical confrontations.

Life should be like shopping at Trader Joe’s, but unfortunately it is more often like meandering around a Walmart.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 11:26PM by midwestanon.

Slippery slope getting steeper..

If Obama was president and some restaurant owner did this to his press secretary or someone else in his admin, for "what the president believes in..", I am pretty sure the race card would be thrown out there..

If bakers can refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings then they can refuse to bake cakes for black people.

That is the question, Dave.

The constitution explicitly protects racial groups; they get an extra level of care.

The underlying rationale--that people should not be punished for innate characteristics--obviously applies to people of non-standard gender identity. But that is a matter of common sense, not law. Until the supreme court has explicitly endorsed that view, there is some doubt about its legality.

Past rulings by Kennedy, as noted by Scalia, indicate that the court probably will agree that gender identity implies strict scrutiny. It would, however, be nice to get a formal ruling to that effect.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If bakers can refuse to bake cakes for gay
> weddings then they can refuse to bake cakes for
> black people.


Anybody can do Anything they want
It's a free country (for who buys it)

readwrite-NLI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dave the Atheist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If bakers can refuse to bake cakes for gay
> > weddings then they can refuse to bake cakes for
> > black people.
>
>
> Anybody can do Anything they want
> It's a free country (for who buys it)
True. MORmONS could still ban blacks from the temple if they wanted. Fundamentalist Mormons do it and nobody has a problem with that, theyre far mor concerned about the kiddie rape.
So thats where Mormonism is still a lot like their abusive fundy cousins.
When they rape kids they do it with a great big shit eating grin, with the spirit testifying to them that they are just doing the Lords work and glory, just like Joseph.

a sign that says something about we can refuse service to anyone.

When my son's wife left him, he worked at a local restaurant, and she had the balls to go in to the restaurant with another guy. Guess what? The owner went and told her she had to leave and to not return, that he was refusing to serve her.

So I don't really understand all this. Myself, I'm not gay, but I've been around enough gays in my life, I wouldn't want someone like the guy in that shop to bake my wedding cake. I know it was the principle, but I still wouldn't want him to bake my wedding cake with his attitude and his beliefs.

Once again you are politicising on this board without relating it to the board subject which is recovery from mormonism.You have people here on both sides of this issue.just because you ditch mormonism doesnt necessarily mean you dich a conservitve point of view.Have some respect for others please.

The relationship between constitutional law and personal belief is consonant with the process of recovery from a cultic religion.

PHIL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again you are politicising on this board
> without relating it to the board subject which is
> recovery from mormonism.

The two subjects being discussed are:

1) the [assumed] "right" to be racist in conducting a business, or in practicing a religion

2) the [assumed] "right" to be homophobic in conducting a business, or in practicing a religion


Mormonism has made its official and practical religious views extremely well known and newsworthy on both of these subjects (for example: Prop 8 in California...and various "gay marriage" and "gay families with children" LDS proclamations).

The LDS church has, by its own extensive, expensive, historical, and political efforts, made both of these issues "religious" within the rules of this board.

PHIL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again you are politicising on this board
> without relating it to the board subject which is
> recovery from mormonism.You have people here on
> both sides of this issue.just because you ditch
> mormonism doesnt necessarily mean you dich a
> conservitve point of view.Have some respect for
> others please.
Not political and 100% applicable to Recovery from the bigoted institution we inherited.
Im not picking sides, just trying to reconcile right/wrong here, with help from fair minded people on both sides of the issue. I can see both sides and accept that both sides have valid arguments.
These are interesting legal social issues we are dealing with these days. If the courts favor not forcing bakers to violate their religious beliefs, what about secular beliefs?
Are they granted the same respect?
It will be an interesting test of logic and justice.

Maybe it's easy for me to say since I've never in my life been asked to leave a place of business, but I don't want to patronize any place of business that does not want to serve me. Sarah Huckabee Sanders apparently felt the same way. On the other hand, I don't agree with Sanders politically, but I wouldn't patronize the restaurant after it treated her the way she was treated. While my political beliefs are more liberal than are those of most people, I think the restaurant's actions were wrong.

I don't know whether the restaurant's actions would be considered legal or illegal under the Public Accommodation law, but I don't think what they did is morally right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 07:39PM by Devoted Exmo.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know whether the restaurant's actions
> would be considered legal or illegal under the
> Public Accommodation law, but I don't think what
> they did is morally right.

It does seem like the owner is skating on thin legal/moral ice, but there's clearly a battle for the moral high ground here, by people willing to stoop to new lows every day, ironically.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 07:50PM by koriwhore.

I don't think the owner of the restaurant was skating on thin legal ice. The reason there can be laws against racial discrimination on race, for example, is that it's such a common thing to discriminate on and so widespread that it affects interstate commerce. Random denials of service to members of an administration don't invoke the law. Businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as their reason doesn't touch upon discrimination against a member of a protected class for being a member of a protected class.

It's not a correct formulation to think that by being licensed by the government a business is in a tacit contractual relationship with a government giving the government some control over the business. That's how Mormons think about God, but it's not a good description of the relationship between a business and the government.

Persons have got a right to exchange property with each other on any terms they want--basically. However, 'property' is what we call an enforceable right to exclude. Government expresses societies method of enforcement, which gives meaning to the word 'property.' Most of government surrounds enforcement of the right to exclude, preventing property rights to surround contraband, and controlling violence, extortion, and exploitation surrounding enforcement, and then creating all of the enforcement which creates new forms of property, like ApplePay, a reliable bank account, etc.

Because the government helps create the concept of property, it's got an interest in identifying where and how in its jurisdiction property is being exchanged so it can know how its enforcement is being used. That's a business license. A business owner's not in a contract with the government. A business owner has to cooperate with the government because without the government, there's no reliable property. That's why you invest in the US and not South Sudan, i.e.

NO SHIRT
NO SHOES
NO SERVICE

A common sign for many businesses in some places.

Anything wrong with it?

When I go into a place that has no service, I want to remove my shirt and shoes. And leave.

What's choice if you can't have it?

M@t



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 08:33PM by moremany.

onetogo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NO SHIRT
> NO SHOES
> NO SERVICE
>
> A common sign for many businesses in some places.
>
>
> Anything wrong with it?
I was in Sluggers bar in Seattle last week after Mariners beating the Redsocks and they had a sign that said,

Men, No Shirt No Service
Women, No Shirt Free Beer

Is that sexist?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 09:11PM by koriwhore.

Depending on local health code laws, it may be legally required that you wear a shirt and shoes for as long as you are inside of the business. In those cases, the local law would support the requirements stated on the sign.

Even where state and local laws support the carrying of guns and even where the gun carrier has a permit, the establishment still has the authority to ban anyone from carrying a gun on their property. I would imagine that other private property laws would apply too.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2018 12:40AM by azsteve.

It's wrong to refuse to do business with someone because of their political affiliation with a mainstream political party. That applies regardless of which party the proprietor is with, or regardless of which political party the customer is with. It goes both ways equally and it is wrong. In either event, the customer who is denied service should sue the business that denied them service.

Is there an exactly law that the restaurant broke?

Tell us why is is wrong ?

azsteve Wrote:
----------------------------------------
> is wrong. In either event, the customer who is
> denied service should sue the business that denied
> them service.

On what basis?
Political orientation isnt even a protected class.
Sexual orientation is, except when its not, such as in this case.

This ranks up there with your assertion, the other day, that it takes a two-thirds majority to pass legislation through Congress, which we know is false.

Here you assert that a service provider may not deny service to someone based on his or her political party. I am not sure whether that is true. But even if it is, you lose the argument as soon as you insert your qualifier--"a MAINSTREAM political party." That means you don't really believe your own principle: you think there should be limits on how far civil rights go based on whether a subjective observer (you) thinks an organization meets a subjective list of criteria.

If you believe political identification deserves special protection from the government, then you have to extend the civil right to all legal political parties--as the First Amendment does to religion and the post-Civil War amendments do to ethnicity. Otherwise there is no constitutional basis for the right.

I've got to say Lot's Wife, that you have crossed the line too many times now. I am really getting tired of it. You are routinely violating the board rules every time you do it. You don't just propose opposing viewpoints to mine which is okay to do. You go out of your way to draw conclusions based on your own flawed logic trying to prove what a bad and conflicted person I am. The problem is that you draw flawed conclusions and are wrong about me most of the time. I don't know why you see the need to have this obsession about me and what I say. But it's got to stop now. Feel free to post your own positions, whether or not they agree with mine. But if the personal attacks against me continue, you're going to get the war you seek. That won't be good for the other person's thread when it breaks out as it will if you continue. But personal attacks are also against the board rules also. So this behavior on your part stops now. GOT IT ?

I used the term mainstream political party because there are some very minority parties that appear to operate with extreme positions. Regardless of what many extremists on both sides of the two main parties may say about the other party, I believe that we can trust the majority of the American people these days, most of which are a member of one of the two main parties, at least to be civil in a public place. In addition, many of the other parties in in the US can be equally trusted. But it's not as easy to make a blanket statement about them since there are many of them and it only takes a few bad apples to make the statement be not true.

When it comes to why denying a person service in a business that theoretically is open to all who will pay and abide by reasonable rules, common sense should apply. I didn't say it was illegal. I said it is wrong. No member of our society should be treated that way. It's not a partison issue. It has to do with a civilized society remaining civil. There are people who I love and who are on the opposite end of the political scale as I am. It doesn't matter that much. It's stupid to play politics as a way of life. Anyone extreme enough to deny someone service to someone else in a business based on their political beliefs needs to lighten-up.

I see this as an issue that could be construed to apply to the banning of genetic skin color groups from full participation in a religious group.
If a person claims to be a Christian Should that person treat, with Christian charity, those who do not share that belief? If a person claims to be Christian would it not be proper for them to demonstrate this by their action?
Understand I am not taking sides I am only asking questions. Let the forum form an opinion.
I paraphrase Do as I do not as I say

Seriously? In what world do we police the behavior of Christians? In the case cited by the OP this was a restauranteur who asked a patron to leave based on her day job. It's a specific situation. And any laws that would apply are laws that dictate what a business owner can or cannot do to the public that use their business or services.

Where is the American Civil Liberties Union when Sarah Huckabee Sanders needs them? Oh yeah, they don't serve her kind. And besides, they're too busy now working on their efforts to ban certain free speech (for real, look it up).

Can my restaurant refuse to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can my restaurant refuse to serve Sarah Huckabee
> Sanders ?


Someone else's restaurant did and Huckabee Sanders didn't oppose it. The answer would seem to be yes.

What if Sanders opposed it ?

She would have to cite a law broken. What law protects her?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if Sanders opposed it ?

That might vary according to local laws, but until she opposed it, there would be no issue.

What if gays oppose not getting a wedding cake ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if gays oppose not getting a wedding cake ?


I don't know. The courts have to decide on such matters.

The free market takes care of the issue in a more practical manner. Many of us would not patronize a business that discriminated against gays. In my area, such a bakery would not be financially solvent for long. In mid-America, unfortunately, such a business might thrive.

There is no such thing as "The free market".
Just more of your BOHICA.

I think that the Supreme court just recently answered that one. I think they can buy a cake off of the shelf. But they can't force anyone to do custom artwork on the cake if the would-be artist don't want to do it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 10:57PM by azsteve.

I don't think that the Supreme court has addressed yet, whether or not political bias is a legal basis on which to deny a person service.

I have a question Dave. This is a real question, not a trap or any kind of statement against you. I have never met Sanders. If your mother or someone else signiclficant in your life were a god-fearing conservative republican, would you support the notion that she or that other person should be denied restaurant service, and be called scum by strangers who have never met her? Despite her professional loyalty to her employer, do we know that Sarah Huckabee Sanders personally agrees with the Supreme Court's decision on the gay couple and the cake?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2018 12:27AM by azsteve.

Show me a "god-fearing conservative republican". You and your nonsense terms.

Once again Dave, you make a personal attack instead of contributing real articulated subject matter. The question stands. Maybe your mother, your sister, an Aunt, a grandmother... there's got to be someone in your family who doesn't agree with your views and who you do not hate for it. Do you dismiss and deamonize them too? Or do they get a pass and you only vent your hate on strangers who you don't agree with?

You and your five-year-old child articulation of issues .....

You and your RWNJ political bullshit. Take your crap somewhere else.

Yes, Sometimes there is a difference between what is legal and what is right.

I picture you Dave as a fifty year old man who is still living in the basement at his parent's house because you never made anything of your life with such a chip on your shoulder. You actually own a restaurant? Is it like 'Dave's Athiest Hangout'? Where people come to eat together and discuss how cold and unfair the world is to everyone?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2018 01:30AM by azsteve.

I picture you as a 400 pound jackass who lives in a pillow fort in his mother's basement.

Too bad I have two professional degrees and a six figure income Dave. You got it totally wrong.

To paraphrase Sir Arthur Harris:

The zealots have the rather childish delusion that they can discriminate against everyone else and no one else is going to discriminate against them.

This is what happens when you use "religious freedom" as a ploy to get around anti-discrimination laws.

Equal rights aren't "special rights."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 10:17PM by anybody.

well said.

As long as Dave wants to start a war of personal unprovoked attacks on my posts in multiple different threads on this forum including on this thread, I thought I would respond to say here that I disagree, if for no other reason than because Dave does agree. I haven't made any personal insults against you here YET Dave. When you're finished menicing my posts with personal attacks, maybe these kinds of posts from me in response to your posts will stop too.

Maybe you need to take your right wing political bullshit and leave.

I can make this topical to Mormonism. My family is from the Lexington area. My dad went to college in Lexington and I was married in that town. Both of my parents grew up within ten miles of there.

Southern Virginia University (formerly Southern Seminary) is about ten miles from Lexington and owned by Mormons. The area, including Lexington, has experienced a large influx of LDS folks. And I bet a lot of them patronize The Red Hen.

Personally, I think Ms. Wilkinson was justified in what she did. She stood in solidarity with her employees, many of whom are directly affected by Ms. Sanders' boss's cruel policies. Next time I go home to see family, I will try to stop in there for dinner.