FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Caitshidhe on February 23, 2012, 02:07:43 am
-
Okay, we've all heard about business-owners--restauranteurs and the like--denying their services to people because they were 'morally opposed' to that person's identity or personal beliefs. Usually for being openly gay. Around here we're quite justifiably appalled at such discrimination, even though it is technically a businessman's right not to provide any non-vital service to someone for whatever reasons they fancy. But what about the reverse of this? What about a business-owner who happens to be a member of a typically maligned group denying someone service because THEY feel morally opposed to that person's views? Does discrimination justify discrimination?
I ask because I just found this article about a man in New Mexico refusing to provide a service to the state's governor--because of her anti-gay views.
Antonio Darden is a middle-aged salon owner and openly homosexual. He has been in a relationship with his partner for the last fifteen years but they are denied the rights given to straight couples. New Mexico's governor, Susana Martinez, has openly stated her anti-gay views and said she believes marriage is between one man and one woman--she was also a client of Darden's until recently, when he responded to a request for an appointment by saying he won't give Martinez his business until she changes her mind about gay marriage.
"I think it's just equality, dignity for everyone," the popular hair stylist said. "I think everybody should be allowed the right to be together. My partner and I have been together for 15 years."
Darden said gay couples do not have the same rights that married couples have, and he is determined to fight that, even if it means losing an important customer.
The rest of the article can be found here (http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s2506830.shtml).
What do you guys think? Granted it's unquestionably wrong to discriminate against people for things they have no control over--a disability, race, or sexual orientation--but what about denying someone a service based on their beliefs? If this was a case of an atheist or liberal being denied service by a hardcore religious or right-wing businessman we would all be up in arms, but my knee-jerk reaction to Darden is, 'Well done!' Hypocritical, I know. Still, it took a lot of balls to do what he did and technically it's his right to do this.
So, is this a case of, 'AWESOME!' or is this a case of 'DOUCHEBAG!'?
-
I think ideally at least non-vital businesses should be allowed to deny service for whatever reason the owner sees fit. However, since there are already laws in place that state it's unacceptable in certain circumstances (namely due to race), in the interests of avoiding hypocrisy, I say that currently they should not be allowed to deny service for personal reasons under any circumstances.
-
I think there's a clear difference here. The guy isn't denying her service because of what she is, but what she's done. It's not a characteristic about her that is causing him to deny service, but actions she has performed. Actions that cause harm to other human beings.
I don't think anyone, anywhere, would argue that someone should be forced to serve someone who stole from their store or started a fight in it. In fact, such actions are typically met with lifetime bans from any establishment. And while this may be a bit less "personal" in nature, it doesn't change the fact that the governor is actively working to harm this man's life. I see no reason why he should be compelled to serve her.
-
You can deny anyone your service for any reason provided it's not for reasons outside of their control. Things like sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender. Things like that.
Ironbite-if it's for your thoughts, you can deny all you like.
-
Yeah, basically, she brought it on herself. Besides, if she tries to cry hypocrisy now, she'll be smearing that label across her own forehead as well.
-
I suppose it is rather more like refusing service to someone on the grounds of being a Neo Nazi or something--in the end refusing someone service for being, say, an atheist (a personal belief) is wrong because being an atheist is harmless, whereas being a Neo Nazi or Governor Martinez is hatemongering.
-
The main point I see here is that the governor's being given a refusal of services because of some specific position that she personally has taken in her role as a public servant. There's no generalization here that I can see, whether against Christians or fundamentalists or governors or women or even anti-gay individuals; it's directed expressly at one person, based on a somewhat unique situation given her power and decisions in that matter.
Within the narrow confines of this, I'm in support of this guy being free to do so.
-
My initial reaction was to view it as a touch hypocritical, but upon further thought I concluded that it's the equivalent of a black hairdresser denying service to someone with strong ties to the local Klan.
-
My initial reaction was to view it as a touch hypocritical, but upon further thought I concluded that it's the equivalent of a black hairdresser denying service to someone with strong ties to the local Klan.
Pretty much this.
-
Makes it easier for the other side to point to an example of christians being descriminated against by the evil gays.
-
I suppose it is rather more like refusing service to someone on the grounds of being a Neo Nazi or something--in the end refusing someone service for being, say, an atheist (a personal belief) is wrong because being an atheist is harmless, whereas being a Neo Nazi or Governor Martinez is hatemongering.
The problem with this is that a religious business owner might think that being an atheist is harmful. So if we think it is okay for this hair dresser to refuse service to someone on their beliefs on marriage it has to be okay for a religious business owner to refuse service to an atheist for their beliefs.
Going a step further, that could also mean that all the Christian business owners could refuse to serve Muslims or people with other religious faiths. That would be quite a mess.
MaybeNever brings up a good point that I pretty much agree with, in this one case it maybe acceptable because the Governor is a public figure, but in more general terms of refusing services to people of different beliefs I think it could cause far more harm then good.
-
I think there's a clear difference here. The guy isn't denying her service because of what she is, but what she's done. It's not a characteristic about her that is causing him to deny service, but actions she has performed. Actions that cause harm to other human beings.
You can deny anyone your service for any reason provided it's not for reasons outside of their control. Things like sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender. Things like that.
Ironbite-if it's for your thoughts, you can deny all you like.
What about discrimination based on political leaning? Deny service if you know that guy voted Republican/Democrat, nothing else? Fully in his control, can be considered harmful because support harmful politics. Do you think that would be okay?
-
I prefer specifics to broad strokes. "Republican" wouldn't be enough for me, because there are actually decent, sane republicans out there. They may even consist of the majority of people who vote republican. They just have the misfortune of sharing a title with the nucking futs ones.
In this case, the guy's singling out a specific platform the governor has been vocal about as the reason for his denial of service.
-
On the surface, it's hypocritical but underneath it, it isn't. It's a political protest. A person can't help it if they are a certain ethnicity, color or sex orientation. However, a person can help it if they are bigoted morons. You give them reason & proof but they insist on being jerks. Screw them! Haters deserve to be called out! This guy's giving them a taste of their own medicine! It's not revenge, mind you, it's a lesson. Bigotry is evil. People should be judged by their CHARACTER ONLY! If someone has the character of a fresh pile of manure then they deserve all the scorn they can get!
-
Some might look at it as hypocrisy.
I like to think of it as argument via karma.
-
I think that storeowners should only be able to kick people out for choices and not immutable traits. Religion, political views, and whether or not you wear shoes are choices. Race, sexual orientation, and gender are not.
-
This situation is unique. In general terms I'd hate to own a business and feel compelled to quiz every prospective customer on his or her beliefs before providing goods or services. Pain in the ass. Know what I mean?
-
This situation is unique. In general terms I'd hate to own a business and feel compelled to quiz every prospective customer on his or her beliefs before providing goods or services. Pain in the ass. Know what I mean?
Exactly. So even if discrimination based on beliefs was allowed, it would be 1) impractical to ask everyone you serve and 2) make you look like a massive douchenozzle to any would-be patrons who disagree with your decision.
-
I think that storeowners should only be able to kick people out for choices and not immutable traits. Religion, political views, and whether or not you wear shoes are choices. Race, sexual orientation, and gender are not.
Hard to say political affliation and religion is a choice. Remember they did a brain scan showing conservatives had bigger Amygdalas.
If voting republican is a choice, so is having sex with someone of the same or similar gender.
However, since this person is in political power, and not some street bigot, I'd say this is justified.
-
This situation is unique. In general terms I'd hate to own a business and feel compelled to quiz every prospective customer on his or her beliefs before providing goods or services. Pain in the ass. Know what I mean?
Simple solution: Only reject business to those people who are loud and vocal about this stuff.
-
My boss has thrown people out of her store for acting like assholes before, and no one's really had a problem with it with the exception of said assholes. But to quote her, "I don't give a fuck if you think this is discrimination, you treat my employees like shit and I won't sell you shit." I thought that was pretty standard protocol- you piss off the business owner, don't expect to get services from that business.
-
My boss has thrown people out of her store for acting like assholes before, and no one's really had a problem with it with the exception of said assholes. But to quote her, "I don't give a fuck if you think this is discrimination, you treat my employees like shit and I won't sell you shit." I thought that was pretty standard protocol- you piss off the business owner, don't expect to get services from that business.
You'd be surprised at how many managers and store owners will gladly throw their employees to the wolves.
-
Well, personally, I applaud this action. My only concern is that the Christians are going to start screaming about 'pershucushun!!"
I hope he doesn't lose too much business over this... some of the religious locals might boycot his business now that this is public knowledge.
-
Well, personally, I applaud this action. My only concern is that the Christians are going to start screaming about 'pershucushun!!"
I hope he doesn't lose too much business over this... some of the religious locals might boycot his business now that this is public knowledge.
If he was worried about that, he wouldn't have done it. Besides, who would want to spend time making someone who hates you beautiful? He'll likely be happy to have such bigots gone from his shop, even if it does mean a small hit to his pocketbook--one that could likely be made up for due to the people who start going there simply to support a stylist with ethics.
-
The main point I see here is that the governor's being given a refusal of services because of some specific position that she personally has taken in her role as a public servant. There's no generalization here that I can see, whether against Christians or fundamentalists or governors or women or even anti-gay individuals; it's directed expressly at one person, based on a somewhat unique situation given her power and decisions in that matter.
Within the narrow confines of this, I'm in support of this guy being free to do so.
-
I think that storeowners should only be able to kick people out for choices and not immutable traits. Religion, political views, and whether or not you wear shoes are choices. Race, sexual orientation, and gender are not.
Does that mean you'd support a homophobic business owner who refuses to serve someone who participates in gay pride parades or actively campaigns for gay rights (bearing in mind I'm only taking about refusing service based on their pro-gay activism, not their sexuality).
-
I think that storeowners should only be able to kick people out for choices and not immutable traits. Religion, political views, and whether or not you wear shoes are choices. Race, sexual orientation, and gender are not.
Does that mean you'd support a homophobic business owner who refuses to serve someone who participates in gay pride parades or actively campaigns for gay rights (bearing in mind I'm only taking about refusing service based on their pro-gay activism, not their sexuality).
I wouldn't support his decision, but I'd support his right to do that.
-
I think that storeowners should only be able to kick people out for choices and not immutable traits. Religion, political views, and whether or not you wear shoes are choices. Race, sexual orientation, and gender are not.
Does that mean you'd support a homophobic business owner who refuses to serve someone who participates in gay pride parades or actively campaigns for gay rights (bearing in mind I'm only taking about refusing service based on their pro-gay activism, not their sexuality).
I wouldn't support his decision, but I'd support his right to do that.
I see no problem with that.
-
Remember they did a brain scan showing conservatives had bigger Amygdalas.
So? It's still a pretty big mystery how the brain developes. When you find abnormal growth correlated with a specific trait, did the growth cause the trait or did the trait cause the growth? Or maybe it's a coincidence.
For me, I support (A) karma & (B) screwing over people who are an actual threat.
-
This situation is unique. In general terms I'd hate to own a business and feel compelled to quiz every prospective customer on his or her beliefs before providing goods or services. Pain in the ass. Know what I mean?
Simple solution: Only reject business to those people who are loud and vocal about this stuff.
Both ways?
-
If there were black store owners in the 60's, I have no reason to doubt there would be instances of them kicking out racist white people who had oppressed them.
I say, the oppressed can turn the tables on the oppressors whenever they get the opportunity, and a hearty Fuck Yeah from me.
-
Does that mean you'd support a homophobic business owner who refuses to serve someone who participates in gay pride parades or actively campaigns for gay rights (bearing in mind I'm only taking about refusing service based on their pro-gay activism, not their sexuality).
Doesn't that seem like an easy way to refuse service to most gay people?
-
Bitch is gonna have bad dye jobs and sloppy cuts for the rest of her life. First rule of hair salons - treat your stylist with class and don't offend! also? word gets around, you know?
-
It's a basic rule of the universe: Never upset the people who have control over your food before you get it, or have control over any aspect of your appearance.
-
Does that mean you'd support a homophobic business owner who refuses to serve someone who participates in gay pride parades or actively campaigns for gay rights (bearing in mind I'm only taking about refusing service based on their pro-gay activism, not their sexuality).
Doesn't that seem like an easy way to refuse service to most gay people?
Possibly, but you do have to admit that condemning it while supporting businesses that refuse service to active bigots is simple hypocrisy.
-
Possibly, but you do have to admit that condemning it while supporting businesses that refuse service to active bigots is simple hypocrisy.
I don't know. I think there is a difference between what the laws should state and where I take my business.
I'm not condemning what this Salon owner at all, nor do I think it is against or should be against the law because it was targeted at a specific person for a specific reason.
-
Depends on how you look at it, & what your reasons are for why it's correct in 1 instance but not in another.
-
Depends on how you look at it, & what your reasons are for why it's correct in 1 instance but not in another.
As I said, for the Salon owner he stated, (unless I read it wrong) that he was refusing service to the Governor. He did not make a blanket statement about all republicans or anything. I think that is the sort of the line, individuals who you don't like vs groups you don't like.
That might be a little hypocritical, and I'm not married to that stance. This is a tough issue. On the one hand you have the rights of business owners and on the other you have the rights of individuals. It is a lot like the Pharmacists that refuse to give out Plan B.
-
As I said, for the Salon owner he stated, (unless I read it wrong) that he was refusing service to the Governor. He did not make a blanket statement about all republicans or anything. I think that is the sort of the line, individuals who you don't like vs groups you don't like.
So what's to say he wouldn't do the same to any other individual who has the same views?
That might be a little hypocritical, and I'm not married to that stance. This is a tough issue. On the one hand you have the rights of business owners and on the other you have the rights of individuals. It is a lot like the Pharmacists that refuse to give out Plan B.
I agree totally with you there. It's why I think it'd be much easier to simply say either business can or can't deny service based on their dislike for any given customer under any circumstances. I may be over-simplifying things, but I just can't see any other way to do it that doesn't essentially boil down to something as subjective as "only do it when I agree with you".
-
If you don't like how a storeowner is excluding certain people, just... take your business elsewhere. It sends a message.
On many episodes of What Would You Do, when the passerby see a storeowner being an ass, 99% of the time they are outraged and leave the store.
-
I was referring to whether or not it should be legal, not whether or not I personally agree with it.
-
That's the rub isn't it? If you say it is okay for individuals then how many individuals before it becomes a blanket refusal.
I remember the story of the wedding photographer that refused to photograph a lesbian's couples wedding. She was honest and quite nice in her refusal. I think she even suggested another photographer. The couple sued for discrimination and won. While I don't agree with the photographers stance on the issue, I do feel that it was a bit wrong that she got sued.
I guess this is one of those topics that you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.
-
I guess this is one of those topics that you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I hear you, friend. In my view, no matter what you do, there'll always be something wrong, so you may as well keep it simple.