Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

You can have a business that isn't open to the public but rather just its members, and make membership by invite only, and then you can pick and choose who your customers can and can't be.But if you open your doors to the public, then you can't refuse service to someone because they belong to a protected class.

[voice="Austin Powers"]Tell that to Vegas, baby![/voice]You get caught cheating in one casino, you get barred from all the casinos.

OK, let us imagine such a "private" organization in the USA. It has had a Congressional Charter for a little over a century now. It has traditionally received enormous support through public moneys, including free use of public lands (or one-dollar leases) and somewhat free access to military facilities. And even though it is a "private" organization, it provides a very public service to American youth.It also has published rules and regulations and bylaws that govern its operations and its policies. Those include rules for how it treats members who are not deemed worthy of membership, which includes their appeal processes.Problems have arisen in which the leadership has deemed that atheists should not be allowed membership, even though neither the rules and regulations nor the bylaws forbid it (and can even allow it). And, furthermore, members expelled for that "reason" were denied their due process according to the organization's own rules and regulations and bylaws.So the question is: Can a private organization do just whatever the frak it wants to do? Or can it at least be held responsible to following its own rules and regulations and bylaws?

The Congressional Charter actually means nothing since it is just an honorific. It is a piece of paper the organization gets to hang on the wall, point to and say, "See? Even Congress likes us." It contains no legal restrictions or requirements on the organization's actions.As a privately-owned membership-based service organization, as opposed to a privately-owned publicly-licensed business venture, the legal requirements are quite different. As a membership-based organization they can restrict their membership and their services however they desire via First Amendment Free Association rights.Also, in the case here there is a ruling body with the power and responsibility to interpret and amend the rules, regulations and bylaws at its pleasure and set the policies and procedures that govern the operations of the organization. I'm not certain about this but I do not think even contract law could force such an organization to abide by its own policies/procedures. Any change by the ruling body would make the matter moot.The great success of the organization in achieving national prominence and wide-spread support from both public and private sectors of society does not in anyway alter its legal status or protections.Specifically, such an organization can, imho, pretty much do anything they want, within reason, of course, and can amend, withdraw or ignore any stated rules, regulations and bylaws they may have adopted in the past. The greatest restrictions on such an organization are its reputation and the political pressures applied by segments of the society.I think I understand where you are going with this and I'm not so sure this example presents the same legal issues as a privately-owned publicly-licensed business.

I am pretty sure that contract law could generally be used to make the organization follow its own procedures. However I'm also sure that on matters of membership the BSA would get its way.In BSA v Dale, 5 Supreme Court Justices felt that when it comes to kicking gay people out of the boy scouts, the claim that a gay boy scout was 'off message' was enough. Four Justices thought the boy scouts had done a poor enough job of promulgating a policy so that they would rule the other way.Under the current make up of the court, which includes Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, all of whom voted against Dale, I think the outcome would be the same when it comes to atheists.Pretty funky, but that's the current state of the law.

So if I see a man stealing magazines from the nail spa next door, I cannot kick him out of my barbershop until he actually steals my magazines? Or if I see him stealing a diamond ring from the jewelry store, I must welcome him into my watch store?Is there something wrong with me as the owner of a large department store sharing shoplifting information with other store owners in the same mall?I submit that your policy as stated is unreasonable. Want to try a restatement?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Speaking as a middle of the road atheistic liberal, I disagree. There is a reason for public accommodation laws.How about if you were in a small town, and the entire town boycotted you because you were gay?? It's the whole 'we don't serve blacks' mentality.Mind you , you don't have to provide anything you don't give anybody else.

Again, nobody here has argued, as far as I recall, against refusing service to somebody who behaves badly toward your staff or toward other customers. The specific point I made, which you dredged up, was that you can refuse service to somebody caught stealing but you can not refuse service to somebody for being a thief in another context. You can not refuse service to somebody for ordering a cake, no matter what he intends to use it for, unless he misbehaves on the spot.The issue is about immediacy. You can not be the supreme arbiter of your customers' behaviour at all times in all places.

I'm not sure we should be following the principles of gangsters.

Correct. If you report him and he does his time in prison, do you think you should have the right to refuse service to all ex-cons? That information can legitimately be used to help them spot shoplifters but not for them to refuse service.

Finally a statement that is somewhere above the Mendoza line with respect to reasonableness. At least for some definition of immediacy anyway.

Except that stores do bar known shoplifters from their stores. So yes it can legitimately be used for exactly that. You are welcome to your position, but I think the policy is fair. I have already stated that I wouldn't bar ex-cons so your question is from left field. However I might make an exception for someone who stole from me and showed up a short time later, where 'short time' is a period I decide the length of.Edited by NoNukes, : Combine two answers in same post

What stores can get away with does not imply legitimacy. They used to get away with segregating black people until the illegitimacy became official. If your business was your own private fiefdom you'd have the ability, if not the "right", to ravage the young maidens or whatever you chose. But it isn't. As long as your business is licensed by the community it is the community, not you, that determines whom you can bar and on what grounds.

So, even granting your (lack of) distinction over mine, regardless of me being right and you being wrong it still isn't actually moot.If a public business wants to discriminate against a protected class, then they can say that they just don't want to do it, and then keep the reason why to themselves. Like, keep it private.That won't get them shut down. Its when the christian baker publicly declared that they wouldn't bake the cake because the customer was gay is when the shutting down began.Can you agree that if a business does go and publicize the reason, and its because the customer belongs to a protected class, then the people are warranted in dealing out some consequences to that?I agree that just "shutting them down" is a dick maneuver, but couldn't they have room in the private members-only business? They could even get support through their religious avenues. So they don't actually have to "shut down".Did you see how much money that pizza place was reportedly raking in?You mentioned opposing "forcing businesses to serve gay people" as being a vileness, but honestly I think that point is more moot than mine.Obviously, nobody is going to force people to bake cakes. And being forced to face shutting your business down or else having to do something as benign as baking a cake (that you're going to get paid for), isn't as bad as telling someone that you won't sell them that cake because they belong to a protected class.Faith posted a video of what would happen if you asked muslim bakeries to make a gay wedding cake, and they had a clear line that they weren't willing to cross when they'd refuse selling the cake. The questions was, why were they getting away with it but the christians weren't?The answer is that the muslims always just said that they just didn't want to do it and that was it. The christians came right out and said that they didn't want to do it because the customer was gay.I don't think that's a bad spot to draw the line. Keep it to yourself (private) or don't act like you're opening up your doors to everyone (public). That's pretty much where the law draws the line. And that's because if you do open your doors up to everyone, and benefit from that "privilege" (they get their cut of course), then you can't be discriminating against people for belonging to a protected class.And even if they do have to stop participating and not have their doors open to everyone, because they can't serve the gays, then they're still not actually forced into shutting down their business, because they can still go the members-only route.Opening up your doors to everyone doesn't mean that the people can't try to make your business unsuccessful. If you're being a dick then I get to cuss you out loudly on my way out the door.I agree that going the legal route to shut the business down is pussy way to go about it, though. But I see where they're coming from.Am I making any sense?

Did the Boy Scouts do anything illegal? Pretty much, but not exactly. I don't think the public should be able to hold a private business responsible for following its own rules, no.