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

And the proprietor shouldnn't have the "right" to arbitrarily decide who's being a jerk. If a jerk does violate the letter of the law, then the law can handle him. Otherwise, the right to be a jerk should not be infringed.

I think they should. That comes along with owning the business.Its up to them to run the thing. They take on a lot of responsibility with that.And maybe having jerks around hurts the success of the business. You have the right to be a jerk, you just don't have the right to be a jerk and have others provide services for you.There's consequences to your behavior even if you have the right to do it.

There are consequences that should be and there are consequences that shouldn't be. A business owner shouldn't be the sole arbiter of what behaviour is "acceptable" and what behaviour is not.

Inside of the business that he owns, yes he should.

Inside of the business that is licensed by the community, no he shouldn't.

Its still private property that he owns (or rents), which grants him rights that are independent of his business license. They include removing people from the property for various reasons. Just because there's a business being operated there doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to kick jerks out.

There's a difference between private property where you live - where you can invite people in or ask them to leave - and publicly-licensed property where the terms of your license determine who can come and go. Your license shouldn't give you much leeway to discriminate arbitrarily.

Show me. I have no idea what you are talking about.The only thing I find through Google about publicly-licensed property is about intellectual property in the public domain. As the owner of both the property and the business, you should be able to make anybody leave that you want to, sans unlawful discrimination.

What's publicly-licensed is the usage of the property, not the ownership of the property. You can be licensed to do certain things on your property, such as sell alcohol or cut hair. You do not necessarily have the same rights of exclusion. For example, you can exclude black people from your home but not from your business. You should be able to make anybody leave on the basis of unlawful behaviour.

Having a license to use your property for a business doesn't negate your right to remove people from your property, nor should it. And that's because of the protected class thing. But even if they're black, you can still exclude one from your business for being a jerk, as you should be able to. But the behavior shouldn't be limited to just what's unlawful. Its lawful for a lady to talk a about putting pee-pee's in her butthole, but I could see why the owner of a childrens' book store would remove them from the property. And they should be allowed to do that.

Having a business licesnse limits your control over the usage of your property, and it should. You can't exclude somebody for being a jerk, only for certain jerky behaviour, which you have a limited ability to determine. In that case, he would and should be allowed to ask her politely to cease and desist or to leave.The same principle would apply to the whiny barber. If he is offended by a customer's approach to his wife, he can ask the customer to stop the offensive behaviour or to leave. He should not be able to punish the customer perpetually for the same offense.

Does it? If I can't sell booze or cut hair on my property unless I have the license, then wouldn't that license increase my control over the usage of my property? Let 'being a jerk' = 'performing jerky behavior' I think its about time to agree to disagree...

Faith isn't interested in continuing right now it seems, so allow me First of paedophilia is not immoral, unlike what Faith was saying. Child abuse, we can probably agree on. I understand that you make it 'acted upon' and invoke 'pederasty' later to elevate this from attractions to actions.Pederasty seem different than both child abuse and paedophilia for different reasons.
1) Pederasty typically focuses on adolescents and is a 'coming of age' ritual. If the pederast's primary sexual drive was for adolescents then at best we could argue paedophilia, but we might be more accurate with ephebophilia.
2) Pederasty is likely but not necessarily abusive. Some pederasts might only have a 'romantic' but non-sexual relationship, others may engage in an erotic relationship, but for example, decline anal sex.This isn't to say I support its return, I'm just typically presenting another side to something that modern western minds forget easily. I should also point out that there is a pragmatic decision in having the age of consent lowered to say the mid-teens, when your life expectancy is in the thirties. It may be conceivable that in some cultures, people become more sexually informed and are given sufficient powers and guidance such that they are deemed able to engage in sexual acts at say 14 years old rather than 16.Where would you stand on providing service for a wedding of a 17 year old to a 14 year old? What if the age gap was larger? And if it was legal and culturally acceptable (or even insisted upon) in their State/Country/tribal territories. Would you serve a person a weapon if it came to light they were a violent criminal? If that weapon had other distinctly non-weapon uses (knives, hammers, saws, cyanide etc)?The same-sex wedding objection involves a connection between the service and the sin. Would you serve a pint to someone who was celebrating a robbery? Would you sell dark/grey clothing to a night time jaywalker? Restraints to a rapist? Large containers and/or large quantities of acid capable of dissolving organic matter, to the Mafia? Nuclear material to a wealthy North Korean? I completely agree. Except this ignores the central point of view you are arguing against which holds that there are victims of same-sex marriage as it relates to a sinful relationship, and both sinners are equally the perpetrators and victims of the crime (just like suicide was considered a moral crime against yourself). A moral system from a people who considered rape a property crime, tends to have some strange notions in how 'consent' can influence 'sin'. Also consider the effects of 'sin by association' on Faith's view. The folks recently in legal trouble over this, would serve homosexual people a birthday cake, or even a wedding cake (if it was for a heterosexual marriage). They are objecting to their services or products being deployed/employed/enjoyed in the contexts of something they find objectionable.Would you be comfortable baking a cake to be used at a celebration for the murdering of a black person?
How about party balloons and helium supplies for the anti-PUA people who wanted to celebrate Elliot Rodger's success, or to be used as part of a 'welcome to being a rapist' ritual practiced by the same or similar?
Would you pour wine for Hitler?
Sell Madeira cake for a 9-11 remembrance day, at an extremist Wahabbi Islamist group's hate rally?They aren't protected classes (the Islamists might be), but I utilize them to help illustrate how it is that some people feel pretty strongly about serving same-sex weddings. They feel that they are taking part, even in a minor way, in a grievous moral crime and probably don't feel comfortable making profit from it.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No, your license limits you to selling booze or cutting hair and it limits how you do so - e.g. within health and safety standards. Being a jerk at some point in the past and the possibility of being a jerk some time in the future should not doom you to being treated like a jerk at all times.

According to some sources:

quote:

---

"Indiana Just Made it Easier to Discriminate Against Gay PeopleAnd Just About Anyone Else" from Mother Jones:

​

Over loud objections from Indiana business leaders, GOP Gov. Mike Pence signed a bill into law Thursday that protects business owners who refuse service to gay and lesbian customers on religious grounds.

---

According to others:

quote:

---

"Mike Pence Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill in Private" from Indy Star:

​

Senate Bill 101 prohibits state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion unless the government can show that it has a compelling interest and that the action is the least-restrictive means of achieving it. It takes effect July 1.

---

Is this law really such that it makes it okay for businesses to ban homosexuals, or are people making more out of this than it really is?