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

There hasn't been a verbal assault. He hasn't refused. That's why I said what I said. Human rights shouldn't be "awarded" only to those who are on the magical Big List o' Protected People^™. And some of them are barbers. I'm saying that even barbers have to follow the rules of the playground. Your extreme scenario is a clear case of assault. The scenario we are discussing is not.There are (roughly) three levels of police action: A customer assaulting a waitress is level 2. A man hitting on a woman is level 1.

Between consenting caring adults, while pedophiles harm children, so no it is NOT the same line.A closer parallel is a heterosexual couple living together without being married -- I'm sure you also classify that as a "sin" in your holy world, and yet we have laws recognizing that a common law couple have the same rights as married couples. There are lots of adults living in caring consenting relationships with other adults,And you didn't define "equality" so that you can exclude gays ... wonder why?And I would much rather live in a world defined by equality than one defined by petty biases and bigotry based on fantasy.Enjoy.

That's what I've been saying in another thread. It's good to see you channeling me, since you can type so much faster than I can.

So what was the point of even mentioning cutting a customer? Apparently there was no point since I really should not do that and would not do that. In fact, except as a method of getting back it makes no sense. Ringo. It was you who indicated that it "it would be effective" to cut the man's ear off if he did it hit on my wife in my presence". I am responding to your statement and not to my own scenario in which my wife is not there. How was that unclear?If in fact, you did not actually recommend the action. Here is what you said: No, as a matter of fact I cannot do that. Why would you suggest that I can when you know that it would be wrong. You seem to think that a customer has to break the law to get kicked out of a business. And of course that's nonsense. As an example, no law says that a person cannot come into my business and use profanity in my shop or walk barefoot into my shop. Only my personal rules say those things. And I can kick people out who break those rules.If you don't think hitting on my wife is a something for which I should take offense, fair enough. But the idea that a patron has to do something actionable to get barred is simply wrong. I would be kicking the person out for rude behavior. I really don't care whether he is a racist or not as long as that does not result in him insulting other customers. But apparently being a racist does cause this particular "patron" to act up. Well, being a racist is not an excuse for being rude. I'm not sure why you think slinging racial and ethnic slurs around is not cause to be kicked out. What do you think would happen if you sued the proprietor for taking such an action? You can kick someone out for stealing from you, or even attempting to do so. Retail stores here routinely bar people they catch shoplifting. Sorry but you are way out in left field on this example and in my opinion on essentially all of the examples. What you are describing isn't discrimination nor is it arbitrary fiefdom like behavior. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It's a more sensible response than throwing him out. Accidents happen. He's less likely to come back if he thinks you're a clumsy barber, whereas he's more likely to lodge a complaint if you throw him out. Yes, it would have made more sense to nick him when the incident occurred instead of waiting until the next time you saw him. You discipline a puppy or a child immediately so he connects the offense with the punishment. Are you still missing the word "should"? I'm not talking about the status quo. The status quo used to be that you were entitled to exclude blacks. The status quo isn't good enough. You're welcome to take offense at the colour of his socks if you want.And then you should get over it. I'm not sure why you think said that. Sure, you can throw people out for stealng from you. To clarify, I meant that you can't (shouldn't be able to) throw people out for being thieves. I may be a professional thief but you shouldn't be able to deny me a haircut because of that. You should only be able to refuse service to me if I steal your favorite copy of Wrestling Fever.

They also don't want to do that.

No, but in this case, the community standard does allow for kicking people out of your business.I get that you think the standard should be higher. I don't think we should disallow it though.

I haven't suggested disallowing proprietors from kicking people out of their businesses. I've suggested that "he hit on my wife" is a ridiculously low standard.

No offense, but this thread might be the least clear and consistent position I've seen you take.

I don't know why it should be unclear. What are you confused about?

You started off talking about when can someone legitamately refuse services. I responded that you can always refuse service, unless you're discriminating against a protected class.Then you said that you were talking about what people "should" do, rather than what the letter of the law allows.To which I replied that people "should" be allowed to refuse service.Then you get into how people should be held to a standard in order to maintain their business license.When I asked you for what the standard is, you mention the legal ones that agree with me that refusing service is forbidden when its against a protected class.But then you say again that you're not talking about the letter of the law and that service refusal "should" be based on good reasons.We disagree about how good the reason under question is, but I don't think particulars matter that much.You say that a business license should be revoked if they don't keep up to the community standard. But that's a letter of the law thing, and it agrees with me that refuses service is prohibitted when its discrimination against a protected class.Then you say that just because the standard allows for it, it doesn't meant that it is what "should" be being done.I say that we shouldn't disallow businesses from refusing service (by revoking their license), and you reply that you're not talking about that, and that you're saying that the reason under discussion isn't good enough.This is where I'm confused.I don't care about how good the particular reason is. Businesses should be allowed to refuse when they want to, unless they are discriminating against a protected class. That is what the community standard is.You think they should hold themselves to a higher standard, which is fine, but they can still be allowed not to. And we shouldn't be revoking their licenses just because you don't think their reasons are held to a high enough standard.

The letter of the law is based on community standards. It shouldn't be used as an excuse to limit community standards. "No Left Turn" shouldn't be seen as a requirement to turn right. No, the community standard is that "all men are created equal" not, " the groups on the following list are created equal".

That doesn't jive with you pointing out that some classes of people weren't protected until it was written into law. The real standard is the law, whether the community stays up with it or even goes over it. Of course the communities standard can go above and beyond the law. The law doesn't limit that. But it does limit what standard the community can impose upon an individual. If an individual wants to refuse service for a reason that is below what the community standard has risen to, then they are allowed to until the real standard, the law, is brought up to speed.The law actually should be used as an excuse to limit the community standard as it is applied to an individual. The community, themselves, don't have to be limited by it, but they cannot impose their own standard onto an individual until it becomes a law. I don't get it. All men includes the business owner too. He can legitimately refuse service to some jerk if he wants to. The groups on the list are there to identify when the refusal isn't legitimate.

It's true that the law and the community standard lead each other. When a segment of the community supports something it is passed into law and then the rest of the community catches up. We're at a point right now where homosexuals have some community support and some rights. I'm saying that they should have equal rights without the law having to grant them specific rights.The right to service in a licensed business should be universal, not dependent on "protected" status. It includes him concerning the rights he receives. It doesn't give him the right to decide whose rights he can recognize.

Sure. One of the rights he has is to reserve service to a jerk.And one of the rights you do not have, is being a jerk and also receiving service.That isn't to say that the business shouldn't serve you, and most of them will if you have money, but they can refuse to if they want to. And they are. You don't have the right to service if you are a jerk, even though you have a protected status.Service can be refused to a person with protected status if they are being a jerk, you just can't refuse them on the basis of the status.