|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where should there be "The right to refuse service"? | |||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
There hasn't been a verbal assault.
It is not the verbal assult by the asshole that is a matter for the police. AZPaul3 writes:
He hasn't refused.
It can be a police matter if the SOB doesn't leave the shop when ordered out. AZPaul3 writes:
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™.
ringo writes:
You do know we are talking about barring one specific individual and not some class, right? As long as the class is not "human", somebody will be excluded. AZPaul3 writes:
And some of them are barbers. I'm saying that even barbers have to follow the rules of the playground.
You do know that some people just do not play well with others, yes? AZPaul3 writes:
Your extreme scenario is a clear case of assault. The scenario we are discussing is not. What is a proprietor to do, ringo? In your world you don't want him able to do anything? There are (roughly) three levels of police action:
1. No action at all. 2. Police "attend" and sort out the situation. 3. SWAT. A customer assaulting a waitress is level 2. A man hitting on a woman is level 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The same line I would draw between pedophiles and nonpedophiles. Homosexuality is ... 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.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
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.
Belief isn't belief until it's acted upon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I didn't say it would be okay. It would be effective. "Oops! I'm sorry sir. Just let me mop up that blood. 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.
Try to remember your own story. The non-event didn't happen again. Your wife wasn't even there on the second non-occasion. 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:
ringo writes: If he does hit on your wife in your presence you can accidentally on purpose clip his ear off. 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.
The issue isn't whether or not the barber can take offense; it's whether or not he can legitimately refuse service based on that offense. 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.
NoNukes writes: using the "J" word ringo writes: The customer could make a complaint to whomever handles such complaints in your jurisdiction. You could act as a witness in his behalf but you couldn't refuse service to a racist. 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 could charge him with theft but you couldn't legitimately refuse service to a thief. 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.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
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.
So what was the point of even mentioning cutting a customer? NoNukes writes:
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.
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". NoNukes writes:
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 seem to think that a customer has to break the law to get kicked out of a business. NoNukes writes:
You're welcome to take offense at the colour of his socks if you want. If you don't think hitting on my wife is a something for which I should take offense, fair enough. And then you should get over it.
NoNukes writes:
I'm not sure why you think said that.
I'm not sure why you think slinging racial and ethnic slurs around is not cause to be kicked out. NoNukes writes:
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.
Retail stores here routinely bar people they catch shoplifting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
No they want to punish us for acting on them. They also don't want to do that.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
The proprietor can "get away with it" in this case. Getting away with murder doesn't mean that the community standard allows for murder. But the community standard allows for him to refuse in this case. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: 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.
I don't think we should disallow it though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No offense, but this thread might be the least clear and consistent position I've seen you take.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't know why it should be unclear. What are you confused about?
No offense, but this thread might be the least clear and consistent position I've seen you take.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
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. Catholic Scientist writes:
No, the community standard is that "all men are created equal" not, " the groups on the following list are created equal".
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The letter of the law is based on community standards. 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.
It shouldn't be used as an excuse to limit community standards. 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.
"No Left Turn" shouldn't be seen as a requirement to turn right. I don't get it.
No, the community standard is that "all men are created equal" not, " the groups on the following list are created equal". 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
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. ringo writes:
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. The letter of the law is based on community standards. The right to service in a licensed business should be universal, not dependent on "protected" status.
Catholic Scientist writes:
It includes him concerning the rights he receives. It doesn't give him the right to decide whose rights he can recognize.
All men includes the business owner too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
The right to service in a licensed business should be universal, not dependent on "protected" status. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024