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

If you tell him you don't know how to do it properly and he elects to proceed at his own risk there is no discrimination. If you refuse to serve him because you don't feel confident of the outcome, you would be considered guilty of discrimination. You can't refuse service based on what somebody might do. If he does hit on your wife in your presence you can accidentally on purpose clip his ear off.Thus sayeth Judge Ringo.

Maybe I should have said you "could" be considered guilty of discrimination. The thing is, people can never tell how sincere you are. In North America at the present time the complainant would likely be given the benefit of the doubt, not you, so you "would" be considered guilty. By that logic you could refuse service to ex-convicts - or anybody who has ever done anything questionable. Nobody would have a right to service.

You can conscientiously object to an action which is imposed on you, such as military service. (Several of my uncles were conscientious objectors during World War Two because they were Mennonites. They were still obligated to do their part but they worked in lumber camps instead of in a combatant role.)You can not conscientiously object to providing a service which you voluntarily provide. Objecting to a certain segment of society, as "contientious" as you might think it is, is discrimination.

The business voluntarily provides wedding cakes, period. Its license doesn't include a list of people it can discriminate against. No. Our society is telling you that if you want to sell wedding cakes you have to sell them to everybody equally - including blacks, Mormons, Catholics, etc. If you don't want to live by society's rules you are free to tell your customers, "I'm sorry, we don't make wedding cakes." No. We're defending a form of government which prevents your minority from tyranizing other minorities.

We're "tyranizing" Christians in the same way that we're tyranizing the Ku Klux Klan by refusing to allow the lynching of black people.If you can not in good conscience stop at red lights, society does not allow you to drive a car. If you can not in good conscience serve black people in your restaurant, society does not licence your restaurant. It is, in a sense, a tyrany of the majority but it's in favour of equal treatment for all minorities.

Get a grip on reality. I'm talking about, at worst, revoking the license of a business owner who persistently discriminates against minorities.

You said in Message 21, "I would be refusing service based on what he has already done." Neither the time frame nor the nature of the victim's previous action are pertinent. If we allow you to refuse service on the basis of previous action A, then we can not prevent you from refusing service on the basis of previous action B.

I'm not advocating any law at all. I'm advocating licensing standards.Buddhists are not licensed to have cockroaches running free in their restaurants and Christians are not licensed to persecute people. That's equality.

The customer hit on the barber's wife. Maybe she had cause to take offense, maybe not.The barber did take offense but I don't know if any court would recognize that. Ownership of wives has slipped out of fashion. Since the wife isn't even present at the hypothetical present time, I'd say the barber has even less legal standing to take offense again. I'm not talking about keeping a child molester away from children. I'm talking about refusing a haircut to a reformed safecracker.Edited by ringo, : pelling.

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. Can he refuse sevice to a racist? Can he refuse service to somebody who tells bad jokes? If "I take offense" is an excuse, there's really nobody you can't refuse service to.

Who's behaving badly? You're talking about throwing somebody out for having behaved badly in the past - and there was nothing about his "bad behaviour" that was legally actionable either. The way I see it, it suggests that you don't think much of your wife. Who defends her when you're not around? You could charge him with theft but you couldn't legitimately refuse service to a thief. 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.Edited by ringo, : Acidentally omitted myself.

What if the wedding dress was a cotton-polyester blend? What if they were serving shrimp cocktail at the reception? Would you be able to "validate" that wedding?

The thread is abould what should be, not what you can get away with. You're talking about the letter of the law. Homosexuals are only just becoming a protected class. Black people have only been a protected class for a generation or so. Women have only ben a protected class for a few generations."Human rights" suggests to me that humans should be a protected class. Can you refuse them medical treatment? Can you refuse to sell them food? Can you refuse to educate their children?I hope not.

You can't just decide to not show up for work. That's grounds for dismissal. Firing an employee who doesn't meet the standard is equivalent to revoking the license of a business that doesn't meet the standard. We're not forcing him to be a barber at all but if he wants to be a licensed barber he has to meet the licensing standards.

Health codes. Human rights codes.