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

Is there a reason businesses that provide non-essential services should not be allowed the right to refuse service to whomever they please?

Stopped into a diner in Nebraska in the middle of nowhere. Everyone stared; it was very uncomfortable. We were clearly not welcomed. If only the sign on the door had said "We hate outsiders", we'd have all known better.If I am going to buy a cake from someone, I want to know that they hate me if they do. I don't want a spit cake.And perhaps this is the issue; I don't like going places where I'm not welcomed. I think it would be preferable to know that I am not welcomed instead of trying to do business with someone who doesn't want mine. When I enter an establishment, the proprietor is aware that I wish to do business there, but I am not aware if they wish to do business with me; and they are forbidden from telling me.Perhaps businesses should be allowed to post listings on their door of the people who are not welcomed, but still do business with everyone all the same. This would let folks take their business where it is most welcomed but still be able to do business where it isn't.Win win?

I think your eagerness to make me look bad has hindered your ability to comprehend my very simple points.I'll live.

I don't think anyone wants to punish you for your beliefs.

They also don't want to do that.

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?

Looks like the governor's trying to play both sides on this:

quote:

---

"Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA Law to Make it Clear Discrimination Won't be Allowed" from IndyStar:

​

In his latest effort to clarify the Indiana's controversial new "religious freedom" law, Gov. Mike Pence called on lawmakers Tuesday to pass legislation clarifying that it does not allow business owners to discriminate in providing services.

---

I would think this is unlikely to happen any time soon and that Pence knows it.

Aren't there lots of laws duplicated at the state and federal level?

Being racist, though, is not a protected class. And that may indeed allow for a legal justification.Also, I think there is a realistic difference between baking a random cake for people you dislike and writing something on the cake with which you disagree.Should a bakery open to the public be allowed to deny baking a cake for a gay couple? Probably not. Should they be allowed to refuse to write on the cake "Congratulations Nathan and Mark"? That's part of the grey area. I have to admit I am not fully decided on that. And part of it has to do with the comparison between people who might refuse to do it on grounds that we would find culturally acceptable and whether this indicates that perhaps the matter boils down to forcing morality onto others by outlawing things we find morally offensive.Again, we are legally allowed to do such a thing, but should we? Is there a difference between shoving anti-gay morality down someone's throat and shoving anti-racism morality down someone's throat? I can't say "yes" for sure, and so I am very hesitant to start telling people what kind of speech they can and cannot refuse to participate in.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

What's morally wrong is being in a position of power or advantage and using it to facilitate the silencing of people/groups with whom you disagree.

I wasn't asking a question.

How sure are you of that?

I think some interesting points are raised by that video.Anyone who has read the Multiculturalism thread knows that I am in favor of people adopting the superior values of western secular society, but I am not in favor of forcing people to adopt these values unless there is some good reason to do so (such as it being a matter of public safety, etc.).It's possible that laws requiring a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding forces on them certain cultural values which they do not approve.On the flipside of this, a business opening its doors to the public (with all the economic/business benefits that provides) perhaps also opens themselves up to regulation by the public (i.e., the government).There's a middle ground somewhere. But I think there is too much scowling coming from both sides of for anyone to find it.I raised some of these issues in Message 376.

Do the anti-discrimination laws recognize that dividing line?

I don't think making their discrimination implicit instead of explicit would protect them from a lawsuit based on their discrimination.Has it ever protected someone from a discrimination-based-on-race lawsuit?The basis of the discrimination is more than apparent in the video; and I really think that's all that would be needed to bring a successful lawsuit.