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

A black man with fairly close cropped hair badly in need a trim comes into my barber shop and asks for a haircut. I tell him I don't know how to cut his hair. He asks for a beard trim and I tell him the same thing.Discrimination or not?Or my wife tells me that the last time you came into my shop you hit on her. You come into my shop two weeks later asking for a haircut, and despite the fact that my wife is not there this time, I still throw your lame butt out of the shop.Discrimination or not.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Essential based on what definition?I doubt that there is a reason that you are likely appreciate. But the main reason we don't allow that stuff now is because when we allowed it fifty years ago it turned out to be particularly damaging and hurtful to a particularly group of people.It also turns out that to make the whole thing work, you have to get the state to take the bad side of a pretty distasteful conflict. In some places the police were more than willing to use biting dogs, fire hoses, and bludgeoning to enforce apartheid.Absent a history of discrimination against black people to an extent that made it somewhere between difficult to impossible for them to participate in society through no fault of their own, there wouldn't have been a Civil Rights act of 1964.Short answer: We tried letting people decide who they were going to provide services for and they screwed it up.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Maybe. I'm sure that is what the barber would say if challenged. It might be correct.But in fact, it really is not all that difficult to cut short cropped coarse hair absent some goofy style choice. In order to figure out of the reason given is actually a discriminatory choice never to cut a black person's hair would require a bit more than taking the barber's statement at face value.And I highly doubt that the barber was actually unable to trim the man's beard even if the did not cut his hair. I'd be entirely skeptical about any reason for not baking a cake. Giving a reason and being polite about it might explain away some bad stuff that went down. But refusal is refusal.

Okay. Seems non controversial. Interesting. I would give not consider a refusal under those circumstances to be discrimination. As I see it, the problem is that we cannot tell if I'm being sincere about my lack of ability when I refuse to a black persons hair.On the other hand, I don't believe my statement that I cannot trim a black person's beard into a conventional style is the least bit credible. It is a pretext. I would be refusing service based on what he has already done. It is not what I think he is going to do because my hypo says that my wife is not even there.There is no reason why I would ever have to cut that man's hair. If I was going to assault the man, I don't think clippers would be the implement of choice.

That's inane. In the case I described I have not forgiven a man for a personal affront that was committed only two weeks ago. Your slippery slope argument is complete nonsense.

duplicate. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Coming from a woman who tells us she'd like to have her own state in which only people who agree with her version of the Bible would have any input into the political process, such statements ring quite hollow.One of the things a free people don't have to tolerate is intolerance. That you argue for the right to discriminate and your desire to live in a state where you and your pals are supreme marks you as the intolerant one. Small wonder that King James is your hero.

Sure. And if the place you are not welcome is essentially the entire city you live in, then you can just move right? If not going where you are not wanted means never knowing if you are going to be allowed to by food or gas when you travel then that would be just too effing bad as well, right?Because that's what the country was like back in 1940-1955 and even beyond that in some places. Well it turns out that despite the initial agony over integration, black people eat at lunch counters all over North Carolina without fear of having their food spat into. I consider that a win. Yes, that would certainly contribute to good order. How about letting people who want to discriminate just hang a noose from the light post?

Those signs perpetuate bad feelings and bad behavior that would mostly die out over time. Not even the bigots who hate gays want to put such signs up on their businesses, because it makes them look like monsters. Well, most of them don't anyway.

Come visit any town in central Carolina around the end of any month, and drive around without fastening your shoulder harness.

Lol! I don't believe that tactic would work here. I've been stopped a couple times for seat belt violations. In each case, the policeman approached me from behind. I'm sure that the policeman spotted the lack of a harness coming from the door and crossing my body. You cannot fake that with a T-shirt.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not really offensive in my opinion. But I don't imagine that Faith would be satisfied with such an option.

Churches are free to decline to marry anyone they want. That even includes not marrying people who are legally allowed to marry, but whom the pastor does not believe are ready. We've had discussions here about churches who refused to perform interracial marriages.I think this is pretty much a non-issue. You don't actually need a church to get married. The state provides secular marriage services.

Really? I think I fundamentally disagree with the idea that letting people discriminate as long at they put up a sign is the way to go. It's not like your point was all that difficult to understand, although I was a bit curious about what you'd want those signs in Nebraska to say. But yeah, I did have some fun at your expense. At least I did resist the temptation to drop yet another 'democracy in action' funny.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you allow me? What law prevents me from kicking people out of my shop after they behave badly? Have you ever actually worked at a retail establishment? So if I kick someone out of the shop for hitting on my wife, that suggests ownership? I don't see it that way. I think we'll just have to disagree on that point. Since the affront was a throw away item just for fun, let's suggest instead that Jody took my favorite copy of Wrestling World Magazine the last time he was here. Or pretend he used the "J" word at a Japanese customer.Just to make it abundantly clear. Ex-cons are welcome in my fictitious barber shop. In fact, I've got a barber here who served time for shoplifting.Still not going to let Jody come back in. Probably ever. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.