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

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.

Not being able to provide a service should be a valid reason. You're not so much refusing service as not being able to do the job. For example, if I were in the computer repair business specializing in PCs but with no experience with Macs, if someone of a protected class brought in a Mac to be repaired, I would have to tell him/her/whatever that I couldn't. But I would refer them to one of my competitors who does work on Macs. And even if I didn't know anyone who works on Macs, I could at least try point him in the right direction.The other question that kept coming to mind was what actually went down. How did the baker refuse service? Did he do it politely or nastily? Did he politely explain his reason for not wanting to bake their cake? Or did he tell them exactly what he thought about gays and gay marriage (which we know from Christian rhetoric would very likely have been very nasty)? Was he confrontational about it, which would have caused things to escalate rapidly? Did he even try to refer them to a baker who would serve them? Or did he choose to use his business to make a personal stand and then when it escalated to legal action decide to play the martyr (which is how the Right has been using this case)? Was he even seeking to play the martyr from the beginning, hoping to be the test case that would help to oppose gay marriage?Of course, it could have been the customer who became confrontational. Maybe he had just had enough of being treated like dirt -- a nasty refusal would have triggered that response quite nicely. Or was he looking for a test case or at least to teach the baker a lesson? Did that baker have a history of such behavior?The thing is that we don't know any of what had actually happened, even though we were passionately debating it. My impression is that the baker handled it badly and then decided to play the martyr when it blew up in his face. But what did actually happen?

But the difference in NoNukes example is that the de facto result is that you are operating a white's only business. In your example you'd be happy to repair a Black person's PC where you would refuse to repair their Mac.Like the obligation for businesses to provide access to their services for disabled individuals (as much as actually possible and forseeable), there might be a moral obligation for a hairdresser to have competency in providing service to different races - especially those minority races who make up a sizeable proportion of the population.It's an interesting question, I think. This is from the court case - it is listed as a fact that is undisputed:

quote:

---

Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.

---

The complainants immediately and peacefully left.

quote:

---

The next day, Ms. Munn called Masterpiece Cakeshop and spoke with Phillips. Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and
because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages.

---

There is no evidence in the case commonly referred to, instead it seems to have been a natural occurrence. The outrage from some Christians who believe they should have this right, will potentially lead to people looking for a case to 'hunt' those self-same Christians out. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : 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.

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.

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.

You cannot be required to give a type of service your business does not provide. To hold that in this case, I think the courts would find the subterfuge obvious. The last time in, the bum gave you what any reasonable man would consider deliberate personal offense. As long as you didn't go after him with the shears this second time around I think you're safe.You might want to consider, however, having a few jack-booted rednecks take him, on the QT of course, around back to the alley and beat the ever living crap out of him.

OK I'll bite.I more or less agree with the other reasons for and against on this thread, but since the question is particularly important to Christians who oppose gay marriage I might word it something like this:Service cannot be refused for all the reasons given, except in the case of a conscientious objection to some request by a customer, that can be proved to be objectionable based on the faith of the business owner.Not a refusal of general service to any persons, but a refusal of a specific service of a particular request such as a wedding cake for a gay wedding or photos for a gay wedding or flowers for a gay wedding, all of which are recent legal issues involving Christia business owners in four different states.The Bible's position on homosexuality as sin and marriage as between a man and a woman should suffice for the necessary proof that the objection is to a specific request and not to a person or persons.[abe: struck out homosexuality as sin because the passages on marriage should be sufficient to make the case. But if anyone thinks we'd be arguing to refuse service to homosexuals as such, I'd remind you that we're all sinners and if we refused service to sinners we'd have no business at all]Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why just faith? Is faith more important than secular principles? If I don't want to serve Jews because I think they are part of a conspiracy to bankrupt America/wherever then why is that belief, should it be sincerely held, not to be permitted but 'I believe some anonymous and long dead jews were told this by the creator of the universe' is? I'm not sure the Bible's position on homosexual marriage is entirely clear. The best I can come up with is Mark 10, but I don't think it is a slam dunk. Even if we read it as sympathetically to your ideas as possible:1) The primary meaning behind Mark 10 is that re-marrying after divorce is adultery.2) It is talking about a religious ceremony, and the theological reasons for it being considered permanent. The US Government does not, or at least should not, perform religious ceremonies. Being united by the government is not the same as being united by God.The very fact that Christians almost never balk at having to serve someone a wedding cake for the second or third marriage, it would seem clear to me (and to a court, if Mark 10 was for some reason brought forward) that the refusal to serve was based on animus not religion.This doesn't prevent it from being a religious objection, as you can of course point to Church Doctrine. But I don't think that should excuse abhorrent behaviour. I'm sure some people were claiming traditional religious views when they let their 'seed pass through the fire to Molech', but I don't think that would fly would it?Laws that exempt religious people from following them, at their whim (as long as they claim membership to the right religious institutions), break certain laws, are not good for society. Even if you think that in some cases it benefits your clan.I think a good moral guideline to follow is: If a religious group that hates my behaviour or my race or my religion or... became the dominant group, would I want these kinds of laws in place? If the USA was 90% Muslim, and those Muslims felt that for religious reasons they could not serve people that deny Muhammed as a prophet, or assert prophets that came after him - would you be happy that many shops and clubs and services effectively excluded you, because you are a Christian? Or worse, but perhaps more realistically, what if atheism became predominant? Would you be happy that asshole atheists made you feel like scum for believing in 'Magic Jew/Sky Daddy/mystic ghost'?I reiterate my former position, if you can't in good conscience, serve certain classes protected by law (even if its only in certain contexts), then you should stop serving all classes.You might think that this one religious exclusion is not that big a deal, and even if you were right in that, it should be noted that one religious exemption can be used to justify others. And before you know it, people are neglecting their children to death without fear of state intervention.

I think it would be nice to keep the gay marriage issue out of this topic.Moose"To Minnemooseus or Adminnemooseus, that is the question"

I can see the reasons you might want to place this limit on your OP but I'm not so sure it can be avoided. If there was not a gay marriage issue there wouldn't be a gay wedding cake sales issue or the other issues you raised in your OP.The limiting question of "can private business refuse and on what grounds" certainly must include in the "on what grounds" the gay marriage issue itself. The "grounds" brings up religious reasoning and that brings up gay wedding. I do not see where they could be separated.

I was careful to word my post in terms of conscientiously refusing a particular service, clearly rejecting the idea of refusing general service to persons, so your response here misses the point completely.If there is a secular case for the refusal of a particular service on conscientious grounds, then fine, include it.But since Moose would prefer to keep this discussion off this particular thread, maybe we should move it to one of the older threads on the subject. Or at least keep it as minimal as possible here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And I too was careful to include the phrase 'even if its only in certain contexts'. For instance refusing to sell a cake for a gay wedding is refusing a certain class of people, only in certain contexts. If you'd like instead of Jews being responsible for bankrupting us, you can replace it with 'people wearing yarmulkes'.Or we can avoid that legislation and look to medical staff who neglect patients on grounds of conscience (such as letting a woman die rather than prematurely terminating her pregnancy), or the woman who is refused the morning after pill by a pharmacist and has to work out how to get to the other side of town, or the next town over, and assess what the likelihood is she'll be refused there... It seems then that in practical terms, there would be no need for the law at all, as 'conscientious' grounds are largely what people appeal to when refusing to obey these kinds of laws. Your honour, I don't need to pay taxes, that's subornation of false muster! I can let my child die slowly and horribly, because I prayed they wouldn't and it is unconscionable for me to doubt God's will.... I'm trying to keep my points general. But if you want to talk about the details of same-sex marriage issues you could create a new thread or respond to
Message 588, or indeed Message 343, Message 356, Message 397, Message 409, Message 444, Message 484 and Message 524. I'm sure there are plenty of points I raised you didn't even give the illusion of answering.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This is the only point in your post I want to answer because again it ignores the one and only point I was making, which is the point that it is a particular service by the business that is the only thing in question, not the person of any customer, since apart from a particular service under particular circumstances all services are available to all customers, whoever they are and however they dress and whatever they have to do or not do with banking or anything else, but you have insisted on making it a matter of persons rather than a particular service. Since you refuse to address the very point I was making I consider this part of the discussion over.

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.