If You Support Business Owner's Freedom To Discriminate, Do You Also Support Doing Away With Non-Discrimination Protections In Employment/housing?

[Daniel2]

In a separate thread that has since splintered into several different tangents, the OP began:

BookofMormonLuvr, on 07 Jul 2015 - 3:29 PM, said:

When expressing my opinion that businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they want, I often hear "So, you want to go back to the Jim Crow days when businesses discriminated against blacks!"

 

No. I do not want to go back to the days when laws mandated that businesses segregate between whites and blacks. Government should not be in the discrimination business.

 

What I want is days where business people are free to run their companies as they see fit. The market will determine whether they are making smart decisions or not. We should not force business to make good decisions or prevent them from making poor ones.

 

I responded:

Daniel2, on 07 Jul 2015 - 4:28 PM, said:

I'm curious as to how far this "freedom" you speak of should extend...

 

Would you therefore agree that business owners should be entirely free to fire employees that refuse to serve others due to the employees personal beliefs?

 

Should employers be able to fire employees because of their race, religion, etc?

 

Should hospital workers (doctors, EMTs, ambulence drivers, nurses, etc) be able to refuse services to anyone who walks in their doors for whatever reason?

 

"Word of mouth sorting it out" doesn't save the life of an individual denied an ambulance ride or emergency room treatment.

 

And, again, should hospital administrators be free to fire said medical workers for refusing services?

 

Do you support non-discrimination laws in housing and employment?

 

Do you believe employers should be legally required to continue employing non-working individuals who refuse to serve potential customers, including those who are in life-saving roles?

 

If one advocates for doing away with anti-discrimination laws in the realms of public accommodations, in order to be fair to employers' freedoms, it seems to me that you would have to do away with anti-discrimination laws when it comes to housing and employment as well. Otherwise, you would be punishing business owners and forcing them to maintain insubordinate employees who refuse to do their jobs that they are getting paid for, and potentially damaging the company and its reputation and causing business owners to lose money.

 

While Kenngo1969 mounted a quasi-response to my questions above by commenting about providing goods and services to gay couples within the wedding industry, his post didn’t really answer what I was asking.

 

Given that that original thread has moved on to other questions, rather than attempt to steer it 8 pages back in time, I figured I’d begin a new thread limited to discuss the scope of what I attempted to ask BookofMormonLuvr (and anyone else who believes that the scope of “religious freedom” mandates that individuals and businesses should be able to deny services to anyone based on said business owners’ deeply held religious beliefs, or in other words, that anti-discrimination laws regarding public accommodations should be abolished.

 

So, here are the questions, once again, with the limited scope defined.  I’d love to hear everyone’s answers:

 

IF you believe that the scope of “religious freedom” mandates that individuals and businesses should be able to deny services to anyone based on said business owners’ deeply held religious beliefs (or in other words, that anti-discrimination laws regarding public accommodations should be abolished):

 

1. Would you therefore agree that business owners should be entirely free to fire employees that refuse to serve others due to the employees personal beliefs? 

 

2. Should employers be able to fire employees because of their race, religion, etc? 

 

3. Should hospital workers (doctors, EMTs, ambulence drivers, nurses, etc) be able to refuse services to anyone who walks in their doors for whatever reason?

 

4. And, again, should hospital administrators be free to fire said medical workers for refusing services?

 

5. Do you support non-discrimination laws in housing and employment?

 

6. Do you believe employers should be legally required to continue employing non-working individuals who refuse to serve potential customers, including those who are in life-saving roles?

 

Please answer the above questions with a Yes or No.  If you so desire, feel free to expound upon your answer.

 

As I said previously, if one advocates for doing away with anti-discrimination laws in the realms of public accommodations, in order to be fair to employers' freedoms, it seems to me that you would have to do away with anti-discrimination laws when it comes to housing and employment as well.

 

Otherwise, you would be punishing business owners and forcing them to maintain insubordinate employees who refuse to do their jobs that they are getting paid for, and potentially damaging the company and its reputation and causing business owners to lose money.

[thesometimesaint]

I think the Governor of Kentucky said it best.  Do the jobs you were hired to do or be fired.

[carbon dioxide]

1. Would you therefore agree that business owners should be entirely free to fire employees that refuse to serve others due to the employees personal beliefs?   NO

 

2. Should employers be able to fire employees because of their race, religion, etc?  NO

 

3. Should hospital workers (doctors, EMTs, ambulence drivers, nurses, etc) be able to refuse services to anyone who walks in their doors for whatever reason? NO

 

4. And, again, should hospital administrators be free to fire said medical workers for refusing services? NO

 

5. Do you support non-discrimination laws in housing and employment? Housing YES and Employment NO.    Housing is a difficult issue.  If I own a home and want to rent it out, I should have the right to decide who will rent from it.   If it is corporate housing or like an apartment complex with many families, then NO.   I like the Utah law that allows individuals to rent out a home they own and be allowed to discriminate while those who own I think more than 5 units can not discriminate. 

 

Overall, people should not discriminate against someone simply for what they are.  But they should be allowed in regards to specific activities they might be against. 

 

6. Do you believe employers should be legally required to continue employing non-working individuals who refuse to serve potential customers, including those who are in life-saving roles?

Edited July 10, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Bob Crockett]

In California, a landlord cannot refuse to rent to an unmarried couple.   A fertility doctor cannot refuse to provide fertility services to a gay couple, although he or she may be able to find somebody else to provide the same services.

 

The theory is based upon "public accommodations."  If you offer public accommodations (a term broadly construed) which depend upon government support for the marketplace, you may not act in a discriminatory matter -- particularly in matters involving protected classes.  (Race, religion, national origin, gender and now, probably, sexual preference.)

 

As a libertarian I find such laws offensive to freedom, as I find hate crime legislation offensive under similar theories.  People should be free to discriminate, but I would avoid counting as friends or clients people who do, and I would expect good Christians not to do so.  Just as I would expect good Christians not to be gay or live together in an unmarried state.

[carbon dioxide]

I think the Governor of Kentucky said it best.  Do the jobs you were hired to do or be fired.

If one is an employee that is always true.  They asked for the job and consented to the requirements of the job.   If one owns their own business, not so easy.  Hard to fire yourself. 

[Mystery Meat]

 

1. Would you therefore agree that business owners should be entirely free to fire employees that refuse to serve others due to the employees personal beliefs? 

 

Yes.

 

2. Should employers be able to fire employees because of their race, religion, etc?

 

Yes.

 

3. Should hospital workers (doctors, EMTs, ambulence drivers, nurses, etc) be able to refuse services to anyone who walks in their doors for whatever reason?

 

No. Not all services are created equal. Health care is not the same as a baker/restaurant/florist/etc.

 

4. And, again, should hospital administrators be free to fire said medical workers for refusing services?

 

Yes.

 

5. Do you support non-discrimination laws in housing and employment?

 

Yes for housing, no for employment.

 

6. Do you believe employers should be legally required to continue employing non-working individuals who refuse to serve potential customers, including those who are in life-saving roles?

 

No.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

The theory is based upon "public accommodations."  If you offer public accommodations (a term broadly construed) which depend upon government support for the marketplace, you may not act in a discriminatory matter -- particularly in matters involving protected classes.  (Race, religion, national origin, gender and now, probably, sexual preference.)

 

As a libertarian I find such laws offensive to freedom, as I find hate crime legislation offensive under similar theories.  People should be free to discriminate, but I would avoid counting as friends or clients people who do, and I would expect good Christians not to do so.  Just as I would expect good Christians not to be gay or live together in an unmarried state.

I agree with what you said here.

[Kenngo1969]

Thanks for calling me out personally in the thread, Daniel.  (In Bold, No Less!)  Oooooooh!

 

(In case you're wondering, you're not endearing yourself to me, nor are you disposing me to look favorably on, or even to give more than passing consideration to, your views).  As I told you, I don't like being accused of bad faith, and I tend to limit my interactions with those who make such accusations.

[Kenngo1969]

1. Yes; an employee’s job—barring being asked to do something illegal or unethical—is to do the bidding of the employer.  If the employee finds this objectionable, he’s free to secure alternate employment.
2. If employers do due diligence before hiring employees, firing them upon discovering such objectionable traits should not be necessary.  Besides, you think an employer’s gonna say, “Sorry; I didn’t know you're black!  You’re fired!”
3. No; if providing emergency/lifesaving/ services is objectionable, they’ll need to find a new line of work.
4. Yes; if such workers find providing emergency/lifesaving services objectionable, they should find a new line of work.
5. Yes; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does; why shouldn’t I?
6. No.

There.  I’ve answered your damn questions.  (“Dance, monkey!  Dance!”)  I’m not going to engage you further, and you can take a long walk off of a short pier.  Enjoy the swim, and don't forget to surface periodically to breathe.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Damien the Leper]

I'd like to get rid of the "right to work" nonsense.

[Kenngo1969]

I'd like to get rid of the "right to work" nonsense.

Do you know what "right to work" means?

[Damien the Leper]

I'd like to get rid of the "right to work" nonsense.

Do you know what "right to work" means?

In AZ, this law allows employers to terminate employees without reasonable cause and does not force employers to divulge reasons for termination. Is it different elsewhere?

[Kenngo1969]

In AZ, this law allows employers to terminate employees without reasonable cause and does not force employers to divulge reasons for termination. Is it different elsewhere? 

 

Are you sure you're not thinking of at-will employment?  At-will employment allows either party to terminate an employment relationship at any time, with or without cause, and reasonable minds can differ as to the desirability of this provision.  Most employees want the flexibility to be able to tell their employers to take a flying leap off of a short pier without being saddled with any obligations to their employer relating to terminating the relationship.  I lack the tools (and, frankly, probably the background) to do proper research: perhaps all "non-at-will" jurisdictions impose obligations only on the employer while imposing none on the employee, such that, absent a contract, an employee always is free to terminate his relationship with an employer at any time anf for any reason. As undesirable as it might be for employers to be able to dismiss employees with or without cause, however, it's conceivable that a regime that is not at-will may well impose obligations on either or both parties relating to terminating the relationship, granting rights to an employer while limiting rights of an employee.

 

However, right-to-work means that an employer cannot require an employee to join a union as a condition of employment.*

 

*This comes with the usual caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this post should not be construed as legal advice.  Anyone needing such advice with respect to his employment rights should contact an attorney who's licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the question(s) arise(s).

Edited July 13, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

 

I think the Governor of Kentucky said it best.  Do the jobs you were hired to do or be fired.

If one is an employee that is always true.  They asked for the job and consented to the requirements of the job.   If one owns their own business, not so easy.  Hard to fire yourself. 

 

 

True. However we do have laws against discrimination for those business owners involved in Public Accommodations businesses. .

[Kenngo1969]

carbon dioxide said: If one is an employee that is always true.  They asked for the job and consented to the requirements of the job.   If one owns their own business, not so easy.  Hard to fire yourself.

 

thesometimesaint said: True. However we do have laws against discrimination for those business owners involved in Public Accommodations businesses.

 

 

 

While, apparently, the law defines a "public accommodation" as any business or other entity that is open to the public, reasonable minds can and do differ about how broadly this term should be defined and applied.   Whoever might consider the question of whether someone legitimately can refuse to serve someone else on the basis of a deeply-held religious conviction closed because, well, if we answer the question "Yes," why, next thing you know, it'll be Jim Crow all over again (it's funny how some people who disfavor slippery slope arguments seem to be selective in their disfavor), the fact is that all public accommodations are not created equal: There's a vast difference between "Ohhh, so sorry!  We don't serve 'your kind' here: while we regret the fact that you might bleed to death before you get there, you'll have to go to the 'colored' hospital/gay hospital/whatever hospital down the street," on the one hand, and, "Just as I've done business with you many times before, I'll sell you anything in the shop, but my deeply-held religious convictions prevent me from making a cake for your gay wedding," on the other.

 

And remember, I say that as someone who would bake the cake (though I might not fully decorate it) because I'm interested in fostering good will and in preventing bad will toward me, toward my business, and, if it is known, toward my religion; and as someone who would not bar suits against non-essential public accommodations outright, but who favors capping damages and requiring plaintiffs to show certain things in order to prevail.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

Say I own a grocery store, and have a deeply held religious belief against green beans. There is no law requiring me to carry and/or sell green beans to anyone. However if I do carry and/or sell green beans I can not legally to refuse to sell them to you.

[ERayR]

Say I own a grocery store, and have a deeply held religious belief against green beans. There is no law requiring me to carry and/or sell green beans to anyone. However if I do carry and/or sell green beans I can not legally to refuse to sell them to you.

 

Huh?

[Kenngo1969]

Say I own a grocery store, and have a deeply held religious belief against green beans. There is no law requiring me to carry and/or sell green beans to anyone. However if I do carry and/or sell green beans I can not legally to refuse to sell them to you.

As usual, Saint, you've done an admirable job pointing out the black letter law to us.  (You've missed your calling!  It's not too late! Why don't you apply to your closest law school?) The question isn't what the law is; I think most all of us know that (some of us better than others, even ); it's what it should be.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Mystery Meat]

Here is my position on how I think discrimination laws should look in our country:

 

1. The way we define "public accommodation" needs to be narrowed. I don't think it should apply to anyone who opens a business. The vast majority of business owners should be allowed to deny service.

 

2. As has been mentioned already, there is already a sector where this is allowed. If a gay couple were to come to me as an attorney and ask me to sue the Church (or any church for that matter) I could probably refuse service based on my moral conflict and membership in the Church.

 

3. Not all services are created equal. So while I believe that a florist, a restaurant owner, a baker, a barber, a mechanic, etc., should be allowed to deny service for whatever reason they want I don't think any of the following should be allowed: nonelective health care (most plastic surgery, abortions, etc. would not count), grocery stores, legal services that do not conflict (person injury case unrelated to the persons race or orientation), housing, pharmacies, transportation. I am sure there are others.

 

4. This would exempt most of your mom and pops and would help reduce tension IMO.

 

5. Church's and their related entities should be allowed to discriminate as well. The LDS Church should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for whatever reason.

[Stargazer]

Thanks for calling me out personally in the thread, Daniel.  (In Bold, No Less!)  Oooooooh!

 

(In case you're wondering, you're not endearing yourself to me, nor are you disposing me to look favorably on, or even to give more than passing consideration to, your views).  As I told you, I don't like being accused of bad faith, and I tend to limit my interactions with those who make such accusations.

 

Well, personally, I think you should feel flattered to be called out.  It's better than being ignored, you know.

 

(Ducks)

[TheSkepticChristian]

"No. Not all services are created equal. Health care is not the same as a baker/restaurant/florist/etc."

What if it is the only bakery in a small town? So that means that a SSM couple won't have cake, or will have to travel a great distance.

What if a SSM couple lives in a rural area of Mississippi? They will have a very hard time finding someone (even in the city) to bake them a SSM cake, because most Mississippi conservative Christians are going to refuse.  

 

Yes for housing, no for employment.

 

What about euthanasia for religious cryonics? The cryonics religion wants euthanasia to be legal so they can do a better preservation. 

Why are you not defending their religious freedom? or secular freedom? 

 

What about secular rights? Religious conservatives never defend secular rights like 

 

Why do you never defend the poor polygamists? "The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law/

 

 

As a libertarian I find such laws offensive to freedom, as I find hate crime legislation offensive under similar theories.  People should be free to discriminate

 

What if more and more businesses go back to a late 19th century mentality? Who or what is going to stop them? Do you know what the working conditions were like 100 years ago?

 

 

and why on Earth are we still talking about gay marriage vs religious freedom? Jesus told us to help the poor, Jesus didn't teach war on gay marriage, and never told us to fight for religious freedom. There is not imminent threat to religious freedom anyway 

 

Edited July 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stargazer]

 

 

 

The theory is based upon "public accommodations."  If you offer public accommodations (a term broadly construed) which depend upon government support for the marketplace, you may not act in a discriminatory matter -- particularly in matters involving protected classes.  (Race, religion, national origin, gender and now, probably, sexual preference.)

 

As a libertarian I find such laws offensive to freedom, as I find hate crime legislation offensive under similar theories.  People should be free to discriminate, but I would avoid counting as friends or clients people who do, and I would expect good Christians not to do so.  Just as I would expect good Christians not to be gay or live together in an unmarried state.

I agree with what you said here.

 

 

I'm with what Bob Crockett said, too.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Stargazer

[Mystery Meat]

"No. Not all services are created equal. Health care is not the same as a baker/restaurant/florist/etc."

What if it is the only bakery in a small town? So that means that a SSM couple won't have cake, or will have to travel a great distance.

What if a SSM couple lives in a rural area of Mississippi? They will have a very hard time finding someone (even in the city) to bake them a SSM cake, because most Mississippi conservative Christians are going to refuse.  

 

They could always bake their own cake. (GASP!) I am not aware of a constitutional right to a professionally made and designed wedding cake.

 

Yes for housing, no for employment.

 

What about euthanasia for religious cryonics? The cryonics religion wants euthanasia to be legal so they can do a better preservation. 

Why are you not defending their religious freedom? or secular freedom? 

 

Seriously? How in THE hell is this related at all to discussion we are having? And why would you assume that I don't support this? The conversation we are having in THIS thread is about public accommodation laws.

 

What about secular rights? Religious conservatives never defend secular rights like 

 

See comment above. Why do you assume I am not in favor of legalizing it? That's pretty stupid.

 

Why do you never defend the poor polygamists? "The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law

 

 

Sigh. You have a hard time staying focused don't you? You also like making assumptions about what other believe, huh? I guess you weren't there when I was in law school and publicly lambasted the Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds and how bad I thought it was (oh and the fact of Mormon was defending the right to polygamy....yeah, that was fun).

 

 

 

Lot's of assumptions and randomness here, but that seems to be par for the course with you, so I am not surprised. You seem more interested in gotcha postings, than having a conversation. At this point I am not interested in either with you.

 

Be careful when you try to lay a trap to catch someone in their hypocrisy. You may just end up looking ignorant when its all said and done.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[strappinglad]

In reality , religious freedom is a fairly new concept. Even the Pilgrims actually left Europe, not so much to avoid persecution , but to find a place to create their own rules and ' discriminate ' at their leisure. The Romans, in Christ's time, were quite good at allowing people to practice whatever religion as long as it didn't interfere with Roman law and rule. In most other civilizations the State and its religion were codependent and woe unto those who had the temerity to stray. It is universal, however, to recognize that " the poor are always with us " so a ' helping the poor ' commandment is way easier to obey than a 'fight for religious freedom ' one .

[thesometimesaint]

 

Say I own a grocery store, and have a deeply held religious belief against green beans. There is no law requiring me to carry and/or sell green beans to anyone. However if I do carry and/or sell green beans I can not legally to refuse to sell them to you.

As usual, Saint, you've done an admirable job pointing out the black letter law out to us.  (You've missed your calling!  It's not too late! Why don't you apply to your closest law school?) The question isn't what the law is; I think most all of us know that (some of us better than others, even ); it's what it should be.

 

 

I took a few Social Work Law classes at university. Did well but really had no real interest in pursuing it. I'm content with the Social Work Code of Ethics. 

SEE http://socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

 

For better or worse when I go before mortal judges for something I did both they and I are bound to the "Black Letter" of the law.

 

What should be the laws concerning discrimination in the market place? Say I don't like Mormons coming into my office. Do I get to question all my potential clients to determine if their religious beliefs align with mine?

Edited July 12, 2015 by thesometimesaint