Discriminatory Golf Course Cancels CFI Event - Loses Lawsuit

[widdershins]

Yes.  If you own your business you should have to right to serve whoever you choose to serve, and deny service to whoever you wish to.  There will be implications for such decisions though.  

For example if I owned a restaurant and decided to deny service to Jews then I would not only lose the service of the Jews I'm denying service to, but also anyone that disagreed with my decision to deny service.  I would be putting myself at a competitive disadvantage towards the other restaurants that served to Jews.  Let the market sort them out.

Yeah, that doesn't work.  Ever heard of the '60s?  There is a reason we have laws preventing discrimination.  If the market could "sort them out" then we would not need or have these laws.

[commonsense822]

Yes.  If you own your business you should have to right to serve whoever you choose to serve, and deny service to whoever you wish to.  There will be implications for such decisions though.  

For example if I owned a restaurant and decided to deny service to Jews then I would not only lose the service of the Jews I'm denying service to, but also anyone that disagreed with my decision to deny service.  I would be putting myself at a competitive disadvantage towards the other restaurants that served to Jews.  Let the market sort them out.

Yeah, that doesn't work.  Ever heard of the '60s?  There is a reason we have laws preventing discrimination.  If the market could "sort them out" then we would not need or have these laws.

I agree that it is unfair of the business owner to deny service, but I don't think you should be able to force people to sell their goods to people if they don't want to, even if it's for a shitty reason.  And we kind of can kind of leave it to the market.  For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.

[Plu]

That's because they made their stance known to the wrong public. The public at large contains large numbers of liberals, and you can't pull something like that.

Now a set of small stores in religious territory on the other hand, could very easily do that and get away with it. You wouldn't want to be gay and/or atheist in such a place if shop owners could deny you service, you might as well move immediately since you won't be able to buy a thing from any store in the area as soon as people find out.

You very much should force official businesses to sell stuff to people, otherwise being a minority in a religious area is pretty much suicide.

[Johan]

I agree that it is unfair of the business owner to deny service, but I don't think you should be able to force people to sell their goods to people if they don't want to, even if it's for a shitty reason.  And we kind of can kind of leave it to the market.  For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.

Well the thing is, any business owner can in fact deny service to anyone they want. They just can't make their reasons known to others if said reasons happen to fall into a category that is protected by law.

I can choose to not hire or sell my product to you simply because I don't like you and/or your attitude. Perfectly legal. But the moment I decide not to hire or sell to you because of your race religion or gender AND also decide to tell someone else the actual reason, I open myself up to a discrimination lawsuit. Keep it inside your own brain and ONLY inside your own brain and it all good. Speak the words to someone else, anyone else, and its a lawsuit in the making. And that's the problem in cases like this. People are inherently too chatty for their own good and simply can't keep their meat holes shut.

[missingnocchi]

For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.

Yeah, greatly increased sales and a now devoted fan base of wingnuts. What a tragedy for him.

[AxisMundi]

Say that to the Boy Scouts of America.  Have you tried joining them lately?  I'm pretty sure the law is on their side.  

Apples to oranges. The Civil Rights Act offers no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation but it does protect against discrimination based on religion.

The Civil Rights Act can be applied to any protected classes. These protected classes do indeed include sexual orientation in some parts of the country.

That said, Article II did exempt private clubs.

I agree with Johan's assessment, that this was settled out of court for a clear breach of contract, and that this is not a victory for equality.

[widdershins]

I agree that it is unfair of the business owner to deny service, but I don't think you should be able to force people to sell their goods to people if they don't want to, even if it's for a shitty reason.  And we kind of can kind of leave it to the market.  For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.

I'm going to have to continue to disagree.  I don't think businesses should be able to hang "No niggers" signs in their windows.  Maybe it's just me.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes.  If you own your business you should have to right to serve whoever you choose to serve, and deny service to whoever you wish to.  There will be implications for such decisions though.  

For example if I owned a restaurant and decided to deny service to Jews then I would not only lose the service of the Jews I'm denying service to, but also anyone that disagreed with my decision to deny service.  I would be putting myself at a competitive disadvantage towards the other restaurants that served to Jews.  Let the market sort them out.

Yeah, that doesn't work.  Ever heard of the '60s?  There is a reason we have laws preventing discrimination.  If the market could "sort them out" then we would not need or have these laws.

Ever hear of Jim Crow? They needed laws to keep the market from sorting it out. Civil Rights laws certainly reduced the damage the previous laws had inflicted faster than waiting for nature to take its course would have, though.

However, if you break a contract because it took you awhile to figure out you don't agree with the group even though it doesn't conceal it, you're rightfully liable for any damages caused to the group, for instance, in terms of wasted time and money. NAMBLA could probably win that case if they didn't take any special steps to keep the club from knowing what kind of organization they were agreeing to host.

The BSA isn't legally required to let in atheists or gays, but if they agreed to host a FFRF event and backed out, they'd be liable. Conversely, the BSA may have a case (should they choose to pursue it) against performers who back out of their events because 'they just found out' the BSA discriminates against gay scouts.

[Mister Agenda]

I agree that it is unfair of the business owner to deny service, but I don't think you should be able to force people to sell their goods to people if they don't want to, even if it's for a shitty reason.  And we kind of can kind of leave it to the market.  For example look what happened when the Chick-fil-A COO made his views on gay marriage public, and he didn't even try and deny service.

I'm going to have to continue to disagree.  I don't think businesses should be able to hang "No niggers" signs in their windows.  Maybe it's just me.

And especially in the case of places of public accommodation (restaurants, hotels, theaters, and the like), the law is crystal clear that race and religion can't be a consideration for service. There was a fairly recent case where a restaurant owner offered discounts to people who came to her place after church with a church program to show they attended. That caused a lot of trouble for her, even though the atheist who complained didn't even live nearby.

[GurrenLagann]

They broke a signed contractual agreement, ergo legal penalties were justified.

And comparing the Boy Scouts, a religious organization by and for relijubs, to this is a rather... odd comparison. It would be like comparing this to a physically non-handicapped person being denied entrance to a, say, basketball league for parapalegics. It's an intrisic no-no. Denying business to people simply because you don't like some aspect of them is both stupid and, if voiced, legal suicide.

Not that this was a victory for equality for unbelievers, mind you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I imagine any business hanging a "no niggers" sign in its window would lose a shit-ton of business, my own included if relevant.

I agree with commonsense that I'd prefer to see the market handle this.  But I think the point about being shut out of services in a tiny market is fair, too.  It seems to me the real question becomes, then, how much government regulation of a private business should we tolerate?  Should  a barbershop catering to blacks in Atlanta, say, be required to serve a KKK member?  Should the American Atheists be required to extend membership to vocal Christians?

Myself, I'd rather the government not regulate memberships and business relationships, except insofar as public health and safety are concerned.

Ever hear of Jim Crow? They needed laws to keep the market from sorting it out. Civil Rights laws certainly reduced the damage the previous laws had inflicted faster than waiting for nature to take its course would have, though.

"Jim Crow" was a series of public laws, as well as private business policies, that was dismantled.  The CRA 1965 dismantled the laws. It obviously hasn't dismantled racism, in large part because it regulates government actions, not those of private organizations.

[Plu]

I agree with commonsense that I'd prefer to see the market handle this. But I think the point about being shut out of services in a tiny market is fair, too. It seems to me the real question becomes, then, how much government regulation of a private business should we tolerate? Should a barbershop catering to blacks in Atlanta, say, be required to serve a KKK member? Should the American Atheists be required to extend membership to vocal Christians?

I'd cut the distinction based on the goal of the organisation. Is it to sell stuff? No exclusions. That means yes, a barber in Atlanta catering to blacks should serve a KKK member. Of course, he'll get cut like a black man, but that's his own choice.
Is it to group together people with a common interest? Then they can exclude, as long as they're fair about it. American Atheists banning non-atheists? Fine. American Atheists banning black people? Not fine. American White Atheists banning black people and non-atheists? Also fine.
Boy scouts banning gay people? Pushing it, but to be honest I think it's their call. I'd be glad if they'd stop, but I think they have the final say in the matter. Same for banning atheists. While I don't see the neccesity to base the boyscouts on faith and christianity, if that's what they want to do, that's what they can do.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Ever hear of Jim Crow? They needed laws to keep the market from sorting it out. Civil Rights laws certainly reduced the damage the previous laws had inflicted faster than waiting for nature to take its course would have, though.

"I'm denying business to you because I don't like your atheism," is not a free market action, though, because an atheist's money is just as green as a theist's. It makes no market sense to deny someone business just because they're atheist. Just because you have a general "right" to deny business to a person does not mean that you have that right under every specific circumstance — that's called "destroying the exception."

And you even admit that the Civil Rights laws rectified the situation faster than the market could, which means we cut out maybe generations of people suffering under the previous discrimination while the market sorted itself out, so what's the damn problem?

I mostly agree with the rest of your post, though.

[widdershins]

I imagine any business hanging a "no niggers" sign in its window would lose a shit-ton of business, my own included if relevant.

Maybe, today.  What about decades ago?  It used to happen.  You seem to be forgetting that the reason we even have these laws is because "free market" didn't work in the very case you're arguing free market for.  So your argument seems to be, "Yeah, but NOW it will work!"  History is 100% against you on this one.  It doesn't matter how things will go "now", after decades of forced equal treatment have softened the people to equality.  The fact is that the free market approach to equality did not, thus, does not work.

I agree with commonsense that I'd prefer to see the market handle this.

Calling something "common sense" does not turn it into "common sense", especially when I can, and have, specifically named historical instances within living memory where this approach did not work.  It leads to double standards and second class citizens.  How is it "common sense" when history plainly and clearly says exactly the opposite of your claim?

But I think the point about being shut out of services in a tiny market is fair, too.  It seems to me the real question becomes, then, how much government regulation of a private business should we tolerate?  Should  a barbershop catering to blacks in Atlanta, say, be required to serve a KKK member?

Yes.  What's fair for one is fair for all.  And a KKK member barber should be required to serve blacks.

Should the American Atheists be required to extend membership to vocal Christians?

Apples and oranges and a damned poor example.  "Common sense" should apply here so as not to require me to explain further.

Myself, I'd rather the government not regulate memberships and business relationships, except insofar as public health and safety are concerned.

There would be so many problems with that they are innumerable, from monopolies to price fixing to rampant pollution to exaggerated and false claims to destruction of natural habitats to you name it.  The Republican mantra, "Let the free market regulate itself" simply does not work.  We don't have all these laws regulating business because Congress likes getting laws passed.  Most of them came about for the sole purpose of addressing one or more very real issues that the "free market" did not fix on its own.