Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Who hasnt seen a sign on a store that reads "no shoes/shirt, no service" ?
Or a better example would be a classy four star restaurant that requires a dress code such as men having to wear a jacket and tie in order to be seated.
Why isnt that discrimination ? So if a family that has a lower level of financial resources, saves up their money for a couple of months, and wants to have dinner at a swanky restaurant, it's not discriminating against them to deny them service, if the man doesnt own a sport jacket and tie ?
~TS~
You can get a jacket for $5 and a tie for $1 at most Goodwill stores. There does not exist a situation where someone can afford the fancy restaurant but not the $6. Most people attend weddings and funerals in their lifetime and have some variation on a jacket and tie.
Or you can borrow from a friend. Discrimination that could never ever happen isn't too high up on the list of discrimination to worry about.
I just think these services are in a different class, such that the principles behind requiring places of public accomodation to serve anyone really don't apply.
To give a couple of examples, let's say that members of the KKK want to come in and have lunch in my restaurant, then go next door and buy clothes in my retail store. These are pretty standard, arms-length transactions. I think the government, for purposes of a smooth-running economy, can reasonably say, "look, regardless of how you feel about these people, they're just getting a bite to eat. If you want to welcome in anyone to have a bite to eat, you need to accept anyone." One of the big justifications for public accomodations requirements in the Civil Rights Act was for individuals to be able to travel around and stop at the first place they saw to eat and to sleep without suffering the significant hassles associated with being turned away.
In contrast, say I have a banquet hall available for rental, and the local KKK chapter contacts me about renting my hall out for one of their rallies. This is a different sort of a transaction -- it's not arms-length, it's planned well in advance, and the event itself involves things I don't agree with. I think it's very reasonable for the government to allow venues to have discretion about what sorts of events they host. If a straight-laced venue wants to say no to a hardcore biker rally, if a liberal venue wants to tell the RNC to find somewhere else to go, or if a venue owned by Christians doesn't want ceremonies that violate their religious convictions, I think they should have the right to discriminate as to what customers they accept. Despite being publically advertised, the venue hosts groups of customers on a case-by-case basis, and the compelling reasons for actual public accomodations like hotels and restaurants just doesn't seem to apply here.
I feel the same way about newspapers carrying advertisements, about catering services, and a variety of other situations where it's very reasonable for a business to say "I don't want to support this sort of thing" or "I don't want to be in business with these sorts of people."
That's a good point. I grew up in a family that owns several restaurants, and one of our restaurants is frequently booked wedding receptions. Now, for the purposes of receptions, we would never turn anyone away. I never really thought about the KKK wanting to hold a rally at the venue. My aunt would be extremely indignant and quite vexed if she were forced to accommodate such an event.
But I think there is a fundamental difference between a KKK rally, and a gay couple; one I have a feeling you will disagree with me on:
Gay people don't really choose to be gay. You don't really choose who you fall in love with. You just do.
Whereas, the KKK actually CHOOSES to spread messages of hate, and to hold hateful rallies.
As for political rallies:
Personally, I am a Democrat. I am a bit liberal. And I cannot stand the thought of Romney becoming president. However, if a group wants to hold a political rally for the RNC at a restaurant that I own, I wouldn't be terribly put-off in allowing them use of that space for that purpose. Whereas, with the KKK I would be.
I guess the difference, in my mind, is about whether a group using my venue, is spreading a message of hate. RNC, while I disagree with their platform, aren't exactly "hateful." At least, not to the degree of the KKK. lol.
I actually completely disagree in your gay / KKK distinction. Marriage is a choice, and same-sex marriage is immoral. Whether "being gay" is a choice is entirely beside the issue (although as I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't agree that sexual inclinations is a core identity issue the way so many modern Americans see it).
Who hasnt seen a sign on a store that reads "no shoes/shirt, no service" ?
Or a better example would be a classy four star restaurant that requires a dress code such as men having to wear a jacket and tie in order to be seated.
Why isnt that discrimination ? So if a family that has a lower level of financial resources, saves up their money for a couple of months, and wants to have dinner at a swanky restaurant, it's not discriminating against them to deny them service, if the man doesnt own a sport jacket and tie ?
Makes me wonder why it is apparently acceptable to look down upon and discriminate against people for one set of circumstances, but when its another, it's not.
I knew this was going to be brought up, and I was hoping it would be, as I wanted to address this point in it's own post. I am pretty experienced with this sort of thing.
For the "no shirt/shoes, no service," that's a safety issue. Broken glass on the floor? Without that sign, if a person comes in with no shoes and steps on the glass, the place would be legitimately sued.
"No shirt" is an equality-equalizer. If a man comes into a place of business without a shirt on, women should be allowed as well. Shirtless women, of course, is considered "lewd."
The fancy suit/tie places (my family owns one...a three-star restaurant,) is that way in order to accommodate a certain clientele. People of humble means would never be able to afford to eat at this place anyway. We have to charge high prices for the service we provide, just to cover the overhead. We have a top-quality chef and a top-quality staff we have to pay. We have top-quality fresh foods we have to pay for as well. Then there were the loans that needed to be paid off because decorating the interior (as well as the exterior) and purchasing high-quality dinnerwear, as well as the initial stock of wine bottles that we would be sitting on for a while....all of that is VERY expensive.
As a business, we went through the trouble and the expense, to open an establishment where the richest people in town could go for a pleasant evening. It's the only place in town, so we have a corner on that market.
The suit-and-tie policy is a part of our specific business model in order to run the place successfully. Our clientele doesn't exactly want to sit anywhere near people wearing blue jeans and a T-shirt. Kinda ruins the "romantic atmosphere" of the place, and may turn our customers away.
It is the exact same concept of why places like Hooters can get away with only hiring females as servers, while refusing to hire male servers. It is a part of their identity as a business model.
I actually completely disagree in your gay / KKK distinction. Marriage is a choice, and same-sex marriage is immoral. Whether "being gay" is a choice is entirely beside the issue (although as I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't agree that sexual inclinations is a core identity issue the way so many modern Americans see it).
I figured you would disagree with what I have said. I am not going to argue with you about the point that "sexual inclinations is not a core identity issue." I am not going to argue, because there is no argument. You're just simply wrong on that point. Being gay is NOT a choice. Falling in love with another person likewise is NOT a choice.
If we allow heterosexuals to marry, and heterosexuals like to get married because they are in love with one another, that right should not be abridged to those who are homosexual, just because you have the false opinion that "gays are that way through choice." And the fact that they DO have the choice to get married, is not a valid argument to deny them said marriage through legal means. That would be no different from a diner denying a black man a chance to eat there because "it's a choice to eat here anyway."
As someone mentioned above (I apologize I forget who), this really does raise kind of a grey area question...
I happen to agree with the idea that its BS for the people who run Liberty Ridge to hide behind the claim that having a wedding reception for a same sex couple somehow violates their rights to worship as they please.
The reality is, that the only people who will be there attending said reception are all well aware that its a same sex couple celebrating their nuptials.
What role do their children (the folks who run Liberty Ridge) play? Having a wedding reception there doesnt force values down anyone's throat, it just asks that they provide the same services that they'd normally provide for a more traditional opposite sex marriage reception.
On the other hand, some business's are able to legally exclude some people from being able to purchase goods or services, or to enter the business itself.
Who hasnt seen a sign on a store that reads "no shoes/shirt, no service" ?
Or a better example would be a classy four star restaurant that requires a dress code such as men having to wear a jacket and tie in order to be seated.
Why isnt that discrimination ? So if a family that has a lower level of financial resources, saves up their money for a couple of months, and wants to have dinner at a swanky restaurant, it's not discriminating against them to deny them service, if the man doesnt own a sport jacket and tie ?
Makes me wonder why it is apparently acceptable to look down upon and discriminate against people for one set of circumstances, but when its another, it's not.
The bottom line to me, is that in the case of Liberty Ridge, the simple, easy, and right thing to do, would have been for them to just to treat the couple planning the reception as they would with any other.
I find it especially surprising that in tough economic times, that anyone would turn away business, based on something so silly.
If it were my business, upon same sex marriage being made legal, I would have likely run full page adds in local papers, and adjusted my advertising to attempt to capture that business. It's just asinine to say that adapting your business to accomodate another aspect or segment of the market, necessarily means that you have to disregard your belief system. Furthermore, I havent seen anyone yet that's been able to effectively provide evidence of how same sex marriage hurts society, sets a bad example for children, or changes how those who feel so strongly against it, to change anything in their day to day life. The argument that it's somehow offensive based on religious beliefs, or that its an afront to God, is both ridiculous, and irrelevant. The ceremonies are typically civil (non religious) in nature, and no part of the law requires churches or those associated with them to perform the ceremonies, unless they so choose to do so.
I agree that if it were a reception hall that typically only catered to Jewish, Christian, or other specialized religious wedding receptions, that they'd have a somewhat legitimate basis for denying service. But under the circumstances, it appears that they were in fact denying someone service for unacceptable, unfair, and petty reasons.
I dont know if any of you have seen this viral video that's been going around, its of a pastor addressing the topic of gay marriage at a town hall meeting in Missouri....
It's sum's up pretty well what the issue comes down to. Make sure you watch it to the end, as it's kind of a surprise ending !
That's a good point. I grew up in a family that owns several restaurants, and one of our restaurants is frequently booked wedding receptions. Now, for the purposes of receptions, we would never turn anyone away. I never really thought about the KKK wanting to hold a rally at the venue. My aunt would be extremely indignant and quite vexed if she were forced to accommodate such an event.
But I think there is a fundamental difference between a KKK rally, and a gay couple; one I have a feeling you will disagree with me on:
Gay people don't really choose to be gay. You don't really choose who you fall in love with. You just do.
Whereas, the KKK actually CHOOSES to spread messages of hate, and to hold hateful rallies.
~~~
Who hasnt seen a sign on a store that reads "no shoes/shirt, no service" ?
Or a better example would be a classy four star restaurant that requires a dress code such as men having to wear a jacket and tie in order to be seated.
Why isnt that discrimination ? So if a family that has a lower level of financial resources, saves up their money for a couple of months, and wants to have dinner at a swanky restaurant, it's not discriminating against them to deny them service, if the man doesnt own a sport jacket and tie ?
Makes me wonder why it is apparently acceptable to look down upon and discriminate against people for one set of circumstances, but when its another, it's not.
The short answer to that is that how one is attired is not a protected class.
In NY, sexual orientation is a protected class, so what the business did is a violation of that law. If a similar business refused a commitment ceremony here in Indiana, it would be perfectly legal because sexual orientation is not a protected class here, nor for the federal government.
The short answer to that is that how one is attired is not a protected class.
In NY, sexual orientation is a protected class, so what the business did is a violation of that law. If a similar business refused a commitment ceremony here in Indiana, it would be perfectly legal because sexual orientation is not a protected class here, nor for the federal government.
If people are going to make bad analogies, then they have to be addressed, since nowhere is how you are attired considered a protected class legally, but sexual orientation is in some places.
The reason that sexual orientation is a protected class is that the it has support from a majority of the electorate in New York, because ensuring equal protection for LGBT persons is a community value of the citizens of New York.
Since we also have the concept of separation of church and state, one's religious views, do not bestow upon somebody the moral excuse to opt out of laws inspired by those community values.
I also have a big problem when anybody claims that his/her rights are being violated (religious or otherwise) because they are not allowed to discriminate.
So, when the people of New York decide that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong, then business owners in NY do not get to say, but I'm religious and my religious beliefs require me to discriminate against people in spite of the law.
And yes, that is exactly what this business owner is saying. They are claiming that their religious beliefs require them to discriminate against gays because if their religious beliefs only allowed them to discriminate and not require it, they would still be allowed to not discriminate and obey the law.
It may be a bad analogy, but I never said that what people wear (their attire) is a protected class.
I asked why it isnt discrimination, to deny someone service based on their financial status, or their appearance as in how they are dressed...?
Just wanted to clarify that.
Nihilianth said this....
The fancy suit/tie places (my family owns one...a three-star restaurant,) is that way in order to accommodate a certain clientele. People of humble means would never be able to afford to eat at this place anyway. We have to charge high prices for the service we provide, just to cover the overhead. We have a top-quality chef and a top-quality staff we have to pay. We have top-quality fresh foods we have to pay for as well. Then there were the loans that needed to be paid off because decorating the interior (as well as the exterior) and purchasing high-quality dinnerwear, as well as the initial stock of wine bottles that we would be sitting on for a while....all of that is VERY expensive.
Sorry, but that sounds kind of discriminatory to me..... elitist in fact.
Oh, and Avalon, could you please explain exactly why it is that same sex marriage is immoral ?
Without dragging religious belief into it... I cannot accept that as an answer.
Klan membership and a specifically Klan wedding is not a protected class so probably. If they objected to the tone being to low class like something from My Big Redneck Wedding then they would also have a legitimate point of dispute.
I wonder if they saw all the increase Chik-fil-a got in sales through bigotry and adopted it as a marketing tool.
I actually completely disagree in your gay / KKK distinction. Marriage is a choice, and same-sex marriage is immoral. Whether "being gay" is a choice is entirely beside the issue (although as I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't agree that sexual inclinations is a core identity issue the way so many modern Americans see it).
So places should be able to discriminate based on religion then because no one can argue that it is not a choice and there for does not deserve protection?
If people are going to make bad analogies, then they have to be addressed, since nowhere is how you are attired considered a protected class legally, but sexual orientation is in some places.
Not entirely true. If it was religious garb then they would have a fairly high bar to exclude people. So a fine restaurant with a rule against hats would likely need to bend the rule for Sikhs.
It may be a bad analogy, but I never said that what people wear (their attire) is a protected class.
I asked why it isnt discrimination, to deny someone service based on their financial status, or their appearance as in how they are dressed...?
Just wanted to clarify that.
But financial status is not a protected class. And businesses do that kind of exclusion all the time with their prices and not giving multi million dollar loans to people earning $20,000 a year even if they have good credit(something else that gets discriminated on the horror!).
Sorry, but that sounds kind of discriminatory to me..... elitist in fact.
Sure but so what? No one is against all discrimination, they are against discriminating based on classes that they think deserve protection. So to eat at an expensive restaurant that they can not afford anyway it seems fairly reasonable discrimination, I would hold it against other businesses or government services though.
Oh, and Avalon, could you please explain exactly why it is that same sex marriage is immoral ?
Without dragging religious belief into it... I cannot accept that as an answer.
The right to exclude who you allow on to your property, or provide your goods to, is absolute except in cases where you are infringing on others. Any society that cannot function without violating it has no moral standing to exist.
The right to exclude who you allow on to your property, or provide your goods to, is absolute except in cases where you are infringing on others. Any society that cannot function without violating it has no moral standing to exist.
So places should be able to discriminate based on religion then because no one can argue that it is not a choice and there for does not deserve protection?
My point is that venues and other places that aren't really "places of public accommodation" in my view should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they so choose, whether good or bad.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
