As I believe we answer to a just God, no. The law does not trump the moral rights AND responsibilities we have. If one does not believe in a higher power, man's law is all you have.

bbauska

As I believe we answer to a just God, no. The law does not trump the moral rights AND responsibilities we have. If one does not believe in a higher power, man's law is all you have.

In a pluralistic society, where there are dozens of religions and philosophies guiding portions of the populace....
Mans law is the common denominator.

You place your self on a slippery slope when you attempt to defend discrimination as :legal" or "illegal" and that settles the issue. Mans laws, especially in a democratic society, eventually reflect the consensus morality of the nation. However there has almost always been a lag between the acceptance of legal discrimination against certain groups and the judgement of society that the discrimination is unjust or unfair.
There Are thousands of examples. Segregation was once accepted law. The moral judgement of the nation changed the law. But for quite a few years, the law existed as protection. "It ain't against the law."
However before the law was changed, those of moral character had to lead on the issue. By word and deed.
You're witnessing a major change in discrimination and protected classes right now with the acceptance and legalization of Gay Marriage... But it wasn't that long ago that anyone participating in a homosexual sex act could be jailed...

The answer to your question is "It might be legal. That doesn't make it right."

I find it hard to believe that banks go out of there way to disassociate themselves from porn actors... It seems incredibly petty... I'll bet they would be more than willing to take on a major hotel chain, and yet major hotel chains are amongst the greatest purveyors of porn. I'll bet they'd be happy to take a cable networks bank accounts too.
If they are going to judge only the actors they are hypocrits. If they also inlcude the main stream business that profit most .... then I'd say they are making a truly moral choice.Right now, i'll bet their moral out rage is selective.

So what is the opposite view. Does society have to follow what just a few people feel discrimination is? That is why I use the legal standard.

Do we need to give Vegan followers protected classification?

How do you reconcile what people get protected and those who don't? What happens to the "victims" that are not protected legally?

I did not see this mentioned and it seems to fit the discussion...
What about these trendy nightclubs that will not allow "ugly" people to enter? That would be the same thing as being asked here? What about a strip club (or hooters?) not hiring flat chested or unattractive women? How come Hooters has no male waiters wearing short shorts and half shirts? (ewwwwww)

We allow discrimination in many areas already don't we?

GMTom wrote:I did not see this mentioned and it seems to fit the discussion...
What about these trendy nightclubs that will not allow "ugly" people to enter? That would be the same thing as being asked here? What about a strip club (or hooters?) not hiring flat chested or unattractive women? How come Hooters has no male waiters wearing short shorts and half shirts? (ewwwwww)

We allow discrimination in many areas already don't we?

That is why I follow the "protected classes" when it comes to the legal standard, and don't inflict my values upon others when it comes to the others.

I re-read my earlier post and realized I was not succinct enough.

What do you do for someone who feels they are being discriminated against, but their situation is not one of protected class.

Tom brings to light a couple of examples that need to have the light turned off, but I digress.

If the person is NOT a protected class, does business have a right to choose to serve or employ?

If so, does the business have the morals stand in the economy to make society judge the value?

I cannot make it more basic than that.

I hope that helps.

bbauska

So what is the opposite view. Does society have to follow what just a few people feel discrimination is? That is why I use the legal standard.

There is no "opposite view". There is also no clear black and white. No clear Right and Wrong.
There is ambiguity.
That's natural in a society where morality continually evolves to reflect the constantly evolving attitudes that society has towards human behaviours.

You seem to be uncomfortable with ambiguity and shaded arguments... The problem is that laws, whether man made or supposedly handed down by God, Allah or whoever ... aren't immutable, unchanging. (The revealed laws in most religions have also changed over time.)They must change if society is going to continue to seek to improve itself .

People are always going to have to balance doing whats right and whats legal, where the law represents a morality found wanting. Sometimes its easy. Most times its hard.
Sometimes desperately hard.
Your example of "legal" discrimination against porn actors is a pretty petty example . write the President of that bank and see how moral he becomes if it means he has to drop a major depositor who has revenue from porn...and not just one or two actors.

We allow discrimination in many areas already don't we?

Yes. Legally.
And in many cases the moral judgement for the discrimination is broadly supported. Even universally supported.
But where it becomes less broadly supported a persons moral position must be defensible. To seek refuge in the fact that "its the law" is just a dodge. You still have to answer the question "Is it moral?" If you can't answer yes, then the law, from your point of view, should be changed.
And if you are true to your moral position, you should both break the law, and or actively seek to change the law.

bbauska wrote:As I believe we answer to a just God, no. The law does not trump the moral rights AND responsibilities we have. If one does not believe in a higher power, man's law is all you have.

Firstly, man's law is not all we have if we do not believe in a god. We are able to have our own morality that can be based on things other than secular power. You may find it hard to understand how morality can stem from neither religion nor state, but it can.

Secondly, you are still avoiding my question directly. Are you saying that if someone's God tells them that our laws are wrong they have a moral case to ignore the law? Say their religion tells them that bpacks are inferior, or that women should not work, or that anyone from another religion is a dangerous heretic to be punished...

But if they are a non-religious racist/sexist/bigot they can't. I feel you are being unfair to bigots based on their religion :-)

Petty?

Exactly. Some people feel they are being discriminated against, and you call it petty. Again, I feel we have reached some common ground. Some people's self-victimization is petty. The example is a true situation.

Danivon,
I know some people's morality is based upon something other that a higher power. I get it. To answer your question (and I think I did already):

If a person's religion is telling them to discriminate against a protected class, then the person makes the choice for themselves; accepting the legal punishments on earth.

Care to take a shot at my questions?
If the person is NOT a protected class, does business have a right to choose to serve or employ?
If so, does the business have the morals stand in the economy to make society judge the value?

bbauska wrote:Care to take a shot at my questions?
If the person is NOT a protected class, does business have a right to choose to serve or employ?
If so, does the business have the morals stand in the economy to make society judge the value?

I thought I had at the start. People have the 'moral right' to do what they like, but it's not a proper 'right', as it has no standing, and because one person's moral decision is another's immoral stance.

I think it is unfortunate when we have companies grandstanding on social policies (as Chick-Fil-A and others did), or promising to screw over employees who they disagree with. Similarly, I think that it is long overdue to add sexuality to your list of protected classes.

And the thing about companies is that they are not people, and do not have a 'moral stance' - a business is just a vehicle for the owners.

Perhaps Tom the answer is that if there is a legitimate business reason for only selecting employees with certain characteristics then that should be allowed. But if there is no business reason and it is simple prejudice then, no, it probably shouldn't be allowed

I'm simply playing Devils advocate here..
What if you have "legitimate business reasons" for not hiring / serving a black person or a gay person? Legitimate reason or not, should it matter? Where do you draw the very gray line if it does matter?

Here's a real story for you,

I know someone who moved to rural North Carolina, he went to a local liquor store one day and bought "whatever", he liked that store and came back 2 more times over a few weeks. During this third visit the owner asked him to not come back. He was very polite about it but this happened to be a "black liquor store" and the owner said both would feel more comfortable if he shopped in the "white liquor store" around the corner! The people there get uneasy about mixing races still to this day! While I am not in favor of this (nor was my friend Walt, not a bigoted bone in his body ...he LIKED the black store better, he could care less what color the others were!!!) they have "legitimate business reasons" for such discrimination?

Brad, can I ask you a question ? What was the point of this thread ? You began by posing the question of whether businesses have the right to refuse custom on a discriminatory basis and then preceded to define the terms solely by what is currently permissible in US law. Since you're quite clearly already familiar with the letter of the law in this respect I don't really see the point of the question, and by extension the thread.

In effect all you've said here is that businesses have the right to discriminate against the non-protected classes because there's no law against it. Well yes, we knew that already. There's only any kind of point to this thread if you're either arguing for a change in the law or if you're talking about whether they have a moral right which is not rooted in American jurispridence.

Sass,
Thank you for the question. My point is to find out what is more important, the law (which currently may not allow all the different classes of people to have discrimination protection) and a business' decision to serve or not serve a client based upon the morality of the client.

That is why I posted the link to a porn actress being denied service from a bank. It got me thinking why can this business make a values judgement against a person and this be allowed. I guess I wanted to know if there are values that others find socially worth standing for in the marketplace.

bbauska

That is why I posted the link to a porn actress being denied service from a bank. It got me thinking why can this business make a values judgement against a person and this be allowed

The cost of denying the service to the porn actress is small to the bank. Expressing their moral outrage this way has almost no financial impact.
Thats why I said this is petty.
The day a bank takes a stand against pornography when it can seriously affect their financial position - then we'll have something. Throw out a hotel chain or an Internet service provider because they retail or host porn ....
Until then this is a cheap act against an individual that is intended only to "shame" the individual .
It might be legal. It might even be moral. But morality also begs for consistency.
When its easy to take a moral stand, lots do. When its difficult or expensive....not so many.