http://www.nbcnews.com/business/banks-porn-stars-your-moneys-not-welcome-1C9967366

Does a business have the right to refuse service based upon moral judgements? In my opinion, the business has that right, as long as it does not violate the "protected classes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

If someone chooses to not serve a customer wanting to buy a gun, the business is not required to stock firearms. If a bank does not want to serve porn stars, so be it. If a florist does not want to serve a same sex couple wanting to get married, so be it.

Does a business have the right to refuse service as long as it does not violate the protected classes?

bbauska wrote:Does a business have the right to refuse service based upon moral judgements? In my opinion, the business has that right, as long as it does not violate the "protected classes".

That appears to be a legalistic opinion, rather than a moral one. If the list of protected classes is incomplete (and in my opinion it is, because it does not include sexuality.

If someone chooses to not serve a customer wanting to buy a gun, the business is not required to stock firearms. If a bank does not want to serve porn stars, so be it. If a florist does not want to serve a same sex couple wanting to get married, so be it.

The first one is quite different from the other two. It is saying that if you don't want to provide a particular service or good, you don't have to. The others are saying you should be able to choose who you provide it to, based on your moral 'code'.

So, the first goes without saying. If you don't want to sell guns, then don't operate a gun shop.

The second I think is a bit problematic, because I'm not sure why a bank should care how someone earns their money as long as it's legal. But ultimately it is a discrimination that people can make, and others can judge as they see fit. Personally I don't have a problem with porn stars and don't object if my bank takes their custom. I have more of an issue when banks take business from odious regimes or tax-dodging companies - of course that's business that banks often seem quite happy to take, 'morally'.

The third I think is definitely a problem, because I think that the list of 'protected classes' is wrong. I don't know why a florist should care whose wedding they are supplying flowers for.

Does a business have the right to refuse service as long as it does not violate the protected classes?

Yes (as long as the protected classes are the right ones), and legally of course it seems they do (but I always get the impression you are not finding it easy to distinguish between what is legal/unlawful and what is right/wrong).

Of course, the corollary is that people have the right to complain, protest, boycott or otherwise make objection to a business if they don't like it's 'moral' policies on custom.

Mind you is this the sort of line that the 'Manhattan Declaration' guys are reduced to? They, and others, have said that they are willing to use 'civil disobedience' if gay marriage is 'imposed' on them. As no-one is forced to marry, they clearly do not literally mean that, but I suppose there is a bit of testing the water on how far they can go in terms of applying discriminatory practices. Seems a bit petulant to me, and to be honest, if I knew of a florist (or other company) that refused to take gay clients, or specifically marrying gay clients, I would not use them myself.

I gave the federal guidelines for protected classes for a reason. Society makes the decisions on what a protected class is via the electoral/legislative process. As much as I appreciate your opinion, I choose not to be bound by it.

Case #1 - I agree with you. If you do not wish to sell firearms or ammunition, more power to you.
Case #2 - The bank can make the choices based upon their views of "morality". Your example of shady regimes is a good one. If a bank you would run would not accept monies from those you morally disagree with, I would support you in that. I honor your ability to make that choice that fits for you.
Case #3 - A protected class is the issue here. If the protected class is on the list that I provided, I would say that the business has to not discriminate. However, as protected classes are ever evolving, until that class of sexuality is accepted, the florist has the right to prohibit.

Your opinions, wise as the can sometimes be, are not binding to others. People should have the freedom to choose who to serve with their business as long as it is not a case of articulatable discrimination.

danivon wrote:

Does a business have the right to refuse service as long as it does not violate the protected classes?

Yes (as long as the protected classes are the right ones),

Well that is a really subjective answer. Who determines if the protected classes are the "right ones"

ARJ - bbauska answered the question already. In law, the government does, and as in a democracy the legislature supposedly represents the people, society does.

Bbauska - if I had at any point said my opinions bound you, you'd have a point. Your opinion does not bind me either. I loved you generosity in allowing me to set my bank's own policies. Oddly enough I don't own a bank (although I soon will be working for one and will get the chance to get shares in it).

By the way, what does 'articulatable' discrimination? Unfair discrimination and prejudicial discrimination I get...

You are correct, and answered your own question. The government sets the basis of discrimination, and vendors are free to serve whomever they choose as long as the choice to not serve is not one of the protected classes.

Articulatable discrimination is the which is against a protected class and a provable by action.

Really? I had googled articulatable and it seemed to be a made up word used in patent applications. Articulable is a word, but just means 'can be articulated', or that it can be expressed. Fair discrimination can be expressed - it's quite easy to explain discrimination against felons or stupid people.

I use articulatable because of the legal standard I was taught. You need to prove why you did an action (such as drawing your weapon in the line of duty). Where it plays in the issue of discrimination is that the discrimination must be provable and within the legal definition of the the statute.

Many people feel they are discriminated against. It must be provable, and it must be within the statute.

If someone does not get a bank loan at the Bank of Danivon (nice ring to that!) because they are unable to repay; they can claim discrimination. According to the statute of protected classes, financial status is not protected. Just because they feel they are discriminated against does not make it true. Hence without meeting the statute, it is not discriminatory. No matter how much one group wants it to be.

Well, it's true that there may not be a legal remedy when discrimination is against a class that has not been granted statutory protection. Of course, the Civil Rights bill protecting against discrimination in public accomodations has only been around since 1965. I am not sure we should be pleased with any business refusing to do business with a person based on membership in a cognizable group rather than the merits of an individual. Shouldn't we be striving towards a society where we are judged on our individual merits?

Absolutely Freeman.

You would be judging that business on the merits of their business model and choices they make. If you do not wish to frequent a bar that gives money to the RNCC I would respect your choice in that.

So basically, bbauska, you are simply proposing a tautology - it is currently legal to discriminate against those whom the current law does not protect from discrimination.

It's all very well sticking to the law as a guide, but sometimes the law is an ass.

Not at all. I am not saying that one SHOULD discriminate. I am saying that people have the MORAL choice, based upon their convictions, whom to do business with.

bbauska wrote:Not at all. I am not saying that one SHOULD discriminate. I am saying that people have the MORAL choice, based upon their convictions, whom to do business with.

No you aren't, because you are also saying that this should not be the case if they are a protected class under law.

Unless, I am misreading you and you are actually calling for the protected classes to be less (or un-) protected so that people are more free to make their 'moral' choice, should they choose.

Where did you study law, by the way? - because 'articulatable' still isn't a word, it's 'articulable' and I don't think it means what you think it does. All it means is 'can be articulated'. For example, for a stop and search, the reason has to be 'specific and articulable' - in that the reason should not be based on prejudice and should be clear and obvious - under the US legal doctrine of 'Reasonable Suspicion' [wikipedia]

I also wonder if you are clear on what 'discrimination' is. You are supporting the right to discriminate on 'moral' grounds. If I am shopping for groceries and root through the apple barrel to find the ones that are unblemished, then I am discriminating (on the basis of my idea of what makes a tasty and healthy apple and what doesn't).

And basically, you are saying that we have the moral right to do that which is not illegal, by the looks of it. Which is all very well (if reductive) and consistent with what your world view seems to be from previous discussions. But it doesn't say much more. And by 'reductive', I mean that it does not take into account reality, which is that what is legal/illegal is not the same distinction as what is right/wrong or good/bad.

Anyway, what are 'moral rights' in the first place? And why should racists and sexists and religious bigots not have their 'moral rights' to discriminate based on race/gender/creed?

Danivon,
I must not be totally clear, or you are being intentionally obtuse. I am saying that protected classes have the right to be free of discrimination under penalty of law. IF, (and that is a big IF) there is not a legal clarification of a certain class (read: political affiliation, criminal activity, brand of auto driven), then it is a MORAL issue that we must answer for. If it is the situation with a protected class (noted above), regardless of your opinion, it should be punished to the fullest extend of the law.

Regarding the word articulatable (or lack thereof); I was taught that word from a lawyer when at a court case on why I pulled my weapon during a drug smuggling interdiction. I was told that I needed to be able to articulate why I drew my weapon. Hence "articulatable" was the word he used. I hope that helps you in your confusion.

If you think the morality of finding a good apple is important I support your right to have that world view. Discrimination is such a wide ranging scope. Some people consider themselves a victim of discrimination when it is not a protected class. That is what I am saying. You have to make the moral choice for what fits your world view if there is not already standing legal judgement on that. If a person feels that they are being discriminated against because they eat meat, and a business owner is a Vegan; there would be no legal standing for a discrimination suit. The business owner would have to answer to their actions in the marketplace.

Moral rights... Hmmm

Perhaps the right to do as you wish based upon your world view, barring legal clarification from elsewhere. With legal clarification, you need to make the decision personally if you are going to follow that law (e.g. slavery and John Brown)

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I must not be totally clear, or you are being intentionally obtuse. I am saying that protected classes have the right to be free of discrimination under penalty of law.

Well, yes, and that's a tautology.

IF, (and that is a big IF) there is not a legal clarification of a certain class (read: political affiliation, criminal activity, brand of auto driven), then it is a MORAL issue that we must answer for. If it is the situation with a protected class (noted above), regardless of your opinion, it should be punished to the fullest extend of the law.

Hmm. Who do we answer for it to?

What if we decide to, say, 'morally' discriminate against an unprotected class, but that has the effect of disproportionately affecting members of one?

Regarding the word articulatable (or lack thereof); I was taught that word from a lawyer when at a court case on why I pulled my weapon during a drug smuggling interdiction. I was told that I needed to be able to articulate why I drew my weapon. Hence "articulatable" was the word he used. I hope that helps you in your confusion.

Yep, it helps my confusion immensely - the lawyer used the wrong word, but he used it in the right sense (and your application of it to discrimination is incorrect). Cheers.

If you think the morality of finding a good apple is important I support your right to have that world view. Discrimination is such a wide ranging scope. Some people consider themselves a victim of discrimination when it is not a protected class. That is what I am saying.

I don't think you understand at all. Poeple may call it 'discrimination', but what they mean is either 'unfair discrimination' or 'prejudicial discrimination'. I don't see my choice of apples as at all 'moral', but as practical and aesthetic. I don't want a bruise or a worm in my apple, and I like smooth-skinned and 'clean' apples.

SImilarly, when you take on an employee, you discriminate between those who qualify for the job (through education, experience, ability) and those who don't. At interview you may also discriminate on more personal aspects, such as how you think they will fit in the organisation and get on with your current employees.

Those are fine (within reason)

You have to make the moral choice for what fits your world view if there is not already standing legal judgement on that. If a person feels that they are being discriminated against because they eat meat, and a business owner is a Vegan; there would be no legal standing for a discrimination suit. The business owner would have to answer to their actions in the marketplace.

Well yes, back to the "if it's not illegal, it's legal" tautology.

Moral rights... Hmmm

Perhaps the right to do as you wish based upon your world view, barring legal clarification from elsewhere. With legal clarification, you need to make the decision personally if you are going to follow that law (e.g. slavery and John Brown)

ah, so now you are allowing that one can determine that the law is in contrast to their morality.

So, I ask again (seeing as you danced all around the question but never got to it) - if someone 'morally' wants to discriminate against blacks, women, old people, Christians or any other 'protected class', does the law trump their 'moral rights'?