Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)

[rightleft22]

There are many Christian groups so it's a bit troubling to define a term in a Christian context that is going to be meaningful...

Agreed, so much so the word 'Christian' is almost meaningless.
That said a common thread to most such wisdom traditions is a version of the golden rule which I think ought to be applied in the cases of discrimination being discussed.

I don't want a business to discriminate against me for what they think I might believe or say because of some group or idea I may or may not support. I don't want them googling me to see if I'm worthy of thier service.
So as per the rule I can't do it to others.

Looking too closely at your customers in ways that has nothing to do with the service you provide is bad business. Look to closely at anyone and you will find something not to like.

Their are areas in life and society that should be left superficial. I think we would all be much happier.
 

[rightleft22]

Not in my opinion.  But getting half naked and shaking your ass in front of 6 year olds is.

A person with that compulsion can belong to many differed groups so creating a discrimination rule base on anything other then the specific people that do this naked ass shaking in front of 6 year old's would not make sense

In this case we case I think we can all agree that such naked ass shaking is wrong and that we have laws to handle it.  No need to discriminant against a group because someone who knew someone who had a aunt that witness a naked drag queen sake their ass in front of a six year old and not get arrested.

[TheDrake]

There are many Christian groups so it's a bit troubling to define a term in a Christian context that is going to be meaningful...

Agreed, so much so the word 'Christian' is almost meaningless.
That said a common thread to most such wisdom traditions is a version of the golden rule which I think ought to be applied in the cases of discrimination being discussed.

I don't want a business to discriminate against me for what they think I might believe or say because of some group or idea I may or may not support. I don't want them googling me to see if I'm worthy of thier service.
So as per the rule I can't do it to others.

Looking too closely at your customers in ways that has nothing to do with the service you provide is bad business. Look to closely at anyone and you will find something not to like.

Their are areas in life and society that should be left superficial. I think we would all be much happier.

So if NAMBLA wants to have a party at Chick-Fil-A, you'd be mad if they tried to stop it on the principle that businesses should be indifferent to their customer's views?

Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that this is totally different, we've got one group that wants to change laws about sexuality, and another group that wants to change laws about sexuality. You may find NAMBLA offensive, I do. So I'm fine with both organizations getting banned from a restaurant.

Your establishment brand is affected by who your customers are. When you become the "go-to" spot for hate groups because of your laissez-faire attitude, decent people will stop supporting your business. You can reasonably disagree about this group standing for hate, but what matters is what the community, staff, and customers think. Because they will go somewhere else if you're on friendly terms with jerks.

[Tom]

In this case we case I think we can all agree that such naked ass shaking is wrong and that we have laws to handle it.

Just a small quibble: I do not think it is inherently wrong for a six-year-old to see a naked ass, even (in some contexts) a sexualized naked ass.

[Fenring]

The question seems to be whether a restaurant should be considered as a 'club', in the old British sense, where it's an actually stated goal that the people allowed in are specifically of a certain type and accord with the club's social and perhaps intellectual principles. I suppose I could see a fancy country club having such a stance, where their restaurant is a 'clubhouse' for people of a particular persuasion. But a fast food joint, not so much. Frankly I can't even see ordinary fancy restaurants as having much of an argument that they are a de facto private club via political persuasion. It would seem silly for a Chick-Fil-A to feel displeased at a gay convention eating there, unless perhaps they were appearing in very provocative attire or with placards or something. But if it's just regular people going there to eat, I truly can't see what would be objectionable other than people looking for things to be offended about. Would a gay person refuse to eat there on principle because of the owner's beliefs? And vice versa, to allow a gay person or group to eat there? Maybe, but I don't personally agree with that. As rightleft suggests, that implies that everyone in the public sphere is going to start doing background checks on each other for wrongthink? I really think that is unwholesome, bordering on villainous.

[Tom]

As rightleft suggests, that implies that everyone in the public sphere is going to start doing background checks on each other for wrongthink?

And yet this is often the only way to ensure "righteous" behavior from corporate entities and/or their owners. It's the fundamental logic behind most boycotts unrelated to product quality.

[Fenring]

As rightleft suggests, that implies that everyone in the public sphere is going to start doing background checks on each other for wrongthink?

And yet this is often the only way to ensure "righteous" behavior from corporate entities and/or their owners. It's the fundamental logic behind most boycotts unrelated to product quality.

Hold on, now. We need to separate 'righteous' in the sense of violating Western law in all but technicality (e.g. using slave labor far off in the supply chain) from righteous in the sense of me personally thinking the CEO is a righteous man. The two are worlds apart. If Chick-Fil-A and its upper management happen to be part of a social clique that is quite distant from me, the ethical connotations of that are very far from researching to see whether they partner up with death squads or throw toxic waste in the river. You would have to take a position like just being a conservative (or likewise for lifestyles antagonistic to that) is enough to treat the corporation as a criminal organization for your point to stand, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Note that I'm talking about doing research for the purposes of rightthink and avoiding anyone who disagrees with you politically; I am not suggesting we should avoid researching to find out if corporate board members are behaving like literal criminals.

[Tom]

But that's a bit of an artificial distinction, isn't it? After all, we just talked about Christians who believe that drag queens are literally working to destroy the country by grooming innocent children; on the Left, lots of people stopped buying certain brands of paper out of the belief that funding the Kochs was helping them tear down democracy. When people confronted Trump administration officials in restaurants to harangue them over their mistreatment of immigrants, they didn't do it because they thought it was just a mild political disagreement but rather an actual moral crisis.

[Fenring]

But that's a bit of an artificial distinction, isn't it? After all, we just talked about Christians who believe that drag queens are literally working to destroy the country by grooming innocent children; on the Left, lots of people stopped buying certain brands of paper out of the belief that funding the Kochs was helping them tear down democracy. When people confronted Trump administration officials in restaurants to harangue them over their mistreatment of immigrants, they didn't do it because they thought it was just a mild political disagreement but rather an actual moral crisis.

But what we're also talking about is whether these facts should inspire everyone to discover who is doing what in their spare time in order to ascertain if they can dine in a restaurant. And we're even more specifically talking about whether the restaurant should ban the patrons. Obviously if a left-winger doesn't want to eat at Chick-Fil-A they just don't have to go. That's not going to ruffle anyone's feathers as it's literally a non-event.

Now I would indeed go further and suggest that researching a corporation to learn the management's politics is probably a loser of a proposition if the goal is to avoid contributing to the wealth of the owner. I don't think it's realistic for pretty much anyone to actually comprehend (to the extent that this information is even public) who has financial interests in what, so that they could actually avoid this. Do you know offhand, or could you even discover if your life depended on it, all the companies the Kochs are invested in? I suppose it might be easier in the case of a CEO/owner of a single private company, but in my experience I've heard lots of people say they will boycott XYZ companies for various ok reasons, like Nestle, miscellaneous banks, and so on, and in each case the thing they are trying to avoid supporting they are almost certainly supporting in some other equivalent manner. I suppose this might be a sideline to your general observation that people view these disagreements as mortal dangers, but maybe it's not such a sideline you consider that I don't think the people trying to avoid corporate bad guys are willing to follow through on their intense research programme they would need to engage in to do this. It's kind of like saying you've decided to avoid eating anything with nuts or traces of nuts. Sounds easy on paper, but ask someone with a deathly nut allergy, it's not easy at all! So even a seriously objective grievance like slavery in the supply chain is quite hard to support with boycott-type actions. Have fun memorizing all of Nestle's subsidiaries and product lines. Just imagine if it was Proctor & Gamble you had a problem with...learning which products are theirs would be your new full-time hobby.

But if you did want to take very seriously the "they are destroying America" premise of a socio-political disagreement - anything ranging from the conservatives want to undermine governance to the liberals want to destroy marriage - you could surely lump many more categories in there if you were being serious about it, no? After all, what's a drag event compared to for-profit wars, murder for money? What's filibustering the debt ceiling compared to lobbyists trying to pass through legislation undermining democracy? You could make long lists of groups that legitimately are in fact (not just in someone's partisan opinion) trying to dismantle the protections America offers, and endangering everyone in the world for that matter, for their own personal gain. Well I think we could ban them from restaurants too while we're at it, no? If you accept this type of proposition, then I think it becomes evident how false it is to claim you're banning someone because they espouse dangerous or offensive views: there are people with much more dangerous and offensive views you're happy to let in. It seems all too convenient that the people who are harassed or banned are direct partisan opponents, wouldn't you say? It's not like customers in restaurants are harassing, say, Jamie Dimon, or maybe someone in some corrupt oversight committee. No, they go after politicians or people who represent their opponents in the culture wars. I'd say that fact alone is pretty telling about the motives in regard to upholding virtue or anything like that.

[rightleft22]

So if NAMBLA wants to have a party at Chick-Fil-A, you'd be mad if they tried to stop it on the principle that businesses should be indifferent to their customer's views?

As a business owner I am not going to investigate my customers before I decide to serve them or not. If I did the list of people I would prefer not to serve would be quite long.  If a patron gets loud and or such then I can take measures.
But yes I don't want to know. Imagine how many people you interact with in the day that had you known their thoughts or groups they belong to.... Is that the world you want to live in?
To deal with such groups or thinking you disagree with their are better ways then discrimination.

I don't see how you can have it both ways. If you don't want to be discriminated in that way, refused service for something you think, then I don't see how you can justify its use against others.

[yossarian22c]

I do see a difference in refusing services to individuals who are members of a political group you disagree with and refusing to host an event for that group. I don't see a particular benefit to either in almost all cases. I disagree with the motivations of this group but taking their money and serving them dinner doesn't advance their cause nor is it a statement of support for the group. If the dinner was a fundraiser for the group that's a different question. But just a social/work dinner out that doesn't make your restaurant/location an active supporter of the group. I don't like the balkanization of society where we put up walls and don't talk/eat/work together.

Short take. I think this is probably legal because they refused service to the political group. I think this is unnecessary and not particularly helpful for a group like this.

A more fun option than refusing service would have been to hire a bunch of drag queens to serve them. Surround them with the people they are uncomfortable with.

[Wayward Son]

This question comes down to the basic quandary of morality: should one do unto others as one would have them do unto you, or should you do unto others as they do unto you?

The Family Foundation advocates for discriminating against gays by taking away gay marriage, etc.  Should they not be subject to discrimination in spite of being for it?  Shouldn't they accept some discrimination because they advocate for it?

Discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation or even politics is wrong.  But if someone, or some organization, clearly believes it is not wrong, is there anything wrong about treating them the way they treat the rest of the world?

[Fenring]

This question comes down to the basic quandary of morality: should one do unto others as one would have them do unto you, or should you do unto others as they do unto you?

Is that really a quandary? It is easy to say that people are tempted to act poorly when others do, but that isn't a moral position.

The Family Foundation advocates for discriminating against gays by taking away gay marriage, etc.  Should they not be subject to discrimination in spite of being for it?  Shouldn't they accept some discrimination because they advocate for it?

Discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation or even politics is wrong.  But if someone, or some organization, clearly believes it is not wrong, is there anything wrong about treating them the way they treat the rest of the world?

If you define discrimination in any old way then it just becomes a synonym for "doing things I don't like". But that's not what the term needs to mean for it be useful. Gay marriage is a particularly fraught example because it's possible to find the basis for gay marriage factually objectionable without it also carrying with it animus against gay people. Naturally a person in favor of gay marriage would expect that anyone against it is a bigot, but that really doesn't have to be the case. As a potential analogy (which in no way relates to gay people, there is no offense intended) if someone asked whether a human should be "allowed" to marry a canine, it would be hard to even frame the answer intelligibly because using the word "allowed" implies that it's a legitimate thing and that people are 'preventing' it from happening due to some kind of oppression. But in fact marriage to a canine is not a thing, never was, and isn't even intelligible as marriage in any discernible way other than you're using the phonemes that sound out the word. So you would be hesitant to even agree that you're "not allowing" it because that already presupposes premises that do not exist. But as a dog-lover you would also find it hard to swallow if a human-canine marriage advocate called you a discriminatory bigot. And as hard as it may be to believe to people who believe strongly in gay marriage, this canine example really is how many people saw it, and still do, in terms of being against it for intellectual reasons. If you can grasp that it's possible to be against something without being against the people who want it to happen, you might see how your above statement is highly prejudicial.

There is no purpose to deny that many people against gay marriage probably were/are in fact bigoted and have something against gay people. But that is not a strike against the intellectual position itself, but as with many other things in life, means you can honorably or dishonorably hold a point of a view, and the difference matters. And that's one of the reasons I find partisan politics so dangerous: you ally with people who say the same thing as you, rather than people who hold whatever position they hold because they are informed and decent people. I would personally rather have a group of friends with all different opinions who I could trust implicitly, than a group who all agree with my politics/religion, half of whom are snakes.

[rightleft22]

This question comes down to the basic quandary of morality: should one do unto others as one would have them do unto you, or should you do unto others as they do unto you?

The Family Foundation advocates for discriminating against gays by taking away gay marriage, etc.  Should they not be subject to discrimination in spite of being for it?  Shouldn't they accept some discrimination because they advocate for it?

Discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation or even politics is wrong.  But if someone, or some organization, clearly believes it is not wrong, is there anything wrong about treating them the way they treat the rest of the world?

So being the 'change you hope to see' verses 'eye for a eye'?

IMO the Family Foundation can't complain about be discriminated against without showing themselves as hypocrites and undermining their foundational beliefs. That they are conscious enough to notice that is what they are doing I don't know.

Using the, eye for an eye, the other is doing it so so can I reasoning doesn't IMO justify discrimination. I prefer yossarian22c suggestion.

[Tom]

It is easy to say that people are tempted to act poorly when others do, but that isn't a moral position.

I suppose the real question here is whether boycotting or refusing service to someone is likely to change their behavior or influence the behavior of others who hear about or witness the act. If so, it is a moral position; if not, it's just personal catharsis.

[Tom]

And as hard as it may be to believe to people who believe strongly in gay marriage, this canine example really is how many people saw it, and still do...

As a side note, I don't think anyone here would disagree that opponents of same-sex marriage tended to think of homosexuals as subhuman.

[Fenring]

It is easy to say that people are tempted to act poorly when others do, but that isn't a moral position.

I suppose the real question here is whether boycotting or refusing service to someone is likely to change their behavior or influence the behavior of others who hear about or witness the act. If so, it is a moral position; if not, it's just personal catharsis.

I would say, based on what I observe about human nature and change, that treating people like the enemy is probably not going to do anything positive. There is some kind of scenario where 'aggressive' interventions may be needed: your friend has OD'ed or is going to, and you lay into them about their friends and family. Or maybe someone is harming someone and your primary immediate duty is to stop it rather than bolster the wisdom of the aggressor. But in both cases this is a time-sensitive situation, and I think that matters. If you're talking about someone's views of life, general politics, and life path, you are not going to achieve anything by sudden aggressive actions.

[rightleft22]

And as hard as it may be to believe to people who believe strongly in gay marriage, this canine example really is how many people saw it, and still do...

As a side note, I don't think anyone here would disagree that opponents of same-sex marriage tended to think of homosexuals as subhuman.

As a aside. I grew up learning that bias and held on to it without much thought for a long time. It was here on Ornery that I had my first real interaction with someone that was gay.
I can't remember his username and believe he has passed. Man he could write, and was very funny. He played a big part in challenging me and changing my views.   

[TheDrake]

I don't think you've contemplated that it's not about punishing them by ruining their dinner. It's about not ruining someone's shift by forcing them to wait on bigots

[rightleft22]

I don't think you've contemplated that it's not about punishing them by ruining their dinner. It's about not ruining someone's shift by forcing them to wait on bigots

I have. Those doing the serving are getting paid and ought to be professionals.
Imagine if everyone you employed had have the same opinions and such of every other person they work with as well as the customer.

To those on shift that have to wait on bigots and lord knows all other degenerates that thankfully they don't know anything about because their not going to ask,  I would say suck it up buttercup,  Be the change you want to see.

If the bigots express themselves to the staff in a bigoted way, then steps can be taken by management. 
Taking such action because you imagining you KNOW what a person in a group is thinking or what they might say isn't good enough of a reason to become a hypocrite.

[yossarian22c]

I don't think you've contemplated that it's not about punishing them by ruining their dinner. It's about not ruining someone's shift by forcing them to wait on bigots

The wait staff probably wouldn't have known who this group was. I doubt they all sit around the table at a restaurant and talk loudly about "the queers." It likely wouldn't have ruined anyone's evening. They would have come and left and without someone looking up what the group was about the staff at the restaurant probably wouldn't have known or particularly cared as long as they tipped well.

[TheDrake]

The wait staff were the ones who found out what the group was. They already knew.

Does being a professional server mean that you have to serve Nazis racists and any other group with courteous service? I really can't believe that anyone is making the argument that it is irrelevant. Yes, the restaurant could have waited until somebody said something about making it so (homophobic slur) isn't going to get married if they have anything to do with it. Would you feel better if they were all locked out when they started talking like that - assuming they did.

Christ on a cracker, where was all this "serve everyone" sentiment when conservative restaurants were banning people for choosing to wear a mask? Putting signs up being proud of it.

[rightleft22]

Does being a professional server mean that you have to serve Nazis racists

In my opinion yes
That said I have no problem with restaurants having a dress code which excluded anyone dressed up as Nazi racists.
But if the Nazi's are behaving themselves I expect the professional server to behave themselves. Who knows maybe the interaction will teach the Nazi something instead of reinforcing their racist ideals.

where was all this "serve everyone" sentiment when conservative restaurants were banning people for choosing to wear a mask? Putting signs up being proud of it.

Never heard of it, but I would have been against such treatment of customers.
However if the restaurant clearly made it know before people entered that it had a dress code of no masks then fine.
It would have lost my business from that point on but in my view discernment of choice. The business made theirs rules know and so I can decide to support it or not. 

I won't force a Greek Restaurant to cook me Italian food because I think its better.

[TheDrake]

Would you want the following type of law? Or do you want restaurants to have the right to do this, but somehow voluntarily refuse to exercise it?

Had the incident taken place in Washington, D.C., it would have likely been illegal. The District of Columbia has an anti-discrimination law covering political affiliation.

In Madison, Wisconsin, it most certainly would have been. The city’s broad non-discrimination clause defines political beliefs and physical appearance in its law. Political views can include “opinions, manifested in speech or association, concerning the social, economic, and governmental structure of society and its institutions.”