quadra 610

designr said:

quadra 610 said:

Liberties in a NATION with PEOPLE in it, do not trump basic civil rights. Liberties have LIMITS to them in certain circumstances. 

Sorry. Maybe in a Theocracy your way of thinking can apply. But not in a modern, democratic country.

First, I'm not suggesting a theocracy.

Second, you don't seem to understand what rights actually are and are not.

designr said:

quadra 610 said:

Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.  For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye. 

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one. 

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

 There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

I'm speaking about a core, fundamental principle of liberty. You're referring to a law that restricts liberty and violates core private property rights. You're not really strengthening your case.

designr said:

quadra 610 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/index.html


Beliefs and "morals" end when they deny others their basic rights and freedoms, which reach BEYOND "beliefs" and (religious) "morals."

Exactly. And no one has a right to enslave others. No one has a right to force someone to bake you a cake, be your DJ or photographer.

You're digging the hole deeper.

When you're running a business - a store or restaurant, etc., private or otherwise, Liberty of Conscience cannot trump Freedom from Discrimination. 

BOTH are written into law: the right to your religious beliefs, AND the right to be free from discriminatory practices. 

HOWEVER, when operating a business (in this case), your right to your religious beliefs must be made amenable to fair and ethical, non-discriminatory practices. Your PERSONAL BELIEFS cannot undermine another's civil rights. 

I’ll repeat: Your PERSONAL BELIEFS cannot undermine another's civil rights.

Why is this important in the case of businesses?

Because in your private life - in everyone's private life, your conduct is variable. It's just you. There's no institutionalization of anything. If you refuse to speak to or associate with the LGBT community, you can do that (with certain very specific exceptions.)

However, in terms of operating a business, you become an employer, a proprietor, and a member of the goods and services sector in a certain capacity. You now become ACCOUNTABLE to the way you operate with the public. You have a new set of responsibilities.

To allow you - in this capacity - to discriminate based on race, skin colour, gender, and sexual orientation, means a level of discrimination that is no longer just a private choice that those affected can simply ignore by leaving your presence. What you're doing is still wrong, but it’s a question of attitude (notwithstanding certain exceptions where there are legal considerations) and you being a bigoted dick. But when you operate a business, it's now an INSTITUTIONALIZED form of discrimination; much wider reaching, with the potential for substantial, invasive and lasting effects on another’s (that is, as a group) quality of life.

If someone can't understand the obvious nuances regarding when it is ok and not ok to exercise their rights under Liberty of Conscience, then no one can really make them understand them. Maybe in time they will. Life has a way of throwing lessons (sometimes uncomfortable ones) our way, no matter what we do or want.  

designr said:

quadra 610 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/index.html


Beliefs and "morals" end when they deny others their basic rights and freedoms, which reach BEYOND "beliefs" and (religious) "morals."

Exactly. And no one has a right to enslave others. No one has a right to force someone to bake you a cake, be your DJ or photographer.

You're digging the hole deeper.

Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.  For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye. 

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one. 

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

 There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.