![]() |
![]() |
#1 (permalink) |
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Do service providers have the right to refuse service on moral grounds?
The title is the basic question. Under what circumstances should a service provider who serves the general public be permitted to refuse service to an otherwise qualified custormer on the basis of moral objection to something about that person. I'm going to list a few examples, both real life and hypothetical, but by no means do I mean for these to be the sole subject of discussion. I'm more interested in whether there is a general rule that can be applied or if it's entirely situational, and if so, what differentiates one situation from another, other than agreeing with the moral stance of the professional?
Would it be appropriate to refuse to
Under what circumstances is it appropriate to refuse service based on moral objections? ~ To start the discussion, I've been on the receiving end of a few of these, particularly the apartment scenario and the female hormones. While looking for a short term apartment while our condo was being renovated, we found that vacancies tended to disappear quite quickly when it was a lesbian couple attempting to rent the apartment. We ended up at an Extended Stay America, where they didn't give a damn. It was frustrating for us and didn't make sense in that we would have been nearly ideal tenants; quiet, orderly, prepay the entire time staying there upfront. We also ran into the problem of a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for hormones for sexual reassignment. It again seems at best foolish, as they pharmacy would be giving up a $200 a month customer just in hormones alone, not to mention that they lost all future prescriptions from us and from their friends. From a business perspective, it seems foolish. From an ethical perspective, it's more difficult to come to a conclusion, because it's difficult to separate that we see the moral/ethical issue in both cases as non-existent. So, while I think as a general rule moral considerations should be kept separate from public services, I'm not sure that I can say with 100% certainty that there is no circumstance where I'd refuse service as a service provider. But I'm not sure where, or even if it's possible, to draw that line objectively. Gilda |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) |
Falling Angel
Location: L.A. L.A. land
|
Initially, I was going to say that while I may completely disagree with the concept of not providing service to everyone equally, as American business owners, that's one of the rights they have.
However, there's a point where it easily becomes "Bigotry in Action", which shouldn't be tolerated, although providing effective legislation with be difficult at best. Which is not to say it shouldn't be attempted, as it happens to go against *my* own moral code to allow that to happen, especially without saying anything. Silence implies consent! I can't even imagine what place a person who would refuse to provide sexual reassignment hormones would have working in a pharmacy.
__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." - Matt Groening My goal? To fulfill my potential. |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) |
peekaboo
Location: on the back, bitch
|
Your scenarios fall under discrimination and, depending on laws on both state and federal levels can be grounds for at least lawsuits and possibly criminal charges. I for one, if found in any of those particular situations, would check out what rights I would have., especially in the rent scenario. No landlord, at least in the states here on the east coast, can discriminate against a potential renter at all. And, following the Denny's suit several years back, no restaurant can refuse service based on race or religious affiliation. That pharmacist should be ashamed of himself, really and I would have definitely filed a complaint there as well.
The only time I was a 'victim' of discrimination was at a job; the new store manager took me off the loading dock and 'replaced' me with a young man at more money. I filed a suit with the state EOE office, but the chain went bankrupt and I never collected. If a repairman doesn't want to work on a car because of the political statements of some bumper stickers, I suppose he may have a right to refuse the work; however, there may be a fine line between saying, 'Sorry, I can't help you because my son is fighting in Iraq for your right to say he's a loser' and "Sorry, I can't help you because you're a gay jew'. One is simply a matter of conscience; the other is blatant bigotry. It would appear that pharmacist had both going against him and I would be very vocal to everyone I knew and to his boss about his stance. I personally would tell you to file a suit against the landlord who refused to rent to you. Seriously.
__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 (permalink) | |
Mulletproof
Location: Some nucking fut house.
|
Quote:
__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
I personally take the utilitarian approach to this. They miss out on good business. If they are so strong in their beliefs they are willing to miss out on the business they risk the chance of losing out to people who aren't willing to.
My sympathies are with you in your troubles with finding an apartement and the perscriptions. However there is a tendancy on both sides in America to pressure our morals on each other. Those people believe in their morals so much they are willing to give up lots of money each month to stick with it. They do not cause you direct harm, they do not come to you and verbally or physically degrade you. They simply dont deal with you, and thus you dont deal with them. Simply decrying those people as bigots does not work, as you would not do business with the KKK I'm sure. Under a "truely" tolerant society we would service neo-nazis the same as Mother Teresa. The business may be great, but the moral fiber of the individual would be decimated. Please dont infer that I am stating that lesbians are on the same level of neo-nazis. I'm simply trying to draw parallels, though extreme cases can be dangerous. What I'm attempting to show is the sliding scale of morality. That I have no doubt anyone here would support a business that refuses to service a neo-nazi or KKK group in their home town. It gets very blurry with other moral issues The line should definately be drawn in humanitarian cases. In cases such as a hospital refusing medical treatment for a trans-sexual, this should not be tolerated. The choice to perform a trans-gender operation, however, should be up to the doctors or hospitals in my opinion. What you must understand is the power that you as an individual have on said places. They lose your money directly by refusing service. However local and national news teams drool at the chances to "uncover" situations like this. The news coverage could in-turn create pressure from once loyal customers, and very often "mysteriously" is followed by audits from the state, local, or national agencies. As I said, they have the right to refuse service, but you have the right to stand up and fight back. Last edited by Seaver; 06-15-2006 at 09:27 AM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 (permalink) |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Yeah, as unattractive as bigotry is, at least in these cases it's self-defeating. If I say, "I refuse to take your money on principle," then I better hope I'm in the majority on that! And, guess what... mostly I'm not. Before long I'll be dealing with a large mass of people who won't give me their money on principle, and then I'm stuffed.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: In your closet
|
Quote:
I really don’t think they should be allowed to do this, especially if it a public company, made up of a plethora of owners with several different few views that come from several different backgrounds. When you open a business you have to realize that you are open to the PUBLIC and not the people that you want to serve. If you cant handle that, well then don't open shop. Personally I don't shop at certain stores cause of their politics or whom they have as a spokesperson, but I feel that is an individuals right, and not that of an organization. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 (permalink) | |
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
The primary anti-androgen is technically a high blood pressure medicine that has the side effect of lowering androgen levels. Endocrinologists prescribe the medicine for that effect, again in a significantly higher dose than what most hypertensive men get. Otherwise, I'd agree completely, it makes little sense. I think it's an extension of homophobia, thought that makes little sense as gender identity and orientation are separate issues, and in our case Sissy is very straight. It made little difference in our case, as there were literally dozens of pharmacies in town, it was just inconvenient. Keep in mind I don't want this to be solely a discussion of my experiences, but a examination of the idea of what role morality should play in deciding who should and should not get services. Gilda Last edited by Gilda; 06-18-2006 at 09:19 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 (permalink) |
big damn hero
|
I think it should provide no role at all.
Service providers aren't allowed to refuse service over race, sex and handicap, right? I think your personal morality falls into the same category. You're in the service industry...deal with it.
__________________
No signature. None. Seriously. Last edited by guthmund; 06-15-2006 at 10:24 AM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 (permalink) |
Banned
|
In your examples, the answer to the pharmacist question is yes. A pharmacist is allowed to refuse on moral grounds as long as you're able to fill it elsewhere (and they must allow you to have the prescription back if you've given it to them already and they don't fill it)... which means that as long as any pharmacy exists anywhere, they can technically refuse and it's not discrimination.
I think "right" is a tough word to use here. Some forms of discrimination may be no more than poor business decisions- not taking business from, say, purple people because you don't like purple people. Those are private businesses. So really, the private business owners, as bigotted as they are, are only screwing themselves out of money, but I don't think any actual law is being broken (as I understand it). Public services and accomodations, however, and stuff run/paid for by the government, are definitely open to everyone, and there would be no place for discrimination. My EMT professor put it very bluntly to my class, when the subject of discrimination came up at the beginning of the semester. She said if anyone had any sort of bias or discriminatory feelings towards any kind of people, we'd better either leave the business, or get rid of it immediately. Because, "when you're standing over a patient who needs your help... no matter what color, religion, or sexual orientation they may be- we all bleed red." |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 (permalink) |
Junkie
Moderator Emeritus
Location: Chicago
|
In Maleficent's World:
If it's the business owner of a private business, they can decide who they will and won't provide a service for... They must clearly state, at the entrance what their rules are. I, as the consumer, can decide to patronize them or not. I'd be willing to bet they won't stay in business for long. Money talks a lot louder than people do... If it's the employee of a business that has decided they will serve all, well the employee has a choice to work there or not... The employee doesn't get to make the rules as to who they do and dont provide service for. I hear more and more about pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills for unmarried women, I'd almost like to see free standing pharmacies done away with, and have the pharmacy be directly related to the doctor's office... if the doctor writes a prescription, it gets filled. What if the private pharmacist is a health freak and thinks that high blood pressure can be lowered thru diet and exercise only.. so he doesn't fill prescriptions? pretty much any prescription out there, someone could have an objection to. If a person objects to the business practices of a particular place, then they shouldn't patronize them...
__________________
Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 (permalink) | |||||||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
We wrote a letter of complaint to the store manager and the district manager for that chain, explaining exactly what had occurred and that we would no longer be customers of any store in that chain for any of our needs, and that we had told our friends of our treatment and most of them were going to be taking their business elsewhere. The rent thing was definitely illegal, as it's been illegal to discriminate in California in housing, education, and employment on the basis of orientation since the early 90's, but we had little to no proof. Vacancies simply disappeared once it became clear exactly who was applying to rent the apartment. It was for such a short period of time that it would have been a moot point by the time the suit came to court. Here we've had no problems. When we rented a condo while waiting on construction of our house, they didn't blink, and the pharmacy didn't blink, though now they'd have no reason to with a female name on ther prescription, thought the pharmacist did call Sissy's doctor to confirm the estradiol prescription when she saw the dosage (it's double the normal highest recommended dosage for post hysterectomy women), but there was no problem after that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gilda Last edited by Gilda; 06-15-2006 at 11:11 AM.. Reason: I am NOT double posting. These were two separate replies to two separate posts. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#13 (permalink) |
pinche vato
Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton
|
I'm in agreement with about half of the posters on this. Unless federal or state funds are involved with your business, you should be able to serve whatever clientele you choose. If your choices piss off enough people to wreck your business, then it's your own fault. However, if there's enough of a niche clientele to keep your business afloat, then more power to you.
In most cases, a rule of thumb always seems to capture the essence of an activity while a law destroys it. And in this case, the rule of thumb would be "If the ledger is not important to you, then serve/don't serve whomever you choose. However, if the balance sheet is critical in your business, you'd better learn how to swallow your pride and your tongue." No government official should have to create punitive legislation to force business owners to follow this simple, basic activity. Let the market handle it. Another interesting question would be "What would you do if service was denied to you based on some of the reasons listed above?" My answer is simple - get mad and go someplace else. I don't need to involve lawyers or congressmen in that decision. I'm a big boy now.
__________________
Living is easy with eyes closed. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 (permalink) | ||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Gilda Last edited by Gilda; 06-15-2006 at 11:11 AM.. Reason: I am NOT double posting. These were two separate replies to two separate posts. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#15 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
I'll just comment on the perscription issue. No f-in way. It may not be an inconvenience in the city to go somewhere else but there are plenty of cities where there is only one place to get your meds. It's wrong to make someone drive 50 miles to get their meds. If you want to sell perscription medication, you need to sell everything the doctors write perscriptions for.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 (permalink) |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Businesses have enough rules and regulations.
They should be allowed to pick and choose who their clientele is or is not especially when one can choose another location to get their needs filled. While that may well work in a city of 8 million people a city of 10,000 it may not.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
I can only answer for myself:
As a provider of a good or service, I am not in the role of judge. I sell to those that are willing and able to pay without prejudice. Of course I deal ina product that is mearly for entertainment purpouses, so my product does not carry the stigma of guns or birth control or religion. |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 (permalink) |
Addict
Location: Sarasota
|
I agree with most everyone else that in the case of private businesses, they are free to serve whomever they choose, to their own financial detriment.
And to add to the discussion re: residential landlord issues. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 included a section concerning Fair Housing. The Act has been added to and clarified over the years and currently says: Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability). Of course there are exceptions to any rule. In your case Sultana, it is hard to tell from your info if the landlord's actions were illegal, but they certainly could have been. (b) Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c) shall apply to-- (1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any time: Provided further, That in the case of the sale of any such single family house by a private {{6-30-05 p.6988.01}}individual owner not residing in such house at the time of such sale or who was not the most recent resident of such house prior to such sale, the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply only with respect to one such sale within any twenty-four month period: Provided further, That such bona fide private individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on his behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three such single-family houses at any one time: Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this title only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in a violation of section 804(c) of this title; but nothing in the proviso shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title, or (2) rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence. (c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this section, a person shall be deemed to be in the business of selling or renting dwellings if-- (1) he has, within the preceding twelve months, participated as principal in three or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any dwelling or any interest therein, or (2) he has, within the preceding twelve months, participated as agent, other than in the sale of his own personal residence in providing sales or rental facilities or sales or rental services in two or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any dwelling or any interest therein, or (3) he is the owner of any dwelling designed or intended for occupancy by, or occupied by, five or more families. Subsection c, mentioned above, involves advertising. So even if you are the owner of a single family home and do not employ an agent to lease the property, you are not allowed to advertise in a manner that is in violation of the Fair Housing Law. FYI, I have been 'shopped' by government agents before. They call on advertisements and ask very leading questions trying to get you to somehow disqualify them based on the sound of their voice or babies crying in the background. What I do, and I recommend this to my clients, is make a very specific list of criteria that they want in their tenants. Employed? How long? Where? Credit history, past landlord references, outstanding debts. These are all very legitimate questions to ask. If the person/persons meet these criteria who cares if they are black, white, disabled, gay, Jewish or whatever? If people want me to discriminate, I just tell them they need to rent the property out themselves. BTW, in the case of commercial property rentals, I can rent or not rent to whomever I want. I have 'discriminated' in cases and not been proud of it, but it was the best business decision for me at the time.
__________________
I am just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe... "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." - Thoreau "Nothing great was ever accomplished without enthusiasm" - Emerson |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
I own a service business and I choose to refuse service under my own code of what is right or wrong, none of which are covered under Gilda's examples. One's religion, ethnicity, or significant other are simply irrelevant to the service we provide.
I refuse service to slum landlords who only want a quick and dirty job, or are attempting to use us to burn a tenant. Similarly, I refuse service to anyone who is trying to cheat someone else. "Do unto others" plays a big part when I fire a customer. I will not tolerate anyone being obnoxious to my service technicians. Their work is difficult enough without needing to dodge a grope or deal with verbal abuse. Dayum, I'm getting ticked off just thinking about some of the bs we no longer tolerate. I guess my bottom line is that I do not serve assholes, and they are not a protected class. |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
damn can't find the thread now....
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#21 (permalink) |
Delicious
|
I understand how someone would feel they are encouraging someone's lifestyle by providing them drugs specifically for sexual re-assignment purpose when they are morally against it. By refusing service, yes they are losing some business but they still have their morals which are more important to them. The problem with this is that their morals are hurting, offending, and promoting more discrimination. This is why I think the Fair Housing Act should be expanded to all markets and to specifically include gay couples, transgenders and whoever else is currently being discriminated against.
With this law, The Guy that denied service on his moral issue can sleep soundly knowing that he hasn't willingly encouraged some 'sin' and everyone else gets the service they deserve. I'm morally handicapped so I'm sure those with crazy morals(imo) would fight this all the way. It's sad that we live in a world where we need laws JUST to make people treat others fairly.
__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
Quote:
Exactly my point in my post. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#23 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
A private business can reserve the right to do business with whomever they wish. That said, in a situation where there *are* other businesses to take your money to, this is acceptable. The market should deal with those who discriminate by shrinking their business. However, as this sort of discrimination becomes the norm, what then? I don't think it was a Law that blacks couldn't eat at lunch counters, it was just accepted practice (even if it was a law let's just assume it wasn't for sake of the argument). If all of the lunch counters in town decide that they aren't going to let blacks eat there, this is a problem. Now we could say, that the market will sort them out but is that enough? Sometimes laws are neccessary to bring about change. The key, as always, is when are laws neccessary?
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#24 (permalink) | |
pinche vato
Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton
|
Quote:
In order to make sense, even the simplest rules require some human judgment. Context is as vital in law as it is in life, and I believe laws can never cover every eventuality. Therefore, I don't struggle with the (seeming) dichotomy of my necessity for laws of equal housing and employment and my abhorrence of any laws of behavior and manners among service providers. Common sense requires us to accept the idea that everything can't be regulated into perfection, and the more precise we try to make laws, the more loopholes we create. Every decision involves benefits and risks, and every single situation is different. Judgment and balancing are always required, and the words of law can never provide the final wisdom.
__________________
Living is easy with eyes closed. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 (permalink) | |
Delicious
|
Quote:
__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To begin with, if the pharmacist detects a negative consequence or reaction of taking a particular medication, either in conjunction with another or based on the patient's unique health situations, they are bound by their license NOT to dispense the medication, pending verification with the prescribing doctor. Pharmacists do not just sit and hand out every drug for which they're given a prescription. You wouldn't believe how often a doctor will write a precription for medication X when the patient is allergic to that medication. If the pharmacy knows, the doctor should have that information as well- sometimes, they do not (there are a variety of reasons for this which I won't waste time explaining). Secondly, and more to the point, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to fill a prescription based on moral conflict. That means they can refuse birth control, the "morning after" pill (PlanB), whatever they want, on the grounds of moral objection. No, this is not a perfect scenario, but consider this point- to some people, any birth control is morally wrong. Therefore, you'd be forcing a pharmacist to violate their beliefs to fill your prescription. To some people, the "morning after" pill may as well be an abortion, and they object to that as well. This is a matter of rights. For one, protecting the rights of the pharmacist to not be forced to violate their moral code to serve another. Does it suck? Sure. The flip side of that rights-coin is that the patient has the right to their prescription being returned, if such a refusal is made, or given to another pharmacist on staff who IS willing to fill it, OR if no pharmacist on premises will fill it, there must be another place to fill it or they can be compelled to fill it. I can't remember how far away "another place" can be, but it's a distance. I've heard of people driving 2 hours to fill birth control. When I say "compelled to fill it", I don't mean by you- you'd have to file a report against the pharmacist with the state medical board to effect that change, if at all. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#28 (permalink) |
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
It isn't right, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it. A privately-owned business should have the right to serve or refuse to serve anyone they want. The public should be made aware of discriminatory practices, and I would hope that they vote with their wallets on these issues. If nothing else, it will help to expose hatred and discrimination that normally goes unnoticed and unaddressed.
On the other hand, someone like a doctor or pharmacist who promises to serve the public good (do pharmacists have to take an oath like doctors do?) has a right to refuse services that he/she feels are immoral, but should inform the patient of the nearest place at which to obtain those services. I have some hope that if we were forced to lay our prejudices on the table for all to see, people would start to udnerstand how absurd they are and discard archaic, judgmental opinions. |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 (permalink) |
Eat your vegetables
Super Moderator
Location: Arabidopsis-ville
|
My parents are landlords, and have had homosexual couples among their list of options for tennants. Gilda, your case was unique. If there were no comparably financed straight couples going for the same location, they would have chosen you.
Here are some red flags that have prevented them from renting to those with an alternative lifestyle in the past: no proof of income declared income insufficient to pay rent regularly debt-to-income ratio too great substandard credit rating unwilling to become registered domestic partners unwilling to have both names on the lease unwilling to sign a year lease (they won't rent short-term) There are several factors that are considered when choosing a tennant. Landlords have many facts to consider. Usually they have several more applicants than they could ever place. Now, as for the other scenarios, I have no experience, and therefore cannot make an argument. I do think that when someone has a characteristic that sets them out from a crowd, they assume everyone sees it and hates it. Maybe everyone does see it. Probably most don't. Most sound-minded individuals can't base their interactions on stereotypes or bigotry - it is illogical. People are people.
__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 (permalink) | |
Mistress of Mayhem
Location: Canton, Ohio
|
Quote:
*See above. *One never knows... I was on "The Pill" for nearly 10 years to control bleeding so severe I almost died... I wasnt having sex 90% of the time I was on it. How do they know why you are taking it? *Perhaps this customer has a severe hormonal imbalance? Sometimes female hormones are prescribed for violent male sexual offenders to curb their testosterone overload. *How do I know they are gay? Maybe they are just best friends? Shackin up saves a butt load of cash! So what if they ARE gay? I am sure they will give you great fashion advise and teach you how to dance for craps and grins. Homosexual people make awesome friends! *Teachers take diversity training and if they cant handle the job and the heartache it brings they should GET OUT. The class room is NO place for a role model to teach intolerance, kids get enough of that in the real world. *Who cares what religion someone is?? They came to the restaurant for food not a mass! I being pagan face christians every day at the bank... I ask them often how church was and the sermon. I do not think less of them for their faith. It is a choice and no reason for me to hate them.... *Mixed race couple.... SO? I may not date someone of a particular race for whatever reason, but if Susie wants to date King Tut I am not going to lose any sleep over it. More power to her and they can STILL come to the neighborhood BBQ... TOGETHER.... WITH their children if they like... If people spent as much time worrying about themselves as they did worrying about what everyone else was doing and why the world would be a much better and more understanding place. Live and let live, die and let die. Just please dont get any blood on the carpet... its not easy to get out. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#31 (permalink) | |
In Transition
Location: Sanford, FL (between Daytona and Orlando)
|
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103902
__________________
Don't trust anything that can bleed for a week and not die. Oh wait, that's me... nevermind... you can trust me. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#32 (permalink) | ||||||||
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Quote:
While the 1st ammednment protects the right to free speech, it does not mean someone has to be served by a PRIVATELY owned company, if that owner chooses to not serve based on that speech. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If the student followed all guidelines then he deserves to be graded unbiasedly, if the student wrote off topic for shock value only, then he should be graded for such. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I feel a PRIVATE owner of a non essential business should have the right to serve or refuse service to anyone they wish. However, a PUBLICLY traded company has no right to discriminate at all.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#33 (permalink) |
Rookie
|
Oh man, the only thing I can mention is a personal experience with teachers grading and why I'm grateful that they grade very unbiasedly.
To graduate in Texas you have to take the TAKS test, which is the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Apart of that test is a portion where you have to write a persuasive paper on some subject that they give. It's really kind of a "Here's a topic, give me a story about it" Well, when I took it in the 11th grade my essay prompt was "Describe the importance of acceptance" and you know, everyone's writing how it's important. Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, etc. all have a bone to pick most likely, same with Gay/Lesbian/Transexuals, etc. Me on the other hand, a White Anglo-Saxon from a protestant family had nothing worth while to talk about, so I wrote an essay on that it was unimportant to accept others, even to the point that we shouldn't accept people of different races and stuff for a myriad of reasons. Essentially I regurgitated a documentary on Neo-Nazis in America that I saw on the History channel a few days before. Oh boy. That seriously pissed off my English teacher. Luckily, though, she was one of those "I don't accept what you say, but I'll defend your right to the death to blah blah blah." That essay as it turns out was 50% of my final exam grade in that class. Thank God she was one of those Voltairians and I pulled off a 95 on that half because hey, I can write a really persuasive essay on why whites are the superior race apparently. Anyway, I think a teacher _has_ to grade completely unbiasedly to be fair. If it's not, they're basically impressing morality on their students in a situation where that shouldn't apply in aniy way shape or form.
__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 (permalink) | |
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
We're landlords, too and much of that list is common sense, but I'm curious as to the bolded part, being registered domestic partners. Why does this have a negative effect on willingness to rent to a couple? Gilda |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#35 (permalink) |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Personally, I think that the one great equalizer in this country in the last 50 years has been the realization that the color green is the most important. Anyone who won't take your money really doesn't deserve it and you should make sure that you tell everyone you know just like you would if they had stolen from you. As a service provider (of sorts), I really don't care what you do in your free time or what you look like so long as your check clears. Sure I have my own inate prejustices (chiefly Florida and Alabama fans), but even then I still only care if you're going to help send my kid to college.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 (permalink) |
<3 TFP
Location: 17TLH2445607250
|
I find it interesting to see some of these responses. But here's my chime-in...
First of all, private businesses do have such a "right" as it is in a true Capitalist society. I do believe that business owners should have those rights. I'll one up that even... I don't believe that there should be "protected" classes at all in regards to private businesses from a servicing or hiring standpoint. While I disagree with biggotry, racism, sexism and the like, I do believe that, as an American, I (or anyone) has a right to be this way. This should extend to businesses (and is one of many reasons I fervently disagree with affirmative action). If I'm a white male middle-class business owner, and I want ALL of my sales associates to be cute, blonde, white girls, I should be able to do this without fear of backlash. If you are offended by these principles, feel free to take your business elsewhere. If I had all of my sales associate be big-booty, ghetto black girls (or some other stereo-type), this would be okay, even though it's STILL a racially driven motivation. It's STILL just as "wrong" but it is socially acceptable. As a straight, white, middle-class American male, I get the shit end of the stick in a lot of ways. There are plenty of college scholarships set aside for: Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Women, GLBTs, the poor, the wealthy, etc. There are no scholarships just for: white people, men, middle-class. This type of "reverse discrimination", while I detest the verbiage, is actually a downfall for "minoirities". I've said this for years... the WORST way to try to be equal is by demanding special treatment under the law. If I go for an apartment and a chinese owner turns me down because I'm white (no proof involved), I am SOL. If I'm black and a white owner turns me down for a GOOD reason (some proof involved), I could still likely win a suit in this country based on racial grounds. It's bullshit, plain and simple! If someone wants to refuse you service because of who you are, go elsewhere... this isn't 1927 people... there are MANY businesses that CATER to specific groups of people. There are many more that don't care one way or the other. If you are part of the GLBT crowd and live in a small town, well... I'm sorry. Hopefully you can get to "the big city" soon, where it's much less of an issue. You want to make the world a better, more equal place? Don't try to shove equality down people's throats in a "free" country. It'll never get you where you want to go. *shrug* Again, before I get blasted, I'd like to reiterate that I personally think biggotry is dispicable... however, I think forcing hands is equally so. People are people... even the worst ones deserve the most basic respect. |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#38 (permalink) | |
<3 TFP
Location: 17TLH2445607250
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#39 (permalink) | |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Again, green is the color that matters. Businesses that don't realize that deserve to fail.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#40 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
And, taking that into consideration, I don't think Gilda lives in a very uptight area- and still had issues. Separate- no, pharmacists don't take oaths, but their licenses have those (stated earlier) requirements and rights built in. |
|
![]() |
Tags |
grounds, moral, providers, refuse, service |
Thread Tools | |
|
|