Refusal of Service: Business Rights or Violation of Consumer Rights?

Level1Techs INBOX.deb
1

(warning: this is TL; DR material but for the love of Azura don't respond without reading)

Recently, my favorite atheist YouTuber, The Armored Skeptic, made a video response in which he mentioned his opinion on business rights involving refusal of service (See "Christian Holocaust part 2" if you care to, it is not crucial for understanding my argument and question here). Here is my (slightly abridged) response since he opened it to discussion and I would love to hear the opinions of those on this forum.
@wendell and @Logan this is especially for you if you have the time.

"I wanted to respond to your invitation to discuss the rights of business involving service refusal though, as it's one of the few things I've ever disagreed with you on (even though the disagreement is actually a bit slight, not drastic).

I disagree that a business should have the right to refuse service based on subjective reasons, even though it's private. (your opinion already included where storefronts, for example, can't if I remember your words correctly, but I'll be creating my argument from the start either way) There are two reasons why. First, the sole purpose of a business is to make money. Whether that be via goods or services doesn't matter, the purpose is the same. If a business refuses service, then it is refusing to fulfill its one and only purpose. There are exceptions. No shoes, no shirt, no service. Throwing out vulgar or violent customers. Etc. But those things make sense as they are for the purpose of better serving actual, well mannered customers. Refusal of service based on subjective reason, such as race or sexuality, does not logically further the purpose of the business. Of course, you could say that the business owner has the right to fail in the business's purpose. And I agree, you have the right to fail and suffer the consequences of your failure. For example, a bakery owned by a religious couple went out of business because people stopped going after discovering they refuse gay people. That business failure is on them, as they refused to deliver. Problem solved, the free market self regulates in some ways over time. But... That still leaves the second problem... The second reason is that refusal of service denies the customer of... whatever. Imagine pharmaceutical companies, electric companies, etc refusing service to black people. That creates an obvious and severe hindrance to the person's life and for no good reason. And it is possible because many things being privately owned, including electric companies. Black people were denied essential services. Yes, eventually society did away with that... That one particular thing, not fix the other issues we're still so obviously dealing with. And in the meantime people suffer while not being a hindrance to the other customers.

So, obviously, i do not view companies as people or even groups of people and therefore do not think they should have the rights of people. Businesses should not buy elections, fund political movements, etc. or refuse service without objective reason. As I said above, private business rights can hinder entire groups of people and this has been the case for different groups since the beginning of the U.S.

I do accept that businesses being politically active has been a necessary evil as some big businesses back, say, civil rights movements have changed history. That doesn't make the system good, though. There's easily more bad business politics than good.

Why did I write business as so earlier? Because I don't say this about freelance or individual people. Here our opinions overlap a bit. An individual has the rights of an individual. A living person. A business, as I said, should not. The only question is where to draw the line between a few people collaborating for work and what defines what a business is in the corporate sense. And that line is essential, otherwise you would theoretically have, say, a group of artists doing big dollar commissions being forced to take work they don't want. So in a way I agree with your point about an individual vs a representative of a company (or specifically the government as you were talking about). So, of course, where does the line belong? And which direction does your right to be a failure push said line?

Sadly, I see no other alternative to what I have described here and obviously I have not figured it out perfectly. Too far one way and you start infringing on the rights of the worker. Too far the other way and businesses infringe on the rights of consumers, which is the current situation here in the U.S. If you get this and find the time, please respond. I'd like a more... professional?... opinion on what I've said here, as I truly see no other happy alternative."

1 Like
2

From the perspective of a small business owner (which I am) I can tell you that I do have and will exercise my right to deny service to anyone I choose for whatever reason I choose, there are no laws forcing me to service everyone who enters my business and that is exactly how it should be.

Granted I own a small business that is 100% dealing with the public in a direct manner, customers come in all shapes and sizes with varying wants and needs, some are very nice people and others are raging ass holes, some are realistic and others have unrealistic expectations, until you deal with the general public on a daily basis for years and years you will never understand why a business would deny service to some types of people or people with unreasonable expectations.

People for the most part are nice but there is a segment that cannot be pleased no matter what because they are basically stupid (I hate to say that but it is true), they do not understand what they are asking for either cannot be done in the method they are requesting or it can't be done where there is any profit for the business making it a worthwhile job. These people are extremely self-centered and do not care if I can make a profit from their job but only that someone will do as they ask....right now!, and not charge them the going rate for the work being performed.

I have had customers that I have "ran off" (refused service) that years later have returned apologized, and asked that I would work with them on this job because they have realized that they were off base before and that they were wrong to ask me to do what they had asked before that I refused to do.

I think you might be confusing businesses and big corporations, the bulk of businesses in the USA are small mom and pop businesses like mine, we survive by doing very good work at a fair or reasonable price, we do not have the luxury of huge profits, we do not have the luxury of multi-locations to spread the losses (and there are always losses), we have employees to protect and pay, and a unending list of government regulations and taxes to submit to.

Just as you would not waste your valuable time arguing with a idiot that will not accept the truth, businesses should not be expected to service the very same idiot when he has expectations that you should do a job you know isn't going to workout or be profitable, for a business transaction to be successful there has to be a equitable exchange of goods or services, if that can not be established and completed there is no transaction...there is no service.

tl;'dr Deal with the general public for 40 years like I have and you'll see you can not please every customer, you can not profit from every job, and some customers you are better off without.

3

You've totally misunderstood my entire argument. I'm an artist as well as a computer nerd. I get not wanting to deal with people. I deal with it a lot, it doesn't take forty years to gain that perspective, it can come in five minutes lol

I'm not talking about legitimate reasons why you'd refuse service. The customer is an ass and is making a scene? Like I said, that's a reasonable denial. Can't meet an unrealistic expectation? I'd be disappointed in the company if the job was taken at that point. Don't like dealing with the unwashed moron masses? Find another job lol

Those are legit reasons to refuse service. They make sense. Refusing to bake a cake that you are entirely capable of doing just because you don't like someone's lifestyle? That's where you're now failing to do your job. And that's where and why I brought up the question of under what circumstances do you have the right to refuse to function based on illogical or subjective reasons.

I'm not confusing business sizes. See the bottom part of the argument, I specifically bring that up. I'm asking where you draw the line that says "after this point you forfeit your person rights because a business is not a person." Specifically, as a person you have the right to avoid someone for no reason or because you just don't like them. Businesses don't have that right, or at least they shouldn't, such as the racism/homophobia examples I gave. These are very real issues and possibilities. How can a group of people live in a society where they are systematically refused service based on subjective reasons. They can't, and when businesses do that they are degrading the life of those people, again, for no reason that logically ties into the purpose of the business, which is to provide goods and services in exchange for money. THAT'S the problem I'm talking about. I'm not referring to reasonable issues leading to an appropriate refusal of service. I'm asking where you draw the line between an individual (and their rights as a person) and a business (and its rights as a not person), because the two are not the same.

4

They're impeding you from doing your job in that scenario, and in that case it'd be fine to refuse them service if they're making it difficult for you to provide it. By asking for a cake to be baked for you per se, and being gay/black/asian/ginger/whatever you're not impeding the worker from doing their job, it's their personal beliefs that are impeding themselves from doing the job. These personal beliefs, IMO, shouldn't be accounted for in a business. "Business" being defined as any commercial activity. From selling desktops in bulk to selling lemonade on a street corner.

5

I got your perspective...but needed to lay a little basis or ground work if you understand, it's needed to give perspective or point of view.

Unfortunately in my mind there is little difference in denying service based on a moral or religious belief and just a general denial of service because of the attitude of the person or lack of profitability in a job, the reason really doesn't matter to me because the end result is the same...no service.

Business ethics are one thing but religious and moral believes are much stronger influence on humans, and the rights of another person ends at the very point where my rights begin, if I have a moral problem with a persons lifestyle and I'm forced to do something for them against my will then my rights are being violated in favor of another persons rights, no persons rights are more important than any other persons they are in essence equal.

There are no rights to have a cake baked by a individual just because you want to force that person to bake the cake against their will, it becomes a form of forced submission to another persons needs or wants, that is a violation of the cake bakers rights.

You might ask where is the harm in forcing the issue? it is the threshold, the point where your rights are more important than mine, the point where I'm being required to submit to something I find morally wrong, at this point it becomes personal it is no longer a business decision it is a personal decision based on what that person believes is acceptable for them to live the type of life they choose. There isn't a scenario where it's ok to force someone to do something that they find morally unacceptable to their way of life, it again is a violation of their rights by putting someone else's rights as more important...it can not be done that way in a free society.

6

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Honestly, I'd say anyone who disagrees with that is... delusional, wrong, whatever and even if they have the right to be that way they'll go out of business eventually like the example I gave.

Now, my problem... The whole reason for messaging Skeptic and making this thread, is where is the line between individuals and maybe small groups, and a business as far as rights go? For that you should see his video for more information on what exactly I'm challenging that he said.

Let's say I'm an individual doing computer repair. Or an artist. Either way, I'm an individual, so don't i reserve my business rights as an individual? But what if I'm in a registeted group of computer repair people. Then do we transition from individual rights to business rights, which are more restrictive based on what I'm saying here? If it's a business, I'd think so. But what about art instead of computers? I don't want to be forced to take a job involving me creating and publishing hate speech art. But at least in that situation I can cite hate speech, a crime, as a reason to refuse.

So I'm fairly sure about the "right from wrong" part of this issue. What I'm unsure of is the boundaries.

7

I'd say a business is any commercial activity (intended to make a profit), so, as a computer repairerer or artist, even though you're the only person employed in it, it's still a business. You've committed to providing a service by advertising yourself as being providing of it.

8

If as a business you have more than one employee and their moral outlooks is differing from your own would it then acceptable to say to the customer, "I personally cannot do this for you but my co-worker can help you.'

You as a business still service the person and at the same time no moral disagreements arise between both of you.

9

There is a difference. One is a good reason that you cannot service them and the other is bullshit. Beliefs do not belong in the business world. I cannot stress this enough, service refusal impacts the lives of those refused. I can understand "tough luck, buddy, we can't do it" or "we won't because you are abusing us or other customers." That makes sense. Personal beliefs do not. It is your job to serve. If you don't want your business to service people you don't like, then don't own a business. If you want to live in society, you have to coexist and play by the rules. That means being nice to people you don't like when they aren't hurting anyone. And no, for the love of Azura, do not use the argument that servicing someone you disagree with is an infringement of your rights. It's not. It's your job, and refusing to do your job means you're fired.

10

Should a business deny a gay couple food at their restaurant. NO. Could they deny catering a gay wedding. Yes. Nobody asks you you entire belief structure before they make you a burger and it dose not contribute to people being gay your just making food. But I can see a small business not wanting to take part in something that's against their religion.

You wouldn't have a problem with a business denying a baker refusing to make a swastika cake for neo nazis or a gay business denying catering a ultra religious christian event. Why the other way around?

In the end if a you business can be taken elsewhere. The exceptions would be public services and monopolies like power and internet.

Also I watched the video and i don't entirely agree that because the church gets tax free status that the cant deny gay marriage. Although I also don't think churches should have tax free status.

11

I want to agree with you on that. I really do because it's simple and clean and eliminates the what is an individual vs what a company is dilemma. But there's a problem.

As an individual, you're acting on behalf of yourself. A person. As an employee, you're acting on behalf of a company. A not person. I'm sure you already see me point here. But just to be clear...

An individual is entitled to opinions and feelings and, brace yourself, discrimination. It is your right to be racist, or whatever, you're allowed your opinion. And that's fine. You're one guy who's an asshole. As long as you don't hurt anyone, go ahead, be racist. Society will move on without you and criticize you. But a company being racist? Back to my point about groups of people being denied a normal life in society...

So should individuals representing themselves have BS refusal rights but have companies required by law to stay neutral, serving both sides? Sure. That way individuals are never forced to go against themselves (again, I don't tolerate the argument that doing legal things required of you by your job is an infringement of your rights) while, say, art companies have to print pro racist and pro equality flyers at the same time. That'd be hilarious, especially with all the artists of said company making their own posters clarifying how they, as an individual, see things if they feel the need. But there would be no need. Because you couldn't accuse a company or its employees of racism if it's required by law to print anything (not counting illegal things like death threats) that's requested by someone who's being a civilized customer. And as an added bonus, no more companies buying elections. I've always said involved, educated citizens are always better than lobbyists.

Is this perfect? No, of course not. Someone will always disagree. I don't pretend to know humanity's solutions. But I'd take what I've described here over the nonsense we have right now.

12

I would say that sums it up well.

13

And what your saying is that the impact on the refused has a greater importance than the impact on the person being forced to do something against their will....it can't work that way.

The thing your are forgetting is freedom, your freedom again starts where mine ends, you can not have a free society based on one persons freedom is different than another, or one persons rights, or wants are more important than any other persons.

You place a lot of insistence that it's "your job" to serve, like it is some concrete wall that can't be breached which is a ludicrous point of view, my job as a business owner is create a living for myself and my employees, I have total control over that aspect, the business is successful because of quality of work and the value attached to that quality of work, you think beliefs do not belong in the business world but they are the foundation that businesses are built on along with ethics and morals, business isn't a cut and dried concept that is rock solid rigid with no flexibility, as a business owner my job is whatever I wish to make it, I have no obligation just because I'm in business to do anything or service anyone I choose not to service.

And before you say well you won't last long with that attitude I'll tell you my business was established in 1946, I am the third generation running it and have never deviated from our core philosophy of offering quality service.

Now.....have I ever refused to offer services to gays or people who I find morally offensive to my personal beliefs? Hell No, the reason is it doesn't matter to me in the slightest, those people have the same rights as I do to live and believe what they choose, and I offer the same quality of service regardless, but I can also understand and support business owners who choose to stand on their moral convictions and refuse service for whatever reason they want...it again is called freedom.

1 Like
14

OK, I'm going to have to be mean to you here, it warrants. I didn't read past that first paragraph because...

YES, I AM saying that the impact on the refused has a greater importance than the impact on the person being forced to do something against their will. Legally being denied housing, healthcare, food, and commodities because a business doesn't like that you're gay IS WORSE than you being forced to take a gay guy's money.

Putting your own opinions over the well being of others is wrong. Immoral. Unethical. And even illogical, if you don't like emotional arguments, which you seem to. A person's religion IS NOT more important than the well being of others. If you disagree, then you are beyond discussion because I do not condone placing yourself above others. If you want to be a part of society, you have respect that other people have lives too. And your opinions do not outweigh their needs, especially when you consider they are paying customers trying to get goods and services.

Perhaps you don't actually mean this and hopefully you don't. I will read the rest... After I've had tea. Some of your comments have been asinine and I'm already short tempered from angry people on facebook.

15

Not very old are you ? Plus , your hanging out on facebook ?

16

Aye because being young means anything you ever say is complete bollocks. Thanks for contributing to the discussion by explaining how and why you disagree.

17

No, it was put clearly enough but you lack the maturity/experience to understand it.

18

It's not a crime to reiterate.

19

LOL....go have some tea and chill awhile.

There is a difference in the case of housing, healthcare, food (not a wedding cake), no one should be denied those things as long as the reason they are being denied is a moral or social issue, on that I do agree with you, it should fall under basic human rights regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference.

But that is a totally different issue than a wedding cake or a church to be married in, in those and many other cases you are imposing a standard, a view point, a belief, a want, a desire on others who don't share in your lifestyle choice, if there was only one cake store or only one church you might have a point, but since the options are many and varied there is no reason to force someone to marry or bake against their will. The option is always if the gay community has a need to be fulfilled then someone will step up and create a gay church or a gay bakery, just as Christians have their own church and Jews have their own bakeries ....again it is freedom.

You can not in any way tie the baking of a wedding cake or a church to be married in to any basic human right, they don't exist in that realm, as just about any other free enterprise business is commerce and isn't involved in providing goods that equate to basic human rights which is required to live. You are guaranteed the freedom of religion but not the right to impose your life choices on others that may not share your beliefs. You have no basic human right to a wedding cake baked by the person you choose even if that person doesn't want to bake you a cake....

1 Like
20

Correction...

"Not very old, are you? Plus, you're hanging out on Facebook?"

Please check your grammar before insulting age.
Huehuehue evrybdy maks dat combak And yeah... I was discussing something on Facebook... And?

As @SpaceCat has said, age means nothing. I fail to see why this fallacy is so popular.