maniac Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 In what way is it sad? The very fact discussing if a business is right to deny a customer....Now forget about a persons race or sexual preference. Say if tomorrow due to some loophole in the law the Delhi rape case accused gets released even when everyone knows he was responsible,he should still be able to buy food and water as long as he is willing to pay for it.You should not be a judge when the law failed,You cannot judge in business.Plain and Simple. The sole objective of the business is to maximise profits and the only law that should guide that is to protect consumer interest period. You have the stock,you sell it first come first serve basis to the paying customer,once you refuse a srvice based on personal bias,your license should be revoked again as I mentioned based on protecting customer interests.
maniac Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Of course' date=' there are limits to everything. An hospital cannot say they wont take in black or brown patients.[b'] But if a private restaurant says it is simply too expensive for them to build a wheelchair ramp or a disabled friendly restrooms in their establishments, that should be ok. No it's not.....There should be a uniform standard....Now how expensive or fancy the ramp should be,let the business decide that.
G_B_ Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 ridiculous so tomorrow somebody will say, my religion states i dont want to serve customers from another religion..... Dont open a bakery if you want to maintain your beliefs.
Texan Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 This is an excellent topic for a debate and one that gets little attention unfortunately. Kudos OP! When I read about this, I was immediately reminded about a case in which Abercrombie & Fitch fired a Muslim woman. This, in my opinion, was incorrect. A Muslim woman cannot be expected to remove her hijab in the same manner as a Sikh should not be expected to remove his turban. My opinion on the matter is that religious discrimination must not occur while doing business. In the first scenario, the bakery should bake the cake for the gay wedding. However, the second scenario that you have defined is a tricky one. Should a bakery owned by gays be allowed to refuse to do business with a Baptist minister and asked for a cake with the inscription "Gays must rot in hell."? In this case, the minister is obviously trying to send an offensive message to the bakery. In this case, I feel that the bakery must have a right to refuse to do business. If it was a simple birthday cake, then yes, they must do business. But if you are trying to only send an offensive message, then no.
Tailender Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 No, the govt should not be ordering who private businesses can and cannot serve. We have something more powerful that does that perfectly well - free market. If the homophobic owners of a bakery refuse to serve gay clientele, despite the obvious risk that it is going to turn off 100s and 100s of decent minded customers who prefer that this sort of discrimination does not exist, they can absolutely go ahead. Laws dont enforce human decency. Fear of isolation and public retribution does. And if there is no fear of isolation and public retribution........?
Brainfade Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 Thank god I'm out of Arizona :yess: Why? You like discriminatory laws?
zen Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 This is an excellent topic for a debate and one that gets little attention unfortunately. Kudos OP! When I read about this' date=' I was immediately reminded about a case in which Abercrombie & Fitch fired a Muslim woman. This, in my opinion, was incorrect. A Muslim woman cannot be expected to remove her hijab in the same manner as a Sikh should not be expected to remove his turban. My opinion on the matter is that religious discrimination must not occur while doing business. Agree in an ideal world scenario, esp. when women (esp. non Islamic) are not also forced to wear Hijabs in an Islamic (strict) country. But does that happen? A&F brand is targeted towards a particular audience. An employee who expects to work for such a brand should be willing to live the brand ideology. For example, say an Islamic woman joins an elite division of armed forces. The force is on its way to carry out an imp operation, and the woman insists on wearing a hijab because like you said she cannot be expected to remove her hijab. What is the employer supposed to do - commission a camouflaged hijab?
Brainfade Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 This is an excellent topic for a debate and one that gets little attention unfortunately. Kudos OP! When I read about this' date=' I was immediately reminded about a case in which Abercrombie & Fitch fired a Muslim woman. This, in my opinion, was incorrect. A Muslim woman cannot be expected to remove her hijab in the same manner as a Sikh should not be expected to remove his turban. My opinion on the matter is that religious discrimination must not occur while doing business. In the first scenario, the bakery should bake the cake for the gay wedding. However, the second scenario that you have defined is a tricky one. In this case, the minister is obviously trying to send an offensive message to the bakery. In this case, I feel that the bakery must have a right to refuse to do business. If it was a simple birthday cake, then yes, they must do business. But if you are trying to only send an offensive message, then no. Good arguments. But, it then brings up the issue of "what is offensive and to whom?" The idea of gays marrying may be offensive to someone (as in the original story). Why is that any different than the minister's obvious intent to offend? What if the gay couple went to that particular bakery to specifically offend them, knowing fully well that they were religiously opposed to gay marriage? My stand is crystallizing a bit because the issue transcends gay marriage. I feel that the bakery must not be allowed to discriminate against anyone. While Ram's privacy argument keeps pulling me back a bit, the potential for a slippery slope outweighs it. Maybe a fair position is that a line must be drawn at actually being present at the wedding, i.e., a caterer, waiter can refuse to physically be present at the wedding if it offends them.
Brainfade Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 The very fact discussing if a business is right to deny a customer....Now forget about a persons race or sexual preference. Say if tomorrow due to some loophole in the law the Delhi rape case accused gets released even when everyone knows he was responsible,he should still be able to buy food and water as long as he is willing to pay for it.You should not be a judge when the law failed,You cannot judge in business.Plain and Simple. The sole objective of the business is to maximise profits and the only law that should guide that is to protect consumer interest period. You have the stock,you sell it first come first serve basis to the paying customer,once you refuse a srvice based on personal bias,your license should be revoked again as I mentioned based on protecting customer interests. Good post. Thanks! I still wouldn't call it "sad." Opinions. law, culture all evolve.
Brainfade Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 And if there is no fear of isolation and public retribution........? His point is that - eventually, people will start boycotting the place, thus affecting their bottom line, forcing them to shut down.
zen Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 His point is that - eventually' date=' people will start boycotting the place, thus affecting their bottom line, forcing them to shut down.[/quote'] It would depend up on who the target audience of a particular business is, and ofc the issue
Recommended Posts