10-14-2015, 10:43 PM
Quote:We're just drawing the line at a different point In the transaction. You guys are saying access is and should be protected but services can be exclusive or denyed base on personal belief. I'm ok with requiring equal access so long as the right to service remains with the party offering services.No, a mechanic should not be able to refuse service to a person entirely for non-business reasons (like not liking someone), but they also should not be required to act unconventionally or against their morals to serve that person. If a guy that smelled like butt came into my shop, I'd either ignore it or, if there were other customers there and it was really bad, pull him aside and politely ask him to return after he'd had a chance to clean up. If the guy caused a huge scene or refused to leave, or if he left then returned smelling just as bad and became confrontational about it, there's a good case to be made for refusing him service entirely or, if warranted, calling the police and having him formally trespassed. If he came back in an hour smelling like a normal human being, I'd go ahead and service the car.
So a bakery is a pretty easy example lets look at it Like this, as mechanic I should be forced to allow anyone access to my shop but should I also have the right to refuse to work on their vehicle based on personal belief? What if I just don't like them or the way they smell should I be able to say thanks but no thanks take you business somewhere else? Why or why not?
I think that's how it should work: reasonable accommodation. The opportunity for service has to exist for anyone who walks through the doors, and there has to be a reasonable attempt made to accommodate someone. In the stinky man scenario, the reasonable accommodation was politely asking him to go get cleaned up, then come back. In the bakery example, reasonable accommodation would be telling a gay couple that you will gladly make them any wedding cake they'd like, but they would have to make other arrangements to have, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it," printed on it, and while they're welcome to provide their own same-sex couple cake topper and place it on the cake after it's been delivered, the bakery will not special order one for them. That sort of thing. The gay couple has the right to service, and the business owner has the right to not violate their morals by writing things that go against their beliefs on the side of a cake. If the gay couple isn't happy with this option, they can take their business elsewhere. That's the great thing about the free market economy: you can always take your business elsewhere.
There is an exception to that, now that I think about it: monopoly scenarios. The resort that my wife and I got married at had very strict rules about catering, i.e., they do it all. And by all, I mean all. Your cake had to be designed, baked and decorated on-site by their pastry chef. In that situation, even if the resort's chef was morally opposed to writing, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it," on a cake, they would have no choice but to either do so or allow the couple to procure an outside cake (and credit them the cost of that cake against their package). If a business is going to put itself into a monopoly position, it must accommodate any request (within reason) or drop its monopolistic practices to allow outside businesses to fulfill that request.
