When Is It Right To Refuse Service To Someone?

[Quetzal]

If I had a moral conflict with what they were doing, I would tell them to leave.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I had a moral conflict with what they were doing, I would tell them to leave.

What if they weren't doing it in your restaurant?

 

[sun rise]

Who won?
...

At the time, the cab drivers lost.

I'm not sure if it went any further, but Muslim cab drivers lost their bid to not carry passengers that were carrying alcohol per Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

An interesting discussion can be found here: Is It O.K. to Fire a Muslim Driver for Refusing to Carry Wine?

Presumably that could be re-fought now based on the SCOTUS decision.

 

[Quetzal]

What if they weren't doing it in your restaurant?

That wouldn't matter to me. Their actions form a pattern outside of my establishment. If I do not agree with that pattern on a moral, ethical level, I do not want them to be a part of what I am doing.

 

[Revoltingest]

That wouldn't matter to me. Their actions form a pattern outside of my establishment. If I do not agree with that pattern on a moral, ethical level, I do not want them to be a part of what I am doing.

Hmm...what if it's illegal for you to kick'm out?
This could happen due to religion, family status.

 

[Quetzal]

Hmm...what if it's illegal for you to kick'm out?
This could happen due to religion, family status.

If I am legally bound, I guess there isn't much of a choice.

I have thought about this some more. I am being a bit of an arm chair quarterback here. I have never owned a business so it is easy for me to say "YEAH STICK IT TO 'EM!". But in reality there is more at stake, right? I would need to take the concerns and needs of my staff into consideration. If there is a blow back, would they be safe? Would any loss of business put them in trouble? This is a tougher question to answer then.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I am legally bound, I guess there isn't much of a choice.

I have thought about this some more. I am being a bit of an arm chair quarterback here. I have never owned a business so it is easy for me to say "YEAH STICK IT TO 'EM!". But in reality there is more at stake, right? I would need to take the concerns and needs of my staff into consideration. If there is a blow back, would they be safe? Would any loss of business put them in trouble? This is a tougher question to answer then.

If one refuses to do business with one's ideological opposition,
one only displays one's side in the worst light, ie, intolerance.
I prefer to try influencing them in a positive way....my idea of
"positive" though. (I might be one you'd kick out of your eatery.)

 

[Quetzal]

If one refuses to do business with one's ideological opposition,
one only displays one's side in the worst light, ie, intolerance.
I prefer to try influencing them in a positive way....my idea of
"positive" though. (I might be one you'd kick out of your eatery.)

See, you are banned from the onset. Security has been notified.

I like your strategy, by the way.

 

[Revoltingest]

See, you are banned from the onset. Security has been notified.

I like your strategy, by the way.

I wouldn't buy any mujadara at your place anyway.
If you let me in, I'd expect poor company.

 

[Quetzal]

I wouldn't buy any mujadara at your place anyway.
If you let me in, I'd expect poor company.

And equally poor service. But when you are the only show in town...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Under the OP scenario, I'd let them in. As to the general question of when is it right to refuse service when based on behavior outside the business establishment is a case-by-case situation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It depends.

- what’s the group they belong to? I wouldn’t refuse service on illegal grounds.

- what are the consequences for them? If I refuse them service, would they go hungry or would they just go to a convenient second choice?

- what are the consequences for me? Am I just giving up one sale or am I violating a franchise agreement?

- if I serve them, am I materially helping the cause I oppose?

- if I serve them, would it create an opportunity for dialogue that might lead to a good outcome?

- what’s their role in the group? Are they leaders? Do they commit harmful acts themselves? Or do they merely agree with the people in the group who are actually doing things?

- what are they asking me for? Is it just a single meal? Is it to rent the banquet room for a group meeting?

- How strongly do I feel about this group and what they’re doing? If they’re bad enough, I may just not be able to be civil with them anyhow.

 

[PureX]

I am not talking about members only but a standard like a dress code or theme in which the customer is responsible to meet the standard and can denied service when they do not. If themes are not regulated by law one can use it to target people. That was my point by linking dress codes with the poor. One can set a dress code outside the capabilities of the poor to meet in order to avoid serving the poor and the reputation which comes with it.

If the requirements are reasonably necessary to the service being provided, they are generally considered acceptable. It is not reasonably necessary to the selling of baked goods that the buyer be heterosexual, white, Christian, republican, etc.,. It is necessary that they have the money to buy the product or services being offered.

 

[Shad]

An interesting discussion can be found here: Is It O.K. to Fire a Muslim Driver for Refusing to Carry Wine?

Interesting how so? I see an author making exemptions for one group while I doubt they would for another group.

 

[Shad]

If the requirements are reasonably necessary to the service being provided, they are generally considered acceptable. It is not reasonably necessary to the selling of baked goods that the buyer be heterosexual, white, Christian, republican, etc.,. It is necessary that they have the money to buy the product or services being offered.

What is considered reasonable to you?

 

[PureX]

What is considered reasonable to you?

Fancy restaurants requiring coats and ties. All places of business requiring some clothing and footwear. Male and female only gyms, spas, etc. requiring that patrons to be male or female. Child oriented businesses refusing adults with no children. Adult oriented businesses not allowing children on premises. Any requirements that are reasonably necessary to the service being offered.

 

[Shad]

Fancy restaurants requiring coats and ties. All places of business requiring some clothing and footwear. Male and female only gyms, spas, etc. requiring that patrons to be male or female. Child oriented businesses refusing adults with no children. Adult oriented businesses not allowing children on premises. Any requirements that are reasonably necessary to the service being offered.

Unless paired with law most of those are arbitrary. Funny how X is acceptable but not Y.

So if a Christian put up a sign about serving only Christian wedding cakes that would be acceptable right?

 

[PureX]

Unless paired with law most of those are arbitrary. Funny how X is acceptable but not Y.

Of course they aren't "arbitrary". They are specific to the services being offered. Also, this isn't so much about pre-existing law as it is about the resolution of disputes in court. If you file a court claim demanding satisfaction for being rejected service at a very expensive, fancy restaurant while wearing only your boxers and some plastic fairy wings, the odds are very good you will lose that suit. The whole point here is the "reasonableness" of the expectations being required. There is no specific law that can set that reasonableness in stone. So it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

So if a Christian put up a sign about serving only Christian wedding cakes that would be acceptable right?

There are vendors that sell only religious products, and they are not discriminating against anyone in doing so, because anyone can buy those products. The discrimination happens when the vendor wants to pass judgment on the buyer's beliefs based on his own religious ideals, and then uses that judgment to deny service to only some prospective buyers.

 

[oldbadger]

Let's say that you own a restaurant.
It's a popular one, serving typically British fare, eg, boiled meat, warm beer, deep fried haggis.

Outrageous prejudice........... 'orrible!
Typical British Fare is....... well ...... a MacDonalds. Errr.... Ummm .... Oh, drat.

In walks someone you recognize.
The would be patron belongs to some group whose agenda you oppose.
You really dislike that agenda, & therefore that person.

And of course this scenario has additional complications.
Don't complain that I didn't address them. But feel free
to discuss them.

Nah......... if'n they can pay, and I could cook their toast 'n marmalade + mug o' tea (I can cook that) all would be OK.

 

[Shad]

Of course they aren't "arbitrary". They are specific to the services being offered. Also, this isn't so much about pre-existing law as it is about the resolution of disputes in court. If you file a court claim demanding satisfaction for being rejected service at a very expensive, fancy restaurant while wearing only your boxers and some plastic fairy wings, the odds are very good you will lose that suit. The whole point here is the "reasonableness" of the expectations being required. There is no specific law that can set that reasonableness in stone. So it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

If case by case then these are arbitrary due to lack of laws. Reasonable is subjective as it is case by case.

The discrimination happens when the vendor wants to pass judgment on the buyer's beliefs based on his own religious ideals, and then uses that judgment to deny service to only some prospective buyers.

Alternatively they do not wish to take part in something they are against. Also freedom of association. Class standards have been acceptable in lot of business and has been used to judge people for all of human history. Pricing, dress codes, location, menu, etc. Business have a sorts of methods to filter out subjective choices by the owner and managed.

I just question if restrictions on religion in business is still required over the market and customers in an era of instant reviews and social bandwagon tactics. At least in the First World.