# Do businesses have the right to deny service to certain customers?



## tvdxer

Are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to in your country?  For example, if a restaranteur does not wish to serve somebody who came in for whatever reason, may they deny them service?  If an advertising agency is asked to make a commercial for a pro-life organization, but disagrees with their philosophy, are they allowed to decline their patronage?

I'm not sure on the laws here (other posters will help me), but I think they generally are in the United States.  There are exceptions - for example, apartment owners cannot deny tenants on the basis of race, marital status, etc., and I think a business that failed to provide somebody with some essential / emergency good could face a big lawsuit.

I ask this question after reading a shocking (but rather old) article at Lifesite.  The Ontario Human Rights Commission, a.k.a. the "Gaystapo", fined Scott Brockie, a Toronto printer and Christian, because he refused to print blank letterhead and envelopes for a gay and lesbian organization, because doing so would contradict has religious beliefs and violate his conscience.  Perhaps these hypocrites ought to be sued themselves for violating Brockie's human right to follow his conscience, provided others are not endangered by it.   I'm sure there are plenty of other printers in the GTA who would be happy to do the requested job.

A similar American case is here.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Here is the link to the homepage for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.

I admit that I haven't read through all their archives, but at the moment I see no evidence of the paedophilia that Lifesite accuses them of promoting.  Incidentally, that would be a criminal act.

Lifesite appears to be mixing some fairly sweeping accusations into its reporting.


----------



## JazzByChas

I will only say that, at least here in America, a business is not supposed to discriminate against those who patronize it.  

Now, I myself, would have a hard time promoting a philosophy to which I was diametrically opposed.

Eating at a restaurant is one thing...promoting an ideology is yet another...freedom of speech may protect your espousing your beliefs, but making someone else endorse your beliefs may lean towards prosletyzing or crossing that line between separation of church and state. In this case the Gay Rights religion is trying to force thier views on a Christian view.

Just my thoughts...


----------



## cuchuflete

JazzByChas said:


> Eating at a restaurant is one thing...promoting an ideology is yet another...freedom of speech may protect your espousing your beliefs, but making someone else endorse your beliefs may lean towards prosletyzing or crossing that line between separation of church and state. In this case the Gay Rights religion is trying to force thier views on a Christian view.



Two questions Chas...

1) How is printing stationery for an organization an endorsement of anyone's beliefs?

2) What on earth is "the Gay Rights religion"?

If a taxi driver in New York or Ft. Lauderdale dislikes some part of the platform of the Democratic Party, and that party is having a local convention, does giving a ride to a delegate constitute an endorsement of the party's platform?   If another cabbie in Baltimore or St. Louis dislikes something the current Bush administration is doing, does giving a ride to a Republican member of 
Congress equal an endorsement of the administration?   

The logic of calling stationery printing an endorsement of the client's cause seems a little forced.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> Are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to in your country? For example, if a restaranteur does not wish to serve somebody who came in for whatever reason, may they deny them service? If an advertising agency is asked to make a commercial for a pro-life organization, but disagrees with their philosophy, are they allowed to decline their patronage?


I live in a Capitalist society and I suspect that the following may be the case for all countries with a money based economy.

Banknotes are the medium of exchange. Dollar bills pay the required price. Currency is constant and of the same value from one end of the country to the other side of the place.

Each Australian $5 and $10 and $20 and $50 and $100 bill is endorsed with the following imprecation invoked by The Secretary to The Treasury and The Governor of The Reserve Bank of Australia;
*THIS AUSTRALIAN NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER *
*THROUGH OUT AUSTRALIA AND ITS TERRITORIES*​ 
The Collins dictionary;
*legal tender* _n_ currency in specified denominations that a creditor must by law accept in redemption of a debt.

A person providing goods or services, a seller, is proffering a contract by advertising of some method.
A person requiring goods or services, a buyer, follows this advertising and accepts the contract by agreeing to pay a sum of money.
That's it. The contract has been entered.

The seller is offered the staggeringly important protection that payment will be honoured. The banknotes are actually worthless except as good quality paper or plastic but they have no value in and of themselves and this is the tricky part.

The seller has done a deal with the devil and the payback is that the seller has forfeited the right to break the contract unless the buyer refuses to pay. 
The one and only requirement placed upon the buyer is to pay the seller a certain sum of money.
There are many requirements placed upon the seller but the most over riding requirement is to supply the goods or services by a certain date in a specified condition.

The printer has done the deal and it was quite right that he had to pay the ferryman.




tvdxer said:


> I'm not sure on the laws here (other posters will help me), but I think they generally are in the United States. There are exceptions - for example, apartment owners cannot deny tenants on the basis of race, marital status, etc., and I think a business that failed to provide somebody with some essential / emergency good could face a big lawsuit.


Those with the filthy lucre buy what they want as long as the purchase is legal.



tvdxer said:


> I ask this question after reading a shocking (but rather old) article at Lifesite. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, a.k.a. the "Gaystapo"


Is this dreadful epithet even legal?
You could get locked up in Australia for throwing 'words' like that around. It's called villification of an identifiable group or organisation.
I wonder what would be the result of walking around the equivalent of The German Human Rights Commission with a placard stating
*The German Human Rights Commission is the Gaystapo*​? 




tvdxer said:


> fined Scott Brockie, a Toronto printer and Christian, because he refused to print blank letterhead and envelopes for a gay and lesbian organization, because doing so would contradict has religious beliefs and violate his conscience. Perhaps these hypocrites ought to be sued themselves for violating Brockie's human right to follow his conscience, provided others are not endangered by it. I'm sure there are plenty of other printers in the GTA who would be happy to do the requested job.


And there are plenty of other jobs for Scott Brockie.
Scott Brockie would squeal like a stuck pig if the payment cheque bounced.
Scott Brockie would invoke the full might of the right arm of the law to smite his transgressors who face jail if they do not pay him.
Scott Brockie is running a business that is supported totally by money and our society dictates that any person who displays enough nouse to accure enough money can buy whatever is legal to buy.

The stunning hypocracy I see here is the twisting of moral principles with Capitalism as a lever. That's pretty much a first for me.

Money is not called the root of all human misery for nothing.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

tvdxer said:


> Are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to in your country?


German legal status:
1) Private persons and businesses are entirely free to choose with whom to close a contract.
2) There are only very few businesses that are submitted to a contraction coercion (term?), namely utility supplies (e.g. gas, electricity, water, phone, post service), pharmacies (only prescriptions), insurance companies of obligatory insurances (e.g. car, health, retirement), monopoly businesses (by anti-trust law), and some specific bank services (one account per person). -- There is also a law forcing private businesses that supply basic food to consuming customers to sell to everyone equally if no other adequate business is present in the same area. However, I have never heard of an occasion in which this law was required to be enforced. For example, supermarkets are allowed to exclude certain customers from their services, e.g. thiefs they were victim of.

My opinion:
Freedom of contraction is a constitutional right in Germany and one fundamental aspect of personal liberty. I regard this liberty as very high and very important. 

I believe that generally in Germany any private business could deny any patron if wanted. With anti-discrimination rights in every discussion nowadays, I am not sure how jurisdiction would judge in such cases -- I figure that denial of contract should not be based on special grounds, but just denied. Period. That's a straight-forward way to do it.

In this special case I am in favor of the printer, because he does not provide an essential good and he has no monopoly. There are other printers that would probably gladly execute the order. I see no point in forcing a privately owned business to close contracts with whoever wants to do so. Both parties have a choice. Period.

Of course, I agree that it is a strange decision not to print business paper for gay organizations. Printing such paper does not promote or support anything -- it is just business, namely printing. But it should be his choice.

Kajjo


----------



## ernest_

IN Spain businesses have the right of exclusion (legal term being right of admission), however there is a higher principle (constitutional, likes) that is the non-discrimination on the basis of race, ideology, religious beliefs, and the like. So, businesses can choose to refuse to provide you their services, as long as that does not imply discrimination of the aforementioned kind, as that would be illegal. In practice, they'll just tell you that you cannot enter the bar because you're not properly dressed, although everybody knows that moors or "dirty" South-Americans are simply not welcome. This is very hard to prove, though.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello:
Ernest, what you say about the Spanish law is true. But not so true that customers are not admitted into a pub or restaurant because they are South American or North African. Maybe there are some pubs whose owners are racist, of course, but as a general rule, if you are dirty, you will not be admitted into a restaurant, pub, disco, airplane, whatever no matter how nordic are your looks. Just ask any restaurant owner if he/she would admit a blonde haired, tall, obviously European hooligan. If I am not properly dressed, and dirty, I won't be admitted in many restaurants, no matter how obviously Spanish I am. But the right of admission (or refusal, I don't know which is the correct one) does not apply to medical services, markets etc. Just restaurants and the like can apply it.
Alexa.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:


> A similar American case is here.



The case deals with a video duplication service, run by a Mr. Bono.

The commission that investigated the complaint the Mr. Bono refused service to a would-be customer found...



> Bono “did not review the content of the documentaries.”





> Bono “perceived the Complainant to be ‘gay’ and to have a gay agenda when he communicated to her that Bono Film and Video ‘do not partake in any gay agenda no matter what the content.’”




According to those findings, he behaved contrary to local law. 

Let's imagine a similar situation, picking the names of some religious groups at random from my local phone book... Hmmm...we have United Methodists, Roman Catholics, Congregationalists, Baptists, Swedenborgians, Episcopals, Lutherans...and a few dozen more.

Now let's suppose that you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and you are walking around a city, and the heel of your shoe comes off.  You walk to a phone booth, pick up the directory, and look in the yellow pages for 'shoe repair'.  You find a listing, no advertisement...just the usual name and phone number listing, for Ralph's Shoe Repair. There is a street address not too far away.

You hobble gingerly all nine blocks to the listed address, say good morning to the person behind the counter, and explain, with great courtesy, that your heel has fallen off.  You ask if they would
be so kind as to fix your broken shoe.  The clerk gives you a steely glance, and asks your religion.
Astonished at the impudence of the question, but in no way ashamed of your sincere beliefs, you
answer, "I'm a Roman Catholic.  Why do you ask?"

The clerk replies, "We are devout United Methodists.  We limit our business dealings to people who share our faith.  Please take your broken shoe elsewhere."  


There is no other shoe repair place within range, so you cross the street to a shoe store, intending to buy a new pair of shoes before you meet your mother for lunch.  You enter the emporium, find shoes you like, and carry a display shoe with you and take a seat.  The salesman approaches and greets you.  "Hi" you say, "May I have this model in black, size 9, please?"  The salesman asks if you are religious and if so, what faith you follow.  You answer.  He replies, "I'm sorry, but we only
sell to Baptists. It's a matter of faith and conscience."

Barefoot, you rush to meet your mother, who is awaiting you three miles away.  Your feet begin to blister, so you hail a taxi.  The driver refuses service, on the grounds that your head is not covered, and this is an affront to his deity, as are your unshod hooves.  


How tribal and small-minded can we be, even within the letter of the law?


----------



## JazzByChas

Cuchu said:
			
		

> Two questions Chas...
> 
> 1) How is printing stationery for an organization an endorsement of anyone's beliefs?
> 
> _Well, the printing in and of itself is not an endorsement of anything...but the information presented in the printing represents an ideology...in this case, Gay Rights... and if afformentioned monsieur doesn't want to endorse the ideology of a particular client, I personally don't feel he should have to._
> 
> 2) What on earth is "the Gay Rights religion"?
> _Well, "religion" may be the wrong term for it...I think "ideology" as in the previous example is more appropriate here._
> 
> If a taxi driver in New York or Ft. Lauderdale dislikes some part of the platform of the Democratic Party, and that party is having a local convention, does giving a ride to a delegate constitute an endorsement of the party's platform? If another cabbie in Baltimore or St. Louis dislikes something the current Bush administration is doing, does giving a ride to a Republican member of
> Congress equal an endorsement of the administration?
> 
> _Giving a person a ride whose views you don't share doesn't mean you endorse their views...now I suppose we could stretch the point to where it might be construed that way...I'm just trying to make a point on a very touchy issue._
> 
> _I guess, I must give an example...If a person who was gay walked into my church, (at least) I would not say, "you cannot come here because you're gay..." It would defeat the purpose of the Christian ideology ("Love you neighbor as yourself") Now, that does NOT mean I endorse the gay life style, nor would I agree with this person should (s)he to try to convince others in the church or my family that the gay lifestyle is something I should endorse. I don't know where the boundary lies between caring about the person and embracing their ideology. Perhaps someone else could comment on this. I do know that *words are powerful things *("The pen is mightier than the sword") and they are what promotes an idea with the greatest effect. And what is printed on stationery are words._
> 
> The logic of calling stationery printing an endorsement of the client's cause seems a little forced.


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:


> Barefoot, you rush to meet your mother, who is awaiting you three miles away.  Your feet begin to blister, so you hail a taxi.  The driver refuses service, on the grounds that your head is not covered, and this is an affront to his deity, as are your unshod hooves.
> 
> 
> How tribal and small-minded can we be, even within the letter of the law?



1) As a Roman Catholic, I will respect the right of the shoemaker not to serve me. I will despise him, but that is another business. By the way, it is illegal in Spain for most of the industries.

2) At least in Spain, taxis are a public service. They do not have the right to deny me the service.

3) I have been denied the entrance in a gay club. I despised them also, but it was their right.

4) On a general point of view, I admit it is dangerous to deny service, since we will be creating ghettos and allowing discrimination, but I believe the freedom of the service provider should be acknowledged.


----------



## alexacohen

Fernando said:


> 1)
> 2) At least in Spain, taxis are a public service. They do not have the right to deny me the service.


Oh, but they do, Fernando. They can refuse service if the client is obviously drunk or ¿drugged? (I'm not sure about the word)  or agressive.
Alexa


----------



## Fernando

In the case of the beginning of the thread the printer did not deny the service to homosexuals, but to a homosexual-promoting society.

Since it is arguable (I am -probably- against) the right to deny assistance to Satan adorers, I would certainly would deny the service to the Satan Adorers Inc. (and I want the right to do so).



alexacohen said:


> Oh, but they do, Fernando. They can refuse service if the client is obviously drunk or ¿drugged? (I'm not sure about the word)  or agressive.
> Alexa



Well, and if the client has a gun aiming at his head  (just a joke) , but if the client is a Hare Khrisna, he is not admitted to deny the service.


----------



## Etcetera

tvdxer said:


> Are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to in your country?  For example, if a restaranteur does not wish to serve somebody who came in for whatever reason, may they deny them service?


Yes. Many cafes and restaurants, as well as shops, wouldn't admit a person who wear dirty clothes or is drunken, for example. But it's pretty understandable.


----------



## cuchuflete

The thread starter has previously stated that he is from Minnesota.  For months the national press in the US has carried stories about the Somali Muslim community in and around the largest cities in that state...specifically Minneapolis/St. Paul/Bloomington.  It seems that many of the airport taxi drivers have refused to carry passengers carrying alcohol, as they deem this to be an affront to their religious beliefs.  This is not about drunk persons, but those carrying parcels containing alcoholic beveridges.  Other Muslim employees, in grocery stores, are reported to have refused to touch pork products on the payment lines.

If the taxi driver is also a taxi owner, this is a refusal of service by a business that is legally required to provide
that service.  Not all Somali immigrants are participating in these actions, but those who are have created quite a ruckus.



> More than 600 airport taxi drivers in the cities are Somali, most of them Muslim.
> 
> According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, about 100 passengers each month are denied transportation for carrying alcohol.
> 
> Some drivers have also refused to carry blind passengers with guide dogs, on grounds that the Koran says dog saliva is unclean. And some Muslim store cashiers won’t scan pork products.


http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=191954&srvc=home


----------



## .   1

Fernando said:


> In the case of the beginning of the thread the printer did not deny the service to homosexuals, but to a homosexual-promoting society.


Therefore denying service to an organisation providing a service to homosexuals is denying the supply of a service to homosexuals.



Fernando said:


> Since it is arguable (I am -probably- against) the right to deny assistance to Satan adorers, I would certainly would deny the service to the Satan Adorers Inc. (and I want the right to do so).


I would have thought that a better tactic would be to take the job but do it really badly. 
Misspell the title to Satin Adorers Inc or Satan Adores Pink or Satan Adorers 'r Rank.
Scent the paper with frankensence and myrrh.
You could finish the printing with a 'God Bless' logo.
It would be an opportunity to mess with their heads and strike a righteous blow against Sitan.



Fernando said:


> Well, and if the client has a gun aiming at his head (just a joke) , but if the client is a Hare Khrisna, he is not admitted to deny the service.


What's wrong with the Krishnas?
Do they not pay their bills?
Damn, I've got that chant running through my head from the George Harrison song, My Sweet Lord.

The Krishnas are just smiled at down here. They are very polite and always pay their way, after thay have handled your pan. 

.,,


----------



## lablady

tvdxer said:


> Are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to in your country? For example, if a restaranteur does not wish to serve somebody who came in *for whatever reason*, may they deny them service?


 emphasis mine

I think the reason for denial of the service is the key. 

If someone is causing a disturbance that interferes with others' patronage of the business, or is not dressed appropriately (I see many signs saying "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service), or has broken any laws while on the premises, then the business owner is within their right to deny service to that individual.

If the business owner simply does not agree with the patron's political views, or their religion, or the color they have dyed their hair, or ... , then denial of service says a lot about the business owner. If word gets out that the business is owned by a bigot, he could lose more income than just from the group he excluded. 

While I don't know if the excluded patron has legal recourse in all cases, I feel it is good business practice for the owner to have tolerance for views that differ from his own. We live in a free market society and as .,, pointed out earlier, money talks. The business owner is also free to choose another line of work that does not require him to "compromise his principles".


----------



## Fernando

. said:


> I would have thought that a better tactic would be to take the job but do it really badly.


 
That is illegal and inmoral. Pacta sunt servanda. 

I understand Satan Adorers Inc. is not such a big deal. 

Imagine you are are a leftist printer and comes to your shop the following clients in a row, with the following orders for the following books:

- NRA. "Weapons save lives"

- Sudanese Government. "Darfur's wonderful sites"

- Association against Diffamation of Guatemala: "The Guatemala paramilitary corps: A history of pride".

- Fascist Party: "Mussolini and Hitler. Parallel lives".

All of them are (or would be) legal organizations in the US. Are you obligued to serve them? Really? 



. said:


> What's wrong with the Krishnas?



Nothing, apart from their aesthetic taste.


----------



## .   1

Fernando said:


> Imagine you are are a leftist printer and comes to your shop the following clients in a row, with the following orders for the following books:
> 
> - NRA. "Weapons save lives"
> 
> - Sudanese Government. "Darfur's wonderful sites"
> 
> - Association against Diffamation of Guatemala: "The Guatemala paramilitary corps: A history of pride".
> 
> - Fascist Party: "Mussolini and Hitler. Parallel lives".
> 
> All of them are (or would be) legal organizations in the US. Are you obligued to serve them? Really?


 Yup. I'd take their dollars and print their crap. It would be illegal and immoral to not do so.

I am happy for every looney organisation in the world to spend their money on printing their ridiculous messages.
Paper cuts are a bitch but some things are worse.

The messages you cited are empty.
Mussolini and Hitler were vitually cojoined twins. What's your problem with that book.

Print the book of Darfur. Let the world see what is going on. You print it and we'll censor it with our own intellects and make up our own minds.

Let the hairy chested brag about their paramilitary so that we can read about all their dirty tricks and be a little better prepared. Knowledge is power.

The NRA have been banging on for years and only crosseyed morons are taken in. Are you trying to protect crosseyed morons because us adults are quite capable of making that distinction ourselves.
Gun Nuts
The most dangerous part
of a gun
is
the loose nut
behind the trigger​ 
I don't live in America but the laws of my land reflect those of the U.S.A. pretty well.
People who argue that they can refuse to do one thing because of one moral principle and then claim that they can another thing because of their morals are better than the morals of somebody else confuse me. Laws are laws and have little or nothing to do with morality.

This is a question of the law and the law is blind to morality as it should be. Morality is much too slippery a beast to try to grab the tail of.

.,,


----------



## Fernando

I am not saying you should censor those books (I probably would some of them). I am saying you are not forced to publish them.

And let me say that if laws have nothing to do with morality we will return to Nuremberg laws. 

I did not notice you were Australian. Sorry. The "Native of: Australian Australia" was confusing.


----------



## alexacohen

. said:


> I would have thought that a better tactic would be to take the job but do it really badly.
> Misspell the title to Satin Adorers Inc or Satan Adores Pink or Satan Adorers 'r Rank.
> Scent the paper with frankensence and myrrh.
> You could finish the printing with a 'God Bless' logo.
> It would be an opportunity to mess with their heads and strike a righteous blow against Sitan.
> 
> .,,


Wouldn't be much help if you were a taxi driver. Unless you drove your clients to the scary-scary part of the city.


----------



## .   1

Fernando said:


> I am not saying you should censor those books (I probably would some of them). I am saying you are not forced to publish them.


To not publish is the ultimate censorship. 
The printer has no right to deny publication of a legal book.
That's why we have laws arrived at by consensus rather than by unilaterally moral decisions of individuals.
The printer enjoys the protection of the law and so must bow to constraints of the same law.



Fernando said:


> And let me say that if laws have nothing to do with morality we will return to Nuremberg laws.


 And let me say that you have completely lost me there.
Are you referring to the annual Nazi rallies stooged between 1933 and 1938?
Are you referring to the anti-Semitic Nuremberg decrees spawned in 1935?
Are you prescientially referring to the Nuremberg war trials where the law fell very heavily on the major participants of the above two abortions.



Fernando said:


> I did not notice you were Australian. Sorry. The "Native of: Australian Australia" was confusing.


This is the first time in my life that my accent has been deemed to be American. I'll just have to nick out and chuck a few more snags on the baarby before I knock back a schooie or two before a quick game of two-up or three penny swy and then I'll hang a few corks on me hat to top up me bonzerness. 

See ya

.,,


----------



## .   1

alexacohen said:


> Wouldn't be much help if you were a taxi driver. Unless you drove your clients to the scary-scary part of the city.


Just have a CD of Gospel/Soft Rock/Country AND Western/New Age/Born Again/Fundamentally Bland music and crank up the volume!
Let's see who cracks first. (The driver can wear ear plugs for the occasion or have the speakers on in the back seat only not in the front and then say that the volume is up so loud because you loove the music and just have to listen to it all day and you wore out the front speakers) 

.,,


----------



## alexacohen

. said:


> Just have a CD of Gospel/Soft Rock/Country AND Western/New Age/Born Again/Fundamentally Bland music and crank up the volume!
> .,,


Wagner's The Cavalcade of the Walkyrias should do the trick better than anything. 
I think Fernando meant to go back to Neanderthal times and not Nuremberg times. But I'm not sure.
Alexa


----------



## .   1

alexacohen said:


> I think Fernando meant to go back to Neanderthal times and not Nuremberg times. But I'm not sure.


I am forced to wait for clarification from Fernando.  You are much quicker in your response.

.,,
You are too good.  I wasn't even drinking and you managed to snort my keyboard.


----------



## alexacohen

. said:


> I am forced to wait for clarification from Fernando.


So am I. I didn't understand the Nuremberg morality bit. Because Nazi laws _were moral laws._ Twisted morals, granted, but morals all the same. The people who wrote them _believed_ they were right.
*BIG NOTE JUST IN CASE:*
I'm Jew. 
Alexa
P.S. Are we getting much too off topic or it's ok?


----------



## .   1

alexacohen said:


> So am I. I didn't understand the Nuremberg morality bit. Because Nazi laws _were moral laws._ Twisted morals, granted, but morals all the same. The people who wrote them _believed_ they were right.
> *BIG NOTE JUST IN CASE:*
> I'm Jew.
> Alexa
> P.S. Are we getting much too off topic or it's ok?


This is all about perception so you seem to be bang on from my point of view.

.,,
I'm Robert who doesn't care that he's not Jewish.


----------



## alexacohen

. said:


> .,,
> I'm Robert who doesn't care that he's not Jewish.


I wrote the "I'm Jew" just in case someone from the Inquisition Squad decides to understand that what I'm really saying is that I'm all for Nazi morality, and scrutinizes each word I say so he/she demonstrates I'm Nazi. 
Alexa


----------



## .   1

alexacohen said:


> I wrote the "I'm Jew" just in case someone from the Inquisition decides that what I'm really saying is that I'm all for Nazi morality.


I wrote that I don't care that I'm not Jewish because it doesn't matter.

I love your connection of the 'Morally Correct Superior' Church Sponsored Inquisition to the 'Morally Correct/Superior' State Sponsored Pogroms.

Morals en mass are very dangerous and best kept cloistered.

.,,


----------



## Joca

Hello

May I divert your attention? As I was browsing through this thread, a question occurred to me. It is as old as the hills. Do prostitutes (and prostitution is business, isn't it?) have the right or choice to deny service to a client whom they find to be very unattractive (to say the least)?

JC


----------



## alexacohen

Joca said:


> Hello
> 
> May I divert your attention? As I was browsing through this thread, a question occurred to me. It is as old as the hills. Do prostitutes (and prostitution is business, isn't it?) have the right or choice to deny service to a client whom they find to be very unattractive (to say the least)?
> 
> JC


Yes. If restaurants, pubs and the like can refuse entrance to dirty or problematic clients prostitutes should have the same right.
Alexa


----------



## Sallyb36

We have a doctor at our surgery who is a strict Catholic, and we cannot see him for contraception as he will not prescribe it.


----------



## Fernando

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was referring to Nuremberg anti-semitic decrees.

Of course they were inspired by a morality. Many people obeyed those laws even when disagreeing with the morality because it was the Law. 

Our constitutions and laws are based also in a morality. I should obbey the law because it is the law AND because their principles agree with mine.

If I think that research with embryos should be forbidden is because I think that agrees with the moral principles that rule the world, not because my personal principles. And indeed the research with embryos is forbidden or severely restricted in most countries.


----------



## alexacohen

*Cuchuflete:*



> According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, about 100 passengers each month are denied transportation for carrying alcohol.





> Some drivers have also refused to carry blind passengers with guide dogs, on grounds that the Koran says dog saliva is unclean. And some Muslim store cashiers won’t scan pork products.


This bit makes me wonder. If the drivers are forced to carry blind people with guide dogs they will feel they are being discriminated because of their religion. And if they are allowed not to carry blind people with guide dogs because of their religion, then the blind people with guide dogs will feel they are being discriminated because of their disability.
Now, seriously. I am not familiar with the U.S. law, but in Spain both the taxi drivers and the cashier could refuse service if they were the owners of the taxies or the shops (a Muslim owner of a shop wouldn't have pork for sale, anyway). But if they were working for a company, they could, and would, be fired for not complying with their job. 
Alexa


----------



## Joca

. said:


> Yes?
> 
> 
> This seems like a brand new question to me.
> 
> 
> Yes but I assume that they will soon be looking for a day job.
> The only reason I can see for a bloke going to a prostitute is because he is so unattractive to women in general that he can't pull a root so he has to buy one. This is tragic.
> Everybody is always banging on about how permissive our society has become and that people fornicate like rabbits but these blokes are so lacking in social charm or nouse that they can't hop on to the band wagon to join the conga line.
> 
> Hi
> 
> What I actually had in mind: Prostitution is as old as the hills.
> 
> Well, apparently I can't argue with that, but I must say that your answers often leave me dumbfounded.  How could I have missed that one? Yet, we have a proverb here for which I can't find an equivalent in English. It says: "Nunca falta um chinelo velho para um pé cansado." Literally: "A tired foot will always find an old slipper for itself." So, on second thoughts, even an unattractive man will eventually find his match. We don't really know all the subjective criteria women will resort to when they are choosing their mates, do we?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> JC
> .,,


----------



## .   1

Joca said:


> Maybe, but what I wanted to say is that some men seek prostitutes not because they are intrinsically unattractive or socially crippled, but because it is like an adventure or breaking a routine or endorsing the power of money. What do we know?


If that's not socially crippled then I am not sitting here with a huge nose in the middle of my face.
I will bunjy jump out of an aeroplane for adventure but playing with HIV AIDS and genital herpies and various crotch rots does not seem particularly adventurous.

Prostution is a business and as such prostitutes have no right to turn away the socially crippled and could be sued but the socially crippled would have to be the complainant and this would be confronting for the social cripple to stand in front of a Judge and complain that he was so foul and ugly that he couldn't buy a root with a fist full of fifty dollar notes.

I could just imagine the scene as the Judge tried to maintain a po faced composure and the assistant had to bolt for the back room to cover the guffaws while the court reporters just looked at each other for a split second before pissing themselves.  Case dismissed.

.,,


----------



## heidita

. said:


> The only reason I can see for a bloke going to a prostitute is because he is so unattractive to women in general that he can't pull a root so he has to buy one. This is tragic.
> 
> .,,


 
Apparently you are mistaken though. 



> just like the clients of prostitutes are mostly normal, middle-class family men.


 
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/247156_escortsecrets05.html

And getting back to the topic, the right to deny service to customers does not exist over here at grocery's. Personally I don't think that would be fair, as with a bad appearance you wouldn't be able to shop then, or what?

In other places, like discos or restaurants it depends frequently on your appearance whether you are accepted to enter. 

Another forer implied that black people are not allowed to enter certain places. this is quite untrue. Entrance of discos is denied to anybody not wearing adequate clothes, or shoe-wear. It is not allowed in Spain to enter discos wearing sneakers. So knowing this, why be scandalized when you are denied the entrance?


----------



## cuchuflete

This thread is not about why people patronize prostitutes.  Please read post #1 before adding to the conversation here.


----------

