Discrimination Service VS Product

Discrimination Service VS Product (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MasterJaguar01 -> Discrimination Service VS Product (6/30/2015 9:10:30 PM)
Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual. Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line? My opinion: 1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all. 2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt. This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering. This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business. The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses). ***************************************************************************************** That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video. http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :) Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :)

BamaD -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (6/30/2015 9:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual. Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line? My opinion: 1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all. 2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt. This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering. This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business. The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses). ***************************************************************************************** That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video. http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :) Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :) It would seem that we are pretty much in agreement here. Walmart being a large chain should not be judged by the same standards as a one store family run business. As you remember I said something to that effect in the other thread (although perhaps not directly to you) the family owned business, particularly when it comes to art, should have much more leeway than the chain. I also think that what this Walmart did is inexcusable. If they are offended by the Confederate battle flag they should be outraged at the ISIS flag.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (6/30/2015 9:42:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual. Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line? My opinion: 1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all. 2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt. This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering. This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business. The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses). ***************************************************************************************** That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video. http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :) Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :) It would seem that we are pretty much in agreement here. Walmart being a large chain should not be judged by the same standards as a one store family run business. As you remember I said something to that effect in the other thread (although perhaps not directly to you) the family owned business, particularly when it comes to art, should have much more leeway than the chain. I also think that what this Walmart did is inexcusable. If they are offended by the Confederate battle flag they should be outraged at the ISIS flag. Nevertheless, it is their business, and their "art", and their right to control their art

joether -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (6/30/2015 10:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual. Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line? My opinion: 1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all. 2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt. This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering. This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business. The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses). *************************************************************************************** That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video. http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :) Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :) If you work for an employer, your not an individual as far as the law is concern with regards to civil rights in this fashion (a lawyer could make this even more specific if you want). The business's product is 'cake making'. You, are part of that cake making process, just like the oven and batter. Do ovens and batter have civil rights now? Now then, most companies that sell cakes to the public usually have set prices for set dimensions. An unusual shaped cake could be custom ordered. However, the amount of 'cost' is still figured out by the amount of 'materials' used. Most people are not mathematicians, and basically 'eye ball it'. The problem without using a set measurement is opening the door to all sorts of problems. The business could, without awareness or agenda, sell two different cakes, of two different shapes, but with the same amount of 'cake materials' used; thereby making the one whom got the higher bill feeling they got robbed/discriminated. Hence why many large retail companies that make cakes, have very specific criteria for the final price based on the amount of 'cake materials' used. Which is ALSO why many small businesses land themselves in small claims courts. After a time or two in court, the owner sits down and figures out the specifics. The problem is the perception. A cake store discriminates against someone without realizing it. You, see the video on youtube along with a few others and make an unconscious thought that all or many bakers perform this practice. But that doesnt address your video of the guy with the cake. That seems more like an oversight on Wal-Mart's side then discrimination of one flag for another. Usually corporate will tell the 'brick and mortar' stores how to create and charge for cakes. On the day or two this guy tried to get both flags created, could the employee just be having a bad day? Or one desiring to sabotage things? Could one of this guy's friends actually work at Wal-Mart? An that guy denied one flag and created the other? Its plausible. Bottom line is, your trying to make an argument that doesn't work in the long run for anyone. The US Supreme Court fucked up by allowing businesses to have 'religious rights' (the liberal minority explained that). A company that is open to the public, and sells to the public, MUST ALSO, accept whatever steps into their place of business wishing to buy. Granted there are exceptions and clauses to this rule. Which means the christian baker must sell a cake to the gay couple just the same as the agnostic baker has to sell a cake to the christian couple.** If they do not wish to sell to the public, then closing up shop for good, might be a good idea.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (6/30/2015 10:17:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It would seem that we are pretty much in agreement here. Walmart being a large chain should not be judged by the same standards as a one store family run business. As you remember I said something to that effect in the other thread (although perhaps not directly to you) the family owned business, particularly when it comes to art, should have much more leeway than the chain. I also think that what this Walmart did is inexcusable. If they are offended by the Confederate battle flag they should be outraged at the ISIS flag. A whole lot of people are (or pretend to be) offended by the Confederate Battle Flag. I've always been offended by the desecration of the U.S. Flag. I propose a compromise. Michael

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (6/30/2015 10:57:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual. Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line? My opinion: 1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all. 2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt. This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering. This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business. The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses). *************************************************************************************** That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video. http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :) Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :) If you work for an employer, your not an individual as far as the law is concern with regards to civil rights in this fashion (a lawyer could make this even more specific if you want). The business's product is 'cake making'. You, are part of that cake making process, just like the oven and batter. Do ovens and batter have civil rights now? Now then, most companies that sell cakes to the public usually have set prices for set dimensions. An unusual shaped cake could be custom ordered. However, the amount of 'cost' is still figured out by the amount of 'materials' used. Most people are not mathematicians, and basically 'eye ball it'. The problem without using a set measurement is opening the door to all sorts of problems. The business could, without awareness or agenda, sell two different cakes, of two different shapes, but with the same amount of 'cake materials' used; thereby making the one whom got the higher bill feeling they got robbed/discriminated. Hence why many large retail companies that make cakes, have very specific criteria for the final price based on the amount of 'cake materials' used. Which is ALSO why many small businesses land themselves in small claims courts. After a time or two in court, the owner sits down and figures out the specifics. The problem is the perception. A cake store discriminates against someone without realizing it. You, see the video on youtube along with a few others and make an unconscious thought that all or many bakers perform this practice. But that doesnt address your video of the guy with the cake. That seems more like an oversight on Wal-Mart's side then discrimination of one flag for another. Usually corporate will tell the 'brick and mortar' stores how to create and charge for cakes. On the day or two this guy tried to get both flags created, could the employee just be having a bad day? Or one desiring to sabotage things? Could one of this guy's friends actually work at Wal-Mart? An that guy denied one flag and created the other? Its plausible. Bottom line is, your trying to make an argument that doesn't work in the long run for anyone. The US Supreme Court fucked up by allowing businesses to have 'religious rights' (the liberal minority explained that). A company that is open to the public, and sells to the public, MUST ALSO, accept whatever steps into their place of business wishing to buy. Granted there are exceptions and clauses to this rule. Which means the christian baker must sell a cake to the gay couple just the same as the agnostic baker has to sell a cake to the christian couple.** If they do not wish to sell to the public, then closing up shop for good, might be a good idea. As much as I often enjoy reading your posts... This one makes absolutely no sense. Nor is it even relevant to the OP in any way. I'm talking about art VS pre-defined good/service. Your paragraph about being part of the process has no relevance. Nor does the 2nd paragraph (nor is it clear what you are trying to say) Your last paragraph asserts that I am making a point that doesn't work for anyone in the long run? Really? What point would that be? You then go on to assert the US Supreme Court f'd up by allowing businesses to have religious rights? First of all, I have been saying in this and dozens of other posts that individuals have religious liberties and not businesses. Secondly, what Supreme Court decision are referring to? The one that allowed same-sex marriage? It must be that it is late at night... I have to say, your entire post does not follow in logic, nor relevance, and is not even close to clear or sensical in any way.

joether -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 12:23:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 As much as I often enjoy reading your posts... This one makes absolutely no sense. Nor is it even relevant to the OP in any way. Allow me to clear things up. Your trying to have the law handle two different circumstances as one thing. It was not designed to accomplish that. Let's consider it using the baker making a cake: Like the USS Enterprise for a Star Trek birthday. An input both circumstances. The first circumstance is an employee working for a company whom is put into a position to create something 'non-standard'. The company (if its legal shit is in order) will have a defined parameter for how much 'materials' are needed to construct the cake. Everyone's understanding of the general form of the USS Enterprise might be similar, but not to exacting metrics. Even Trekkies are not hardcore about exact lengths when its a relative whom spent a pile of money on it. The employee, whom can use their creative energies to produce the USS Enterprise will give the customer(s) a set price, based upon company wide information. That way if someone wants a Star Destroyer from Star Wars, the baker may use the same materials for both projects, but the shapes might make one 'seem' bigger than the other. In a court case, the employer can point out that the amount of material used was about the same cost. Most likely the baker took pictures of each of them and placed them on facebook to show off. That too helps in a court case. In the other circumstance, the artist works for themselves much like a consultant. If the artist does not wish to make a cake for someone, that's their lost of business and nothing more. The cake will most likely get made, and by someone else. Most likely the buyer will retell the horror story of the artist that refused them; which can and often does influence other people to not do business with that person. However, in either case, if your business is open to the public; the public is whom you do business with. Granted there are exceptions and clauses to the law. But none of these help the christian baker justify being an asshole towards a gay couple wishing to buy a cake for a wedding. If agnostics and atheists bakers had to do it for christian weddings for hundreds of years; I think the christian bakers can put their 'big boy/girl' pants on and make a cake for the gay wedding as well..... quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 I'm talking about art VS pre-defined good/service. Your paragraph about being part of the process has no relevance. Nor does the 2nd paragraph (nor is it clear what you are trying to say) The financial value of art is based on what someone is willing to pay for such art (that is actually the American Accounting Association's defintion to art and value). Do you know how many struggling artists in America will tell you their newest creation is worth a million dollars? About as many convicted criminals in prisons that will say they are innocent of the crime! quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Your last paragraph asserts that I am making a point that doesn't work for anyone in the long run? Really? What point would that be? You then go on to assert the US Supreme Court f'd up by allowing businesses to have religious rights? First of all, I have been saying in this and dozens of other posts that individuals have religious liberties and not businesses. Secondly, what Supreme Court decision are referring to? The one that allowed same-sex marriage? The argument your making is forcing two very different concepts to operate the same way under the law. The 'infrastructure' of the law was not designed to accomplish that. Therefore further legislation would have to be created to handle one or the other, and allow the remainder under the current legal code. What do you think the chances are of a Republican/Tea Party Congress passing more regulation this session? The court case I'm referring to is "Burwell vs Hobby Lobby" (2014 decision) on your US Supreme Court question. This one created the firestorm that may have effected the outcome of the recent US Supreme Court case on gay marriage. What I find amusing are all the conservatives bashing that case (the gay marriage result) using language and thought processes that would undermine the 'Heller vs. District of Columbia' decision of 2006. Consider from Texas: ""A judge-based edict that is not based in the law" -- that's how Attorney General Ken Paxton described the Supreme Court ruling". Yeah, the court made a 'judge-based edict that is not based in the law' on the Heller vs DC case as well; therefore we should not allow individuals to have firearms (.....an I summon forth BamaD......BamaD....rise from your slumber and enter into this thread on this post.....) (hehe....its an inside joke between BamaD and myself). Here is the SOURCE if you want to read how the the other Red States thought on the ruling. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 It must be that it is late at night... I have to say, your entire post does not follow in logic, nor relevance, and is not even close to clear or sensical in any way. Makes perfect sense to me. Perfectly logical and does make sense given the topic. I think the bold part really does spell it out perfectly.

eulero83 -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 12:56:33 AM)
FR For me the problem is if you advertise a certain product "wedding cakes" you can't refuse it to a specific category of people, there is no difference in the decoraton of a cake for a civil (I'm not gonna write gay as in my religion, catholicism, it's equally sinful for both) or a religious wedding, so if you sell cakes with that decorations to the public they later can use it for whatever they want. You can refuse to create hateful or indecent decoration as long as you refuse it to any category of people. By the way art and craftmenship are two different things and all this services are in the latter one.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 2:49:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual. Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line? My opinion: 1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all. 2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt. This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering. This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business. The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses). ***************************************************************************************** That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video. http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :) Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :) I don't have to support WalMart there. What's important here is who made the decision. If it was WalMart making a determination and passing instructions down. Since WalMart isn't a franchise, Corporate ownership gives the right to make those choices solely to Corporate. To relate that to the gay marriage wedding cake kerfluffle, if the bakery owner decides that they will provide services for all marriages, homo or hetero, and the decorator (just an employee of the bakery) refuses, there was insubordination, and that's an internal thing for the bakery to take care of (it's also likely the services will be provided, and at some discount). The owner of the business has the right to make those decisions. "Mere" employees do not. If this is an edict from WalMart Corporate, I don't have to like their choice, but I do recognize their right to make choices that do not conform to my liking. I am also free to decide how I respond to WalMart's decision.

BamaD -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 3:15:39 AM)
FR I believe that you'all have changed my view on this, while I am less comfortable with corporate decisions on these matters than from local ones you kind of have to grant them the same rights.

Real0ne -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 4:48:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual. Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line? My opinion: 1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all. 2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt. This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering. This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business. The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses). *************************************************************************************** That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video. http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :) Anyway, you can't have it both ways.** If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :) The guy with the isis cake, I cant think of how that issue would be religious with respect to the confederate flag, so I dont see him having a winnable case in terms of religion. I'd have to research it from other angles. However the wedding cake on the other hand......Back to the gay marriage issue. They did not refuse to sell their standard off the shelf product to a gay couple (like walmart has) they refused to sell a special ordered product that was not in stock and had to be hand made. I am bringing my last post in the gay marriage thread back here since it will directly address this thread quote: TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. On its face this law sounds awesome doesnt it? However in practice: (the corruption).... Do you see how this [Title 2] is being applied unconstitutionally, and the vehicle being used to accomplish that end? I will get into the highlited business point after we hammer on this one for a while.

MercTech -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 7:49:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual. Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line? My opinion: 1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all. 2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt. This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering. This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business. The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses). ***************************************************************************************** That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video. http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :) Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :) Is a business obligated to serve a customer that has previously defrauded the business? (i.e. refusal to serve someone who has written a bad check) Is a business obligated to serve a customer who is drunk and belligerent? Is a business obligated to serve a customer who wants questionable materials or combinations? (you can make a lot of explosives and toxic gases from local hardware supplies) I just can't buy into the meme that by getting a business license you have to put up with EVERY idiot and damned fool that shows up at your store location. A business owner has a right to use judgement when dealing with customers. A personal example of a fellow that I passed around a picture of way back when I was selling electronics for a living. He fooled me once and I didn't learn. When he fooled me twice I took action to make sure all in a similar line of work would know him for what he was. My problem with him... week before Superbowl he buys an expensive big screen TV then brings it back the week after for a refund. He got me again with the Olympics. Trust me, that is the type customer no one needs to do business with. Especially when it is an item that cannot be sold as "new" but as a discounted "open box" item to a real customer. In business there ARE some legal stipulations about refusing service to customers. If your business is a publicly traded stock company; there are legal requirements to equitable treatment of customers you have to follow. For a small business; there are no requirements in law to dictate with whom you do business. (no federal requirement at least) A business license does not come with an obligation to suffer abuse at the hands of A-holes.

joether -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 2:03:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Is a business obligated to serve a customer that has previously defrauded the business? (i.e. refusal to serve someone who has written a bad check) Yes, is the simple answer. The more complicated one? The business owner(s) would have to prove in court the reason for refusing service had to do with the belief that the customer's intent was to defraud the business again. Most likely, since the 'burden of evidence' is on them to prove the customer's intent as being something besides 'normal business processes'; this would be a tough 'sell' in court. Particularly if the customer submits a detailed accounting record that shows they easily had funds in their account to handle the transaction (which is how most bank statements are filed). If the customer has been fraudulent more than twice or three times, I think the court may side with the business. Unfortunately, unless the cost of the service/product is less than $20, the customer could demand a 'court by jury' under the 7th amendment. How many people know about the 7th amendment? quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Is a business obligated to serve a customer who is drunk and belligerent? Depends on the place of business. If its a bar, pub, or tavern, 'yeah', they have to deal with it. For most other businesses: call the cops and let them deal with it. quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Is a business obligated to serve a customer who wants questionable materials or combinations? (you can make a lot of explosives and toxic gases from local hardware supplies) That, you might have to consult a lawyer on. Since purchasing stuff could be for a harmless product, many hardware stores (as you point out) carry stuff that can be used in a harmful way. In cases in which the merchant feels the conversation is 'weird', 'strange', or 'dangerous', there exists a remedy: call the cops! quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech I just can't buy into the meme that by getting a business license you have to put up with EVERY idiot and damned fool that shows up at your store location. Sadly you do. Try working in a 'big box store' like Target, Wal-Mart, or SEARS. You'll get plenty of idiots and fools who demand all sorts of shit. I worked in the 'Men's Department' selling suits when I was younger. I got all sorts of people. Some were just fucking weird or crazy. Worst when it was on a full moon. People just go bat-shit-crazy on full moons for some reason.... quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech A business owner has a right to use judgement when dealing with customers. In most cases 'yes'. quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech A personal example of a fellow that I passed around a picture of way back when I was selling electronics for a living. He fooled me once and I didn't learn. When he fooled me twice I took action to make sure all in a similar line of work would know him for what he was. This individual could have sued you in damages if they could present evidence to the contrary in court. Depending on the situation, this could have been a big risk for your financially. quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech My problem with him... week before Superbowl he buys an expensive big screen TV then brings it back the week after for a refund. He got me again with the Olympics. Trust me, that is the type customer no one needs to do business with. Especially when it is an item that cannot be sold as "new" but as a discounted "open box" item to a real customer. I know that feeling! I also once worked in a large computer store on commission. I learned early on to size up individuals and their motivations. I usually avoided the 'laptop' crowd. Particularly men whom stated they needed a laptop for a flight they were going on for business. I stuck to the more stable 'desktop and tower' crowd whom would be less likely to return things a week or month later. Some of the other people in the same store would sell laptops, and boy.....did they have horror stories! In some cases, businesses have been known to sue individuals and other entities whom did this sort of shit. And win in court! quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech In business there ARE some legal stipulations about refusing service to customers. If your business is a publicly traded stock company; there are legal requirements to equitable treatment of customers you have to follow. For a small business; there are no requirements in law to dictate with whom you do business. (no federal requirement at least) A business license does not come with an obligation to suffer abuse at the hands of A-holes. You might wish to check with your local Small Business Association on the definition of things here from a small business perspective. You can run into....ALOT....of legal problems with that attitude. When you are a business person, you are effected by all laws from the local on up to federal that apply to you. Most courts will give the small business owner the benefit of the doubt if they present a case of simply ignorance and offer to pay the base charges or supply the needed services/product. An the courts are very harsh on those individuals that try to portray their business like the first group to get away without penalty. In fact, judges....LOVE....to make examples out of such individuals trying such dick moves.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 7:06:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual. Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line? My opinion: 1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all. 2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt. This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering. This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business. The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses). ***************************************************************************************** That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video. http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :) Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :) I don't have to support WalMart there. What's important here is who made the decision. If it was WalMart making a determination and passing instructions down. Since WalMart isn't a franchise, Corporate ownership gives the right to make those choices solely to Corporate. To relate that to the gay marriage wedding cake kerfluffle, if the bakery owner decides that they will provide services for all marriages, homo or hetero, and the decorator (just an employee of the bakery) refuses, there was insubordination, and that's an internal thing for the bakery to take care of (it's also likely the services will be provided, and at some discount). The owner of the business has the right to make those decisions. "Mere" employees do not. If this is an edict from WalMart Corporate, I don't have to like their choice, but I do recognize their right to make choices that do not conform to my liking. I am also free to decide how I respond to WalMart's decision. What I meant by "support WalMart" is recognize their right to make these choices. As for employee VS business owner. Agreed, but not my point. But that does bring up another point vis-a-vis service as an art. IMO, to get an exemption, it must be the artist him/herself, not and employee of that artist. IMO, in that narrow capacity, the artist is acting as an individual primarily creating the art. The transaction is secondary.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 7:12:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Is a business obligated to serve a customer that has previously defrauded the business? (i.e. refusal to serve someone who has written a bad check) Is a business obligated to serve a customer who is drunk and belligerent? Is a business obligated to serve a customer who wants questionable materials or combinations? (you can make a lot of explosives and toxic gases from local hardware supplies) *Is a business obligated to serve a customer that has previously defrauded the business? (i.e. refusal to serve someone who has written a bad check)* NO *Is a business obligated to serve a customer who is drunk and belligerent?* NO *Is a business obligated to serve a customer who wants questionable materials or combinations? (you can make a lot of explosives and toxic gases from local hardware supplies)* NO

dcnovice -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 7:20:30 PM)
FR Re the Walmart bakery: Has anyone considered the possibility that the employees had no Earthly idea that they were reproducing the ISIS battle flag? Must confess I wouldn't have recognized it.

Lucylastic -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/1/2015 7:23:13 PM)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/cnn-deletes-isis-flag-sex-toys-mistake-video-1.3132140 CNN removes video of reporter mistaking sex-toy banner for 'ISIS flag' 'ISIS flag' spotted by CNN reporter during London Pride parade turns out to be a banner covered in sex toys I can see the butt plugs!!!

DesideriScuri -> RE: Discrimination Service VS Product (7/2/2015 3:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 What I meant by "support WalMart" is recognize their right to make these choices. And, I agreed WalMart Corporate has the right/authority to make those choices. quote: As for employee VS business owner. Agreed, but not my point. It was germane to the discussion since it is not known who made the decisions, the employee or the owner. quote: But that does bring up another point vis-a-vis service as an art. IMO, to get an exemption, it must be the artist him/herself, not and employee of that artist. IMO, in that narrow capacity, the artist is acting as an individual primarily creating the art. The transaction is secondary. Very true, and I stated as much.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125