Arizona SB1062 Discrimination Law

[Imari]

You don't understand who the public are, or what private means? A privately owned business that is open to the general public. You find that impossible?

You don't understand that any privately owned business is made available to any member of the public at the owner's discretion.

A private business may announce that they are open to the general public, by which they mean they will serve or admit anyone. But that can be revoked at any time, and no business is automatically considered "open to the general public" simply by virtue of being open.

As such, any private business, even if they have declared themselves "open to the general public", may at any time decide to refuse a group of people for any reason at all. They would then no longer be considered "open to the general public", but it is their right to choose that.

"Open to the general public" is not a status that cannot be changed. By declaring your business open to the general public, you are not necessarily declaring it open to the general public FOREVER. Therefore, it's largely meaningless to your argument, as a private business that is open to the general public is just as capable of refusing customers for any reason as one that is not open to the general public.

For the purposes of refusing customers, both businesses might as well just be considered open. The only difference is that a business that is open to the general public hasn't defined any classes of people it will exclude yet. A business that is NOT open to the general public probably has a defined list of people that are excluded.

I said that if you turned a black customer away then that would be illegal.

What I presume you mean is that if the black customer was turned away BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK, then that would be illegal.

Which it probably would be (I'm not clear on the laws in that area), but I still think it's BS. If the store owner doesn't want to serve black people because he was once gang raped for six hours by a pack of black guys, that's his call.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You don't understand that any privately owned business is made available to any member of the public at the owner's discretion.

A private business may announce that they are open to the general public, by which they mean they will serve or admit anyone. But that can be revoked at any time, and no business is automatically considered "open to the general public" simply by virtue of being open.

As such, any private business, even if they have declared themselves "open to the general public", may at any time decide to refuse a group of people for any reason at all. They would then no longer be considered "open to the general public", but it is their right to choose that.

"Open to the general public" is not a status that cannot be changed. By declaring your business open to the general public, you are not necessarily declaring it open to the general public FOREVER. Therefore, it's largely meaningless to your argument, as a private business that is open to the general public is just as capable of refusing customers for any reason as one that is not open to the general public.

For the purposes of refusing customers, both businesses might as well just be considered open. The only difference is that a business that is open to the general public hasn't defined any classes of people it will exclude yet. A business that is NOT open to the general public probably has a defined list of people that are excluded.



What I presume you mean is that if the black customer was turned away BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK, then that would be illegal.

Which it probably would be (I'm not clear on the laws in that area), but I still think it's BS. If the store owner doesn't want to serve black people because he was once gang raped for six hours by a pack of black guys, that's his call.

I concur with how you define the business in that context. Read my comments to Keef for how selecting store entrants works in law. The owner's discretion has to be able to be supported in a court-of-law, discretion based on race or gender normally wouldn't be. There clearly are a few necessary exceptions but the overall protection against discrimination exists in law.

Check out the Civil Rights act. I feel very sorry for your hypothetical store owner but allowing him to implement a racist policy won't counsel him any better. I'm a little disturbed by the example you presented...

 

[Keef]

Yes, and the business would be found to have comitted a criminal act when brought before the court. That's how legal sanctions work.

In answer to your other question; it's illegal to turn away blacks because of the Civil Rights Act.

So would you agree with me that the Civil Rights Act is unnecessary because if it didn't exist, blacks would still be allowed to sue for discrimination like everybody else can do?

I could murder somebody in the street and be perfectly innocent. I wouldn't be guilty until found so before the law.

Excuse me for being picky once again, but technically you would be perfectly not guilty not innocent. Because if you actually did commit the crime you are guilty whether or not it can be proven in court.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So would you agree with me that the Civil Rights Act is unnecessary because if it didn't exist, blacks would still be allowed to sue for discrimination like everybody else can do?


Excuse me for being picky once again, but technically you would be perfectly not guilty not innocent. Because if you actually did commit the crime you are guilty whether or not it can be proven in court.

No, because where would their protection against discrimination be? Before the Civil Rights Act they didn't have that power. You should research that more.

And I would be innocent. The police would have good cause to detain me and a judge would support that...but still I am not guilty until found guilty, however much you know I did it (or I said I did it) I would have legal protection to stop you saying I was guilty until a judge and jury found me so. Fact.

EDIT: In fact, I can even PLEAD guilty and still be found not guilty. How good is that!

 

[Imari]

I feel very sorry for your hypothetical store owner but allowing him to implement a racist policy won't counsel him any better.

No, but it might stop the poor guy having a panic attack every time a black guy walks into his store.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, but it might stop the poor guy having a panic attack every time a black guy walks into his store.

That's just facile and I still think your nervous-white-guy-raped-by-pack-of-black-guys scenario is needlessly silly and offensive.

 

[Zenith]

You have been failing to comprehend Imari's and Keef's basic points for two whole pages now.

 

[Imari]

That's just facile and I still think your nervous-white-guy-raped-by-pack-of-black-guys scenario is needlessly silly and offensive.

It's intentionally extreme, to demonstrate that you have no idea why someone might refuse a customer entry based on race.

I think what I presented is a situation in which it would be morally quite acceptable for the owner to refuse to face that particular customer, regardless of the apparently dubious legality of the refusal. I think most rational people would at least understand, even if they didn't agree with the choice.

nervous-white-guy-raped-by-pack-of-black-guys

Why did you assume that the store owner was a white guy? I never said that. He could have been any race, even a black guy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's intentionally extreme, to demonstrate that you have no idea why someone might refuse a customer entry based on race.

I think what I presented is a situation in which it would be morally quite acceptable for the owner to refuse to face that particular customer, regardless of the apparently dubious legality of the refusal. I think most rational people would at least understand, even if they didn't agree with the choice.

Why did you assume that the store owner was a white guy? I never said that. He could have been any race, even a black guy.

You said "the store owner", we'd already defined him as white. (EDIT: In fairness that was a presumption anyway. I'd guess from your example that the store owner isn't black, but only from the apparent differentiation, but otherwise you didn't imply race in your sentence, I just transferred the inference from my own example.)

The duty of the court is to assess the evidence presented to them. If your store owner can present a case that leads to ratification of the existing legal precedents then he will find himself within the law. I believe he's unlikely to be able to present such a case and that he will be found to have acted against the law.

You have been failing to comprehend Imari's and Keef's basic points for two whole pages now.

A store, let's say Walmart, cannot legally put somebody at the door to stop black customers going in. That's the overall principle.

They are privately owned, their property is their private property... but that does not give them the legal right to turn customers away based on their race. That's the point I'm trying to get to, the term I mean by "public" is "general public", people who might walk up to your store's door on the street. "Private" property, I mean something that a person owns, like Walmart's stores.

 

[Imari]

The duty of the court is to assess the evidence presented to them. If your store owner can present a case that leads to ratification of the existing legal precedents then he will find himself within the law. I believe he's unlikely to be able to present such a case and that he will be found to have acted against the law.

I'm not arguing for the law, I'm arguing for the man's moral right to put himself in a position that he doesn't find terrifying by exercising his rights over his property. You know, natural rights? Life, liberty, property? The things we've been discussing, and that we've established that total freedom of property DOESN'T exist in law, because people are NOT allowed to discriminate freely against who comes onto their property.

Unless they're religious. But then, that got knocked down too. So at least everyone is less free together now.

You said "the store owner", we'd already defined him as white.

Would you care to find that definition for me? I'll wait.

To explain logically; you say to me that it is okay for someone who runs a business (I'm staying with the bar owner) to let a white customer in and then refuse a black customer. In this example both customers are male, of the same apparent wealth and age, new to town and unknown to the bar owner.

Logically there is no difference between them except the colour of their skin. To allow the bar owner to discriminate when his only objection is the colour of the black man's skin (which you seem to support his right to do) doesn't require any further logical explanation as to why it's wrong.

The business can enforce that rule all it likes but when it does so illegally (ie turning black customers away) then its sign is no protection.

I said that if you turned a black customer away then that would be illegal.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I already edited an apology for infering the race of the store owner from my own example

The action would still be illegal regardless of the store owners race, so where's the issue?

Splitting hairs doesn't alter the fact that you say you believe people should have the right to discriminate racially if they feel they have good reason to do so, I'm saying that I don't think they should and trying to explain to you how that works in law.

The Walmart example stands, they have no legal right to turn black customers away from the door. It appears that you erroneously believe that they do have that right, and that you think they should have that right if they don't now.

 

[Johnnypenso]

My partner and I run a small service business and we do around 2000 service calls a year. I've never officially counted but I'd say we discriminate against (turn away) 2-300 customers a year for a variety of reasons. One common one is language. We have several large ethnic communities in my town. The nature of my work is that sometimes there are conditions in your home that might prevent me from doing the type of work you want me to do and when I think that's an issue, I will ask you questions on the phone to try and determine if that's the case.

Thing is, if I warm up my truck, get dressed for work and drive across town and then find out I can't do the work, I'm still charging you for my time, and I try to avoid that, but it happens. So when I talk to you on the phone and think this might be an issue and ask you a series of questions to determine if this might be an issue, and all you can say is, "you come you come you fix" I know this is usually code for, "if you can't do it I'm not paying you". Likewise if you are calling for service and seem disinterested or uncommunicative or it's a bad neighbourhood and after dark, or I just don't like the tone of your voice or any number of reasons. I'll just tell them I'm busy and they can wait for me or to call someone else.

I learned these lessons the hard way when we used to chase after every call and found it those extra couple of hundred service calls a year just weren't worth the aggravation attached to them.

 

[Danoff]

The Walmart example stands, they have no legal right to turn black customers away from the door. It appears that you erroneously believe that they do have that right, and that you think they should have that right if they don't now.

This conversation is about human rights, not about what is legal or illegal in this country or that. Walmart cannot legally turn away customers for reasons that might be legally deemed "discriminatory". However, that is a violation of the human rights of the owner(s) of Walmart. This comes directly from the nature of property ownership. Inventing some false notion that a business that has not agreed to be generally open to the public somehow has agreed simply by being a business is not going to get around that. If I own property, I get to choose who to give it to and why. What you are describing is an infringement on that property right despite my innocence - in short, you are advocating to use force against innocent people, which is a violation of rights.

If your child (who is old enough to start working) wants to rake your leaves, and ONLY your leaves, that's his business. If he wants to add 1 client and only 1 client to that, that's his business. If he wants to add 123 clients and only 123 clients to that, that's his business. If he wants to add 10,345,892 and only 10,345,892 clients to that, that's his business. The 10,345,893rd client has no claim resulting from the previous 10,345,892.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I wasn't aware we'd moved to human rights. Is it a greater human right to discriminate than to be discriminated against? I don't understand what you're saying. If Walmart believe their human rights are breached by not being able to exclude customers based on, for example, race then they would have to take a case before a court and make their argument.

Currently the law stands against them being able to make such exclusions.

@Johnnypenso sounds like he manages things very reasonably, clearly if a businessman said on the phone "we don't serve blacks" then that's going to cause a problem very quickly. If a businessman for any reason chooses to outprice the work, be busy, not do that kind of thing, then that's fine - there's no problem. 99% of people aren't going to take any offence whatsoever (and I'm sure Johnnypenso means none - I was moving to a wider example )

The law says that if someone feels he's discriminating against them and deliberately not providing a service then that person can apply to go before a court and have their complaint heard. Cases like that are rare because they're difficult to prove and sometimes quite erroneous. The law still applies, but such cases are complex.

The basis of the law remains though, it is illegal to discriminate racially to decide who may walk into your store off the street. The discussion was entirely based in legality rather than the higher philosophy of human rights stemming, as it did, from discussion of the proposed Arizona bill. I think the law as it stands actually protects human rights to the greater good.

 

[Imari]

I wasn't aware we'd moved to human rights. Is it a greater human right to discriminate than to be discriminated against? I don't understand what you're saying. If Walmart believe their human rights are breached by not being able to exclude customers based on, for example, race then they would have to take a case before a court and make their argument.

Civil rights are not always in agreement with natural rights.

See also: Legalised slavery.

clearly if a businessman said on the phone "we don't serve blacks" then that's going to cause a problem very quickly.

If a businessman for any reason chooses to outprice the work, be busy, not do that kind of thing, then that's fine - there's no problem.

Do you not see the contradiction in this? The first gives a reason which CANNOT be used to justify outpricing/being busy/etc.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do you not see the contradiction in this? The first gives a reason which CANNOT be used to justify outpricing/being busy/etc.

There isn't a contradiction, they're both logically true.

There IS no problem if the businessman dismisses callers politely, if he did it for a racist reason then who would actually know? How do you police it? How do you apply the law? You can't of course, unless he actually says something overt. He might have acted illegally according to the letter of the law but nobody actually noticed. It doesn't make the law invalid or nonexistent, it's just a situation where people are unlikely to even realise it's been broken.

If somebody chose to take him to task in court then they'd have to satisfy a judge that he DID discriminate racially, in the circumstances I think they'd be unlikely to succeed unless, as I said, he'd actually said something overt or there was a really distinguishable pattern of discriminatory behaviour.

 

[Keef]

No, because where would their protection against discrimination be? Before the Civil Rights Act they didn't have that power. You should research that more.

But after the Civil Rights Act, whites don't have that power. Blacks now have a power that whites don't have. Isn't that unfair?

Like I said previously, and you also said, even if the Civil Rights Act didn't exist blacks would still be able to sue for discrimination just like everybody else. That would be the only power that anybody had, no matter of race or whatever. So effectively the Civil Rights Act established reverse discrimination.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But after the Civil Rights Act, whites don't have that power. Blacks now have a power that whites don't have. Isn't that unfair?

Like I said previously, and you also said, even if the Civil Rights Act didn't exist blacks would still be able to sue for discrimination just like everybody else. That would be the only power that anybody had, no matter of race or whatever. So effectively the Civil Rights Act established reverse discrimination.

...what? The Civil Rights Act isn't exclusively a black-power act... have you read it?

In what sense wouldn't a white complainant have that power?

 

[Imari]

There isn't a contradiction, they're both logically true.

Business man cannot refuse service using race as a reason.
Business man can refuse service for any reason whatsoever.

This is not a contradiction?

He is not able to refuse service for ANY reason he chooses, there are a number of reasons he cannot use. You pointed out one, race, and there are others.

He is able to refuse service without giving a reason, but that is not the same as refusing for any reason.

How do you police it? How do you apply the law? You can't of course, unless he actually says something overt.

Which is exactly the problem. A wedding photographer can refuse gays all day, as long as he doesn't say it's because they're gay. He can think it as loudly as he likes, but the moment he is actually honest he's in legal hot water. I find that to be ass-backwards.

I would rather people be honestly racist than lie (and still be racist). At least if they're honest about their racism, customers can make a truly informed choice about whether they wish to use the product or service being provided by the business.

 

[Famine]

@TenEightyOne Allow me to precis.

In the legal version you're promoting, someone who chooses to sell property or a service can refuse to do business with anyone they choose to for any reason whatsoever - so long as it's not due to their race or sexuality (or presumably some other personal characteristics*).

In the morally acceptable - but not legal - version Dan, Keef and others are promoting, they can refuse to do business with anyone they choose to for any reason whatsoever.


Now the latter seems to be repugnant to you, but I want you to keep in mind that they are not supporting racists and racism (or homophobia, or insert discrimination type here), rather a racist's right to hold racist opinion - in fact the right for anyone to hold any opinion. Freedom of expression which is, I believe, a legal right in the USA (along with being a right too).

The former version you're supporting also has two other issues. Where is the line drawn when it comes to the personal characteristics you're not allowed to refuse service for? You've set race as one and, since this story is inextricably linked to one about a wedding photographer refusing to take photos of a gay couple's big day, let's add sexuality (interesting that the law in many states - and States - actively refuses to allow gay couples to marry in the first place and this is just accepted, but refusing to take their photo is somehow wrong). Do we include gender, weight or disability? What about invisible disabilities like autism or Tourette's, where the individual's disability can make other customers uncomfortable and can lose you business?


But that's not the overriding issue with it. Even if you don't recognise the property rights argument - which you should as the right to trade property is fundamental to the right to own it - there's an issue that it promotes and, worse still, creates the exact behaviour you (rightly) condemn even if it doesn't exist.

Would you buy a product from an openly racist individual or business? I wouldn't - but because they can't be openly racist, we don't know who they are. By denying racists the right to be honest, you allow racists' businesses to thrive. Worse, you allow them to practice their racism covertly - they can still refuse to do business with other races but so long as they dress it up with a different reason they don't face censure or loss of custom. And then above all that you create situations where someone who isn't racist is brandex one for rightfully refusing service for what you'd see as a legitimate reason but the customer is a different race, the race card gets played - and we all know what happens when that's put on the table.


If it's racism you find abhorrent, the trading laws you're arguing for not only don't fix it, they make it worse.

Public bodies must, by definition, not discriminate (they don't when it comes to taking your money after all) and they should not be allowed to create policy that does - while also ignoring property rights and freedom of expression.

 

[Exorcet]

Just bringing this up again

I can't deny service to the KKK or Taliban because I'm a business?

What if you run a business making signs. The KKK comes in and asks for a sign depicting the Lynching of Jesse Washington

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington

with a slogan "put them in there place"

Would you want to make this sign?

 

[Denur]

Just bringing this up again


What if you run a business making signs. The KKK comes in and asks for a sign depicting the Lynching of Jesse Washington

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington

with a slogan "put them in there place"

Would you want to make this sign?

You should be able to deny making that particular sign, but not any 'normal' sign for them just because they are KKK.

 

[Famine]

You should be able to deny making that particular sign, but not any 'normal' sign for them just because they are KKK.

Who gets to define "normal"? Who are you to limit their freedom of expression to your standards of normalcy?

 

[Denur]

Who gets to define "normal"? Who are you to limit their freedom of expression to your standards of normalcy?

And that is exactly the problem and the reason I put it in quotes.

edit> In my opinion someone should be able to deny a certain service, just not solely based on for whom this service is.

 

[Famine]

That's not the problem with your post though.

You should be allowed to refuse to sell your time to the KKK just because they're the KKK. You should be allowed to refuse to sell your time to anyone for any reason. It shouldn't matter whether you or anyone else considers their request to be "normal" or not, because it should be the business owner's prerogative to refuse if they wish simply because he doesn't like them.

Your post promotes the reasoning that the business owner should be forced to sell his time to someone whether he likes them or not based on the normalcy (judged by?) of their request.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Business man cannot refuse service using race as a reason.
Business man can refuse service for any reason whatsoever.

One is a legal position, the second is an actual position. If the businessman isn't caught then noone can prove he broke the legal terms.

@Famine, it did all get a bit knotty at one point. I do believe the legal position is clear (as you read) and I believe that the democratic majority choose the policy makers and that's where we find our right to be part of defining normalcy in legislature.

It's easy to find extreme examples that would test law and judgement to their fullest, but that is the point of courts and it is the reason for the adaptable nature of law.

The 'property rights' argument was a sideline that I erroneously opened by using the word "public" to mean "general public", I'd hoped that the Walmart example might finally illustrate what I was trying to say. In that example Walmart employed someone to stand at the door to stop black customers walking in off the street.

Clearly you expect it to be found to be illegal if Walmart were turning customers away based on the colour of their skin.

Some posters hold that Walmart would still be in the moral right and that's something that I find utterly inconceivable nowadays

EDIT: @Famine, that's over-simplistic to say any business because there are plenty of businesses that do not open themselves to "street trade", it would be very hard for a complainant to even make a case against such companies therefore they'd never be tested against that law.

 

[Exorcet]

Clearly you expect it to be found to be illegal if Walmart were turning customers away based on the colour of their skin.

Laws are weaker than rights. If a law violates a right, it is not valid.

Some posters hold that Walmart would still be in the moral right and that's something that I find utterly inconceivable nowadays

I don't think it's right to arbitrarily treat one group better than another, but Walmart still has the right to do that. If they exercised that right, I'd exercise mine to not shop there, or make signs for them.

 

[Denur]

That's not the problem with your post though.

You should be allowed to refuse to sell your time to the KKK just because they're the KKK. You should be allowed to refuse to sell your time to anyone for any reason. It shouldn't matter whether you or anyone else considers their request to be "normal" or not, because it should be the business owner's prerogative to refuse if they wish simply because he doesn't like them.

Your post promotes the reasoning that the business owner should be forced to sell his time to someone whether he likes them or not based on the normalcy (judged by?) of their request.

I'm of the opinion that any service, under the same circumstances, cannot be denied a person solely based on their sex, religion, age, sexual preference, etc. when there is no conflict with other laws (like serving alcohol to minors).

 

[Famine]

I'm of the opinion that any service, under the same circumstances, cannot be denied a person solely based on their sex, religion, age, sexual preference, etc. when there is no conflict with other laws (like serving alcohol to minors).

Why?

Why must someone who owns property be forced to give that property to another person on their own private premises for any reason? Why, having read my post about how forcibly suppressing freedom of expression generates more insidious racism, supports racism and creates accused racists out of non-racist individuals would you support forcible suppression of freedom of expression?


Also "religion"? Really? Where do you stop drawing the line when you're not allowed to refuse service to people based on their choices?

I'd hoped that the Walmart example might finally illustrate what I was trying to say. In that example Walmart employed someone to stand at the door to stop black customers walking in off the street.

Clearly you expect it to be found to be illegal if Walmart were turning customers away based on the colour of their skin.

Yes, on rule of law. There's no moral basis for it - the law is unjustified.

Some posters hold that Walmart would still be in the moral right and that's something that I find utterly inconceivable nowadays

The purpose of my post was to explain that not only is it morally justified to allow businesses to be racist - satisfying the rights to freedom of expression and ownership of property - it's a considerably better way of actually tackling racism.

Please read the last four paragraphs again.

EDIT: @Famine, that's over-simplistic to say any business because there are plenty of businesses that do not open themselves to "street trade", it would be very hard for a complainant to even make a case against such companies therefore they'd never be tested against that law.

I don't know what it is you're referring to as I can't find the phrase "any business" in my post.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I gathered from your post that you were speaking about all privately-owned businesses, I wasn't quoting directly. If I misunderstood when I presumed you were talking about the legal rights and moral rights being equally applicable to all businesses (in the posts I made earlier) then I apologise.

Moral opinion is a subjective matter but I don't believe I will ever feel it is morally correct to take the example to the hypothetical Walmart conclusion where they could prevent customers walking in off the street based on the colour of their skin.

The law is clear and I don't believe it is immoral, the idea that a business might be able to actively discriminate based on race, gender, religion (I picked race because of the thread subject).

Finer discriminations (or arguments for the allowing of finer discriminations) may already be socially acceptable or legally required for other reasons. Regardless, all are open to being tested in court and the legislation adjusted appropriately. Law is a living thing in that sense.