Metanet Forums

Recently, in a local restaurant, a lesbian couple were denied the right to eat by the owners. They then turned around and tried to sue the restaurant for discrimination.
Regardless of your views on gays, I would like to know if you think it is constitutional for a privately owned restaurant to be forced to serve the couple.

My personal opinion is that they shouldn't be forced. The restaurant is under private ownership and the owner's should be able to choose their customers.

Someone's sexual orientation has no bearing on their right to purchase merchandise or a service that a business is providing, private or otherwise, unless it is somehow directly responsible for any negative effects (with ill intent) on the business transactions that take place.

I'll clarify
The owners claimed that the couple was 'disturbing and harassing customers' by their presence

I'm not aware of trading standards laws, but certain alternative (music - ie: metal, goth, indie, etc..) don't allow certain types of people in (chavs, pikies, etc..).

The Devonshire arms in Camden doesn't allow anyone wearing tracksuits, sports gear (both the typical attire of your average chav), or suits, entry to the establishment. There's nothing wrong with this, imo, the atmosphere of the place is kept as the owners want it and the patrons are happy.

I know this is a more extreme example as the alternative nature of the pub probably wouldn't attract this type in the first place, nor would the patrons particularly like it if they did (as opposed to the patrons of the restaurant probably not even noticing a lesbian couple), but if it's okay for one shouldn't it be okay for another?

atob wrote:I'm not aware of trading standards laws, but certain alternative (music - ie: metal, goth, indie, etc..) don't allow certain types of people in (chavs, pikies, etc..).

The Devonshire arms in Camden doesn't allow anyone wearing tracksuits, sports gear (both the typical attire of your average chav), or suits, entry to the establishment. There's nothing wrong with this, imo, the atmosphere of the place is kept as the owners want it and the patrons are happy.

I know this is a more extreme example as the alternative nature of the pub probably wouldn't attract this type in the first place, nor would the patrons particularly like it if they did (as opposed to the patrons of the restaurant probably not even noticing a lesbian couple), but if it's okay for one shouldn't it be okay for another?

I am probably not being clear in my topic. I am wondering if people believe forcing a restaurant owner to serve a customer. This thread can go both ways of course, but that was the original topic.

ganteka wrote:

atob wrote: I am probably not being clear in my topic. I am wondering if people believe forcing a restaurant owner to serve a customer. This thread can go both ways of course, but that was the original topic.

Erm, that's what my post addressed.

My example shows a pub that doesn't serve a certain type of person. They're not forced to serve this type of person as it's their business.

One for all, and all for one. Right?

ah I misunderstood
I interpreted it at the end that you were saying it wasn't disturbing customers by being lesbian
My error

ganteka wrote:ah I misunderstood
I interpreted it at the end that you were saying it wasn't disturbing customers by being lesbian
My error

It's ok, I forgive you.

atob wrote:

ganteka wrote:ah I misunderstood
I interpreted it at the end that you were saying it wasn't disturbing customers by being lesbian
My error

It's ok, I forgive you.

oh, don't
I'm going home to kill myself
This post isn't funny and I shouldn't try to make jokes like this in the Debate Forum.

Let me use this example I just came up with while half-awake in the middle of the night.

Say a kid is selling lemonade out in his yard. Another kid from his school and neighborhood comes up to buy some. This kid is a social outcast and has no friends. Being closed-minded and an utter jackass, the kid who is selling lemonade refuses to sell lemonade to the other kid.

Is it right? Hell no. But is it legal? Yep.

I agree entirely with you on that. However, when the basis for discrimination is because of ethnicity or orientation, it isn't legal.

ganteka wrote:I agree entirely with you on that. However, when the basis for discrimination is because of ethnicity or orientation, it isn't legal.

What makes that meaningfully different? It's just a different reason the owner doesn't like the customer.
I don't care if he called them derogatory names and screamed at them to leave, or even had a bouncer manhandle them if they refused to leave, because it's the owner's decision entirely whether he wants to serve any given person, 100% regardless of the reason.
The justice in it, though, is what people will think of the owner's actions. If I was eating at that restaurant and witnessed all of that, I would get up, tell the owner off, and leave, and I'd encourage people to do the same and tell my friends not to eat there, too. There are definite social repercussions, but the law wasn't established to protect you from getting your feelings hurt.

In the US, before the Americans with Disabilities Act, it used to be okay to turn people away based on lifelong diseases that were incurable, simply because it was "disturbing other customers."

I'm sure it still happens in some places, but for the most part you can expect someone with cerebral palsy to be able to eat at a hotcake house without the owners telling that person and whoever accompanied that person to leave simply because of their condition.

I can only imagine it's a matter of time before we see legislation to protect people based on their sexual orientation from being discriminated against at a restaurant. I wonder if the lesbian couple's disturbance and harassment of customers started from a kiss they shared and was either seen by the owner or started some heated argument between them and another family sitting in the restaurant.

It's a ridiculous business decision. Bottom line, that's what should always be first and foremost in a restaraunt owner's mind: business. Being discriminatory will hurt his profits.

flagmyidol wrote:It's a ridiculous business decision. Bottom line, that's what should always be first and foremost in a restaraunt owner's mind: business. Being discriminatory will hurt his profits.

Not necessarily. If all the restaurant's patrons are lesbian-hating rednecks, then it would hurt his bottom line to have the lesbians in the place.

maxson924 wrote:Is it right? Hell no. But is it legal? Yep.

That's what I think too.

rennaT wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:It's a ridiculous business decision. Bottom line, that's what should always be first and foremost in a restaraunt owner's mind: business. Being discriminatory will hurt his profits.

Not necessarily. If all the restaurant's patrons are lesbian-hating rednecks, then it would hurt his bottom line to have the lesbians in the place.

Oh come on, Tanner, if that's your only argument...
Since ganteka didn't mention the location, I can only speculate, but you must realize that blatant discrimination is not going to draw customers to the place.

Manus Australis wrote:In the US, before the Americans with Disabilities Act, it used to be okay to turn people away based on lifelong diseases that were incurable, simply because it was "disturbing other customers."

I'm sure it still happens in some places, but for the most part you can expect someone with cerebral palsy to be able to eat at a hotcake house without the owners telling that person and whoever accompanied that person to leave simply because of their condition.

I can only imagine it's a matter of time before we see legislation to protect people based on their sexual orientation from being discriminated against at a restaurant. I wonder if the lesbian couple's disturbance and harassment of customers started from a kiss they shared and was either seen by the owner or started some heated argument between them and another family sitting in the restaurant.

They were holding hands I believe and sitting together.

flagmyidol wrote:Oh come on, Tanner, if that's your only argument...
Since ganteka didn't mention the location, I can only speculate, but you must realize that blatant discrimination is not going to draw customers to the place.

That wasn't a minor point. Depending upon the business and region, it's not only reasonable to expect that the clientelle might have discriminatory tastes, but in many places I can think of, it may as well be an assumption. While I don't recommend it, try paying an extended visit to the American South. Tell people you're gay, of Jewish descent, an atheist, a Muslim... you'll cause ruckus of all kinds, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were asked to leave a place or two because of how much your existence bothers the other patrons.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:It seems to me like private organizations should reserve the right to deny their services to anyone of their choice, regardless of the reason (and no matter how ridiculous that reason is).

I agree completely.

Private institutions, sure, although I'm pretty sure public companies are legally obligated to serve anyone, regardless of gender, preference, race, yadda yadda yadda. Like 'suki said, if I don't like ____, I won't let them in my store, despite the repercussions this might have upon other customers.

flagmyidol wrote:

rennaT wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:It's a ridiculous business decision. Bottom line, that's what should always be first and foremost in a restaraunt owner's mind: business. Being discriminatory will hurt his profits.

Not necessarily. If all the restaurant's patrons are lesbian-hating rednecks, then it would hurt his bottom line to have the lesbians in the place.

Oh come on, Tanner, if that's your only argument...
Since ganteka didn't mention the location, I can only speculate, but you must realize that blatant discrimination is not going to draw customers to the place.

My grandpa lives near Oskaloosa, Kansas. Some bigots went to church there. They found out their minister/preacher/whatever had a lesbian daughter. They moved to a new church.
New church wasn't hard enough on hating the colored people. They created their own church.

So yeah, I'd expect a business in Oskaloosa that denied homosexuals from eating at their restaurant would get more business from the locals than it would from the homosexual population of Kansas.

ganteka wrote:They were holding hands I believe and sitting together.

That's the criteria for being lesbian now? Man, I never realised they were so common.

Tsukatu wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:Oh come on, Tanner, if that's your only argument...
Since ganteka didn't mention the location, I can only speculate, but you must realize that blatant discrimination is not going to draw customers to the place.

That wasn't a minor point. Depending upon the business and region, it's not only reasonable to expect that the clientelle might have discriminatory tastes, but in many places I can think of, it may as well be an assumption. While I don't recommend it, try paying an extended visit to the American South. Tell people you're gay, of Jewish descent, an atheist, a Muslim... you'll cause ruckus of all kinds, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were asked to leave a place or two because of how much your existence bothers the other patrons.

Believe me, I know. Half my relatives live in Bama. I regularly go on trips to East Texas. It's a hellhole. So it really depends on location. My comment still stands for, say, a progressive urban environment. Not so much for a rural area, maybe.

Atilla wrote:

ganteka wrote:They were holding hands I believe and sitting together.

That's the criteria for being lesbian now? Man, I never realised they were so common.

I think that makes me a lesbian.
Awesome.

flagmyidol wrote:My comment still stands for, say, a progressive urban environment. Not so much for a rural area, maybe.

The only thing that changes is that it becomes a more severely stupid idea to discriminate. It's still completely within the owner's rights to deny service to anyone for any reason, however.

Honestly, it's really the restaurant owner's loss of money.