Comments on: Antibias law vs. free conscience, again

By: Mike Frank

Mike Frank — Sun, 07 May 2006 14:29:12 +0000

I admire his stance to uphold his beliefs. Religion is not something to be held onto Sunday mornings, then abandoned Monday morning when the business world beckons. If his store has a section of “adult” videos, has a shelf dedicated to the KKK or specializes in anti-Semitic materials then there is a problem here. But if he clearly runs a “G” rated store and lives his life according to his principles then Amen to him. He will be judged by a power much greater than Virginia or the gay community can fathom.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 05 May 2006 09:57:03 +0000

SeymourPaine:

That’s not “my reasoning” – that’s a clear and obvious reading of the Constitution. If I own a business, I may do with it as I like. Until the Civil Rights Act, everyone knew and understood this. The Civil Rights Act itself, while of good intention and of generally good result AT THE TIME, was and is clearly unConstitutional to anyone who bothers to actually read the Constitution. This kind of law could likely hav ben passed at the local level and been alright, though.

Either way, yes, that’s the way it is, except for certain protected classes under the Civil Rights Act (race being the primary point, but I think religion and gender are also covered). While I don’t doubt the good intentions of those who passed it, that was precedent for many other unConstitutional nanny-state laws that intrude on us on a daily basis.

JT Wenting – technically, at least at the moment, “sexual orientation” is not covered by any of the relevant laws, so it wouldn’t actually be illegal… not that the groups in power seem to be bothered by actually following the law (as this case clearly shows).

By: J.T. Wenting

J.T. Wenting — Fri, 05 May 2006 00:22:17 +0000

A store is private property, the owner can do whatever he wants there as long as it’s not against the law.
This store has a stated policy to not distribute things that go against the religious values of its owners.
The video producer could have therefore known (s)he’d find herself with a refusal when submitting for distribution something that’s clearly in violation of those values.

And yes, a restaurant may refuse to serve black people.
But saying so openly would be discrimination, the policy would have to be unwritten.

Analogy: had this store published a policy stating they will not publish movies featuring gay actors that would be illegal, just refusing to publish such a movie based on a general policy like was posted is not.

By: kimsch

kimsch — Thu, 04 May 2006 23:14:40 +0000

SeymourPaine – yes. It doesn’t make good business sense, but yes, A restaurant can refuse to serve anyone for any reason.

Many businesses even have a sign posted to that effect: We reserve the right to refuse to serve…

By: SeymourPaine

SeymourPaine — Thu, 04 May 2006 14:26:09 +0000

So, then, by your reasoning, a restaurant may refuse to serve black people?

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 03 May 2006 13:20:50 +0000

“As for the line about no private property, that’s a little extreme. By your reasoning, you might end up giving me control over your children because my taxes support their schools.”

No, that’s by YOUR reasoning. I think that’s crazy (that was my point – that your reasoning lead logically to the complete abolition of private property).

“Am I missing something?”
Yes:
“A business is a public accommodation, right?”

NO. That’s what you’re missing. This business is just as much private as the “private doctor” you mention. (MORE SO, actually, as doctors are licensed by the state and thus have certain obligations to the public!)

This is not “censoring” – the potential customer is quite welcome to go to another store or purchase their own duplication equipment.

Businesses may refuse to serve any individual for any reason… or no reason.

By: kimsch

kimsch — Wed, 03 May 2006 00:18:16 +0000

First of all, there is nothing wrong in my view with forcing a video store owner to make copies... Nothing wrong with forcing someone to do something? Businesses have every right to decide that they will not conduct business with anyone for any reason (and they don't even have to tell the person why they don't want to conduct business with them).

By: Colin P. Varga

Colin P. Varga — Tue, 02 May 2006 15:58:42 +0000

Two things seem to be confused with this issue: the person, & the content of the tape. If the person was turned away from a business because the person is ____, I would say that is discrimination. However, I would wonder if a video tape of Gay Pride parade could categorized as pornography? Unfortunately I think there are courts where such a tape would be found to be just that.

By: SeymourPaine

SeymourPaine — Tue, 02 May 2006 14:43:54 +0000

I’m curious, Kent, why that disturbs you so much? Do you want store owners acting as censors? Combatting anti-gay diatribes should be done in the public discourse arena, not by blocking them. Am I missing something?

By: Kent

Kent — Tue, 02 May 2006 11:48:22 +0000

First of all, there is nothing wrong in my view with forcing a video store owner to make copies of anti-gay religious diatribes.

The mind boggles.