A case in suburban Washington, D.C., shows how over-reaching "anti-bias" laws can achieve illiberal results by overriding the exercise of free conscience. As Walter Olson writes at overlaywered.com:
Bono Film and Video has an announced policy of refusing to duplicate material that owner Tim Bono regards as contrary to his Christian values. Now the Arlington County (Va.) Human Rights Commission has held a public hearing and investigated Bono on charges that he discriminated against Lilli Vincenz by refusing to duplicate her Gay Pride videos.... Various social-conservative pressure groups have taken up Bono's cause, and this would appear to be one of those instances where they have a point.
Note that this is not a matter of job discrimination. And it is not a case of discriminating against a customer based on her group identity. It's the owner of one little film shop in Arlington declining to produce materials that violate his values, while others want to force him to do so-and if he refuses, to fine or even jail him.
Lillian Hellman once famously refused to "cut my conscience to fit this year's fashion," but that is exactly what liberal authoritarians want to require of Tim Bono. One wonders, are only liberals allowed to have consciences? If Tim Bono were refusing to duplicate White Power tapes, would they then defend him? Is it a matter solely of who can use the state to force ideological fealty to their ideas?
As gay people, we often protest against what some see as manifestations of creeping,Taliban-like theocracy from the right. But in the case of Tim Bono, just who is insisting on imposing their values on everyone?
In short, it is not in our own long-term interests, which are grounded in liberty and respect for individual autonomy, to use the state to force others to reproduce content of which they disapprove.
34 Comments for “Liberal Authoritarianism.”
posted by Mark on
Great post, Stephen! For once.
posted by Mike on
A key question would be if this business owner is willing to serve gay clients duplicting “ordinary” tapes — if someone obviously gay came in and asked the owner to duplicate an innocuous tape of say a family picnic, would the owner have a right to turn the customer away? I would argue no — there is a significant difference between discrminating against PEOPLE — which is illegal and wrong — and discriminating against a type of job, which is probably OK.
What do you think?
posted by Lori Heine on
What if some Religious-Right whacko decides to make a tape about “how to kill queers” and takes it to a gay-owned film shop to be developed? Are the proprietors discriminating against him by refusing to do the job?
We can’t have it both ways. We can’t claim that our rights must be protected — even when others don’t like it — if we won’t afford them the same consideration, even when it hurts.
posted by The Gay Species on
Miller himself uses the phrase, “liberty and respect for individual autonomy,” which is the liberal’s mantra. Has he converted? Will he next espouse a “pluralistic liberal democracy?” If so, even a conservative appreciates our Founders true formative principles, which are liberal, pluralistic, autonomous, and neutral democracy. Perhaps it’s because GWB is now seen as the antithesis to these noble ideals that we have found common ground.
posted by Kittynboi on
One wonders, are only liberals allowed to have consciences?
Yes.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“And it is not a case of discriminating against a customer based on her group identity.”
I see: the shop’s owner does not refuse service to a gay person; he just refuses to duplicate gay material… This kind of argumentation reminds me of the old Christian motto: “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” Why exactly should thinking people entertain such sophistry?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I agree with the central point of the article, but I think the phraseology needs work. “Liberal authoritarians” sounds a bit like “conservative libertines” — a contradiction in terms.
posted by John on
I fail to understand two things here: how is this a \\’liberals are persecuting the christian\\’ situation? This type of thought police action would seem to be the opposite of liberal ideology, and far more in line with the conservative ideologies of moral engineering. Also, how is this different than a restaurant owner refusing to serve someone that is black? Here we have a business offering a service to the public and then deciding which members of the public he\\’ll serve and which he won\\’t. It\\’s not like he\\’s being asked to view the tapes nor are they of pornographic/illegal content (presumably). The sole opposition is that the content may be gay related.
posted by Avee on
“Liberal authoritarians” sounds a bit like “conservative libertines” — a contradiction in terms
The problem is that those who call themselves “liberals” and “progressives” are typically neither.
Liberal once meant open to new ideas and a defender of individual liberty. Today’s big government “liberals” are frozen in time (about 1969), hostile to fresh approaches and devoted to expanding government interference in all areas of life. They are illiberal liberals and reactionary progressives.
posted by Mike (in Houston) on
too bad that this forum decides to delete posts without notice… or even putting in writing the rules that they operate by.
My commments regarding whether it might be appropriate to think of this as a public access issue are lost in the mean time.
Of course, I expect this post to be deleted as well.
Such is the realm of so-called market-places of ideas (unless you tow the self-hating gay line)
posted by Mike (in Houston) on
too bad that this forum decides to delete posts without notice… or even putting in writing the rules that they operate by.
My commments regarding whether it might be appropriate to think of this as a public access issue are lost in the mean time.
Of course, I expect this post to be deleted as well.
Such is the realm of so-called market-places of ideas (unless you tow the self-hating gay line)
posted by Adam on
“And it is not a case of discriminating against a customer based on her group identity. It’s the owner of one little film shop in Arlington declining to produce materials that violate his values, while others want to force him to do so?and if he refuses, to fine or even jail him.”
The same argument was made for segregation in the south and I find it equally unpersuasive here. Moreover, that such an argument would come from (I presume) a gay person is mind-boggling to me. It reads akin to a black person arguing in favor of segregation by reference to the values of racist white people. In The Southern Manifesto, southern whites responded to the Supreme Court?s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. They argued the separate but equal rule of Plessy v. Ferguson was “a part of the life of the people of many of the states and confirmed their habits, customs, traditions and way of life. It [school segregation] is founded on elemental humanity and common sense, for parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children.” The Southern Manifesto, 1956, reprinted in Kermit Hall, ed., Major Problems in American Constitutional History, vol. 2 (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1992), 367-369, 368.
I fail to see how “gayness,” in modern society, is any different than race. Just as a shopkeeper cannot refuse to serve customers because they are black, neither should they be allowed to refuse to serve gay people. The shopkeeper’s so-called “values” are just as irrelevant as the “values” of whites during segregation.
posted by raj on
This has been discussed at length in Carpenter’s post over at Volohk.com
It isn’t discrimination based on the identity of the person who brought in the tape for duplication, it is discrimination based on the subject matter of the tape. The former is (apparently) subject matter for which the Arlington County board has jurisdiction over, but the latter is not. It may be possible that the discrimination was, in fact, based on the identity of the person, but that is doubtful, and so it is far from clear why the board took the matter up.
posted by Adam on
Raj: Perhaps I was not clear, I was making an historical argument not a legal argument. I was not commenting on the accommodation law itself. Rather, I was commenting on how strikingly similar the “values” argument presented on this issue (e.g., the Stephen Miller quote I referenced at the beginning of my initial comment) is to the Southern rhetoric used in defense of segregation. Though, after reading the post you noted, and its related comments, I think Dale Carpenter’s legal arguments do not withstand the best of the critiques made in the comments. Additionally, a follow up post by David Bernstein cites several similar cases where a service provider was forced to provide the service by an anti-discrimination law.
posted by JimG on
Ok, so here’s my question. I have a bookstore and I have stocked it with books that I have determined to be of the kind of values that I believe the world needs. Totally subjective.I have completely financed this operation myself so feel totally at ease in determining which books I do or do not wish to stock on my shelves. Someone comes along and demands that I stock a book that I believe to be contrary to the values I am disseminating in my bookstore. Do I, as a private business person have the right to refuse? I cannot legally refuse to Sell this person anything, but can I, based upon conscience, refuse to Supply this person with something (an idea in book form) that I am opposed to? Why or why not?
posted by JimG on
Here’s another scenario. I have a restaurant And I have a menu. Now legally, I cannot discriminate against someone on racial, religious, gender grounds etc. from coming in and eating at my restaurant. Nor do I want to. (I can only discriminate on health and cleanliness grounds) But someone comes in one day and is distressed because I do not have one vegetarian item on the menu (or poultry or red meat etc., etc.) And accuses me of discrimination. Should I be required by law to include the vegetarian plate on my menu? Maybe my restaurant is vegetarian and I believe red meat to be a negative influence. Should I have to serve it? It seems to me that is what we are asking Mr. Bono to do. And it seems to be to be based not on principal but solely because we disagree with his point of view. Remembe the sign “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. And Mr. Bono is being asked to give up his conscience and self determinism. Something that no one should be required to do in a situation such as this. How far do we go to achieve parity? And what about his?
posted by raj on
Adam | May 5, 2006, 5:13pm |
Adam, I was not responding to your comment. I was providing additional information regarding the post.
posted by Adam on
Raj: OK, that makes more sense then. 😉 I’m used to LiveJournal where comments are threaded and its clear what someone is responding to. By the way, thanks for the pointer to the discussion on volokh.com.
posted by Adam on
JimG raises several good points. But I want to be clear, they are not similar to Mr. Bono’s case where his “menu” already offered tape duplication. He refused to provide the tape duplication because he objected to the content on the tape. So the state is not forcing Mr. Bono to add something to his menu that isn’t already there. It is forcing him to provide the items on his menu to all comers. Which leads me to JimG’s points.
There are two questions with state action like this (Mr. Bono’s case and the hypothetical situations JimG raises). First, can the government, given our current legal system, properly make and enforce such laws? Second, should the government make and enforce such laws? The answer to the first question is yes. State governments traditionally have broad authority under police power to generate regulations. The federal government also has broad powers under the commerce clause. The canonical example of this is Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court upheld regulations that, in effect, forced a farmer to go to the market for wheat rather than grow his own to make bread for his family to eat and to feed his cows. The draft is another good example of government action that forces people to act against their conscience or face penalty. For example, “John T. Neufeld was a WWI conscientious objector sentenced to 15 years hard labor in the military prison at Leavenworth. He was paroled to do dairy work and released after serving five months of his sentence.”[1]
The answer to the second question, for me personally, arrives only with struggle because it generates conflict between my libertarian side and my socialist/egalitarian side. In the end, I want government to require businesses to provide whatever services or products they offer to all comers. (Subject to health and safety.) I would not want government to force businesses to do or offer something apart from what the businesses themselves choose to put on their “menu.”
Though, as an historical matter government has done the latter too. For example, during WWII Congress passed legislation that gave the President power to control every aspect of industry which included the power to order companies to produce things they wouldn’t otherwise produce, even if it meant a loss for the company.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“In the end, I want government to require businesses to provide whatever services or products they offer to all comers.”
And that’s the problem. A big problem, because it forces people to subsume their own personal beliefs, morals, ethics and values to instead meet yours. You’re effectively saying that your “egalitarian impulse” is superior and that their own values — whether they’re anti-gay religious values, or a refusal by a gay couple to serve an anti-gay political leader at their restaurant — have no value whatsoever and should be abrogated through the power of government force.
I’d rather “risk” the occasional homophobe in my day-to-day business dealings than be forced by the goverment to eradicate all vestige of my own values and beliefs under penalty of fines and prison time.
posted by Adam on
Northwest Libertarian: Indeed, I do believe the kind of formal equality I spoke of for businsesses open to the public, namely, requiring such businesses to take all comers, is a more important politcal value than allowing free reign on the individual values you mentioned. This political value choice is specific. It does not, I believe, eradicate all vestiges of ones values and beliefs. Rather, it says if one chooses to engage in the public market one must agree to abide by the market’s rules, which include the rule of taking all comers–a rule of formal equality for the marketplace. (Incidentally, the rule of taking all comers has its historical roots in the old common law rule prohibiting those who engaged in a public profession from refusing to serve a customer. In this way the rule I advocate has deep traditional roots.) This rule does not force one to engage in the marketplace or in anyway effect or proscribe private conduct or beliefs.
–
To be clear, this is a political value choice on my part. I think the marketplace, being in so many ways public, should have a layer of formal equality imposed upon it. I think such a choice is the superior choice. And I have several reasons for thinking so, marketplace efficiency and egalitarianism in the marketplace to name just two. In particular, I think egalitarianism in the marketplace is a more important value than the free reign of individual values in the marketplace (libertarianism in the marketplace, perhaps). It is because the marketplace serves a highly particular and important public function that I weigh market-egalitarianism more heavily than market-libertarnism to conclude we should have marketplace formal equality. I go no further than that. I am not weighing in on other forms of marketplace regulation or on egalitarianism versus libertarianism generally. With other aspects of marketplace regulation marketplace-libertarianism might well be the better choice.
–
Thus, from my choice it does not follow that I believe all values other people hold are worthless or that the government should seek “to eradicate all vestige of [everyone’s] values and beliefs” in some crazy effort to impose universal conformity (G-d forbid). Indeed, I take great care with views different than mine because I believe they are an important source of knowledge; which is why I read this web site and engage in discussions like this one.
–
From your tone and use of hyperbole I wonder if you might think my ideas and values are worthless. (I hope not.) You too make a political value choice when you favor individual values over formal equality in the marketplace. Your choice implies every individual value, no matter how idiosyncratic, is more imporatant than ensuring individuals can access the marketplace. Stripped of the hyperbole, Northwest Libertarian, you are correct. To wit, the rule of formal equality in the marketplace I advocate would have a cost, that is, to force those who choose to engage the marketplace to subsume some of their personal values some of the time when so engaged. Because the marketplace is so very important in our society I believe that cost is worth paying.
–
Cheers.
posted by JimG on
Thank you Adam and Northeast Libertarian for some great thoughts. I think, Adam, your point about the distinction between being forced to put something on the “menu” as being different from serving that menu equally is a good point. A fine line it seems to me, but one which I will consider. There is also the point that when one enters the “public” arena with a service that is offered to a general “public” one would, to a degree, need to make one’s likes and dislikes subservient in order to maintain a business if nothing else. But how far does a government get to go before it becomes too instrusive?
On the other end of the scale, the person who in this case was turned away by Mr. Bono does have an option to go somewhere else. Their choice remains. But when the government forces Mr. Bono to comply, then his choice is gone. We all have to be a little grown up about this and realize that not everyone is going to approve of us (whatever the “us” might be) and unless we want Big Bro looking over everyone’s shoulder, just get a thicker skin and let others (Mr. Bono)be.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Rather, it says if one chooses to engage in the public market one must agree to abide by the market’s rules, which include the rule of taking all comers”
Except that the “market’s rules” doesn’t involve taking all comers and never will, when it comes to employment, customer base, products offered, or channel strategies.
Adding ideology in there only increases that basic market reality.
The only market “rule” which should be respected is that I have the right to offer to sell you something — or not sell you something — and you have the right to buy it (or not buy it). Social engineering of the sort you advocate does little except destroy vestiges of uniqueness.
For instance, in the UK, gay bars are now illegal because the government passed a law which embraces the whole “you must accept everyone who enters” ethos you advocate. Gay bars used to ban large groups of straight women or straight couples in order to keep bars gay-friendly and majority gay or lesbian — but the new legislation makes that illegal. As a result, many of London and Manchester’s gay bars have become zoos for curious straight people to go and peek at the gays.
Gay cultural safe spaces are, as a result, rapidly vanishing.
I much rather support a system where, as an adult and a big boy, I accept not everyone is going to want to sell to me or welcome me — and those others should equally accept those terms, rather than using police power to force everyone into a phoney acceptance driven by fear of fines and prison time.
posted by Adam on
If only studying for final exams was as much fun as responding to this thread. Alas. Just a wee bit of procrastination then back to work…
–
JimG: Thanks for the appreciative words. Your spot on with your fine line thought about “menus”. After I posted I was thinking about how there are all sorts of ways one could characterize “menu” offerings–are we running this metaphor too thin? 😉 For instance, one could offer the service of duplicating only non-offensive material where offensive is at the discretion of the business. Web sites often have terms of service in this vein–don’t post offensive content. Though, in that case the user (customer) usually agreed to the ToS when they formed a contract with the service provider. So it might be different from Mr. Bono’s case. This issue is not easy or simple. Also, it seems that whichever way you choose someone needs to have a thicker skin (generally a good thing I think).
–
If you side against anti-discrimination laws, the government grants the shopkeeper the liberty (right) to choose any customer (discriminate) and the government denies the customer a remedy. Or to put it another way, the government places a duty upon the customer to respect the shopkeeper’s liberty (discriminatory choices). The government forces the customer to have the thick skin. The lack of remedy (or the existence of the duty, if you prefer) may not matter that much if there are other choices, but suppose we are dealing with the only shop nearby that does X. It may be an onerous duty for the customer to bear. And is it fair to discount the psychological impact of discrimination on the customer? After all, if we are concerned about the result on the mind of the shopkeeper for having to sublimate his values why not also consider the mind of the customer? My inclination is to say the result of discrimination on the customer shouldn’t be completely ignored but I don’t know for how much it should count.
–
If you side the other way, in favor of the anti-discrimination law, you flip the positions. The government places the duty to accept all comers on the shopkeeper while the customer has the liberty to choose any shopkeeper. Here the government forces the shopkeeper to have the thick skin.
posted by Adam on
Northwest Libertarian: I wasn’t clear. Where you quoted me I was speaking hypothetically. As in, if we had a rule of accept all comers. Also to clarify, I wasn’t speaking of “all comers” literally. I was using it as a shorthand for the both the old common law rule, the more modern accommodation statutes first put into place after the Civil War, and the even more modern anti-discrimination laws which started this conversation.
–
I had not heard about the UK situation. How would one determine if a couple was straight or a gay guy with a female friend? How would one determine if a large group of women were straight or lesbian. I can’t imagine how gay clubs went about it. The last time I was in London, two years ago, I didn’t notice any effort to exclude or police the crowd. But my eyes weren’t focused on the management. In any case, I find the exclusion you described with UK gay bars despicable. Talk about needing a thicker skin. The gay bars where I live (Michigan) don’t need to exclude anybody.
posted by dalea on
Just who provides the infrastructure that allows this business to operate? Does Bono provide her own roads, power system, police and fire departments; paying for them entirely out of her own pocket? In that case, she should be able to pick and choose her customers. (It must be a real luxery to have so many customers that you can affoard to turn them away if they don’t meet one’s high ethical standards.)
On the other hand, if she relies on taxpayer funded roads, power grids, police and fire departments, she really should be obligated to serve all who come to her door. This is what being a public accomodation is about: the public which provides all the means by which her business can operate has a very legitimate interest in being able to buy from the vendors whom they endow with these means. Who pays the piper calls the tune. Her alternative is to start providing these services which she uses out of her own purse, not dinging the taxpayers to indulge both her needs for infrastructure and supporting her ‘right’ to pick and choose her customers.
About 30 years ago the last issue of The Southern Libertarian Messanger had an interesting idea. The editor closed the publication with the statement that ‘being for freedom has got to about more than defending a bunch of bigots’. A sentiment I heartily agree with. It would strike me as seemly for Libertarians to just quit doing so, like this case for example, and concentrate on more constructive means of advancing freedom. She sounds like a truly nasty piece of work, someone to avoid. And defending her as an excercise in futility. Let nasty people be hatefull all they want, and let them reap the consequences of their actions.
And her method her is fundamentally flawed. Over the years I have owned a number of businesses. When confronted with customers I simply did not want, for whatever reason, I never made an issue of the customer’s shortcomings and failings. That would be bad business practice. Instead there are numerous tactics to use: it is just not something I feel I can do well so I must turn it down. I am so backlogged I am not taking new work except from established customers. Going out of town for a month, no new work accepted. Loads of perfectly reasonable and legal ways out of this situation. All of which strike me as preferable to what has happened here.
posted by dalea on
Sorry, in the above comment I had confused Bono’s gender, which is probably a trivial matter. But I do think the infrastructure funding is a valid way of determining what is and is not a public accomodation. Clearly, Bono runs a public accomodation and should be required to serve clients with whatever the clients bring him. This is a fairly simple business issue: the customer is the one standing before you with money in hand. Everything else is beside the point, excepting legal questions only.
On gay bars and straight people. In my experience this happens from time to time. Usually the straight people show up and have a good time. Then find other places to go. There are loads of really nice pleasant straight people out there. This looks to be a great opportunity to show straight people how truly fabulous gays are. And meet some cute guys who may be struggling with their own issues. Don’t see the problem here.
posted by jimg on
Dalea,
I think there is a big difference between being a public service entity, like a library and a private business. Yes, Mr. Bono gets the advantage of having a paved street in front of his business, but he’s paying taxes also. So that to me is a moot point. Being that it is a private business and not funded by the taxpayer, like the library, it seems to me that the individual conscience, being that it’s HIS business and not mine, trumps everything else. I do not believe it is in anybody’s interest to subvert the individual in order to appease the “group”. By what right should this occur?
posted by Deoxy on
Dalea,
That’s the single worst argument I’ve heard on this topic, and I’ve seen it crop up at at least 3 different web sites now. Here’s why it’s so bad:
YOU benefit from public “roads, power system, police and fire departments” – does that mean the state can control you as well?!?
EVERYONE benefits from the public services, but that’s because EVERYONE PAYS FOR THEM. The public services are just that – public SERVICES. Benefitting from a public service does not make one a public service! Otherwise, you and your family are also public services.
“Who pays the piper calls the tune.” Yes, and that would be the tax-paying entity. “Public accomodation” means a place where the public is by default allowd to enter, it DOES NOT mean “publicly owned”.
By the reasoning you are putting forward, there is NO SUCH THING as “private property” – indeed, the state owns ALL. (Well, unless you live entirely on your own land, grow your own food, and never set foot on public property at all. Care to give that a try?!? And why, exactly, in that case, would you be paying taxes? Even then, you could be said to be relying on tax-payer funded national defense! Of course, WHO, exactly, is the “tax payer” in this situation? Oh yeah…)
As to the “menu” analogy:
The menu is “copy stuff I don’t find offensive”, which he would be glad to do for anyone.
Of course, really, much of the law on this subject (“anti-bias” laws) is quite obviously unConstitutional to all but our learned SCOTUS rulers, who can read plain language to mean its exact opposite. Such laws mak a mockery of the concept of “private proptery”, anyway, so what’s the difference?
posted by dalea on
Hmmmm, most people do not own businesses. So they are not public accomodations. They pay for and use services, both through taxes and fees. And they buy from both public and private sources.
Where I have my issue is that the means to make a business function are provided in large measure by all the taxpayers. Including the gay and lesbian ones. So, when a business opens to the public, I feel that means all the public. Including us.
Had the guy chosen to run a business out of his home, without an open shop, I would have no problem. If he choose to seek customers only through narrow channels, such as church publications etc, again no problem. Were he to operate strictly by referels from people who knew his parameters, no problem. Were this a mail order or online enterprise, no problem.
But when someone runs an open shop and then refuses to provide services to certain segments of the population, I have problems. Looking at this issue of private property, there are several question that rise in my mind.
One, does he actually own the building he operates out of or merely lease it? If the latter, which is much more typical of retail type operations, does his lease permit him to act this way? My leases have always stated that my business is to be run as a public accomodation open to all. My leases have also stated that I am to conduct business in such a way as to avoid controversy. Businesses usually have leases of some kind, and they have all sorts of clauses and requirements. Avoiding controversy is usually one of them. He looks to be in violation of the terms he agreed to when he signed it.
Two, businesses have suppliers in most cases. (Assuming this is not someone who digs rocks out of the mud and sells them by the roadside.) And the contracts with the suppliers have all sorts of clauses and conditions about how what they sell is to be used. And how the business they supply is to be operated. Which makes sense: any company wants their product to be constantly persented in the best possible light. Quite often, these contracts require that the service using their fine products be open to all potential users. Again, these are voluntary agreements.
Three, and this is something I have never seen Libertarians think about, almost every business is a member of some sort of group that promotes either the business district or the industry or the general services offered. The groups that promote Moonlight Madness, Christmas shopping, street fairs etc. These are excellent ways to promote your business, don’t cost much and pay real rewards. And, they always have a clause in the membership contract forbidding unbusinesslike and controversial behavior. What is the effect of this controversy on the surrounding businesses? What agreements has he voluntarily made with them?
Four, banks and financing institutions have a clause in the loan contract about how the business is to operate. And generally they require that the business be a public accomodation, which having a larger potential market is more likely to make money. And pay off the loan. This is usually a condition of having a business bank account. Again, this is a voluntary agreement.
I am not even going to bring up business licenses.
OK, this guy when he went into business entered into a web of agreements which have formal obligations attached to them. Which in my understanding is what the market economy is all about: private agreements and their enforcement by voluntary action. From my perspective, I see all sorts of agreements he is violating.
Why does the government enforce public accomodations law? Because it is in the interests of business to expand the market as much as possible. The suppliers, the association, the owners of adjoining businesses could all go after him. Which would be expensive and time consuming. It is cheaper and more timely to have the government do this under the public accomodation laws.
In the case in question, all I can see is a bare assertion of a right to bigotry. I see nothing about private property, other than he probably owns the business. Subject to financing and other fiduciary obligations. I do know that having a business means one has entered into all sorts of agreements, understandings and undertakings. Most of which he is in violation of when he chooses not to serve gay and lesbian people.
What seems to be the problem here is that by focusing on private property to the exclusion of contracts we get into this defending bigots mess. There are situation where private property would be the issue with a business. This, from all I know, is not one of them. The ones where it would be are few and far between, but they do exist.
I stand by my analysis and conclusion.
posted by dalea on
jimg asks: I do not believe it is in anybody’s interest to subvert the individual in order to appease the “group”. By what right should this occur?
By the right of contracts freely entered into for one’s own advantage. Under which one agrees to operate a business in a certain way, using certain methods, preserving others from harm and controversy, and opening to the broadest possible market. It is virtually impossible to be in business, especially in a ‘shop’ as this guy is, without having done so. These agreements are the cost of entering the market, getting supplies and materials, cooperating with others to mutual advantage. In short, the division of labor.
Before rushing off to defend this bigot, or any other bigot, I think one needs to look into the voluntary agreements that are in play here. Listening to a bigot, why would one automatically assume ‘private property’? Which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with this case. Nor has anyone presented any facts or evidence that it is. Businesses are almost always woven into a web of obligations and performance requirements entered into voluntarily. Are the posters here aware of this?
posted by JimG on
Ok, Dalea. I have been involved in the business world in a variety of capacities for a long time and I have NEVER come across any agreement that required me to subordinate my concience to another point of view. And if that is happening with you I would strongly suggest examining the agreements you are making. The model that you have described where businesses and the people involved in them agree to operate in a “certain way” and to be “non controversial” begs for a society where the government, market place, or majority school of thought has succeeded in creating a completely bland and/or dangerous social environment. Every single argument you make could be applied to any “gay” business by someone who doesn’t want “that controversy” on their street and doesn’t believe that one is operating in an acceptable “certain way”. So close them down along with Mr. Bono’s?
posted by dalea on
First off, I have never suggested that Mr. Bono’s business be closed down. This is an out of line misrepresentation. All I have suggested is that he should work his business as a public accomodation leaving his activism to his spare time. His behavior is inappropriate for a business.
How thoroughly have you studied your contracts? Anyone handling brand name products has agreed to sell to all comers. You may not have noticed this, or it could be hidden away amidst all the gobbeldy gooky looking passages, but somewhere you have agreed to be a public accomodation. Not forced to be, but agreed to be. As every video duplicating business I have ever seen has a sign about how proud they are to use only such and such videos tape, I assume that Bono has signed such an agreement. And can’t quite imagine how he could operate without signing at least one of these.
Even rinky dink flea market contracts require this. I have never seen a brand name agreement that permitted this sort of thing. About a year ago I signed up with UPS to be a drop off point. The agreement specified, and the UPS rep emphasized, that in return for promoting the store we had to accept anyone’s package which met UPS standards. Could not turn anyone away. Even if we had moral objections to the package. This is such a common part of commercial agreements I can’t quite figure out why it is such news to people here. Anyone who is in a slightly complex business has already accepted public accomodation status through contracts.
Why is breaking solemn oaths and promises a valid way of doing business? Are we going to hear that disciplining Enron’s accountants violated their ‘freedom of conscience’? The market society, which I support and promote, is based on the web of agreements people make with one another for mutual advantage. And I do think the government should step in and enforce these agreements when broken. Particularly by some hotdog grandstander like Bone. Is behavior is utterly inapproriate; he needs to get with the program.
With gay businesses, again it depends on what they have entered into. If a landlord is willing to rent premises, and the business operates in a business like fashion, I have no problem. But, it is a public accomodation. Which in my experience most gay businesses are happy to be. And over the years by following sound practices, and abiding by agreements, gay businesses as a group have become a highly desirable proposition.
I feel that the market is for all. And urge everyone to participate. And kept their promises.
posted by GayMan on
Check out my sites
http://gay-twink-x.blogspot.com
http://young-twinks-x.blogspot.com
http://teen-twink-x.blogspot.com
My FAVOTITE
http://twink-sex-x.blogspot.com
http://black-twinks-x.blogspot.com
http://free-gay-twinks-x.blogspot.com
These the best
http://twink-galleries-x.blogspot.com
http://asian-twinks-x.blogspot.com
http://naked-twinks-x.blogspot.com