General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Lesson In Free-Market Economics: Gay Shop Owner Kicks Christians Out Of His Business Because Their
http://www.dailywire.com/news/22042/lesson-free-market-economics-gay-shop-owner-kicks-frank-camp?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro"SNIP...........
On October 1, activists from the group Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) took a break from handing out anti-abortion pamphlets, and went to Bedlam Coffee in Seattle, Washington.
As the activists quietly drank their brew, the owner of the shop, Ben Borgman, entered the room and demanded that they leave. Although the group had allegedly not handed out any pamphlets in the shop, Borgman had one in his possession, and was offended by what he saw.
Holding the anti-abortion material, which can be seen in the video footage initially uploaded to Facebook, Borgman says: "Im gay. You have to leave." A female activists then asks: "Are you denying us service?" to which Borgman replies: "I am, yeah."
The conversation continues, with a male activist asking: "So, why arent we allowed to stay?" Borgman answers: "This is offensive to me. I own the place. I have a right to be offended."
...........SNIP"
applegrove
(118,933 posts)dividing customers across the country. They will destroy Trump only then.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)awakening!
They'll get WOKE!
AJT
(5,240 posts)reason for doing it.....this is going to be hell.
Maybe this will be a wake-up call to the right that a secular society is the way to go, after all "values" work both ways.
Initech
(100,151 posts)Initech
(100,151 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Works both ways, assholes. Just wait to see how much this comes back on you.
procon
(15,805 posts)and they padded the system to ensure they would prevail. When the tables are turned they don't like it at all.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,207 posts)He can also argue that their language and pamphlets were disrupting his business.
sinkingfeeling
(51,499 posts)"It would be easy to turn the tables, and condemn the coffee shop owner for his actions. However, as conservatives, we should be looking at this case in a different light. This was the free-market at work."
It goes on to hope enough people will take their business elsewhere and says progressives should learn this free market lesson.
progressoid
(50,022 posts)apkhgp
(1,068 posts)snort
(2,334 posts)Dammed if I'll give them any clicks.
applegrove
(118,933 posts)safeinOhio
(32,759 posts)thanks for posting it.
benld74
(9,912 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,207 posts)jmowreader
(50,601 posts)It is at 2231 2nd Ave in Seattle.
To get there from Sea-Tac: take the Link train to Westlake Station. Go south to 2nd Ave., hang a right and walk five blocks. If this man is going to take that attitude with anti-abortion trolls, the least we can do is have some of his coffee.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)He runs a place of public accommodation as defined in Title II of the Act. That means he's prohibited from discriminating "on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." He certainly wouldn't be allowed to bar all Christians. He also wouldn't be allowed to bar members of a specific denomination, such as Catholics or Southern Baptists.
What if he bars anti-choice activists, and they can show that they come disproportionately from a particular denomination? He's not barring all Catholics, but his policy of exclusion probably falls more heavily on Catholics than on Unitarians. In employment discrimination, there's a theory called "disparate impact". For example, not only is an employer prohibited from refusing to hire women; the employer is also prohibited from setting, say, a required minimum height of 5' 7". There are women taller than that and men who are shorter, but the rule would affect more women than men. It's therefore illegal unless the employer can show that the height requirement is a bona fide occupational qualification (and, of course, it would have to be applied on a gender-neutral basis).
The question whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under Title II appears, surprisingly, to be an open one, more than half a century after the law was enacted. In a quick search I find a decision from earlier this year by the Ninth Circuit. In Hardie v. NCAA, the court stated:
disparate-impact claims are cognizable under Title II. A few
courts have found that Title II authorizes disparate-impact
claims, see Olzman v. Lake Hills Swim Club, Inc., 495 F.2d
1333, 134142 (2d Cir. 1974); Robinson v. Power Pizza,
Inc., 993 F. Supp. 1462, 146466 (M.D. Fla. 1998), while
others have rejected disparate-impact liability under Title II,
see, e.g., Akiyama v. U.S. Judo Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1179,
1187 (W.D. Wash. 2002); LaRoche v. Dennys, Inc., 62 F.
Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 n.2 (S.D. Fla. 1999). Several courts
have declined to decide the issue altogether. See, e.g.,
Arguello v. Conoco, Inc., 207 F.3d 803, 813 (5th Cir. 2000);
Jefferson v. City of Fremont, 73 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 114546
(N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing cases).
We express no view today on whether Title II
encompasses disparate-impact claims.
Seattle, as it happens, is in the Ninth Circuit.
The whole religious freedom argument -- that homophobic bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple are acting according to their religion -- wouldn't apply here. It's clear that Mr. Borgman doesn't believe that God has told him not to serve these people. He just doesn't like them. (Of course, the current course of disingenuous acceptance of any claim of religious freedom is open to the obvious problem, not confined to Seattle coffee shops, that people who don't want to comply with a law will lie. If the Ninth Circuit were to rule that excluding the anti-choice protesters violated the Civil Rights Act, Mr. Borgman might suddenly decide to convert to a religion that teaches its congregants that serving such people is a sin in the eyes of God.)
Probably those offended by this incident will boycott the coffee shop rather than suing for their right to dine there.
Lars39
(26,120 posts)This group shouldnt be able to hide behind their religion if theyve become politicized.
Cant have it both ways, imo.
nolabear
(42,007 posts)They use the "lets have a dialogue" excuse for bulldozing their agenda over people. I loved the fact that a bunch of bouncers were summoned to argue with them. They are genuinely creeps.