This is being a tad facetious but how do you even prove “not having a reason”. “ customer: The owner kicked me out!” “Judge/lawyer(probs not but): why’d you do it?” “Owner: idk lol it was spontaneous”
Actually we covered this once before you and I long ago. Businesses do not have the right to refuse service for any reason. They are expressly forbidden from refusing business in the basis of “protected class.” There is a federal list that all states must follow- and Aeschylus state may have additions that businesses in that state must not refuse service based upon. Private businesses also cannot refuse service based on “arbitrary reasons.” In other words- the reason for refusal must directly pertain to a non protected issue and have an impact on the safe of regular function of the business.
To what cryoenthusiast says- it can get dicey. Unless the person outright admits to refusing service because of something like race or gender or such- you have to prove in a CIVIL court (“proof” in civil court is NOT beyond all reasonable doubt. It is “on preponderance of the evidence.” This means that in civil court- a judge is allowed to hear things that can’t be used in criminal court, and can decide on non tangible evidence what is the MOST LIKELY truth.)
In other words- unlike criminal court, the burden of proof and what is allowed as evidence are relaxed- and you don’t need a “smoking gun” to prove it- after hearing both sides and viewing evidence a judge can decide what they BELIEVE was the intent.
So if the plaintiff shows that a store which claims to have “joust not liked them” and refused service- has also “not liked” the majority or a substantial number of customers like them- and of upon talking to the plaintiff and defendant a judge feels that the defendant probably is discriminating and just lying about it- that’s good enough.
Judges also often have to determine if a refusal is a “valid reason” or not. For example using a real case- a group of bikers were denied entry to a bar. The bikers claimed that it was because they were bikers- this would NOT be a legal grounds to refuse a person service in general. The owner argued- and showed proof- that he didn’t refuse to let them in for being bikers. He told them they could not wear their club colors- which all the bikers had on- because it could cause trouble and no one was allowed to wear “group colors” or known group symbology in their bar. This was deemed a valid refusal.
Thanks for the response which basically to me means it doesn’t matter if the owner offers that they genuinely didn’t have a reason judge or lawyer will call bullshit and offer a potential explanation
Another case held that a local hardware store with a dress code that was deemed to unfairly target women by the items it restricted- even though those items were restricted to all customers- wasn’t legal. The judge stated that regardless of the issue of discrimination raised- the prudent violation was that the business didn’t have a valid reason to deny customers wearing such clothing.
A night club (under most current laws) CAN refuse to let you in for having on- for example- sweat pants. So could a 5 Star restaurant. These places dress codes are considered valid because a major aspect of the business is the ambiance and image. But- using common sense- the average hardware store- and the one in the case for sure- is not a business where whatever atmosphere it may have is impacted by the choice of certain clothing items the store banned.
Where it gets subjective- is things like a tattoo. Tattoos are not presently protected under federal law or most state law for discrimination- especially by businesses. HOWEVER- if one had a tattoo recognized as part of a cultural heritage or religion... the display of that Tattoo now becomes protected in theory- but it depends on the specifics. So a business CANNOT refuse service to anyone for ANY reason. Some people may think they SHOULD be able to. That is a different story- but the fact is that they CANNOT.
@cryoenthusiast- “no reason” is not a reason. So even IF an owner could refuse service for ANY reason- refusing service for NO reason is not a reason- and thus is not legal. “I didn’t feel like working...” would be A reason. But saying “I had no reason. I just didn’t serve them...” isn’t a reason and thusly.... You’d need a right to refuse service for NO reason to make that legal. That doesn’t exist because as you said earlier- humans don’t do things for no reason- not that we are aware of anyway. But for arguments sake-saying you have “no reason” you did something is just saying you don’t UNDERSTAND why you did something.
In law, wether honest or not- if a person says they don’t understand why something was done- and that is a material fact- a judge or jury must determine what the real reason must have been. Their lawyer will try to prove that the reason is whatever the complaint says. You (or hopefully your attorney) will try to prove it isn’t that thing. Past behavior will be considered, statements made before and after. Character witnesses maybe- maybe even expert witnesses in psychology and such who are accredited in behavior and such.
If you don’t know why you did something- if you don’t understand what went in to making that decision- then you can’t say what didn’t can you? Even saying you flipped a coin, or didn’t like their aura, or their haircut- those are at least reasons. “No reason” isn’t something humans are known to be capable of. If there is an output- there is an input. That is how we are wired.
I dont buy that "conservative" view for a second.
.
A typical conservative view would be to let the individual businesses decide and then live with the results (or adapt).
If anything, we'd be throwing it back in their faces. "So it's okay to force business owners to give up their livelihoods or eternally damn their souls, but it's not okay to force them to give up their livelihoods or accept the risks of dealing with the public?". I mean, it's bullshit either way to force businesses or people to do anything, but you get what I'm getting at, right?
False equivalency. You can worship Jesus or My little Pony or whatever you want- but you can’t give them power of attorney can you? A person may believe whatever they like- but in public spaces- including those which serve the general public- there is a limit to where one persons beliefs may infringe on another persons freedoms. One good metric is to take whatever you believe and place it in a bucket. Then, spit in a second bucket. The bucket which we can measure and quantify as having something in it- is the bucket we are going to base reality on.
As to some of our more recent conversations- you need DATA or some form of validation that can be peer reviewed using established practices before you can call a thing material. You are allowed to believe what you like. You are allowed to follow those beliefs- up to the point where your beliefs- not grounded in a reality that an be demonstrated to outside parties- infringe upon the ability of others to live their lives. Freedom in society dictates that we cannot allow for one persons beliefs to impinge upon others. That is literally the thing that you are upset about- imposing beliefs. The distinction is that if it can be demonstrated we can call it a fact until it is disproven, a belief cannot be demonstrated.
Most Businesses are public places. They are open to the public. They exist to serve the public. They take material advantage of access to the public and public thoroughfares and infrastructure. Your home, assuming you are like most people, is closed to the public. Your freedoms are less restricted in private spaces as there is less chance that what you do there will impact the public. You still can’t build nuclear bombs in your garage- that IS. A freedom taken from you in your home- but one taken because it would certainly impact the freedom of others to free enjoyment of public and their own private spaces.
as a conservative i dont mind you turning me away from wearing a mask. I have a problem with the government mandating i wear a mask. BIG difference. (Full disclosure I wear a mask everywhere i go)
I understand there is some nuance in the principal- and in general I prefer that government stay out of personal business anymore than necessary- but is this your personal business? The masks aren’t to protect YOU. This isn’t a case where YOU are making a choice about YOUR health. This is a public health emergency, the order to wear a mask is to protect other people who don’t have a choice about you wearing a mask or not.
So my sincere and non sarcastic questions, which so far no one I have spoken to has cared to answer directly, and I hope that maybe you can help me better understand the thinking on this at a deeper level are:
How is forcing you to wear a mask a violation of your freedoms any more than:
- forcing you to carry an ID
- forcing you to keep your genitals covered in a school zone
- forbidding you to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence
- forcing you to obey the speed limit
Question2: pretend I am your neighbor. Would you say, that it is an unfair restriction of my rights, in my own home, that the government require that my wiring is to code and I do not have gas leaks and I don’t store 500 gallons of diesel next to my ammunition in the same room as my open fire pit- right next to your wall?
Is it a violation of freedom that as your neighbor I cannot blast hard core pornography and death metal at 2 am on a Tuesday from a loud speaker? What about having an open sewage pit or just crapping right on my lawn- or in a public park? Are those violations of my freedoms that after we get this mask thing sorted out- you, me, famiusone and xvarnah can all go topple next?
What makes forcing people to wear masks in public a violation of ones freedom- but none of these other things which force an individual to not do as they please for the benefit of others ability to free enjoyment and safety? Is it just people are communicating poorly and it is less a matter of freedom and more that they just do t like wearing a mask, or disagree that the issue is that serious or that masks work? Those are issues one might have- but they are not violations of freedom- they are disagreements on the specifics of the circumstances.
very fair points. But when studies show that masks have little effect on the spread, (yes i know there are some that say that it does, but Dr. Fauci said in the beginning said that wearing a mask was s"symbolic") it seems like its another way for the government to impose control over the populace, like speed cameras. And to see my rant on vehicular safety and speed cameras see my comment below, i dont want to type it again...lol
another counter point i forgot to bring up is the fact that the instances you bring up are waaaaaaay more dangerous than Covid. the media the government and in turn everybody is making this thing out to be as a civilization ender. Lets look at where I live New York the epicenter of Covid in America, 222K people have covid out of 8 Million, thats .027%. 22690 people have died from it, out of 8 Million that os .0028% I want to clarify that I am not downplaying these deaths, but to compare the mandating of wearing a mask (which wont even really protect you) to enforcing the arrest of DUI's is ludicrous.
With that said: that is an ENTIRELY different proposition than “this impinges freedom.” Saying that the response is disproportionate to the danger vs saying the response is a violation of basic rights. That changes the discussion from a legal, constitutional, and philosophical discussion- to a scientific, and perhaps philosophical discussion.
Personally- I don’t see Covid as a major danger. I don’t know or care of the reports are exaggerated or wrong or even made up. I can do things to mitigate by risks- but I can’t prevent it. If I get it- maybe I’ll die. Lots of ways I could die. Who knows? I don’t spend a lot of time worrying as much about how I die as how I live. So I can see eye to eye on an overall personal feeling of not being too concerned over the whole thing.
That said- it isn’t about me. The world isn’t about me. Or you, or any one of us. A “good world” certainly cares about us. It cares when people are unhappy- tries to do what it can about that or prevent it- but there are a lot of “me’s” in the world. To every person- they are the only “me” in the world.
And this is where the science comes in. The math. The boring and complex and finicky stuff. There is a general consensus among the people who have the data and the ability to interpret the data, and the credentials and track records to indicate so- that it is pretty bad, could easily be pretty worse.
They may be overly cautious on the subject. But that is their determination. A lot of folks I’ve talked to on the issue- they point to their personal feelings, anecdotal observations, intuition. They may point to some study done by someone somewhere and say “well these people say...” but the bulk of hard data at present doesn’t support that there isn’t a problem.
That’s critically important- because we’ve now gone from “Mask laws are anti freedom...” to “Well, actually- forget I mentioned that part- the situation is just not as bad as they say..” and that isn’t “the government is unjust in this order...” that is stated as: “I believe the government is acting on incorrect data.”
Now- if we believe the data they are basing their actions on is wrong- that’s still not the same as if BEING wrong. So we are still taking a leap from “this might be wrong” to “repeal these orders!”
The mention of the bad data, and the rebuttal that other laws are intended to protect against severe and real danger- implies that IF the danger from Covid IS real and severe- that one wouldn’t question wether these orders are appropriate no?
So then- the question is NOT about freedom- it is about the quality of the data, and wether the actions taken are a proportional response to the threat.
Which makes this not a political discussion, a legal discussion, but a question first of science. Before we can determine if the order to wear masks is proportional to the threat- we have to establish to the burden of proof set forth- wether or not the threat is exaggerated. If it is exaggerated- then “freedom” isn’t the centerpiece of the discussion- science is. “Dear WHO et.al- you have bad data. Please see this comprehensive and peer reviewed study showing otherwise...”
If the data does indicate a serious risk/threat- then we must establish if other dangers of this magnitude and type receive similar measures. If this response is proportional to general policy- then it is not an undue burden to freedom. If it is NOT proportional- then we have a policy issue.
But if we can hopefully be earnest for a second- we are all human. All of u can make mistakes, be wrong, over react. Maybe they are doing one or all of those. I am not gifted with future sight or omnipotence. I cannot speak for you- but I don’t think you are either, and I am pretty sure that our representatives certainly aren’t.
So- all we have to go off is what we know right now- as best we know it. They’ll tell you coffee will give you heart attacks- then later say it prevents them. They’ll tell you to keep a wound dry for 30 years, then say “oops. They heal better of you keep them wet with sterile liquid...” because what we know tomorrow- might change from what we know today.
Right now, today, most of the world leaders in their fields- are saying this is a serious danger, and here is how to help mitigate it. You may or may not know more than them. They may be wrong on this and by natural talent of luck you may be right. All possible. But- We are skipping quite a few steps along the path from “I think this is incorrect..” to “stop doing this right now...”
If no one ever acted unless they were 100% certain and could prove to the satisfaction of all observers what the outcome would be- nothing would ever get done. Sure, that doesn’t mean leap into a wood chipper. Maybe stop and think- but in an emergency, time is of then essence. Seconds can count. So is the cost of acting without years or deliberation higher than the cost of not acting in time?
In this case- masks- what is the downside if it turns out we don’t need them? The worst case I’ve been presented is a vague idea that dirty masks can cause people to get sick- without ANY cases showing that people have actually gotten ill from a dirty mask.
To be very frank- I get that freedom by design means that people have to be free to be seen as assholes by others, do things others see as moronic- largely, being an asshole, being moronic- they’re subjective. I’d never pay $20 let alone the prices people pay to watch grown men play playground games. But I spend time and money on things plenty of Other people would see as just foolish too.
But we can be moronic to the point it is quantifiable. Objective. Most laws we have- they exist simply to protect innocent bystanders from fucking morons.
Maybe you and I are objectively great drivers with great control and knowledge and situational awareness, with machines well kept and purpose built and we could drive 185 in the freeway no problems all day. But somewhere is a fucking moron who THINKS they are that person and they aren’t. They find out when someone- likely someone else- pays the price for their dumbassery.
I know lots of people who have or sometimes do drive drunk. I knew an old Seal who drove BETTER drunk IMHO. Is it REALLY so bad for one person who is within their “drunk” limits to drive home? While I have NEVER driven drunk- most people I know have done so at least once- if not to crawl home from some bar in the middle of nowhere. People do that their whole lives no problem.
But the data shows that is luck more than anything else. These laws, they exist to stop morons from exercising their better judgment- which is more than likely, shit lousy, because: exhibit A- they are morons.
So we have a mask law. We have data showing that Covid is the real deal and people are dying. We have experts who have looked it over and said there is tremendous change for people to hurt other people. They passed a law- to stop morons from exercising their better judgment and hurting others with their stupidity- the deadliest weapon of man’s history- and here we are. If the data is wrong- we need someone to prove that- to say that. To raise questions about it. But that isn’t a freedom issue- and not letting morons hurt people with their stupidity is no more an indignity to freedom than not letting psychotics murder people with flame throwers.
*to be clear- I am not saying anyone who disagrees with wearing a mask is a moron. I am saying that assuming that we have good data and correct interpretation- anyone able to do so who wouldn’t wear a mask is a moron. Morons- in my book- are free to hurt themselves with their ways to their hearts content. You can gamble in Vegas or play the lotto- so if you want to gamble your life- go for it. However- society has by its nature- the directive to not allow one person to harm another through malice or incompetence. Being a moron is being incompetent at existing. Questioning the data or the government is not moronic. Disbelieving tangible data without presenting equally compelling counter can be but is not inherently ignorant- but not moronic. So if one is not a moron- then anything referring to morons does not apply to them obviously. I am not calling anyone here a moron.
To be clear I am not downvoting you either. As always I can’t disagree with what your saying. Great discussion. I wish people in the world were more willing to speak as opposed to yell. Until we discuss again -tips cap-
are you also upset that the government has speed limits? Those are for others safety as well as your own. What about not being able to shit in your front yard? Those are for public health and decency. Start protesting yard shitting and I'll agree that you are standing up for your rights and not just being a jackass.
I actually do think speed limits are pretty gay, and I can shit in my front yard, because I'm not a citycuck whose neighbors live on top of him. I think speed limits should be whatever so the reckless and retarded can just kill themselves off already instead of making my commutes suck.
to answer the speed limit thing yes i do think that they are over-restictive. Especially when you see how much looser you see them in Germany than in say New York City (where i live). I think more emphasis should be placed on driver training, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. But that is never going to happen because the city makes so much money fining people with speed cameras (it is seriously no joke how many there are on a road) they will never invest in making getting licenses more difficult. I shit you not due to covid you do not need to take a driving test to get a license atm.
While I personally have problems with the nuances of speed limits- that isn’t the question or the discussion- the question is wether the government has the right to impose a speed limit AT ALL or really any road laws- given that they impinge upon individual rights in the name of public safety- which is a direct parallel to mask laws- which exist to ensure public safety.
.
A typical conservative view would be to let the individual businesses decide and then live with the results (or adapt).
- forcing you to carry an ID
- forcing you to keep your genitals covered in a school zone
- forbidding you to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence
- forcing you to obey the speed limit
Question2: pretend I am your neighbor. Would you say, that it is an unfair restriction of my rights, in my own home, that the government require that my wiring is to code and I do not have gas leaks and I don’t store 500 gallons of diesel next to my ammunition in the same room as my open fire pit- right next to your wall?