[samtho]

She had every right to refuse business to anyone for any reason as a business owner, regardless of the quality of her reasoning. People also have the right to refuse to use her business and go to a competitor who would likely be happy to service them.

The free market goes both ways and while first amendment protects you from state prosecution of exercising free speech, it does not protect you, however, from the court of public opinion, which she and her business may need to answer to.

[floatrock]

If you operate a retail store, should you be able to refuse business to someone in a wheelchair, especially if building the ADA ramp will cost you an extra 10k that you don't want to spend?

[peteradio]

Not according to laws passed by congress.

[jncfhnb]

We don’t have a free market and you definitely don’t have the right to refuse business with anyone for any reason.

[tourmalinetaco]

If you word it right you can. Just make incredibly complex and vague agreements that people must agree to to do business with you. Like Amazon, who can terminate your business with them after falsely claiming you’re a racist.

[jncfhnb]

That is the opposite of any reason. That is a specific reason.

[tourmalinetaco]

It’s a “specific” reason in that it’s specifically fictional, yet qualifies for that protection.

[jncfhnb]

If buyers found that Amazon was structurally refusing members of a protected class they could be sued.

Nobody thinks Amazon is purposefully refusing business with protected classes.

[Aken]

I generally hold this opinion, also, but I worry about the ramifications. Should we allow restaurants to exclude certain races? What if employees of the business differ on their treatment of customers? It feels like opportunity for much more chaos, even if the free market handles it.

The lines between what individuals can do and what a business can do (with individuals representing it) feel too blurred. In cases like the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses after Obergefell, she _has_ to because of the office she represents. It feels like businesses should have the same obligation, because business !== person.

[samtho]

I agree that there are problems, specifically when an ideology dominates an industry in a given locale. For single employee behavior, a company should have a code of conduct or expectation of some degree of professionalism because they are representing the company. If a single employee treats someone poorly, the business can be called out and hung out to dry. It is the business’s responsibility to hire and maintain employees that accurately represent their business.

In the case of Kentucky county clerk, that person failed at their position as a public servant to perform the duty they were assigned. If it goes against their personal beliefs, that is not the job for them and they can reenter the job market for a position they are capable of performing.

I don’t agree that business should have the same obligations as public institutions, but they must also be willing face indefensible criticism if they choose to die on this hill. Social issues tend to always be progressing on the whole in some way, and I would be in favor of government subsidized grants for small business owners who are willing to create a competing business in an otherwise monopolistic environment.

It’s easy to suggest that we should just legislate away undesirable behavior, but this does not solve the underlying problems and will simply be gamed as most laws lacking teeth or clear violation criteria are. It’s only when social pressures force a business either to rethink their stance or to close will you get meaningful results.

[ttfkam]

But no one asked her to. That part was completely made up. She didn't really even have a web design business.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-we...