That's not the definition of a business. People pay the Girl Scouts for cookies and Goodwill for stuff at their store; they receive goods. That's not a business - that's a non-profit. The real test is where the funds go to. If it goes to owners for private benefit, that's a business. If it goes to charitable enterprises, then it's not.
Is it wise to allow non-profits to discriminate among their customers, as distinct from their employees or members? Should we allow Goodwill to not sell cheap clothes to lesbians? (Though I suppose you could argue a student is a member, given the highly communal nature of a school.)
Then Goodwill ends up with a bunch of clothes they are stuck with and end up spending money to store or get rid of it. Discrimination doesn't make economic sense. A homosexual's money is as good as a heterosexual's money so if Goodwill or some other group decides they are going to discriminate they are going to face an economic penalty and likely far greater than just the party they are discriminating against.
Playing Devil's advocate... If the homosexual's money leads to a boycott of the store by heterosexuals then it does make economic sense.
I just added another edit to my post. In this day and age that is very unlikely as the greater likelyhood is that if a store were found to not be selling to someone on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation and etc.. You are likely to find that there will be a far bigger backlash among a wider group than just that group.
I don't know enough about the machinations of title 2 of the civil rights act to speak with authority, but even if we assumed no profit motive was involved, it's a really fine line to state that a school is not a public service and should accordingly fall under the exemption granted to entities such as the Boy Scouts. You would have to know more about how the services from that school are offered, for starters. Regardless of that argument, the church/school in question is behaving (like all religious entities) in a hypocritical, hyperreactive, and moronic fashion.
So if a religious entity believes a behavior is wrong and against their religious beliefs, it is hypocirtical of them to act against it?
You don't even understand the issues so how can you claim hypocrisy? Two (or more) students in a hallway of a public or private school can say a prayer together, cross themselves, etc., and not get in trouble. Two lesbian students who showed that they were lesbians could and did get in trouble. It is ridiculous that people still make these misleading arguments that kids are not allowed to be Christian at school.
if they do not do the same to liars, fornicators, those full of pride, lust, greed, etc., then yes, i think it is hypocritical. i'm sure there's a teenager at that school who has not always honored their mother or father, but aren't kicked out. being a lesbian isn't even violating one of the ten commandments!
You're right! They should kick all sinners out of that school. Start with the priests. YES, it's hypocritical. Unbelievably hypocritical. I'm stunned - does this really require rationale? I'll be happy to expound upon it, if requested.
It always amazes me how people look at the issues as if these kids are adults. First of all school is a unique situation, I would assume any school would disallow any displays of affection in any situation during school hours. Secondly as far as rights you have and businesses and all that, kids don't have the same rights we do, and in school setting its even more limiting. A kid can be kicked out of school (public or private) for not showing up, in the case of private, that's AFTER THEY'VE PAID. So lets stop this ridiculous debate that a school (even private) is treated as a business. Kids give up all kinds of rights when they walk through those doors every freakin day. It maybe a business to the parents, its not to the kids. Its still school. Lastly, again, its hard enough for these schools to deal with the raging hormones of adolesents in the first place. Its a sensatvie topic that its easy for all of us to sit on our high horses and judge. Does anyone have a job having to deal with kids everyday in this thread?
You might be right that discrimination will bring an economic penalty. However, should that mean that if the school is willing to absorb that penalty, we should allow the discrimination? Moreover, given that a for-profit business would likewise suffer an economic penalty, why have we taken the trouble to legislate against discrimination for them? If we're to rely on the market to correct behavior in the non-profit sector (which would be less responsive to market pressure), surely we'd do likewise with for-profits. Conversely, since we apparently feel that the market is insufficient in governing behavior among for-profits, we certainly should not trust it with non-profits.
That's a goofy argument. I don't think saying "I love you" or hugging in a picture on a computer consitutes either a gross public display or "raging hormones". Secondly, the implication that two lesbians are somehow harder to "deal" with is bizarre. "Dealing with heterosexuals is trouble enough! Those homos make it uncontrollable! Expel em'!"
Yes, you're right, dealing with teenage homosexuals is oh so normal especially in an environment of a bunch of immature kids. ---> this is the exact type of ridiculousness I'm talking about
See Cracker Barrel as a case in point. I don't think any business will discriminate against any group that may be considered oppressed. And this definitely applies to Gay / Lesbians. First of all, how on earth do you figure out if your customer is gay or lesbian to begin with? And no business wants controversy. It isn't about just losing the sale, it's the bad press, nervousness by investors, greater scrutiny, and opens them up for possible litigation even if they have not broken any law.
uh. I kinda don't think "adults" are acting really "mature" about homosexuals either in this case. Or most any case for that matter. Likewise.
I look at this as a slightly different issue that we also have a separation of church and state. In a capitalistic society approval or dissaproval of an idea is often expressed in terms of money. In my view I think we have to balance freedom of religion with the freedom for individuals to be free of discrimination. If you don't like what a church is doing don't give it money so that it can keep doing what you don't approve of and encourage others to withold giving to them. I would rather have that than government deciding what a church can or cannot do. Discrimination is a non-rational action but one so culturally ingrained that it overruled other factors. Also with segregation laws discrimination was legalized. I think to address those a legal remedy was needed. Also while we have seperation of church and state there is no seperation of business and state.
I agree with you so I don't know why we're arguing. The principle they are appealing to does not seem to be their Constitutionally-protected freedom of religion, but on a simple construct of what fits the legal definition of a "business." If/since it is what the law says, then I'm sure the court ruled rightly, but i have to wonder about a law on discrimination that grants exemptions based on the definition of an entity and not on its civil rights. This school may have a religious justification for discriminating against gays (even thoguh they're hypocrites), but most nonprofits do not and would nevertheless be allowed by this law to discriminate.
