Unfortunately, there are certain laws already in place. For a lot of businesses who want to business with the local, state, or federal government, unless they can prove certain criteria, they have to subscribe to certain non-discriminatory regulations if they even want to bid.

In a competitive market, though, a private business entity should be allowed to choose if it wishes to conduct business with any individual or organization it chooses. I remember one time when I was managing a small business. Our main competitor relocated to only about 1/2 mile away on the same busy street. We both sold the same sort of items, both purchased from the same manufacturers. But, our business models were different. They spent their money on glitz and expensive advertising, and their prices reflected that as well as their inventory levels. We, on the other hand believed in keeping prices low and inventory on hand and passing a fair price on to the customer as a result. The competitor got into the habit of coming down the street to pick up this or that one-off item that they did not carry in stock from us (to keep their customer happy) and expected us to give them some sort of discount "as a courtesy". I finally put the foot down one day when the guy said they liked having us close by (as if we were the ones who had moved to try and corner their visibility and accessible location to the public) so that they didn't have to order stuff from the factory as often, particularly when the customer was waiting in the store for them to fill their request. I told them, okay, you can either refer the customer to us or you can start stocking things yourself. We prefer not to sell to you. If you want to continue doing it this way, fine, but you will not get a factory price from us. You know how much it costs and you know how to order. You can pay retail from here on out. They were really upset at us, but we were under no obligation to even sell to them, let alone sell wholesale.

And, there were times with us too where we sold things to homosexuals as individuals, and there were times that we refused to sell things to homosexuals when they were clearly representing homosexual advocacy groups. I indicated once after we found out that a couple customers wanted us to become their supplier for items they would then be using in their gay pride parade(s) and selling across the nation that we respectfully would not bid on that project, we would be willing to order the raw materials and sell that to them, but if they really wanted to do it, they would need to assemble and create it using their own resources, as none of our employees or sub-contractors would do it and it was not something our factory suppliers would willingly undertake either due to the potential loss in millions of business that could result.

I think we should remember that by and large, freedom to associate should also apply to conducting business.

In the 1960's there were signs in many parts of the US that stated "We hold the right to refuse service to anyone".  This was done as an unofficial endorsement of Jim Crowe laws that discriminated against blacks.  Is this acceptable?

Should the method still be allowable?

There is a difference between having a business open to the public (ie restaurants and businesses) and deciding not to bid for additional business.

I am no advocate of homosexuality, but there are constitutional ramifications under the law of the land.

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

---

There is a difference between having a business open to the public (ie restaurants and businesses) and deciding not to bid for additional business.

...there are constitutional ramifications under the law of the land.

---

 

Salesortonscom wrote:

---

Should businesses be allowed to sell to whomever.  I am quick to say yes but then the Jim Crow era comes to mind.  Of course in this day and age, businesses that are seen as discriminatory would soon see themselves losing business which is what free markets are all about.  In this situation, I would rather see the free market handle such an isolated case.

---

This is the very problem, isn't it.  Constitutional ammendments to stop Jim Crow laws that prevented equal access to exercising voting franchise or other civil liberties covered by the Constitution.  These then got interpolated into further interpretations that if a business is open to the public for business, that business must also sell its products or services to all consumers.  I do not think that it is necessarily right to say we won't do business with you because of your ethnicity or your gender or your religion, but if business establishments can "discriminate" on what patrons will be allowed into a transaction relationship on something as specific as "No Shirt No Shoes No Service", I don't see why they should be forced to do business with any potential customer or patron they do not want to do business with.

In a free market where competition exists, one can't legitimately call it discriminatory in the sense of civil rights violations if the potential customer can receive the same goods or services elsewhere or can, with low cost of entry, become a player in that market themself.

The concept of a free market in business is not just limited to the consumer side of a transaction.  Business entities de-select potential, former, and even current customers every day for a variety of reasons.  Business entities and owners are within their right to put whatever legal qualifications and requirements to being their customer they deem are in their best interests.

Jeff, I would be interested in you clarifying your point as to how there is a difference actually and what legally would require a business to sell it's goods or services to any and all consumers.  The anti-discriminatory requirements for bidders on government bids is an example of enforced social engineering, and is really only a statement that the bidder (and to the best of the bidder's knowledge their sub-contractors and suppliers) are equal opportunity employers insofar as protected classes are concerned.  Some "protected classes" are not actually protected under Federal law.

Unless I'm mistaken, Federal law states the following are protected classes "Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Gender, Pregnancy, Age, Disabilities, Vietnam Veterans".  Some states (particularly those that are very liberal in political makeup like California) may also have supplimented that with other "classes", including sexual orientation, but that still only applies pretty much to EEO, doesn't it?

 

And CA goes beyond simply the EEOC

Exactly, that was my point.  In so doing, many people mistakenly feel that since it is law there, it must therefore become defacto practice everywhere else and in everything.  Step out of the mindset of CA anti-discrimination law.  It is not a good thing for a state to set this sort of precedence of creating additional protected classes.  It causes undue influence on other state's laws.  There can be strong laws on the books to combat hate crimes, but that does not equate to creating additional "protected classes", and discriminating that is not against the law does not constitute a hate crime.  Who is really behind the creating of additional classes?  In my opinion, activist judiciary and attorneys.  Why?  Because it opens up the way for them to create more social engineering WHICH THEN enables them to make more money through all the litigation that comes from protecting these new "classes" who have been harmed.

So, basically if I understand the thinking behind the California law is that a small business has the choice to do one of three things:  1.  Enter into business transactions with individuals or groups the owners thereof would rather not (and be seen as supporting something it does not agree with);  2.  Refuse to enter into business transactions with individuals or groups the owners thereof would rather not (and face a very real threat of losing their business and livelihood due to a law suit by someone who is out to teach them a lesson):  3.  Shut it's doors and go out of business or move to a state where they can operate their business in a less restrictive and reverse discriminatory manner.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the free market used to push forward Jim Crowe laws" as Jim Crow laws were about discrimination of the voting franchise and segregation based on race.  There needs to be some level of reasonable thinking allowed to accomodate a business / business owner who has the inherent right to legally discriminate based on preferences that are not against the law.

In the case of the business in this article, the company did initially respond to an RFQ (Request For Quote), but they then withdrew their intention to bid, and out of courtesy also stated why.  I guess their alternative would be to either submit a "No Bid" or take the risk they may still end up having to do business with someone they didn't want to by purposely submitting a bid with a completely uncompetitive price.  Why should they be castigated because they made a business decision based on their personal preference and in which they are not breaking the law in their state for so doing? 

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0641.htm

The laws aren't necessarily the way to change society.  However consider that right after the civil war, blacks, under stringent laws, were suddenly allowed to have property, become educated, and even hold seats in congress and the senate.  However after the elections of 1876, in which democrat Samuel J Tilden won, there was a secret deal cut, by which the republican was allowed to win (Rutherford B Hayes).  This deal was that the imposed laws allowing blacks rights, would be lifted and the South could once again rule itself.  Well I can tell you that blacks were almost immediately disenfranchised.  It wasn't until the civil rights act under Eisenhower in the 1950's that such an action was reversed.

Laws may not make us different, but they do establish norms.