DETAILS
Should private companies have the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree?

After the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, Google, GoDaddy, YouTube, PayPal, and other companies revoked access to their services for a number of white supremacist groups. These cases, in which private companies take away access to their products and/or refuse service to an individual or a group of people, are in many ways similar to the case of the Christian bakery owners who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012. Ultimately, courts ruled that the bakery must offer its services to gay couples. In all of these scenarios, the business owners believe they have the right to refuse service on the basis of their beliefs and values.

In the case of the tech companies, their decision was based at least in part on the fact that they have clearly stated their beliefs in their term of service and/or code of conduct, and these groups are violating those terms by posting about issues such as white supremacy, therefore forfeiting their right to use the service or platform.

The groups prevented from using these platforms and services believe they are entitled to use these open-access products, regardless of what they post.  Supporters of these groups–some of whom are normally associated with left-leaning causes–are cautioning about the precedent this may set for other groups. They claim that if private companies can revoke access to white supremacist groups, then there is nothing stopping them from taking away access from groups who advocate for things like LGBTQ rights or from banning political candidates whose platforms don’t match the company’s beliefs.

What do you think? Should private companies have the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree?

Current Standings:
Yes: 59%
No: 41%
  • Faith from Virginia

    Yes. It’s a free country, we have rights. I believe that they should disagree, but set an example in the same way to whom they disagree with. Personally I don’t agree with being gay. But I still want to set an example of the right way to act towards them. Their thinking is sick, but they could have a real good heart.

    [read less]

    Yes. It’s a free country, we have rights. I believe that they should disagree, but set an example in the same way to whom they disagree with. Personal…

    [read more]
    6
    • Faith from Virginia

      That is their choice. Clearly, Trump was voted in. So maybe we will have a change sometime soon.

      0
    • Keanu from Texas

      So what if they don’t follow biblical principles. They can believe in whatever they want. They have a right to believe whatever.

      0
    • Faith from Virginia

      Yes, they are people just like you and me. But they have chosen not to follow biblical principles. Their thinking is wrong but we must love them for who they are. I think we all should be allowed to rufuse offers from things we don’t believe in. What if it’s not the people, it’s he sick idea of being gay. They are the ones choosing to be gay. It was not Adam and Steve in the garden, Adam and Eve.

      [read less]

      Yes, they are people just like you and me. But they have chosen not to follow biblical principles. Their thinking is wrong but we must love them for w…

      [read more]
      0
    • Keanu from Texas

      Don’t the gay people have rights? They’re human aren’t they? Or no you think that to be false?

      0
  • Laith from North Carolina

    I believe that companies can enforce their own rules and terms & services. For the example, GoDaddy denied hosting a neo-nazi site. The neo-nazi cite has agreed to the terms and services that have been stated clearly by GoDaddy but has been violated. Some people argue that this violates their freedom of speech on the internet. But that is invalid. The first amendment gives you a right not to be censored by the government, not by private organizations. It does not exclude companies from regulating who they want to do business with. But there is a difference between companies not desiring to serve you and them discriminating against you. Discrimination means that companies don’t want to serve you because of your race, age, religion, and sexuality.

    [read less]

    I believe that companies can enforce their own rules and terms & services. For the example, GoDaddy denied hosting a neo-nazi site. The neo-nazi c…

    [read more]
    2
    • Faith from Virginia

      Agreed. Great points

      0
  • Austin from Georgia

    I think that a company should be allowed to choose who can use their services and who can’t. When a user joins a website they have to agree to a ToS which is basically a rule book. Just like countries have rule books (laws) websites should be allowed to give a set standard on what a user can and can not do on their platform. A great example that correlates the two parties of government and companies would be the government revoking rights of individuals that break laws, don’t pay taxes, etc. In the United States we have the Second Amendment which states “Citizens have the right to bear arms.” It was a controversial topic in the 2016-2017 presidential campaign and still is. Every single United States citizen has the right to bear arms(Granted they have to legally register it and get a license to carry it) yet the government still has the right to revoke that right. One of the easiest way to revoke this right is by breaking the law and becoming a felon. Citizens that break the law involving a crime with a firearm usually become felons. Their firearm privileges are revoked until they apply to regain them. If the U.S government is allowed to provide a service to their citizens and revoke it if they break the law why should a company not be allowed to do they same? Why should they be denied the right to make rules for their platform and revoke privileges if users of the site break them. The Bakery Owner was forced to provide services because his choice to deny his services was based on discrimination. The gay couple did not break any rules.

    [read less]

    I think that a company should be allowed to choose who can use their services and who can’t. When a user joins a website they have to agree to a ToS w…

    [read more]
    1
  • Mallory from Colorado

    Yes. Although discrimination is bad, people have the right to refuse service to others. If they have openly displayed their beliefs and values in their terms of service and/or code of conduct, then they have the right to say no. I believe that the right to say yes to something is powerful, but I believe the right to say no is even more powerful. There’s nothing wrong with having different beliefs and both the business owner and customer should be able to understand that. The business owner should have the right to uphold their beliefs just as much as the customer.

    [read less]

    Yes. Although discrimination is bad, people have the right to refuse service to others. If they have openly displayed their beliefs and values in thei…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rebecca from Colorado

    Companies have the right to refuse service to anyone, however if it is solely on discrimination then it is illegal.

    0
  • Kat from Texas

    I think that people should be able to refuse their services to people whose beliefs they go against. As long as it is the persons own business they should be able to refuse people who go against what they stand for. I can see what other people mean when they say that it is wrong to refuse services to people whose beliefs go against yours since they are people like everyone else. But there are other stores that people can go to that sell or provide almost the exact same as the store that is refusing customers. This is a free country and people should retain the right to refuse service to whom they want to.

    [read less]

    I think that people should be able to refuse their services to people whose beliefs they go against. As long as it is the persons own business they sh…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ryne from Texas

    I believe a private company has the right to deny people access based on their beliefs. It is their business and they should get to choose who buys things. If it was a bigger company, worldwide it would be different. Everyone has to right to believe what they want but it goes both ways.

    [read less]

    I believe a private company has the right to deny people access based on their beliefs. It is their business and they should get to choose who buys th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrew from Texas

    Yes private companies should have the right to with hold there product from groups they disagree with ecspecially when the group they are disagreeing with is going aginst the terms of service for that product or website

    [read less]

    Yes private companies should have the right to with hold there product from groups they disagree with ecspecially when the group they are disagreeing …

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Massachusetts

    As a Catholic, I strongly believe that all people have those first amendment rights and should be able to exercise them. However, this does not mean that we should not treat the people on the other side of the issue with dignity and respect. All people, no matter what their background is or what they believe must be treated with the respect they deserve, but asking people to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate customers they don’t agree with is just plain wrong.

    [read less]

    As a Catholic, I strongly believe that all people have those first amendment rights and should be able to exercise them. However, this does not mean …

    [read more]
    0
  • Brendan from Massachusetts

    The thought that the government can force someone to make anything for something they don’t believe in is crazy and dangerous. We live in a free country and that means everyone has rights and freedoms, not just specific groups that are set above the rest of society.

    [read less]

    The thought that the government can force someone to make anything for something they don’t believe in is crazy and dangerous. We live in a free count…

    [read more]
    0
    • Maria from Massachusetts

      Yes!!

      0
  • Adria from Georgia

    Although it is a free country and everyone has equal rights, I do believe that private companies can refuse service to specific groups. One click of a button allows someone to say that the “agree to the terms of service”. Whether or not they actually read the terms of service remains a mystery. Regardless of the fact that you probably didn’t read them, you still have to go by those terms. Private companies are private for a reason. They are allowed to create and execute their own rules. There are two options. You can abide by the rules or just not use their resource at all. Companies have standards to uphold, and if they do not want to be viewed in a certain way by the public, then they have the right to refuse service.

    [read less]

    Although it is a free country and everyone has equal rights, I do believe that private companies can refuse service to specific groups. One click of a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Caleb from Texas

    I believe in the principle of private property. Everybody has an unalienable, natural right to property, and government cannot abridge that right any more justly than a private individual can. If you believe this as well, you must accept the principle of freedom of association, which includes the right to DISassociate.

    [read less]

    I believe in the principle of private property. Everybody has an unalienable, natural right to property, and government cannot abridge that right any …

    [read more]
    0
  • K from Texas

    Yes, they have the right to deny service from anyone. It might seem wrong towards those but, in their eyes it is right to them. It’s their company and they can enforce whatever kind of laws that they want.

    [read less]

    Yes, they have the right to deny service from anyone. It might seem wrong towards those but, in their eyes it is right to them. It’s their company and…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hayden from Alabama

    I believe that it comes down to what the company believes, which is protected by the 1st Amendment. The thing that makes private companies great is that they have their own values, beliefs, and mission that is different from other companies.

    [read less]

    I believe that it comes down to what the company believes, which is protected by the 1st Amendment. The thing that makes private companies great is th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Julio from Arizona

    I believe that private companies should have the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree. The first and biggest reason of all in my opinion would be that it’s their company they should have the right to do whatever they want. Now I am sure they would only refuse service first if they have a good amount of consumers and I’m sure they also have good reasoning. Nobody is going to refuse service to an ordinary good customer it is just not logical in my opinion escpecially knowing that the leaders or representatives of these companies are proffesionals who have experience in both business and the world I’m sure there would be a reason. Now given the example of companies like PayPal who have revoked access to their services for a group, in this case white supremacists, I personally believe that the company should be able to do so just by the simple fact that it’s their company and they will receive the consequences if there is any.

    [read less]

    I believe that private companies should have the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree. The first and bigge…

    [read more]
    0
  • Timothy from Texas

    Mostly, people talk about the Christian bakery denying the gay couple service and YouTube and other companies banning the White Supremacist groups accounts. From this, some people say that the companies banning the white supremacist accounts is justified because what they’re doing is wrong, but based on Christian beliefs, being homosexual is wrong, so what’s the difference? Both groups believe that both acts are wrong, so why should they HAVE to serve them?

    [read less]

    Mostly, people talk about the Christian bakery denying the gay couple service and YouTube and other companies banning the White Supremacist groups acc…

    [read more]
    0
    • Bronson from Arizona

      The difference is White Supremacists cause harm to other groups of people, while LGBT does not (to my knowledge)

      0
  • Britney from Ohio

    Yes they can because it is their business and their product so if they do not want to serve you with it when you order it than that is fine you have to deal with that. It might seem rude but if that is the companies choice then that is your problem not theirs.

    [read less]

    Yes they can because it is their business and their product so if they do not want to serve you with it when you order it than that is fine you have t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Madison from Arizona

    I feel that private companies should be able to enforce there own rule and regulations because they are he owners and have the right to be superior. Although the owners may take there regulations to an extreme by not serving people they just “don’t like”, they still have the right to enforce there rules.

    [read less]

    I feel that private companies should be able to enforce there own rule and regulations because they are he owners and have the right to be superior. A…

    [read more]
    0
  • Josh from North Carolina

    Yes they can because it is their business and their product so if they do not want to serve you with it when you order it than that is fine you have to deal with that. It might seem rude but if that is the companies choice then that is your problem not theirs.

    [read less]

    Yes they can because it is their business and their product so if they do not want to serve you with it when you order it than that is fine you have t…

    [read more]
    0
  • annah from North Dakota

    yes, of course businesses and corporations have the right to with hold their services. Whether business owners refuse to give them your service because of your political beliefs, religion, your race, or whom you decide to stand with affects that, so be it. What you want to sell and who you want to sell your product to, is as hard as it should be to own a business in America.

    [read less]

    yes, of course businesses and corporations have the right to with hold their services. Whether business owners refuse to give them your service becau…

    [read more]
    0
  • John from Wisconsin

    The case with the wedding cake has nothing to do with religious rights vs gay rights and everything to do with freedom of association, which everyone has. The argument for natural rights is not in favor of the irrational reason for denying service, but of the fact that one individual voluntarily chooses not to trade his property with another. To enforce anti- discrimination laws is to force one individual to serve another at point of gun by the state. Private businesses can objectively discriminate their customers on the basis of property rights, the Constitution, and the incentives of the free market.

    Property is a natural right that every individual is granted equally. The Constitution provides that any State cannot, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law, nor deny any person within it’s jurisdiction the equal protection”. The supreme law of the land equally protects the property rights of all individuals, on the contrary of the popular view that people with more property have less property rights. This is a fallacy, because according to the equal protection clause, property rights are a constant across all citizens, regardless of the private transactions they have engaged in the past.
    This means that a bakery has to give the exact same consent to trade property with customers as anyone else. They do not lose the basic right to not associate because of their voluntary decision to open a cake shop. Therefore, the state using compulsion to force the store owner to sell a cake to another, regardless of the reason, violates natural rights just as much as you or I enslaving one another.

    The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”.
    Forcing a citizen to bake a cake for another is servitude as well as involuntary. Involuntary servitude is prohibited in the Constitution and there is no other way to interpret the objective English. A says A, therefore it means A, not -A. The state forcing a business owner at point of gun to serve another is morally wrong as well as unconstitutional, regardless of the reason. You can’t force me to serve you and can’t use the state moreover.

    Much of the delusion to the situation springs form the idea of unearned positive rights. The gay couple did not lose any sort of natural right in Colorado, because no individuals have the rights to trade property when the other side does not give consent. Individuals do not have natural rights that compel others to do something for them. Therefore, your inalienable rights cannot depend on the labor of someone else. No gay, or straight couple has the “right” to a bakery when the baker has opened on his own free will. When people form businesses they don’t gain a state enforced responsibility to serve the public. The only significance of the change is the manipulation of property to make easier voluntary exchanges.

    When it is realized that people open stores with free will many hypothetical situations can be made that come as a shock to the advocates of positive rights. If absolutely no individual in the world made the choice to create and sell shoes, you’re going barefoot. You don’t have the right to force someone to sell you that thing, just because you want that thing.

    This leads to the last point. The only factor that can prevent unfair discrimination is the free-market. If we infer that a business rejected a sale based on discriminatory motives we must make one assumption first: that the trade would otherwise have equally benefited the seller and the consumer. If
    this is true, then the seller would have lost the “would-be” profit that the consumer had offered, without exception. This means that there is absolutely no economic incentive to discriminate customers on the basis of race or sexual orientation.

    Objections to consider:

    1. A common counterargument is that businesses use publicly funded goods to support the flow of exchange, like roads and schools. Therefore, businesses must serve all taxpayers. However, it turns out that state compulsion us not justified by more state compulsion and the publicly funded goods were involuntary to the business in the first place. The logic in this argument goes as followed: Since the state forces A, then the state can also force B. Advocates of anti- discrimination laws also will say that because of public roads etc, the business now only exists for the public interest, not for one’s own sake. Since the state forces A, the business must now work only for altruistic motives.
    2. No, people that are against anti-discrimination laws are not white-supremacists. Individuals that assume that advocates of legalization of a particular action are advocating for that particular action are not worth having a dialogue with. This logic would follow that everything the public deems good is legal and everything bad illegal, but I’m sure the statistic wouldn’t agree with that. This sort of thinking is the idea that everything is the state.
    3. Anti-discrimination law advocates will then resort to the idea that because you specifically as a individual have not been denied service, therefore you are not emotionally capable of making this argument. The problem with this is than personal situations don’t change principles. Freedom of association and autonomy over one’s work are natural rights, which is principle. This is also in hand with the non-aggression principle. It’s not as if we stand looking at this from a different angle and freedom of association looks a little different, just as scientific laws do not change when we feel they do. If you are more offended by something than me, natural rights don’t change. The idea of freedom is not put at a graduated scale of hoe offended certain individuals are be the actions of a few.

    [read less]

    The case with the wedding cake has nothing to do with religious rights vs gay rights and everything to do with freedom of association, which everyone …

    [read more]
    0
    • Keanu from Texas

      This is the best case of your side I can give you that, but that does not mean it is infallible. Discrimination is a violation of liberty. Person A (the person who refuses service) violates the liberty of person B (the person who is being refused service.) The protection of one’s property is at the cost of another’s liberty and not just that person the entire society that you disagree with loses their liberty when they come for your service. You can bring all kind of support and evidence you want but it comes straight down to that. One’s property versus the group’s liberty.

      [read less]

      This is the best case of your side I can give you that, but that does not mean it is infallible. Discrimination is a violation of liberty. Person A (t…

      [read more]
      0
  • Andrew from Minnesota

    Though many may find the classic “We don’t serve your kind here!” speech to be insensitive and intolerant, that does not make it so. In the case of the bakery owner from 2012, the owner was simply exercising his right to run his business how he chooses. This is no different than colleges refusing students based on test scores or personal history. If Harvard can deny an individual because of a test score, why can’t a private business refuse service to someone with a different ideology? On the other hand, many people refuse to look at the opposite side of the argument. People only see that a man refused to serve a gay couple because his religion denoted homosexuals as sinful; what those same people refuse to research was the baker’s viewpoint. The baker, Jack Phillips, told news outlets that he would have sold any other baked good to the couple, just not a wedding cake. He cited his freedom of religion as a basic right which allowed him to refuse the service. People brush off the citation as an excuse and blame him for violating Colorado’s Ante-Discrimination Act, which was created long after the Bill of Rights. What people also don’t know is that Phillips was required to retrain his entire staff because of the scandal and now has to report everything he does as a business owner to the government for the rest of his life. This is simply another case of unnecessary government interference.

    [read less]

    Though many may find the classic “We don’t serve your kind here!” speech to be insensitive and intolerant, that does not make it so. In the case of th…

    [read more]
    0
    • annah from North Dakota

      wow, I feel informed. Thanks for that.

      0
  • Ethan from Texas

    America is based upon the Constitution and Bill of Rights, if a business owner puts in the hard work to build up their business and they feel it is necessary not to serve certain people than that is 100% their choice and their legal right! Nobody should be forced to serve someone that will cause the supplier to turn their backs to religious or moral beliefs. For instance if a customer comes in and disrespects me in any way and i feel like they’re personally attacking me i would ask them to leave and refuse service. That is just a basic law that allows us to grow our business in the direction we would like it to go with it. This is one thing that makes America so great and unlike any other place is our Bill of Rights!

    [read less]

    America is based upon the Constitution and Bill of Rights, if a business owner puts in the hard work to build up their business and they feel it is ne…

    [read more]
    0
  • Job from Ohio

    they should be able to because it they company they should be able to not serve to certain people depending on that your your company is

    0
  • Jacob from Ohio

    Yes a private company has the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree because they aren’t a well know company like Target they are a open free to anybody and a private company is not well known and private means secret so it’s there own company they have the right to do that.

    [read less]

    Yes a private company has the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree because they aren’t a well know company…

    [read more]
    0
  • Max from Arizona

    I believe that any company should have the right of refusal to customers under most conditions. Most businesses even display the sign for good reason. Some customers just are not worth the headache on one end but on the flip side business owners should not be forced to offer a service if it bridges basic rights ( In the bakery incident it was freedom of religion). The companies like paypal that are refusing service have a good reason as well. Its not the fact about white supremacy or Neo-Nazi but the Blatant violence shown in these protesters. This is a major liability for big companies like paypal as they may use their service to buy weapons for protests or other items used to harm fellow citizens or police for that matter. One of our rights is the right to petition but when it becomes violent is exactly when it needs to stop. Whether the government does this or other independent agents decide to take away privileges to help gain back order and the intended original right.

    [read less]

    I believe that any company should have the right of refusal to customers under most conditions. Most businesses even display the sign for good reason….

    [read more]
    0
  • payton from Mississippi

    I believe that companies have the right to refuse service to anybody but, i think that the reason that they refused service was very rude. People should be able to live how they want to and even if you don’t agree with their belifes then that doesn’t mean you have the right to judge them because they are different.

    [read less]

    I believe that companies have the right to refuse service to anybody but, i think that the reason that they refused service was very rude. People shou…

    [read more]
    0
  • Edward from New York

    A private company is just that, privately owned. The owner/operator has the right to refuse anyone services based upon their belief system, code of morality, religious affiliation, or other.
    BTW, the bakery who refused to offer services to the gay couple eventually went bankrupt as a result of all the negative press and aggressive protesting outside the establishment. This is a perfect example of “free speech as long as you think as I do” A private company can refuse or revoke services to anyone, otherwise the owner’s free speech is impinged upon.

    [read less]

    A private company is just that, privately owned. The owner/operator has the right to refuse anyone services based upon their belief system, code of mo…

    [read more]
    0
  • John from Pennsylvania

    Yes because within capitalist societies the only true concern for organizations is money. If a compnay chooses to follow its beliefs based on religion or preference or whatever else that is their own business, and in the end it can only truly hurt them because there will always be competition to drive the evonomy.

    [read less]

    Yes because within capitalist societies the only true concern for organizations is money. If a compnay chooses to follow its beliefs based on religion…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kyle from New York

    Absolutely. America was founded on the basic principle of “freedom”, including laissez faire. IF the government isn’t supposed to interfere in economics and business, who are they to say who I can and can’t serve in MY establishment.
    GoDaddy has the right to not host a Neo Nazi just because they don’t like them, but a baker can’t deny service to someone who is doing something against their religious beliefs. I also remember something being said about “Freedom of Religion” in the Bill of Rights.

    [read less]

    Absolutely. America was founded on the basic principle of “freedom”, including laissez faire. IF the government isn’t supposed to interfere in econom…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ethan from Montana

    I believe that since they are private companies, they should be able to allow or refuse services to whomever they want. Going off the example of Google refusing service to white supremacists, who are a closed minded, because the company is accepting of open minded groups. However, if the company were to refuse service or products to a group of individuals or another company, they should state why they are refusing there services or products.

    [read less]

    I believe that since they are private companies, they should be able to allow or refuse services to whomever they want. Going off the example of Googl…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maddy from Kansas

    People who own companies should be allowed to have their own opinions and act on them. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Who gets to decide what is wrong and what is right? The government should not have that kind of control because that sort of power could easily be abused.

    [read less]

    People who own companies should be allowed to have their own opinions and act on them. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Who gets to decide w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Travis from Kansas

    If a company is willing to lose a customer for their religion or maybe just what they think is not correct. That is the company’s choice, the government shouldn’t tell you who you can give your services to and who you can’t give it to. The government would then get to control a lot of the media. Also freedom of religion comes into play and the government deciding that what is religious and what is not.

    [read less]

    If a company is willing to lose a customer for their religion or maybe just what they think is not correct. That is the company’s choice, the governme…

    [read more]
    0
  • Carson from Kansas

    I think that private companies should be allowed to choose who gets service because it is their company and they should get to decide what they should do with their company.

    0
  • Ian from Kansas

    I think that company’s should be able to choose what go’s on in their company. Just think if you had a company and you have put a whole lot of money in it, next thing you know the government is telling you what you can and cannot do. Company’s should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it’s within the law.

    [read less]

    I think that company’s should be able to choose what go’s on in their company. Just think if you had a company and you have put a whole lot of money i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Braden from Kansas

    People need to have freedom of speech. Forcing businesses to sell things to people that they don’t agree with takes that freedom away from them. I’m not saying that it’s always right to refuse services just because they are gay or lesbian, but everyone deserves freedom of speech.

    [read less]

    People need to have freedom of speech. Forcing businesses to sell things to people that they don’t agree with takes that freedom away from them. I’m n…

    [read more]
    0
  • marissa from Kansas

    I think private companies should be able to sell items to whoever they want. If someone up brings a company with there own effort and money they can choose how to run it. If someone doesn’t like it then they shouldn’t purchase anything from them.

    [read less]

    I think private companies should be able to sell items to whoever they want. If someone up brings a company with there own effort and money they can c…

    [read more]
    0
  • Conner from Kansas

    i agree, people should be able to speak and act on what they believe in. the government should not be able to dictate what people do.

    0
  • Ian from Kansas

    They should have their opinion in choosing who they serve for any reason. It’s their choice.

    0
  • Geoffrey from Kansas

    Private companies should have the right to withhold their products or services from a certain group or person because its their products if they don’t want to sell to that group they miss out on more money and thats their problem.

    [read less]

    Private companies should have the right to withhold their products or services from a certain group or person because its their products if they don’…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexa from North Carolina

    People have opinions that are theirs. And if THEIR company chooses not to serve someone based on their beliefs, then it is their choice. Just as Chick-fil-a refuses to serve anyone on Sunday because they are a Christian company, Google refuses to serve white supremacists because they are an open-minded company.

    [read less]

    People have opinions that are theirs. And if THEIR company chooses not to serve someone based on their beliefs, then it is their choice. Just as Chick…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ethan from Kansas

    For the gays, there is a difference between between selling a muffin for to a gay person. But if you make a cake you put your name on it and it participating in a gay ceremony and its plane as day what the bible says about gay marrige like Romans 1:26-28, then you got photographers and other christian companies that can’t participate. Then if you force them should you force pastors or Islam pastors to preform the marriage? And look at the 1st amendment if it goes against religious values then they can’t. And if you force it on them should religions that can’t go to war be forced into the draft? But if a gay comes and ask for a muffin just because he’s hungry and its not participating in a gay wedding and you just don’t want to deal with gays then that’s when it crosses the line of discrimination. But on the hate group, you can’t ban them on a website, because we have the first amendment for a reason, if they threaten you then thats breaking the law it clear. We have the first amendment for a reason and also the 14th amendment. If you don’t want to be in any way participated in a ceromy then thats fine don’t let them sponsor it. But don’t silence them completely

    [read less]

    For the gays, there is a difference between between selling a muffin for to a gay person. But if you make a cake you put your name on it and it partic…

    [read more]
    0
  • Evan from New Jersey

    Companies will and always should retain the right to serve who they want. In the infamous case of the wedding cake, it isn’t morally right, but if the owner is willing to lose that customer, then that is the companies’ choice. In the case of the white nationalist website the same statement applies private owners have a right to serve who they please. For example if a person walks into a gun shop, with a history of violence and crime, the owner has a right to deny their purchase. Refusal of sale is a hallmark of American businesses and as long as the refusal isn’t based on discrimination it is legal and if a service infringes on a person’s belief then it is their choice to stop the transaction.

    [read less]

    Companies will and always should retain the right to serve who they want. In the infamous case of the wedding cake, it isn’t morally right, but if the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joshua from Wisconsin

    As philosopher Frederic Bastiat explained in his seminal work, The Law, each person, and by extension, each private-entity, has God-given property rights that they are free to use in any way they see fit. The only limitation on this freedom is when a private entity uses his/her/its faculties to infringe on the property-rights of another. With this exception, ANY inhibition of an individual’s free-choice is a violation of private property rights. This certainly applies to the topic at hand. Private companies who deny goods or services to customers are simply exercising their right to free-choice, no more, no less. We may disagree with their choice, we can even condemn them as immoral bigots, but that is not the same as believing they should have their freedom stripped away.

    As a side note, Private companies’ products are not public accomodations and should not be considered so; public accomodations refer to government-provided services. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies to the latter and not the former.

    Further, if the government is given the power to prevent private companies from withholding services from those with whom they disagree, then where is the line drawn? Governments, composed of individual politicians with agendas, certainly have agendas as well. If given this power, governments will exercise it to fit their agenda. Free speech and private property will be violated. Private companies with political beliefs that match bureacrats’ agendas will be overlooked, while other private companies with different beliefs will be selectively punished. We already see this in America: Christian bakers who wish to deny services to gay weddings are prosecuted while Muslim bakers are left alone. I am not saying bigotry is a “good” or ethical thing. I am simply saying individuals and private entitites *should* have the freedom to be a bigot. Even if you assume the use of coercion (i.e. the state) is successful in ending bigotry, it comes at the huge cost of forcing conformity, an end to individualism, and dissenting ideas squashed. Why does this mattter? As John Stuart Mill wrote, not only is “free expression of individuality” an inalienable right, it is also necessary for societal progress. Society is composed of individuals who differ in valuable ways; if given freedom, individuals have potential to further society creatively.

    Further, if consumers have the right to choose their suppliers, why can’t companies have the right to choose their consumers? If one says that it is because companies (corporations, for example) are much larger and can thusi nflict much more damage, isn’t that arbitrarily discriminating certain companies based on their size? Isn’t that, in a way, punishing successfull business tactics?

    Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that private companies have every incentive to NOT withhold goods or services from those with whom they disagree, say, on political issues: it makes for bad business because they lose profit from the customers being spurned and they turn off other customers. For almost every private company this incentive is enough for them not to selectively withhold services.

    [read less]

    As philosopher Frederic Bastiat explained in his seminal work, The Law, each person, and by extension, each private-entity, has God-given property rig…

    [read more]
    0
  • Trent from Kansas

    I agree with this to a certain extent. The sights that are taking down people’s videos that are very disturbing should be allowed. If a private owner of a company want’s to take down a video of a man beating a woman then they should be able to, or if they want to take something down that shows someone doing something illegal or even something that is against their belief then they should be able to. It is their company they should control what happens on it. If a Christian doesn’t want to provide services to a gay person then they shouldn’t have to. That is going against their religion and people should not be forced to go against their religion. However people shouldn’t be able to not provide something because of someone’s race. That is not against religion.

    [read less]

    I agree with this to a certain extent. The sights that are taking down people’s videos that are very disturbing should be allowed. If a private owner …

    [read more]
    0
  • jessi from Kansas

    After reading these article i believe people have a right to refuse service. if its because of their religion to their political beliefs. everyone has a right to refuse what they seem as wrong, just as long as they do it in the right way. Before i read these articles i would have said no one has a right to refuse people of cakes for their wedding. but they do as long as they do it in the right way. no one should have their choose taken from them.

    [read less]

    After reading these article i believe people have a right to refuse service. if its because of their religion to their political beliefs. everyone has…

    [read more]
    0
  • Luke from Kansas

    You should be able to hold some people from getting getting things like if a criminal came to my store and tried to buy a gun or any type of weapon, I believe you have the right to say no. But if a gay or black person walks into my store and try to buy a gun and they have a clean recored. then Im going to let them get it

    [read less]

    You should be able to hold some people from getting getting things like if a criminal came to my store and tried to buy a gun or any type of weapon, I…

    [read more]
    0
  • Corbyn from Kansas

    I believe that businesses of America should have the right to refuse service. Having freedom of speech, also comes with having conflict from the opposing side. If you have the right to say and do what you believe, then they should have the right to do the same.

    [read less]

    I believe that businesses of America should have the right to refuse service. Having freedom of speech, also comes with having conflict from the oppo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Izy from Kansas

    i say yes to this question but it all depends are your beliefs and religion. but if it is your company and it has your beliefs then it is the owners decision, just like donald trump and the no transgenders in the military.

    [read less]

    i say yes to this question but it all depends are your beliefs and religion. but if it is your company and it has your beliefs then it is the owners d…

    [read more]
    0
  • BreAnna from Kansas

    Companies should have the right to choose who they sell to and who they refuse to sell to. If this is their choice to refuse service it is their choice to loose the business that those customers would of bought items or services from their company.

    [read less]

    Companies should have the right to choose who they sell to and who they refuse to sell to. If this is their choice to refuse service it is their choic…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brian from Kansas

    Companies have the rights to deny service, thats why the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sticker is on almost every restaurant, store, and any other place in America. You shouldn’t be going around flaunting your Neo-Nazi ways and expect the world to bow down to you. Then if you want to refuse service to the Neo-Nazi’s then go right ahead, you don’t take any hit from any people because they want to think you’re “racist”.

    [read less]

    Companies have the rights to deny service, thats why the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sticker is on almost every restaurant, store, and any other …

    [read more]
    0
  • John from Kansas

    People should be allowed to practice their religion with their businesses. For example if a Muslim man owned a bakery and a gay man came and asked for a wedding cake, then he should be able to practice the first amendment and refuse service to people against his beliefs.

    [read less]

    People should be allowed to practice their religion with their businesses. For example if a Muslim man owned a bakery and a gay man came and asked for…

    [read more]
    0
  • Zeb from Kansas

    If you have your religion and you deeply disagree with someone then yes i feel like you have the right to do that… but if its a racist then i don’t think you do.

    0
  • Riley from California

    “No shirt, no shoes, no service” has been a staple of American business for an untold number of years. Next, shall we deny the right of businesses to deny service to naked people?

    0
  • Carson from Texas

    As a private entity, a company holds the right to offer it’s service to the market. The business, reliant on the market for success or failure, can, within legal statutes, offer a service to a niche or a condensed population which hasn’t been tapped into by a different business. A “social justice” attitude towards regulating the business would only establish a slippery slope to the point where only businesses that conform to “societal norms” are given the opportunity to chance their stake in the market itself, doubly violating the right to free speech and entrepreneurial foundation necessary in a capitalist economy.
    Granted, the case would be different under a Communist, socialist, or otherwise governmental controlled economy because the denial of service by one business would, in effect, be the denial of service by the state of a certain group of people.
    However, in a capitalist economy, where the consumer is King, the market will determine the fate of a business which denies service. They will either fail because their view is not widely supported by a niche population/general population or succeed because they offer a desirable view and service/product to a large enough population.
    The citizens, not the state, should determine who succeeds/fails because they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the decision, not the government.

    [read less]

    As a private entity, a company holds the right to offer it’s service to the market. The business, reliant on the market for success or failure, can, w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Samantha from New Mexico

    Though I am a firm believer in that people are entitled to their own opinion, I am also a believer that every business should have the right to refuse service to any customer. While it is sort of childish to refuse service because of a disagreement, the company has the right to do as they please in regards to customers. Also, may I point out that the questions says it is a private business. Therefore, since it is not public or merged with another business, there really isn’t too much to argue with.

    [read less]

    Though I am a firm believer in that people are entitled to their own opinion, I am also a believer that every business should have the right to refuse…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Virginia

    It is a private corporation. While this power could easily be used for more supported groups (such as the LGBT community) it is a privately owned corporation. If a company refused to offer services to a certain group the corporation will more likely than not have to face repercussions by the public already, and that alone should be motivation enough to keep business separated by personal beliefs. The government should stay out of it; I believe the public would enforce a greater punishment (and probably loss of business) than the government could ever ethically do.

    [read less]

    It is a private corporation. While this power could easily be used for more supported groups (such as the LGBT community) it is a privately owned corp…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maria from Massachusetts

    But only if it violates their religious beliefs. If it is a matter of “tolerance” or being “triggered” then there is no reason to withhold the services. However, when it comes to religious based companies being forced to choose between their beliefs and a customers wishes, they should absolutely have the right to refuse service.

    [read less]

    But only if it violates their religious beliefs. If it is a matter of “tolerance” or being “triggered” then there is no reason to withhold the service…

    [read more]
    0
    • Keanu from Texas

      That is not the case though. I am assuming you are referring in particular to the Christian baker. His beliefs did not contradict the sale of the gays’ wedding cake. I read your comments on other people’s arguments. You say that you are christian. You are then agreeing that selling a product to a sinner makes you a sinner. Doesn’t it just sound stupid? You aren’t being counted as gay by helping them? It is insane and as I am also Christian i know that it is not true.

      [read less]

      That is not the case though. I am assuming you are referring in particular to the Christian baker. His beliefs did not contradict the sale of the gays…

      [read more]
      0
  • Olivia from Wisconsin

    In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled on the Citizens United case. This 5-4 ruling declared that under the First Amendment, corporations had the same rights as people. Although this ruling was largely focused on corporations donating to campaigns, it still meant that corporations were uncensored as far as free speech. Therefore, private corporations and businesses are allowed to refuse service to other people.
    However, consumers also have free speech and have ever right to exercise it. In the many cases of Christian bakers refusing service to gay customers, most bakeries get shut down due to being featured in a negative light in articles or on Facebook. Private companies must understand that if they refuse service to certain people, they will lose business, sometimes enough to shut them down completely. This is not the fault of the group being targeted. This is the fault of the company. If YouTube suddenly decided to ban all LGBT YouTubers, they would lose the business of the people who watch those YouTubers, take a hit from those who stop using YouTube due to this decision, and watch their stocks fall. It would hurt YouTube which is why this hypothetical is not likely.
    Businesses can have their own beliefs and codes of conduct and decide from whom to revoke service. Regardless of wether Citizens United was a good decision, currently businesses legally have the same rights as individuals, and have every right to refuse service to anyone.

    [read less]

    In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled on the Citizens United case. This 5-4 ruling declared that under the First Amendment, corporations had the same right…

    [read more]
    0
  • Connors from North Carolina

    Companies should have the right to withhold their products from people or groups that they don’t agree with. It might be immoral depending on the group they are withholding their products from (like the gay couple) but in some cases (white nationalists) it could spare the feelings of others. The government shouldn’t control someones choices to sell products to groups. Companies have reasons to back up every choice that they make. Companies also want whats best for the company in the end. They will try to avoid bad publicity in any way that they can so they don’t loose customers. In the world that we live in things don’t really go unnoticed. People are always looking for the latest gossip or dirt on people and companies. If a company denies service to a gay couple the media will attack the company and make them lose profits. In the end the company won’t gain any money from the couple, they might even loose profits from people that support gay marriage. It should be the companies choice.

    [read less]

    Companies should have the right to withhold their products from people or groups that they don’t agree with. It might be immoral depending on the grou…

    [read more]
    0
    • Nallely from Texas

      They should have the right to deny access or withhold their products from a group with whom they disagree because they’re the owners and they started the business if someone is bullying or discriminating someone and you don’t agree with that you can refuse to serve them or sell your products.

      [read less]

      They should have the right to deny access or withhold their products from a group with whom they disagree because they’re the owners and they started…

      [read more]
      0
  • William from North Carolina

    It’s fine as long as people know that they will have their service revoked for doing those things. Take Discord, for example, who shut down multiple alt-right and KKK chat servers after Charlottesville. They were able to do so because their Terms of Service prevents inciting violence and crime. Many people said it was obstruction of freedom of speech, but it was all there in the paperwork. I disagree with companies shutting down service to forward their own agendas, but even then, it’s their private servers, of which they are the owner. The rules are different between the digital world and the real world.

    [read less]

    It’s fine as long as people know that they will have their service revoked for doing those things. Take Discord, for example, who shut down multiple a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maggie from Pennsylvania

    If you’re a Harry Potter fan you’ll probably recall the Unforgivable Curses. These are the 3 most feared spells throughout the series. Using any one of them is illegal and could easily result in being thrown in Azkaban. One of these spells is the Imperius curse. It allows one to control another person – a very scary thought indeed.
    But I ask you, is this any different from forcing a business owner to serve someone that they do not wish to serve? How different is this from compelling a Jew to serve a neo-Nazi, requiring an African American to serve a white supremacist, or forcing a gay or transgender person to sell goods with anti LGBTQ slogans? Allowing government to force business owners into serving groups they disagree with can lead down an extremely dangerous road.
    While the 14th Amendment ensures the government cannot discriminate, private companies, using their own resources, labor, and property, should have the right to conduct business as they please. Anything less than this, and the government has truly done something unforgivable: forced someone to do something against their wishes.

    Should a Jew be forced to serve a neo-Nazi? Should an African American be required to serve a white supremacist? Should a gay or transgender person be compelled to sell goods with anti LGBTQ messages?

    Any of the above options constitute nothing less than forced servitude. In America of all places – a bastion of liberty and safe guard of individual rights – no business owner should be forced into serving anybody they don’t wish to serve. While the 14th Amendment ensures the government cannot discriminate, private companies, using their own resources, labor, and property, should have the right to conduct business as they please.

    [read less]

    If you’re a Harry Potter fan you’ll probably recall the Unforgivable Curses. These are the 3 most feared spells throughout the series. Using any one o…

    [read more]
    0
    • James from New York

      Hi Maggie,
      First off, clever example with the Imperius curse from Harry Potter. Although I agree with many of your points listed hear, there’s a difference in your examples to the gay wedding cake. The baker was never legitimately threatened by gays, as Jews were by Nazi’s, and African American’s were by white supremacists. The baker merely disagreed with gays’ ideals. Jews were forced into labor, tortured, nearly 6 million of them brutally murdered. African American’s were forced to be separated from white’s for nothing more than their skin tone. They’d be beaten, punished, treated unfairly by pretty much everyone. The transgender example is also different because the goods were anti LGBTQ. The wedding cake example wasn’t anti- anti gay people, it was just a wedding cake for a gay couple. It didn’t say anything against people who think that gays are morally wrong.
      Now I’m not saying that I disagree with one side or the other, but you examples don’t apply to what really happened.

      [read less]

      Hi Maggie,
      First off, clever example with the Imperius curse from Harry Potter. Although I agree with many of your points listed hear, there’s a diff…

      [read more]
      0
  • Eduardo from Texas

    The USA is a has a capitalist system, in that the private companies should have the option of who they want to offer their goods and services. This being said, any company’s choice on to withhold their services on a specific group would in turn effect their public status and cause these consumers to give their services elsewhere.

    [read less]

    The USA is a has a capitalist system, in that the private companies should have the option of who they want to offer their goods and services. This be…

    [read more]
    0
  • Janine from New Jersey

    I believe private companies do deserve this right for a few reasons and under some circumstances. First of all, the circumstances I mean must be groups revolving around hatred of other people. If the private company owner dislikes a group because of their religion, race, or orientation, they should not be allowed to keep these people from buying their products. In the case of white supremacist groups, I do believe it should be allowed because these groups are endangering other individuals due to specific uncontrollable features that others are born with. It is important to disconnect from groups such as these in order to reduce any supposed support of them, and decrease oppression in the country. If discriminatory groups feel they are supported, they will grow, but if they realize their lack of support and/or the amount of people who disagree with them, these groups will shrink.

    [read less]

    I believe private companies do deserve this right for a few reasons and under some circumstances. First of all, the circumstances I mean must be group…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jonathan from California

    The Government has no right to be able to tell private businesses what they can and can’t do. We have our beautiful market system which allows people to do whatever they want and run their businesses however they want. Regulations and taxes are a pain to deal with. As for denying service, the business can do whatever they want and are punished for it in our market system in the form of less money. Capitalism promotes maximum efficiency when it comes to producing goods and services and if someone chooses not to provide this good or service, they are punished by the invisible market hand and the person who was denied can simply take their business to someone else and benefit them. The success of economies can be measured by the number of mutually beneficial transactions and forces businesses to do certain things lowers the number of mutually beneficial transactions.

    [read less]

    The Government has no right to be able to tell private businesses what they can and can’t do. We have our beautiful market system which allows people …

    [read more]
    0
  • Ricky from California

    The premise of a free market is to allow businesses to do what they want. This could range from giving things away for free, jacking up prices, or declining groups from using their businesses. The private business and corporations also have to deal with the consequences of these decisions, like losing revenue from the customers they serve. For example, if certain businesses ban white supremacists, they will lose their customers, whether it is by a small margin or a large one, thus resulting in a loss of profit. The right is still reserved in the business to make that decision. To refute the claim that this is discrimination; this is a capitalist free market society which is open to change in the markets. For example, the labeled “discriminatory” act of refusing gays from buying a cake opens up the opportunity for other businesses. Instead of suing and using the government as a bullying tool to force them to make a cake, a better solution would’ve been to find another bakery. This is the glory of a free market society. Business competition provides businesses with customers depending on the company’s belief. The customers that are denied service are then left with the option to go to another business, resulting in thats business’s prosperity. And if there is no othe opportunity, the free market would’ve given the ability to an enterprise to rise up and create a bakery that does provide cakes to homosexual couples.
    In conclusion, the right to deny service is nothing controversial. It is a calculated risk companies take in order to stand up for their beliefs, which should be applauded on both sides. The free market system provides opportunity for other companies to prosper or fall.

    [read less]

    The premise of a free market is to allow businesses to do what they want. This could range from giving things away for free, jacking up prices, or dec…

    [read more]
    0
  • Batoul from New York

    The backery was on American soil and, thus, should upheld to American rules. Private businesses, like YouTube and Google, which have no certain ties with American law, can choose who and who doesn’t use their product/services. Saying no to a gay couple is not equivalent to saying no to a white supremacist. Capitalism has allowed private businesses to conduct their work seperate from the US government, and so Google, YouTube, etc. have the right to refuse service baced on beliefs that do not correspond with their business’s values.

    [read less]

    The backery was on American soil and, thus, should upheld to American rules. Private businesses, like YouTube and Google, which have no certain ties w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cody from Kansas

    If someone doesn’t want to sell their product or service to a certain individual, then that is there right. If I’m the owner of a gun company, and someone who has a bad history with crime comes in to purchase a firearm, I would not let them buy it, that is my right. It is my belief that that is not okay to do. If my belief were to not serve members of certain groups then that’s okay, everyone has their own opinion on things. If you own a company, you have the right to choose what you want to do with your own company.

    [read less]

    If someone doesn’t want to sell their product or service to a certain individual, then that is there right. If I’m the owner of a gun company, and som…

    [read more]
    0
  • Keanu from Texas

    Do you know what separates us from most countries those especially like the Middle East and most of Africa? Our religious freedom. We don’t want to discourage religious diversity. Truthfully I don’t support white supremacy. I believe that white supremacy is just a waste of time. But anyways we as the United States of America would encourage diversity no matter the beliefs. Even with the Christian baker. Not refusing service won’t consider him gay nor does it mean he supports it. if he thought it was wrong due to his beliefs than he was wrong because he wouldn’t be punished for selling it to them. if he was trying to save them from punishment then he wasn’t. he was doing good to no one. In fact he lost reputation and money. Some people think that it is right to enforce their religious laws on their region. If the U.S. was made for this purpose then why don’t we see a copy of the Ten Commandments(Christianity) or Sharia Law(Islam) in the Constitution . Is it mandatory for us to worship God or Allah or Jesus or whoever every day? Do you need a copy of the Bible or the Quran and read it very day? No. None of this is enforced. YouTube or Google wouldn’t be doing anyone any good. People discriminate the Muslims because of the less than 0.04% that are terrorists. Oh it is very right isn’t it? NO! it is plain stupid. Thinking about just makes me laugh. 99.96% of Muslims are being discriminated. White supremacy is awful and useless. It shouldn’t be allowed just because of moral standards. But it should be allowed. i believe this way because i imagine how others would think about my religion. i wouldn’t want to get killed or prevented from doing stuff just because of it and i feel like others would think the same about their religion.
    Here i would like to present a law i made up called The Moral Law of Common Sense. this law essentially says that if it does not do you or anyone else any good than don’t do it. It is simple and completely true. This is basically why i think suicide bombing is just terrible. you aren’t doing anyone good not even yourself. in fact this can be said with robbery, homicide, and suicide. it even makes me feel sorry for the Japanese kamikaze pilots who were forced to dive their planes into the ground. Blocking access to white supremacists, won’t do them any good nor themselves.
    Now i separated a paragraph for this because i found it different than white supremacy. this was the neo-Nazi site. Now it is often mistaken that neo-nazis are German supportive. actually an American fascist which is basically a neo Nazi American supports America and thinks that America is a superior country. I bet there are many out there who we can call neo-nazis just by the fact that they think that the U.S. is a superior nation. ISIS is basically a religious fascist group that took on a violent turn. if they didn’t take that violent turn they wouldn’t be thought of as bad. the same is with Hitler. He believed the Aryans to be the superior race. he had a right to believe that as it was his beliefs and no one could force him to change it. What he didn’t have a right to was to execute violent action. The Nazi Party contained many people who changed their mind after finding out about Hitler’s violent intentions. that didn’t mean that they were no longer neo-Nazi. they were just against the Nazi Party of Germany because they found it wrong. If i chose between democrat and republican i would choose republican but that doesn’t mean i support Trump. i just find him as a rich idiot who bought his way into presidency. but that is my belief and i have a right to believe it, but that doesn’t mean i am going up on to a roof top and blow a hole straight through his face. what good does that do? Absolutely nothing. it reminds me of Edwin Starr’s War. but Starr got it right in the point. The main chorus proves the point:

    War
    What is it good for?
    Absolutely nothing

    Now war is a bit of an exaggeration for my context but it still works. There is no need of conflict. It is completely unnecessary. Believe what you believe, but don’t take action for your beliefs if it negatively affects others. If you want others to share the beliefs than talk to them. No conflict necessary. We have the right to believe in whatever we want. No one should discriminate us for it. This is what makes U.S. great. We have freedom.

    [read less]

    Do you know what separates us from most countries those especially like the Middle East and most of Africa? Our religious freedom. We don’t want to di…

    [read more]
    2
  • Holden from Texas

    This question is circumstancial and could go different ways depending on what group. For instance, if a company were to deny services to someone simply because they were LGBTQ, lots of people would be upset over that. But on the other hand if they were forced to give services to a white supremacy or neo nazi group, it would again be an outrage. My answer to this question, for better or worse is no, a company should not be allowed to withhold products or services from groups with different views. This is because those who are discriminated against and fighting for equality (LGBTQ, BLM, etc.) Have a right to have access all of the things the majority have access to.

    [read less]

    This question is circumstancial and could go different ways depending on what group. For instance, if a company were to deny services to someone simpl…

    [read more]
    2
    • Maria from Massachusetts

      But what about the rights of those performing the service? In the case of the bakery, you are condoning the violation of the baker’s first amendment rights. How is that fair? The gay couple could have easily gone to another bakery but there is no way the bakers could have made a cake without going against their beliefs.

      [read less]

      But what about the rights of those performing the service? In the case of the bakery, you are condoning the violation of the baker’s first amendment r…

      [read more]
      0
  • Taylor from Texas

    I think private companies shouldn’t have the right to withhold their products or services from groups they disagree with. In our first amendment it says we have the right to have free speech. We would be going against that if companies were allowed to denie customers they don’t agree with. Businesses don’t have the right to pick who they want to give their services to just because they disagree with them.

    [read less]

    I think private companies shouldn’t have the right to withhold their products or services from groups they disagree with. In our first amendment it sa…

    [read more]
    2
  • landon from Montana

    I think it is wrong for companies to discriminate against a certain group. the only way that I would agree to it being alright is with the christian bakery. I only agree with that scenario because in the christian religion, homosexuality is wrong.

    [read less]

    I think it is wrong for companies to discriminate against a certain group. the only way that I would agree to it being alright is with the christian b…

    [read more]
    2
    • Joey from Montana

      I’m supporting you!

      0
  • Jisoo from Texas

    Because citizens’ tax money pays for the public services that these businesses use such as roads and water systems and electricity, so in return they should serve all taxpayers. Discrimination should not play a part in our free enterprise system.

    [read less]

    Because citizens’ tax money pays for the public services that these businesses use such as roads and water systems and electricity, so in return they …

    [read more]
    2
  • Cross from Texas

    If facebook can prohibit usage of white supremacists, then Christian bakers deserve the right to refuse service for the LGBT community. That squanders rights, but FaceBook and twitter hold a small monopoly for large scale social media. A small bakery is a small bakery, there are other options. With facebook however, there aren’t. This is why its so tricky to create laws based on this. Either way it violates someone’s rights. FaceBook and small Christian bakeries alike are biased either way. But when a large company refuses service to 1 million+ people and a Christian Bakery has to bake a cake for 1-2 gay couples, its not an even argument. Now, if apple said they wouldn’t allow gays to buy their phones, and Samsung said the alt-right couldn’t buy their phones it would be more even, but either way it isn’t fair. Now it may seem like I’m standing on my soap box ranting about politics, and yes, I kind of am… But in the end gays and Christians have the same rights, the liberals and the conservative have the same rights. But businesses large or small shouldn’t be able to refuse a customer, no one wants to go back to the 50’s where whites and blacks were separated, but that’s a sad road we are driving on as of now… We can turn, we can change our path. We need to accept others beliefs. In the case of the Christian bakery, they can make a blank white cake, the couple can decorate themselves, that is a fix right? However I realize that’s more of a bandage. Alt-Right or gay, we are humans. Humans are capable of understanding each other. FaceBook needs to allow free speech on their cite, and bakeries don’t need to do anything against their religion, but they still can bake 1-2 cakes. I know it seemed like in the beginning I clicked no on accident, that was no accident. Private companies could do so much good and give so much hurt based on what they do. Compassion and undertraining- Human behaviors that we have learned to enable us to not only survive but to thrive.

    [read less]

    If facebook can prohibit usage of white supremacists, then Christian bakers deserve the right to refuse service for the LGBT community. That squanders…

    [read more]
    2
    • Maria from Massachusetts

      I agree with the majority of what you have to say. However, as a Christian myself, I can say that the Christian religion doesn’t work the way you described it. We cannot compromise on our beliefs to appease others. In the catechism, we are told to treat EVERYONE with dignity and respect, however, dignity and respect do not equal condoning someone’s views or helping them to go against our beliefs. We cannot condone gay marriage. What is often forgotten is that society would kill people for being gay and that only the Catholic church would NOT condone the killing of gays. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_Kingdom)
      We do not think gays are evil. We do not condone the actions they do, though. What you are asking the bakers to do is to violate their beliefs when the gays could have easily gone to another bakery. That is not right and it violates the bakers’ first amendment rights. This power does backlash on the Christian community as well. LiveAction has been refused service by YouTube and FaceBook because they do not condone abortion. But, because of the first amendment rights, businesses need to be able to refuse services

      [read less]

      I agree with the majority of what you have to say. However, as a Christian myself, I can say that the Christian religion doesn’t work the way you desc…

      [read more]
      0
  • Lilly from Georgia

    You may disagree with their choices and decisions, but you can’t punish people for choosing something that is entirely their own decision, not yours. That applies to both individuals and companies.

    [read less]

    You may disagree with their choices and decisions, but you can’t punish people for choosing something that is entirely their own decision, not yours. …

    [read more]
    1
  • Mackenzie from Arizona

    We live in a country that grants freedom of speech. While you may not agree with other peoples standpoints they still have free speech just like you. While what happened in Virginia was upsetting that people still proclaim white supremacy they were still proclaiming what they believed. Companies should not be denying access to their goods and products because of a persons belief. Companies are meant to distribute products to whoever buys them and shouldn’t be denied because of their beliefs.

    [read less]

    We live in a country that grants freedom of speech. While you may not agree with other peoples standpoints they still have free speech just like you. …

    [read more]
    1
  • Gretchen from Arizona

    I think it is wrong to refuse your service to someone just because you don’t agree with their lifestyle or their beliefs. This is flat out discrimination and that is not okay. It doesn’t matter if it is a white supremacist or a member of the LGBT community. They deserve service just as much as anyone else. If an employee doesn’t like the way a person lives their life, they should help them out anyway and just not say anything about it.

    [read less]

    I think it is wrong to refuse your service to someone just because you don’t agree with their lifestyle or their beliefs. This is flat out discriminat…

    [read more]
    1
  • Joey from Montana

    I think they shouldn’t withhold from specific groups. I think they should be open to it because it will look better on the companies if they did. If they don’t be open to it, it looks bad on them. All people shouldn’t be judged and not be able to buy or use stuff from certain companies because it seems wrong and what if those companies have the type of people working for them that they aren’t selling to. This is why I disagree.

    [read less]

    I think they shouldn’t withhold from specific groups. I think they should be open to it because it will look better on the companies if they did. If t…

    [read more]
    1
  • Taylor from Georgia

    I say no, quite simply because we can not discriminate. Whether it be by skin color, or a persons thought. As a country founded upon the expression of free speech, the companies must serve the people. All the people. These companies shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose who they want to serve. We’re giving them more power than they deserve plus since the companies are based in America they must abide by the constitution. This kind of censorship is anti constitutional, and it does not matter what ToS you signed for. Contracts can be broken, by law, if they are unjust, and this my friends is a unjust ToS. Hate speech shouldn’t be censored, because at the end of it, the people being censored get angrier. Let them get their emotions out, and vent that way.

    [read less]

    I say no, quite simply because we can not discriminate. Whether it be by skin color, or a persons thought. As a country founded upon the expression of…

    [read more]
    1
  • Savannah from Texas

    No, I do not believe that companies should have the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree. According to our first amendment, as citizens of the United States, we are allowed freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and press. Giving this right to businesses would undo what our ancestors worked so hard to accomplish through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    [read less]

    No, I do not believe that companies should have the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree. According to our…

    [read more]
    1
  • Julia from Arizona

    Our first amendment says that we have the right to free speech, and to say or post what we want. I don’t think that because someone’s beliefs differ from yours, that you should prohibit their use of your product. If they are willing to pay to use your product, does it matter their beliefs? By prohibiting them from using your product because of what they said, you are saying their free speech does not matter especially if it goes against what you believe in.

    [read less]

    Our first amendment says that we have the right to free speech, and to say or post what we want. I don’t think that because someone’s beliefs differ f…

    [read more]
    1
  • Maddy from Ohio

    I think that private companies shouldn’t be allowed to turn away service because there is no good reason for doing so – even if someone’s lifestyle doesn’t align with your views, you can’t just refuse to serve them.A company would do this would to be discriminatory towards someone for their sexual orientation, gender, race, or other superficial and dehumanizing reasons.

    [read less]

    I think that private companies shouldn’t be allowed to turn away service because there is no good reason for doing so – even if someone’s lifestyle do…

    [read more]
    1
  • Oathy from Ohio

    No private companies shouldn’t have the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree.I think this because everyone is human it doesn’t matter if you are gay.What ever you are it doesn’t matter we’re the same cause we’re human.

    [read less]

    No private companies shouldn’t have the right to withhold their products or services from groups with whom they disagree.I think this because everyone…

    [read more]
    1
  • joseph from Ohio

    I Believe that everyone should be treated equally no matter what there sexualty is because they are still a human just like everyone else

    1
    • Keanu from Texas

      @Ethan
      So you’re going to stop access to Google and YouTube for that? Had it been a weapon shop and they had criminal records than hell ya I’m on you’re side. That is not the case so why block a search engine and a form of entertainment?? If they are doing a online campaign and encouraging others to do violent crimes then block the video or website. But they are not.

      [read less]

      @Ethan
      So you’re going to stop access to Google and YouTube for that? Had it been a weapon shop and they had criminal records than hell ya I’m on yo…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ethan from Texas

      Ones preference on sexuality is not the only reason that someone may be refused service. Many people may be refused service due to the groups that they are associated with which may include the KKK, Black Panthers, Neo-Nazis, and any other groups/gangs. Beside the fact of refusing service is that it is a right that any business owner may hold. America was based upon freedom, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution which lists the rights that us as the American people hold.

      [read less]

      Ones preference on sexuality is not the only reason that someone may be refused service. Many people may be refused service due to the groups that the…

      [read more]
      0
  • bailee from Ohio

    because if they are not hurting you then you should serve them. not serving someone for what they look like, their lifestyle, or sexual preference is discrimination and its not fair.

    [read less]

    because if they are not hurting you then you should serve them. not serving someone for what they look like, their lifestyle, or sexual preference is …

    [read more]
    1
    • Sarah from Massachusetts

      But it’s not discrimination. As a Christian myself, I believe that gay marriage is wrong. However, I also believe in treating ALL people with dignity and respect, not just people I agree with. Disagreement is not the same thing as discrimination. A baker has the right to disagree with his/her customers. Because we live in a free country, these bakers are allowed to express their disagreement. The gay couple can easily go to a different bakery, but the bakers can’t make the cake without violating their religion.

      [read less]

      But it’s not discrimination. As a Christian myself, I believe that gay marriage is wrong. However, I also believe in treating ALL people with dignit…

      [read more]
      0
  • Dominick from Ohio

    I say no because everyone is equal and so is their money. You shouldn’t deny someone service if they’re willing to pay. Just do the service, get paid, and keep it going.

    1
    • Sarah from Massachusetts

      But those who are Christians (myself included) believe that gay marriage is a sin. There is so much more to that situation than just money. It is against the core of our religion to condone these actions. That does not mean, however, that gay people do not deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Another part of Christianity is loving all people where the are at, not demanding that they must come to your standards in order to be treated with the dignity and respect every person deserves. It simply means that we cannot, for the sake of religion, supply those customers with what they are asking for.

      [read less]

      But those who are Christians (myself included) believe that gay marriage is a sin. There is so much more to that situation than just money. It is ag…

      [read more]
      0
  • Camy from Ohio

    no because the customer is always right no matter what and everyone deserves equal service

    1
    • Maria from Massachusetts

      That is simply not true. What about the rights of those performing the service? In the example of the Gay wedding cake, the gays could have easily gone to another bakery to get their cake but there was no way the bakers could have made a cake for them without violating their beliefs and first amendment rights.

      [read less]

      That is simply not true. What about the rights of those performing the service? In the example of the Gay wedding cake, the gays could have easily gon…

      [read more]
      0
  • Savion from Ohio

    NO because I’m black and back nt the we fought for the right to shop, sit, eat, drink ,and live wherever we wanted to. So it would be hypocritical of me to say yes.

    1
  • Jonah from Oklahoma

    A foundational aspect of democracy found in freedom of speech and expression of different ideas and beliefs. When that freedom is indirectly put at risk by allowing private companies to withhold their produces or services from those they disagree with the entire basis of the democratic values governing our society are put at risk. Every group that believes in something or speaks out against something inherently has a distinct counterpart that is opposed to their beliefs and values. This means that anyone who decides to stand for anything puts themselves at risk of being denied products or services. With this in mind, it suddenly makes life much easier not to stand up for anything or anyone. Those companies run by less noble men and women who stand for something can deny their services to anyone who does not publicly state that they agree with that company’s mission statement of guiding philosophy. Any company led by those who discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. can simply say they are opposed to organization associated with those things and thereby not be held liable (the following are some examples: Black Lives Matter, National Organization for women, Gender and Equality Center, The Church of The Latter Day Saints, etc.) This doesn’t even begin to address democratic and republican owned businesses. No matter what the intent, this idea, if it were ever implicated, would yield only hate and division in a country that more than ever desperately needs love and unity. Therefore, I vote no.

    [read less]

    A foundational aspect of democracy found in freedom of speech and expression of different ideas and beliefs. When that freedom is indirectly put at ri…

    [read more]
    1
  • josie from Kansas

    yes, people have their own opinions about things but i feel like refusing to bake a cake for someone is just discriminating, because of their sexuality. its more hateful, what could go wrong by baking them a cake.

    [read less]

    yes, people have their own opinions about things but i feel like refusing to bake a cake for someone is just discriminating, because of their sexualit…

    [read more]
    1
  • Jaelynn from Kansas

    No one should be treated differently, I don’t think you should refuse service to anyone wether it’s skin color, religion, belief(s), sexuality, or even gender. But I do agree on not selling guns to people who have had a bad history with crime or have bad intentions with using that gun(s) or anything to anyone who seems like they have bad intentions with that item/object you are selling

    [read less]

    No one should be treated differently, I don’t think you should refuse service to anyone wether it’s skin color, religion, belief(s), sexuality, or eve…

    [read more]
    1
  • Payton from Kansas

    No, they shouldnt refuse service to those of people that they dont like because if every man is created equal shouldnt they all be treated equal? despite the color of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender we all deserve equal treatment even if you dont like that one guy likes other guys or one girl likes other girls. its asinine in a sense because whether or not its liked were all going to be here and no one is going to change themselves so why try ?

    [read less]

    No, they shouldnt refuse service to those of people that they dont like because if every man is created equal shouldnt they all be treated equal? desp…

    [read more]
    1
    • Keanu from Texas

      @Ethan
      If that is part of your religion first of all than you should recheck the religion because i am Christian and there is no rule saying that selling a product to a sinner is a sin. Now being gay is not explicitly said a sin but it is not what the male and female forms where made for. It is implied that gay is not allowed but he gave us freedom. Now I am not making this to a Believe-in-Jesus Campaign, but I am making a point that should and does eliminate all religious justifications for his actions.

      [read less]

      @Ethan
      If that is part of your religion first of all than you should recheck the religion because i am Christian and there is no rule saying that sel…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ethan from Kansas

      Payton it makes sense what your saying, but if like that gay guy for a wedding but its against the bakers religion to participate in it should they be given the right to protect their religion. Like if you make a cake then you sign your name on it is like participating in it. Its not that they don’t like and that bakery would sell muffins to gay people as long as it’s not a ceremony. So in that instance its not so much dislike as it is following your religion. Because they are not like banning them.

      [read less]

      Payton it makes sense what your saying, but if like that gay guy for a wedding but its against the bakers religion to participate in it should they be…

      [read more]
      0
    • Jacqueline from Texas

      No, they shouldnt refuse service to people that they don’t like or agree with their lifestyle choices. Because if every man is created equal shouldnt they all be treated equal? If we let people choice whether or not they want to give services to others next thing you know we’ll be back segregated restaurants and others businesses.

      [read less]

      No, they shouldnt refuse service to people that they don’t like or agree with their lifestyle choices. Because if every man is created equal shouldnt…

      [read more]
      0
  • Hannah from North Carolina

    I don’t think this would be fair, They shouldn’t make decisions based on their opinion of others.

    1
  • Shah from New York

    All private businesses must comply to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law which prohibits prevents these businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Sites like Air BnB did not terminate those users accounts because they were White, but because they were White SUPREMISTS, who encourage the idea that the White race is superior than every other race. The Civil Rights Act was established so that everyone could be treated fairly and with respect and that is precisely why companies like AirBnb make its users sign an agreement to “accept people regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age.” The people whose accounts were terminated complained about being treated differently but then ironically promote a believe that does not involve treating people the same. They should have fully read the company rules before using the service. They broke a rule so their accounts were terminated. The fault lies with their laziness not the companies policies.

    [read less]

    All private businesses must comply to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law which prohibits prevents these businesses from refusing service base…

    [read more]
    1
  • Hannah from Nevada

    Public goods should not be limited to the American people. While there is an argument that they should have the right to deny certain groups, the actual action of denying a group the right to use services or goods based on some belief or character is clearly a violation of that specific individual’s rights. Since there are laws protecting against discrimination, those should be used as a guide for companies, whether it’s the LQBT or KKK they’re attempting to block.

    [read less]

    Public goods should not be limited to the American people. While there is an argument that they should have the right to deny certain groups, the actu…

    [read more]
    1
  • Andrew from Texas

    I believe that, even though the company may not agree with what the people using their services stand for, no company should be permitted to withhold services towards group they disagree with.
    It boils down to the question of free speech. In a way, companies withholding rights to a service is censorship. For example, take GoDaddy removing TheDailyStormer domain. Even though many people, including the company in question, agree that TheDailyStormer is a despicable organization, they still have the right to free speech like any other American.

    [read less]

    I believe that, even though the company may not agree with what the people using their services stand for, no company should be permitted to withhold …

    [read more]
    1
  • Stephanie from Wisconsin

    No, because a company is created in order to make a profit. Denying the service or good to someone not only loses a sale, but the bad publicity from people that disagree with the act will lose the company even more sales. The company is there to make sales, not to decide what is right or wrong.

    [read less]

    No, because a company is created in order to make a profit. Denying the service or good to someone not only loses a sale, but the bad publicity from p…

    [read more]
    1
    • Maria from Massachusetts

      If that is the only reason for not allowing private companies to refuse service, then why would anyone refuse service in the first place. Clearly, there are things more important to companies then simply making profit.

      [read less]

      If that is the only reason for not allowing private companies to refuse service, then why would anyone refuse service in the first place. Clearly, the…

      [read more]
      0
  • Leodan from Texas

    Its a wedding, they should only sell, not get into their personal business.

    1
    • Maria from Massachusetts

      However, some things are more important than making money. In the Christian religion, it is a sin to condone gay action. We are told to give gays dignity and respect, but condoning gay marriage goes beyond giving dignity and respect. The gays could have easily gone to another bakery to have gotten a wedding cake, but there is no way the bakers could have given them a cake without having their first amendment rights violated. In the end, the bakery IS a “personal business” because it is a private company, so the owners should be entitled to make that decision.

      [read less]

      However, some things are more important than making money. In the Christian religion, it is a sin to condone gay action. We are told to give gays dign…

      [read more]
      0
  • Atiyah from Alabama

    Private companies may disagree with a customer’s personal belief, but this shouldn’t affect their services. Personal and business issues should never cross because it tends to lead to discrimination. Discrimination of any kind is wrong.

    [read less]

    Private companies may disagree with a customer’s personal belief, but this shouldn’t affect their services. Personal and business issues should ne…

    [read more]
    1
  • Cecile from Virginia

    Wow, this is a hard one. I, however, disagree with this. Yes, white supremacy is a sick drug still going around, but denying them access to resources, such as Youtube or Google, doesn’t make it any better from denying black people the right to vote or gays the right to marry.

    [read less]

    Wow, this is a hard one. I, however, disagree with this. Yes, white supremacy is a sick drug still going around, but denying them access to resources,…

    [read more]
    1
  • Branna from Alabama

    No! Never should someone be denied service because their beliefs are different from others. This is exactly how segregation worked back in the 1950’s. The blacks being separated from the whites because of their skin color was never a good idea and America never showed growth being divided and separated from each other and that is exactly why we shouldn’t start this habit back up again. It is discrimination and that won’t be tolerated. No matter what race, religion, belief, or sexual orientation you are, we should all be treated equally.

    [read less]

    No! Never should someone be denied service because their beliefs are different from others. This is exactly how segregation worked back in the 1950’s….

    [read more]
    1
  • Richard from California

    The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Although it is hate speech, by banning it private companies are suppressing free speech. Others may argue, however, that private companies are entitled to free speech but I reject the basic notion of Citizens United v FEC. The Bill of Rights protects individual rights, not those of corporations and private companies. If we allow private companies to block voices that do not align with their own political views, the slippery slope becomes a fallacy no longer. There will be nothing stopping right-wing sites from taking away access to groups who advocate for things like LGBTQ rights or from banning political candidates whose platforms don’t match the company’s beliefs. Likewise, left-wing companies shouldn’t be allowed to do the same. To bridge the divide between America, Americans need to get out of their bubble and talk to the other side. We can not afford to pick and choose our enemies. We are all as Americans, a family. It is time we stop yelling at each other to “shut up” and come together to finally have a real talk.

    [read less]

    The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Although it is hate speech, by banning it private companies are suppressing free speech. Others may …

    [read more]
    1
  • Carlos from Florida

    In a general case private corporations don’t have the right. Yet, the area of religious infractions must be dealt with carefully. This is since you would have to assess the environment, situation, and effect of such act. An example would be if a private corporation said no since it would imply a approval or disapproval of a religion. Yet Facebook can’t say that because you put a religious post you’re kicked off. So again, in most cases they don’t have the right yet in the area of religion it must be dealt carefully with a delicate hand.

    [read less]

    In a general case private corporations don’t have the right. Yet, the area of religious infractions must be dealt with carefully. This is since you wo…

    [read more]
    1
  • Natise from Montana

    With people like the LGBTQ community they should have the right to go any corporations and businesses. With people in the LGBTQ community they need jobs and some jobs that they apply don’t accept them and don’t let them work for the jobs they apply for. Why take them out of the jobs? Why didn’t the bakery give the couple a wedding cake? Public Businesses should give the different communities (LGBTQ, Black, etc.) the right to go in and get what they need or want. Discrimination is not right including not letting a gay couple get a wedding cake and working the jobs they were wanting work with.

    [read less]

    With people like the LGBTQ community they should have the right to go any corporations and businesses. With people in the LGBTQ community they need jo…

    [read more]
    1
    • Maria from Massachusetts

      What about the baker’s rights? In the example you mentioned, the bakery with the gay wedding cake, you are violating the bakers 1st amendment rights. Their religion does not allow for gay marriage. The gay couple could have very easily gone to another bakery and gotten a cake for their wedding without having any of their rights violated. The bakers could not give them the cake they wanted without violating their beliefs. I have gone to various public businesses that have signs that say “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. This is not a big deal and it is accepted. If they had refused to sell the couple a cake because they didn’t do weddings or the cake was too complicated, there would have been no issue with that. But because they stood up for their religion, they come under a huge attack. This is not the America that the founding father envisioned when they passed the first amendment.

      [read less]

      What about the baker’s rights? In the example you mentioned, the bakery with the gay wedding cake, you are violating the bakers 1st amendment rights. …

      [read more]
      0
  • Joycelyn from Illinois

    Private corporations also benefit from Public infrastructure, roads, sewers, plumbing and as a result should be available to serve the public good.

    1
    • Faith from Virginia

      Yes. But the business owners pay bills each month to own or the building. Also, people can be refused for not wearing a shirt of shoes into the store. So, really I think it’s ok to rufuse a paying client. They are losing customers and that is their choice.

      [read less]

      Yes. But the business owners pay bills each month to own or the building. Also, people can be refused for not wearing a shirt of shoes into the store….

      [read more]
      0
    • Maggie from Pennsylvania

      Hi Joycelyn. It is true that private corporations may use/benefit from public roads and sewers but I would argue that the cost for these businesses far outweighs any benefit they derive. After all, they are paying enormous amounts in taxes for those services you cite. They’re not freeloading or mooching off of the government – in fact, without these businesses the government would not even have the necessary revenue to provide these resources.

      [read less]

      Hi Joycelyn. It is true that private corporations may use/benefit from public roads and sewers but I would argue that the cost for these businesses fa…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ricky from California

      The company contributes to the tax money that pays for these roads and public services. They pay their fair share. This does not entitle anyone to their goods. The only justified trade off that’s made to use these things is taxes that the company pays. To believe that since you pay taxes, you deserve the goods because it’s on public property is completely misleading. Businesses lease or buy the land so that way they have ownership. They also pay for the water and sewer and whatever else the governement provides through taxes or through other private corporations. To be honest they probably pay 50 times the amount of taxes than any one individual that walks in to their store

      [read less]

      The company contributes to the tax money that pays for these roads and public services. They pay their fair share. This does not entitle anyone to the…

      [read more]
      0
  • Alex from Texas

    The problem with being able to deny service to a group of individuals is that it will ALWAYS target minorities. That type of thinking has been deemed illegal by the supreme court. The previous times in which these issues came up, the policies weren’t about gays. The largest time this was disputed was the Jim Crow laws. The only difference now is that instead of black people, it’s gay people. If you generally support the targeting of minorities with these laws, go back to the reconstruction era, because it didn’t turn out well. If you target minorities, you actually are committing a crime. It was deemed illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court to target minorities, including, but not limited to, discrimination based on race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. This was decided unanimously in Brown v. Board of Education, a historically important landmark case, as it deemed that Plessy v. Ferguson was, in fact, unconstitutional, deeming that “Separate is inherently unequal.” Therefore, you cannot, legally, deny service to gays, as separating them from the population due to belief enforces the belief of “Separate but Equal,” which is, therefore, unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

    [read less]

    The problem with being able to deny service to a group of individuals is that it will ALWAYS target minorities. That type of thinking has been deemed …

    [read more]
    0
  • Aiden from Texas

    Although social media companies must work to make sure the content of their users doesn’t inspire violence, we can not silence people just because of their questionable ideologies. We as Americans must not tolerate hateful opinions, but it’s is irresponsible to attempt silence these people altogether. We must work to foster a peaceful accepting environment. We can NOT become more accepting,by silencing people’s opinions, no matter how crazy or offensive. Companies should not try to silence those people on their platforms whom they disagree with, doing so would be irresponsible.

    [read less]

    Although social media companies must work to make sure the content of their users doesn’t inspire violence, we can not silence people just because of …

    [read more]
    0
  • Blake from Colorado

    No it is unconstitutional these can lead to racism and sexism and it is very ignorant

    0
  • Carol from Rhode Island

    So long as the business is deriving any “benefit” from the state or federal government (ie., licensing, etc.) it must comply with state/federal anti-discrimination laws.

    0
  • Guadalupe from Alabama

    Not only is this setting a bad example for everyone, but imagine how our daily life would be if we have stores and companies who only attend certain people. This would be just like segregation all over again except not just of race but of beliefs .Did we really try so hard to make the world a better place just to ruin it again?

    [read less]

    Not only is this setting a bad example for everyone, but imagine how our daily life would be if we have stores and companies who only attend certain …

    [read more]
    0
  • Tayvea from Texas

    People should be happy that people buy their stuff instead of denying them.

    0
  • Bronson from Arizona

    Denying someone a service purely because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation is not American.

    0
  • Blake from Texas

    Just because people think something different, doesn’t mean that companies have that right to reject them

    0
  • Troy from South Carolina

    People should have the rights to do what they want.

    0
  • Daniel from Georgia

    Private corporations and small businesses alike should not refuse services to paying customers who hold beliefs and have different attributes than their ideal. There is a golden rule that states treat other how you would want to be treated. This is necessary in creating a well run and equitable society Would you want to be refused a wedding cake or the ability to communicate your opinion via youtube because of your beliefs? I would guess not because it feels frustrating, marginalizes you, and demonstrates immorality, and you must remember that these people walk, feel,and perceive just as you do. How you would feel after being refused a service is similar to how that person would react to the same incident. Along the same lines, the bible commands all to pray for their enemies, not judge anyone, and exhibit love towards all. This means even if a white supremacist’s beliefs seem violent and are deeply offensive, one must respect that person because we have all done wrong things. This is important because it keeps a free society such as America void of violence and events resembling Charlottesville may not be as devastating. Additionally, we, as a society, can strive to better positions as we follow this rule Lastly, the American constitution states the freedom of speech shall not be infringed upon”. This means that one has freedom of speech so long as he or she does not impair other’s ability to hold and communicate their beliefs. By withholding services from customers, the business infringes on that person’s ability to hold their beliefs which is discrimination, also made illegal by anti-discriminatory laws. However, this can work both ways as if one becomes radically violent and proclaims death to others, then the company has the right to reprimand the customer because that infringes on the company’s and its other clients beliefs.

    [read less]

    Private corporations and small businesses alike should not refuse services to paying customers who hold beliefs and have different attributes than the…

    [read more]
    0