I do not believe that in this day and age “whites only” business of any nature would survive, the general public would (quote properly) shun it. I know I would.

I believe that the public outcry should a single Jewish person be denied service at a resturant simply because they are Jewish would close the restaurant – and I would help with that pubic outcry.

We obviously have a rather large difference of opinion about whether or not society as a whole is or is not capable of “doing the right thing” – and mine is the more optimistic.

Exactly, I think it’s as dumb way (as I have said preciously) to run a business as one could possibly imagine – today’s society would not see the place in business long as soon as the word got out…. don’t you think?

Originally Posted By BJ: If not, we wouldn’t be reading about segregation in the history books, we’d still be living it.

I disagree, we are not the same society now as we were then

How about doctors?…..

Healthcare is a right – is it not?

Now go back to cab companies and seeing eye dogs. [ snip ] Deny the blind with seeing eye dogs the use of taxis, and you’ve now infringed upon his freedom of movement. Without access to taxi service…..

A statement that presupposes that there is only one taxi in the city and the driver does not want dogs in his cab – how likely is that?

Ultimately, you don’t have the right to infringe upon other people rights, and denial of certain services can do just that.

I agree to a degree – certain “public” services are a right that may not be infringed upon, I do not see the “right to a taxi ride in the cab of your choice” or the “right to a condom in the pharmacy of your choosing” as actually existing…. then again maybe I’m behind the curve on this one, everyone seems to be under the impression that they have the “right” to a great many things that I don’t consider to be rights.

PS; Somewhat of an apology for the brevity of the reply, I’m in heavy catchup mode in the comments section

The question is should private business be compelled do do so?

As with most questions there is a lot of grey area here, but I’d go with a qualified yes. Sure, a private business should be allowed to refuse to serve you, personally, but not if they are refusing service to entire subsection of the population due to ethnic, sexual, or religious biases. If not, we wouldn’t be reading about segregation in the history books, we’d still be living it.

And even there, you can possibly get away with discrimination if denial of the service they are providing doesn’t cause that population subsection any undue harm. I mean, if you’re a consultant and refuse to consult for certain people, it is unlikely they are being unduly put out, nor do I remember any right to consulting services listed anywhere, (legal services are another matter).

Another favourtie example would be pharmacists, who are mainly independent businesspeople. Even most ”in-house” pharmacists are actually independent contractors. Should they be allowed to determine what medicines they will deign to fill prescriptions for and to who? How about doctors? While they may get paid by the government in this country, they are mostly businesspeople themselves. How much leeway should we give them to refuse service?

The reason such are good examples is because such folks aren’t exactly a dime a dozen. IF the local doctor or pharmacist won’t serve you, odds are that you may find yourself without access to another and effectively denied medical services entirely.

Now go back to cab companies and seeing eye dogs. Odds are pretty good the person with the dog isn’t commuting regularly by car, and bus and transit services aren’t always a viable option to some locations, (and those of the Conservative mindset would like to privatize such services as well if they could). Deny the blind with seeing eye dogs the use of taxis, and you’ve now infringed upon his freedom of movement. Without access to taxi service, there are places that person can no longer go. So yes, cabs, or at least cab companies, can be compelled to carry such individuals and their dogs.

Ultimately, you don’t have the right to infringe upon other people rights, and denial of certain services can do just that. Under those circumstances, I believe you can, and should, be compelled to provide such services, private or no.

With respect, you’re plain wrong. Anyone offering a service to the public–whether it’s a government or a private business–may not discriminate. No “Whites Only” signs permitted; no refusal of service at a restaurant because the would-be client is Jewish; no refusal of a licensed taxi service to a person because he or she is accompanied by a working dog.

Or are you arguing that all of the laws in place that make this so should be repealed?

P.S. You have every right to consider your government whatever you want.

PS: I consider “my government” to be a farce and the majority of its’ decision to be farcical. I may be compelled to follow its’ laws but that does not mean that I either do so willingly or agree with them.

“Oh, I’m sure reading that conversation will only confirm whatever prearrangement of thoughts people have for me already.”

If you mean that it indicates you will defend your predjudices past the point of logic, then I’m afraid I’ve already come to that conclusion on my own after our discussion of the Gay Pride Parade.
You do try for a higher standard though. That much I’ll give you…

In other words – I retain the right to serve you or not, and I take the consequences in the market, which rewards or punishes those decisions. If I make too many bad decisions, I go broke (or apply for a bailout, of course.)

The question is should private business be compelled do do so?

Lets take the taxi driver Dr. Dawg mentioned – should he be compelled to provide a service to me? I don’t think so. It may p*ss me off if it happens but I happen to believe that a taxi driver, as a private business individual, has same right to refuse me service based on nothing more than he “doesn’t like the look of me” as I do to refuse to get into a cab based on the same thing.

If a private business is compelled to provide services to everyone does not make those services rights, just exactly like the right of same sex couples to get married by civil servants at the court house?

Do Canadians have the right to a taxi ride?

And if we have the right to a taxi ride what other rights do we have? The right to landscaping? The right to carpet cleaning? The right to home pizza delivery?

b is in the private sector, if I can afford the services of his company should he be compelled to provide service to me?

At what point in the private sector does a service become a right and should properly be dealt with by the public sector? And who gets to make that decision?

I don’t know SL, try opening a business that serves whites only and see how far you get. We’ve already made it pretty clear that businesses, even private ones, have to treat everyone equally or wind up facing legal sanctions. Cab companies must provide services to the disabled, including allowing seeing eye dogs for the blind. Granted that doesn’t necessarily equate to every cab driver having to do so. I’m an atheist but happen to be allergic to dogs, so transporting them would be a problem for someone like myself without any religious overtones. So long as the company can provide the service, I personally shouldn’t have to.

Still, I agree that as a civil servant, rather than a private company’s employee, your duty is to serve all the public, your personal views notwithstanding. As noted elsewhere, if government employees can choose to ignore the laws and policies they are sworn to uphold, how can you expect anyone else to pay attention to them?

The private sector should be under no compulsion to provide their services to anyone, the public sector on the other hand, is.

Since we’ve dredged this up again, I still don’t have a difference of opinion on the matter, but I would make a concession. If the muezzin prayer is an inevitable part of our multicultural future in Canada, I would surrender those offensive church bells if it means we’d have some reasonable peace and quiet.

Hey, I work construction so I’m up at 6am, but as I understand it the first call to prayer is around 5am.