Do we have an imperative to serve LGBT costumers?

Chapter 16 focuses primarily on the history of abuses of civil rights in minority racial groups and women, so it doesn’t exactly apply to how government may not be working now. However, the chapter did conclude with some discussion of recent and current LGBT issues, including marriage equality and open homosexuality in the military. LGBT issues seem to me to be the most pressing matter in the march towards more perfect civil rights. I remember after the Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriage in all 50 states in 2014 there were immediate issues regarding whether religiously anti-homosexual wedding business owners, like photographers or florists, ought to be forced to serve homosexual costumers. The debate progressed to the question of whether businesses must permit trans customers to use the bathroom of their choosing.

These issues are tough. On the one hand, we ought to allow private businesses to operate however they see fit, allowing the market to judge the morality of the firm by either supporting or boycotting them. Pseudo-news firms ought to be able to spout whatever racist interpretations of current events they choose. This is the exercise of their right to free expression. In the same way, when a business owner chooses not to cater LGBT weddings because of their religious preferences, it would be antithetical to freedom of expression and religion to force them to serve these costumers.

On the other hand, our nation’s history of civil rights abuses has included discriminatory practices against racial minorities based in this exact logic. While the current debate hinges on how forcing individuals to serve LGBT individuals might prevent the expression of their religious preferences, this logic too could turn racial in a heartbeat. If a business owner held an extreme religious opinion like that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ, he could invoke his right to free expression/ free practice of his religion in order to justify not serving Jews.

All that being said, government should not be able to selectively serve costumers or hire potential employees on the basis sexuality. However, I also believe that government oversteps when it tells private firms how to operate, as this prevents them from targeting certain markets and prevents the free expression of their religious preferences.

First, the state should not tell private firms how to operate. Private firms ought to be able to choose who they serve or who they allow in which bathrooms both in order to target certain demographics and in order that business owners’ expression of religious preferences is not restricted. As a matter of marketing, businesses in a capitalist economy ought to be permitted to choose who they serve or who they allow in which bathroom if they think there is a reason they might be able to make more money this way. We don’t restrict media outlets’ or pundits’ ideological expression even if it disingenuously is used just to target a market to maximize profits. We also should not restrict firms’ decisions on who to serve or who to allow in which bathroom, even if these are not the true expression of religious preferences. They ought to be able to do it if they think that they can make more money by attracting like-minded customers. As a matter of the expression of owners’ religious preferences, we shouldn’t violate a business owner’s religious freedoms by forcing them to serve some customers, if they believe that doing so opposes their religion’s moral code.

That being said, I also think that consumer demand can correct for problematic discriminatory business practices if a firm takes it too far. Consumers regularly boycott firms for discriminatory hiring practices or mistreatment of laborers. There is no reason to think they can’t also correct for discriminatory service practices.

Second, government should not be able to discriminate against customers or potential employees on the basis of sexuality, because our government is not allowed to have religious preferences. It also isn’t motivated by profit-maximization, so there is no reason it should target specific markets for money-making reasons. This was a problem in the past that has been corrected. For example, government subsidized lending firms discriminated racially in mortgage decisions (eg redlining), and this led to spatial segregation. We can’t return to this. In addition, I do not believe that government should be able to tell citizens which bathroom they can use, because this also restricts individuals’ freedoms.

In sum, while the issue is complex, I believe that government should not tell firms how to operate by mandating service to LGBT individuals or by telling them who must be able to use which bathroom. However, I do not think that the government should have the same freedom in deciding who to serve or who should use which bathroom, because the government is not allowed to have religious preferences or follow profit motives to satisfy the religious preferences of some costumers at the expense of the freedom of expression of others.

7 Responses to "Do we have an imperative to serve LGBT costumers?"

Omar Ibrahim says:

November 29, 2017 at 10:15 pm

While the government doesn’t really have a way to force businesses to accommodate to LGBTQ people, the same dynamic shouldn’t exist in education. Unfortunately, the education system doesn’t provide an equal platform for LBGTQ community and in some states have rules in place that don’t allow teachers or staff to talk about LGBT issues in school. This leads LGBTQ students to not have the same opportunities to talk about certain issues that their classmates can talk about. There’s also only 19 states and Washington D.C. that have laws in place that don’t allow bullying of students because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That means that there is 31 states that don’t stop students from bullying other students based on sexuality. This leads to inflated levels of LBGTQ dropouts because of harassment and physical or verbal abuse. This is an issue that needs to be addressed by government because they are not protecting LGBTQ students life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
1. Omar Ibrahim says:
  
  November 29, 2017 at 10:16 pm
  
  https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/12/07/walking-through-hailstorm/discrimination-against-lgbt-youth-us-schools
Matthew Lidz says:

November 30, 2017 at 11:32 am

Relating to the topic of LGBT civil rights and business, many states still do not have protections for LGBT workers that prevent them from being fired for their sexual orientation. 28 states, including Virginia do not have any law that prevents unfair hiring, firing, or employment based on sexual orientation for private employers (workers in the public sector have some protections). North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas all have laws that prevents passage and enforcement of local nondiscrimination laws. This causes LGBT workers to be more vulnerable in the workplace since the protections that protect them from unfair practices. If the government mandated laws telling firms which bathrooms to allow people to use, Does a federal, state, or local law forbidding employment discrimination for LGBT individuals infringe on firms right? If the market punishes states and business for the lack of protections, why do large states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia still don’t have any protections? Although the LGBT movement has made great strides in the past twenty years, there is still a long way to go.

http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws
https://www.fastcompany.com/40456937/heres-everywhere-in-the-u-s-you-can-still-get-fired-for-being-gay-or-trans
Margaret Castelli says:

December 3, 2017 at 4:00 pm

Though I agree with your statements that the government has no right or business to refuse to hire or discriminate against LGBTQ+ people in the United States, I would have to disagree on your points that the government has no business telling firms they must serve LGBTQ+ patrons. Though your ideas are logical in principle, that the government shouldn’t mettle in the business world, this kind of civil rights action has happened before. Though the struggle that racial minorities, especially African Americans, have faced is different in many ways to that of the LGBTQ+ community, allowing these American citizens to use the same stores, wedding planners, cake bakers and more is logical and right. If the only way to ensure this equality is to put in government enforcement, that is what must be done. This idea is really personified in this case in the case in California, outline in this LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religion-20170626-story.html.
Brittney Morris says:

December 3, 2017 at 4:56 pm

Jack, I completely agree with your post! I find it hard to say all places should be required to cater LGBTQ wedding or allow trans people to use whichever bathroom they choose. It seems to directly go against individual freedoms and the rights of companies to operate without government interference. However, I also find myself thinking that is may be against the rights of LGBTQ people to be prohibited from using something or going somewhere just because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. For so long our country viewed African Americans and other minorities groups as lesser, we separated our country and refused to serve people based on something as small and meaningless as skin color. We are now doing the same with gender identity and race. There are many who may identify in a way that is against the norm, but yet look completely normal on the outside. How is it that we can judge and neglect them things we provide other people just because they behave in an “abnormal way”? Going back and forth between these contradictory thoughts I come to the same conclusion as you. The government and any publicly run organization should not be able to discriminate based on gender identity and sexual orientation. However, I believe this diving point comes down to private companies. Private companies should be able to discriminate if they so choose. It is up to the people to decide whether they want to continue supporting a business that has such strong religious or political beliefs. I also just do not think it should be something that is so important. When I go out and shop I do not think to myself does this company support minority rights or the rights of the LGBTQ community? I think if a private company does not want to support these people they should not have to. However, I do think the government should interfere if a private company were to directly harm these people. Being an African American if I knew that a business had very strong feelings against me I would not support that business. I also would not want to government to force that company to serve me, I would not feel like I was in a welcomed or in a safe environment, if they only reason they are serving me if because they are required to.
Lauren Rothenberg says:

December 3, 2017 at 8:22 pm

As I was reading your blog post I couldn’t help but think back to an early conversation we had in class at one point in the beginning of the semester concerning the rights and “freedom” guaranteed by the constitution. We discussed how America, known as “the Land of the Free”, is a free country in that an individual has the right to do whatever he/she pleases as long as it doesn’t interfere or hinder another individual’s ability to do the same. Essentially, citizens are free to do as they please until it compromises somebody else’s freedom. Therefore, I find your argument that the government shouldn’t be able to tell private companies how to operate (i.e. – serving the LGBTQ community) mildly shocking. By the government imposing these regulations, they are directly correcting infringement on others’ freedom.
Grant Golden says:

December 6, 2017 at 10:29 am

I agree with Lauren’s comment above. I think that if the government were to bring such regulations, that would be infringing on the LGBTQ communities rights. If you take away rights from a certain group of people, then that directly goes against what we stand for as Americans. Now, with that being said it would be hard to tell a private business owner who follows a religion that does not believe in gay marriage to serve such customers. But, I think that in a situation such as this, that private business owner will have to sacrifice and be accepting. The same set of rules that give LBGTQ communities the right to do what they want is the same set of rules that that gives these private business owners the right to do as they please with their business. These individual rights are something that all people are entitled to as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else and their rights.

Comments are closed.