Jason Dusek
Aug 9, 2017 · 2 min read

What about a haircut? It is a service, performed individually for each customer, and adapted to their needs. Are we going to argue that any service provider offering work customized to any degree — waiter, house painter, tailor — is to be considered to act civilly, by refusing to serve another person based on not liking “their kind”?

The example of Nazis is probably not a good one to work with in general since (a) Nazism is not generally regarded as protected by any statutes and (b) one is very likely to be working with what is a criminal organization.

Say there is a sign painter. They are an atheist San Francisco sign painter, not having a personal relationship with Jesus. One day, a loyal customer, who has generally asked for signs like “Please Arrive 10 Minutes Early” and “Keep Off The Grass” comes into the shop. They would like a new sign: “St. Peter’s invites the community to come together this Sunday to remember So-And-So O’Malley, who served the Lord day in, day out…” The sign painter, quite astonished, turns to them and says: “Sorry, we don’t serve your kind here.”

Notably, unlike in the example you cite, there is nothing out of the ordinary in the work being requested — it is just a sign like any other — nor is there anything objectionable about the content — a notice of a church service can hardly be considered an affront to human decency. Would you consider this lawful and acceptable?

Those who participate in an open society, offering service to the public, more or less commit themselves to offering service to the whole public. They of course retain the right to refuse service on an individual basis — as when a patron in a restaurant is disruptive — but to do so systemically on the basis of race, religion, sexual preference, political affiliation, national origin or any of a number of other protected characteristics is offensive to democracy and, very often, the law.

    Jason Dusek

    Written by

    the lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne