# Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 8, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529 "2015-07-08T00:03:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/221 "2015-07-09T21:08:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The word religion is in the constitution. Its in the first sentence of the bill of rights. It is the first right that is protected in the bill of rights. Yes, as in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. IOW, your religion is not the business of the government, but we won’t do anything to keep you from practicing it. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/222 "2015-07-09T21:13:29Z")
I must have evolved- I see “sexual orientation” and “gender” to be one and the same as far as what should be a protected class - even more so when it comes to things like are being discussed in this thread. I realize that they are separate by definitions - and should be - but as a matter of law and liberty/freedom/rights - they should be one and the same. Reality is that we shouldnt even have to have “protected classes” of people - its a ridiculas mindset that only propogates division and the in-equality that is already faced. And as far as I am concerned - religion is at the core of all of this division and should _not_ be a protected class in the way it currently seems to be ‘protected’. Hobby Lobby should have been told to get bent. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/223 "2015-07-09T21:33:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Have you been drinking? Whose rights, specifically, am I not acknowledging, or have no interest in. The right to walk into a store and not be refused service based on sexual orientation. [QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi] Unfortunately it does. As long as it does not contradict more fundamental rights, I am free to exercise my religion and the government cannot tell me otherwise. Freedom of religion is NOT freedom FROM religion at least not from private parties. [/quote] Freedom from religion is the main reason we have a separation of church and state. Well, supposed to. We all know how God-ferin’ folks love letting other people do what they want. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/224 "2015-07-09T21:57:19Z")
Going back to the multiple discussions around the Hobby Lobby case we saw that not every single thing that someone claims to be religiously motivated must be accommodated. \*\*Bricker \*\*provided a [summary of issues that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17531320&postcount=4) applied in the Hobby Lobby case. In my (I-Am-Not-A-Lawyer) opinion these will have to be addressed in cases surrounding a religious objection to some facet of same-sex marriage. Be it an objection to issuing marriage licenses or baking the wedding cake, the government needs to address: > [@Bricker](#): > > 1. What’s the religious belief? > 2. Is it sincere? > 3. Does the government burden that belief? > 4. Is the burden substantial? > 5. Is the government’s interest a compelling one? > 6. Is the government’s scheme to promote that interest narrowly drawn to achieve that interest? > 7. Is the scheme the least restrictive one available? The government would wisely not spend much time on the first 3 points. Yes, several religious organizations of long standing object to same-sex marriage. It is not unreasonable to expect that some of their practitioners might object that what is asked of them is a burden to their sincerely held religious belief. Religious beliefs do not have to be consistent nor make sense to others to be sincerely held. The government could argue that the burden is not substantial (#4), but that seems a bit of a losing argument. After all, the objecting party is convinced they will be damned to hell for all eternity for such a sin demanded of them. The government has a winning argument at point #5. Likely #6 as well. Preventing discrimination is a compelling government interest. Would have been better if Kennedy specified a level of scrutiny, but so it goes. But where I think the government may have a hard time on the marriage license issue is point #7. I hypothesized about it earlier in another thread and one Kentucky clerk is [asking that marriage licenses be available online](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/casey-davis-kentucky-gay-marriage_559c3482e4b04a9c98e8541b), as are certain other licenses. As such a procedure would unburden the clerk, it seems “suck it up Casey and issue the licenses” may not be the least restrictive scheme available that suits the government’s goals. But the cake issue doesn’t have such a simple remedy. At least in those states that have protection based on sexual orientation the government may have an obligation to pursue relief for same-sex couples and no lesser intrusive way to achieve its goals. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/225 "2015-07-09T22:06:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In many places I can in fact refuse to serve them. They are not a protected class. You are concerned about what is technically legal or illegal. I am concerned about what is fair. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/226 "2015-07-09T23:15:14Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It’s an ugly issue both ways. Take military cemetery headstones, with religious symbols. The military must have a list of “permitted” symbols, and that puts the government in the nasty position of saying to some, “No, that isn’t a real religion.” It’s going to be a while, I think, before military cemetery headstones will have symbols for Jedi Knights, Pastafarians, followers of the IPU, or the Church of Red Sonja (Topless Moiety.) > > Similarly, I think, if people are going to be foolish enough to file lawsuits demanding relief on religious grounds, we need to know: what is a legitimate religious ground? This is why **Moriarty** suggests it leads to all kinds of unanswerable questions. If the baker can discriminate against gays, why not against blacks, Jews, women, Catholics, Russians, or people in wheelchairs? They added Wiccans in 2007, and at some point atheist. I am sure others will be there over time: > **[VA.gov | Veterans Affairs](https://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp)** > > Apply for and manage the VA benefits and services you’ve earned as a Veteran, Servicemember, or family member—like health care, disability, education, and more. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/227 "2015-07-09T23:37:08Z")
I’ll rehash the KKK example from earlier, but with the needed twist. Suppose a group from the [Creativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_%28religion%29)Movement (formerly [World Church of the Creator](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/creativity-movement)) shows up at a black-owned soul food restaurant and orders dinner. Should the proprietor be able to refuse service based only upon the group’s religiously based white supremacist beliefs? And yes, the courts have recognized that this is a religion. See [PETERSON v. WILMUR COMMUNICATIONS, INC.](http://www.leagle.com/decision/20021219205FSupp2d1014_11108) where one of their reverends won a EEOC case for being demoted solely based upon his beliefs even though he supervised three minority employees. > [@decision in Peterson v. Wilmur Communications](#): > > Resolution of whether a belief is religious does “not turn upon a judicial perception of the particular belief or practice in question.”); Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U.S. 136, 144 n. 9, 107 S.Ct. 1046, 94 L.Ed.2d 190 (1987) (stating that truth of plaintiff’s beliefs is irrelevant); Seeger, 380 U.S. at 185, 85 S.Ct. 850 (“[C]ourts … are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them incomprehensible.”). So long as the belief is sincerely held and is religious in the plaintiffs scheme of things, the belief is religious regardless of whether it is “acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others.” Thomas, 450 U.S. at 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/228 "2015-07-10T00:33:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I know you like to bring this out in thread like this, but only someone who hasn’t travelled in the US recently would think that the landscape today is anything like it was 60 years ago. I took a road trip a few years ago, and always got off the freeway in small towns that are basically built around refueling, fast food, and hotels. But you don’t see Clem’s Hotel for White Folks. What you see is Motel 6, Comfort Inn, Best Western, etc. You see McDonalds, KFC, etc. These national chains would be pummeled in the marketplace if they tried to discriminate the way some tried to in the 40s and 50s. > > So, no, I don’t accept that if the laws were changed we’d see a resurgence of sundown towns. Those places could survive because they were insular and cut off from the outside world. With out 24 hour news cycle, the internet and the pervasiveness of national chains, those places would find it virtually impossible to survive. I’m a bit late to the table here and many have already responded to this. I’ll just add that I was not suggesting that things are the same with respect to segregation and racism as they were 60 years ago, or that without civil rights laws things would regress back to that condition. Things have certainly changed but the question is what factors were leading the change and what factors were simply following in its wake or even obstructing the reforms. I think a lot of factors could be identified for the drop in racism and abandonment of segregationist policies, but it would be hard to argue that government legislation like the Civil Rights Act and various court rulings weren’t very important leading influences, because they certainly were, and their leading vs. following nature is well exemplified by the tremendous resistance to the mandated reforms, especially in the south. And I think it’s equally clear that “free markets” were mainly followers in the wake of those social changes, with a few businesses holding out even at the risk of breaking the law. So much for “free markets” making any useful contribution. Today the situation repeats itself with gay rights issues, and once again free markets are either followers of social change or just obstructionists. My point is, let’s remember where real reform usually comes from, and where it’s institutionalized as a societal norm. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/229 "2015-07-10T00:54:57Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Who defines your “religion”? If you claim to be a Christian, does your religion mean what your local church leader tells you, even if the bible says otherwise? If you are Catholic, is your religion whatever the Pope commands? Can me and my friends, when we get together on a Saturday night and imbibe while solving the world’s problems, consider ourselves a religion, and thereby become exempt from most laws that we disagree with? Or do we need to apply for, and obtain, tax exempt status? Do you draw lines between a religion and a cult, and if so, how? > > I ask sincerely, because I think that this effort to protect “religious liberty” leads to all sorts of questions that I can’t answer for myself. Basically it comes down to it this is an established religious tradition that someone sincerely believes in or some guy making up shit. A lot of people seem to associate “religious liberty” with Hobby Lobby but it’s been around for quite a while and for the most part was about protecting the members of minority religions from discrimination by their employers. Generally speaking, the mainstream accepted religions didn’t need such protections. So, federal law, for good reason, requires employers make “reasonable accomadations” for their employees. So, for example, some Native American religions require their members to have extremely long hair so employers can’t make them normally cut their hair, but they can make them keep it neat and clean. However, even then, they are “reasonable” accomadations. So, if say the job requires people to cut their hair short for safety reasons, they’d have to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/230 "2015-07-10T01:05:47Z")
> [@simster](#): > > As far as I am concerned - religion is at the core of all of this division and should _not_ be a protected class in the way it currently seems to be ‘protected’. > > Hobby Lobby should have been told to get bent. So does that mean you think I should be able to refuse to hire Orthodox Jews or practicing Catholics? ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/231 "2015-07-10T01:10:52Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > And I think it’s equally clear that “free markets” were mainly followers in the wake of those social changes, with a few businesses holding out even at the risk of breaking the law. So much for “free markets” making any useful contribution. Today the situation repeats itself with gay rights issues, and once again free markets are either followers of social change or just obstructionists. I think this is both unfair and misguided. **Unfair:** A bad actor like Hobby Lobby does not represent the market as a whole. The fact that Hobby Lobby stands out as remarkable suggests that their behavior and attitude is different from most market participants. Otherwise, they’d just be another “Pro Life” retail chain, nothin’ special. So, it’s fair to say that Hobby Lobby is obstructionist. It’s not fair to say that the market Hobby Lobby participates in is obstructionist (besides, you’d just be saying “we’re all obstructionists”). **Misguided:** Why would anyone expect “the market” to lead social change? What do you think the market is? It’s the sum total of all the individuals participating in it. Widespread defiance of the Civil Rights Act _reflected_ the widespread racism among the participants of that market–it did not _guide_ it. My wife and I used to shop at Hobby Lobby; now, we refuse to set foot in one of their stores. If enough people do the same, then the market will have slapped Hobby Lobby down for failure to please it’s customers. _That_ is what markets do. A market can’t change the minds its participants any more than a camera can take a picture of something other than what’s in front of it. -VM ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/232 "2015-07-10T01:16:37Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Who defines your “religion”? If you claim to be a Christian, does your religion mean what your local church leader tells you, even if the bible says otherwise? If you are Catholic, is your religion whatever the Pope commands? Can me and my friends, when we get together on a Saturday night and imbibe while solving the world’s problems, consider ourselves a religion, and thereby become exempt from most laws that we disagree with? Or do we need to apply for, and obtain, tax exempt status? Do you draw lines between a religion and a cult, and if so, how? > > I ask sincerely, because I think that this effort to protect “religious liberty” leads to all sorts of questions that I can’t answer for myself. As a libertarian, I’m all in favor of almost all attempts to harass the government, whether they be serious or frivolous. But the Constitution has protected freedom of religion for over two centuries without getting terribly bogged down by unanswerable questions. Virtually all conflicts between government power-grabbers and free exercise of religion result from the government’s desire for control over us. Whether it’s Sikhs wanting to wear turbans, Muslims wanting beards, Christians wanting to not serve in the military, or Jews wanting children to drink wine, it could be solved easily. Just let everyone do it, regardless of religious beliefs. Problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/233 "2015-07-10T01:19:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Virtually all conflicts between government power-grabbers and free exercise of religion result from the government’s desire for control over us. Whether it’s Sikhs wanting to wear turbans, Muslims wanting beards, Christians wanting to not serve in the military, or Jews wanting children to drink wine, it could be solved easily. Just let everyone do it, regardless of religious beliefs. Problem solved. Ok: I own (for the sake of this example) Dollar General. I decide that no female employee or customer is allowed to speak in one of my stores or to question the actions or orders of a man. Because, the bible says a woman is not supposed to speak in church and she is not to teach nor contradict a man. Do you support my right to do this? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/234 "2015-07-10T01:26:50Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So does that mean you think I should be able to refuse to hire Orthodox Jews or practicing Catholics? Where did you get that impression ? Currently, we are going beyond the pale to ‘protect’ religioous followers from having to do the things it should just do in the secular marketplace - we’re allowing it - in cases like Hobby Lobby, etc - to put undo pressure on people that may not believe the way the ‘owner’ does in the name of “protecting” that persons “faith”. As for your hiring practices, I would hope that the considerateion on that aspect would be due to a direct conflict in the job responsibilities with the person’s ‘faith’ - I would no more hire a muslim to slaughter pigs or a catholic at a trojan factory unless I was assured, by the individual, that they would be able to do the job in question. A person’s relgious belief should not even be a consideration except under the umbrella of a generic question of - “The job you are applying for will include X, do you have any reasons that you may not be able to do X?” If its not clear to you by now - I have no issues hiring anyone of any faith - as long as they are willing to do the job they are hired for - which may include keeping thier “faith” to themselves. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/235 "2015-07-10T01:28:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I think a lot of factors could be identified for the drop in racism and abandonment of segregationist policies, but it would be hard to argue that government legislation like the Civil Rights Act and various court rulings weren’t very important leading influences, because they certainly were, and their leading vs. following nature is well exemplified by the tremendous resistance to the mandated reforms, especially in the south. And I think it’s equally clear that “free markets” were mainly followers in the wake of those social changes, with a few businesses holding out even at the risk of breaking the law. So much for “free markets” making any useful contribution. Today the situation repeats itself with gay rights issues, and once again free markets are either followers of social change or just obstructionists. My point is, let’s remember where real reform usually comes from, and where it’s institutionalized as a societal norm. As has been pointed out before, the law in the Jim Crow South forced businesses to be segregated, and businesses which didn’t segregate were at risk of violence by the government. For example, the Freedom Riders rode safely from Washington DC to the Alabama border, violating segregation laws as they went. Neither the bus drivers, nor the businesses they stopped at, committed violence against them. But when they got to Alabama, the police organized mob violence. Also, 20 years ago, no state gave marriage licenses to gay couples. But a gay couple was free to order wedding cakes, photography, or anything else from any business willing to sell. So which was better: the government or the market? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/236 "2015-07-10T01:33:25Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Currently, we are going beyond the pale to ‘protect’ religion from having to do the things it should just do - we’re allowing it - in cases like Hobby Lobby, etc - to put undo pressure on people that may not believe the way the ‘owner’ does. Huh? What pressure is Hobby Lobby putting on anyone? Nothing that Hobby Lobby does affects anybody who doesn’t choose to work or shop there. Your assertion is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/237 "2015-07-10T01:37:50Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Huh? What pressure is Hobby Lobby putting on anyone? Nothing that Hobby Lobby does affects anybody who doesn’t choose to work or shop there. Your assertion is ridiculous. Thier employees are unable to get the needed medical coverage they may want to get under insurance, because the owner ‘believes’ they are wrong to provide. While in general I would agree that the person “chose” to work there (or continue to) - the notion that the owner of the business can dictate what medical procedures/medicines, etc that the employees may have is beyond ridiculous. Even more so in the fact that Hobby Lobby is a public facing business with thousands of employees.(to head off the “catholic school” or other examples where “faith” is a pre-condition of employment). ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/238 "2015-07-10T01:39:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Huh? What pressure is Hobby Lobby putting on anyone? Nothing that Hobby Lobby does affects anybody who doesn’t choose to work or shop there. Your assertion is ridiculous. what if the owner of hobby lobby decides all you need to do to get better is pray and they want to discontinue all medical coverage? ---
**Author:** ![BrianJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@BrianJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrianJ)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/239 "2015-07-10T01:44:05Z")
I’m not in favour of accommodating bigots. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/240 "2015-07-10T01:58:08Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Thier employees are unable to get the needed medical coverage they may want to get under insurance, because the owner ‘believes’ they are wrong to provide. Cite? Do you have any evidence that any Hobby Lobby employee is unable to get anything needed? All employer-sponsored health plans cover some expenses and not others, to state the obvious. Medicare and Medicaid cover some things and not others. Do you object to the government dictating what medical procedures/medicines millions of people may have? > [@](#): > > While in general I would agree that the person “chose” to work there I’m not sure why you put the quotation marks there. Anyone who works at Hobby Lobby has chosen to work at Hobby Lobby. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529.md?page=13)