A Lesson In Free-Market Economics: Gay Shop Owner Kicks Christians Out Of His Business Because Their

[applegrove]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22042/lesson-free-market-economics-gay-shop-owner-kicks-frank-camp?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

"SNIP...........


On October 1, activists from the group Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) took a break from handing out anti-abortion pamphlets, and went to Bedlam Coffee in Seattle, Washington.

As the activists quietly drank their brew, the owner of the shop, Ben Borgman, entered the room and demanded that they leave. Although the group had allegedly not handed out any pamphlets in the shop, Borgman had one in his possession, and was offended by what he saw.

Holding the anti-abortion material, which can be seen in the video footage initially uploaded to Facebook, Borgman says: "I’m gay. You have to leave." A female activists then asks: "Are you denying us service?" to which Borgman replies: "I am, yeah."

The conversation continues, with a male activist asking: "So, why aren’t we allowed to stay?" Borgman answers: "This is offensive to me. I own the place. I have a right to be offended."

...........SNIP"

[applegrove]

1. Great move! Big, medium and small businesses will be apoplectic if Trump and the GOP start

dividing customers across the country. They will destroy Trump only then.

[WinkyDink]

2. Two snaps UP! If "personal beliefs can deny business transactions," some people will get a rude

awakening!

They'll get WOKE!

[AJT]

3. Yep everything we ever feel like doing we will be able to claim that we have a moral or religious

reason for doing it.....this is going to be hell.

Maybe this will be a wake-up call to the right that a secular society is the way to go, after all "values" work both ways.

[Initech]

6. "Can't come in today. Religious holiday. The Feast Of Maximum Occupancy."

[Initech]

4. Turnabout is fair play, fundies!

[smirkymonkey]

5. Good for him.

Works both ways, assholes. Just wait to see how much this comes back on you.

[Afromania]

7. 100%

[procon]

8. Perfect! These religious fanatics think they're entitled to spread their crazy views,

and they padded the system to ensure they would prevail. When the tables are turned they don't like it at all.

[Thomas Hurt]

9. This is the way the christofascist theocrats want it...lets see how long before they whine.

[christx30]

10. Let's see how long until they sue him for denying service based on religious views.n/t

[NutmegYankee]

19. He can use the sincere and deeply held beliefs argument against them.

He can also argue that their language and pamphlets were disrupting his business.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Did anybody read this article written by a conservative?

"It would be easy to turn the tables, and condemn the coffee shop owner for his actions. However, as conservatives, we should be looking at this case in a different light. This was the free-market at work."

It goes on to hope enough people will take their business elsewhere and says progressives should learn this free market lesson.

[progressoid]

12. Help Help I'm being oppressed!

[apkhgp]

16. Thanks for the Columbus Day pie...I am stuffed n/t

[snort]

13. The dailywire is a repuke rag.

Dammed if I'll give them any clicks.

[applegrove]

14. Did not know that. But I like the story. So I'll leave it up unless it looses a jury.

[safeinOhio]

15. Good move and

thanks for posting it.

[benld74]

17. This one - Coffee cup drop - walk away

[NutmegYankee]

18. It will be fun using their "sincere and deeply held beliefs" crap against them.

[jmowreader]

20. This is the address of Bedlam Coffee

It is at 2231 2nd Ave in Seattle.

To get there from Sea-Tac: take the Link train to Westlake Station. Go south to 2nd Ave., hang a right and walk five blocks. If this man is going to take that attitude with anti-abortion trolls, the least we can do is have some of his coffee.

[Jim Lane]

21. The owner's action may violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964

He runs a place of public accommodation as defined in Title II of the Act. That means he's prohibited from discriminating "on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." He certainly wouldn't be allowed to bar all Christians. He also wouldn't be allowed to bar members of a specific denomination, such as Catholics or Southern Baptists.

What if he bars anti-choice activists, and they can show that they come disproportionately from a particular denomination? He's not barring all Catholics, but his policy of exclusion probably falls more heavily on Catholics than on Unitarians. In employment discrimination, there's a theory called "disparate impact". For example, not only is an employer prohibited from refusing to hire women; the employer is also prohibited from setting, say, a required minimum height of 5' 7". There are women taller than that and men who are shorter, but the rule would affect more women than men. It's therefore illegal unless the employer can show that the height requirement is a bona fide occupational qualification (and, of course, it would have to be applied on a gender-neutral basis).

The question whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under Title II appears, surprisingly, to be an open one, more than half a century after the law was enacted. In a quick search I find a decision from earlier this year by the Ninth Circuit. In Hardie v. NCAA, the court stated:

Neither the Supreme Court nor we have decided whether
disparate-impact claims are cognizable under Title II. A few
courts have found that Title II authorizes disparate-impact
claims, see Olzman v. Lake Hills Swim Club, Inc., 495 F.2d
1333, 1341–42 (2d Cir. 1974); Robinson v. Power Pizza,
Inc., 993 F. Supp. 1462, 1464–66 (M.D. Fla. 1998), while
others have rejected disparate-impact liability under Title II,
see, e.g., Akiyama v. U.S. Judo Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1179,
1187 (W.D. Wash. 2002); LaRoche v. Denny’s, Inc., 62 F.
Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 n.2 (S.D. Fla. 1999). Several courts
have declined to decide the issue altogether. See, e.g.,
Arguello v. Conoco, Inc., 207 F.3d 803, 813 (5th Cir. 2000);
Jefferson v. City of Fremont, 73 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1145–46
(N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing cases).

We express no view today on whether Title II
encompasses disparate-impact claims.

Seattle, as it happens, is in the Ninth Circuit.

The whole religious freedom argument -- that homophobic bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple are acting according to their religion -- wouldn't apply here. It's clear that Mr. Borgman doesn't believe that God has told him not to serve these people. He just doesn't like them. (Of course, the current course of disingenuous acceptance of any claim of religious freedom is open to the obvious problem, not confined to Seattle coffee shops, that people who don't want to comply with a law will lie. If the Ninth Circuit were to rule that excluding the anti-choice protesters violated the Civil Rights Act, Mr. Borgman might suddenly decide to convert to a religion that teaches its congregants that serving such people is a sin in the eyes of God.)

Probably those offended by this incident will boycott the coffee shop rather than suing for their right to dine there.

[Lars39]

23. He kicked them out for their political activity

This group shouldn’t be able to hide behind their religion if they’ve become politicized.
Can’t have it both ways, imo.

[nolabear]

22. They've been hassling people here in Seattle for a couple of weeks.

They use the "lets have a dialogue" excuse for bulldozing their agenda over people. I loved the fact that a bunch of bouncers were summoned to argue with them. They are genuinely creeps.