.
the former is a select few making choices for many... the public at large, essentially.
the latter is a choice made by an individual for that individual.
The customer owes for the work that was done. That's it.
@JA -- I'm not sure what more I can add.
I would note that implicit in my explanation is the concept of asymmetric social power. If a homeless guy living under a bridge is bigoted against Lower Elbonians, it's a shame, but it probably won't have much influence on anyone. If the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart is prejudiced against Lower Elbonians and expresses that prejudice (either explicitly or implicitly) via the business practices of Wal-Mart, that impacts a LOT of people.
As I hinted at in my original reply, there is an asymmetric power difference between being a "server" and someone who is served.
@JA -- I think the example you give intersects with our notions of customer/server obligations and legal practicality.
If the customer in this case had called the business ahead of time and asked, "If you're sending a Moloch-worshipper to do the job, don't bother!" then the business is losing a POTENTIAL customer, not an ACTUAL customer.
By interrupting the job halfway through and cancelling, the customer has incurred a cost to the business. Because the employee spent time working for Mr. Bigot rather than some other customer, the business suffered an opportunity cost, which Mr. Bigot should pay.
I'm not certain whether such breaches of implied contract are legally actionable and, even if they are, the cost of pursuing the claim is such most businesses don't bother.
It's because there is no way to know why a customer chose not to patronize a service provider. It could be for any reason. There is no way to know whether it was a forbidden type of discrimination or a permitted one (such as not liking the product, or thinking it's too expensive etc etc).
Make no mistake, if the necessary brain scanning technology is ever invented, the control freaks will start coming after people. For the time being they have to content themselves with persecuting Christian bakers for not wanting to make gay wedding cakes etc etc.
Of course everything is selectively enforced. If a Muslim baker does exactly the same thing, that's okay. Muslims are another protected minority so they can do what they want. If the mind reading technology is ever invented, black people who don't want to do eat is some "cracker" restaurant will be left alone.
None of this is really about preventing discrimination. If it were, the system would criticise minorities for discriminating. Clearly they couldn't care less.
What this is really all about is the far left striking at the cultural power of the majority. It's about rubbishing the centre of the culture so it can be more easily swept aside and replaced by something else. To bring in the new, you have to burn down the old. That's revolution 101.
The customer must pay for the work done. If he doesn't a lien can be placed on the property.
There is no moral issue. Individuals may hire and fire based on any criteria they wish......especially when the hiree must enter one's home. What is legal and what is moral is not the same and part of the problem today is that many people look to the government to define for them what is and is not moral. That is completely backassward. Again, legally the customer must pay for the work done.
I can see how it might be more of a thing in your country. Where someones income depends on their tips they have to chose between money and principles.
*choose*
DAMNED good question. I suppose it all has something to do with that silly notion of 'protected' classes of people.
In the United States, certain INDIVIDUAL rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. "Group rights" don't exist...or at least they didn't until 1886.
BTW, I contend that it IS acceptable to refuse service to or to be served by someone/anyone with whom one disagrees. It's called freedom of association. I might not like the fact that Bible Thumper Bakery down the street doesn't cater gay weddings, but as far as I'm concerned that is the owner's right. Any other conclusion is tantamount to slavery.
Bingo!
