If I still lived in Arlington, Virginia, I would never go to Bono Film and Video to duplicate any personal video recordings I had. Indeed, I would encourage my friends to avoid this business. Tim Bono, the owner of the firm, has a policy not to “duplicate material that’s obscene or violates his Christian and ethical values.“
Recently, when a woman came in and asked him to duplicate her films “Gay and Proud” and “Second Largest Minority,” he refused, given their gay content. Upset, she “complained to Arlington County’s Human Rights Commission, which told him that his refusal violated the county’s ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.” Now, he’s suing, claiming “his constitutional rights are being violated.“
I agree with him. I don’t happen to like the way he exercises his freedom, but it’s his business and he should be free to run it as he pleases — and duplicate whatever tapes he likes. Or refuse to duplicate those he doesn’t. Personally, I don’t think it makes good business sense to refuse to duplicate such tapes as it would mean turning away clients. But, like I said, it’s his business, not mine. Just as he should be free to choose his clients, we should be free not to patronize his business.
Just as Mr. Bono should be free not to duplicate gay-themed videos, another individual would similarly be free to set up a Film and Video Company which refused to duplicate Christian-themed videos. Would the Arlington Human Rights Commission have paid attention to a Christian complaining that a gay owner of such a company refused to duplicate tapes promoting the ex-gay movement?
The issue here is freedom. It’s too bad that some who believe gay people should be free to live our lives as we choose wish to deprive others of the freedom to live their lives in a manner which we might find offensive.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Thanks for Raj, who in the first comment alerted me that the Independent Gay Forum covered this story last month. It appears that the Competitive Enterprise institute Blog broke this story on April 28. Calling this Liberal Authoritarianism, the Independent Gay Forum’s Stephen H. Miller writes:
As gay people, we often protest against what some see as manifestations of creeping,Taliban-like theocracy from the right. But in the case of Tim Bono, just who is insisting on imposing their values on everyone?
In short, it is not in our own long-term interests, which are grounded in liberty and respect for individual autonomy, to use the state to force others to reproduce content of which they disapprove.
I agree.
One question and one comment.
The question: The circumstances of this case (prior to the filing of the lawsuit) were discussed over at IndeGayForum’s blog a few months ago. Someone commented that the Arlington (Cty) Human Rights Commission did not have enforcement powers. If that is true, if the AHRC wanted to have a decision enforced, it (or the complainant) would have to take the target of the complaint (the complainee?) to court to get the decision enforced. If something like that were to occur, the complainee could try to defend on the basis stated in the post (violation of his rights regarding religion). If Bono doesn’t take it to court, he could just ignore the AHRC’s decision with no adverse legal consequences.
So, presuming what was discussed at IndeGayForum is correct, the question is, what is the basis for the lawsuit? Emotional distress at having to go through the AHRC hearings? (Although, if the AHRC doesn’t have any enforcement powers, it seems to me that Bono could have just ignored the hearings.) Being held up to ridicule? The Washington Blade article that was linked to (three times!) in the post doesn’t indicate.
The comment: Regarding
Would the Arlington Human Rights Commission have paid attention to a Christian complaining that a gay owner of such a company refused to duplicate tapes promoting the ex-gay movement?
I’ll expand this a bit. Would the AHRC have paid attention to a Christian complaining that a gay owner of such a company refused to duplicate tapes promoting Christian themes. Good question. The federal anti-discrimination laws (so-called “civil rights laws”), and more than a few state and local anti-discrimination laws and ordinances, prohibit discrimination based on religion (they’re a little more limited than that, but I won’t go into details), but very few prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. So, a Christian could very well require that a gay person not to discriminate against him because he is Christian, but a gay person cannot require a Christian not to discriminate against him because he is gay.
One further observation: it appears that Bono was not discriminating against the customer because of her sexual orientation, but instead because of the subject matter of the transaction (the fact that the tapes to be duplicated involved gay subject matter. I’ve never heard of an anti-discrimination law being directed to something like that.
Bingo.
It’s his business. What he does and does not do is none of the government’s business.
Is there a way to contribute to Tim Bono’s defense fund?
As DUMB and WRONG as some of his choices may be, this is America and he has the right to be dumb and wrong – just the same as, say, a leftie so-called “peace” demonstrator.
The Arlington so-called “Human Rights” Commission seems to represent here a denial of human rights and our liberals’ creeping, ever-growing fascism. (Hmm, I wonder where the ACLU is in this? which side?)
… and restaurants should be free to have a “colored” section too!
If you run a public business you shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate as to who you will service and who you won’t. We’re all Americans and discrimination like this only divides society.
By your logic, a private contractor running city buses could bring back the “back of the bus” rule.
I think that Bono has the right to refuse to copy any movie he wants. Like, who wants to make a copy of Pauly Shore’s “Jury Duty”? 😉
Keith – Please note that I, for one, fully support your right to be dumb and wrong as well. I mean that.
Calarato – help me out here. While I intuitively agree with Dan on the shopowner’s right to run his business as he sees fit, the point Keith brings up is also persuasive – if you take this principle of absolute freedom for the shopowner and stand on it universally, then what grounds are there for the legal opposition to racial discrimination in things like a “colored section”? Best I can come up with at the moment is that this isn’t something that can ever be completely black and white, and thus reasonable adults have to find somewhere to draw a line when there are competing freedoms. If you see it differently, please, fill me in with something other than an empty attack on another poster – I’d like to know your reasoning.
#4 Keith — June 13, 2006 @ 9:44 am – June 13, 2006
If you run a public business you shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate as to who you will service and who you won’t.
Um, there has been nothing in any of the reports of the case that I have seen has indicated that Bono was discriminating as to who he would perform service and who he won’t. All of the reports indicated that the discrimination was related to the nature of the service that was requested. There is a difference.
#7 – Casey – What attack on another poster? I’m sorry, you lost me.
Two points: To my mind it’s like a store refusing to sell or stock “Adults Only” videotapes or video games… or another store choosing not to sell the latest “Black & Blue Circuit Party” CD because the cover is sexually explicit… or a grocery store not carrying Hustler or Playboy on its racks (no pun intended). We can say it’s about little kids seeing the suggestive covers but it’s really an issue about content.
Content. And the stores’ choice not to be involved with the distribution of the offensive material. Selling to the public and making a copy for personal use buy a customer doesn’t seem that different to me.
Second point: if Bono was “told” by the local HRC that he was “violating” the county’s statute, then the local HRC’s finding and notice to Bono sounds like enforcement to me. It might not be with pistols drawn and sheriffs in tow, but it is an attempt to enforce the county’s HRC ordinance. To me, it feels like enforcement.
#9 P.S. As it happens, yes, people running private businesses or doing private work should have the right to discriminate racially – and, to be rejected and boycotted by the rest of us in consequence.
The principle involved here is: human freedom. No one is, or should be, a slave to anyone else. Morally, no one “owes” anyone any personal service that is against their own best judgment to give (however dumb and wrong that judgment may be).
It’s a two-way street: the rest of us must retain the right to persuade, protest, and boycott (withholding our business or cooperation from them).
America has quite definitely lost sight of the above. Once a society starts down the path of compelling private actors to “perform” against their own best judgment – it has really no principle or basis for not compelling them again and again, on the next issue and the next – and you end up with socialism, “the enslavement of all to all”. Freedom gone.
#11 – Final P.S. Note that another way of framing what I am talking about is, “the individual’s rights should never be put up to majority vote.” I am taking a stand here against majoritarianism.
Anti-majoritarianism is supposed to be a big principle of left-liberals who support these endless government controls on everybody, right?
Another example of left-liberal fascism at work: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/14803774.htm
Geno wants to run his private business as taking orders in a single language, English. If you hate that and really want to give your order in Spanish or Chinese, you are free to take your business somewhere else – denying him your money. That’s freedom (on both sides).
But what do we have instead? Another left-liberal-fascist “Human Rights Commission” deciding what private actors should and shouldn’t do. What will their decision be? Are they going to compel all businesses in Philadelphia to take orders in all languages, to have translators and multi-lingual employees on hand, etc.?
Another example of left-liberal fascism at work: The infamous “Kelo” decision a year ago, that said it’s OK for government to compel one set of private actors – namely, old ladies in their homes – to do business with, and give way to, another set of private actors – namely, rich developers. Fact you may not have known: It was the “LIBERAL” Supreme Court members who brought about that 5-4 decision (and the Court’s conservative members who fought tooth and nail against it).
Lord! You want a real crime? Stop these ‘big boned’ women I see on the street from wearing sleeveless tops and Cool-lots! The temperature hits 70 degrees and suddenly I feel like I’m at a taping of the Rosie O’Donnell show-in Hell! It might not qualify as a crime against humanity but it is disturbing to the fashion conscious and small children.
Now, as for this small minded, sexually repressed, bible thumbing, non-humping – Mr. Bono (Love the name! Any relation to you know who?!?), Vera says; “Good for you!”
First of all, who needs another copy of “Gay and Proud” for their personal library? And as for ‘Second Largest Minority”, Vera always thought that was about the fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party?
As a business owner, Mr. Bono reserves the right to refuse service to anyone – for any reason (as long as existing laws are obeyed by the business owner). People opposed to his business practices are free to shop elsewhere, call for a boycott, and file a complaint. Better yet – start your own business and cater to whatever community is being slighted. Vera’s a capitalist at heart, and supports the notion that if you want to turn away good business on moral principal – that’s your right – but a lousy business practice.
As for the owner of “Gay and Proud” and “Second Largest Minority” – Lord knows, you don’t really exist in this world unless you belong to a victims group. It’s the age-old question: “does a ‘slight’ make a sound in private if someone doesn’t scream “oppressor” in public? Mr. Bono should have realized; anyone crazy enough to pass judgment on someone’s political – moral – religious – sexual – financial – cultural – beliefs, is just asking to get their ass hauled into court for a nice legal spanking! It’s the PC version of a child’s ‘time-out’.
As for the real summertime crime wave? Vera thinks we need to provide automatic weapons to the fashion police – with a shot to kill order – and have a “Gitmo for Bad Manners” built immediately. Lord knows – there’s no lack of offenders.
Cheers!
There’s still the issue of being a public entity when your a business that’s different than what you do in the privacy of your own home. Being “open for business” carries the obligation to be open to all…at least in our contemporary society; be it making video copies, serving cheesesteaks over a sidewalk counter, or legal perscription drugs from a licensed pharmacist. In having the business, you have already made a choice…and accepted an obligation. If the video shop stated that they would not copy pornography; that’s a societally-recognised boundry. But he shouldn’t be able to limit to to “straight porn”…which is an issue of “content”, not “status”. Or if he refused to copy “copyrighted material”, which is a legitimate legal boundry.
Geno’s is without question a public accommodation. He’s not required to have multi-lingual menus…at least not yet…but he’s also in the heart of the old Italian Market section of the city where English never was the first language for many; and he’s an internationally-known landmark restraurant for tourists from all over the World that want an authentic Philly Cheesesteak. Geno’s is not just another corner pizza-joint, it’s an institution like Bookbinder’s or Le Bec Fin. It’s like Nathan’s original hot-dog stand on Coney Island’s Boardwalk, it’s a destination in it’s own-right. He may be attempting to send a message, but the cultural and tourism agencies as well as the civil rights people are going to be all over him. It’s the message it sends. Especially as he’s not required to have multi-lingual employees. It’s not so-much that his message is discriminatory, as it’s rude….
I agree with GPW. That guy, however misguided, has the right to run his business as he sees fit. That lady should take her money & spend it on a gay-friendly tape place. It’s not as if she lives in Cow’s Breath, Nebraska. Arlington must have dozens of places for the services she needs.
#15 – “Being “open for business” carries the obligation to be open to all…at least in our contemporary society…
Legally, yes. Morally speaking, though – that is wrong. It’s fascist.
“Geno’s is without question a public accommodation…”
Geno’s is without question a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
“it’s an institution… it’s a destination…”
And who made it that way? Me? You?
Nope… GENO did. (and/or the family who chose to inherit him)
“It’s not so-much that his message is discriminatory, as it’s rude….”
Then don’t go there. Don’t give him your business.
You don’t owe him anything – and he doesn’t owe you anything.
It’s HIS business. I hope he hangs in there – and if the fascist Orwellian “Human Relations Commission” should triumph over him legally, God forbid, I hope he makes a point by shutting down.
Apology for Dan (GPW): I will shut up and stay away from the thread now; I don’t mean to hijack it. But golly, do people NOT understand freedom, anymore!
Calarato, “people” do understand freedom… it just doesn’t fit their sense of what others should be doing right now per their own political and social viewpoint.
HowieDean: “Being free doesn’t mean you get to second guess what I tell you to do.”
A libertarian purist would argue that a private business does have the right to refuse to serve customers because of their race or anything else and then suffer the consequences of the market place. The government, at any level, doesn’t have the right to treat anyone differently. Of course, in a purist libertarian situation the government is very very small and is running almost nothing.
Private business owners should have the right to chose to whom they offer their services. Our laws, atm, say no and maybe that’s okay or even a good thing. (Until someone loses the right to refuse services to Phelps and his spawn.) But to say that a business *also* can’t decide what services it won’t offer is, and should always be, wrong.
My parents had a screen printing business and I know they refused jobs because of content. (I seem to recall my mom refusing to print shirts with bare boobies on them.)
Is it ok to agree with Vera while at the same time being slightly creeped out by how she always talks about herself in the third person? I have a theory. Vera is actually Bob Dole! Be honored. Presidential candidate Bob Dole is trolling your blog!
Dan:
Twice in one day I write to thank you for making a point. Too often, we want freedom for me but not for thee. A private business is not a public entity.
Regrettably, we already suffer under the burden of some anti-discrimination laws. While discriminating against someone based on their religion, skin color or orientation might be morally reprehensible, the freedom to do so should be preserved. If I owned a business, I might prefer to only hire gay males as employees. Having the government dictate whom I could hire or whom I could serve both diminishes my freedom and interferes with the market place. It does not diminish anyone else’s freedom since no one has the right to work at my business.
Non-discrimination laws should apply only to governmental entities or entities contracted to provide services on behalf of the government. We cannot chose to patronize another government we like better in the same way we can select which restaurant we eat at or which video copy service we select.
Oh, Dale in LA-
Vera is most certainly not Bob Dole, although Vera did meet the Senator from Kansas and the exchange went something like this:
Vera: “Senator, Vera is pleased to make your acquaintance…”
Bob Dole: “Hello Vera, Bob Dole is pleased to meet you as well…”
Vera: “Senator, Vera would like to know how Mrs. Dole is doing these days?”
Bob Dole: “Well Vera, Bob Dole believes Mrs. Dole is doing just fine, thank you for asking”
And on and on…
It’s helps if you’re drinking very strong martinis while conversing this way….
Raj, I saw the article late last night (well, technically early this morning) on the Washington Blade‘s web-site. I thought it was a new story and did not know that Indegay Forum had covered it. If there are no averse legal consequences, I don’t think Bono should file a law suit, but do think that makes the AHRC an unnecessary institution, existing just to bloviate.
Well said in #21, Michael. Very well said.
Well, the fact is the county has anti-discrimination laws in place. You can argue all day about whether they are right or wrong but they are in effect. Instead of arguing that the law itself is invalid, he’s arging that the county doesn’t have the right to add GLBT people to the anti-discrimination laws because of his choice of (bigoted) religions.
Well, I’m going to start a religion that believes driving fast is a god-given right and that stoplights are the work of the devil. Therefore I won’t have to obey those laws anymore. Who’s with me?!?
Keith, is he actually trying to claim the right to not copy tapes for homosexual people?
I thought he was claiming the right to refuse to copy some sorts of tapes, not the right not to serve some sorts of people.
Big difference.
#24) Anti-discrimination laws don’t apply. He’s not refusing to serve someone. He’s refusing to reproduce speech that he finds offensive. The customer is free to say whatever she wants, but he’s not obligated to assist her or provide a medium for her.
#23 GayPatriotWest — June 13, 2006 @ 2:40 pm – June 13, 2006
That’s OK. FYI, Dale Carpenter also had at least one post (with comments allowed) over at volokh.com at about the same time, if you’re interested in looking it up.
But Carpenter’s post and the discussion at IndeGayForum were before Bono him- (or her-) self filed suit. It struck me that, if, in fact, the AHRC does not have enforcement powers, it is somewhat dumb of Bono to file suit–he should just wait until the AHRC tried to get a court to enforce whatever it decided.
Actually no, he does not refuse to take orders in other languages. His parents were immigrants. He’s making a statement — and the leftists in the city government are trying to shut him down for it.
Keith (#4) and I (#11), between us, sidetracked the thread into how our society ought to deal with “people discrimination” questions.
But I think you guys are right – I think the Tim Bono case has only to do with the content of the request, not with the person making it.
And that may provide the type of distinction that Casey was looking for (#7). Perhaps the “moderate” position would be to keep anti-discrimination laws as regards people, while letting service providers refuse to deal with content they don’t want to deal with.
My bringing up Geno in #13 would still apply because that, again, has to do with the content (the spoken language) of requests his customers are making. He doesn’t discriminate among customers by race/origin.
If a gay person brought in a copy of something G rated and suitable for all ages, and the owner refused to serve her based on the fact that she was gay, it would be discrimination.
But I think a business owner has every right to set specific moral standards for what they will and won’t do-his discrimination here is due to the content-not the person, and he has every right to descriminate.
4: Bingo! It’s really sad how many of you conservatives here say you support gays having the same rights as everybody else, yet people on here consistently support discrimination of gays by straights. How about if Mr. Bono refused to duplicate material with Black people on it? Or how about with Jews on it? Seems pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it? Pretty sad that you seem to equate freedom with hate, mistrust and prejudice. Fighting this kind of nonsense was what things like the civil rights movement, women’s rights movment and gay rights movement were (and are) all about.
You folks simply can’t talk about how gays are going to make inroads with conservatives if your answer to everything is “sure, go ahead, it’s ok to discriminate against me – here let me even support you and help you do it.” You have to stand up and tell people it’s worng and explain to them why it’s wrong.
Didn’t you even read my post, Kevin? I think it’s wrong for Mr. Bono to do what he did, but beileve that freedom means the freedom to be wrong.
The problem is that we have gotten away from the notion of the right of business owners to contract or not contract for goods and services as tehy see fit by applyin gthe once very limited concept of “public accommodation” to all sorts of businesses.
The original concept of a public accommodation dates back to the days when not providing food and lodging could result in the death of the person refused service because there was not another inn along the king’s highway. Death from starvation, exposure or attack by animals or thieves was teh possible result of such a refusal. In light of that, an Inn (which provided food and shelter) had special obligations imposed.
On the other hand, video duplication, printing, and other such services clearly do not meet such a criteria.
Unfortunately, Kevin, you don’t believe in “equal rights” — you believe in SPECIAL rights.
If a gay-owned business refused to do work for a Christian or Christian group, you’d support and praise that. But note the double standard of how you support legally compelling a Christian to do whatever a gay person demands.
What rightwingprof is saying in comment number 2 is that a white-owned restaurant can refuse service to a black for the simple reason the would be customer is black, that a Catholic-owned service station can refuse gasoline to a Protestant for the simple reason the would be customer is Protestant, that a straight-owned grocery store can refuse to sell groceries to a gay person for the simple reason the would be customer is gay. I think the professor has a problem.
BTW, I love reading Vera Charles talking about Vera Charles in the third person. I just wish I could write as cleverly as she does. Keep it up, Vera. And post more often.
And what I’m saying in 35 is that a black-owned restaurant can refuse service to a white person, an atheist-owned service station can refuse gas to a Christian, and a gay-owned grocery store can refuse service to heterosexuals.
That’s equal rights.
I wonder what would happen if somebody started a video and film service that catered gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians, as well as straight Christians and non-Christians.
I guess the fallout would be too brutal. Too many people’s heads would simply blow up.
The public accomodation argument strikes me as a non-argument. It gives the impression that the business is somehow partially owned by the public, which it is not. It is owned by a person, or perhaps several persons. The public did not start the Bono business, does not advertise for it, does not take a financial risk for the business and does not get up early in the morning to go work there. These are the resposibilities of an owner, although he or she may also contract some of these responsibilities out for compensation. The owner started the business, takes the risk and the responsibility for it. The public should therefore not be making this decision.
That said, it is always interesting to me how many Christians believe it is somehow “sinful” to provide services in a case like this. My sense is that someone like Mr. Bono honestly believes that he would be sinning if he duplicated this material. So forcing him to do so would probably cause considerable distress. Is this a common Christian reaction, or is he putting his own spin on Biblical rules?
It’s not on a list of sins, Matt. It’s more a matter of personal conscience… if you believe that it’s wrong to do something it is wrong, someone else might not believe it’s wrong and for them it isn’t wrong.
If that sounds a little bit psychotic, it does have Biblical basis. The discussion about eating meat sacrificed to idols and causing a brother to stumble would apply. The person who *rightly* understood that the meat was just meat, wasn’t supposed to force the issue and cause other, weaker, brothers to stumble. Since for them it really was wrong.
I suppose it would be like lying… we don’t consider something a lie if the person believed it was true when they said it. But what about someone who intended to be deceptive and didn’t realize that the lie they spun was actually the truth?
In other words, I’d say it was a fairly common reaction but it can be applied in various ways. If you believed that alcohol destroys lives and families would you feel comfortable selling it to others just so long as you never drank any yourself?
The problem here with this story though is that the local government can’t enforce it’s anti-discrimination laws at the local level. Because the State has no such anti-discrimination law on the books (i.e. sexual orientation) the local government can’t actually enforce the laws. In Virginia (I live in Alexandra a few miles away) City laws must be approved by the state legislature removing the autonomous power of the local government.
My teachings in the military and my experiences with life, make me very conservative on this matter, tell me that local governments should be allowed to improve upon laws or lack of laws covered in their state laws. It’s just like problems that arise with “States’ Rights ” issues
That’s exactly what I’m saying, because that’s what the Constitution says. You need a primer on the First Amendment, so read this, and when you understand that means everybody, and not just who you approve of, get back to us.
#41 Daimeon — June 15, 2006 @ 2:48 pm – June 15, 2006
My teachings in the military and my experiences with life, make me very conservative on this matter, tell me that local governments should be allowed to improve upon laws or lack of laws covered in their state laws. It’s just like problems that arise with “States’ Rights ” issues
Actually, no it isn’t. The federal structure implies that the federal government is a “creature” of the states.”
Within each state, cities, towns and other administrative districts (townships, unincorporated areas, etc.) are also creatures of the state. As such, within a state, the cities, towns and other administrative districts only have the powers that the state allows them to have. Generally, if a city, etc., wants to have a power that the state did not give them, it has to petition the state government to give it that power.