Not all opinions are created equal

July 27, 2015 8:00 AM

Racist Readers Need Not Apply

Scott Vogel, editor-in-chief of Houstonia magazine, explains why he canceled the subscriptions of two readers who complained about an ad picturing an interracial family.
posted by Johnny Wallflower (133 comments total)

Awesome. I must admit... whenever anyone angrily announces that they've unfollowed my knitting blog's Facebook page because I've posted something political such as a criticism of Hobby Lobby or a rainbow striped knitting pattern in support of gay marriage, I think, "Oh good. If that's who you are I don't want you here anyway."
posted by orange swan at 8:08 AM on July 27, 2015 [39 favorites]

Good. Sometimes customers need to be fired, too.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:13 AM on July 27, 2015 [46 favorites]

Buuuuuuuuuurn.

But yeah, good riddance to bad rubbish. My reaction to seeing that ad would be, "What a cute family."
posted by Kitteh at 8:21 AM on July 27, 2015

One wouldn't expect a letter like that from a doctor (and over an advertisement no less). I'm sure he didn't expect to be named in such a manner but you sends your letter and you takes your chances. I just hope Mr. Vogel didn't injure his arm patting himself on the back. If he did maybe he could reinstate Dr. Tomball's subscription in exchange for a consult.
posted by MikeMc at 8:26 AM on July 27, 2015 [4 favorites]

Cue comments ranting about "free speech" and "First Amendment" in 3...2...1...
posted by holborne at 8:30 AM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

The customer is always right.
posted by Fizz at 8:31 AM on July 27, 2015

The doctor wasn't named. Editor used the name of the town the doctor works in.
posted by LogicalDash at 8:34 AM on July 27, 2015 [17 favorites]

Cue comments ranting about "free speech" and "First Amendment" in 3...2...1...

It's not a free speech issue. If these people want to write a racist magazine of their own, or stand on a street corner ranting, or write crazy shit online, they're allowed to (and they should be). People can say what they want and the government can't stop them. But the editor of this magazine, a private citizen, is not obliged to provide them with a platform.
posted by jonmc at 8:34 AM on July 27, 2015 [18 favorites]

"Cue comments ranting about "free speech" and "First Amendment" in 3...2...1..."

Uh, how? The racists want to restrict the content of the magazine's ads. How is that a free speech issue? The magazine basically said "no, we're not going to restrict our content to your weird racist standards" and cancelled their subscriptions. Not seeing where your snark is coming from. Also, if you're a racist and you want to secretly be not-racist then you can just sneak into the local news stand and probably buy it there.
posted by I-baLL at 8:38 AM on July 27, 2015 [6 favorites]

I get that he's not completely denying them the right to purchase the magazine, so it's not a perfect parallel, but I would rather have seen him simply denounce the racists in his editorial rather than deny them the product, for the same reason that a florist must sell to a gay couple, even if they disapprove of them. Besides, it would have been nice to think of them having to continually face the horrors of miscegenation, month after month, in their racially pure mailboxes.
posted by HunkeredUp at 8:38 AM on July 27, 2015 [10 favorites]

I wanted to deliver news to readers who, like me, had mistakenly thought that interracial marriage was something we’d all come to accept. It isn’t, I told them. There are still awful people out there, and you need to know this.

It's literally unfathomable to me that someone would look at that ad and see anything beyond a happy family, so he's right - it's good to be reminded that viewpoint isn't a given. Depressing as fuck, yes, but good to know.
posted by billiebee at 8:39 AM on July 27, 2015 [11 favorites]

I mostly agree with HunkeredUp. I think it was very well played by the editor, but an equally good solution to me is "I'll keep taking your money, and I'll find a way to put more diversity into your mailbox in every issue I can."
posted by chimaera at 8:42 AM on July 27, 2015 [12 favorites]

I'm just happy to share a town with that magazine and its editor.

Houston is pretty dang diverse (you may recall our three-term mayor is gay, and (moreover) that this wasn't an issue in her campaign), but you still run into (generally far suburban) old-school bigots from time to time. It's a reminder that, often, people coming from smaller towns or the vast rural interior of Texas (or any state, really) think of the kind of diversity that's inescapable in a big town like Houston as a *problem* because not everyone is a straight white Christian.

Fuck those people.
posted by uberchet at 8:47 AM on July 27, 2015 [10 favorites]

It's literally unfathomable to me that someone would look at that ad and see anything beyond a happy family

I am having a little trouble seeing past the giant applique bird on her dress, for what it's worth. But yes, the family is fine. Also , to hell with racists.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:47 AM on July 27, 2015 [12 favorites]

"...for the same reason that a florist must sell to a gay couple, even if they disapprove of them. "

There's a big difference between discriminating against someone for what they say vs. discriminating against them for who they are.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:49 AM on July 27, 2015 [29 favorites]

MetaFilter: to hell with racists.
posted by Fizz at 8:53 AM on July 27, 2015 [6 favorites]

Your ad in the June Houstonia magazine is DISGUSTING! I will not put this magazine in my reception area!

I grant you, his reaction is a little extreme, but the baby blue wall and the brasswork thingy above the couch and the placement of the couch against the door are kind of tacky wait what do you mean that's not what he meant
posted by kagredon at 8:53 AM on July 27, 2015 [15 favorites]

Houston is pretty dang diverse

I think I remember reading that it was second only to my former home of Queens, NY in this regard. I think this is a great way to beat the stereotype of the bigoted southerner, actually, since most Texans I've known (even the rural ones) have been fine people, and I love the food, the music and the hats. :)
posted by jonmc at 8:54 AM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

When did we adopt equivalency for abhorrent ideals, idiocy and general fucking craziness as a foundational tenet of american society?

They used to be tinfoil hat motherfuckers. Now they get a seat at the big table. Warglebargle about racism being a legitimate social norm, warglebargle about the government taking over Texas, warglebargle about climate change being bunk because some young earth motherfucker read it in his crayon drawn homeschool textbook.

Fuck those guys. You can have your opinion, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow it to be treated as a social fucking norm.
posted by Lord_Pall at 8:56 AM on July 27, 2015 [54 favorites]

Uh, how? The racists want to restrict the content of the magazine's ads. How is that a free speech issue?

The kind of people who would be making "freeze peach" complaints don't necessarily see that this is a contradiction.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:56 AM on July 27, 2015 [13 favorites]

How is that a free speech issue? The magazine basically said "no, we're not going to restrict our content to your weird racist standards" and cancelled their subscriptions. Not seeing where your snark is coming from.

I assume that the snark is coming from the fact that this is NOT a free speech issue, but that people always start hollering such things when private companies do things like this. Like people who think that not being able to buy a confederate flag at Wal-Mart infringes on their first amendment rights.
posted by history_denier at 8:57 AM on July 27, 2015 [22 favorites]

HunkeredUp: “I get that he's not completely denying them the right to purchase the magazine, so it's not a perfect parallel, but I would rather have seen him simply denounce the racists in his editorial rather than deny them the product, for the same reason that a florist must sell to a gay couple, even if they disapprove of them.”

The parallel doesn't fail because he didn't "deny them the product"; it fails because (a) all "products" are not public accommodations – there are many products that can be denied to people for any reason whatsoever, and only when those products become part of the public life of the community do they become subject to those kinds of strictures, and (b) racists are not a protected class; there are only specific minority groups of people who cannot be denied public accommodations simply on the basis of their membership in those groups, and racists are not a historically denigrated minority at risk of being denied a full part in the public life of the community.
posted by koeselitz at 8:59 AM on July 27, 2015 [18 favorites]

But yeah, good riddance to bad rubbish. My reaction to seeing that ad would be, "What a cute family."

And I don't think I would even have noticed it. Not in a Colbert "I don't see race" way but in a "Flip right past the ad because it's an ad" way. But there is a certain type of person (and maybe it's confirmation bias, but it sure seems like they're also usually xenophobic racist bigots) who goes through life actively looking for things to be outraged about.
posted by usonian at 9:01 AM on July 27, 2015 [5 favorites]

When did we adopt equivalency for abhorrent ideals, idiocy and general fucking craziness as a foundational tenet of american society?

I'm not sure. When did Rush Limbaugh first hit the air? Or, maybe it was when FoxNews premiered?
posted by Thorzdad at 9:02 AM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

I assume that the snark is coming from the fact that this is NOT a free speech issue, but that people always start hollering such things when private companies do things like this. Like people who think that not being able to buy a confederate flag at Wal-Mart infringes on their first amendment rights.

history_denier has it right. What I meant was that stories like this tend to bring out the "But that doctor was just exercising his free speech! WHAT ABOUT HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!!" crowd in the comments on articles like this. I wasn't suggesting that there's actually a free speech issue -- quite the opposite. Sorry I wasn't clear.
posted by holborne at 9:03 AM on July 27, 2015 [9 favorites]

"The parallel doesn't fail because he didn't "deny them the product"; it fails because (a) all "products" are not public accommodations – there are many products that can be denied to people for any reason whatsoever, and only when those products become part of the public life of the community do they become subject to those kinds of strictures, and (b) racists are not a protected class; there are only specific minority groups of people who cannot be denied public accommodations simply on the basis of their membership in those groups, and racists are not a historically denigrated minority at risk of being denied a full part in the public life of the community."

I'm afraid I'm confused by point a. But I feel that point b is odd because I don't think that freedom to purchase a product is meant to apply only to protected classes. They are free to voice their ugly opinions, and we are free to disagree with them, loudly, and strenuously. But anything we offer for sale to the public must be also offered to those we disagree with. That's my reading, at any rate. But I'm not actually a constitutional scholar, despite all appearances to the contrary....
posted by HunkeredUp at 9:06 AM on July 27, 2015

Vogel said it better than I can:

Beyond its unfortunate equating of gay people and racists, however, that argument hinges on the notion that all opinions are created equal. They’re not. There are viewpoints we agree with, viewpoints we disagree with but can respect, and viewpoints we disagree with because they incite cruelty and violence. Obviously, racism is one of the latter, a dissenting viewpoint that we are right to squelch — indeed, that we must be intolerant of.

posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:25 AM on July 27, 2015 [10 favorites]

They used to be tinfoil hat motherfuckers. Now they get a seat at the big table. Warglebargle about racism being a legitimate social norm

Er, what? People who proclaimed that racism was a "legitimate social norm" used to be pretty nearly everyone in any position of social, economic or political power in the country. The overt expression of racist beliefs has never been as widely or as thoroughly deprecated or as socially unacceptable as it is now in the history of the United States. I find this reflex construction of mythical ideal pasts really weird.

I don't think that freedom to purchase a product is meant to apply only to protected classes

I did a little Googling to see if anyone had ever sued over being denied a subscription to a magazine, but couldn't find anything. I think the editor's position could plausibly be taken to be "you expressed deep dissatisfaction with the product we're selling you and demanded changes; we are not willing to make those changes, so we're dissolving our agreement to sell you a product you clearly don't care for." It would be interesting to see what would happen if the subscribers complained ("I have a RIGHT to be offended on a monthly basis, goddam it!"). Can a magazine refuse to sell subscriptions to people whose political opinions they disapprove of? Say, for example, if the Southern Poverty Law Center subscribes to a racist magazine because it helps them track hate groups. If the magazine cancels that subscription, can the Southern Poverty Law Center sue them? Does any law-talking person want to weigh in on that issue? I don't think it's a "freedom of speech" issue because it's not related to curtailment of anyone's right to express their views, it's a curtailment of someone else's ability to receive that expression.
posted by yoink at 9:26 AM on July 27, 2015 [6 favorites]

The only form of freedom that matters is the freedom to acquire mid-quality products at a discount.
posted by aramaic at 9:31 AM on July 27, 2015 [7 favorites]

So, the Ashton Martini Group claims it gets a letter from a Houston doctor that subscribes to Houstonia only as waiting room fodder. For some reason, the advertiser tells the magazine about it -- which is odd because the magazine doesn't play a role in writing ad copy for clients. Guess they're not terribly busy over at Ashton Martini. Anyway, when the magazine calls the doctor, he's "not available." "Exactly one week later," the magazine gets a semi-anonymous call from someone complaining about the same ad. The magazine then runs a back-patting article, which generates wacky comments because Internet. A few days later (I presume), the Washington Post reaches out, gets the magazine editor to write an op-ed, and it's running in the Post a week after the initial magazine article.

Does that all sound plausible? It feels ... neat. Feels like something cooked up between Jimmy McNulty and Scott Templeton.

It's gotten to the point where I can't trust anything.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:32 AM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

Glomming on to yoink's point, I am also not sure that suspending a magazine subscription is actually equivalent, from a legal/technical perspective, to refusing to sell someone a magazine. The only vaguely relevant information I could find googling was stuff about shady autorenewal practices, which still doesn't shed much light.
posted by kagredon at 9:32 AM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

There's a world of difference between refusing to sell someone a subscription because they express view X, and cancelling a subscription because they demanded that you embrace view X in a rude and off-putting fashion.
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:33 AM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

So, the Ashton Martini Group claims it gets a letter from a Houston doctor that subscribes to Houstonia only as waiting room fodder. For some reason, the advertiser tells the magazine about it -- which is odd because the magazine doesn't play a role in writing ad copy for clients. Guess they're not terribly busy over at Ashton Martini.

If I were an advertiser and someone sent me a note like this, I'd damn sure forward it to my contact at the magazine. Even just from a purely cynical business perspective, I'd want to know whether they were getting a bunch of the same sorts of complaints so I know exactly why people might not be patronizing my business.

Anyway, when the magazine calls the doctor, he's "not available."

It surprises you that a racist didn't want to talk to a publication on the record about his racism? There's a reason he sent the note to the business and not the magazine -- he thought he might be able to find a sympathetic ear with a fellow Small Business Owner, but the Liberal Media? Hell no.

The magazine then runs a back-patting article, which generates wacky comments because Internet. A few days later (I presume), the Washington Post reaches out, gets the magazine editor to write an op-ed, and it's running in the Post a week after the initial magazine article.

Welcome to our media world.

Does that all sound plausible?

Sadly, it totally does.
posted by Etrigan at 9:42 AM on July 27, 2015 [12 favorites]

For some reason, the advertiser tells the magazine about it -- which is odd because the magazine doesn't play a role in writing ad copy for clients. Guess they're not terribly busy over at Ashton Martini.

The ad was on the first page of the magazine. It's not really odd at all that an ad that prominently placed would have heavy follow-up between the editor and the advertiser. Although, yes, I do think that the tone that the editor is shocked, SHOCKED that this would draw controversy might be a touch overstated; I'm sure the magazine gets calls and letters from racists WHARGLEBARGLing at them for all kinds of deranged reasons all the time. I don't think he planned his reaction in advance, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the advertiser was told to pass on any such reactions to his office.
posted by kagredon at 9:42 AM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

My reaction to seeing that ad would be, "What a cute family."

My reaction to seeing that ad is they look a lot like my brother's family.

I get that he's not completely denying them the right to purchase the magazine, so it's not a perfect parallel, but I would rather have seen him simply denounce the racists in his editorial rather than deny them the product, for the same reason that a florist must sell to a gay couple, even if they disapprove of them.

Nobody had to sell anything to people who walk into their store and tell them they or anybody else they are disgusting. It's the difference between disapproving of a person and disapproving of overt anti-social behavior.
posted by srboisvert at 9:46 AM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

There's a world of difference between refusing to sell someone a subscription because they express view X, and cancelling a subscription because they demanded that you embrace view X in a rude and off-putting fashion.

I doubt there's all that much difference in law. That is, if either case A or B is legal then I imagine the other is and if either is illegal I imagine the other is too. It's hard to imagine a law that carves out an exception for "being a dick about it."

So does anyone who actually knows the relevant case law have an opinion about whether you can refuse to sell a subscription to someone because you dislike their political views (or because they're rude in the expression of those views)?
posted by yoink at 9:46 AM on July 27, 2015

Anyway, when the magazine calls the doctor, he's "not available."

Why the scare quotes around the thing that happens literally any time a human being tries to call a doctor?
posted by griphus at 9:48 AM on July 27, 2015 [39 favorites]

I am having a little trouble seeing past the giant applique bird on her dress

I'd like to think that's what the doctor was so upset about.

"Clearly that's a cloth woven of two kinds of material! This is an affront to the Lord (Lev. 19:19)! What's that word for mixing fibers again? Miscegenation? Yeah, I'll go with that."
posted by hydrophonic at 9:51 AM on July 27, 2015 [10 favorites]

This appears to be a slippery slope...whatever your viewpoint/biases/worldview, when is it OK/not OK to express your viewpoint? Object to depictions of your religious leader in print? Not happy with suggestive photos of children? Feel any publication is biased/racist/political or has an agenda that ruffs your feathers?

What if someone wrote a neutral missive that explained how they feel? E.g., "The recent article/photo in your newspaper/magazine/show conflicts with my worldview/religious beliefs. Please consider this in the future."

Where do we draw the line?

This reminds me of the signs that used to be everywhere in the south: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." And as long as you never tell anyone the *reason* you are refusing service, you are within your rights and the law. But if you say "...because you are ethnicity/gender/economically disadvantaged/handicapped..." etc., then there's trouble.

So fine on refusing subscription service to anyone. Not sure about printing, "Because you are____________."
posted by CrowGoat at 9:56 AM on July 27, 2015

Where do we draw the line?

At denying other human beings civil rights. Okay?
posted by lumpenprole at 10:00 AM on July 27, 2015 [31 favorites]

The supposed right of intolerance is absurd and barbaric. It is the right of the tiger; nay, it is far worse, for tigers do but tear in order to have food, while we rend each other for paragraphs.

Voltaire's quote rings true today as it ever did.
posted by Talez at 10:01 AM on July 27, 2015 [10 favorites]

Where do we draw the line?

There is a lot of real estate between "magazine editor doesn't want to sell his magazine to racists" and... I don't know... anything bad. And we can judge those other things as they come up. Slippery-slope arguments are for sophomores in philosophy class.
posted by Etrigan at 10:03 AM on July 27, 2015 [15 favorites]

So fine on refusing subscription service to anyone. Not sure about printing, "Because you are____________."

So long as it's not a protected class you can print whatever the hell you want. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you.
posted by Talez at 10:04 AM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

Not sure about printing, "Because you are____________."

But the person who wrote the thing said they are ________. The whole point was that the dude wrote in a letter stating "I am __________ and because of that I consider this is bad." So the reply is "well, we don't want customers who are _________ so peace out."

Not providing service to someone because of their ethnicity, gender, ability, etc. is often illegal because they're in protected classes. Racists aren't a protected class.
posted by griphus at 10:04 AM on July 27, 2015 [16 favorites]

HunkeredUp: “They are free to voice their ugly opinions, and we are free to disagree with them, loudly, and strenuously. But anything we offer for sale to the public must be also offered to those we disagree with.”

Forcing people to proffer goods against their will is a very serious step to take – which is why the Supreme Court has only done so in very few cases, and for very specific reasons. They have very carefully defined specific "protected classes" – for instance, nonwhite people, women, and now gay people – who have historically been denied a place in the life of our society. Protected status is not something that can be assumed, although it could be argued for. Nor should it be granted willy-nilly, because, again, it is a very serious thing to say that people must do business with certain people if they're willing to be in business at all.

And I think that, thinking about some possible cases, it's clear why broadening the requirement that businesses offer public accommodations to say that they must offer products to all people (no matter what, with no notion of protected classes) would be a bit too far to go.

For example: say McDonald's offers a cod sandwich on the eastern seaboard, but not here where I live in New Mexico. They are, in effect, denying this particular product to me, a customer, and simply because I am a New Mexican and not a Bostonian. Under your formulation, I ought to be able to sue for the right to buy a cod sandwich in Albuquerque.

There are a lot of reasons why businesses offer a thing to certain people but not others. Sometimes those are perfectly fair reasons. We shouldn't be restricting their right to decide unless it really is necessary to preserve a just society.
posted by koeselitz at 10:10 AM on July 27, 2015 [16 favorites]

Rather than cancel their subscriptions, he should begin sending these special customers an all-interracial, gayed-up version of the magazine.
posted by orme at 10:12 AM on July 27, 2015 [5 favorites]

Under your formulation, I ought to be able to sue for the right to buy a cod sandwich in Albuquerque.

Which would then require you to sue McDonalds for the food poisoning after consuming that cod sandwich.
posted by Talez at 10:12 AM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

I'm just still in shock that someone intelligent enough to make it through medical school can hold that view. Clearly it was not for the idealistic reasons I ascribe to the profession that this person became a healer. Time for a self-exam.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 10:20 AM on July 27, 2015

From my layperson's understanding, koeselitz has it. Businesses can freely discriminate against many, many people for many, many reasons, and they do it all the time without reprisal. So the answer to "Can you refuse a magazine subscription to someone without fear of legal action?" is a resounding and clear "yes". In American law you can discriminate in your choice of customers all you want, for almost any reason you want. Customer is rude? Shoeless? Shirtless? Clothing doesn't meet your fancy dress code? You're a mechanic and the customer's car is a model that you don't usually work on? All are acceptable reasons to refuse service.

What you can't do is refuse service to someone who is in a protected class based on their membership in that protected class. Racsists aren't a protected class. So it appears the magazine is clearly within their legal rights to refuse a subscription to the people who complained.
posted by Tehhund at 10:20 AM on July 27, 2015 [10 favorites]

Feels like something cooked up between Jimmy McNulty and Scott Templeton

you're basing your skepticism on two fictional characters just sayin
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:21 AM on July 27, 2015 [6 favorites]

I'm just still in shock that someone intelligent enough to make it through medical school can hold that view.

I wanna use the old "what do you call the person who graduated last of their class in medical school" set-up as a response, but hoo-boy if I haven't spent my life around incredibly intelligent people, many with advanced degrees and the jobs that go with them who were using only mild hyperbole when they told me that Obama being elected would be the start of a new ethnic cleansing campaign in America.
posted by griphus at 10:25 AM on July 27, 2015 [10 favorites]

For example: say McDonald's offers a cod sandwich on the eastern seaboard, but not here where I live in New Mexico. They are, in effect, denying this particular product to me, a customer, and simply because I am a New Mexican and not a Bostonian. Under your formulation, I ought to be able to sue for the right to buy a cod sandwich in Albuquerque.

This is a misreading of my formulation. If McD's offers everyone in Boston a salty, greasy cod sandwich except for those Bostonians it doesn't like, that would be the issue. I was not implying that a business is required to offer all products in all regions--rather that where it does offer them, it needs to offer them to all the customers in that region. Including the region we fondly know as the internet.
posted by HunkeredUp at 10:28 AM on July 27, 2015

What strikes me as odd is that naive belief that any number of people are in fact upset, disturbed, or angered at "race mixing." After all, there were laws on the books in any number of states prohibiting marriage between the races, and our armed forces were segregated till 1950
Race mixing goes back to the early days of our nation, and many whites in the West married Indians and Indians married blacks

Given demographics, we are going to see increasingly mixed marriages between Hispanics,
whites, Blacks, and Asians.
posted by Postroad at 10:29 AM on July 27, 2015

> This appears to be a slippery slope...

And this appears to be a slippery slope into never doing anything when someone espouses bigotry or even acts in bigoted ways! Slippery slopes are fun like that.
posted by rtha at 10:36 AM on July 27, 2015 [18 favorites]

> So, the Ashton Martini Group claims it gets a letter from a Houston doctor that subscribes to Houstonia only as waiting room fodder. For some reason, the advertiser tells the magazine about it -- which is odd because the magazine doesn't play a role in writing ad copy for clients. Guess they're not terribly busy over at Ashton Martini. Anyway, when the magazine calls the doctor, he's "not available." "Exactly one week later," the magazine gets a semi-anonymous call from someone complaining about the same ad. The magazine then runs a back-patting article, which generates wacky comments because Internet. A few days later (I presume), the Washington Post reaches out, gets the magazine editor to write an op-ed, and it's running in the Post a week after the initial magazine article. Does that all sound plausible? It feels ... neat. Feels like something cooked up between Jimmy McNulty and Scott Templeton.

Yes, this seems utterly and completely plausible on all levels. Yes, doctors subscribe to magazines purely as waiting-room fodder. Yes, people who are offended by the advertising will often write Angry Letters blasting the advertiser for the offensive content, and also blaming the magazine for choosing to accept ad revenue which subjects unsuspecting readers to offensive material. (If a magazine I enjoyed ran a shockingly racist ad out of the blue, I'd certainly consider making a fuss to the advertiser and magazine, wouldn't you?)

Aston Martini is a Houston-area real estate agency and an advertising client of the magazine. They have a business relationship. Of course they're going to let each other know about a situation like this.

Houstonia Magazine didn't run an article, the Editor in Chief discussed the situation in the Editor's Note. This is a space in the magazine specifically for, well, back-patting -- and also for sharing business decisions that the magazine makes. It's a standard and wise PR move to lay out your side of the story when you react to a customer's satisfaction in an unusual way. It very much behooves the Editor to reassure the paying customers that he doesn't go around randomly cancelling their subscriptions any time they disagree with him.

/I wrote for a regional lifestyle magazine. Also I worked at a newspaper advertising section.

The Washington Post published an opinion piece from the Houstonia editor in "Post Anything", which is pretty much for...stuff just like this. Here's their explanation of purpose -- it's local perspectives on the news from outside of the Washington Post's reporting mandate. I believe it's online-only. (It's not really an op-ed in the traditional sense.)
posted by desuetude at 10:49 AM on July 27, 2015 [8 favorites]

If McD's offers everyone in Boston a salty, greasy cod sandwich except for those Bostonians it doesn't like, that would be the issue.

Yeah, the thing is that equal protection is not a right to never have your feelings hurt, in spite of how the "it's political correctness gone maaaaaaad!" crowd likes to characterize it. The point is to stop or at least mitigate the harm done to systematically marginalized groups; that's why there's such a thing as defined protected classes.
posted by kagredon at 10:50 AM on July 27, 2015 [4 favorites]

What strikes me as odd is that naive belief that any number of people are in fact upset, disturbed, or angered at "race mixing."

Interracial marriages on the rise, but social stigmas persist
Popular acceptance of interracial marriage, 1940-2010
posted by Lexica at 11:05 AM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

I would rather have seen him simply denounce the racists in his editorial rather than deny them the product, for the same reason that a florist must sell to a gay couple, even if they disapprove of them.

Yeah, no. Comparing sexual minorities to fucking racists is not okay. We are not equivalent.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:07 AM on July 27, 2015 [16 favorites]

I've said it before somewhere around here recently, but: in general, the slippery slope argument is a bullshit argument for the intellectually lazy. Humans, or at least the ones who care to make even a slight effort at it, are perfectly capable of making distinctions between situations that may seem similar at first blush. It's why we have prefrontal cortexes.

If you actually, honest-to-god cannot distinguish between, on the one hand, refusing service to someone who took the time to write you a letter stating that it was "DISGUSTING" to run a photo of a biracial family, and, on the other, refusing service to people who want to enter into a same sex marriage...well, then I'm not sure what to tell you, frankly.
posted by holborne at 11:23 AM on July 27, 2015 [9 favorites]

Did the op-ed NOT name the doctor? Because that's... clever.

Think about it. What better way to ensure that EVERY doctor in town will carry your magazine? Would you, a doctor, want a patient to look around your waiting room, and NOT see a copy of Houstonia? They'd think you were the racist doc who complained.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:24 AM on July 27, 2015 [17 favorites]

I dunno... I do get where the editor is coming from, but it feels off to me. I used to answer letters for a publisher, and you get all sorts of missives, some quite irrational and deluded. These usually just went into the trash, or if particularly off-the-wall, they'd end up on the bulletin board in the kitchen. I agree with the editor's sociological leanings, but there's something self-congratulatory I am perceiving from the editor that makes me want to find fault.

I would have (and I actually have in the past) responded with something like:

Dear Dr. [Redacted],

"Thank you for contacting the Houstonian. I'm sorry to hear that the advertisement placed in our magazine by Aston Martini was not to your liking. At the Houstonian we work hard to ensure that our advertisements will appeal to and interest our subscriber base and it is our firm belief that there is in fact, nothing offensive portrayed in the advertisement being referenced. This belief is cemented by the fact that out of many thousands of subscribers, yours was the only complaint we received.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your opinion, and I hope that you and your patients continue to enjoy the Houstonian for many years to come!"

The remedy for intolerance is not more intolerance, but to treat the person as one would treat a sick person.
posted by Debaser626 at 11:24 AM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

The remedy for intolerance is not more intolerance, but to treat the person as one would treat a sick person.

Quarantine is a perfectly valid course of treatment for particularly virulent and vile ailments.
posted by Etrigan at 11:26 AM on July 27, 2015 [14 favorites]

Tolerance of intolerance is not a virtue.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:27 AM on July 27, 2015 [20 favorites]

Far more interesting to me than the interracial angle is the way this ad depicts the age-old online dating profile cliche "I'm looking for someone equally comfortable in blue jeans or a cocktail dress". Clearly this couple fails that test of compatibility: The husband is kicking back in jeans and a polo; the wife is dressed as if she is ready to attend the Grand Ball.
posted by The Gooch at 11:29 AM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

The remedy for intolerance is not more intolerance, but to treat the person as one would treat a sick person.

Wait, so when you see someone coughing and sneezing all over common areas, do you say "well, no one else is coating the doorknobs in rhinovirus but YOU DO YOU, BRO"?
posted by kagredon at 11:29 AM on July 27, 2015 [6 favorites]

I don't think intolerance should be met with tolerance, but nor should it be crushed with more intolerance.... mainly because that doesn't work. If one's flaws are exposed in a way which hopefully doesn't embarrass or enrage the person, there is a chance for mending. People view themselves as generally good, and I doubt any intolerant people think THEY are intolerant, rather they fashion themselves templars or champions of good in a world gone awry. Being intolerant of those people only serves to reinforce the delusion and so on... If we truly are attempting to reduce intolerance, rather than enraging the intolerant... a different tack must be employed other than fighting fire with fire.
posted by Debaser626 at 11:34 AM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

(Also, intolerance isn't contagious, I don't think)
posted by Debaser626 at 11:36 AM on July 27, 2015

Nah. These people have bad opinions and they should feel bad about them.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:36 AM on July 27, 2015 [14 favorites]

There's a bar in Brooklyn (the Waystation, for anyone interested) that recently had what they called a Pay Gap Special, where for one evening women got 23% off of their entire bar tab. The event got some pretty significant local news coverage, and the normal chorus of Internet MRAs came out to announce that they would never ever drink at this bar ever. The owner's response was basically "good, I'd rather not have your kind at my bar anyway, assholes".
posted by Itaxpica at 11:38 AM on July 27, 2015 [25 favorites]

On the one hand, there are people in the world who think that I am disgusting, that my best friend is disgusting, that if my partner and I someday have children that they will be disgusting, and their rhetoric perpetuates a centuries-long tradition of violence and discrimination towards me and people like me.

But on the other hand, this editor is making it harder for them to buy his lifestyle magazine, and he wrote about it in the Washington Post! They might...feel bad. They might think that their views are unwelcome or not tolerated! That's just as bad obviously.
posted by kagredon at 11:40 AM on July 27, 2015 [19 favorites]

(Also, intolerance isn't contagious, I don't think)

It's often passed down from parents to children. And its display tends to bring out more people displaying it, which I think most of us would agree is far worse than people holding these repugnant opinions in their secret hearts.
posted by Etrigan at 11:44 AM on July 27, 2015 [5 favorites]

Would you, a doctor, want a patient to look around your waiting room, and NOT see a copy of Houstonia?

Sure, if I believed my patients were mostly also doofuses who worry about race-mixing.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:50 AM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

CrowGoat: “This reminds me of the signs that used to be everywhere in the south: ‘We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.’ And as long as you never tell anyone the *reason* you are refusing service, you are within your rights and the law. But if you say ‘...because you are ethnicity/gender/economically disadvantaged/handicapped...’ etc., then there's trouble.”

This is not actually true. If you consistently refuse service to a protected class – black people, women, gays, etc – then you are in violation of the law, no matter what you tell people.

Whenever you see one of those "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" signs, you should remember that such signs are empty and ineffectual bravado, and usually an indication of a business owner with an inflated sense of their rights under the law. It's a bit like a restaurant having a sign up that says "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SERVE FOOD THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF FDA STANDARDS" – not only is it terrible for business (one hopes), but just saying a thing doesn't make it true. The law doesn't allow business owners to "reserve" rights just because they feel like it.
posted by koeselitz at 11:57 AM on July 27, 2015 [6 favorites]

To be honest, I'm pretty sure I see "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" signs here in the Pacific Northwest, but I generally assume it's so they can kick out homeless people (which is its own issue).
posted by redsparkler at 12:02 PM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

There's a world of difference between refusing to sell someone a subscription because they express view X, and cancelling a subscription because they demanded that you embrace view X in a rude and off-putting fashion.

I think you're probably right about that, legally. I was speaking from a personal "I would rather have seen x than y" standpoint, but I think you make a great point.

I would rather have seen him simply denounce the racists in his editorial rather than deny them the product, for the same reason that a florist must sell to a gay couple, even if they disapprove of them.

Yeah, no. Comparing sexual minorities to fucking racists is not okay. We are not equivalent.

I agree, that's not OK at all, and that's not at all what I was saying. What I was saying was that I, personally, would view the proprietors' refusal to sell to people they disagreed with similarly, in terms of business ethics. It's the idea of the spirit and, hopefully, the letter of the law applying equally to our friends and enemies alike.
posted by HunkeredUp at 12:03 PM on July 27, 2015

I've also seen "Right to Refuse Service" signs used not infrequently to justify kicking out drunk assholes who start bellowing about how THIS IS AMERICA AND I CAN SIT HERE IF I WANT I AIN'T HURTING ANYONE ISN'T THIS STILL AMERICA.
posted by Etrigan at 12:04 PM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

But that is exactly what you are saying, HunkeredUp. You are saying that it is equivalent to refuse service to sexual minorities and to refuse to take money from racists.

It's not equivalent. At all. In any way.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:05 PM on July 27, 2015 [6 favorites]

"Thank you for contacting the Houstonian. I'm sorry to hear that the advertisement placed in our magazine by Aston Martini was not to your liking. At the Houstonian we work hard to ensure that our advertisements will appeal to and interest our subscriber base and it is our firm belief that there is in fact, nothing offensive portrayed in the advertisement being referenced. This belief is cemented by the fact that out of many thousands of subscribers, yours was the only complaint we received.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your opinion, and I hope that you and your patients continue to enjoy the Houstonian for many years to come!"

I think a response like this would only have angered the complainer anyway, since obviously their opinion wasn't being catered to; I'm guessing the good doctor would have cancelled his subscription and walked away feeling vindicated.

By taking the initiative to cancel this person's subscription and explicitly spell out why, Vogel is helping to provide social support to the idea that it is FUCKING NOT OKAY to expect other people to respect your bigoted viewpoint. If someone has made it to 2015 without catching on to the idea that maybe it's best to keep your bigotry to yourself, I'm pretty okay with people refusing to respond as if said bigotry were simply a different but equally valid point of view. I'm also happy with the idea of attaching consequences to such racism - I'm glad Vogel cancelled this guy's subscription.

"Making racists feel socially uncomfortable about acting upon their racism" is of course not an endpoint, but it's a step in a good direction, I think.
posted by DingoMutt at 12:07 PM on July 27, 2015 [8 favorites]

That's true, FFM--what I wasn't doing was equating gay people and racists, which is what I was responding to. We disagree, but I'd prefer to be clear on what it is we disagree about.
posted by HunkeredUp at 12:09 PM on July 27, 2015

The law doesn't allow business owners to "reserve" rights just because they feel like it.

what if a maritime lawyer writes the sign though

while he's on a boat
posted by kagredon at 12:09 PM on July 27, 2015 [9 favorites]

Um yes actually you were explicitly equating gay people and racists. You said that refusing service to either is bad. That is an equivalency.

You are saying it is just as bad to oh no hurt racist feelings as it is to refuse to provide a cake for my wedding. It's not. They're not even in the same ballpark. Please internalize this and never, ever make that equivalency again.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:11 PM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

You are saying that it is equivalent to refuse service to sexual minorities and to refuse to take money from racists.

...clarifying that this is the sentence of FFM I'm agreeing with....Sorry if that was confusing....
posted by HunkeredUp at 12:12 PM on July 27, 2015

redsparkler: “To be honest, I'm pretty sure I see 'WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE' signs here in the Pacific Northwest, but I generally assume it's so they can kick out homeless people (which is its own issue).”

Etrigan: “I've also seen 'Right to Refuse Service' signs used not infrequently to justify kicking out drunk assholes who start bellowing about how THIS IS AMERICA AND I CAN SIT HERE IF I WANT I AIN'T HURTING ANYONE ISN'T THIS STILL AMERICA.”

The thing is that you really don't have to put up a sign; and if you feel like you must put up a sign, then wording in that way is intentionally and vastly overbroad. Business owners simply do not have the right to refuse service to anyone. They could put up a sign that says "no loiterers," or they could put a sign that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service," or they could put up a sign that said "no drunken assholes." But saying they have the right to refuse service to anyone is – well, it always strikes me as this needlessly confrontational move.

Then again, they are within their rights to put up any sign they want. They just might not be within their rights to do what the sign says.
posted by koeselitz at 12:14 PM on July 27, 2015

the normal chorus of Internet MRAs came out to announce that they would never ever drink at this bar ever. The owner's response was basically "good, I'd rather not have your kind at my bar anyway, assholes".

We'll get ours back at the dry cleaners. Take that wimmenz!
posted by MikeMc at 12:14 PM on July 27, 2015

I wasn't confused at all. Racists aren't a protected class, for a very good reason. I am in a protected class, for a likewise very good reason. Refusing business to either of us is not the same thing. Again, please internalize that concept. Discrimination is not the same thing as refusing to mollycoddle someone with disgusting opinions.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:16 PM on July 27, 2015 [9 favorites]

The second hand store guy that went on and on, about how 'ethnic' Vancouver was becoming and regaled me with a rant about accents on the phone which no one can understand right? Right? Yep yep?, had every right to refuse me service after I said he was an asshole. Just like I had every right to leave my purchases on the counter after deciding that I didn't want to give this particular asshole my money. All I did was mention that I was visiting and where I was from and you decided that I would just join in with the racist ranting because heck I'm white right?

No I refuse you first visiting white lady!

Nope it was me refusing you asshole!

Protected classes are protected.

Other then that there is no more a 'right to have to buy' then there is a 'right to have to sell.'
posted by Jalliah at 12:17 PM on July 27, 2015

Um yes actually you were explicitly equating gay people and racists. You said that refusing service to either is bad. That is an equivalency.

You are saying it is just as bad to oh no hurt racist feelings as it is to refuse to provide a cake for my wedding. It's not. They're not even in the same ballpark. Please internalize this and never, ever make that equivalency again.

I'm sorry, FFM, but I disagree with you. I am infinitely happier to see a gay person get a wedding cake than a racist, but I still think they both have a right to buy the cake. And that doesn't in any way mean that I think a gay person and a racist are similar. Just that they have similar rights.
posted by HunkeredUp at 12:17 PM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

Refusing business to either of us is not the same thing.

You do realize that, in what I believe is your ideal world, you would not be a protected class (because there'd be no need to protect you), and hence, your own argument would allow denying service to you?
posted by saeculorum at 12:18 PM on July 27, 2015

Hahaha, what? "If homophobia didn't exist, it wouldn't exist! Checkmate!"
posted by kagredon at 12:20 PM on July 27, 2015 [20 favorites]

I'm questioning whether it's a great idea to hinge one's own right to service on one's protected status. When you stop being protected, you stop having a right to service.

The simpler way to guarantee a right to service is to make a right to service for everyone. The sword falls both ways and all that.
posted by saeculorum at 12:21 PM on July 27, 2015

HunkeredUp: “I'm sorry, FFM, but I disagree with you. I am infinitely happier to see a gay person get a wedding cake than a racist, but I still think they both have a right to buy the cake. And that doesn't in any way mean that I think a gay person and a racist are similar. Just that they have similar rights.”

I'm not sure if you saw my reply above, but I'll try to say it more succinctly:

You say that racists and gay people have similar rights, and that includes the right to buy similar things. But where does that right end or begin? Are you saying that everyone has the same right? A drunk person? An angry person? Are you saying that if I walk into a cake shop and start screaming racist obscenities in public – which is in many cases legal in the US! – they must serve me, or face legal consequences?

You must believe that there is a limit to the purported right to buy things. Where does it end?
posted by koeselitz at 12:21 PM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

You do realize that, in what I believe is your ideal world, you would not be a protected class (because there'd be no need to protect you), and hence, your own argument would allow denying service to you?

Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between denying someone service because of something that a person can't change, born that way etc etc and denying service for something that is a choice.

Racism is a choice. One thing is not like the other here.
posted by Jalliah at 12:22 PM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

You can disagree with me as much as you like. It won't make you right. You are drawing a false equivalency that is no better than "but a black guy said he didn't like white people once, that's just the same."

It's really, really not. The context really, really matters. Specifically, the contexts about protected classes and why they're protected (and why other people are not), and the difference between private enterprise and public accommodation. Please stop digging yourself into this hole and consider the idea that just maybe you might be wrong as hell about this, and that the equivalency you're putting forth is horrifically offensive on multiple levels.

You do realize that, in what I believe is your ideal world, you would not be a protected class (because there'd be no need to protect you), and hence, your own argument would allow denying service to you?

In my ideal world nobody would refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation so... what is your point exactly? It sounds like you were aiming for some kinda GOTCHA but you landed in a fail puddle instead.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:23 PM on July 27, 2015 [8 favorites]

You say that racists and gay people have similar rights, and that includes the right to buy similar things. But where does that right end or begin? Are you saying that everyone has the same right? A drunk person? An angry person? Are you saying that if I walk into a cake shop and start screaming racist obscenities in public – which is in many cases legal in the US! – they must serve me, or face legal consequences?

I guess in the examples above it seems that there's an element of action rather than of personal beliefs. I might not like the guy down the street who I know for a fact is a racist buying stuff from me, but unless his racism is causing some sort of demonstrable harm, or actually disturbing my customers (which I can certainly imagine could occur in some instances, and in those instances I would agree that they should be removed for the safety of my customers and my business), rather than being a reprehensible opinion which I and everyone else can either choose to ignore or openly chastise him for, I view it differently different from a disruptive, violent or threatening presence.

So I guess those angry letter writers, to me, fall into the camp of "Christ, what an asshole". One can ignore, them, though I think they should be publicly called out/challenged/shamed. But refusing them service because of a disgusting opinion seems of a different order.
posted by HunkeredUp at 12:30 PM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

but unless his racism is causing some sort of demonstrable harm

Um. What. Racism causes demonstrable harm all day every day.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:32 PM on July 27, 2015 [15 favorites]

(Just realized I inadvertently omitted one of your alliterative 'F's in my replies to you FFFM-- sorry about that. Great name, by the way. )
posted by HunkeredUp at 12:36 PM on July 27, 2015

It's pretty racist to reserve the definition of violence or harm and in doing so deny the voice and experience of those persecuted by it. It's a classic technique.
posted by polymodus at 12:41 PM on July 27, 2015 [5 favorites]

HunkeredUp: “I guess in the examples above it seems that there's an element of action rather than of personal beliefs. I might not like the guy down the street who I know for a fact is a racist buying stuff from me, but unless his racism is causing some sort of demonstrable harm, or actually disturbing my customers (which I can certainly imagine could occur in some instances, and in those instances I would agree that they should be removed for the safety of my customers and my business), rather than being a reprehensible opinion which I and everyone else can either choose to ignore or openly chastise him for, I view it differently different from a disruptive, violent or threatening presence.”

Think for a moment about the vast amount of litigation this would introduce for business owners. Every time they kicked out a disorderly person or some kids who are messing with their merchandise, they would have to be prepared to prove, in open court, that what they did was justified. This would clog the courts interminably, I think.

And disorderly people are not the only reason why a person might serve some folks but not others. Here's another example: say I'm a parent, Christmas is a week away, and my kid really, really wants Commercial Toy Product™ under the tree. I go to the store, but it turns out they just sold the very last Commercial Toy Product™ yesterday. Now: they are clearly discriminating against me, the procrastinating parent, and everyone else in my class; they sold Commercial Toy Product™ to parents who weren't procrastinators, but they didn't sell it to us, and the only reason they refused to sell it to us was because we procrastinated. Should I be able to sue to force them to manufacture more Commercial Toy Products™ to sell to me so I can give one to my kid?

Or say I get to a restaurant at 10:05, and they closed at 10:00. They're discriminating against me; they served everybody who got there at 9:50, even at 9:55, but they refuse to serve me simply because I happened to get there five minutes too late. I am being refused just because I'm late. Do I have a case to sue to force them to stay open to serve me?

I think you'll probably say that these cases, too, are obviously cases where the people in question don't get to claim they were discriminated against. In the first case, the supply ran out; in the second case, well, the restaurant would have to stay open forever to serve every possible person. So, to recap: your proposed law would say that people must serve all customers, no matter what their opinion, except if those customers are not in their region, and except if they don't have the supply to serve them, and except if those people are disorderly and harming their business, and except if the people show up after they have closed.

You see that the exceptions are piling up, right? At a certain point, we have to take it to heart, I think, that business owners simply have to be given the right to run their businesses as they see fit. They can only allow in people with blue or red shirts on a particular day; that's their right, if it's their store. People in protected classes – minorities who have historically been refused service – are a special case specifically because if we forced business owners to serve people in all classes, the courts would be jammed into eternity, because there are an infinite number of classes of human beings.

I get what you're saying intuitively, I think. It does make some sense that it's weird to apparently privilege certain classes over others by saying they are protected classes. But the Supreme Court did that specifically because, as I said, there are an infinite number of classes of human beings, so we have to accept that certain classes are the ones we need to focus on because they are the ones who have been systematically denied protection in our society.
posted by koeselitz at 12:47 PM on July 27, 2015 [8 favorites]

It's pretty racist to reserve the definition of violence or harm and in doing so deny the voice and experience of those persecuted by it. It's a classic technique.

Moreover, presumably the point of writing a racist letter like that is to get the magazine to stop publishing things that offend your bigoted sensibilities. Which, if that happened, would constitute a form of harm.

It would cause harm to act upon the idea that mixed race families are unequal to other families.
posted by DingoMutt at 12:48 PM on July 27, 2015 [10 favorites]

Debaser626: “The remedy for intolerance is not more intolerance, but to treat the person as one would treat a sick person.”

I actually agree wholeheartedly with this metaphor, even as I disagree with your proposed remedy. I disagree because racism is specifically a sickness communicated through speech and action; and sometimes we have to do certain things, even if those things seem unpleasant, to stop the spread of disease. If someone has a deadly and highly communicable infection, then for the sake of society we must quarantine them, even if it seems unfair to deny them the comfort of close contact with their friends and family. Similarly, if someone engages in virulently racist acts or speech, then those acts or speech must be denounced, and denounced vehemently, even when vehement denunciation might seem insensitive or even cruel to the racist. For the sake of all, it must be made clear that racism and bigotry are not going to be tolerated in our society; we accept the momentary pain caused to the patient by the pinprick because the injection will do her or him real good.
posted by koeselitz at 12:55 PM on July 27, 2015 [14 favorites]

I'm questioning whether it's a great idea to hinge one's own right to service on one's protected status. When you stop being protected, you stop having a right to service.

People in classes with protected status don't have a right to service, they have a right to not be denied service on the basis of their status.
posted by invitapriore at 1:12 PM on July 27, 2015 [15 favorites]

By the way, if anyone besides me was rolling their eyes at "Ashton Martini," a name clearly made up to evoke James Bond's car, it turns out that is the dude's actual name.
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on July 27, 2015 [5 favorites]

koeslitz is killing it in here. As a consultant, I need the right to pick and choose among my clients. I will do so for many reasons. Not enough of my time, project too inconvenient for me, and in some cases, a potential clients' beliefs. Yep. If I do work in service of a client with views that are strongly opposed to those of myself and my other clients, my reputation will suffer. Word will get around, and I will get less work. So as I run my business, I need the latitude to do it when, where, how, and for whom I see fit, or I will go out of business or go crazy.

Now, certain classes have been historically discriminated against, and so if I start refusing service to people in those classes because of their membership in those classes, then I will be in legal trouble, because the supreme court has determined that we need to stop discriminating against those classes. Their right to not be discriminated against trumps my (hypothetical) desire to protect my reputation as a homophobe/racist/misogynist.
posted by agentofselection at 1:24 PM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

Apologies for the misspelling, koeselitz.
posted by agentofselection at 1:32 PM on July 27, 2015

MetaFilter: to hell with racists.

I am ok with that being our motto.
posted by emjaybee at 1:43 PM on July 27, 2015 [7 favorites]

The ONLY reason I would support giving Freedom of Speech to racists, misogynists and other assholes is to give me the opportunity to see clearly who to shun. If I found out my doctor was the one who wrote the assholish letter about the ad, he would not be my doctor anymore. Period. A Letters to the Editor writer locally declared his right to display a Confederate Flag in front of his house and that, even though he hadn't done so before, he was going to start doing so. I wish all the racists would do so to remind me what neighborhoods to avoid. It would also be an important reminder to the rest of us that the "post-racial society" is a myth and a sham.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:13 PM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

The ONLY reason I would support giving Freedom of Speech to racists, misogynists and other assholes is to give me the opportunity to see clearly who to shun.

I really don't think they need your support, they have the Constitution on their side. Thankfully it's not up to you, or me for that matter, to decide who gets freedom of speech.
posted by MikeMc at 2:24 PM on July 27, 2015 [4 favorites]

The ONLY reason I would support giving Freedom of Speech to racists, misogynists and other assholes is to give me the opportunity to see clearly who to shun.

There are better reasons than that. So, good thing it isn't up to you.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:27 PM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

I appreciate all these viewpoints, especially your thoughts, Koeselitz --it's interesting, but I do in fact wind up thinking that each of the examples you cite in your longish post above are just SOL, as you correctly guessed, because they are asking for the rules which are applied equally to all to be bent just for them.

agentofselection, I'd disagree slightly with your own personal example as well, since a consultant goes through a process before accepting clients in a very different way than a store or restaurant, where the entire public is , in theory, welcome. No consultant accepts every single person who walks in their door, and their reasons are often opaque, though they may be entirely pure. Physical places of business are expected to do just that--be available to all-- until a boundary, which is usually pretty clear (we're closed, there's no more food, you have a big stick and are screaming) has been crossed. Since the rules are obvious to all but the crazed, there's usually no disagreement why the service is being refused.

Obviously my opinion is very much in the minority in this thread. I've been re-reading the comments and there's a lot to think about here, although I still disagree with the majority opinion. Perhaps I'll be convinced on further examination.
posted by HunkeredUp at 2:28 PM on July 27, 2015

This reminds me of the signs that used to be everywhere in the south

i for some reason really expected this sentence to end with something about sundown towns.


I guess in the examples above it seems that there's an element of action rather than of personal beliefs

the editor didn't go on a door knocking campaign asking if his subscribers were racist, he reacted to actions they took to make him aware of their racism. they have the right to feel any way they want but there is no right to be a magazine subscriber.
posted by nadawi at 2:45 PM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

It strikes me as flawed to compare a protected class with a state of mind. To refuse service to black people, for instance, is to differentiate based on a characteristic that people carry around and passively advertise to all around them. Sexual orientation is not as overtly broadcast, but just as immutable, and it would be odious to expect gay men and women to monitor the signals they send to store owners so as to prevent their own ejection.

But when a business owner “discriminates” against racists, they're not actually banning racist thoughts from their store; they're banning racist actions. A store owner doesn't know you're a racist until you open your mouth about miscegenation. And it seems way more reasonable for a store owner to ask you not to speak your backwards thoughts in her store. Asking people to be tactful is not in the same league as asking gay people to pretend they're not gay in public.

(Very little of this applies to the specific situation of a magazine subscription, but most of the analogies in this thread seem to have replaced it with a generic storefront.)
posted by savetheclocktower at 2:56 PM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

HunkeredUp: “No consultant accepts every single person who walks in their door, and their reasons are often opaque, though they may be entirely pure. Physical places of business are expected to do just that--be available to all-- until a boundary, which is usually pretty clear (we're closed, there's no more food, you have a big stick and are screaming) has been crossed. Since the rules are obvious to all but the crazed, there's usually no disagreement why the service is being refused.”

I want to first underline the fact that what you're proposing is radically different from the United States as we know it today. What you're proposing is a system where government would require that business owners follow a broad set of very strict and very explicit rules about who can and cannot be served, and follow those rules to the letter, making sure at every point that equal service is proffered to all in every way. You're proposing, in short, a system where the government pretty much runs all hotels, restaurants, bars, etc, and simply allows certain people to work for it.

I think you misunderstand how the United States works. The chief value in the United States is liberty; the Bill of Rights guarantees liberties to citizens, and it is the government's job to preserve that liberty to the best of its abilities.

In the 1960s, the government of the United States faced a problem: certain citizens had historically been denied public accommodations simply because they happened to belong to particular groups. Black people were turned away from lunch counters and hotels. Disabled people were turned away from good schools. Jews were denied entry to health clubs. The government of the United States, in the bodies of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the President, saw that there were two conflicting liberties at play here: the liberty of the business owner to do whatever she or he wants, and the liberty of a human being to partake in the goods the community offers and live a free life thereby.

So the government of the United States, acting for the people, did what it is supposed to do: it limited the freedom of business owners as little as possible in order to guarantee that those groups who had been discriminated against in the past – blacks, women, disabled people, Jews, etc – were no longer denied public accommodations: they made it illegal for business owners to refuse anyone service on the basis of race, gender, ability, or religious creed.

You are saying, in essence, that this was a mistake. You are saying that they didn't go far enough. You are saying that opinions need protection, too. But that flies in the face of everything the United States stands for. It abrogates liberty for the sake of a remarkably marginal benefit, if any. What good does it do to guarantee that racists have a right to public accommodations? I am sorry, but it does very little good – and even if it does some good, certainly not enough good to utterly annihilate the right of a business owner to run her business as she sees fit.
posted by koeselitz at 3:41 PM on July 27, 2015 [13 favorites]

I totally get the back-patting angle, and I'd feel self-conscious as hell taking this public like-so, but isn't there some general positive value in having this meme float around for a bit?
A public scene like this surely has some trickle-down effect into the younger minds who read it. (For beter and worse though, I suppose. This is surely a raging topic of dinnertime discontent in some households) As a former Okie, who saw friends pick up repugnant ideals after I left, this makes me feel better for the kid who now lives in my old room, plays in my old haunts, and rides my old bus home.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 4:00 PM on July 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

I want to first underline the fact that what you're proposing is radically different from the United States as we know it today. What you're proposing is a system where government would require that business owners follow a broad set of very strict and very explicit rules about who can and cannot be served, and follow those rules to the letter, making sure at every point that equal service is proffered to all in every way. You're proposing, in short, a system where the government pretty much runs all hotels, restaurants, bars, etc, and simply allows certain people to work for it.

Not really--this understanding already exists and is agreed upon by many, if not most, people who patronize businesses. No explicit set of rules describing every possible exception is needed. People tend to assume that if a place is closed they can't come in. People tend to assume that if the store is out of something they can't have it. There's nothing draconian or liberty-trampling in simply noting that social compact, nor is there a slippery slope to authoritarianism in noting it.

So the government of the United States, acting for the people, did what it is supposed to do: it limited the freedom of business owners as little as possible in order to guarantee that those groups who had been discriminated against in the past – blacks, women, disabled people, Jews, etc – were no longer denied public accommodations: they made it illegal for business owners to refuse anyone service on the basis of race, gender, ability, or religious creed.

You are saying, in essence, that this was a mistake. You are saying that they didn't go far enough. You are saying that opinions need protection, too. But that flies in the face of everything the United States stands for. It abrogates liberty for the sake of a remarkably marginal benefit, if any. What good does it do to guarantee that racists have a right to public accommodations? I am sorry, but it does very little good – and even if it does some good, certainly not enough good to utterly annihilate the right of a business owner to run her business as she sees fit.

That's putting it a bit strongly. I'm actually not overtly advocating for a law. I voiced an opinion as to what I would have preferred to see happen in this instance as a response to the racist letters. I obviously have no control over the actions of anyone in this case. As the conversation progressed, the issue of legality arose, and it's an interesting discussion.

I understand the causes and forces that led to the CRA, as I would hope, does anyone with a passing interest in these issues. I am also a proponent of the special protections given to the historically oppressed groups whose plight led to the CRA. I remain convinced that equal protection under the law ultimately benefits everyone. You may call that a misreading of the intent of our country's founding laws, but to me it seems quite in line with the purpose of our country.
posted by HunkeredUp at 4:14 PM on July 27, 2015

Okay, but what actual good does it do to forbid business owners from opposing racism?
posted by koeselitz at 4:17 PM on July 27, 2015

You're ignoring what invitapriore summed up so well:

People in classes with protected status don't have a right to service, they have a right to not be denied service on the basis of their status.

Racists do not have a protected status. Therefore they can be denied service for literally any reason that doesn't violate the law. The exact same way I can be.

I can be denied a wedding cake because I insist on it being covered in fondant, and the baker being a right-minded person refuses to have anything to do with that inedible garbage.

I cannot be denied a wedding cake because I am gay.

Likewise, a racist can be denied a wedding cake for being a racist. Those beliefs are not protected under the law.

They cannot be denied a wedding cake because they are gay.

Is that clear yet?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:21 PM on July 27, 2015 [9 favorites]

Mod note: Hey hunkeredup, moderator here. You've made your point a few times in here, so at this point please let it rest, and if other folks want to, the thread can move on to other topics. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:25 PM on July 27, 2015

I still don't know where I fall on right to refuse service to racists...I feel like even the most odious of people need a basic guarantee that they won't be ostracized from the social order, because "one day it's them the next day it might be me"-type thinking...

But then bigotry is what, if not a belief that seeks to harm people?!?!?!?!?! Why the F**K is interracial marriage disgusting? Bigotry is the very reason we have protected classes in the first place, because bigots would try to stop and shame and otherwise screw with two people of different races who want to have a relationship. And just like above, one day the bigots are victimizing them, the next day it's me. Hell, they victimize me by creating a culture where anyone has to think like that, where people might assume I'm a bigot.

If I were the editor, I'm not sure I'd cancel the subscriptions, because I think having them continue spending their money on a product that pisses them off is better revenge, but I sure would be tempted.
posted by saysthis at 7:07 PM on July 27, 2015

The only way the next day it might be you is if you persist in bigoted actions. So.. don't do that?

I feel like even the most odious of people need a basic guarantee that they won't be ostracized from the social order

Oh see that's where you are totally wrong. See above with the metaphor about quarantine. Ostracizing them and making them pay real consequences for their hideous beliefs is the only tool we have to use against most of them.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:13 PM on July 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

Mod note: Couple of comments deleted; we've kind of been around the "but then racists will resort to violence" thing a bunch of times, maybe we can skip it this time.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:09 PM on July 27, 2015

I feel like even the most odious of people need a basic guarantee that they won't be ostracized from the social order

To me, what really tips the scales is a distinction between what a person thinks, and what actions they take. This isn't just some dude privately being upset - it's a racist demanding a magazine uphold racist 'values' by removing images of multi-racial families from its pages. This is essentially them practicing their racism at that magazine's place of business, and I absolutely think it's appropriate for a business to refuse to tolerate that.

If someone wants to stew at home privately nursing their putrid little racist thoughts, fine ... or at least fine-ish, I guess. But once you try to act on them in public it's totally appropriate for 'society' as a whole to stamp that shit out. Consequences for actions that cause real harm to marginalized groups are a good thing.
posted by DingoMutt at 8:21 PM on July 27, 2015 [5 favorites]

What I was saying was that I, personally, would view the proprietors' refusal to sell to people they disagreed with similarly, in terms of business ethics.

Yes, and it would be unethical for a business to knowingly enable racists that proliferate toxic ideas through racist speech acts. It is a conceptual mistake to assume business ethics means "Let's have commercial interests trump all other values". Because that would give you capitalism-without-ethics. Rather, ethics in business is about understanding that businesses operate under incentives that tend to cause them to ignore ethical considerations.
posted by polymodus at 10:30 PM on July 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

Debaser626: (Also, intolerance isn't contagious, I don't think)

That's actually the new hotness in science right now, looking at social networks with an eye toward "contagion" models of the spread of ideas. Especially ideas like "I should buy ACME products" or "I should blow up some civilians".
posted by traveler_ at 4:46 AM on July 28, 2015 [3 favorites]

I disagree because racism is specifically a sickness communicated through speech and action; and sometimes we have to do certain things, even if those things seem unpleasant, to stop the spread of disease.

This argument doesn't apply to the current case, does it? In what way are the doctor's "sick" views being spread or communicated if s/he continues to receive the magazine? Subscribers don't get to publish their views in the magazine. Indeed, the only way this doctor's opinions have been "communicated" in the current case is by the editor's decision to publicize their action.

Indeed, couldn't we turn your argument around and say that in the doctor we have a person suffering from a kind of "sickness" and by canceling the subscription we're making that doctor more rather than less likely to pass that sickness on to his/her patients? I mean, presumably the magazine is one that communicates ideals of tolerance and racial harmony--is it really a "win" to remove it from this doctor's waiting room? Doesn't that simply increase the probable exposure to harmful "contagious" elements for all the people who visit that waiting room (i.e. the doctor's own views and whatever other magazines the doctor subscribes to which conform to or, at least, do not challenge the doctor's views).

I think it's reasonably clear that the magazine is on legally safe ground in canceling the subscription, but it does seem reasonable to debate whether than act is a net plus or a net minus in terms of its overall effects.
posted by yoink at 10:35 AM on July 28, 2015

I think it's reasonably clear that the magazine is on legally safe ground in canceling the subscription, but it does seem reasonable to debate whether than act is a net plus or a net minus in terms of its overall effects.

Calling people out on repugnant views that belong in the dustbin of history is almost always a net positive.
posted by Etrigan at 10:44 AM on July 28, 2015 [7 favorites]

Not to mention, the doctor had taken it upon himself to remove the "offending" magazine from his waiting room already, so it doesn't seem true that cancelling his subscription is what is preventing his patients from seeing said magazine.
posted by DingoMutt at 11:01 AM on July 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

Calling people out on repugnant views that belong in the dustbin of history is almost always a net positive.

Is it? I'm not sure that's true--and precisely because I do think the "contagion" model has some validity. That is, this doctor's repulsive views were known to a very tiny circle of people until the editors of this magazine decided to provide them with a nation-sized soapbox--that's a lot more opportunity for "contagion" than the doctor ever had before. It's not clear to me that the net effect of advertizing to millions of people that "a successful doctor believes miscegenation is evil" becomes positive simply because you accompany that revelation with "and we disagree!" It has, for example, been robustly shown than stories debunking urban myths do more to propagate those myths than to erode belief in them. It seems, at least, possible that something similar may hold in a case like this.

Obviously this wouldn't be the same thing if we were talking about some person who was already famous making an objectionable comment. They already have a platform to spread their ideas, so it's obviously a net plus to voice public disapproval of comments that already have found a wider audience. But is it obviously a good idea to publicize disgusting thoughts which otherwise no one would know about? I'm not sure. I don't think it's an argument that can be settled simply by flat assertion. I assume newspapers get letters from vile nutjobs of every description pretty much every day of the week. Should they publish all of those letters with a "here's why we disapprove of this" comment every day? Would that be a net boon to the community? If the answer is no, then why should this stupid and ugly letter have been publicized?

And, in any case, that's a separate argument from the other about whether or not canceling the subscription is a good idea. The editors could have publicized--and deplored--the doctor's views and concluded "we will continue sending our magazine to this doctor's waiting room in the hope that it will do something to counteract whatever hateful messages the doctor is sending to his/her patients."
posted by yoink at 11:01 AM on July 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

I assume newspapers get letters from vile nutjobs of every description pretty much every day of the week. Should they publish all of those letters with a "here's why we disapprove of this" comment every day? Would that be a net boon to the community? If the answer is no, then why should this stupid and ugly letter have been publicized?

AHH THIS SLOPE IS SOOO SLIPPERY AHH
posted by Etrigan at 11:22 AM on July 28, 2015

AHH THIS SLOPE IS SOOO SLIPPERY AHH

Um, what? That's not a "slippery slope" argument, at all. Slippery slope arguments are to the effect that while permitting Case A will obviously not be particularly dangerous, it would require me to permit Case B, C, D, E (etc.) which are increasingly dire. In my argument all the cases are equivalent: you made a blanket claim that it was always a good idea to publicize vile views and rebut them. I offered you an example of similar vile views that are typically suppressed. I'm asking whether you do, in fact, believe in your stated principle--that it is always good to publicize objectionable views so as to criticize them--or not. That is an argument of simple logical consistency and has nothing in common with "slippery slope" arguments at all (the kooky letters to the editor are, in my example, no more or less grave--in general--than the letter in this particular case).
posted by yoink at 11:30 AM on July 28, 2015

Mod note: A few comments deleted. yoink, please back down the kind of pointed interpersonal stuff a few notches.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:00 PM on July 28, 2015

America’s model of “hate what you say, defend your right to say it” honestly could go either way, as I see it. It could bolster bigots by giving their idiocy more respect than it deserves, or it could work to their detriment by putting their idiocy on display in the marketplace of ideas, like the schmuck at the mall cart selling sham-wows. But either way, the practical goal of “have as few racists in our country as possible” may or may not conflict with other ideals that we hold dear, and I’m not sure how to reconcile that.

For instance, I struggle with Europe’s laws that prohibit Holocaust denial, but ultimately I’ve got the luxury of viewing it from afar. Against an ideal of free expression (which is admittedly not as entrenched in Europe as it is in America), Germany and other countries have decided that their more proximate goal of rooting out neo-Nazism is more urgent and therefore warrants an exception to the rule. And I don’t really have a reason to second-guess them on it.

But, of course, government action is different from individual action. What the editor did was certainly within the spectrum of reasonable responses, and I don’t want to put the onus on him (or anyone else) to always act in a way that reduces aggregate racism totals, forsaking all other considerations.
posted by savetheclocktower at 12:10 PM on July 28, 2015

> That is, this doctor's repulsive views were known to a very tiny circle of people until the editors of this magazine decided to provide them with a nation-sized soapbox--that's a lot more opportunity for "contagion" than the doctor ever had before.

This particular person's views might only have been known to a few, but it is now known to a great many that these views suck and a lot of people are happy to stand up and say "That view is deplorable and you ought to be ashamed or at the very least STFU about it." That kind of contagion I'm perfectly happy to see.
posted by rtha at 12:21 PM on July 28, 2015 [7 favorites]

For instance, I struggle with Europe’s laws that prohibit Holocaust denial, but ultimately I’ve got the luxury of viewing it from afar.

As well as the luxury of not being Jewish, or Roma, or a sexual minority, or non-neurotypical, or or or or.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:39 PM on July 28, 2015