A Local Tempest
And the market's response
I live in a little city, with a really neat historic downtown. The core is about four blocks long, filled with interesting small shops and restaurants. Three or four blocks on either end are slowly up and coming.
Right in the middle of it sits a restaurant that for the past week or so has been tearing good feelings about the area asunder.
A large part of this restaurant’s business is casual catering. Fancy sandwiches, wraps, things of that sort. And they contracted to cater a wedding. All was well and good until the bride and bride showed up to pay the bill shortly before the wedding was to occur. And the lady who owns the place figured out that she would be making sandwiches for a gay wedding. So, she canceled.
And the battle began.
This story has received more ink in our hometown newspaper than anything I can remember in a really long time. Our Downtown Association put out a statement. A lot of surrounding businesses put out statements. Protesters arrived, and people with the opposite view filled the restaurant.
There are completely uninvolved victims as well. Our little city has another restaurant with a really similar name to the one that is the focus of this story. Apparently the online mobs that generally result when such things happen has been getting the two unrelated restaurants confused and bombing the uninvolved restaurant with negative reviews. But, that’s an aside, not relevant to the fundamental question of this essay.
The situation will play out as it plays out. The law here in my State does not allow for the refusal of service for the reason service was refused, and the brides have indicated that they will be filing complaints with the governing authorities.
But, it is not clear how the courts would rule if the restaurant fights whatever regulatory penalties are applied. Both sides of the issue seem to firmly believe that the U.S. Supreme Court is solidly behind them, but as with partisans on all issues, both sides seem to be missing the nuances and ignoring the specific fact patterns. If it reached the highest court, that court could go either way.
That brings up the question of this post.
Do we even need governmental regulations like that, or is the invisible hand of the market an effective regulator?
Judging from the reaction of the community, this restaurant won’t be in business for long. Neighboring businesses have turned their backs on it individually and collectively. It’s social media is in the tank, overwhelmed by negative reviews. Protesters are on the sidewalk, and people angry about the owner’s decision won’t eat there.
Certainly there is a chance that the restaurant will survive. That it will weather the storm, but it seems unlikely.
The restaurant’s chances of winning in the courts, assuming it takes that course, and assuming that it finds a deep pocketed backer to pay for the battle seem perhaps a little better.
So, do we need government regulation, when the market can step in and do just as well?
Ultimately, in our market economy, each of our dollars are a vote. When we spend money, we are voting for more of whatever we are spending our money on. When we don’t spend on something, we are hastening its removal from the market.
And I think that we often forget just how powerful this voting with our dollars is.
Despite being here in deep blue Washington, I live in an extremely conservative area. But even here, the restaurant owner made a truly idiotic decision contrary to the accepted norms of the community. She wasn’t contracted to somehow participate in a wedding that violates her moral code, she was simply contracted to make sandwiches. No differently than when a gay man sits down in her restaurant and is served a roast beef on rye.
She’ll pay the consequences for that decision in lost business. Very likely the market will punish her to the extent that she will lose her restaurant.
With that being the case, since we can all vote with our dollars, what purpose does the governmental regulation actually serve?
That, to my mind is a vital question when looking at any regulation. Assuming the aims are legitimate, can those aims be accomplished without the regulation? If so, that regulation shouldn’t exist. 🐿
The market doesn't always get it right; the slave trade thrived until it was forcibly stopped by government intervention.
Yeah, I don’t get this.
As you know, our business is only a block away. I did ask Nick, and he said there wasn’t much conversation among the customers on the subject, which is fine.
Being in the service business for almost 30 years, we’ve run across almost everything you can imagine. Kids, 100 year olds. Almost every nationality in the world. Men AND women. And people of different lifestyles, some of which can be construed as truly strange indeed.
These are all learning opportunities. As such, it’s not too often that we’ve thrown people out of the Shop. And in all of those cases, it’s due to the person’s behavior. If they’re combative, rude, or similar behavior, they have to go, it doesn’t matter what else.
BUT… those different nationalities, just like they might have different skin color, they also have different hair characteristics. And some are more difficult than others. Blonde hair bleaches with the sun, and as I cut it, the hair below is slightly darker, and all of what I do shows up. I have to be careful. Same applies with African hair. It has a very tight curl, and it combs and cuts differently. And since we don’t see too many black men in our area, we don’t cut black men’s hair that often, so if they wish for a fade or just buzz it off, it’s fine, but if they want the Seahawks logo on the side, we have to tell them we can’t do that, and to recommend another barber. It’s indeed a form of refusing service based on an ethnicity, but in every case, the customer understood and appreciated our honesty.
When you start a business where you’re working with the public, or ON the public, it’s a tough learning curve, but you learn what works, and what doesn’t. You pay attention, and your business can succeed organically.