When I argued that a baker should not be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple who ordered a wedding cake on the basis that he thinks homosexuality is an affront to God and gay marriage is an anathema, Anonymous argued this is really no different than Hermes refusing to sell its much coveted Belkin bag to "just anyone" with the money.
Reading about this marketing ploy, and deciding whether it is a violation of the same principle, I think I have to establish the facts of the case, which is always the first step in ethical and legal analysis.
As I understand it, this bag can be bought in London, only from sales clerks at the Hermes store. In order to buy the bag, you need a "personal relationship" with the clerk. When the London "Daily Mail" sent a woman to the store dressed as a middle class customer, she was told the bag was unattainable. She was told the bag is made in France by special craftsmen and there were none currently available and "good luck" trying to get one.
1. As far as I know, the sales clerks approached did not say, "No, we do not sell these bags to Blacks or homosexuals."
2. The basis for denial was supposed lack of availability of a product in high demand.
3. At no time did the clerk say the reason she could not or would not order the bag for the customer was because she was "middle class."
4. The marketing strategy here seems to be this bag is a status symbol, and as such, social status has to reach the plane of celebrity status for the customer to be worthy of the bag.
In that sense, this is no different from students who apply to Harvard, who are told they are not good enough because they did not score high enough on the SAT. You have to prove yourself worthy to be allowed to complete the deal.
So, in this country--I'm not sure what the laws in Britain are--exclusivity is permissible even in "open" commerce, as long as the basis for excluding certain customers is not their race or their gender or sexual preference.
This poses a problem for all women's colleges who refuse to admit male students. I'm not sure how they get away with this, given American law.
You may argue the sales clerk may not have said the woman was too low class to buy the bag, but that was the practice. The same clerk may have sold a bag to Catherine Zita Jones or Victoria Beckham. If the sales clerk had told the customer she was too low class to buy the bag, it would have been obnoxious, but in the United States, I'm not sure it would have been illegal.
Then you get to the problems of "red lining." This is the practice where Blacks are not refused entry into homes for sale in certain neighborhoods, but they are consistently told the home was sold to another bidder, who happened to be White. In this case, the racist basis for the practice of excluding Blacks as customers is not openly stated, but it is executed by subterfuge. To expose this sort of thing, you need statistics. You demonstrate that although 100 Blacks bid on twenty homes in Chevy Chase, not a single bid from a Black buyer was accepted.
The same might be said of the Belkin bag--if no woman who is not a celebrity or married to a celebrity is ever told a bag is available, but five minutes after the middle class woman leaves the store, Catherine Zita Jones waltzes in and is able to order and receive the bag, then you can see the marketing strategy. But if the basis for the decision to refuse to sell to one customer in favor of another is not race, gender or sexual preference, at least in the United States, it's allowable.
No principle of anti discrimination has been violated. You are allowed to discriminate on some bases (fame, or the lack of it, social position, wealth, dress codes, smoking) but not on other bases--namely the three defined in the law.
Reading about this marketing ploy, and deciding whether it is a violation of the same principle, I think I have to establish the facts of the case, which is always the first step in ethical and legal analysis.
As I understand it, this bag can be bought in London, only from sales clerks at the Hermes store. In order to buy the bag, you need a "personal relationship" with the clerk. When the London "Daily Mail" sent a woman to the store dressed as a middle class customer, she was told the bag was unattainable. She was told the bag is made in France by special craftsmen and there were none currently available and "good luck" trying to get one.
1. As far as I know, the sales clerks approached did not say, "No, we do not sell these bags to Blacks or homosexuals."
2. The basis for denial was supposed lack of availability of a product in high demand.
3. At no time did the clerk say the reason she could not or would not order the bag for the customer was because she was "middle class."
4. The marketing strategy here seems to be this bag is a status symbol, and as such, social status has to reach the plane of celebrity status for the customer to be worthy of the bag.
In that sense, this is no different from students who apply to Harvard, who are told they are not good enough because they did not score high enough on the SAT. You have to prove yourself worthy to be allowed to complete the deal.
So, in this country--I'm not sure what the laws in Britain are--exclusivity is permissible even in "open" commerce, as long as the basis for excluding certain customers is not their race or their gender or sexual preference.
This poses a problem for all women's colleges who refuse to admit male students. I'm not sure how they get away with this, given American law.
You may argue the sales clerk may not have said the woman was too low class to buy the bag, but that was the practice. The same clerk may have sold a bag to Catherine Zita Jones or Victoria Beckham. If the sales clerk had told the customer she was too low class to buy the bag, it would have been obnoxious, but in the United States, I'm not sure it would have been illegal.
Then you get to the problems of "red lining." This is the practice where Blacks are not refused entry into homes for sale in certain neighborhoods, but they are consistently told the home was sold to another bidder, who happened to be White. In this case, the racist basis for the practice of excluding Blacks as customers is not openly stated, but it is executed by subterfuge. To expose this sort of thing, you need statistics. You demonstrate that although 100 Blacks bid on twenty homes in Chevy Chase, not a single bid from a Black buyer was accepted.
The same might be said of the Belkin bag--if no woman who is not a celebrity or married to a celebrity is ever told a bag is available, but five minutes after the middle class woman leaves the store, Catherine Zita Jones waltzes in and is able to order and receive the bag, then you can see the marketing strategy. But if the basis for the decision to refuse to sell to one customer in favor of another is not race, gender or sexual preference, at least in the United States, it's allowable.
No principle of anti discrimination has been violated. You are allowed to discriminate on some bases (fame, or the lack of it, social position, wealth, dress codes, smoking) but not on other bases--namely the three defined in the law.
I am beginning to think that you may have selective discrimination on posting to your blog (just kidding).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think what Hermes could be doing with their marketing (as you called it) is also what was previously referred to as a cheat in the earlier blog. I believe Oprah complained about this years ago but I don't think she thought of it as marketing.
I understand the law dictates what is and what is not discrimination here in the US. That does not mean I agree with how they decide. What the government in one state may call discrimination can easily be determined to be freedom of speech in another or freedom of religion in another. It all depends on the eyes of the beholder. It is similar to art vs. pornography in that it is not clear cut and it is seems to be "I know it when I see it."
My solution allows for the consumers to take control. I understand some would be hurt initially but I believe in the markets to cover this supply and demand eventually. If there was enough demand to make a wedding cake another baker would emerge who would make the cake and possibly even get a premium if there is enough demand.
As an aside - one thing that was not pointed out in your earlier blog about the baker was he said he would make them a different cake just not a wedding cake since that was against his religious beliefs. As a result, a strong argument (that did not win in Colorado) was that forcing him to make the cake was infringing on both his beliefs and his freedom of expression. I may not agree with the baker but I do try and understand how he may view the situation. All too often, people try and force their view on others.
Trying to stop discrimination through government enforcement sounds like a wonderful thought and idea. It would be great to have this be successful but at the end of the day, this depends on a few to make the decisions on what they perceive to be injustices.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteActually, I have to agree with most of what you say. I googled laws which make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference and the ACLU site shows a map which shows which states forbid this and also which states forbid discrimination on the basis of either sexual preference or gender identity. (New Hampshire and Minnesota do not forbid discrimination on the basis of gender identity but do forbid discrimination for sexual preference.) Whether these are laws which apply to workplace discrimination or discrimination in "public accommodation" is not clear.
I agree laws which seek to change the beliefs of citizens whether these beliefs are about racial basis or when life begins do not succeed in changing minds, for the most part. But laws are successful in changing behavior and ultimately, that can shift beliefs among the next generation. Once White people got used to seeing Black people sitting near them in restaurants, movie theaters, hotel lounges, the idea that Blacks should be forbidden from these public areas got to seem pretty bizarre.
I have less faith in the power of the market and customer choices than you do.
I'd be interested in learning of examples where consumers actually did "take control." Apart from things which affect product safety, I can't bring to mind examples of consumers voting with their feet away from companies who had suffered bad publicity over discriminatory practice--Chick Filet being the most recent example.
Phantom
I would love to point to an example of consumers changing a discriminatory practice but can not (probably due to the laws you speak of). However, you can look at the boycott in the 1990's of Nike due to child labor and how they have changed that. More recently I think Sea World is a great example. Black Fish (I think) came out showing the harm done to Shamu and people began boycotting Sea World. What did they do, announce they will stop getting new orcas and will retire the ones they currently have. You could also say the deaths of trainers contributed to this but I think the drop in attendance was the reason.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, you can look at things like Pepsi that is stopping using certain sweetners in their drinks.
Basically any change a business in retail makes is because of customer demands (or something the customer needs but may not be aware of).
Regarding chik-fil-a I don't think the Company did anything regarding hiring or not serving. I believe the protests were the result of giving to charities by the owners and possibly the corporation. However, I do not recall any complaints of creating a hostile work environment. Rather people were upset that someone may believe something different than what they did and did not appreciate the owner's political views. Matter of fact I believe certain cities tried to ban new Chick-fil-a openings. that is what should be protested.