View Full Version : Do Businesses Have the Right to Refuse Service Based on Moral/Religious Objections?
I just came up with this idea for a poll based on this article out of New Brunswick:
Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/03/16/nb-riverview-florist-1009.html)
Apparently, there are still a number of people who feel that this florist's religious beliefs should take precedence over the customer's request for service. Maybe some of you agree that the florist has every right to refuse service to a same sex couple in that it is contrary to her personal beliefs. If so, I'd like to hear why.
There are many in our Canadian community (readers' comments under the CBC article) who DO believe that it is, and should be, an acceptable choice for this private business owner to refuse florist service for a marriage in which she has grave moral objections. Some are citing our freedom of religion clause...others have cited the same document (our Charter as well as NB's human rights' code) in support of the couple and their request for service.
Despite the laws (regarding LGBT protection/equality) where you currently reside, do you believe it is acceptable to refuse service to a customer based on their sexual orientation/gender identity due to a business owner's religious or personal beliefs and objections?
This may be a ridiculous question to be asked of our community, but I was curious if others in our community DO think a business owner's religious/moral beliefs should an acceptable reason to deny a consumer's right to request/purchase a service.
I think you know where I stand. I voted no.
No gang-piling if you agree with the business owner's decision...just curious as to your reasons--a healthy debate might ensue--or not!
:canadian:
Interesting! A thee way tie so far!
wolfbittenpoet
03-17-2011, 03:35 PM
I find that if you are going to have the right to refuse service you should have some kind of sign posted saying that you have the right to refuse service to anyone. They should not use religious or moral reasonings. That way someone from the glbt community has the same right to deny service to a hatemonger without recourse. Yes it is discriminatory but sometimes it is a necessary evil to protect yourself down the line.
I guess it wasn't a ridiculous question!
Thanks for the votes and comments!
julieisafemme
03-17-2011, 03:38 PM
The florist in the story is not what I was thinking of. I was thinking of someone bringing a non-kosher item into a kosher restaurant and being asked to leave. Noah's Bagels is now a chain but it used to be owned by an Orthodox Jew and the sign read in the front please do not bring outside food and drink in. So I voted yes. Maybe it depends? On whether I agree? Hee hee!
Linus
03-17-2011, 03:39 PM
And if I can also add, in Canada, religious organizations can choose to not marry a same-sex couple (religious freedom) and for that reason, if that can be allowed, the businesses should have that right as well.
If I was a business owner in Canada I would also have the right to refuse business to straight married if I wanted to.
And if K and I get married in Canada, we'd make sure that all those we chose to business with us were supportive. I certainly wouldn't choose someone who isn't supportive.
I might add, there was a case in B.C. where a bed and breakfast denied accomodations to a gay couple based on the same reasons as in this article. The couple chose to shut down their business rather than facing a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
Article:
http://www.canada.com/travel/couple+shut+down+after+rights+complaint/3137298/story.html
/snip/
This is the second time in five years the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has been asked to rule on a conflict between gay rights and religious rights.
In 2005, in a similar case, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled the Catholic group, the Knights of Columbus, was justified for refusing to rent its hall to a lesbian couple for a wedding reception.
However, the tribunal ruled the Knights of Columbus should have made other accommodations for the couple.
Smith said he plans to use that case in his arguments before the tribunal for the Molnars. He suspects the complainants’ lawyer will also rely on the same case.
“It’s the same argument that on religious grounds (the Knights of Columbus) had the right to refuse to rent to them. But the other side will argue you still have to accommodate them,” said Smith. “So the question becomes, where does one right end and the other right begin?”
AtLast
03-17-2011, 03:49 PM
From a legal perspective- also depending on laws/regs within municipal/state/federal boundaries and jurisdictions, this could vary. In some instances, a business owner can refuse service legally.
But it sure can take on some personal issues- June's example states this.
There are "service refusal" laws for example, having to do with public health- like no service in restaurants without shoes and shirts. But, historically, racial segregation has played a role in in the US about this issue. I'd have to be stupid to think that some of those "service refusal" signs in businesses have been or are not directed at not serving POC.
I certainly still see "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" signs all over in businesses. Probably because of my age and being an activist during the late 60's and 70's, my response to these signs is different than for a lot of younger people. I immediately see race/ethnicity variable when I see these signs. I do not get these "vibes" if a sign simply points to the health regs about shirts and shoes. I also know that there are laws/regs in some places in which it is illegal to post the "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" sign. The "anyone" is the problem.
Another thought- I know that I could have subjected to legal action (as well as licensure infractions) if I had refused to see patients for psychotherapy based upon their religious beliefs.
If a minister came to me and wanted to commission me to paint the 2nd coming, I'd want to speak to his wife first....
to see if that really happened.
More than likely, though, I'd say no to that religious experience.
From a legal perspective- also depending on laws/regs within municipal/state/federal boundaries and jurisdictions, this could vary. In some instances, a business owner can refuse service legally.
I did write, in the body of my text, regardless of the laws in where you live, what is your personal belief regarding this situation.
I know certain areas are protected in this matter, our country (Canada) is a bit more complicated as there are federal protections protecting equal access to service as well as protections for practicing one's religious beliefs.
Thanks for your views providing some historical allowance for your perceptions/beliefs.
I admit--I'm surprised by the poll numbers, but it does make me happy that I put it out there!
:)
Medusa
03-17-2011, 03:55 PM
I'd probably err on the side of the business owner, even if in this case I don't care for their reasoning.
I think about how I would feel as the owner of this site if the Federal government came and told me that I had to allow x, y, or z people.
There was an article several years ago about a restaurant owner who had a very upscale establishment that disallowed children. A couple who demanded to bring their children inside sued the crap out of them - I'm going to have to look it up because I can't remember if they won or not but I did remember thinking that the restaurant owner should have the right to create whatever ambience in their establishment that they saw fit without the courts telling them otherwise.
Would it piss me off if a business refused to serve me or significantly altered the services provided to me because of their religion or me being Gay? Probably. But I think a good example of this is that there is a bookstore here in town called "Hastings" that does not have a Gay and Lesbian section of books- so I get to make the choice to withdraw my Gay dollars and spend them elsewhere.
Spork
03-17-2011, 04:06 PM
Like many here, I think the business should have the right to deny service, but it has to be stated before you take the client. And, needless to say, it should be approached in a respectful manner.
DapperButch
03-17-2011, 04:09 PM
Yeah, I think they do. Because I want to reserve that same right as a business owner.
If they want to turn money away, that's their decision to make. If someone came to me and wanted me to do a logo or marketing materials for them, and they were in the business of telling people they would go to Hell if they didn't do X,Y and Z, I would turn them away.
It's no different to me. And also, I would never want to patronize and give money to a business like that, so it's good to know. Find another florist.
:yeahthat:
weatherboi
03-17-2011, 04:11 PM
i think a business owner should have the right to refuse service to a client. i have owned a few different businesses over the years and have exercised that privilege on occasion, all for different reasons. mostly because the client did something along the way to make me uncomfortable to trust them to pay me or treat me decent. never was it over someones religious, political, or social views. i always tried/try very hard to remain sterile with my clients so i don't learn too much about them personally and in the south that is kinda hard. people here want your first born before they do business with anybody.
:mohawk:
one last thing...i research who i do business with because it is important to me to know where my money is going. i think that sucks that happened to that couple!!!
betenoire
03-17-2011, 04:14 PM
Well, you know. Regardless of how I feel about it - this shop owner DID break the law. It's illegal in her province to refuse business based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. It just is.
This is VERY different from the Knights of Columbus refusing to rent out their hall. The whole point of the Knights of Columbus is that they are a religious organisation, so they are protected (just like a church is protected). A flower shop is not a church. A flower shop is not a religious organisation. Perhaps if she wants to run it like it is a church she needs to rename her shop to "Daisies for Jesus!" or something like that.
Well, you know. Regardless of how I feel about it - this shop owner DID break the law. It's illegal in her province to refuse business based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. It just is.
This is VERY different from the Knights of Columbus refusing to rent out their hall. The whole point of the Knights of Columbus is that they are a religious organisation, so they are protected (just like a church is protected). A flower shop is not a church. A flower shop is not a religious organisation. Perhaps if she wants to run it like it is a church she needs to rename her shop to "Daisies for Jesus!" or something like that.
I should have pointed out that the KofC is a religious organization -- NOT a private business. Every province that I know has protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation (maybe Alberta doesn't? but they would be covered due to the Charter?). So, legally, yes, I think they don't have a case. I guess I was wondering where people felt personally on the issue, but, you are right, the law has been broken as far as I can tell.
As far as I am concerned, yes, a law was broken, but also, personally, I think it is very wrong to deny a service (and a very slippery slope) based on sexuality or gender.
I do appreciate everyone's honesty.
AtLast
03-17-2011, 04:23 PM
I did write, in the body of my text, regardless of the laws in where you live, what is your personal belief regarding this situation.
I know certain areas are protected in this matter, our country (Canada) is a bit more complicated as there are federal protections protecting equal access to service as well as protections for practicing one's religious beliefs.
Thanks for your views providing some historical allowance for your perceptions/beliefs.
I admit--I'm surprised by the poll numbers, but it does make me happy that I put it out there!
:)
Whoops- sorry. Yes, it is good to put it out there.
Personally, I'd have to say no (I actually checked the item with "other"). My personal response is due to my historical perspective and race/ethnicity in the US. I can't seem to get past the history!
But, I also know that under some circumstances (refer to June's example, once more), I probably would "refuse" if I was asked to do something that just was against my values and I felt I could somehow be associated with it. I would also say that "it might be better for you to go to another business for that."
rainintothesea
03-17-2011, 04:29 PM
I'm not trying to stir the pot, here, I'm genuinely curious about something. Flowers are one thing, perhaps, no one's going to bleed out if they don't get their flowers (at least I hope not, wow). But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?
On the one hand, if someone has a huge moral objection to doing business with me, that's something I'd like to know so that I can take my business elsewhere. There's the whole, "If we don't have free speech, how else will we know who the assholes are?" sort of argument, there. But I think we might be treading in some dangerous territory, too, if we say it's okay to discriminate for whatever reason you like... what kind of discrimination is okay, then, and who sets those boundaries? And, hey, in turn, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with other people making those decisions for me... and I think that when one decides to run a business, one is agreeing that while it might be okay to refuse service to an individual who is being an unreasonable jerkface (that's how I have always read those signs, myself), it's understood that it's NOT okay to refuse service to POC or other generally-agreed-upon protected classes of characteristics that include whole swaths of society.
Spork
03-17-2011, 04:37 PM
Daisies for Jesus!
Yes, it is wrong and against the law in some places to do that. I would just rather know what a business' policy is so I can make a choice to spend my money there or not.
I think they should have to post signs:
"We do not serve The Gays here"
or
"We will serve you if you're A Gay, but we might piss in your soup"
Posting their true beliefs would probably hit them pretty hard financially because lots of people love The Gays, even if they aren't one.
Heh, I don't think that would be helpful. In my opinion, just a curt statement: "We only serve heterosexuals." While it's still a little bit... harsh to some, it's not the same as just saying "no gays! go away!".
Perhaps, if the business is interested in keeping a "good face", they could show options for the people they will not serve. "We do not serve non-heterosexuals. But here's a list of LGBT-friendly business: blah, blah, blah."
That's what I think. :byebye:
I'm not trying to stir the pot, here, I'm genuinely curious about something. Flowers are one thing, perhaps, no one's going to bleed out if they don't get their flowers (at least I hope not, wow). But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?
I think we can't compare some flowers and medicine that can save your life, or heal a sickness.
If that has been allowed to happen, I'm appalled.
Pharmacies and hospitals should comply with their social obligation, first and foremost. Then think of the money.
Again, just my opinion.
So...b/c I made it specific regarding serving people of sexual orientation and gender identity, does that stand for other groups of people?
For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?
Even though WE KNOW the law doesn't allow it; doesn't the same principle apply?
What other statuses would it be ok to deny service to?
Besides ours?
Those who believe that it is ok to discriminate based on gender orientation and sexual orientation, why is it NOT OK to discriminate against others based on their religious/moral convictions?
betenoire
03-17-2011, 04:49 PM
And what if it's not about moral convictions. What if that person is just an asshole - is it still okay then? Are we okay with a "Heterosexuals Only" sign but not with a "Whites Only" sign? What's the difference? Is it because the first is (in some cases) based on religion and the second is based on rampant jackassery?
betenoire
03-17-2011, 04:57 PM
Who was it who said "if you tolerate intolerance you're not really being tolerant"??
julieisafemme
03-17-2011, 04:57 PM
At some point a business owner would no longer be in business if they start to exclude too many groups. Also many businesses make it very clear to a customer by their service (or lack thereof) that the customer is not particularly welcome. This subtle form of discrimination goes on every day. I don't think the same principles apply.
As far as the florist goes she could have told the couple that she was concerned and why and asked if they might be more comfortable doing business with another florist who would love to have their business. She could reccommend someone who she knew would be happy to serve them. That would the moral thing to do and the best business decision.
So...b/c I made it specific regarding serving people of sexual orientation and gender identity, does that stand for other groups of people?
For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?
Even though WE KNOW the law doesn't allow it; doesn't the same principle apply?
What other statuses would it be ok to deny service to?
Besides ours?
Those who believe that it is ok to discriminate based on gender orientation and sexual orientation, why is it NOT OK to discriminate against others based on their religious/moral convictions?
Well, you know. Regardless of how I feel about it - this shop owner DID break the law. It's illegal in her province to refuse business based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. It just is.
This is VERY different from the Knights of Columbus refusing to rent out their hall. The whole point of the Knights of Columbus is that they are a religious organisation, so they are protected (just like a church is protected). A flower shop is not a church. A flower shop is not a religious organisation. Perhaps if she wants to run it like it is a church she needs to rename her shop to "Daisies for Jesus!" or something like that.
Daisies for Jesus. lol
I have nothing important to add except business owners should have the right to refuse people but for reasons based on the persons actions not based on anything else like sexual orientation, race, religion etc...
betenoire
03-17-2011, 05:10 PM
Daisies for Jesus. lol
I have nothing important to add except business owners should have the right to refuse people but for reasons based on the persons actions not based on anything else like sexual orientation, race, religion etc...
Agreed. You show up drunk - you don't get served. You have bad credit - you don't get a loan. You have no shirt on - you're gross and no you cannot have fries.
But you show up gay - no flowers for you? That's wrong.
suebee
03-17-2011, 05:34 PM
Moncton is in the Bible belt. The ABC - Atlantic Baptist College is located there. Even if they discriminate they won't run out of customers. HOWEVER, bottom line - if it's not okay to say "we won't serve Jews/blacks/Muslims/women/Indians/redheaded people/foreigners/French-speaking people/long-haired hippie-freaks", it's NOT okay to say you won't serve homosexuals. And besides - it's against the law here.
I hope somebody sues the crap out of the store owner. I live here, and I want my rights - entrenched in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, to be respected. MY God loves me just the way She made me thankyouverymuch.
suebee
03-17-2011, 06:02 PM
Wow! I deliberately didn't look at the poll results or the other posts before my initial response. I would never have expected this kind of response as a community. Surprising.
And if I can also add, in Canada, religious organizations can choose to not marry a same-sex couple (religious freedom) and for that reason, if that can be allowed, the businesses should have that right as well.
If I was a business owner in Canada I would also have the right to refuse business to straight married if I wanted to.
And if K and I get married in Canada, we'd make sure that all those we chose to business with us were supportive. I certainly wouldn't choose someone who isn't supportive.
I don't care for discrimination on religious grounds, but there has to be some allowance for religious freedom. It should be added that it's only religious institutions who have the right to refuse on religious grounds. A case was played out not too long ago (in Alberta I believe) where a marriage commissioner refused to perform his duties based on his religious beliefs (refused to marry a gay couple). His case went to court and was not found to have merit. My take: if you can't do your job based on your religious beliefs, especially your PUBLIC SERVICE job, where you supposedly work FOR the people - get another job.
I'd probably err on the side of the business owner, even if in this case I don't care for their reasoning.
I think about how I would feel as the owner of this site if the Federal government came and told me that I had to allow x, y, or z people.
There was an article several years ago about a restaurant owner who had a very upscale establishment that disallowed children. A couple who demanded to bring their children inside sued the crap out of them - I'm going to have to look it up because I can't remember if they won or not but I did remember thinking that the restaurant owner should have the right to create whatever ambience in their establishment that they saw fit without the courts telling them otherwise.
Would it piss me off if a business refused to serve me or significantly altered the services provided to me because of their religion or me being Gay? Probably. But I think a good example of this is that there is a bookstore here in town called "Hastings" that does not have a Gay and Lesbian section of books- so I get to make the choice to withdraw my Gay dollars and spend them elsewhere.
Okay, is this perhaps a major difference between the U.S. viewpoint and Canadian viewpoint? Because for me my government is MINE. It is there to protect the rights of EVERYBODY. If they're doing it right somebody is always going to be pissed off I guess. But as far as discrimination goes, I don't know that anybody has the RIGHT to do that. Different people might very well have differing opinions as to what is discrimination, but the rights of the minority should always be protected. I'd love to hear what others have to say about government interference v.s. societal protections of minorities.
betenoire
03-17-2011, 06:09 PM
Different people might very well have differing opinions as to what is discrimination, but the rights of the minority should always be protected. I'd love to hear what others have to say about government interference v.s. societal protections of minorities.
I think we feel the same way.
I know that there are people who think that Canada is "less free" than the US is because of our hate speech laws and because we have more groups who are "protected" in Canada than the US does blah blah blah.
And sure, maybe some people in Canada are less free than they would be if they lived in the US. But I know that I myself am MORE free as a Canadian than I would be if I was a US citizen. The only Canadians who are "less free" because of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms are ASSHOLES.
I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.
Like in Canada you can be charged with a hate crime if you are a Holocaust Denier. OH BUUHUU proof that Canada is less free! No. Holocaust Deniers are assholes - and in Canada assholes are less free. But people like me? More free.
DomnNC
03-17-2011, 06:11 PM
I voted yes. I have my own company providing software/hardware solutions to other businesses. I'd hate to be hired to program a system to track gay people for some religious organization, I should have the right to refuse my service to anyone as I see fit, that could all be dependent on a credit check and a client's ability to pay as well. I don't work for free, lol.
Ashton
03-17-2011, 06:25 PM
I do think business should have the right to refuse patronage AND without explaination.
The rub comes in when the person refusing is reqeyuiraved to explain why. If I have the right to not shop somewhere why doesnt the shop have the right to refuse service. I dont have to explain not shopping somewhere why should they
Personally I think its a bit hypocritical to say we all have a right to believe as we do and then we save your beliefs are not valid in my eyes therefore you cant use that against me.
Miss Scarlett
03-17-2011, 06:32 PM
I voted yes as well. If you want to deny someone's right (we're NOT talking about government agencies here) to decide with whom they want to transact business because you do not agree with whatever their reason you best be willing to accept the same for yourself.
Every firm I have worked for has turned away clients for various reasons. We owe no one an explanation why they are turned away.
It's as simple as this - if you don't like what they stand for then don't patronize their establishment.
Martina
03-17-2011, 06:43 PM
If there is a local non-discrimination law in place -- re public accommodations -- then they can't discriminate. This is a major effort of lgbtq activism, to ensure that we aren't turned away from restaurants and businesses for being gay. In the town i lived in, the printer nearest to the university where student groups got their flyers and such printed up refused to print for lgbtq student groups. The reaction ultimately resulted in a non-discrimination ordinance. Here is a link to the ordinance. i remember the day it was passed. i was at the city counsil meeting. A very good day.
http://www.genderadvocates.org/policy/Ordinances/Laws/Ypsilanti%20Ordinance.html
betenoire
03-17-2011, 06:44 PM
Doesn't Title II of the Civil Rights Act in the US already make it so that business owners can't decide not to serve a customer based on race, color, religion, or national origin?
So why then, if we all agree (or do we? do you guys all want to repeal that part of the act or something?) that businesses can't discriminate based on race - why are we okay with businesses discriminating based on sexual orientation?
Andrew, Jr.
03-17-2011, 07:20 PM
There is a diner that is refusing to serve anyone who does not speak English. The owner of the diner told the reporter that he is the only owner and he made the decision on his own. He said it wasn't about the money he could loose in doing this, and that is why he immigrated to the States. When asked by the reporter why he is doing it, the diner's owner said that he had to learn English and so does the next guy.
As for me, I think and believe businesses have the right to refuse anyone they wish, just as long as they are not perpetuating a criminal act in any way.
Miss Scarlett
03-17-2011, 07:23 PM
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.
SEC. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.
(b) In any action commenced pursuant to this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.
(c) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.
(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.
SEC. 205. The Service is authorized to make a full investigation of any complaint referred to it by the court under section 204(d) and may hold such hearings with respect thereto as may be necessary. The Service shall conduct any hearings with respect to any such complaint in executive session, and shall not release any testimony given therein except by agreement of all parties involved in the complaint with the permission of the court, and the Service shall endeavor to bring about a voluntary settlement between the parties.
SEC. 206. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.
(b) In any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.
In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.
It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.
SEC. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.
(b) The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.
http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/YCR/CIVILR64.HTM
Andrew, Jr.
03-17-2011, 07:27 PM
Not all 50 states have civil rights for us on the books. We desperately need them.
Blade
03-17-2011, 08:35 PM
Well I think that is depends on the business. I think someone offering a service...like a florist should be able to decline service to anyone they wish. I don't think they owe anyone an explanation.
Now if they declined someone and told them their decision was based on a moral or religious issue then I'd say they were pretty shallow.
Blade
03-17-2011, 09:00 PM
But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?
To begin with a pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions. It is none of the pharmacists business for what type of medical reason a Dr prescribes a prescription. A consumer isn't obligated to discuss with pharmacist why they need a certain treatment.
Blade
03-17-2011, 09:05 PM
For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?
I have a friend who owns a restaurant/bar. He doesn't allow men without sleeves in his place and he doesn't allow people who wear their pants with the waist down to the knees. He'll send them out to get a shirt in a minute and he will ask folks to pull their pants up and keep them up in his place
rainintothesea
03-17-2011, 09:14 PM
To begin with a pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions. It is none of the pharmacists business for what type of medical reason a Dr prescribes a prescription. A consumer isn't obligated to discuss with pharmacist why they need a certain treatment.
I agree with you completely. This exact situation happened recently in Idaho... a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription to stop uterine bleeding unless a nurse at the doctor's office where it was prescribed would tell her (the pharmacist) that it WASN'T because of an abortion. (There is a law on the books there that says that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense an abortifacient on personal principle, but the drug she was prescribed wasn't an abortifacient. It was to keep her from bleeding out.)
Walgreen's, where this took place, is a private business. The pharmacist refused the woman's business on moral grounds. That seems to be consistent with the position of several posters, at least as it relates to the florist. I just want to know if those folks siding with the florist sided with the pharmacist, too... and if one is okay and one isn't, why? Where is the boundary, who sets it? Is it the use of the flowers necessarily the florist's business (gay wedding vs. straight wedding)?
Again, I'm not trying to kick up trouble, I'm genuinely curious as to the difference, and what people think about one vs. the other... and how, if we decide it's okay to do that in one case, we justify it not being okay in the other. Also, who decides? Have we collectively already decided, on many levels, that some forms of discrimination are not socially acceptable by putting policies in place?
betenoire
03-17-2011, 09:17 PM
I have a friend who owns a restaurant/bar. He doesn't allow men without sleeves in his place and he doesn't allow people who wear their pants with the waist down to the knees. He'll send them out to get a shirt in a minute and he will ask folks to pull their pants up and keep them up in his place
There's a huge difference between a dress code and deciding you don't want to serve "the gays". I mean "dress code" and "I don't want to serve the gays" don't even live on the same continent!
I can go home and put on some sleeves and pull up my pants, but I can't take off my gay.
I think there can be restrictions related to health concerns (shirts and shoes required) or decorum (wear a jacket). I also think that one should be able to choose not to get into a business relationship with someone who makes them uncomfortable, like if you're thinking they won't pay or they'll be litigious. But, I don't think that anyone has the right to refuse service on the basis of being gay or other attribute.
I personally wouldn't like to do business with anyone who had trouble with my being gay. My partner and I are planning our wedding, and we've been open with all of our vendors. If we have even an inkling of discomfort on the part of a vendor, we would pass on using them. When we travel or stay in a hotel, we usually check recommendations and look for info on gay-friendly places. I think consumers have some responsibility to be aware of their options.
EnderD_503
03-18-2011, 07:21 AM
I don't think businesses should have the right to deny service (unless it's an issue of behaviour/conduct like's been mentioned). I also agree with this quote:
"But if she opens her doors to sell flowers, then she must be prepared to meet and deal with the public."
Beyond the fact that it was against the law for her to deny the couple service based on their sexual orientation, I think the above also stands true. Your religious morals are for your private home and the religious institution you attend. You shouldn't take them to work with you, and they should not affect how you do business with someone.
I also fail to see where allowing businesses to deny service to people based on race, nationality, colour, sexual orientation, gender etc. will get us as far as human rights. If laws hadn't been made protecting races/ethnicities/nationalities or genders against descrimination we wouldn't be where we are today. Allowing businesses to deny service based on sexual orientation is sending us backward, not supporting social progress. Granting this kind of tolerance to intolerance is not what got us our current freedoms. It also sets up a precedence of intolerance when it comes to fighting for other rights.
Random
03-18-2011, 07:59 AM
Just to play devils advocate...
You have a flower shop...
You have someone wanting to order table pieces... 100 of them, let's say...
They want the center pieces to have icons that you find offensive(insert the confederate flag or the swastica or some other sybol) as the main feature...
Do you take the order or do you refuse on principle?
If you refuse the order because it offends your principle or your belief system, then how can you deny someone else that right?
For me....
If I want the right to live my principles, then I have to extend the same privilage to someone who doesn't believe the same as I do...
UNLESS...
You take goverment money.... If you receive goverment money for your business... If you have a contract with my goverment, then you don't get to live your principles...
EnderD_503
03-18-2011, 08:39 AM
Just to play devils advocate...
You have a flower shop...
You have someone wanting to order table pieces... 100 of them, let's say...
They want the center pieces to have icons that you find offensive(insert the confederate flag or the swastica or some other sybol) as the main feature...
Do you take the order or do you refuse on principle?
If you refuse the order because it offends your principle or your belief system, then how can you deny someone else that right?
It would depend on which country I'm inhabiting. In Germany it is illegal to bear the swastika and to sell items depicting the swastika. So if I were living in Germany, no I would not sell that centre piece because I'd be committing an illegal act. On top of that, I agree with German law as far as the depiction of the National Socialist swastika (note, that the swastika is not only an NS symbol).
If I were in Canada, it is not illegal to sell an item depicting the swastika. I would sell it to them, whether the symbol itself offended me or not because I understand the difference between certain uses of that symbol and the inciting of hatred. It is, however, illegal to propagate hatred through speech, writing or visual representation, and so if any of the above occured in my establishment or were suggested in my establishment, then I would not sell it to them.
As I mentioned above, the swastika isn't only an NS symbol, but is also used in a number of eastern religions as a religious symbol, as well as in various European pagan religions as a religious symbol (though there is a difference between the NS swastika and that found in European pagan religions).
I'd say that same thing goes with the Confederate flag, in that I don't think that it can be deemed as exclusively a symbol of hatred, and so I would have no reason to refuse to sell an individual such a centre piece. Hell, I've seen tons of university students mount Confederate flags if only because they love Pantera, so I'm not that quick to be offended, lol.
But I might also argue that there is a flaw in your playing devil's advocate here. Do you really not see a difference between discrimination and "religious morals"? There is a reason why many nations have laws against intolerant groups and their propaganda. There is a marked difference between protecting the rights of visible or marked minorities and protecting the rights of those whose belief incites or promotes hatred, alienation or oppression of other groups purely on the basis of skin colour, ethnicity, nationality, sex or sexual orientation. If someone wanted me to provide them with an image that depicted a lynching or had "god hates fags" written on it, well I think there are very good reasons for there being laws against that and I'd have very good reasons to refuse them if I gave a damn about promoting a society that protects individuals from discrimination in all aspects of their life. It's not inherently wrong to say "god hates fags" or other homophobic remarks, but it has no place in a society that wants to protect its citizens from discrimination.
Basically, I think striving for the creation of a society free (or as close as possible to it) from discrimination takes precedence over personal inclinations. I might be offended by a Christian cross as a symbol of 2000 years of oppression, but I'm not going to deny Christians the right to enter my restaurant or flower shop or refuse their use of the symbol.
Random
03-18-2011, 09:04 AM
Ender
I want to answer your post, but I have too much going through my head to do it justice right now...
I'll be back later
I woke up and kept thinking of this thread and remembered back in the day this story. It did happen.
I used to be friends with a couple--she is white and he is black. They have three children together. This was back in the early nineties.
They drove down to Florida (Disney) as a family and stopped for gas (Georgia, maybe?). The attendant saw their family and would not serve them. For real. Was that his right if he doesn't believe it is moral for blacks and whites to be together and have children b/c it is against his value system, his beliefs etc?
They drove to another gas station. But what if there wasn't one that was close? What if they had little gas left? Was it that business owner's right to refuse this family his services b/c he morally objects to their family? (I know legally he couldn't do that but he took a chance that they wouldn't persue it--and they didn't).
From what I understand, slavery/segregation/anti-miscegenation laws were largely based on people's personal value systems with a lot of biblical justifications. This owner just didn't morally agree with their type of family and refused them service.
This could happen to any of us couples. How is this ok?
However, some are agreeing that it would be fine, and within his rights, for that gas station owner to look at the composition of us as couples and families and agree that it is his right to deny us service based on our sexual orientation or gender identity.
Like Ender wrote, that is why anti-discrimination laws are in place (or have to be put in place) to prohibit this kind of intolerance and protect ALL people's access (including LGBT community) to services based on the equal human rights. It has been eye-opening, to me, that this idea of equal access to services and goods for ALL is not a wholly shared idea or goal in which to strive.
Being denied access to services b/c of someone's personal or religious beliefs can also encompass the already United States federal protected classes -- sexual orientation and gender identity are not, currently, a protected class. Would it be fine for a woman to be denied access to a private singing school (and shared that she is a church soloist to the owner) b/c the owner believes in the words within the Bible that a woman should remain silent in church?
I remain curious if people would support the removal of the current USA Federally protected classes (age, gender, creed, disability, race? i might be missing something) b/c, these categories, as well, could infringe upon a business owner's personal/religious beliefs.
betenoire
03-18-2011, 10:20 AM
You know, maybe this is my Canadian perspective - because I know with the laws that are in place I am safe from ever being asked to do something SUPER heinous. But you know what? If I owned a bakery and some loser asked me to make him 100 cupcakes with little confederate flags on it - I'd do it. Because that's my job. And because making the cupcakes is not the same as getting a bad haircut and then attending the bigot hoe-down (how do you spell that anyway?) where the cupcakes will be consumed. It's just not.
In my line of work I have to provide services to people who are actively using drugs (like, I show up and the crack pipe is sitting on the table beside the chair - that's what I mean by actively) people who I know are abusing the system, and even people who I just find really distasteful in general. I don't get to refuse those services - because it's my job not my personal life. How I feel about the personalities and actions of the people of the people I support DOES NOT GET to effect how I do my job - and if it DID then I would be pretty shitty at my job and I wouldn't deserve to have the job that I have.
Even rapists and murderers get defense lawyers. That doesn't make the lawyer complicit in the rape or murder - it makes the lawyer a person who is doing her or his job.
Rockinonahigh
03-18-2011, 10:22 AM
I voted yes,because ive run a buisness before that had me or my employees going to diffrent farms to pick up horses for transport.If a farm had unrully dogs or horses that were hard to load,unmannered or the employees of the farm rude to my drivers not to mention unsafe,I wouldnt do buisness with them.I also told my drivers if they felt uncomfortable in anyway going anywhere or after they got to the place to get in the cab..call me or if needed (a judgement call for the driver)just dont stop or turn around and leave.I kept a record of every place I did buisness with,the good..bad & ugly of them all.I stated on my contract about my drivers safty comeing first.
betenoire
03-18-2011, 10:34 AM
I feel like people are misunderstanding the question or something.
CLEARLY there is a pretty big difference between your physical safety in the workplace (IE - not working in an environment where you could be injured or killed) and just not feeling like providing service to someone because they are gay.
There are laws in place (at least in Canada, I don't know if the US has a workplace safety act or anything) that protect us from having to do things in the course of our jobs that will put us at personal physical risk.
But, again, nobody has ever lost an eye or broken an arm from selling flowers to a gay couple. I mean, seriously? Apples. Oranges.
BullDog
03-18-2011, 10:45 AM
I am quite surprised so many people think it's ok to deny service to someone based on sexual orientation. If that really becomes ok many of us will be waiting a long time for goods and services. I also don't see denying someone goods or services based on sexual orientation being the equivalent of refusing service to a hate group.
julieisafemme
03-18-2011, 10:46 AM
Ok but what if you make the 100 cupcakes and they are a huge hit and then the rest of the bigot brigade is beating down your door for more cupcakes with ever increasing demands for horribly offensive sweets?
The bakery owner is self-employed and not working as part of a system or for the state. If I work for someone else then I am under their values and morals. Would you work for the confederate flag making baker?
You know, maybe this is my Canadian perspective - because I know with the laws that are in place I am safe from ever being asked to do something SUPER heinous. But you know what? If I owned a bakery and some loser asked me to make him 100 cupcakes with little confederate flags on it - I'd do it. Because that's my job. And because making the cupcakes is not the same as getting a bad haircut and then attending the bigot hoe-down (how do you spell that anyway?) where the cupcakes will be consumed. It's just not.
In my line of work I have to provide services to people who are actively using drugs (like, I show up and the crack pipe is sitting on the table beside the chair - that's what I mean by actively) people who I know are abusing the system, and even people who I just find really distasteful in general. I don't get to refuse those services - because it's my job not my personal life. How I feel about the personalities and actions of the people of the people I support DOES NOT GET to effect how I do my job - and if it DID then I would be pretty shitty at my job and I wouldn't deserve to have the job that I have.
Even rapists and murderers get defense lawyers. That doesn't make the lawyer complicit in the rape or murder - it makes the lawyer a person who is doing her or his job.
What if there is one grocery store in a small town.
No food for us?
The far reaching consequences of allowing private businesses to turn away customers based on their moral/religious convictions is, to me, horrifying.
betenoire
03-18-2011, 10:53 AM
Ok but what if you make the 100 cupcakes and they are a huge hit and then the rest of the bigot brigade is beating down your door for more cupcakes with ever increasing demands for horribly offensive sweets?
The bakery owner is self-employed and not working as part of a system or for the state. If I work for someone else then I am under their values and morals. Would you work for the confederate flag making baker?
Firstly - I don't understand why some of you are insisting on equating being gay with belonging to a hate group. For the sake of your own self-esteem I really do hope that you know that it's different. :)
Secondly - Slippery slope argument.
Thirdly - I want to know, then, since you think it's okay to refuse services to people just for being gay - do you think that there should be no protected classes of people at all? Do you think that business owners should get to turn people away for being Asian? Hindu? I know Rand Paul thinks that business owners should get to do that, so it's not a totally far-fetched fringe notion.
And if you don't think that business owners should be able to turn people away because of their race or their religion - why do you think it's okay to turn people away because of their sexual orientation?
Arwen
03-18-2011, 10:56 AM
Absolutely a business owner has the right to refuse service.
This is why I can tell people no, I won't read for them because they are hateful, etc.
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 11:03 AM
The question was NOT about refusing service to gay people exclusively. The question was:
Do you think a business has the right to refuse service based on moral/religious beliefs?
No where does it state it was exclusive to gay people, that was just the example provided!
Absolutely a business owner has the right to refuse service.
This is why I can tell people no, I won't read for them because they are hateful, etc.
It is not about denying someone service based on their bad behaviour.
We are talking about people being denied services for WHO and WHAT they are.
Being a bigot is a choice--being queer is not. For the most part, it is an immutable or ingrained characteristic.
The government does not make someone serve a customer because of poor behaviour; however, the government has decided that people must be served due to a host of other categories.
But some think that queer people should NOT be entitled to services based solely on an owner`s moral and religious objections...I just don`t see how it is different from any other already protected classes and I really can`t get on the same page as LGBT folks being compared to some customer`s shitty attitudes.
julieisafemme
03-18-2011, 11:09 AM
I do understand the difference and I never said it was ok for anyone to refuse service to someone because they are gay. I don't see where anyone is equating being gay with belonging to a hate group. I think people might be using that to pose the question about something that is really intolerable to us as a group as us being gay might be to another group.
The place we are talking about in Canada where this happened already has a law that says what the flower shop owner did is illegal? Is that correct? What she did is against the law. So whether I or anyone else thinks she has the right to do it or not it is against the law.
Yes Rand Paul says that and a lot of other things and represents that part of American culture that is always at odds with and suspicious of government. It is not far fetched or fringe. It is pretty mainstream. I think, based on what Suebee said, Canadians have a different view of their government?
This whole conversation is a slippery slope. The example I used in my first post was the only acceptable use of religion based refusal of service I could envision. Kosher establishment, non-kosher food brought in, please leave immediately. The person could dump the food or drink and then come back in and be served. Like you said you can't take the gay off.
I would not want to serve the confederate flag cupcake person. Others might not want to serve me.
Firstly - I don't understand why some of you are insisting on equating being gay with belonging to a hate group. For the sake of your own self-esteem I really do hope that you know that it's different. :)
Secondly - Slippery slope argument.
Thirdly - I want to know, then, since you think it's okay to refuse services to people just for being gay - do you think that there should be no protected classes of people at all? Do you think that business owners should get to turn people away for being Asian? Hindu? I know Rand Paul thinks that business owners should get to do that, so it's not a totally far-fetched fringe notion.
And if you don't think that business owners should be able to turn people away because of their race or their religion - why do you think it's okay to turn people away because of their sexual orientation?
The question was NOT about refusing service to gay people exclusively. The question was:
Do you think a business has the right to refuse service based on moral/religious beliefs?
No where does it state it was exclusive to gay people, that was just the example provided!
So, I am not sure where you are going with this.
The reason I left it open is because if one believes that business owners do have the right to refuse service based on religious or moral objections, then it goes beyond our LGBT community and should, logically, extend to other groups.
julieisafemme
03-18-2011, 11:16 AM
I'm sorry. I guess I am not understanding the questions or point of this thread. I don't think someone should be refused service because they are queer. I still don't want to make confederate cupcakes though!:|
betenoire
03-18-2011, 11:33 AM
HSIN can correct me if I'm wrong (But I think I'm right about her question/intent since we've been chatting about it all last night and this morning too) but I do believe that what she was trying to discuss was:
- Is it okay to deny services to someone because of who they are (not because of what they do)
- Even though sexual orientation is not an official protected group in many places, should we be afforded the same protections that people are afforded due to race and religion
- If we should not be a protected group - should there be ANY protected groups?
- Should religious people get a "pass" for discriminating against us because religion is also a protected class
Did I miss anything, HSIN?
EnderD_503
03-18-2011, 11:35 AM
Thirdly - I want to know, then, since you think it's okay to refuse services to people just for being gay - do you think that there should be no protected classes of people at all? Do you think that business owners should get to turn people away for being Asian? Hindu? I know Rand Paul thinks that business owners should get to do that, so it's not a totally far-fetched fringe notion.
And if you don't think that business owners should be able to turn people away because of their race or their religion - why do you think it's okay to turn people away because of their sexual orientation?
Didn't mean to chop up your post, betenoire, but these questions really cut down to something that's been bothering me in this thread. I'd be really interested in hearing the answers to these questions on refusing someone based on race vs. sexual orientation from those who do think that business owners should have the right to deny service based on religious beliefs/morals.
The question was NOT about refusing service to gay people exclusively. The question was:
Do you think a business has the right to refuse service based on moral/religious beliefs?
No where does it state it was exclusive to gay people, that was just the example provided!
Like HowSoon said, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Yes, the question was not about refusing service to gay people exclusively, but on refusing service to anyone based on morals/beliefs (particularly religious morals and beliefs). What does that change?
One could just as easily state that it is morally wrong (according to their religion) for them to provide their service to Jews (sound familiar?) or Muslims. They could do this with people of different ethnicities as well. Should they be legally able to deny their service based on their religious views? Why should they be allowed to refuse service? Whatever happened to equal access and opportunity?
betenoire
03-18-2011, 11:47 AM
I am pretty sure a) They are connected in some way and b) They don't like my kind. I have lived in this neighborhood for 8 years, and have never gone in there because of that, but I was desperate.
Right, and I DO think that it's unfortunate that the couple from the OP didn't research who they were buying their flowers from. I know before I make any sort of significant purchase I check into things to make sure I'm giving my money to my kind of people.
So sure, it's unfortunate. And maybe from now on they WILL look into where their money goes. This has probably been a life lesson for that couple.
But, you know. I don't know their situation. I don't know anything about the town they are from. I don't know if there are other florists, or if this is like the Flintstones where Fred had to take services from the caterer who did a shitty job because "I'm the ONLY caterer in town!"
So, like I said, while it is really a shame that this couple didn't think harder about where their money is going (provided they really had other options - because I have no idea) it's a double shame that we live in a world where they should HAVE to think harder about who they buy from.
What the florist did was wrong wrong wrong. (And illegal - haha!)
ETA - Gotta go have a shower and get ready for work. You people have fun without me!
julieisafemme
03-18-2011, 11:57 AM
HSIN can correct me if I'm wrong (But I think I'm right about her question/intent since we've been chatting about it all last night and this morning too) but I do believe that what she was trying to discuss was:
- Is it okay to deny services to someone because of who they are (not because of what they do) Not if it is illegal obviously. This is where I have a problem. I want to deny service to bigots even if they are not engaged in bigoted acts. That is who they are. I do not want someone denying me service because I am queer or my partner service because he is a transman. Lame and waffly I know but that is the best I can come up with!
- Even though sexual orientation is not an official protected group in many places, should we be afforded the same protections that people are afforded due to race and religion YES- Transgender people as well.
If we should not be a protected group - should there be ANY protected groups? N/A
- Should religious people get a "pass" for discriminating against us because religion is also a protected class. Absolutely no one should get a pass for breaking the law. Unfortunately as you pointed out there are not laws that protect us in some places. That is why we are fighting for equality here. Since we are engaged in that fight and want the laws to be changed the answer is NO religious people do not get a pass. No one gets a pass.
Did I miss anything, HSIN?
Bold answers
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 12:01 PM
Ok, I'll toss this out there before I go to pick up my nephew.
I'm a systems analyst/programmer. I design and write business computer systems for my clients. Let's say one of my clients refer someone to me. It's a big ole church, they want me to design a system that among things tracks the number of GLBT people attending their church, reason being, they are getting complaints from some members of their congregation about said members. They tell me to put a threshold on it, if it meets that threshold then they want a list of all GLBT members who attend their church because they are going to tell them they are no longer welcome there to worship. Should I (as a member of the GLBT community) accept them as a client knowing full well they are basically going on a witch hunt in MY community???
What if one of my business clients wanted me to do the same thing, since in NC we have no protection due to sexual orientation or gender identification, and they want expressedly state these employees will be fired? Do I retain them as a client and program their system as they wish knowing full well that my peers are going to be terminated???
That IS against my moral compass so according to you all I shouldn't have the right to say NO I'll NOT be part of your witch hunts! Sorry, you're going to lose out on this one because I will refuse to be part of it and will decline accepting a client because of such bullshit.
If you wanted the discussion/question to be solely about the GLBT community then you should have stated as such instead of leaving the question wide open in my opinion.
If you wanted the discussion/question to be solely about the GLBT community then you should have stated as such instead of leaving the question wide open in my opinion.
Snipped the part I will address.
DomnNC,
I already answered why I left it open and Ender explained it as well.
Again, I left it open because I want to know if it is OK for businesses deny ANYONE service (grounded in their religious and moral beliefs) because of that group's immutable characteristic or intrinsic belief system (religion)--not behaviour.
If you are going to deny the queers, you might as well take back all other groups of people who are already federally protected.
What is the difference b/w refusing someone b/c they are queer and refusing someone because they are a woman (etc.)--as long as that person has deep religious or moral objections to a certain class of people, they are entitled to refuse service?
Spork
03-18-2011, 12:27 PM
Ok, I'll toss this out there before I go to pick up my nephew.
I'm a systems analyst/programmer. I design and write business computer systems for my clients. Let's say one of my clients refer someone to me. It's a big ole church, they want me to design a system that among things tracks the number of GLBT people attending their church, reason being, they are getting complaints from some members of their congregation about said members. They tell me to put a threshold on it, if it meets that threshold then they want a list of all GLBT members who attend their church because they are going to tell them they are no longer welcome there to worship. Should I (as a member of the GLBT community) accept them as a client knowing full well they are basically going on a witch hunt in MY community???
What if one of my business clients wanted me to do the same thing, since in NC we have no protection due to sexual orientation or gender identification, and they want expressedly state these employees will be fired? Do I retain them as a client and program their system as they wish knowing full well that my peers are going to be terminated???
That IS against my moral compass so according to you all I shouldn't have the right to say NO I'll NOT be part of your witch hunts! Sorry, you're going to lose out on this one because I will refuse to be part of it and will decline accepting a client because of such bullshit.
If you wanted the discussion/question to be solely about the GLBT community then you should have stated as such instead of leaving the question wide open in my opinion.
I have to agree with you on this, because I also understood it was not only about LGBT being accepted or not in business. I thought it was merely an example.
But the question having "based on moral/religious objections" on it made me think that, well, I'm not particularly religious but I have my own set of morals. And mine make me cringe if I were to work for a bigot.
I understand that this flower lady did something illegal in her country/state/town. But it's not always illegal elsewhere, so I think some are tackling the issue from that viewpoint.
If it's perfectly okay for someone to deny us service because we're gay, don't we have the same right?
I'm not saying, and I think others aren't saying, that we'll all start declining to work for certain groups. But we have a choice, a right.
One last thing, I thought "businesses" meant something privately owned by a person or group of people, for the sole purpose of selling services/products and profiting. I gave my opinion on that particular type of organization. Organizations with social obligations (pharmacies) or state-owned (hospitals) are an entirely different thing, from what I've learned. Those are usually subject to different laws, and have an obligation to serve the public regardless of gender, race, ideology, etc.
To YouForgotTheSpoon,
Yes, I am referring to private businesses being allowed to refuse service due to strongly held religious or moral convinctions--whether it is the local flowershop, car dealership, market, or Taco Bell.
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 01:49 PM
Let's make one thing clear, no, I do not advocate a person being denied a service based solely on the fact that they are LGBT and whatever other letters you want to toss behind that.
I understand the flower shop broke the law in their country and should pay the consequences. We only have marginal protection here in the states. Some states have passed laws against discrimination based on gender indentification and sexual orientation, some municipalities have done the same thing within states that do not have state laws. Is that right or fair to the rest of us? No, I should say not but sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for, as in my example above, I could be forced to do that against my own community if I don't have a right to say no, I'll not create computer systems for bigots that will cost my community dearly.
Interestingly enough tho, no one has answered my questions, you can't have it both ways.
The_Lady_Snow
03-18-2011, 02:34 PM
Stripper bars have the right to not allow unescorted females into their place of business (unless escorted by a male).
Biker bars can refuse to let you in if you're flagging colors.
Male gay bars will and have and can refuse women patrons.
Once upon a Snow I refused to handle a Coors account.
Bath houses are MEN ONLY.
Because business can cater to whom ever they want they do, is it smart?
I'm not sure I've learned in America this government tells people what to do to an extent.
HSIN the story you postedas far as I'm concerned is gonna cover the gaycouple since for y'all it's against the law.
That's all I have to share about this particular topic.
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 03:13 PM
Excellent point Snow.
You also have female only gyms in the states, so aren't they discriminating against men by refusing entry as well. There's a whole boat load of businesses like what you specified and the female only gyms. There are male only gyms as well I believe. The list goes on and on.
EnderD_503
03-18-2011, 03:19 PM
Personally, there was something that was bugging me about your examples that I couldn't quite pinpoint. So went off to try to be productive on my day off but...couldn't keep my mind off the examples, because I like to be able to back up my stances as best I can. I knew there had to be a reason this wasn't sitting right beyond the obvious, and I think maybe now I've pinpointed what didn't sit right with me.
So here goes:
What if one of my business clients wanted me to do the same thing, since in NC we have no protection due to sexual orientation or gender identification, and they want expressedly state these employees will be fired? Do I retain them as a client and program their system as they wish knowing full well that my peers are going to be terminated???
If I’m understanding this example correctly, you’re meaning to say that a company hires you to write a system that would allow them to keep tabs on LGBT employees for the purpose of terminating them if they exceed a certain number?
At this point, you have a few problems arising.
First of all, you have an issue that’s something of a "does the egg come before the chicken, or the chicken before the egg" type thing when it comes to human rights. Minority rights need to be protected on all fronts: as employees, employers, business owners and consumers. That much goes without saying if you want to build a society that protects all its citizens from discrimination.
However, if you live in a society that has not put anti-discrimination laws into place, then the main concern, in my opinion, should be to fight to get those laws put into place. Under those laws it would be illegal for a company to hunt down its LGBT employees and fire them, and so you would not need to worry about whether or not to deny them your services or not because the very act they seek to commit would be an infringement upon the basic rights of the LGBT population.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your concern seems to be something like: What do I do if I live in a place that has no LGBT anti-discrimination laws? I want to have the right to deny my services to people looking to fire employees specifically for being LGBT/ to people who can legally exploit or discriminate against LGBT folks.
I don't think that this conundrum should results in an "eye for an eye" kind of reaction.
My response would be that you shouldn’t worry about any kind of contradiction between your wish to deny your private business's services to people actively discriminating against LGBT folks and your wish not to be denied services from other private businesses on the basis of being LGBT. When it comes down to it no such contradictions exist because if the proper laws protecting LGBT folks from discrimination were in place then they would have no right to fire a gay man solely because he is gay to begin with, and so they wouldn’t be asking you to write this programmed to begin with. They would not be able to legally fire a gay man for being gay any more than they would have the right to fire a black man solely for being black.
The issue then comes down to: lobbying for LGBT anti-discrimination laws, which would effectively solve your problem.
The issue does not comes down to: demanding that private businesses have the right to refuse their services on the basis of their religious/moral inclinations. Demanding that this right exists only legally perpetuates discrimination.
I'm a systems analyst/programmer. I design and write business computer systems for my clients. Let's say one of my clients refer someone to me. It's a big ole church, they want me to design a system that among things tracks the number of GLBT people attending their church, reason being, they are getting complaints from some members of their congregation about said members. They tell me to put a threshold on it, if it meets that threshold then they want a list of all GLBT members who attend their church because they are going to tell them they are no longer welcome there to worship. Should I (as a member of the GLBT community) accept them as a client knowing full well they are basically going on a witch hunt in MY community???
This example is trickier for me personally, because I’ve got some religion issues…in that I don’t have a particularly positive view of religion (and organised religion in particular). But at the same time I do recognise that religious people should have the right to practice their religion without being discriminated against, to wear the symbols/dress code of their religion without being discriminated against and to generally practice according to their holy book so long as it does not collide with basic human rights.
However, the Judeo-Christian bible claims that stoning adulterers is ok, for example. Obviously, western law has made stoning anyone for any reason decidedly illegal. And so I strongly believe that religious individuals should be unable to put into practice certain aspects of the bible that collide with basic human rights, and for the sake of modernising certain aspects of the religion that…aren't particularly modern.
Which, then, makes me think that, ok priests shouldn’t have to marry gay couples if they don’t want to, but should they really have the right to bar LGBT folks from even attending a service or stepping foot into a church? I, personally, don’t think so. The reason for this is that I think their beliefs and their expression of those beliefs, whether based in religion or not, are hateful and harmful to a progressive society that takes into consideration basic human rights.
I’ve read that a church has a right to ban a congregation member from its premises if that member has had an abortion while a member of that church. I don’t know how much of that is true, and from what I’ve read it seems to be something that goes on a case by case basis.
If that is true, then I suppose a church would also have the right to bar queer folks from its premises on the basis that they, as people, don’t fit into religious doctrine. But if that’s the case, I also wonder if they’re allowed to ban other faiths, certain unwanted ethnicities, the disabled and so on from their premises. For example, I know that in some countries and in some monasteries they are legally allowed to prohibit female-bodied people from entering monasteries open to male-bodied tourists. In fact when I was ten years old I was prohibited from entering such a monastery. Should that be legal in a progressive, socially conscious nation?
And if we come down on the side of a resounding "no," then we needn’t worry ourselves about refusing service or not because if we lived in nations where discrimination and proper hate speech laws were in place, then the dilemma would not exist in the first place.
So the issue then becomes one of fighting for equal rights, access to services and resources, and employment, housing, educational opportunities.
It does not become an issue of creating laws that further protect those who would discriminate on the basis of an inherent (not chosen) characteristic like sexual orientation or race.
If you wanted the discussion/question to be solely about the GLBT community then you should have stated as such instead of leaving the question wide open in my opinion.
HSIN has said a few times now that she didn't want it to be solely about LGBT community, but about refusing to service a customer of a private business on the basis of religious morals/beliefs.
I still don't understand how whether it's about LGBT rights or not changes things, since ultimately the topic is about whether or not a private business owner has the right to refuse service to someone based on their being part of a protected or minority group. Because even if it were about race, ethnicity, nationality, skin colour, sex, gender identity/expression, disability/ability, religion or so on, the answer would, at least for me, be exactly the same. I would not deny any person my services as a private business honour unless it was due to some behavioural/conduct issue (f.ex. spouting racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. comments in the store, creating an unsafe or uncomfortable environment for employees and other customers and so on). That is the kind of business relationship anti-discrimination laws promote.
So I wouldn't refuse my services to someone who I knew, by reputation, to be a homophobe or racist or any other such thing. I would deny them service if they began to spout racist/homophic etc. shit in my establishment and began disrespecting me, my employees, the customers or if they generally disrupted the business' environment.
Interestingly enough tho, no one has answered my questions, you can't have it both ways.
Part of the reason I didn’t answer immediately was because I found the examples problematic and couldn't quite figure out why until now. Now I'm fairly certain that it is because the issue, to me, in either example was not about whether or not you and every other private business owner has the right to deny service. The issue is related to the lack of adequate anti-discrimination laws that would stop these situations from arising.
Anyways, hopefully my little ramble has made some sense.
DomnNC,
I had to to take a break. I also had to keep reading it to make sure I understood it.
My issues with your example is that you are discussing an action--you know will be performed after a service--if you know what their behaviour/actions will be with the service you gave them, you have a right to deny them service. You are not refusing the job based on a CHARACTERISTIC.
Dom, you are not talking about denial of service based on a characterstic of the service seeker; you would be denying service based on the service that is being requested.
Protected classes are there to protect people from being ARBITRARILY treated differently, and being treated worse, based solely on certain characteristics.
Regarding the gendered gym example: In this case, the sex segregated gyms are not saying we hate men or we hate women--it is not a judgement--like discrimination. Discrimination, in my opinion, says, "I judge you to be of lesser value than someone else b/c of this particular characteristic or that you belong to a group that I find socially undesirable; therefore I have the right to refuse you service."
What about the days where women weren't even allowed their own chequing account or mortgages were only given to white men? These banks used to have moral objections to women holding a chequing account and minority groups owning a mortgage. Anti-discrimination laws were put in place to protect these situations from happening. Today, they can deny a a person based on a poor credit history--this is a legitimate business interest (and a behaviour)--it is not about denying someone a service due to a characteristic or the fact that they belong to a certain group.
As far as questions not being answered are concerned: Several of us have asked those who believe that businesses have the right to refuse service based on religious or moral objections, if they are then ready then ready to give up the notion of protected classes ALL TOGETHER?
Those people who do live in areas where many groups are protected--are you willing to give that up?
I know I am pretty happy with Canada very close to passing protections based on gender identity.
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 04:13 PM
See Ender and HowSoon that's the crux of the problem, ya'll are coming at people in the US with your laws in Canada which WE do not have in the states for the most part. You can't interject your laws upon us and beat down our responses because they don't mesh with yours because you guys ARE protected. I'm speaking from the standpoint of the laws in the US. I live in NC where there are NO laws on the state books regarding discrimination against the LGBT community, at ALL. We are fair targets and open game to anyone who wants to discriminate against us, except in municipalities that have passed such laws which are few and far in between.
So yes, a company can ask me to write a system that tracks its LGBT employees, a church could ask me to do the same thing in regards to their congregation and it's perfectly legal and acceptable for them to do so and it's perfectly legal to fire said employees or kick members of a congregation out just because they are LGBT as it wouldn't fit within THEIR moral compass (example - a family owned business where the owner may be extremely religious). It doesn't matter if I know what the outcome of those numbers will be, but being in the bible belt I can just imagine that they would be used for no good and with detriment to my community here.
So should I not have the preference and right as a small business owner to say NO, HELL NO to those people who would wish harm upon my community by taking their source of income or kicking them out of a church that they may happen to love? or Should I be forced into doing this programming for them with the threat of a lawsuit if such a law existed on the books stating I cannot refuse my service to anyone for any reason at all?
Remember, they have NO laws to protect them in NC, I have seen people terminated and people kicked out of churches in NC simply because a person happens to be a part of the LGBT community.
Edit: I could have no moral compass at all and say sure I'll take your money and do it anyway. It would be no skin off my back just money in the bank. That is if I had no moral compass. This is a group of people wanting to discriminate against LGBT, same difference, just a different avenue. I would be aiding that discrimination if I took the money.
julieisafemme
03-18-2011, 04:21 PM
I understand what Jo is saying. The distinction she is making. I have already answered the question. I do want it both ways. Meaning I want to tell the bigot no and be protected under the law because I am queer. Of course this is not feasible but she asked the question.
This is not about US vs. Canada and I don't see anyone beating down people's responses.
See Ender and HowSoon that's the crux of the problem, ya'll are coming at people in the US with your laws in Canada which WE do not have in the states for the most part. You can't interject your laws upon us and beat down our responses because they don't mesh with yours because you guys ARE protected. I'm speaking from the standpoint of the laws in the US. I live in NC where there are NO laws on the state books regarding discrimination against the LGBT community, at ALL. We are fair targets and open game to anyone who wants to discriminate against us, except in municipalities that have passed such laws which are few and far in between.
So yes, a company can ask me to write a system that tracks its LGBT employees, a church could ask me to do the same thing in regards to their congregation and it's perfectly legal and acceptable for them to do so and it's perfectly legal to fire said employees or kick members of a congregation out just because they are LGBT as it wouldn't fit within THEIR moral compass (example - a family owned business where the owner may be extremely religious). It doesn't matter if I know what the outcome of those numbers will be, but being in the bible belt I can just imagine that they would be used for no good and with detriment to my community here.
So should I not have the preference and right as a small business owner to say NO, HELL NO to those people who would wish harm upon my community by taking their source of income or kicking them out of a church that they may happen to love? or Should I be forced into doing this programming for them with the threat of a lawsuit if such a law existed on the books stating I cannot refuse my service to anyone for any reason at all?
Remember, they have NO laws to protect them in NC, I have seen people terminated and people kicked out of churches in NC simply because a person happens to be a part of the LGBT community.
Dom,
I wrote that you DID had the right to refuse them service based on their actions.
The question I posed in the poll does not say anything about the laws in where you or I reside.
My question is do you BELIEVE (regardless of what is or is not on the books), that business owners have the right to refuse service based on religious or moral objections.
I am not beating anyone down. I am responding to posts and expressing my opinion.
Yes, Ender, Bete and myself are from Canada; however, the USA DOES have protected classes for some groups (and not for others), so I am unsure wherein lies the discrepancy in attitudes towards protected classes.
Just b/c Canada has laws protecting sexual orientation and, soon, gender identity, doesn't mean that citizens of the USA don't understand the idea of protected classes. You already have federal (and local -- some more for others) protections--they are already in place to prevent discrimination based on certain characteristics of the population.
Are you willing to give up laws that currently protect certain classes b/c you believe that the moral and religious objections of a business owner trumps those of a customer?
To me, those who voted yes they do agree with the right to refuse service based on a business owner's moral or religious objections, then it would make sense to remove all current local and federal protections and certainly not work for the inclusion of any other protected classes.
Julie
03-18-2011, 04:33 PM
OMG A shiny object.
I hit the wrong CHOICE.
I said YES...
NO NO NO NO --
I understand what Jo is saying. The distinction she is making. I have already answered the question. I do want it both ways. Meaning I want to tell the bigot no and be protected under the law because I am queer. Of course this is not feasible but she asked the question.
This is not about US vs. Canada and I don't see anyone beating down people's responses.
Julie,
You can tell the bigot no. That is a behaviour in which an owner can legitimately refuse service. It's like a person coming into a store w/o a shirt. It is a behaviour that an owner can legally refuse service.
julieisafemme
03-18-2011, 04:38 PM
Julie,
You can tell the bigot no. That is a behaviour in which an owner can legitimately refuse service. It's like a person coming into a store w/o a shirt. It is a behaviour that an owner can legally refuse service.
Woo hoo!! I am protected and no confederate cupcakes!!!
Seriously though anything that would jeopardize equality for gay and transgender people is always going to have to take a backseat.
suebee
03-18-2011, 04:39 PM
I think we need to come to some sort of consensus of what we mean by "discrimination". When I use that word I am talking about somebody who is from an identifiable group: ethnic, linguistic, sexual orientation, religion - I'm sure there are others. If a particular business decides not to serve somebody because they're an asshat - is that discrimination? *I* think it's just deciding who you want to serve - NOT discrimination. A good example would be singers who have performed privately for undesirables: dictators, crime bosses etc. When this is made public their reputation suffers. I would think they'd have a right to say no. Is that discrimination? No.
In Canada we are fortunate to have laws protecting us from hate and discrimination. Not that it's a fail-proof system mind you, but it's certainly better than it was before. But if we're looking at the question of whether or not a business "should be able to discriminate", well aren't we looking at a NEED for legislation to protect minorities - whether or not it presently exists where you live?
I seriously doubt that refusing to make cupcakes adorned with the confederate flag would be punishable under Canada's laws - nor should it be.
julieisafemme
03-18-2011, 04:45 PM
I think we need to come to some sort of consensus of what we mean by "discrimination". When I use that word I am talking about somebody who is from an identifiable group: ethnic, linguistic, sexual orientation, religion - I'm sure there are others. If a particular business decides not to serve somebody because they're an asshat - is that discrimination? *I* think it's just deciding who you want to serve - NOT discrimination. A good example would be singers who have performed privately for undesirables: dictators, crime bosses etc. When this is made public their reputation suffers. I would think they'd have a right to say no. Is that discrimination? No.
In Canada we are fortunate to have laws protecting us from hate and discrimination. Not that it's a fail-proof system mind you, but it's certainly better than it was before. But if we're looking at the question of whether or not a business "should be able to discriminate", well aren't we looking at a NEED for legislation to protect minorities - whether or not it presently exists where you live?
I seriously doubt that refusing to make cupcakes adorned with the confederate flag would be punishable under Canada's laws - nor should it be.
I'm just teasing with that! My goodness! Bete said she would make the cupcakes anyway because that is her job and that might be due to her Canadian sensibilites. It would not be punishable here either. I am not talking about the law per se there. Just a business refusing service. But as Jo pointed out her example is specific to discrimination of protected classes.
EnderD_503
03-18-2011, 05:08 PM
[COLOR="Black"]See Ender and HowSoon that's the crux of the problem, ya'll are coming at people in the US with your laws in Canada which WE do not have in the states for the most part.
This is exactly what my last post was addressing.
From my last post: Correct me if I’m wrong, but your concern seems to be something like: What do I do if I live in a place that has no LGBT anti-discrimination laws? I want to have the right to deny my services to people looking to fire employees specifically for being LGBT/ to people who can legally exploit or discriminate against LGBT folks.
I then I underwent responding to that concern. For example, responding directly to the above concern I wrote:
[B]My response would be that you shouldn’t worry about any kind of contradiction between your wish to deny your private business's services to people actively discriminating against LGBT folks and your wish not to be denied services from other private businesses on the basis of being LGBT. When it comes down to it no such contradictions exist because if the proper laws protecting LGBT folks from discrimination were in place then they would have no right to fire a gay man solely because he is gay to begin with, and so they wouldn’t be asking you to write this programmed to begin with. They would not be able to legally fire a gay man for being gay any more than they would have the right to fire a black man solely for being black.
The issue then comes down to: lobbying for LGBT anti-discrimination laws, which would effectively solve your problem.
The issue does not comes down to: demanding that private businesses have the right to refuse their services on the basis of their religious/moral inclinations. Demanding that this right exists only legally perpetuates discrimination.
Basically what I'm saying here is, if you live in a place with no anti-discrimination laws for LGBT people (or *insert discriminated against minority group here*) then there is no reason why you shouldn't deny someone service based on actions that would otherwise be illegal if there were anti-discrimination laws for LGBT folks. I'm saying that in that case you should act as though you do live in a country that counts LGBT folks as having the same legal protection as other minority groups, because in such a country you would not be forced to provide service for a client who was actively trying to use your services to discriminate against a protected portion of the population. And meanwhile actively fight to a) gain that protection for LGBT employees/LGBT rights in general and b) gain protection for LGBT consumers who might be denied service simply on the premise of being LGBT.
My argument is also: that you do yourself (or the LGBT community or any other marginalised community) no favours by supporting laws that allow private business owners to refuse service based on their own religious morals/beliefs. I would also argue that supporting those laws would actually be indirectly supporting a government that has yet to adequately address LGBT rights. Because having the right not be evicted/fired just because you're gay goes hand in hand with having the right to not be denied services just because you're gay.
Your examples were to try to show us why you said that businesses should be allowed to refuse anyone service for personal reasons. But those kinds of laws are just as harmful as laws that allow workplace or housing discrimination.
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 05:38 PM
Not personal reasons, moral reasons as stated in the OP question.
The reason I used the church as an example is because we do have laws on the books about religious discrimination. Suppose ole Fred Phelps came to me and wanted me to write him an application that keeps track of all our military personnel who are killed overseas so he knows where to send his people to picket or he wants some kind of program to track LGBT events in his state/nearby states so again he can send his folks to picket. If I tell him to shove off, hell no, he can take me to court and sue the ever living daylights out of me for religious discrimination. Would he win? Probably so, his lil group of kids boasts 3 lawyers and he was once one himself and a damn good one at that. This is how they make their money to travel. So why shouldn't I have the right to refuse to do business with this man and his religious entity?
Remember he's won all kinds of lawsuits against cities as it is in their attempts to stop him from picketing, the Supreme Court just upheld his right to do so.
suebee
03-18-2011, 05:47 PM
Not personal reasons, moral reasons as stated in the OP question.
The reason I used the church as an example is because we do have laws on the books about religious discrimination. Suppose ole Fred Phelps came to me and wanted me to write him an application that keeps track of all our military personnel who are killed overseas so he knows where to send his people to picket or he wants some kind of program to track LGBT events in his state/nearby states so again he can send his folks to picket. If I tell him to shove off, hell no, he can take me to court and sue the ever living daylights out of me for religious discrimination. Would he win? Probably so, his lil group of kids boasts 3 lawyers and he was once one himself and a damn good one at that. This is how they make their money to travel. So why shouldn't I have the right to refuse to do business with this man and his religious entity?
Remember he's won all kinds of lawsuits against cities as it is in their attempts to stop him from picketing, the Supreme Court just upheld his right to do so.
While Fred Phelps may lead a "church", tracking military personnel doesn't fall under religious freedom. I think the case stated in the OP would be a better example of the question of "religious freedom". However, anti-discrimination laws trump religious freedom of individuals. Basically a religious group/church has the right to do as they wish despite the fact that it may be discriminatory (refuse to marry a same-sex couple because it's against their beliefs, for example) but if you own a business and open your doors to the public, you do NOT have the right to contravene anti-discrimination laws because of your religion.
Not personal reasons, moral reasons as stated in the OP question.
The reason I used the church as an example is because we do have laws on the books about religious discrimination. Suppose ole Fred Phelps came to me and wanted me to write him an application that keeps track of all our military personnel who are killed overseas so he knows where to send his people to picket or he wants some kind of program to track LGBT events in his state/nearby states so again he can send his folks to picket. If I tell him to shove off, hell no, he can take me to court and sue the ever living daylights out of me for religious discrimination. Would he win? Probably so, his lil group of kids boasts 3 lawyers and he was once one himself and a damn good one at that. This is how they make their money to travel. So why shouldn't I have the right to refuse to do business with this man and his religious entity?
Remember he's won all kinds of lawsuits against cities as it is in their attempts to stop him from picketing, the Supreme Court just upheld his right to do so.
From what I understand, you do have the right to not do business with Fred Phelps if you wish due to the ACTIONS of his group. You are not saying, "I am not serving you because you are Baptist."
You would might serve other Baptists, but you are not willing to serve Phelps--the person--b/c of his actions.
I really don't think there would be a case.
My argument is also: that you do yourself (or the LGBT community or any other marginalised community) no favours by supporting laws that allow private business owners to refuse service based on their own religious morals/beliefs. I would also argue that supporting those laws would actually be indirectly supporting a government that has yet to adequately address LGBT rights. Because having the right not be evicted/fired just because you're gay goes hand in hand with having the right to not be denied services just because you're gay.
Yes to this.
If one IS intent on supporting private business owners' right to refuse service based on their moral objections, then how can you agree with any other protections afforded to anyone or being presently fought on our behalf--job protection, housing etc?
The_Lady_Snow
03-18-2011, 06:16 PM
The Masters it's held at Augusta national Club it is a world wide event that is held where one could say it discriminates NO WOMEN are allowed to join..
Amid much criticism of exclusive and discriminatory admissions, Augusta accepted a black member in 1990.[5]
Notable members
Notable current members include:
Bill Gates, co-founder and chairman of Microsoft[6]
Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway[6]
Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric[6]
James D. Robinson III, former CEO of American Express[6]
Harold "Red" Poling, former CEO of the Ford Motor Company[6]
Carl Sanders, former Governor of Georgia[6]
Sam Nunn, former United States Senator from Georgia[6]
T. Boone Pickens, Jr., oil tycoon[6]
Hugh L. McColl Jr., Former CEO of Bank of America[6]
Lou Holtz former College Football coach[7]
Steve Spurrier, current head football coach at the University of South Carolina[citation needed]
Lynn Swann, former NFL player[8]
Pat Haden, former NFL player and current athletic director at the University of Southern California[9]
2002 membership controversy
Augusta National and Chairman Hootie Johnson are widely known for a disagreement beginning in 2002 with Martha Burk, then chairwoman of the Washington-based National Council of Women's Organizations, over admission of female members to Augusta National.[10] Burk contended that hosting the Masters Tournament at a male-only club, constituted sexism[11]. Johnson characterized Burk's approach as "offensive and coercive",[12][13] and responding to efforts to link the issue to sexism and civil rights,[12] Johnson maintained the issue had to do with the rights of any private club.[12]
“ Our membership is single gender just as many other organizations and clubs all across America. These would include junior Leagues, sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and countless others. And we all have a moral and legal right to organize our clubs the way we wish.[14] ”
Burk, whose childhood nickname was also Hootie,[15] claims to have been "called a man hater, anti-family, lesbian, all the usual things."[11] According to former CEO and Chairman of Bank of America Hugh McColl (friend [16] and member of Augusta National),[6] Johnson was portrayed as a Senator Claghorn type[16] (i.e., a blustery defender of all things Southern) despite Johnson's progressive social record.[17] Following the discord, two club members resigned: Thomas H. Wyman, a former CEO of CBS, and John Snow, when President George W. Bush nominated him to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.[11] Pressure on corporate sponsors led the club to broadcast the 2003 and 2004 tournaments without commercials. The club has women on its membership waiting list, but will not allow them to circumvent the regular membership process to appease those outside the club. By 2010, no woman had been admitted to Augusta National. The controversy was discussed by the International Olympic Committee when re-examining whether golf meets Olympic criteria of a "sport practiced without discrimination with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play."[18]
Unfortunately loop holes will and can be found if someone really wishes to enforce what patronage they want in their place of business. In my opinion it's pretty close to hate considering mysoginy and sexism are super close friends. Matter of fact they are one in the same.
Miss Scarlett
03-18-2011, 06:56 PM
Augusta National is a private club and therefore Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not apply to them or any other private club.
"(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b)."
While it may appear that Fred Phelps may not have a case against DomnNC (or any business) for refusing service that determination would be left up to the Courts. Baseless lawsuits are filed all the time far too many in the hope that the deep pockets will open rather than spend thousands on legal fees. Sadly far too many companies/corporations/individuals would rather rollover and pay someone to go away than stand up and fight back.
Didn't many of us think there was no way Phelps would prevail before the Court? You never know what Courts will do...another reason why people would rather settle than fight.
If we (as in the entire LGBT community in the US) put half as much energy into fighting for our equal rights that we do in fighting with each other (or whining about things) we'd have our equality in record time and this discussion would be moot.
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 07:12 PM
If we (as in the entire LGBT community in the US) put half as much energy into fighting for our equal rights that we do in fighting with each other (or whining about things) we'd have our equality in record time and this discussion would be moot.
AFreakingMen!!
The_Lady_Snow
03-18-2011, 07:15 PM
Hence my loop hole comment, they found a way to discriminate, be classiest up to 1990 racist, sexist mysiginistic elitist and this is an event watched and supported by millions (including women).
Anyways I'm off the merry go round I've a spring break to enjoy with 2 of the handsomest guys around.
Latah!
Just b/c someone can go through the backdoor or find a loophole to defy existing protection laws, does that mean that they are not valuable and necessary?
For example, a company may not give the reason that they will not hire someone with a disability...they will say they don't meet the qualifications necessary for the job.
Just b/c we know this unethical and illegal practice is still done, I still would not want people with disabilities to be excluded from Employment/Housing protections.
Miss Scarlett
03-18-2011, 08:05 PM
Just b/c someone can go through the backdoor or find a loophole to defy existing protection laws, does that mean that they are not valuable and necessary?
For example, a company may not give the reason that they will not hire someone with a disability...they will say they don't meet the qualifications necessary for the job.
Just b/c we know this unethical and illegal practice is still done, I still would not want people with disabilities to be excluded from Employment/Housing protections.
In 1990 Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA provides "provides comprehensive civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, State and local government services, and telecommunications."
http://www.ada.gov/
In 1990 Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA provides "provides comprehensive civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, State and local government services, and telecommunications."
http://www.ada.gov/
Miss Scarlett,
I realize that which is why I used it as an example.
Miss Scarlett
03-18-2011, 08:36 PM
Miss Scarlett,
I realize that which is why I used it as an example.
I see. What does Canada have on the books that gives similar protections?
I see. What does Canada have on the books that gives similar protections?
The Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
As well, Ontario, in particular, has its own Disabilities Act.
Miss Scarlett
03-18-2011, 09:05 PM
The Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
As well, Ontario, in particular, has its own Disabilities Act.
I think the CHRA has a wonderful list of prohibited grounds but like most legislation of this type (ADA included) it also contains a handy list of "Exceptions" to be worked around by clever attorneys.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/h-6/index.html
betenoire
03-18-2011, 10:05 PM
Should I (as a member of the GLBT community) accept them as a client knowing full well they are basically going on a witch hunt in MY community???
What if one of my business clients wanted me to do the same thing, since in NC we have no protection due to sexual orientation or gender identification, and they want expressedly state these employees will be fired? Do I retain them as a client and program their system as they wish knowing full well that my peers are going to be terminated???
Again: There is a huge difference between refusing to provide a service that is intended to inflict harm on a minority group (apples) and refusing to provide a service to a minority group (oranges). Actions and people are two different categories.
It confuses me that you think that the only way you can retain your right to not provide a harmful service is to let other people tramp all over your own rights. I can think of a way better way: become a protected class. If it becomes illegal to discriminate against the LGBT community - then it becomes illegal to ask someone to make a spreadsheet to track and fire the gays.
Augusta National is a private club and therefore Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not apply to them or any other private club.
"(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b)."
Exactly. A club and a retail business are different. A private club has an intent and a membership base - so they get to decide who joins their club. The intent of a retail business is to sell flowers, or burgers, or sandwiches, or socks - they do not get to decide who buys their burgers or flowers, but they do get to decide if it's burgers or sandwiches that they intend to peddle. You can't really compare a private club and a burger joint (or a flower shop, or a lunch counter).
I am okay with private clubs being able to decide to only cater to whites, or women, or people who use assistive devices, or redheads. Because it's a club. That's what clubs ARE. And, like we already know, the civil rights act in the US says that clubs -are- exempt and are allowed to choose.
I am not saying that gay people should be allowed to join the Grand Heterosexuals With Bad Mustaches Of America Brotherhood. That's not what I'm getting at. I AM saying that gay people should be allowed to walk into any burger joint, sporting goods store, flower shop, or frilly bra emporium and expect to get served.
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 10:14 PM
What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did! So therefore I would have to provide my service to someone who wants to go on a witch hunt (per my example) lawful or not. Then again I work out of my home for just such a reason, I don't have a retail shop where anyone can walk in off the street, I get my business by word of mouth and I have turned people down if there is something that doesn't sit right with me about them.
suebee
03-18-2011, 10:24 PM
What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did! So therefore I would have to provide my service to someone who wants to go on a witch hunt (per my example) lawful or not. Then again I work out of my home for just such a reason, I don't have a retail shop where anyone can walk in off the street, I get my business by word of mouth and I have turned people down if there is something that doesn't sit right with me about them.
Dom NC: Listen to what is being said. We are talking about DISCRIMINATION, and that is based on someone's prejudices against an identifiable group. Usually it's a minority group like US. We're not talking about giving up all freedom of decision of a business owner. Does someone have the right to refuse service to somebody because they're a dirty (insert racial descriptive here)? No. THAT'S discrimination. Do you have the right to refuse to sit someone in your restaurant who is dirty and stinks? Yes.
I think another part of the difference between the Canadians and Americans in this thread is the huge difference in our tendancies to try and resolve problems through litigation. It's a huge part of American society. It's still a possibility in Canada, but not necessarily the first thing that comes to mind. In addition, rewards given out in law suits are paltry compared to the U.S.
Canadians are just like Americans - except when we're not. ;)
betenoire
03-18-2011, 10:28 PM
What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did! So therefore I would have to provide my service to someone who wants to go on a witch hunt (per my example) lawful or not. Then again I work out of my home for just such a reason, I don't have a retail shop where anyone can walk in off the street, I get my business by word of mouth and I have turned people down if there is something that doesn't sit right with me about them.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. In fact - nobody is saying that.
"what they do" has nothing to do with anything. Businesses have a right to refuse to perform TYPES of services. TYPES of services are not customers. They are types of services.
I want to know if you think that the laws that state you can't refuse to (for example) sell a hamburger to someone just for being Black is a harmful law.
Do you think that the above mentioned law has opened up this giant can of worms that means that Ma and Pa Kettle who own the printing press down the street have to print out "Wanted" posters with the pictures and home addresses of doctors who perform abortions? Do you -really- think that the existing protections for (for example) POC means that business owners now have no rights?
Do you think that if LGBT people were to become similarly protected that it would mean that I could ask my seamstress to embroider "Fuck All Republicans Up The Ass Without Lube" on a teeshirt for me - and that she would not be allowed to say no? Do you -really- think that? If you think that - you're wrong.
Because, again, YOU are talking about actions. I am talking about human beings.
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 10:44 PM
I have already answered that question. We have laws in our Civil Rights Bill that states you cannot refuse to sell as you said a black person a hamburger, we have all those rights for minorities (except LGBT) as far as public services go, restaurants, hotels, etcetcetc.
Again, the question was and I don't care if ya'll say 100 times that you were referring to LGBT people or not. The question was does a business owner have the right to refuse a service based upon his/her moral or religious belief?. I stated two perfect examples of providing a service to someone who *I* would object on MY moral compass to provide those services to regardless if they were indeed a minority themselves! If we had a law where a business owner could NOT object to provide service based upon his/her moral/religious beliefs then YES I would have to provide those services in those two instances. That's what I'm saying and no one can seem to comprehend that!
And no suebee, that is NOT the question, no where in that question does it say discriminate against. The question, hell I'm not going to repeat the question again because it has been sidetracked backwards and forwards. If you want to say Does a business owner have the right to discriminate against anyone based on his/her moral/religious beliefs then ask that! Don't ask does a business owner have the right to refuse service based upon his/her moral or religious beliefs! It's TWO entirely separate questions!!
Apparently 62% of the people taking this poll believe as I do that they should have the right to do so!
betenoire
03-18-2011, 11:03 PM
[B]I have already answered that question. We have laws in our Civil Rights Bill that states you cannot refuse to sell as you said a black person a hamburger, we have all those rights for minorities (except LGBT) as far as public services go, restaurants, hotels, etcetcetc.
No, you did not answer my question. My question was not "does such a law exist" because clearly I already know that the law exists. I want to know if you genuinely believe that the existing laws to protect people are fucking over business owners and if extending those same protections to the LGBT community would fuck business owners over even more. THAT is the question that I asked. I asked it several times, in fact.
Again, the question was and I don't care if ya'll say 100 times that you were referring to LGBT people or not. The question was does a business owner have the right to refuse a service based upon his/her moral or religious belief?.
I'm sorry that you don't care what Soon's intent was. She has made it clear that she wanted to know if it's okay for a business owner to refuse to serve someone from a minority group simply BECAUSE they are a member of said minority group. You don't want to talk about that, that's fine.
I stated two perfect examples of providing a service to someone who *I* would object on MY moral compass to provide those services to regardless if they were indeed a minority themselves! If we had a law where a business owner could NOT object to provide service based upon his/her moral/religious beliefs then YES I would have to provide those services in those two instances. That's what I'm saying and no one can seem to comprehend that!
And nobody disagreed with you. I think that, as a business owner, if someone is asking you to do something shitty that you are free to refuse. I comprehended what you said just fine and dandy, thank you.
And no suebee, that is NOT the question, no where in that question does it say discriminate against.
If a business owner refuses to serve someone just because that person is gay, or Black, or a Hindu, or using a wheelchair - THAT is discrimination.
The question, hell I'm not going to repeat the question again because it has been sidetracked backwards and forwards. If you want to say Does a business owner have the right to discriminate against anyone based on his/her moral/religious beliefs then ask that! Don't ask does a business owner have the right to refuse service based upon his/her moral or religious beliefs! It's TWO entirely separate questions!!
I'm sorry that Soon has let you down by not asking the question correctly. She has since clarified what she meant (several times, might I add). Since you know now what she meant, maybe you can stop typing all those exclamation points about how she did it wrong. Okay?
Apparently 62% of the people taking this poll believe as I do that they should have the right to do so!
OMG Might Makes Right!!!!!
suebee
03-18-2011, 11:14 PM
I have already answered that question. We have laws in our Civil Rights Bill that states you cannot refuse to sell as you said a black person a hamburger, we have all those rights for minorities (except LGBT) as far as public services go, restaurants, hotels, etcetcetc.
Again, the question was and I don't care if ya'll say 100 times that you were referring to LGBT people or not. The question was does a business owner have the right to refuse a service based upon his/her moral or religious belief?. I stated two perfect examples of providing a service to someone who *I* would object on MY moral compass to provide those services to regardless if they were indeed a minority themselves! If we had a law where a business owner could NOT object to provide service based upon his/her moral/religious beliefs then YES I would have to provide those services in those two instances. That's what I'm saying and no one can seem to comprehend that!
And no suebee, that is NOT the question, no where in that question does it say discriminate against. The question, hell I'm not going to repeat the question again because it has been sidetracked backwards and forwards. If you want to say Does a business owner have the right to discriminate against anyone based on his/her moral/religious beliefs then ask that! Don't ask does a business owner have the right to refuse service based upon his/her moral or religious beliefs! It's TWO entirely separate questions!!
Apparently 62% of the people taking this poll believe as I do that they should have the right to do so!
Okay. Under what circumstance should a business owner have the right to refuse service to clients/customers? On religious grounds? Should certain minority groups be protected, or does the business have the right to pick and choose who they serve and for what purpose? Here in Canada we have laws in regards to discrimination and hate speech and crimes. Would that work in the U.S. and why or why not?
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 11:19 PM
Let's make one thing clear, no, I do not advocate a person being denied a service based solely on the fact that they are LGBT and whatever other letters you want to toss behind that.
Try pg 4.
The rest of your reply with the attitude, you may keep it. I'm not going to engage with you in that.
I agreed that the business owner should have the right of refusal (however in this instance she was wrong to do it because there is a law where she resides that states she cannot), I have stated that as well. If there was a law where I lived I'd respect that law, however there is not.
I do believe Howsoon also made a post after her original one that said no gang-piling if you agree with the business owner. I am not the only one who has agreed that business owners should have the choice to refuse service, did you miss those posts or is there some reason that you keep coming back to me and aren't challenging their decision to want to have the same right?
Perhaps you can better utilize your need for condescension and snark elsewhere. Have a good night, chuckles.
BullDog
03-18-2011, 11:20 PM
Unfortunately, Americans tend to value individual rights over equal protection, and if there is any question they think they are not going to get to do what they want they will side with individual rights. I am not ever going to refuse to provide services to someone based on their sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or religion. I may refuse service to someone who is acting like an asshole or wants me to contribute to one of their activities that is harmful or hateful. There's a huge difference there.
If you run a business that caters to the public you don't just get to do whatever you want. If everyone got to do that, no one would pay taxes, adhere to safety and environmental regulations, have the proper business licenses, pay fair wages, etc. When you are in business- no you don't get to do whatever the hell you want.
DomnNC
03-18-2011, 11:22 PM
Okay. Under what circumstance should a business owner have the right to refuse service to clients/customers? On religious grounds? Should certain minority groups be protected, or does the business have the right to pick and choose who they serve and for what purpose? Here in Canada we have laws in regards to discrimination and hate speech and crimes. Would that work in the U.S. and why or why not?
I gave 2 or 3 examples already. I'll not waste my breath going over them again. Have a good night as well.
betenoire
03-18-2011, 11:29 PM
Try pg 4.
The rest of your reply with the attitude, you may keep it. I'm not going to engage with you in that.
I agreed that the business owner should have the right of refusal (however in this instance she was wrong to do it because there is a law where she resides that states she cannot), I have stated that as well. If there was a law where I lived I'd respect that law, however there is not.
I do believe Howsoon also made a post after her original one that said no gang-piling if you agree with the business owner. I am not the only one who has agreed that business owners should have the choice to refuse service, did you miss those posts or is there some reason that you keep coming back to me and aren't challenging their decision to want to have the same right?
Perhaps you can better utilize your need for condescension and snark elsewhere. Have a good night, chuckles.
Actually it's your way of interacting (I feel like you are trying to bully us ladies with all of your exclamation points and claims that "nobody" is able to "comprehend" what you are saying) that has me responding to you.
For example:
I gave 2 or 3 examples already. I'll not waste my breath going over them again. Have a good night as well.
"I'll not waste my breath going over them again." Friendly!
EnderD_503
03-19-2011, 08:33 AM
[B]What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did!
There have been a number of posts in this thread making explicitly clear that this is not what happens when laws are put into place that do not allow a private business owner to legally refuse service. Quite a few posts have pointed out that there is a distinct difference between refusing service based on who the person is, and refusing service based on what the person does or what that person intends to do with that service.
A law that states that private business owners may not refuse service, does not prevent them from refusing service due to some sort of misconduct or an act of discrimination. The law is more specifically in place to protect people from being denied service based on who they are.
So to go back to your example again: You would not be able to deny service to a religious group because they are a religious group. You would be able to deny service to a religious group if they were using your services to directly commit an act of discrimination against a certain group or if they partook in any misconduct in general.
The refusal of service in the second instances would not necessarily be from a personal moral standpoint, but from the stand point of protecting a minority group from discrimination (and whether or not this constitutes morality is debatable).
In the case of the florist, she refused service to the gay couple because they were gay, and because the mere fact that they were gay and getting married went against her personal/religious morals. However, if they walked into her flower shop and started stomping on her flowers, harassing her employees and yelling at her about being Christian and how much they hate all Christians and want them dead...then she'd definitely have grounds to deny them service. A law that denies a business owner the right to refuse service defends people from being denied service on the basis of who they are, even if the denial of service stems from personal/religious morality.
So if Fred Phelps comes into my coffee shop and wants to buy a cup of coffee, I cannot deny him coffee just because he is Fred Phelps and I think he's a douche. But if he began defaming, insulting or generally inciting hatred toward gays, Jews or any other such group, then I would have the right to demand that he leave the shop.
Now I have a feeling that it'll once more come back to the fact that some States don't have these anti-discrimination laws for LGBT folks. However, that has little to do with retaining laws that allow private business owners to deny service on any grounds, be they moral/religious or otherwise. By allowing small businesses to do so, you set up that precedent for discrimination, when in fact there should not only be laws defending citizens from discrimination in the work place and elsewhere, but also laws defending people from being denied service based on who they are simply because the owner disapproves of who they are. Hence the repeated response over and over: fighting for equal rights on all fronts rather than giving up your right to protection entirely just so you can deny a bigot service if they want to use your services for some kind of discriminatory act (which you would be able to do even if the law stated you could not deny service based on moral/religious reasons, because you're denying them service based on their plan to use your services to discriminate.)
A law that denies a business owner the right to refuse service defends people from being denied service on the basis of who they are, even if the denial of service stems from personal/religious morality.
Yes, even if the business owner's denial of service to an interracial couple stems from religious or *moral* objections (a point I haven't addressed), they cannot be denied service due to current federal protections.
Would people like this protection presently afforded the interracial couple removed b/c they believe the business owner's moral and religious beliefs should take precedence over their right to service?
betenoire
03-19-2011, 11:31 AM
Yes, even if the business owner's denial of service to an interracial couple stems from religious or *moral* objections (a point I haven't addressed), they cannot be denied service due to current federal protections.
Would people like this protection presently afforded the interracial couple removed b/c they believe the business owner's moral and religious beliefs should take precedence over their right to service?
And I would just like to stress, again, that in no way is there a similarity between denying someone services because of who they are (race) and refusing to perform a specific distasteful task (making fetus cupcakes) - if there WAS a similarity then business owners in the US would -already- not be allowed to refuse to make fetus cupcakes, since the US -already- has protected people from being denied services because of race/religion/country of origin.
Miss Scarlett
03-19-2011, 11:34 AM
I just came up with this idea for a poll based on this article out of New Brunswick:
Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/03/16/nb-riverview-florist-1009.html)
Apparently, there are still a number of people who feel that this florist's religious beliefs should take precedence over the customer's request for service. Maybe some of you agree that the florist has every right to refuse service to a same sex couple in that it is contrary to her personal beliefs. If so, I'd like to hear why.
There are many in our Canadian community (readers' comments under the CBC article) who DO believe that it is, and should be, an acceptable choice for this private business owner to refuse florist service for a marriage in which she has grave moral objections. Some are citing our freedom of religion clause...others have cited the same document (our Charter as well as NB's human rights' code) in support of the couple and their request for service.
Despite the laws (regarding LGBT protection/equality) where you currently reside, do you believe it is acceptable to refuse service to a customer based on their sexual orientation/gender identity due to a business owner's religious or personal beliefs and objections?
This may be a ridiculous question to be asked of our community, but I was curious if others in our community DO think a business owner's religious/moral beliefs should an acceptable reason to deny a consumer's right to request/purchase a service.
A few things bother me about this whole scenario...
At first glance all parties involved appear to be entitled to protection under the CHRA:
3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
But only one seems to have any clearly spelled out protection under the CHRA:
Denial of good, service, facility or accommodation
5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public
(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or
(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual, on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The florist's refusal sent by email was:
"I am choosing to decline your business. As a born-again Christian, I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter"
Unless 5(b) has been interpreted by the Courts to apply to the providers of such services the florist has no protection at all or unless the following could be applied:
Exceptions
15. (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if:
(g) in the circumstances described in section 5 or 6, an individual is denied any goods, services, facilities or accommodation or access thereto or occupancy of any commercial premises or residential accommodation or is a victim of any adverse differentiation and there is bona fide justification for that denial or differentiation.
Accommodation of needs
(2) For any practice mentioned in paragraph: (1)(g) to be considered to have a bona fide justification, it must be established that accommodation of the needs of an individual or a class of individuals affected would impose undue hardship on the person who would have to accommodate those needs, considering health, safety and cost.
This just makes my skin crawl:
Rules of evidence
(9) In conducting an inquiry, the judge is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive, and base a decision on, evidence presented in the proceedings that the judge considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case.
Certain Boards and Tribunals here in NC have similar Rules of Evidence. Bring on the hearsay!
betenoire
03-19-2011, 11:47 AM
(2) For any practice mentioned in paragraph: (1)(g) to be considered to have a bona fide justification, it must be established that accommodation of the needs of an individual or a class of individuals affected would impose undue hardship on the person who would have to accommodate those needs, considering health, safety and cost.
There's your answer right there. Selling flowers to a gay couple wasn't going to effect the health or safety of the shop owner - and it also wasn't going to profit the shop keeper any less than selling those same flowers to a heterosexual couple would.
Miss Scarlett
03-19-2011, 11:58 AM
There's your answer right there. Selling flowers to a gay couple wasn't going to effect the health or safety of the shop owner - and it also wasn't going to profit the shop keeper any less than selling those same flowers to a heterosexual couple would.
No, it isn't right there.
The owner's emotional health and well-being must be considered. Emotional distress is very real and when someone is forced to do something against their core beliefs there is potential for significant emotional trauma/damage.
betenoire
03-19-2011, 12:04 PM
No, it isn't right there.
The owner's emotional health and well-being must be considered. Emotional distress is very real and when someone is forced to do something against their core beliefs there is potential for significant emotional trauma/damage.
There is already precedence for this.
In one case a person who performs marriages (but not as part of a church, independently from that) refused to perform a same-sex marriage because of his religion. He lost the case. The gay couple won.
In another case a organisation that provides support to people with physical disabilities (Christian Horizons) fired a long-time employee who realised she was a lesbian. Christian Horizons lost the case.
ONLY Churches get to use "it's against our religion" as a basis for refusing service to gays in Canada. ONLY Churches, because religion is the point of church. That's the law. That flower shop is not a church.
ETA - going to work now.
Miss Scarlett
03-19-2011, 12:45 PM
There is already precedence for this.
In one case a person who performs marriages (but not as part of a church, independently from that) refused to perform a same-sex marriage because of his religion. He lost the case. The gay couple won.
In another case a organisation that provides support to people with physical disabilities (Christian Horizons) fired a long-time employee who realised she was a lesbian. Christian Horizons lost the case.
ONLY Churches get to use "it's against our religion" as a basis for refusing service to gays in Canada. ONLY Churches, because religion is the point of church. That's the law. That flower shop is not a church.
I never stated anything about using "against our religion" as a claim to protection under the CHRA because it's not there as a possible protection for any provider such as the aforementioned florist, et al.
Which is my point - there are NO clearly spelled out protections in the CHRA for ANY individuals who are providers acting in the capacity of providers.
The cases you mention appear to address only the legal precedent for "against our religion" matters pertaining to discrimination rather than (or in addition to) the grave emotional harm I addressed. (I would appreciate it if you could provide the case citations so I could read those decisions.)
BTW - the CHRA makes no mention of extending religious, or any other, protections to ONLY churches.
Miss Scarlett
03-19-2011, 01:31 PM
If under the law "Business owner A" is forced to do business with "Customer B" based upon (insert your own scenario), conversely the law should force "Customer B" to patronize the establishment of "Business owner A" based upon the opposite of (insert your own scenario).
If we want everyone treated equally we have to accept the sweet with the sour. Anything else would be lopsided and discriminatory.
Toughy
03-19-2011, 01:49 PM
If the business, club, organization, not-for-profit, religious group receives ANY money from local, state or federal entities and/or ANY tax breaks from any government entity, they cannot refuse to provide services/goods to anyone for any reason (except for health/safety laws).
Religious groups are free to use 'against my religion' for whatever they want, however they cannot be a non-profit. Not-for-profit status is a tax break. I do not believe this is against the 1st Amendment as it does not infringe on religious freedom.
BullDog
03-19-2011, 02:01 PM
No one is forcing anyone to offer goods and/or services to the public. If someone's religious views precludes them from offering goods and/or services to someone based solely on the fact of someone's sexual orientation, race, religion or other individual characteristics that are protected by law, they can choose not to go into business in the first place. Maybe they should work in some isolated cubicle somewhere where they don't have to deal with people at all.
These laws are to protect against discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion and other characteristics that have been historically discriminated against. Why are people arguing against having laws that protect homosexuals/same sex couples from being discriminated against and being denied goods and services?
And what if it's not about moral convictions. What if that person is just an asshole - is it still okay then? Are we okay with a "Heterosexuals Only" sign but not with a "Whites Only" sign? What's the difference? Is it because the first is (in some cases) based on religion and the second is based on rampant jackassery?
Doesn't Title II of the Civil Rights Act in the US already make it so that business owners can't decide not to serve a customer based on race, color, religion, or national origin?
So why then, if we all agree (or do we? do you guys all want to repeal that part of the act or something?) that businesses can't discriminate based on race - why are we okay with businesses discriminating based on sexual orientation?
So...b/c I made it specific regarding serving people of sexual orientation and gender identity, does that stand for other groups of people?
For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?
Even though WE KNOW the law doesn't allow it; doesn't the same principle apply?
What other statuses would it be ok to deny service to?
Besides ours?
Those who believe that it is ok to discriminate based on gender orientation and sexual orientation, why is it NOT OK to discriminate against others based on their religious/moral convictions?
From what I understand, slavery/segregation/anti-miscegenation laws were largely based on people's personal value systems with a lot of biblical justifications. This owner just didn't morally agree with their type of family and refused them service.
This could happen to any of us couples. How is this ok?
However, some are agreeing that it would be fine, and within his rights, for that gas station owner to look at the composition of us as couples and families and agree that it is his right to deny us service based on our sexual orientation or gender identity.
Would it be fine for a woman to be denied access to a private singing school (and shared that she is a church soloist to the owner) b/c the owner believes in the words within the Bible that a woman should remain silent in church?
I remain curious if people would support the removal of the current USA Federally protected classes (age, gender, creed, disability, race? i might be missing something) b/c, these categories, as well, could infringe upon a business owner's personal/religious beliefs.
What if there is one grocery store in a small town.
No food for us?
Thirdly - I want to know, then, since you think it's okay to refuse services to people just for being gay - do you think that there should be no protected classes of people at all? Do you think that business owners should get to turn people away for being Asian? Hindu?
And if you don't think that business owners should be able to turn people away because of their race or their religion - why do you think it's okay to turn people away because of their sexual orientation?
- Is it okay to deny services to someone because of who they are (not because of what they do)
- Even though sexual orientation is not an official protected group in many places, should we be afforded the same protections that people are afforded due to race and religion
- If we should not be a protected group - should there be ANY protected groups?
I'd be really interested in hearing the answers to these questions on refusing someone based on race vs. sexual orientation from those who do think that business owners should have the right to deny service based on religious beliefs/morals.
One could just as easily state that it is morally wrong (according to their religion) for them to provide their service to Jews (sound familiar?) or Muslims. They could do this with people of different ethnicities as well. Should they be legally able to deny their service based on their religious views? Why should they be allowed to refuse service? Whatever happened to equal access and opportunity?
If you are going to deny the queers, you might as well take back all other groups of people who are already federally protected.
What is the difference b/w refusing someone b/c they are queer and refusing someone because they are a woman (etc.)--as long as that person has deep religious or moral objections to a certain class of people, they are entitled to refuse service?
Several of us have asked those who believe that businesses have the right to refuse service based on religious or moral objections, if they are then ready then ready to give up the notion of protected classes ALL TOGETHER?
Are you willing to give up laws that currently protect certain classes b/c you believe that the moral and religious objections of a business owner trumps those of a customer?
To me, those who voted yes they do agree with the right to refuse service based on a business owner's moral or religious objections, then it would make sense to remove all current local and federal protections and certainly not work for the inclusion of any other protected classes.
.
Why are people arguing against having laws that protect homosexuals/same sex couples from being discriminated against and being denied goods and services?
....................
Thanks, in advance, to anyone who will respond to any/some of these questions.
Toughy
03-19-2011, 02:19 PM
No one is forcing anyone to offer goods and/or services to the public. If someone's religious views precludes them from offering goods and/or services to someone based solely on the fact of someone's sexual orientation, race, religion or other individual characteristics that are protected by law, they can choose not to go into business in the first place. Maybe they should work in some isolated cubicle somewhere where they don't have to deal with people at all.
These laws are to protect against discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion and other characteristics that have been historically discriminated against. Why are people arguing against having laws that protect homosexuals/same sex couples from being discriminated against and being denied goods and services?
Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.
I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).
(ps.....I have a libertarian streak :|)
BullDog
03-19-2011, 02:25 PM
Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.
I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).
(ps.....I have a libertarian streak :|)
Actually no I wasn't responding to your post. So you think it's ok for someone to deny offering their services to someone based on their sexual orientation or race?
Would people like this protection presently afforded the interracial couple removed b/c they believe the business owner's moral and religious beliefs should take precedence over their right to service?
I knew I would overlook one along the same idea.
If I missed others, I think the point involved in these series of questions is apparent. (?)
Toughy
03-19-2011, 03:04 PM
Actually no I wasn't responding to your post. So you think it's ok for someone to deny offering their services to someone based on their sexual orientation or race?
My personal feelings are not really the point. However.........no I don't think it's right and yes I would do my best to avoid giving them my money or time.
Folks/business DO have the right to discriminate against queers or folks who like sparkly stuffed ponies/poodles. However the government certainly cannot reward said business/individuals for having discriminatory practices. No personal or business tax breaks. If your tax bracket is 37%. then 37% of your personal and business income (and I mean ALL income....no deductions ever allowed. Period. Full Stop.)
The government cannot discriminate or reward those who do. Individuals and organizations certainly can, but at a pretty big cost in the area of taxes and government programs.
BullDog
03-19-2011, 03:20 PM
Toughy, I am a former accountant so I am familiar with the tax code. Beyond that, I don't know what you are saying.
Toughy
03-19-2011, 04:43 PM
to help stop discrimination you must make it less profitable because passing laws is not very effective......
well..........you know all those tax deductions you and every other accountant get for your clients..,those deductions that lower the actual percentage of taxes paid by said business? If one of those clients has discriminatory practices or policies then they get NO tax deductions on their income taxes......they are not eligible for any deductions and will pay exactly what their tax bracket is by law....it works this way:
business tax bracket is 37% of total income
deductions/breaks/subsidies/etc lower percentage payed to 5%
business gets a 32% tax deduction.
business discriminates & tax bracket is 37%
therefore business MUST pay 37% of all income as taxes
because they discriminate they get NO deductions.
as an individual I will do my best to avoid patronizing said business because I do not agree with the business plan, practices, and/or policies
I am talking about governments laws practices and policies vs business practices and policies. Tax deductions are a privilege not a right. deductions are an incentive toward good business practices. The government should not reward repugnant businesses with tax breaks/deductions/subsidies/programs.
This is a capitalist society......profit is king......discrimination makes you pay more taxes and you get less profit,,,,,,,,, business will stop discriminating because it is less profitable
Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.
I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).
(ps.....I have a libertarian streak :|)
Toughy,
Doesn't your government already tell you that you cannot discriminate in your private business against certain groups of people?
Didn't your government intervene to stop unfair and prejudicial business practices with Title 2 of Civil Rights Act?
I am asking if people believe that private businesses should be allowed to deny services based on that owner's religious or moral beliefs.
Because of the Civil Rights Act, isn't it true that a local store cannot deny a Muslim couple goods and services just because the owners don't approve of non-Christians?
I thought that since this law has been in place since 1964 that people would largely agree that a private business cannot deny service--regardless of the owner's moral or religious beliefs--to someone based on that person's, race, religion, gender, or ethnicity....and, consequently, support a queer couple's right to goods and services as well.
adorable
03-19-2011, 05:15 PM
I think there is a difference in reserving the right to refuse service to anyone and discrimination.
As a manager I have refused service to people. All kinds of people, for a variety of reasons. But I have not targeted a specific group of people except when I have....like "locals." I manage a hotel. We don't like locals. We don't want locals staying at the property. There are exceptions of course, some people are remodeling their house, there might be a water or some other type of emergency....but overall locals are staying with us because there is something that they don't want to do at home. Whether it's set up a meth lab, cheat, deal drugs, prostitute or throw a party. It's never anything good for my business.
But we can't have a blatant no locals policy. The reason we can't is because of a case where a hotel owner refused to let locals stay. The reason they did it is because high school kids were reserving rooms for huge parties, trashing the hotel, throwing up in the halls and generally causing a huge headache.
Because most of the kids were local - they just said "No locals." The only problem with that policy was that the geographic area for locals was populated mainly by minorities. (Even though the high school kids they were really trying to keep away were mostly white.) The hotel owner lost a huge lawsuit because the courts decided it was a discriminatory policy.
I rent to people I can't stand personally all the time. Church groups and hunters are a couple big ones. I hate guns. I hate seeing a bunch of strangers walking around the hotel with shotguns which are "too expensive to be left in the truck." People saying to me "Praise Jesus, God is good." Every single time they interact with me in large numbers is just as strange to me as the guys talking to me with shotguns on their shoulders. I smile and nod just the same. Oh, and thank them for coming so that they come back next year.
The good of the business dictates that I don't turn away good customers, regardless of how I feel about their belief's, views or politics. It's best not to discuss it. That is different then people who I feel may put other guests happiness and enjoyment of the property in jeopardy. I have had people set up meth labs (which can level and entire city block,) drug dealers raided by swat, pimps beating up the prostitutes, drunken contractors fist fighting in the halls, college kids on three day crack binges....race has nothing to do with any of it. In fact, no one could guess what goes on in someone's room based on how they look. I have had very wealthy appearing people check in, only to have the FBI check in right behind them and want to be in the room across the hall. Ugh. Anything that brings the police to the property = bad. That hurts business. Paying customers that don't cause drama and are spending money - we want. I don't have to live with them, they eventually check out.
/snipped/
to help stop discrimination you must make it less profitable because passing laws is not very effective......
I have to disagree that passing laws isn't very effective in preventing or reducing discrimination.
I think when businesses realized (and public school boards -- who lately are getting sued a lot due to discriminations against LGBT students) that they can be CHARGED by the federal government, as well SUED by the consumer, due to existing legislation, it makes a very large impact!
Do we see any more signs that say whites only?
If a business did that today they would be charged and sued -- EVEN if the owner's personal beliefs didn't approve of different races mingling.
I think laws were and are necessary to prevent this kind of discrimination.
Toughy
03-19-2011, 09:01 PM
Toughy,
Doesn't your government already tell you that you cannot discriminate in your private business against certain groups of people?
yes it does, however that does not mean I agree with the laws
Didn't your government intervene to stop unfair and prejudicial business practices with Title 2 of Civil Rights Act?
I'll take your word that it's Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act. I'm not so sure the goal has been accomplished.....depending on where you live.
I am asking if people believe that private businesses should be allowed to deny services based on that owner's religious or moral beliefs.
YES I do think private business should be allowed to deny services based on religious or moral beliefs. I don't believe they should get any tax break or any other governmental monetary reward for doing so. It needs to be a bad business model to deny services to anyone in a discriminatory fashion.
Because of the Civil Rights Act, isn't it true that a local store cannot deny a Muslim couple goods and services just because the owners don't approve of non-Christians?
Yeppers that is a true stateent. Ask any Muslim how it's working for them.
I thought that since this law has been in place since 1964 that people would largely agree that a private business cannot deny service--regardless of the owner's moral or religious beliefs--to someone based on that person's, race, religion, gender, or ethnicity....and, consequently, support a queer couple's right to goods and services as well.
As Gomer Pyle used to say SIR PRIZE SIR PRIZE with that goofy ass look on his face.
The problem with having protected classes is every time a new group gets added to the protected classes, a huge ass long nasty hateful debate occurs prior to adding them. Lines are drawn and folks are shoved in various boxes. The government finally adds them or doesn't add them and the nasty crap continues for at least 50 years.
It's not safe in parts of many states for a POC to be walking around....same goes for queers, muslims, jews, and _____ . It's been close to 60 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed. In many places the effect of that has been violence moving underground and folks still not safe.
In hind sight, one could argue that the Civil Rights Act has in some ways made it worse for the black community. Once integration passed and white businesses were forced to allow blacks in their businesses, thousands of black businesses went bankrupt. A booming black middle class came to a screeching halt as black business owners lost customers by the hundreds and had to close go bankrupt.
It's a hella big conundrum. What would have happened if instead of forced integration and decimation of black businesses, the government had allowed whites only business to continue, and had taken away every single tax deduction those white business were allowed? What if it had hurt the bottom line for those business?
These are just some thoughts that run through my head.
Toughy
03-19-2011, 09:06 PM
/snipped/
I have to disagree that passing laws isn't very effective in preventing or reducing discrimination.
I think when businesses realized (and public school boards -- who lately are getting sued a lot due to discriminations against LGBT students) that they can be CHARGED by the federal government, as well SUED by the consumer, due to existing legislation, it makes a very large impact!
Do we see any more signs that say whites only?
If a business did that today they would be charged and sued -- EVEN if the owner's personal beliefs didn't approve of different races mingling.
I think laws were and are necessary to prevent this kind of discrimination.
actually there are still whites only signs in this coutry.......go about 300 miles north of SF and you will find them.......
Business that did change did so because they lost MONEY. It's all about the money in capitalism. They did not change because their hearts changed or because it was against the law. They changed because of money.
I also think there is a second discussion about the role of government in business and in business regulation.
betenoire
03-19-2011, 09:50 PM
We do have freedom of religion in Canada, but there are limits placed on that freedom. I'm okay with that. What if your religion said that you could (and should!) have several wives (all of whom are under the legal age at the time that you marry them)? That's what the limits on freedom of religion are for. You're free to believe what you want, assemble with other believers, talk about your belief - up to the point that your religious practices break the law or harm someone else. I don't think that's unfair.
Just for fun:
Toronto printing press owner refused to print out letterheads and envelopes with the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives logo on them (http://www.queensu.ca/humanrights/hreb/Religion/Brockie.htm) because he's a "born again Christian". They sued. He lost. He had to pay the Archives 5k and also had to pay their legal fees on top of his own legal fees.
This little tidbit should be interesting to the people from the "omg but that would mean that I can be forced to make milkshakes with the blood of virgins at my place of business because I'm not allowed to say no to anything!!!!" camp: While it was ruled that he could not refuse to do letterheads for them, it was also ruled that he was welcome to refuse to print out literature that was against his religion.
BullDog
03-19-2011, 10:04 PM
Toughy, you sound like Ron Paul, the Conservative Republican Congressman from Texas who opposed the renewal of the Civil Rights Act in 2004.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Son Rand is following in his footsteps and is part of the Tea Party Movement. Oh yes, and I believe they are both Libertarians as well.
Martina
03-19-2011, 10:16 PM
It is true that corporations' desire for gay people's money and the talents of gay folks as employees has created faster change than legal interventions would have. Still we need legal protections.
betenoire
03-19-2011, 11:06 PM
Toughy,
I gotta give you mad props for answering. Every other person who was opposed to LGBT folks becoming a protect class who I asked if they thought there should be no protected classes refused to answer. (Not sure why?)
That's what I like about you. Unafraid to say something that could potentially be unpopular or misunderstood takes guts. I like guts. I like your guts. :)
I'm not going to lie, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Because I'm not American, I'm young enough that I wasn't alive when it happened, and because I'm White. Fuck, I'll own that. I've got that very White tendency to not know how things actually are - I try, but when it boils down to it I'm still pretty ignorant.
But, you know, not so ignorant that I don't get that there was backlash and is backlash. I also get that if "sexual orientation" becomes a protected class that there will be backlash to that too - but baby the times are a changin' and I want to believe that the immediate ugly wouldn't be as bad now as it was then.
And to me backlash (or the potential that there will be backlash) isn't reason enough to not want protection for my queer friends in the US.
In Canada sexual orientation was added to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1995, and in 96 we were added to the Human Rights Act. The 90s were wicked-heavy on culture wars issues (which I guess was our backlash) but I can't see any evidence that becoming protected has harmed my community in any way.
adorable
03-20-2011, 06:30 AM
Having a protected class is important for me personally because it draws attention to the bigger issue.
My grandfather is 82 years old. He is prejudice and racist. Not according to him mind you. One thing that I've always found very interesting that he said is that "if blacks would just assimilate they wouldn't have all these problems."
Well, alrighty! Why didn't black people just think of that? He hated the Irish and Italians just as much. Because when he was little, most of the Italians and Irish in our town were immigrants that couldn't speak English well. As a town, everyone hated them. They were different. But, goes my grandfather's argument, they assimilated so now no one hates the Italians and Irish anymore.
He did drop out of school in the 3rd grade.
Black people and hispanics cannot "assimilate." Arabs and, I would argue, Jews struggle too. Neither can most gays, queers, fags, dykes, lesbians or the rest of our little rainbow. They stand out. This is where a protected class matters. Is there a backlash? Sure. The south is still a very different place then the north.
Over time, things slowly change because there is no government tolerance of hate. When any government has a policy of hate and discrimination or there is a silence on such things, obscene things are allowed to happen. WWII Germany is a good example. Segregation in this country is too. Lynching, slavery, murder - all things bad that were allowed by the government. Don't ask don't tell, outward discrimination towards of all people, our military. Sexual harassment of women at work or flat out refusing to hire women...There are a million examples but it's too early for me to think of more right now.
There was a time when the KKK was a powerhouse in this country. Today? They are more of an annoyance during their occasional march. They were marginalized because as a country we decided to move past it. The way we do that is by passing laws that unify us against stupidity. Forcing the issue, makes it an actual issue that people can no longer deny. It also makes crime and discrimination against a protected class EXPENSIVE. Once it's not easy to discriminate, companies change their policies and people's attitudes slowly change.
Sloooowly. There is still prejudice, discrimination, hate, and ignorance. With a protected class, we say "These people here, THESE people, they belong to us - leave them alone." There are laws. It's not enough. Attitudes change slowly over generations only with constant reminders from the government (which WE are a part of.) The government is more then an annoying bureaucracy it's also a collective majority with the power to change lives through legislation.
It does and has changed all of our lives. We CAN march. We CAN vote. We CAN work. We CAN own property. And if anyone questions our right to do that we CAN sue the shit out of them. People CAN be charged with hate crimes for hurting one of us.
I personally don't care if someone doesn't like me because I'm queer. We can't force people to like each other. But I do care very much that the government doesn't discriminate against me and that they not send a message that it's ok for others to do the same. I can "assimilate" until I go apply for a marriage license, join the army, end up in the hospital, want a raise, or want to adopt. Blacks and Hispanics, have no problem getting marriage licenses as long as their straight, but have a much harder time getting a job regardless of sexual orientation.
As minority groups we are not all in the same place at the same time but we are all in the same boat. Any in roads help us all, and setbacks hurt us all.
Chancie
03-20-2011, 06:48 AM
I am perfectly comfortable refusing my personal help or services to a someone with whom I have a serious ideological difference.
As a public school teacher,
I am morally and legally obligated to extend my professional efforts to all of my students, regardless of their ill thought out offensive opinions.
But, I will not extend myself to a student who is being disciplined for calling someone a 'dyke' or a 'nigger' the way I would extend myself to a student who was in trouble for failing a math test.
I would certainly withhold my expertise from someone who wished to hire me privately.
Toughy
03-20-2011, 02:03 PM
Toughy, you sound like Ron Paul, the Conservative Republican Congressman from Texas who opposed the renewal of the Civil Rights Act in 2004.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Son Rand is following in his footsteps and is part of the Tea Party Movement. Oh yes, and I believe they are both Libertarians as well.
Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul (recently elected to the US Senate from Kentucky) both claim Libertarian over conservative Republican. There is a difference between the two. I don't understand why Libertarians have moved to the Republican side since their views on individual rights are certainly more in line with Democrats.
On the surface what I suggested certainly does sound like the Pauls. It's not anywhere near their politics. Libertarians don't believe in Government at all. No Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury (and the Federal Reserve), Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security and a whole bunch of other Cabinet level jobs.
What I suggested is the role of government (in this instance) is to motivate business to act right by costing them that all mighty profit. And it's not limited to discrimination. All the big oil, big agriculture (ADM, Monsanto), ________ companies get government subsidies even though they damn sure don't need them...what the fuck is that about. WalMart pays less in taxes than I pay....and yes that is true......yet has the largest class action discrimination lawsuit ever filed in this country. Why are they getting subsidies, tax deductions from the Government? Cities and States (and federal) routinely give very profitable businesses big ass tax breaks to locate plants, headquarters, etc in their city/states. Why???? And why are they getting those breaks when they are being sued for discriminatory practices? Filing a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar business will only drain money out of the Treasury, because those businesses can pay off anyone/everyone and flood tons and tons of paperwork on the plantiff. I'm willing to bet if they had to pay ALL their taxes no exceptions, some of their practices will certainly change. It's a law, but a law attacking a different method of changing abhorrent business practices.
Toughy
03-20-2011, 02:13 PM
Toughy,
I gotta give you mad props for answering. Every other person who was opposed to LGBT folks becoming a protect class who I asked if they thought there should be no protected classes refused to answer. (Not sure why?)
That's what I like about you. Unafraid to say something that could potentially be unpopular or misunderstood takes guts. I like guts. I like your guts. :)
I'm not going to lie, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Because I'm not American, I'm young enough that I wasn't alive when it happened, and because I'm White. Fuck, I'll own that. I've got that very White tendency to not know how things actually are - I try, but when it boils down to it I'm still pretty ignorant.
But, you know, not so ignorant that I don't get that there was backlash and is backlash. I also get that if "sexual orientation" becomes a protected class that there will be backlash to that too - but baby the times are a changin' and I want to believe that the immediate ugly wouldn't be as bad now as it was then.
And to me backlash (or the potential that there will be backlash) isn't reason enough to not want protection for my queer friends in the US.
In Canada sexual orientation was added to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1995, and in 96 we were added to the Human Rights Act. The 90s were wicked-heavy on culture wars issues (which I guess was our backlash) but I can't see any evidence that becoming protected has harmed my community in any way.
Under our current system, there is no choice but to have protected classes and I support having protected classes.
I was just trying to get at the problem in a different way, which ain't ever gonna happen. Thinking outside the box if you will.
I do not believe in assimilation..........this country should not be a melting pot.......it should be a salad bowl. Our differences make us stronger..........assimilation makes us weaker.
(I feel the same way about you)
BullDog
03-20-2011, 02:21 PM
Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul (recently elected to the US Senate from Kentucky) both claim Libertarian over conservative Republican. There is a difference between the two. I don't understand why Libertarians have moved to the Republican side since their views on individual rights are certainly more in line with Democrats.
On the surface what I suggested certainly does sound like the Pauls. It's not anywhere near their politics. Libertarians don't believe in Government at all. No Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury (and the Federal Reserve), Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security and a whole bunch of other Cabinet level jobs.
What I suggested is the role of government (in this instance) is to motivate business to act right by costing them that all mighty profit. And it's not limited to discrimination. All the big oil, big agriculture (ADM, Monsanto), ________ companies get government subsidies even though they damn sure don't need them...what the fuck is that about. WalMart pays less in taxes than I pay....and yes that is true......yet has the largest class action discrimination lawsuit ever filed in this country. Why are they getting subsidies, tax deductions from the Government? Cities and States (and federal) routinely give very profitable businesses big ass tax breaks to locate plants, headquarters, etc in their city/states. Why???? And why are they getting those breaks when they are being sued for discriminatory practices? Filing a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar business will only drain money out of the Treasury, because those businesses can pay off anyone/everyone and flood tons and tons of paperwork on the plantiff. I'm willing to bet if they had to pay ALL their taxes no exceptions, some of their practices will certainly change. It's a law, but a law attacking a different method of changing abhorrent business practices.
I certainly don't think the current tax code is fair. However, I also don't think significant social change is going to happen through tweaking the tax code.
We shouldn't have to have protected classes but until racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia are done away with, I do think that Civil Rights Acts and Equal Protection under the law is necessary and worth fighting for.
Your previous post sounded to me as though you thought we would be better off without the Civil Rights Act.
Toughy
03-20-2011, 03:40 PM
I wasn't talking 'tweek' at all............I was and am talking major overhaul of tax tax code as well as all the other government incentives that keep being given to business that does not need it at all.............
take all the incentive money given to the fossil fuel industry and give it to real green industries (and clean coal does not exist and is fossil fuel) such as solar wind....car industry that is developing non fossil fuel power......
and any of the above business that gets convicted of any type of discrimination loses that government incentive.........
good convo........thanks
Toughy
03-20-2011, 03:44 PM
The Civil Rights Act should not be a sacred cow never to be scrutinized..........it certainly has affected many protected classes both positively and negatively.......as has Affirmative Action.
BullDog
03-20-2011, 03:51 PM
I wasn't talking 'tweek' at all............I was and am talking major overhaul of tax tax code as well as all the other government incentives that keep being given to business that does not need it at all.............
take all the incentive money given to the fossil fuel industry and give it to real green industries (and clean coal does not exist and is fossil fuel) such as solar wind....car industry that is developing non fossil fuel power......
and any of the above business that gets convicted of any type of discrimination loses that government incentive.........
good convo........thanks
OK, I agree with taking incentive money from the oil industry and funneling it into green industries. I agree that the oil companies don't need any tax breaks.
I don't believe in tax breaks for big business unless they are providing jobs or developing new industries such as your example of green industries and developing cars that run on non fossil fuels- something Obama has called for since he ran for President. Those types of new technologies are better for the environment and can also create new jobs.
I don't believe social change will come about through changing the tax code, but we certainly could do better with our finances and use our resources for the betterment of society rather than lining corporate coffers and funding wars.
Toughy
03-20-2011, 07:48 PM
I don't believe social change will come about through changing the tax code, but we certainly could do better with our finances and use our resources for the betterment of society rather than lining corporate coffers and funding wars.
I agree tax code change alone won't do it, but it certainly can be another tool in the box........it certainly can affect profit margins and give help to anti-discrimination laws.......
comprehensive solutions from a big picture perspective rather than a band-aid solution for each particular problem.....all of it is inter-related and needs an inter-related approach........
Gemme
03-20-2011, 11:03 PM
I just came up with this idea for a poll based on this article out of New Brunswick:
Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/03/16/nb-riverview-florist-1009.html)
Apparently, there are still a number of people who feel that this florist's religious beliefs should take precedence over the customer's request for service. Maybe some of you agree that the florist has every right to refuse service to a same sex couple in that it is contrary to her personal beliefs. If so, I'd like to hear why.
There are many in our Canadian community (readers' comments under the CBC article) who DO believe that it is, and should be, an acceptable choice for this private business owner to refuse florist service for a marriage in which she has grave moral objections. Some are citing our freedom of religion clause...others have cited the same document (our Charter as well as NB's human rights' code) in support of the couple and their request for service.
Despite the laws (regarding LGBT protection/equality) where you currently reside, do you believe it is acceptable to refuse service to a customer based on their sexual orientation/gender identity due to a business owner's religious or personal beliefs and objections?
This may be a ridiculous question to be asked of our community, but I was curious if others in our community DO think a business owner's religious/moral beliefs should an acceptable reason to deny a consumer's right to request/purchase a service.
I see that the thread has gone in a bit of a different direction, but I opted only to answer the OP's initial question.
After 4 pages, I'm sure it's been said, but a business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That doesn't make it fun when we're the ones being refused service, but it's their right. They are the ones losing out on the sale.
EnderD_503
03-21-2011, 10:59 AM
The problem with having protected classes is every time a new group gets added to the protected classes, a huge ass long nasty hateful debate occurs prior to adding them. Lines are drawn and folks are shoved in various boxes. The government finally adds them or doesn't add them and the nasty crap continues for at least 50 years.
It's not safe in parts of many states for a POC to be walking around....same goes for queers, muslims, jews, and _____ . It's been close to 60 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed. In many places the effect of that has been violence moving underground and folks still not safe.
In hind sight, one could argue that the Civil Rights Act has in some ways made it worse for the black community. Once integration passed and white businesses were forced to allow blacks in their businesses, thousands of black businesses went bankrupt. A booming black middle class came to a screeching halt as black business owners lost customers by the hundreds and had to close go bankrupt.
It's a hella big conundrum. What would have happened if instead of forced integration and decimation of black businesses, the government had allowed whites only business to continue, and had taken away every single tax deduction those white business were allowed? What if it had hurt the bottom line for those business?
These are just some thoughts that run through my head.
I had some thoughts to this post that I'm gonna throw out here. Adorable wrote on the decline of the KKK over the years, and that kind of started my train of thought here. It also makes me wonder if the strong presence of racism in some states is moreso because of the fact that the government hasn’t taken stronger measures to suppress it entirely. I know that Nazi Germany is a more extreme case, however, given where the States sits with racism/minority rights compared with modern Germany and other European nations that suffered dictatorships, I wonder why the US seems to be one of the only ones that has not remedied the effects of its past.
I decided not to use Canada as an example on this one because, even though we possess many similar laws and policies as Western Europe (primarily laws referred to in this thread: not permitting business owners to refuse service), we do not have a history of extreme xenophobia to the extent of the US, Nazi Germany or Spain under Franco. That isn’t to say we haven’t had our share in the past, because we have, however, I’m not sure that it’s comparable to the US.
When Nazi Germany fell, Germany took measures (and continues to take measures) to assure that it would never be easy for a group like the Nazis to come into power again. Today these measures continue: the swastika is still banned, Neo-Nazi organisations and media are illegal (and this is taken very seriously, despite that some groups still exist) and, perhaps most importantly, the German government has hate speech laws in place that make it illegal for anyone to publicly insult, defame or generally incite hatred toward any minority group. It is also illegal to refuse service on the basis of race/ethnicity.
But the US government hasn’t really taken such drastic measures. Freedom of speech laws continue to protect bigots who would, given the chance, eradicate any group that does not conform to their world view. I do not understand the need to allow free speech for people who specifically incite hatred for other groups. That kind of "freedom" does not benefit society in any way whatsoever, and instead threatens social progress. In fact, I think this is a huge reason why the US is so behind when it comes to minority/human rights compared with other Western nations, and why European neo-nazi groups are able to expand online through American domains/"free speech" laws. I understand the need to protect speech, however, that speech should only extend as far as there is no desire to eradicate or discriminate against groups based on inherent, unchangeable traits (the person themselves vs. actions committed).
Same goes with making it illegal to allow business owners to refuse service to protected classes, including LGBT. And I do wonder whether the strong racism/homophobia etc. in certain areas of the US are not due to the US government’s negligence on actually cracking down on all avenues of racism (or all forms of bigotry for that matter), rather than the Civil Rights Act (I think progress would have been even slower without it) as you suggest.
adorable
03-21-2011, 02:01 PM
I had some thoughts to this post that I'm gonna throw out here. Adorable wrote on the decline of the KKK over the years, and that kind of started my train of thought here. It also makes me wonder if the strong presence of racism in some states is moreso because of the fact that the government hasn’t taken stronger measures to suppress it entirely. I know that Nazi Germany is a more extreme case, however, given where the States sits with racism/minority rights compared with modern Germany and other European nations that suffered dictatorships, I wonder why the US seems to be one of the only ones that has not remedied the effects of its past.
Because the US is different and relatively new. Our history is nothing compared to that of other countries. And, we joined in an already flourishing slave trade. We didn't invent it. In other countries whites were also slaves. So rather then it having to do with skin color, it had to do with class. There are still class and caste structures around the world that reflect less than modern thinking. We don't supress in this country for good reason. Someone would have to decide who and what should be supressed. Our freedom, my freedom, their freedom..depends entirely on respecting everyone's freedom - even if that means to hate. You will ask 30 people what shouldn't be allowed and you will get 30 different answers, all based on their personal preferences.
I decided not to use Canada as an example on this one because, even though we possess many similar laws and policies as Western Europe (primarily laws referred to in this thread: not permitting business owners to refuse service), we do not have a history of extreme xenophobia to the extent of the US, Nazi Germany or Spain under Franco. That isn’t to say we haven’t had our share in the past, because we have, however, I’m not sure that it’s comparable to the US.
Canada is just as bad.
http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org/
When Nazi Germany fell, Germany took measures (and continues to take measures) to assure that it would never be easy for a group like the Nazis to come into power again. Today these measures continue: the swastika is still banned, Neo-Nazi organisations and media are illegal (and this is taken very seriously, despite that some groups still exist) and, perhaps most importantly, the German government has hate speech laws in place that make it illegal for anyone to publicly insult, defame or generally incite hatred toward any minority group. It is also illegal to refuse service on the basis of race/ethnicity.
Germany did that which is was forced to do. Just like they didn't get to have a military anymore. The German people were not in charge following WWII anymore then the Japanese were. The nazi's represent hate and opression NOW, at the time, they were the working class party. When you combine the working class, a generally under educated population with a poor economy bad things generally happen, regardless of laws on the books.
But the US government hasn’t really taken such drastic measures. Freedom of speech laws continue to protect bigots who would, given the chance, eradicate any group that does not conform to their world view. I do not understand the need to allow free speech for people who specifically incite hatred for other groups. That kind of "freedom" does not benefit society in any way whatsoever, and instead threatens social progress. In fact, I think this is a huge reason why the US is so behind when it comes to minority/human rights compared with other Western nations, and why European neo-nazi groups are able to expand online through American domains/"free speech" laws. I understand the need to protect speech, however, that speech should only extend as far as there is no desire to eradicate or discriminate against groups based on inherent, unchangeable traits (the person themselves vs. actions committed).
Because there are plenty of people who would LOVE it if this site didn't exist. If we didn't march. If we didn't have a voice. Who is right? We are of course!
Same goes with making it illegal to allow business owners to refuse service to protected classes, including LGBT. And I do wonder whether the strong racism/homophobia etc. in certain areas of the US are not due to the US government’s negligence on actually cracking down on all avenues of racism (or all forms of bigotry for that matter), rather than the Civil Rights Act (I think progress would have been even slower without it) as you suggest.
Certain areas of the US are less educated. Education matters. I grew up lower working class. It was only through education that I realized most of what I had learned from my family was BS. Unless long held family belief's are challenged at some point in your life, the tendency is go with it. Laws help because it gets people talking about it, makes people pay for it and at least stops people from acting out. Some people realize the absurdity racism/predjudice on their own, and chose not to participate. Others need to be taught, challenged, fought with, ect.
In the US we aren't perfect. BUT there are worse places to be. The right to refuse service is a helleva lot better then being stoned to death in the public square.
suebee
03-21-2011, 02:31 PM
Adorable, what do you mean when you say "Canada is just as bad". It's a pretty general statement.
betenoire
03-21-2011, 05:04 PM
Adorable, what do you mean when you say "Canada is just as bad". It's a pretty general statement.
I presume she meant because both Canada and the US had abusive residential schools that First Nations children were shipped off to. (since that's what the link she posted was about. well, the link was about the ones in Canada she didn't mention the ones in the US - although I'm certain she's aware of those schools in the US.)
Canada and the US share some really abhorrent historical practices. We both had slavery. We both had abusive church run and government funded residential schools with the aim to "westernize" First Nations children. We both had internment camps for Japanese, German, and Italian Americans and Canadians during WWII.
suebee
03-21-2011, 05:40 PM
I presume she meant because both Canada and the US had abusive residential schools that First Nations children were shipped off to. (since that's what the link she posted was about. well, the link was about the ones in Canada she didn't mention the ones in the US - although I'm certain she's aware of those schools in the US.)
Canada and the US share some really abhorrent historical practices. We both had slavery. We both had abusive church run and government funded residential schools with the aim to "westernize" First Nations children. We both had internment camps for Japanese, German, and Italian Americans and Canadians during WWII.
Oh, I understand what she meant. But it's much too easy to post a link to a page called "hidden from history" - which sounds sensationalist - and then abandon ship. The story of the residential schools was FAR from hidden, though it might come as a surprise to Americans, who aren't taught as much Canadian history as we are American. Every time a conversation about racism comes up it seems that somebody posts a link to prove Canada had internment camps for Japanese-Canadians or that slavery existed here too. I think the difference is the level of racial tension that exists in our two countries at the present time. For some reason it hasn't evolved the same way for both of us. The current racial climate is much more volitile in the States than Canada. And I think the way we deal with civil rights is different too. The subject of this thread is a fine example of this. Individual rights are protected with such ferocity in the States that collective rights seem to suffer. Whereas we seem much more accepting of legislation of rights of groups of people as a WAY to ensure individual rights in Canada. I've certainly believed this for a long time, and this thread has served to reiterate this perception for me.
Toughy
03-21-2011, 07:04 PM
laughin.....little sensitive are we suebee :mohawk: edited to add: making laws does not "insure' individual rights
that little mohawk avatar could certainly be considered racist as hell............so whose sensitivities should be legislated?
I was always told that you can't legislate morality. All these protected class laws are doing is attempting to force everyone to think the 'right way' as defined by the government. The Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were really good at doing just that.
Under the current legislative landscape, I have no choice but to support protected classes while I work to change and be creative about how to effect equality for everyone.
suebee
03-21-2011, 07:29 PM
I am as passionate in my posts as others are sarcastic and disrespectful Toughy. I debate topics with Adorable every day on facebook. I have no worries about posting a strongly worded response to her post. I know she'll actually DEBATE it if she decides to come back. It's too bad you weren't curious about the differences between our cultures. It might give you a little food for thought.
Toughy
03-21-2011, 08:04 PM
I am as passionate in my posts as others are sarcastic and disrespectful Toughy. I debate topics with Adorable every day on facebook. I have no worries about posting a strongly worded response to her post. I know she'll actually DEBATE it if she decides to come back. It's too bad you weren't curious about the differences between our cultures. It might give you a little food for thought.
good grief it was just a little teasing..........
<shaking my head>
adorable
03-21-2011, 08:32 PM
Sue, can I borrow a million coins?
My post about Canada was a direct response to Ender's post. I just wanted to point out that Canada does have a history, as most countries, including the US. My extensive research for that one sentence post was a google search for "canadian atrocities" because I assumed there were some. I felt like Ender was singing 'Oh, Canada' - which is fine - but we all have our warts.
The US isn't some horrible place that does horrible things to people IMO. We are one country of many, a big one with lots of money and a powerful military, and our dirty laundry gets thrown around more than others.
There is a reason there isn't peace in the Middle East. Very little of that has to do with America. It has more to do with thousands of years of history that we, here, learn about in college. Families and tribes in the middle east have actually been LIVING it from the time they are born. A very different reality and hard for most of us to understand.
Germany has a much longer history then we do, as do many places around the world where mass atrocities have happened at the hands of government. To try to say that WE are on par in any way seems nonsensical to me. We have done bad things as a people. We do bad things as a people. We all have. We all do. We haven't been doing it nearly as long. That isn't an excuse for bad behavior, but at the very least we all need to acknowledge our own dirt before we start throwing stones. (I didn't feel like Ender was attacking the US necessarily - but there did seem to be a little bit of Canada is better then all these places including the US where bad things have happened. That may or may not have been his point.)
Native Americans in this country got fucked over long before anyone else. Same in Canada too. Indigenous people are still getting screwed in the Amazon and Africa. History repeats itself, over and over. In America we can say that we learn at the speed of light compared to other countries. Look at how far our society has come since 1787. And we built a country where you can walk four blocks and pass a synagogue, a baptist church, an adult book store, a catholic church and mosque. That to me is powerful.
The right for a business to refuse service to people may not be ideal for US (you and me) who might get discriminated against. I'll take it today, argue about it tonight and hope it changes tomorrow. And unlike many places in the world I have hope that it actually might. There are pockets of ignorance. I may die at the hands of an idiot. I will not die at the hands of a government official for being queer. (I realize that some minorities may not have that security btw)
Not everyone is thinking that tonight as they try to sleep with bombs flying over their homes. Just like their parents did. Their grandparents did. Their great grandparents did. Their great-great-great-great-great grandparents did.
suebee
03-21-2011, 08:51 PM
I agree with everything except the right of a business to discriminate. I think any business should be able to decide who they serve UNLESS it is based on discrimination of an identified group. (we've already covered who this might include/who it does include under Canadian law)
Sooooo ......I guess we're back to square one! lol
BTW - my American dollar fetched me exactly ninty-five cents in Canada on Saturday. ;)
AtLast
03-21-2011, 08:53 PM
I love Canada- great northern neighbor. however, it is not without black slavery as part of its own history and economy. In fact, Canada brought anti-slavery rules into its government in the 1830's via the British Crown, not as an independent country. Before the US, but not much before. It has a dark history concerning its native peoples as well.
Developed, industrialized nations, especially western, share many shameful practices. I feel like the important things that we need to to in order to change the effects of things like slavery and discrimination on all fronts is where we need to concentrate. Not many places in the world that don't have blood on "their" hands, historically.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007449
Addition- As we are discussing in this thread, the "allies"- formed by the UN security counsel is bombing in Libya. Canada and Britian along with the US are involved. Yet, which of the 3 will be criticized the most about this?
adorable
03-21-2011, 09:02 PM
I agree with everything except the right of a business to discriminate. I think any business should be able to decide who they serve UNLESS it is based on discrimination of an identified group. (we've already covered who this might include/who it does include under Canadian law)
Sooooo ......I guess we're back to square one! lol
BTW - my American dollar fetched me exactly ninty-five cents in Canada on Saturday. ;)
I will never forget the time I walked into a casino and my first quarter won me $700!!!! It wasn't until I took my pile of quarters to the cage & cashed in that I remembered I was in Canada.
I cried. So enjoy your windfall.
I don't think that businesses should discriminate against groups of people. I covered this in my "why I like protected classes" post. I do like Canada's gay marriage for all law and that everyone has health coverage. Apparently, we aren't taught much about Canadian history either. I did write a paper in the 3rd grade on Saskatchewan. I picked it because I liked the name. But I don't ever remember a class being offered on Canadian history ever.
That is odd now that I think about it. Why is that?
suebee
03-21-2011, 09:06 PM
I love Canada- great northern neighbor. however, it is not without black slavery as part of its own history and economy. In fact, Canada brought anti-slavery rules into its government in the 1830's via the British Crown, not as an independent country. Before the US, but not much before. It has a dark history concerning its native peoples as well.
Developed, industrialized nations, especially western, share many shameful practices. I feel like the important things that we need to to in order to change the effects of things like slavery and discrimination on all fronts is where we need to concentrate. Not many places in the world that don't have blood on "their" hands, historically.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007449
I guess I have to be very clear - and I've posted this here and in other threads: Canada is certainly not lily-white as far as it's history is concerned. But it seems to have evolved differently in so much as the U.S. has a much more prevelant problem with race relations today. I'm not saying that there isn't racism here either, but there is a tension in the States that always seems just below the boiling point. Is it because the practice of slavery, and therefore the population descended from them was so much larger? Is it because of the way that the U.S. declared it's independence and subsequently wrote a document that greatly valorized individual rights over collective? I don't know. But there are differences between the two countries today, and I think the laws against discrimination - such as the one first discussed by the OP are a reflection of those differences.
Food for thought, for sure.
suebee
03-21-2011, 09:07 PM
I will never forget the time I walked into a casino and my first quarter won me $700!!!! It wasn't until I took my pile of quarters to the cage & cashed in that I remembered I was in Canada.
I cried. So enjoy your windfall.
I don't think that businesses should discriminate against groups of people. I covered this in my "why I like protected classes" post. I do like Canada's gay marriage for all law and that everyone has health coverage. Apparently, we aren't taught much about Canadian history either. I did write a paper in the 3rd grade on Saskatchewan. I picked it because I liked the name. But I don't ever remember a class being offered on Canadian history ever.
That is odd now that I think about it. Why is that?
You LIKED the name "Saskatchewan? :|
adorable
03-21-2011, 09:18 PM
You LIKED the name "Saskatchewan? :|
At the time I thought it was where eskimo's lived which made it that much cooler. Imagine my disappointment when I finally made it to the library and there were no igloo pictures in the Saskatchewan books.
Now stop forcing me to derail this thread. AND let me borrow a million coins.
Thanks.
suebee
03-21-2011, 09:22 PM
At the time I thought it was where eskimo's lived which made it that much cooler. Imagine my disappointment when I finally made it to the library and there were no igloo pictures in the Saskatchewan books.
Now stop forcing me to derail this thread. AND let me borrow a million coins.
Thanks.
The cheque's in the mail.
AtLast
03-22-2011, 04:11 AM
I guess I have to be very clear - and I've posted this here and in other threads: Canada is certainly not lily-white as far as it's history is concerned. But it seems to have evolved differently in so much as the U.S. has a much more prevelant problem with race relations today. I'm not saying that there isn't racism here either, but there is a tension in the States that always seems just below the boiling point. Is it because the practice of slavery, and therefore the population descended from them was so much larger? Is it because of the way that the U.S. declared it's independence and subsequently wrote a document that greatly valorized individual rights over collective? I don't know. But there are differences between the two countries today, and I think the laws against discrimination - such as the one first discussed by the OP are a reflection of those differences.
Food for thought, for sure.
Oh, I think that the structural and institutionalized racism stemming from US black slavery is very different than Canada. Our histories with native peoples is much more closely related.
There are many, many of Canada's political stances and policies that I wish the US would follow suit with- same-sex marriage and a public health care system for examples.
I agree that individual vs. collective "freedoms" is a large part of what does make our countries different within this context (the thread). I often have difficulty with just how stuck we can get in the US on this. Funny, I have always thought for me personally, this was due to my own family and ethnic background and the time frame in which my family came to the states. For me, as a person, individual rights do not trump what is best for the masses. Working for the common good is just part of my background and I have often felt alone in this as a US citizen.
I wonder, and do not know what the break down of POC to whites is in Canada. How diverse is Canada in terms of race and ethnicity within the overall population? And how does this compare to the US? (Now I have my work cut out for me!). And if it is not as diverse as the US, this might be part of the differences in racial and ethnic tensions- and yes, black slavery as an economic and structural institution along with post US Civil War Jim Crowe laws has a role that unfortunately does give the US a differing context.
Yet, both the US and Canada do not have a lot of room to talk when it comes to how native peoples were treated.
betenoire
03-22-2011, 09:25 AM
I wonder, and do not know what the break down of POC to whites is in Canada. How diverse is Canada in terms of race and ethnicity within the overall population? And how does this compare to the US? (Now I have my work cut out for me!). And if it is not as diverse as the US, this might be part of the differences in racial and ethnic tensions- and yes, black slavery as an economic and structural institution along with post US Civil War Jim Crowe laws has a role that unfortunately does give the US a differing context.
The question of demographics in Canada is difficult to answer because for some reason the government does not consider Aboriginal people to be POC. (I bet there are no Inuit, for example, who consider themselves white, though. So the whole thing makes absolutely no sense.) So this means that whenever you look at demographics in Canada the breakdown always includes First Nations people in with the Caucasian group.
So I googled around and found that in 2006 3.8% of the population is Aboriginal (First Nations, Inuit, Metis)
16.20% of the total population (according to the 2006 census) is a "visible minority". If you include Native people in with that it's exactly 20%. Breakdown:
Whitey - 80.0%
South Asian - 4.0%
Aboriginal - 3.8%
Chinese - 3.7%
Black - 2.5%
Filipino - 1.3%
Latin American - 1.0%
Arab - 0.9%
Southeast Asian - 0.7%
West Asian - 0.5%
Korean - 0.4%
Japanese - 0.2%
Multiple visible minorities - 0.3%
Visible minority, n.i.e. - 0.2%
I have no idea what "Visible minority, n.i.e." is. No idea.
Anyway, I don't know how things spread out in the US but you'll also find that what Canada looks like is REALLY different between our large cities and small towns. I know Toronto is a solid 50/50 split (like 50 percent of Torontonians are POC 50 percent are white - roughly. But this depends on the neighborhood, Scarborough for example was 68% POC in 2006 ) but if you go to a smaller town like the one I live in now you're likely to fall down dead from shock if you see a person of colour (okay, slight exaggeration. I just googled and my town is 7.1% POC - 4.5% being Aboriginal. But I still felt culture shock and like I landed in white-land when I moved here.)
But I don't think you can say "Canada has less POC ergo less racial tension". And the reason that I say/know this is because where I grew up (Toronto) things were pretty smooth. I wasn't witness to people walking around scared, or angry. With the exception of my Aunt's crazy motorcycle club ex-boyfriend (hated him! why would she let him around her children?) I never heard any sort of racial slur or was witness to any crazy-ass racist behaviour.
But the town I live in now is not like that. White people say the craziest shit when they think nobody is listening, seriously. For white Canadians it seems like the less contact we have with POC the more xenophobic we get.
I presume that to be exactly the opposite of how it is in the US.
ETA - I have heard that things are pretty tense (batshit, actually) in the prairies, though. That's probably due to my "sparsely populated tiny white towns" theory. Mind you, I know NOTHING about the prairies other than that I had to drive through them to get to BC.)
DapperButch
03-22-2011, 10:34 AM
But I don't think you can say "Canada has less POC ergo less racial tension". And the reason that I say/know this is because where I grew up (Toronto) things were pretty smooth. I wasn't witness to people walking around scared, or angry....
But the town I live in now is not like that. White people say the craziest shit when they think nobody is listening, seriously. For white Canadians it seems like the less contact we have with POC the more xenophobic we get.
Right. Usually the greater the level of contact between ourselves and people that differ from us in some way (sexual orientation, race), the lower the discrimination. So, it makes sense to me that Toronto would have less racism and there would be more racism in an area that has a lower number of POCs.
It is actually interesting to me b/c I have always assumed that Canada was more diverse than us, and that this was the reason there is less racism. But, I guess if it is actually accurate (less racism?), it is just ANOTHER case of you guys being a rockin' place to live!
betenoire
03-22-2011, 10:41 AM
Right. Usually the greater the level of contact between ourselves and people that differ from us in some way (sexual orientation, race), the less the discrimination. So, it makes sense to me that Toronto would have less racism and there would be more racism in an area that has a lower number of POCs.
It is actually interesting to me b/c I have always assumed that Canada was more diverse than us, and that this was the reason there is less racism. But, I guess if it is actually accurate (less racism?), it is just ANOTHER case of you guys being a rockin' place to live!
I think that your average small-town Canadian is probably just as likely to have racist ideas as your average small-town American. The difference (and that's a cultural difference between our two countries) is how that Canadian acts about it v how that American acts about it.
True Story: I had never seen a Confederate Flag in real life (seriously!!) until last summer in Detroit. I managed to get through 33 years of life without ever seeing one.
Another thing I've noticed is that people here are less likely to say something negatively racist (not that there is positive racism, I just don't know how to phrase it) and more likely to spout off a stereotype that they think is a compliment. You know "Such and Such a group is so intelligent!" "Such and Such a group has such a good head for business!". It's still racist, of course. But we spin it differently. (ETA - which is probably a big part of the perception that Canada is less racist. I have no idea if that's true or not, because there's no real way to quantify that. I think that there IS less tension and less evidence of it - but as for how people actually feel in secret in their own homes, I can't speak to that)
OMG Series Finale of Big Love is on now! Gotta go!
undone
03-22-2011, 11:24 AM
It is sad that it happened to a couple in love trying to plan a very happy very special day to be celebrated and of course think the shop owner should be ashamed of themselves. I also think that the couple in question ought to be relived that it came up in the beginning, for a few reasons first of course that it was not something found out at the time of service and then had an uncomfortable situation then and there, but also that they were not spending hard earned cash with some one with what I would consider to be a narrow mind, I would rather my money perhaps stay with some one more like minded to my self a business that did not have such "values" or judgments.
I have seen in the last 5 years similar incidents in the Seattle area, where a couple was forced to leave I believe a major football or baseball game, the reason was because they had shared a kiss I think it was just a short kiss if I remember correctly. There is a casino in the same area that was notorious for escorting same sex couples out of the establishment as well for no particular reason.
But similarly was it 5 years ago one of the two big names for the Philly steak and cheese sandwiches did refuse service to a customer because they would not order in English. Said he was not required to maintain staff that had spoke in various languages, he was proud to live and work in the US, this was in the city of Philadelphia.
Yes it is a sad thing to contemplate and why it should concern anyone else about the reasons or goings on of a privet event just that they were asked to help decorate something, however would we also say the same thing about those that control things such as air travel, boarder patrols banking, or other businesses that root out criminal activities.
I would not want to share my paycheck in paying for any service including the government that felt they were able to judge me and the people I share my life with. I originally thought yes of course a person should chose whom they provide a service to because everything business or not on some level is personal, but then I read atlasthome's post and it opened that dirty box that made me remember that it is not just about same sex relationships it about all the was we separate and label people white, black, brown, gay, femme, queer, bi, butch, tree hugger, liberal, conservative... It would have to encompass all of it. So I have been forced to reconsidered my original reaction and thoughts.
I have to say that no it is not okay, because we can not trust that some one would not extend it to mean they can say your shoes are offensive to me because they have sparkles on them or don’t have laces in them (yhep I mean this to be trivial) they would easily hide the personal reasoning's behind the legally allowed ones, switching one as an excuse for the other.
From a legal perspective- also depending on laws/regs within municipal/state/federal boundaries and jurisdictions, this could vary. In some instances, a business owner can refuse service legally.
But it sure can take on some personal issues- June's example states this.
There are "service refusal" laws for example, having to do with public health- like no service in restaurants without shoes and shirts. But, historically, racial segregation has played a role in in the US about this issue. I'd have to be stupid to think that some of those "service refusal" signs in businesses have been or are not directed at not serving POC.
I certainly still see "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" signs all over in businesses. Probably because of my age and being an activist during the late 60's and 70's, my response to these signs is different than for a lot of younger people. I immediately see race/ethnicity variable when I see these signs. I do not get these "vibes" if a sign simply points to the health regs about shirts and shoes. I also know that there are laws/regs in some places in which it is illegal to post the "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" sign. The "anyone" is the problem.
Another thought- I know that I could have subjected to legal action (as well as licensure infractions) if I had refused to see patients for psychotherapy based upon their religious beliefs.
AtLast
03-22-2011, 02:38 PM
The question of demographics in Canada is difficult to answer because for some reason the government does not consider Aboriginal people to be POC. (I bet there are no Inuit, for example, who consider themselves white, though. So the whole thing makes absolutely no sense.) So this means that whenever you look at demographics in Canada the breakdown always includes First Nations people in with the Caucasian group.
So I googled around and found that in 2006 3.8% of the population is Aboriginal (First Nations, Inuit, Metis)
16.20% of the total population (according to the 2006 census) is a "visible minority". If you include Native people in with that it's exactly 20%. Breakdown:
Whitey - 80.0%
South Asian - 4.0%
Aboriginal - 3.8%
Chinese - 3.7%
Black - 2.5%
Filipino - 1.3%
Latin American - 1.0%
Arab - 0.9%
Southeast Asian - 0.7%
West Asian - 0.5%
Korean - 0.4%
Japanese - 0.2%
Multiple visible minorities - 0.3%
Visible minority, n.i.e. - 0.2%
I have no idea what "Visible minority, n.i.e." is. No idea.
Anyway, I don't know how things spread out in the US but you'll also find that what Canada looks like is REALLY different between our large cities and small towns. I know Toronto is a solid 50/50 split (like 50 percent of Torontonians are POC 50 percent are white - roughly. But this depends on the neighborhood, Scarborough for example was 68% POC in 2006 ) but if you go to a smaller town like the one I live in now you're likely to fall down dead from shock if you see a person of colour (okay, slight exaggeration. I just googled and my town is 7.1% POC - 4.5% being Aboriginal. But I still felt culture shock and like I landed in white-land when I moved here.)
But I don't think you can say "Canada has less POC ergo less racial tension". And the reason that I say/know this is because where I grew up (Toronto) things were pretty smooth. I wasn't witness to people walking around scared, or angry. With the exception of my Aunt's crazy motorcycle club ex-boyfriend (hated him! why would she let him around her children?) I never heard any sort of racial slur or was witness to any crazy-ass racist behaviour.
But the town I live in now is not like that. White people say the craziest shit when they think nobody is listening, seriously. For white Canadians it seems like the less contact we have with POC the more xenophobic we get.
I presume that to be exactly the opposite of how it is in the US.
ETA - I have heard that things are pretty tense (batshit, actually) in the prairies, though. That's probably due to my "sparsely populated tiny white towns" theory. Mind you, I know NOTHING about the prairies other than that I had to drive through them to get to BC.)
Thanks- helps!
In terms of what Suebee brought up- the never ending conflict just under the surface (which I believe exists in the US), I have to think about other political structures and differences. Also, immigration issues in the US, especially in times of economic stress, lights up racial and ethnic bigotry. That would be another area that I just don't have knowledge about in relationship to Canada.
Our recent Supreme court ruling allowing corporations to in effect stuff the pockets of politicians/legislation as individuals has brought the tensions here to a new level, I think.
This brings the US "individualism" paradigm right to front lines.
Something else- do Canadians feel that their middle class is being kicked to the curb?
betenoire
03-22-2011, 02:52 PM
Also, immigration issues in the US, especially in times of economic stress, lights up racial and ethnic bigotry. That would be another area that I just don't have knowledge about in relationship to Canada.
What immigration issues in the US are you talking about specifically? Let me know and I'll tell you how it is in Canada re: that same coin.
ETA - I dunno how true this is but I once read that Canada has the highest immigration rate (like per capita, not in raw numbers of actual people immigrating) than any other country in the world. Our population is roughly 30,000,000 and we get on average 250,000 new immigrants to Canada every year.
Also if you are talking about undocumented immigration - I know nothing about that here. I would presume it happens in Canada (because I'm sure every country has people who immigrate without "papers") but we don't talk/bitch about it. So that's a non-issue.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.