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?

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.

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:

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

it's not just about flowers
 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!:|

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?

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.

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?

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!

Bold answers

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.