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,

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.

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.

This is exactly what my last post was addressing.

From my last post: I then I underwent responding to that concern. For example, responding directly to the above concern I wrote:

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.

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.

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 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.

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,

I realize that which is why I used it as an example.

The Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.



As well, Ontario, in particular, has its own Disabilities Act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

OMG Might Makes Right!!!!!

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.

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'll not waste my breath going over them again." Friendly!

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.)

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.

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!

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.

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.