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

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!

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!

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!

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+...298/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?”

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.

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!

:)

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.

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.

:yeahthat:

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!!!

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.

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."

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.

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 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?

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?

Who was it who said "if you tolerate intolerance you're not really being tolerant"??

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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/polic...Ordinance.html

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?

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