Do Businesses Have the Right to Refuse Service Based on Moral/Religious Objections?

[Toughy]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Toughy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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 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]

Originally Posted by Toughy

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]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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]

Adorable, what do you mean when you say "Canada is just as bad". It's a pretty general statement.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by suebee

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]

Originally Posted by betenoire

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]

laughin.....little sensitive are we suebee 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]

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]

Originally Posted by suebee

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]

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]

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]

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.c...=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]

Originally Posted by suebee

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]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

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.c...=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]

Originally Posted by adorable

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]

Originally Posted by suebee

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.