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

DapperButch · 03-17-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by June

Yeah, I think they do. Because I want to reserve that same right as a business owner.

If they want to turn money away, that's their decision to make. If someone came to me and wanted me to do a logo or marketing materials for them, and they were in the business of telling people they would go to Hell if they didn't do X,Y and Z, I would turn them away.

It's no different to me. And also, I would never want to patronize and give money to a business like that, so it's good to know. Find another florist.

betenoire · 03-17-2011, 04:14 PM

Well, you know. Regardless of how I feel about it - this shop owner DID break the law. It's illegal in her province to refuse business based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. It just is.

This is VERY different from the Knights of Columbus refusing to rent out their hall. The whole point of the Knights of Columbus is that they are a religious organisation, so they are protected (just like a church is protected). A flower shop is not a church. A flower shop is not a religious organisation. Perhaps if she wants to run it like it is a church she needs to rename her shop to "Daisies for Jesus!" or something like that.

Soon · 03-17-2011, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betenoire

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.

rainintothesea · 03-17-2011, 04:29 PM

I'm not trying to stir the pot, here, I'm genuinely curious about something. Flowers are one thing, perhaps, no one's going to bleed out if they don't get their flowers (at least I hope not, wow). But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

On the one hand, if someone has a huge moral objection to doing business with me, that's something I'd like to know so that I can take my business elsewhere. There's the whole, "If we don't have free speech, how else will we know who the assholes are?" sort of argument, there. But I think we might be treading in some dangerous territory, too, if we say it's okay to discriminate for whatever reason you like... what kind of discrimination is okay, then, and who sets those boundaries? And, hey, in turn, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with other people making those decisions for me... and I think that when one decides to run a business, one is agreeing that while it might be okay to refuse service to an individual who is being an unreasonable jerkface (that's how I have always read those signs, myself), it's understood that it's NOT okay to refuse service to POC or other generally-agreed-upon protected classes of characteristics that include whole swaths of society.

Blade · 03-17-2011, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainintothesea

But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

To begin with a pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions. It is none of the pharmacists business for what type of medical reason a Dr prescribes a prescription. A consumer isn't obligated to discuss with pharmacist why they need a certain treatment.

rainintothesea · 03-17-2011, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

To begin with a pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions. It is none of the pharmacists business for what type of medical reason a Dr prescribes a prescription. A consumer isn't obligated to discuss with pharmacist why they need a certain treatment.

I agree with you completely. This exact situation happened recently in Idaho... a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription to stop uterine bleeding unless a nurse at the doctor's office where it was prescribed would tell her (the pharmacist) that it WASN'T because of an abortion. (There is a law on the books there that says that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense an abortifacient on personal principle, but the drug she was prescribed wasn't an abortifacient. It was to keep her from bleeding out.)

Walgreen's, where this took place, is a private business. The pharmacist refused the woman's business on moral grounds. That seems to be consistent with the position of several posters, at least as it relates to the florist. I just want to know if those folks siding with the florist sided with the pharmacist, too... and if one is okay and one isn't, why? Where is the boundary, who sets it? Is it the use of the flowers necessarily the florist's business (gay wedding vs. straight wedding)?

Again, I'm not trying to kick up trouble, I'm genuinely curious as to the difference, and what people think about one vs. the other... and how, if we decide it's okay to do that in one case, we justify it not being okay in the other. Also, who decides? Have we collectively already decided, on many levels, that some forms of discrimination are not socially acceptable by putting policies in place?

Spork · 03-17-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by June

Daisies for Jesus!

Yes, it is wrong and against the law in some places to do that. I would just rather know what a business' policy is so I can make a choice to spend my money there or not.

I think they should have to post signs:

"We do not serve The Gays here"
or
"We will serve you if you're A Gay, but we might piss in your soup"

Posting their true beliefs would probably hit them pretty hard financially because lots of people love The Gays, even if they aren't one.

Heh, I don't think that would be helpful. In my opinion, just a curt statement: "We only serve heterosexuals." While it's still a little bit... harsh to some, it's not the same as just saying "no gays! go away!".

Perhaps, if the business is interested in keeping a "good face", they could show options for the people they will not serve. "We do not serve non-heterosexuals. But here's a list of LGBT-friendly business: blah, blah, blah."

That's what I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainintothesea

I'm not trying to stir the pot, here, I'm genuinely curious about something. Flowers are one thing, perhaps, no one's going to bleed out if they don't get their flowers (at least I hope not, wow). But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

I think we can't compare some flowers and medicine that can save your life, or heal a sickness.

If that has been allowed to happen, I'm appalled.

Pharmacies and hospitals should comply with their social obligation, first and foremost. Then think of the money.

Again, just my opinion.

Soon · 03-17-2011, 04:41 PM

So...b/c I made it specific regarding serving people of sexual orientation and gender identity, does that stand for other groups of people?

For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?

Even though WE KNOW the law doesn't allow it; doesn't the same principle apply?

What other statuses would it be ok to deny service to?
Besides ours?

Those who believe that it is ok to discriminate based on gender orientation and sexual orientation, why is it NOT OK to discriminate against others based on their religious/moral convictions?

betenoire · 03-17-2011, 04:49 PM

And what if it's not about moral convictions. What if that person is just an asshole - is it still okay then? Are we okay with a "Heterosexuals Only" sign but not with a "Whites Only" sign? What's the difference? Is it because the first is (in some cases) based on religion and the second is based on rampant jackassery?

betenoire · 03-17-2011, 04:57 PM

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

julieisafemme · 03-17-2011, 04:57 PM

At some point a business owner would no longer be in business if they start to exclude too many groups. Also many businesses make it very clear to a customer by their service (or lack thereof) that the customer is not particularly welcome. This subtle form of discrimination goes on every day. I don't think the same principles apply.

As far as the florist goes she could have told the couple that she was concerned and why and asked if they might be more comfortable doing business with another florist who would love to have their business. She could reccommend someone who she knew would be happy to serve them. That would the moral thing to do and the best business decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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?

Blade · 03-17-2011, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?

I have a friend who owns a restaurant/bar. He doesn't allow men without sleeves in his place and he doesn't allow people who wear their pants with the waist down to the knees. He'll send them out to get a shirt in a minute and he will ask folks to pull their pants up and keep them up in his place

betenoire · 03-17-2011, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

I have a friend who owns a restaurant/bar. He doesn't allow men without sleeves in his place and he doesn't allow people who wear their pants with the waist down to the knees. He'll send them out to get a shirt in a minute and he will ask folks to pull their pants up and keep them up in his place

There's a huge difference between a dress code and deciding you don't want to serve "the gays". I mean "dress code" and "I don't want to serve the gays" don't even live on the same continent!

I can go home and put on some sleeves and pull up my pants, but I can't take off my gay.

Lynn · 03-17-2011, 09:46 PM

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.

DomnNC · 03-17-2011, 06:11 PM

I voted yes. I have my own company providing software/hardware solutions to other businesses. I'd hate to be hired to program a system to track gay people for some religious organization, I should have the right to refuse my service to anyone as I see fit, that could all be dependent on a credit check and a client's ability to pay as well. I don't work for free, lol.

Ashton · 03-17-2011, 06:25 PM

I do think business should have the right to refuse patronage AND without explaination.

The rub comes in when the person refusing is reqeyuiraved to explain why. If I have the right to not shop somewhere why doesnt the shop have the right to refuse service. I dont have to explain not shopping somewhere why should they

Personally I think its a bit hypocritical to say we all have a right to believe as we do and then we save your beliefs are not valid in my eyes therefore you cant use that against me.

Martina · 03-17-2011, 06:43 PM

If there is a local non-discrimination law in place -- re public accommodations -- then they can't discriminate. This is a major effort of lgbtq activism, to ensure that we aren't turned away from restaurants and businesses for being gay. In the town i lived in, the printer nearest to the university where student groups got their flyers and such printed up refused to print for lgbtq student groups. The reaction ultimately resulted in a non-discrimination ordinance. Here is a link to the ordinance. i remember the day it was passed. i was at the city counsil meeting. A very good day.

http://www.genderadvocates.org/polic...Ordinance.html

Miss Scarlett · 03-17-2011, 06:32 PM

I voted yes as well. If you want to deny someone's right (we're NOT talking about government agencies here) to decide with whom they want to transact business because you do not agree with whatever their reason you best be willing to accept the same for yourself.

Every firm I have worked for has turned away clients for various reasons. We owe no one an explanation why they are turned away.

It's as simple as this - if you don't like what they stand for then don't patronize their establishment.

betenoire · 03-17-2011, 06:44 PM

Doesn't Title II of the Civil Rights Act in the US already make it so that business owners can't decide not to serve a customer based on race, color, religion, or national origin?

So why then, if we all agree (or do we? do you guys all want to repeal that part of the act or something?) that businesses can't discriminate based on race - why are we okay with businesses discriminating based on sexual orientation?

Andrew, Jr. · 03-17-2011, 07:20 PM

There is a diner that is refusing to serve anyone who does not speak English. The owner of the diner told the reporter that he is the only owner and he made the decision on his own. He said it wasn't about the money he could loose in doing this, and that is why he immigrated to the States. When asked by the reporter why he is doing it, the diner's owner said that he had to learn English and so does the next guy.

As for me, I think and believe businesses have the right to refuse anyone they wish, just as long as they are not perpetuating a criminal act in any way.

View Poll Results: Do Business Owners Have the Right to Refuse Service Due to Moral/Religious Objections?
No	15	25.00%
Yes	38	63.33%
Unsure/Maybe/Other	7	11.67%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

03-17-2011, 04:14 PM	#2
betenoire Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Satan in a Sunday Hat Preferred Pronoun?: Maow Relationship Status: Married Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: The Chemical Valley Posts: 4,086 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 3,312 Thanked 8,739 Times in 2,566 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	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. __________________ bête noire \bet-NWAHR\, noun: One that is particularly disliked or that is to be avoided.

03-17-2011, 04:41 PM	#8
Soon Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: femme Relationship Status: attached Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: . Posts: 6,896 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	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? Last edited by Soon; 03-17-2011 at 04:45 PM.

03-17-2011, 04:49 PM	#9
betenoire Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Satan in a Sunday Hat Preferred Pronoun?: Maow Relationship Status: Married Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: The Chemical Valley Posts: 4,086 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 3,312 Thanked 8,739 Times in 2,566 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	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? __________________ bête noire \bet-NWAHR\, noun: One that is particularly disliked or that is to be avoided.

03-17-2011, 04:57 PM	#10
betenoire Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Satan in a Sunday Hat Preferred Pronoun?: Maow Relationship Status: Married Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: The Chemical Valley Posts: 4,086 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 3,312 Thanked 8,739 Times in 2,566 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	Who was it who said "if you tolerate intolerance you're not really being tolerant"?? __________________ bête noire \bet-NWAHR\, noun: One that is particularly disliked or that is to be avoided.

03-17-2011, 04:29 PM	#4
rainintothesea Member How Do You Identify?: - Preferred Pronoun?: - Relationship Status: - Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: - Posts: 533 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 1,135 Thanked 801 Times in 314 Posts Rep Power: 4143699	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.

03-17-2011, 09:46 PM	#14
Lynn Member How Do You Identify?: Unabashed Feminine Lesbian Preferred Pronoun?: Her, She Relationship Status: Married! Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 689 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 1,499 Thanked 2,414 Times in 505 Posts Rep Power: 9668976	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. __________________ In the flush of love's light we dare be brave And suddenly we see that love costs all we are and will ever be. Yet it is only love which sets us free. Maya Angelou Wedding Photos: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...1&l=22b092b98c

03-17-2011, 06:11 PM	#15
DomnNC Timed Out How Do You Identify?: Male Preferred Pronoun?: He/Him Relationship Status: Widow Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Permanently Banned 11/15/2011 Posts: 1,223 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,618 Thanked 2,582 Times in 837 Posts Rep Power: 0	I voted yes. I have my own company providing software/hardware solutions to other businesses. I'd hate to be hired to program a system to track gay people for some religious organization, I should have the right to refuse my service to anyone as I see fit, that could all be dependent on a credit check and a client's ability to pay as well. I don't work for free, lol.

03-17-2011, 06:25 PM	#16
Ashton Member How Do You Identify?: Transgender Preferred Pronoun?: Masculine Relationship Status: retired Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 1,409 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,215 Thanked 1,526 Times in 461 Posts Rep Power: 13892881	I do think business should have the right to refuse patronage AND without explaination. The rub comes in when the person refusing is reqeyuiraved to explain why. If I have the right to not shop somewhere why doesnt the shop have the right to refuse service. I dont have to explain not shopping somewhere why should they Personally I think its a bit hypocritical to say we all have a right to believe as we do and then we save your beliefs are not valid in my eyes therefore you cant use that against me.

03-17-2011, 06:43 PM	#17
Martina Senior Member How Do You Identify?: * Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: * Posts: 4,999 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 13,409 Thanked 18,283 Times in 4,166 Posts Rep Power: 21474854	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

03-17-2011, 06:32 PM	#18
Miss Scarlett Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Femme Relationship Status: . Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: . Posts: 5,530 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 4,478 Thanked 12,947 Times in 3,419 Posts Rep Power: 21474857	I voted yes as well. If you want to deny someone's right (we're NOT talking about government agencies here) to decide with whom they want to transact business because you do not agree with whatever their reason you best be willing to accept the same for yourself. Every firm I have worked for has turned away clients for various reasons. We owe no one an explanation why they are turned away. It's as simple as this - if you don't like what they stand for then don't patronize their establishment.

03-17-2011, 06:44 PM	#19
betenoire Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Satan in a Sunday Hat Preferred Pronoun?: Maow Relationship Status: Married Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: The Chemical Valley Posts: 4,086 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 3,312 Thanked 8,739 Times in 2,566 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	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? __________________ bête noire \bet-NWAHR\, noun: One that is particularly disliked or that is to be avoided.

03-17-2011, 07:20 PM	#20
Andrew, Jr. Timed Out How Do You Identify?: Me Preferred Pronoun?: He Relationship Status: Unavailable Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Over the Rainbow in a House Posts: 5,072 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 16,004 Thanked 5,249 Times in 2,216 Posts Rep Power: 0	There is a diner that is refusing to serve anyone who does not speak English. The owner of the diner told the reporter that he is the only owner and he made the decision on his own. He said it wasn't about the money he could loose in doing this, and that is why he immigrated to the States. When asked by the reporter why he is doing it, the diner's owner said that he had to learn English and so does the next guy. As for me, I think and believe businesses have the right to refuse anyone they wish, just as long as they are not perpetuating a criminal act in any way.