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

[Soon]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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.

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_Lady_Snow]

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.

[Miss Scarlett]

Augusta National is a private club and therefore Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not apply to them or any other private club.

"(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)."

While it may appear that Fred Phelps may not have a case against DomnNC (or any business) for refusing service that determination would be left up to the Courts. Baseless lawsuits are filed all the time far too many in the hope that the deep pockets will open rather than spend thousands on legal fees. Sadly far too many companies/corporations/individuals would rather rollover and pay someone to go away than stand up and fight back.

Didn't many of us think there was no way Phelps would prevail before the Court? You never know what Courts will do...another reason why people would rather settle than fight.

If we (as in the entire LGBT community in the US) put half as much energy into fighting for our equal rights that we do in fighting with each other (or whining about things) we'd have our equality in record time and this discussion would be moot.

[DomnNC]

Originally Posted by Miss Scarlett

If we (as in the entire LGBT community in the US) put half as much energy into fighting for our equal rights that we do in fighting with each other (or whining about things) we'd have our equality in record time and this discussion would be moot.

AFreakingMen!!

[The_Lady_Snow]

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!

[Soon]

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]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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.

In 1990 Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA provides "provides comprehensive civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, State and local government services, and telecommunications."

http://www.ada.gov/

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Miss Scarlett

In 1990 Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA provides "provides comprehensive civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, State and local government services, and telecommunications."

http://www.ada.gov/

Miss Scarlett,

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