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

[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.

[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Miss Scarlett,

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

I see. What does Canada have on the books that gives similar protections?

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Miss Scarlett

I see. What does Canada have on the books that gives similar protections?

The Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.



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

[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

The Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

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

I think the CHRA has a wonderful list of prohibited grounds but like most legislation of this type (ADA included) it also contains a handy list of "Exceptions" to be worked around by clever attorneys.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/h-6/index.html

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

Should I (as a member of the GLBT community) accept them as a client knowing full well they are basically going on a witch hunt in MY community???

What if one of my business clients wanted me to do the same thing, since in NC we have no protection due to sexual orientation or gender identification, and they want expressedly state these employees will be fired? Do I retain them as a client and program their system as they wish knowing full well that my peers are going to be terminated???

Again: There is a huge difference between refusing to provide a service that is intended to inflict harm on a minority group (apples) and refusing to provide a service to a minority group (oranges). Actions and people are two different categories.

It confuses me that you think that the only way you can retain your right to not provide a harmful service is to let other people tramp all over your own rights. I can think of a way better way: become a protected class. If it becomes illegal to discriminate against the LGBT community - then it becomes illegal to ask someone to make a spreadsheet to track and fire the gays.

Originally Posted by 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)."

Exactly. A club and a retail business are different. A private club has an intent and a membership base - so they get to decide who joins their club. The intent of a retail business is to sell flowers, or burgers, or sandwiches, or socks - they do not get to decide who buys their burgers or flowers, but they do get to decide if it's burgers or sandwiches that they intend to peddle. You can't really compare a private club and a burger joint (or a flower shop, or a lunch counter).

I am okay with private clubs being able to decide to only cater to whites, or women, or people who use assistive devices, or redheads. Because it's a club. That's what clubs ARE. And, like we already know, the civil rights act in the US says that clubs -are- exempt and are allowed to choose.

I am not saying that gay people should be allowed to join the Grand Heterosexuals With Bad Mustaches Of America Brotherhood. That's not what I'm getting at. I AM saying that gay people should be allowed to walk into any burger joint, sporting goods store, flower shop, or frilly bra emporium and expect to get served.

[DomnNC]

What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did! So therefore I would have to provide my service to someone who wants to go on a witch hunt (per my example) lawful or not. Then again I work out of my home for just such a reason, I don't have a retail shop where anyone can walk in off the street, I get my business by word of mouth and I have turned people down if there is something that doesn't sit right with me about them.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did! So therefore I would have to provide my service to someone who wants to go on a witch hunt (per my example) lawful or not. Then again I work out of my home for just such a reason, I don't have a retail shop where anyone can walk in off the street, I get my business by word of mouth and I have turned people down if there is something that doesn't sit right with me about them.

Dom NC: Listen to what is being said. We are talking about DISCRIMINATION, and that is based on someone's prejudices against an identifiable group. Usually it's a minority group like US. We're not talking about giving up all freedom of decision of a business owner. Does someone have the right to refuse service to somebody because they're a dirty (insert racial descriptive here)? No. THAT'S discrimination. Do you have the right to refuse to sit someone in your restaurant who is dirty and stinks? Yes.

I think another part of the difference between the Canadians and Americans in this thread is the huge difference in our tendancies to try and resolve problems through litigation. It's a huge part of American society. It's still a possibility in Canada, but not necessarily the first thing that comes to mind. In addition, rewards given out in law suits are paltry compared to the U.S.

Canadians are just like Americans - except when we're not.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did! So therefore I would have to provide my service to someone who wants to go on a witch hunt (per my example) lawful or not. Then again I work out of my home for just such a reason, I don't have a retail shop where anyone can walk in off the street, I get my business by word of mouth and I have turned people down if there is something that doesn't sit right with me about them.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. In fact - nobody is saying that.

"what they do" has nothing to do with anything. Businesses have a right to refuse to perform TYPES of services. TYPES of services are not customers. They are types of services.

I want to know if you think that the laws that state you can't refuse to (for example) sell a hamburger to someone just for being Black is a harmful law.

Do you think that the above mentioned law has opened up this giant can of worms that means that Ma and Pa Kettle who own the printing press down the street have to print out "Wanted" posters with the pictures and home addresses of doctors who perform abortions? Do you -really- think that the existing protections for (for example) POC means that business owners now have no rights?

Do you think that if LGBT people were to become similarly protected that it would mean that I could ask my seamstress to embroider "Fuck All Republicans Up The Ass Without Lube" on a teeshirt for me - and that she would not be allowed to say no? Do you -really- think that? If you think that - you're wrong.

Because, again, YOU are talking about actions. I am talking about human beings.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

[B]What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did!

There have been a number of posts in this thread making explicitly clear that this is not what happens when laws are put into place that do not allow a private business owner to legally refuse service. Quite a few posts have pointed out that there is a distinct difference between refusing service based on who the person is, and refusing service based on what the person does or what that person intends to do with that service.

A law that states that private business owners may not refuse service, does not prevent them from refusing service due to some sort of misconduct or an act of discrimination. The law is more specifically in place to protect people from being denied service based on who they are.

So to go back to your example again: You would not be able to deny service to a religious group because they are a religious group. You would be able to deny service to a religious group if they were using your services to directly commit an act of discrimination against a certain group or if they partook in any misconduct in general.

The refusal of service in the second instances would not necessarily be from a personal moral standpoint, but from the stand point of protecting a minority group from discrimination (and whether or not this constitutes morality is debatable).

In the case of the florist, she refused service to the gay couple because they were gay, and because the mere fact that they were gay and getting married went against her personal/religious morals. However, if they walked into her flower shop and started stomping on her flowers, harassing her employees and yelling at her about being Christian and how much they hate all Christians and want them dead...then she'd definitely have grounds to deny them service. A law that denies a business owner the right to refuse service defends people from being denied service on the basis of who they are, even if the denial of service stems from personal/religious morality.

So if Fred Phelps comes into my coffee shop and wants to buy a cup of coffee, I cannot deny him coffee just because he is Fred Phelps and I think he's a douche. But if he began defaming, insulting or generally inciting hatred toward gays, Jews or any other such group, then I would have the right to demand that he leave the shop.

Now I have a feeling that it'll once more come back to the fact that some States don't have these anti-discrimination laws for LGBT folks. However, that has little to do with retaining laws that allow private business owners to deny service on any grounds, be they moral/religious or otherwise. By allowing small businesses to do so, you set up that precedent for discrimination, when in fact there should not only be laws defending citizens from discrimination in the work place and elsewhere, but also laws defending people from being denied service based on who they are simply because the owner disapproves of who they are. Hence the repeated response over and over: fighting for equal rights on all fronts rather than giving up your right to protection entirely just so you can deny a bigot service if they want to use your services for some kind of discriminatory act (which you would be able to do even if the law stated you could not deny service based on moral/religious reasons, because you're denying them service based on their plan to use your services to discriminate.)