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

[Miss Scarlett]

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.

A few things bother me about this whole scenario...

At first glance all parties involved appear to be entitled to protection under the CHRA:

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

But only one seems to have any clearly spelled out protection under the CHRA:

Denial of good, service, facility or accommodation

5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public
(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or
(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual, on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The florist's refusal sent by email was:

"I am choosing to decline your business. As a born-again Christian, I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter"

Unless 5(b) has been interpreted by the Courts to apply to the providers of such services the florist has no protection at all or unless the following could be applied:

Exceptions

15. (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if:

(g) in the circumstances described in section 5 or 6, an individual is denied any goods, services, facilities or accommodation or access thereto or occupancy of any commercial premises or residential accommodation or is a victim of any adverse differentiation and there is bona fide justification for that denial or differentiation.

Accommodation of needs

(2) For any practice mentioned in paragraph: (1)(g) to be considered to have a bona fide justification, it must be established that accommodation of the needs of an individual or a class of individuals affected would impose undue hardship on the person who would have to accommodate those needs, considering health, safety and cost.

This just makes my skin crawl:

Rules of evidence

(9) In conducting an inquiry, the judge is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive, and base a decision on, evidence presented in the proceedings that the judge considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case.

Certain Boards and Tribunals here in NC have similar Rules of Evidence. Bring on the hearsay!

[betenoire]

(2) For any practice mentioned in paragraph: (1)(g) to be considered to have a bona fide justification, it must be established that accommodation of the needs of an individual or a class of individuals affected would impose undue hardship on the person who would have to accommodate those needs, considering health, safety and cost.

There's your answer right there. Selling flowers to a gay couple wasn't going to effect the health or safety of the shop owner - and it also wasn't going to profit the shop keeper any less than selling those same flowers to a heterosexual couple would.

[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by betenoire

There's your answer right there. Selling flowers to a gay couple wasn't going to effect the health or safety of the shop owner - and it also wasn't going to profit the shop keeper any less than selling those same flowers to a heterosexual couple would.

No, it isn't right there.

The owner's emotional health and well-being must be considered. Emotional distress is very real and when someone is forced to do something against their core beliefs there is potential for significant emotional trauma/damage.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Miss Scarlett

No, it isn't right there.

The owner's emotional health and well-being must be considered. Emotional distress is very real and when someone is forced to do something against their core beliefs there is potential for significant emotional trauma/damage.

There is already precedence for this.

In one case a person who performs marriages (but not as part of a church, independently from that) refused to perform a same-sex marriage because of his religion. He lost the case. The gay couple won.

In another case a organisation that provides support to people with physical disabilities (Christian Horizons) fired a long-time employee who realised she was a lesbian. Christian Horizons lost the case.

ONLY Churches get to use "it's against our religion" as a basis for refusing service to gays in Canada. ONLY Churches, because religion is the point of church. That's the law. That flower shop is not a church.

ETA - going to work now.

[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by betenoire

There is already precedence for this.

In one case a person who performs marriages (but not as part of a church, independently from that) refused to perform a same-sex marriage because of his religion. He lost the case. The gay couple won.

In another case a organisation that provides support to people with physical disabilities (Christian Horizons) fired a long-time employee who realised she was a lesbian. Christian Horizons lost the case.

ONLY Churches get to use "it's against our religion" as a basis for refusing service to gays in Canada. ONLY Churches, because religion is the point of church. That's the law. That flower shop is not a church.

I never stated anything about using "against our religion" as a claim to protection under the CHRA because it's not there as a possible protection for any provider such as the aforementioned florist, et al.

Which is my point - there are NO clearly spelled out protections in the CHRA for ANY individuals who are providers acting in the capacity of providers.

The cases you mention appear to address only the legal precedent for "against our religion" matters pertaining to discrimination rather than (or in addition to) the grave emotional harm I addressed. (I would appreciate it if you could provide the case citations so I could read those decisions.)

BTW - the CHRA makes no mention of extending religious, or any other, protections to ONLY churches.