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

[betenoire]

We do have freedom of religion in Canada, but there are limits placed on that freedom. I'm okay with that. What if your religion said that you could (and should!) have several wives (all of whom are under the legal age at the time that you marry them)? That's what the limits on freedom of religion are for. You're free to believe what you want, assemble with other believers, talk about your belief - up to the point that your religious practices break the law or harm someone else. I don't think that's unfair.


Just for fun:

Toronto printing press owner refused to print out letterheads and envelopes with the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives logo on them because he's a "born again Christian". They sued. He lost. He had to pay the Archives 5k and also had to pay their legal fees on top of his own legal fees.

This little tidbit should be interesting to the people from the "omg but that would mean that I can be forced to make milkshakes with the blood of virgins at my place of business because I'm not allowed to say no to anything!!!!" camp: While it was ruled that he could not refuse to do letterheads for them, it was also ruled that he was welcome to refuse to print out literature that was against his religion.

[BullDog]

Toughy, you sound like Ron Paul, the Conservative Republican Congressman from Texas who opposed the renewal of the Civil Rights Act in 2004.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Son Rand is following in his footsteps and is part of the Tea Party Movement. Oh yes, and I believe they are both Libertarians as well.

[Martina]

It is true that corporations' desire for gay people's money and the talents of gay folks as employees has created faster change than legal interventions would have. Still we need legal protections.

[betenoire]

Toughy,

I gotta give you mad props for answering. Every other person who was opposed to LGBT folks becoming a protect class who I asked if they thought there should be no protected classes refused to answer. (Not sure why?)

That's what I like about you. Unafraid to say something that could potentially be unpopular or misunderstood takes guts. I like guts. I like your guts.

I'm not going to lie, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Because I'm not American, I'm young enough that I wasn't alive when it happened, and because I'm White. Fuck, I'll own that. I've got that very White tendency to not know how things actually are - I try, but when it boils down to it I'm still pretty ignorant.

But, you know, not so ignorant that I don't get that there was backlash and is backlash. I also get that if "sexual orientation" becomes a protected class that there will be backlash to that too - but baby the times are a changin' and I want to believe that the immediate ugly wouldn't be as bad now as it was then.

And to me backlash (or the potential that there will be backlash) isn't reason enough to not want protection for my queer friends in the US.

In Canada sexual orientation was added to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1995, and in 96 we were added to the Human Rights Act. The 90s were wicked-heavy on culture wars issues (which I guess was our backlash) but I can't see any evidence that becoming protected has harmed my community in any way.

[adorable]

Having a protected class is important for me personally because it draws attention to the bigger issue.

My grandfather is 82 years old. He is prejudice and racist. Not according to him mind you. One thing that I've always found very interesting that he said is that "if blacks would just assimilate they wouldn't have all these problems."

Well, alrighty! Why didn't black people just think of that? He hated the Irish and Italians just as much. Because when he was little, most of the Italians and Irish in our town were immigrants that couldn't speak English well. As a town, everyone hated them. They were different. But, goes my grandfather's argument, they assimilated so now no one hates the Italians and Irish anymore.

He did drop out of school in the 3rd grade.

Black people and hispanics cannot "assimilate." Arabs and, I would argue, Jews struggle too. Neither can most gays, queers, fags, dykes, lesbians or the rest of our little rainbow. They stand out. This is where a protected class matters. Is there a backlash? Sure. The south is still a very different place then the north.

Over time, things slowly change because there is no government tolerance of hate. When any government has a policy of hate and discrimination or there is a silence on such things, obscene things are allowed to happen. WWII Germany is a good example. Segregation in this country is too. Lynching, slavery, murder - all things bad that were allowed by the government. Don't ask don't tell, outward discrimination towards of all people, our military. Sexual harassment of women at work or flat out refusing to hire women...There are a million examples but it's too early for me to think of more right now.

There was a time when the KKK was a powerhouse in this country. Today? They are more of an annoyance during their occasional march. They were marginalized because as a country we decided to move past it. The way we do that is by passing laws that unify us against stupidity. Forcing the issue, makes it an actual issue that people can no longer deny. It also makes crime and discrimination against a protected class EXPENSIVE. Once it's not easy to discriminate, companies change their policies and people's attitudes slowly change.

Sloooowly. There is still prejudice, discrimination, hate, and ignorance. With a protected class, we say "These people here, THESE people, they belong to us - leave them alone." There are laws. It's not enough. Attitudes change slowly over generations only with constant reminders from the government (which WE are a part of.) The government is more then an annoying bureaucracy it's also a collective majority with the power to change lives through legislation.

It does and has changed all of our lives. We CAN march. We CAN vote. We CAN work. We CAN own property. And if anyone questions our right to do that we CAN sue the shit out of them. People CAN be charged with hate crimes for hurting one of us.

I personally don't care if someone doesn't like me because I'm queer. We can't force people to like each other. But I do care very much that the government doesn't discriminate against me and that they not send a message that it's ok for others to do the same. I can "assimilate" until I go apply for a marriage license, join the army, end up in the hospital, want a raise, or want to adopt. Blacks and Hispanics, have no problem getting marriage licenses as long as their straight, but have a much harder time getting a job regardless of sexual orientation.

As minority groups we are not all in the same place at the same time but we are all in the same boat. Any in roads help us all, and setbacks hurt us all.

[Chancie]

I am perfectly comfortable refusing my personal help or services to a someone with whom I have a serious ideological difference.

As a public school teacher,

I am morally and legally obligated to extend my professional efforts to all of my students, regardless of their ill thought out offensive opinions.

But, I will not extend myself to a student who is being disciplined for calling someone a 'dyke' or a 'nigger' the way I would extend myself to a student who was in trouble for failing a math test.

I would certainly withhold my expertise from someone who wished to hire me privately.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Toughy,

I gotta give you mad props for answering. Every other person who was opposed to LGBT folks becoming a protect class who I asked if they thought there should be no protected classes refused to answer. (Not sure why?)

That's what I like about you. Unafraid to say something that could potentially be unpopular or misunderstood takes guts. I like guts. I like your guts.

I'm not going to lie, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Because I'm not American, I'm young enough that I wasn't alive when it happened, and because I'm White. Fuck, I'll own that. I've got that very White tendency to not know how things actually are - I try, but when it boils down to it I'm still pretty ignorant.

But, you know, not so ignorant that I don't get that there was backlash and is backlash. I also get that if "sexual orientation" becomes a protected class that there will be backlash to that too - but baby the times are a changin' and I want to believe that the immediate ugly wouldn't be as bad now as it was then.

And to me backlash (or the potential that there will be backlash) isn't reason enough to not want protection for my queer friends in the US.

In Canada sexual orientation was added to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1995, and in 96 we were added to the Human Rights Act. The 90s were wicked-heavy on culture wars issues (which I guess was our backlash) but I can't see any evidence that becoming protected has harmed my community in any way.

Under our current system, there is no choice but to have protected classes and I support having protected classes.

I was just trying to get at the problem in a different way, which ain't ever gonna happen. Thinking outside the box if you will.

I do not believe in assimilation..........this country should not be a melting pot.......it should be a salad bowl. Our differences make us stronger..........assimilation makes us weaker.

(I feel the same way about you)

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Toughy, you sound like Ron Paul, the Conservative Republican Congressman from Texas who opposed the renewal of the Civil Rights Act in 2004.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Son Rand is following in his footsteps and is part of the Tea Party Movement. Oh yes, and I believe they are both Libertarians as well.

Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul (recently elected to the US Senate from Kentucky) both claim Libertarian over conservative Republican. There is a difference between the two. I don't understand why Libertarians have moved to the Republican side since their views on individual rights are certainly more in line with Democrats.

On the surface what I suggested certainly does sound like the Pauls. It's not anywhere near their politics. Libertarians don't believe in Government at all. No Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury (and the Federal Reserve), Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security and a whole bunch of other Cabinet level jobs.

What I suggested is the role of government (in this instance) is to motivate business to act right by costing them that all mighty profit. And it's not limited to discrimination. All the big oil, big agriculture (ADM, Monsanto), ________ companies get government subsidies even though they damn sure don't need them...what the fuck is that about. WalMart pays less in taxes than I pay....and yes that is true......yet has the largest class action discrimination lawsuit ever filed in this country. Why are they getting subsidies, tax deductions from the Government? Cities and States (and federal) routinely give very profitable businesses big ass tax breaks to locate plants, headquarters, etc in their city/states. Why???? And why are they getting those breaks when they are being sued for discriminatory practices? Filing a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar business will only drain money out of the Treasury, because those businesses can pay off anyone/everyone and flood tons and tons of paperwork on the plantiff. I'm willing to bet if they had to pay ALL their taxes no exceptions, some of their practices will certainly change. It's a law, but a law attacking a different method of changing abhorrent business practices.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul (recently elected to the US Senate from Kentucky) both claim Libertarian over conservative Republican. There is a difference between the two. I don't understand why Libertarians have moved to the Republican side since their views on individual rights are certainly more in line with Democrats.

On the surface what I suggested certainly does sound like the Pauls. It's not anywhere near their politics. Libertarians don't believe in Government at all. No Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury (and the Federal Reserve), Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security and a whole bunch of other Cabinet level jobs.

What I suggested is the role of government (in this instance) is to motivate business to act right by costing them that all mighty profit. And it's not limited to discrimination. All the big oil, big agriculture (ADM, Monsanto), ________ companies get government subsidies even though they damn sure don't need them...what the fuck is that about. WalMart pays less in taxes than I pay....and yes that is true......yet has the largest class action discrimination lawsuit ever filed in this country. Why are they getting subsidies, tax deductions from the Government? Cities and States (and federal) routinely give very profitable businesses big ass tax breaks to locate plants, headquarters, etc in their city/states. Why???? And why are they getting those breaks when they are being sued for discriminatory practices? Filing a lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar business will only drain money out of the Treasury, because those businesses can pay off anyone/everyone and flood tons and tons of paperwork on the plantiff. I'm willing to bet if they had to pay ALL their taxes no exceptions, some of their practices will certainly change. It's a law, but a law attacking a different method of changing abhorrent business practices.

I certainly don't think the current tax code is fair. However, I also don't think significant social change is going to happen through tweaking the tax code.

We shouldn't have to have protected classes but until racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia are done away with, I do think that Civil Rights Acts and Equal Protection under the law is necessary and worth fighting for.

Your previous post sounded to me as though you thought we would be better off without the Civil Rights Act.

[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........