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

[Soon]

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]

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]

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

[julieisafemme]

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.

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?

[Ebon]

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.

Daisies for Jesus. lol

I have nothing important to add except business owners should have the right to refuse people but for reasons based on the persons actions not based on anything else like sexual orientation, race, religion etc...

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Ebon

Daisies for Jesus. lol

I have nothing important to add except business owners should have the right to refuse people but for reasons based on the persons actions not based on anything else like sexual orientation, race, religion etc...

Agreed. You show up drunk - you don't get served. You have bad credit - you don't get a loan. You have no shirt on - you're gross and no you cannot have fries.

But you show up gay - no flowers for you? That's wrong.

[suebee]

Moncton is in the Bible belt. The ABC - Atlantic Baptist College is located there. Even if they discriminate they won't run out of customers. HOWEVER, bottom line - if it's not okay to say "we won't serve Jews/blacks/Muslims/women/Indians/redheaded people/foreigners/French-speaking people/long-haired hippie-freaks", it's NOT okay to say you won't serve homosexuals. And besides - it's against the law here.
I hope somebody sues the crap out of the store owner. I live here, and I want my rights - entrenched in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, to be respected. MY God loves me just the way She made me thankyouverymuch.

[suebee]

Wow! I deliberately didn't look at the poll results or the other posts before my initial response. I would never have expected this kind of response as a community. Surprising.

Originally Posted by Linus

And if I can also add, in Canada, religious organizations can choose to not marry a same-sex couple (religious freedom) and for that reason, if that can be allowed, the businesses should have that right as well.

If I was a business owner in Canada I would also have the right to refuse business to straight married if I wanted to.

And if K and I get married in Canada, we'd make sure that all those we chose to business with us were supportive. I certainly wouldn't choose someone who isn't supportive.

I don't care for discrimination on religious grounds, but there has to be some allowance for religious freedom. It should be added that it's only religious institutions who have the right to refuse on religious grounds. A case was played out not too long ago (in Alberta I believe) where a marriage commissioner refused to perform his duties based on his religious beliefs (refused to marry a gay couple). His case went to court and was not found to have merit. My take: if you can't do your job based on your religious beliefs, especially your PUBLIC SERVICE job, where you supposedly work FOR the people - get another job.

Originally Posted by Medusa

I'd probably err on the side of the business owner, even if in this case I don't care for their reasoning.

I think about how I would feel as the owner of this site if the Federal government came and told me that I had to allow x, y, or z people.

There was an article several years ago about a restaurant owner who had a very upscale establishment that disallowed children. A couple who demanded to bring their children inside sued the crap out of them - I'm going to have to look it up because I can't remember if they won or not but I did remember thinking that the restaurant owner should have the right to create whatever ambience in their establishment that they saw fit without the courts telling them otherwise.

Would it piss me off if a business refused to serve me or significantly altered the services provided to me because of their religion or me being Gay? Probably. But I think a good example of this is that there is a bookstore here in town called "Hastings" that does not have a Gay and Lesbian section of books- so I get to make the choice to withdraw my Gay dollars and spend them elsewhere.

Okay, is this perhaps a major difference between the U.S. viewpoint and Canadian viewpoint? Because for me my government is MINE. It is there to protect the rights of EVERYBODY. If they're doing it right somebody is always going to be pissed off I guess. But as far as discrimination goes, I don't know that anybody has the RIGHT to do that. Different people might very well have differing opinions as to what is discrimination, but the rights of the minority should always be protected. I'd love to hear what others have to say about government interference v.s. societal protections of minorities.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by suebee

Different people might very well have differing opinions as to what is discrimination, but the rights of the minority should always be protected. I'd love to hear what others have to say about government interference v.s. societal protections of minorities.

I think we feel the same way.

I know that there are people who think that Canada is "less free" than the US is because of our hate speech laws and because we have more groups who are "protected" in Canada than the US does blah blah blah.

And sure, maybe some people in Canada are less free than they would be if they lived in the US. But I know that I myself am MORE free as a Canadian than I would be if I was a US citizen. The only Canadians who are "less free" because of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms are ASSHOLES.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Like in Canada you can be charged with a hate crime if you are a Holocaust Denier. OH BUUHUU proof that Canada is less free! No. Holocaust Deniers are assholes - and in Canada assholes are less free. But people like me? More free.

[DomnNC]

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]

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.

[Miss Scarlett]

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.

[Martina]

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

[betenoire]

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.]

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.

[Miss Scarlett]

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.


(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:


(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;


(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;


(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and


(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.


(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.


(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.


(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).


SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.


SEC. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.


(b) In any action commenced pursuant to this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.


(c) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.


(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.


SEC. 205. The Service is authorized to make a full investigation of any complaint referred to it by the court under section 204(d) and may hold such hearings with respect thereto as may be necessary. The Service shall conduct any hearings with respect to any such complaint in executive session, and shall not release any testimony given therein except by agreement of all parties involved in the complaint with the permission of the court, and the Service shall endeavor to bring about a voluntary settlement between the parties.


SEC. 206. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.


(b) In any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.


In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.


It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.


SEC. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.


(b) The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.

http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/YCR/CIVILR64.HTM

[Andrew, Jr.]

Not all 50 states have civil rights for us on the books. We desperately need them.

[Blade]

Well I think that is depends on the business. I think someone offering a service...like a florist should be able to decline service to anyone they wish. I don't think they owe anyone an explanation.

Now if they declined someone and told them their decision was based on a moral or religious issue then I'd say they were pretty shallow.

[Blade]

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.

[Blade]

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