I agree with you completely. This exact situation happened recently in Idaho... a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription to stop uterine bleeding unless a nurse at the doctor's office where it was prescribed would tell her (the pharmacist) that it WASN'T because of an abortion. (There is a law on the books there that says that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense an abortifacient on personal principle, but the drug she was prescribed wasn't an abortifacient. It was to keep her from bleeding out.)

Walgreen's, where this took place, is a private business. The pharmacist refused the woman's business on moral grounds. That seems to be consistent with the position of several posters, at least as it relates to the florist. I just want to know if those folks siding with the florist sided with the pharmacist, too... and if one is okay and one isn't, why? Where is the boundary, who sets it? Is it the use of the flowers necessarily the florist's business (gay wedding vs. straight wedding)?

Again, I'm not trying to kick up trouble, I'm genuinely curious as to the difference, and what people think about one vs. the other... and how, if we decide it's okay to do that in one case, we justify it not being okay in the other. Also, who decides? Have we collectively already decided, on many levels, that some forms of discrimination are not socially acceptable by putting policies in place?

There's a huge difference between a dress code and deciding you don't want to serve "the gays". I mean "dress code" and "I don't want to serve the gays" don't even live on the same continent!

I can go home and put on some sleeves and pull up my pants, but I can't take off my gay.

I think there can be restrictions related to health concerns (shirts and shoes required) or decorum (wear a jacket). I also think that one should be able to choose not to get into a business relationship with someone who makes them uncomfortable, like if you're thinking they won't pay or they'll be litigious. But, I don't think that anyone has the right to refuse service on the basis of being gay or other attribute.

I personally wouldn't like to do business with anyone who had trouble with my being gay. My partner and I are planning our wedding, and we've been open with all of our vendors. If we have even an inkling of discomfort on the part of a vendor, we would pass on using them. When we travel or stay in a hotel, we usually check recommendations and look for info on gay-friendly places. I think consumers have some responsibility to be aware of their options.

I don't think businesses should have the right to deny service (unless it's an issue of behaviour/conduct like's been mentioned). I also agree with this quote:

Beyond the fact that it was against the law for her to deny the couple service based on their sexual orientation, I think the above also stands true. Your religious morals are for your private home and the religious institution you attend. You shouldn't take them to work with you, and they should not affect how you do business with someone.

I also fail to see where allowing businesses to deny service to people based on race, nationality, colour, sexual orientation, gender etc. will get us as far as human rights. If laws hadn't been made protecting races/ethnicities/nationalities or genders against descrimination we wouldn't be where we are today. Allowing businesses to deny service based on sexual orientation is sending us backward, not supporting social progress. Granting this kind of tolerance to intolerance is not what got us our current freedoms. It also sets up a precedence of intolerance when it comes to fighting for other rights.

Just to play devils advocate...


You have a flower shop...

You have someone wanting to order table pieces... 100 of them, let's say...

They want the center pieces to have icons that you find offensive(insert the confederate flag or the swastica or some other sybol) as the main feature...

Do you take the order or do you refuse on principle?

If you refuse the order because it offends your principle or your belief system, then how can you deny someone else that right?

For me....

If I want the right to live my principles, then I have to extend the same privilage to someone who doesn't believe the same as I do...

UNLESS...

You take goverment money.... If you receive goverment money for your business... If you have a contract with my goverment, then you don't get to live your principles...

It would depend on which country I'm inhabiting. In Germany it is illegal to bear the swastika and to sell items depicting the swastika. So if I were living in Germany, no I would not sell that centre piece because I'd be committing an illegal act. On top of that, I agree with German law as far as the depiction of the National Socialist swastika (note, that the swastika is not only an NS symbol).

If I were in Canada, it is not illegal to sell an item depicting the swastika. I would sell it to them, whether the symbol itself offended me or not because I understand the difference between certain uses of that symbol and the inciting of hatred. It is, however, illegal to propagate hatred through speech, writing or visual representation, and so if any of the above occured in my establishment or were suggested in my establishment, then I would not sell it to them.

As I mentioned above, the swastika isn't only an NS symbol, but is also used in a number of eastern religions as a religious symbol, as well as in various European pagan religions as a religious symbol (though there is a difference between the NS swastika and that found in European pagan religions).

I'd say that same thing goes with the Confederate flag, in that I don't think that it can be deemed as exclusively a symbol of hatred, and so I would have no reason to refuse to sell an individual such a centre piece. Hell, I've seen tons of university students mount Confederate flags if only because they love Pantera, so I'm not that quick to be offended, lol.

But I might also argue that there is a flaw in your playing devil's advocate here. Do you really not see a difference between discrimination and "religious morals"? There is a reason why many nations have laws against intolerant groups and their propaganda. There is a marked difference between protecting the rights of visible or marked minorities and protecting the rights of those whose belief incites or promotes hatred, alienation or oppression of other groups purely on the basis of skin colour, ethnicity, nationality, sex or sexual orientation. If someone wanted me to provide them with an image that depicted a lynching or had "god hates fags" written on it, well I think there are very good reasons for there being laws against that and I'd have very good reasons to refuse them if I gave a damn about promoting a society that protects individuals from discrimination in all aspects of their life. It's not inherently wrong to say "god hates fags" or other homophobic remarks, but it has no place in a society that wants to protect its citizens from discrimination.

Basically, I think striving for the creation of a society free (or as close as possible to it) from discrimination takes precedence over personal inclinations. I might be offended by a Christian cross as a symbol of 2000 years of oppression, but I'm not going to deny Christians the right to enter my restaurant or flower shop or refuse their use of the symbol.

Ender

I want to answer your post, but I have too much going through my head to do it justice right now...

I'll be back later

I woke up and kept thinking of this thread and remembered back in the day this story. It did happen.

I used to be friends with a couple--she is white and he is black. They have three children together. This was back in the early nineties.

They drove down to Florida (Disney) as a family and stopped for gas (Georgia, maybe?). The attendant saw their family and would not serve them. For real. Was that his right if he doesn't believe it is moral for blacks and whites to be together and have children b/c it is against his value system, his beliefs etc?

They drove to another gas station. But what if there wasn't one that was close? What if they had little gas left? Was it that business owner's right to refuse this family his services b/c he morally objects to their family? (I know legally he couldn't do that but he took a chance that they wouldn't persue it--and they didn't).


From what I understand, slavery/segregation/anti-miscegenation laws were largely based on people's personal value systems with a lot of biblical justifications. This owner just didn't morally agree with their type of family and refused them service.

This could happen to any of us couples. How is this ok?

However, some are agreeing that it would be fine, and within his rights, for that gas station owner to look at the composition of us as couples and families and agree that it is his right to deny us service based on our sexual orientation or gender identity.


Like Ender wrote, that is why anti-discrimination laws are in place (or have to be put in place) to prohibit this kind of intolerance and protect ALL people's access (including LGBT community) to services based on the equal human rights. It has been eye-opening, to me, that this idea of equal access to services and goods for ALL is not a wholly shared idea or goal in which to strive.

Being denied access to services b/c of someone's personal or religious beliefs can also encompass the already United States federal protected classes -- sexual orientation and gender identity are not, currently, a protected class. Would it be fine for a woman to be denied access to a private singing school (and shared that she is a church soloist to the owner) b/c the owner believes in the words within the Bible that a woman should remain silent in church?

I remain curious if people would support the removal of the current USA Federally protected classes (age, gender, creed, disability, race? i might be missing something) b/c, these categories, as well, could infringe upon a business owner's personal/religious beliefs.

You know, maybe this is my Canadian perspective - because I know with the laws that are in place I am safe from ever being asked to do something SUPER heinous. But you know what? If I owned a bakery and some loser asked me to make him 100 cupcakes with little confederate flags on it - I'd do it. Because that's my job. And because making the cupcakes is not the same as getting a bad haircut and then attending the bigot hoe-down (how do you spell that anyway?) where the cupcakes will be consumed. It's just not.

In my line of work I have to provide services to people who are actively using drugs (like, I show up and the crack pipe is sitting on the table beside the chair - that's what I mean by actively) people who I know are abusing the system, and even people who I just find really distasteful in general. I don't get to refuse those services - because it's my job not my personal life. How I feel about the personalities and actions of the people of the people I support DOES NOT GET to effect how I do my job - and if it DID then I would be pretty shitty at my job and I wouldn't deserve to have the job that I have.

Even rapists and murderers get defense lawyers. That doesn't make the lawyer complicit in the rape or murder - it makes the lawyer a person who is doing her or his job.

I voted yes,because ive run a buisness before that had me or my employees going to diffrent farms to pick up horses for transport.If a farm had unrully dogs or horses that were hard to load,unmannered or the employees of the farm rude to my drivers not to mention unsafe,I wouldnt do buisness with them.I also told my drivers if they felt uncomfortable in anyway going anywhere or after they got to the place to get in the cab..call me or if needed (a judgement call for the driver)just dont stop or turn around and leave.I kept a record of every place I did buisness with,the good..bad & ugly of them all.I stated on my contract about my drivers safty comeing first.

I feel like people are misunderstanding the question or something.

CLEARLY there is a pretty big difference between your physical safety in the workplace (IE - not working in an environment where you could be injured or killed) and just not feeling like providing service to someone because they are gay.

There are laws in place (at least in Canada, I don't know if the US has a workplace safety act or anything) that protect us from having to do things in the course of our jobs that will put us at personal physical risk.

But, again, nobody has ever lost an eye or broken an arm from selling flowers to a gay couple. I mean, seriously? Apples. Oranges.

I am quite surprised so many people think it's ok to deny service to someone based on sexual orientation. If that really becomes ok many of us will be waiting a long time for goods and services. I also don't see denying someone goods or services based on sexual orientation being the equivalent of refusing service to a hate group.

Ok but what if you make the 100 cupcakes and they are a huge hit and then the rest of the bigot brigade is beating down your door for more cupcakes with ever increasing demands for horribly offensive sweets?

The bakery owner is self-employed and not working as part of a system or for the state. If I work for someone else then I am under their values and morals. Would you work for the confederate flag making baker?

it's not just about flowers
 

What if there is one grocery store in a small town.


No food for us?



The far reaching consequences of allowing private businesses to turn away customers based on their moral/religious convictions is, to me, horrifying.

Firstly - I don't understand why some of you are insisting on equating being gay with belonging to a hate group. For the sake of your own self-esteem I really do hope that you know that it's different. :)

Secondly - Slippery slope argument.

Thirdly - I want to know, then, since you think it's okay to refuse services to people just for being gay - do you think that there should be no protected classes of people at all? Do you think that business owners should get to turn people away for being Asian? Hindu? I know Rand Paul thinks that business owners should get to do that, so it's not a totally far-fetched fringe notion.

And if you don't think that business owners should be able to turn people away because of their race or their religion - why do you think it's okay to turn people away because of their sexual orientation?

It is not about denying someone service based on their bad behaviour.

We are talking about people being denied services for WHO and WHAT they are.

Being a bigot is a choice--being queer is not. For the most part, it is an immutable or ingrained characteristic.

The government does not make someone serve a customer because of poor behaviour; however, the government has decided that people must be served due to a host of other categories.

But some think that queer people should NOT be entitled to services based solely on an owner`s moral and religious objections...I just don`t see how it is different from any other already protected classes and I really can`t get on the same page as LGBT folks being compared to some customer`s shitty attitudes.