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

[Soon]

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.

[Soon]

I think you know where I stand. I voted no.

No gang-piling if you agree with the business owner's decision...just curious as to your reasons--a healthy debate might ensue--or not!

[Soon]

Interesting! A thee way tie so far!

[wolfbittenpoet]

I find that if you are going to have the right to refuse service you should have some kind of sign posted saying that you have the right to refuse service to anyone. They should not use religious or moral reasonings. That way someone from the glbt community has the same right to deny service to a hatemonger without recourse. Yes it is discriminatory but sometimes it is a necessary evil to protect yourself down the line.

[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.

[Gemme]

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.

I see that the thread has gone in a bit of a different direction, but I opted only to answer the OP's initial question.

After 4 pages, I'm sure it's been said, but a business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That doesn't make it fun when we're the ones being refused service, but it's their right. They are the ones losing out on the sale.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Toughy

The problem with having protected classes is every time a new group gets added to the protected classes, a huge ass long nasty hateful debate occurs prior to adding them. Lines are drawn and folks are shoved in various boxes. The government finally adds them or doesn't add them and the nasty crap continues for at least 50 years.

It's not safe in parts of many states for a POC to be walking around....same goes for queers, muslims, jews, and _____ . It's been close to 60 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed. In many places the effect of that has been violence moving underground and folks still not safe.

In hind sight, one could argue that the Civil Rights Act has in some ways made it worse for the black community. Once integration passed and white businesses were forced to allow blacks in their businesses, thousands of black businesses went bankrupt. A booming black middle class came to a screeching halt as black business owners lost customers by the hundreds and had to close go bankrupt.

It's a hella big conundrum. What would have happened if instead of forced integration and decimation of black businesses, the government had allowed whites only business to continue, and had taken away every single tax deduction those white business were allowed? What if it had hurt the bottom line for those business?

These are just some thoughts that run through my head.

I had some thoughts to this post that I'm gonna throw out here. Adorable wrote on the decline of the KKK over the years, and that kind of started my train of thought here. It also makes me wonder if the strong presence of racism in some states is moreso because of the fact that the government hasn’t taken stronger measures to suppress it entirely. I know that Nazi Germany is a more extreme case, however, given where the States sits with racism/minority rights compared with modern Germany and other European nations that suffered dictatorships, I wonder why the US seems to be one of the only ones that has not remedied the effects of its past.

I decided not to use Canada as an example on this one because, even though we possess many similar laws and policies as Western Europe (primarily laws referred to in this thread: not permitting business owners to refuse service), we do not have a history of extreme xenophobia to the extent of the US, Nazi Germany or Spain under Franco. That isn’t to say we haven’t had our share in the past, because we have, however, I’m not sure that it’s comparable to the US.

When Nazi Germany fell, Germany took measures (and continues to take measures) to assure that it would never be easy for a group like the Nazis to come into power again. Today these measures continue: the swastika is still banned, Neo-Nazi organisations and media are illegal (and this is taken very seriously, despite that some groups still exist) and, perhaps most importantly, the German government has hate speech laws in place that make it illegal for anyone to publicly insult, defame or generally incite hatred toward any minority group. It is also illegal to refuse service on the basis of race/ethnicity.

But the US government hasn’t really taken such drastic measures. Freedom of speech laws continue to protect bigots who would, given the chance, eradicate any group that does not conform to their world view. I do not understand the need to allow free speech for people who specifically incite hatred for other groups. That kind of "freedom" does not benefit society in any way whatsoever, and instead threatens social progress. In fact, I think this is a huge reason why the US is so behind when it comes to minority/human rights compared with other Western nations, and why European neo-nazi groups are able to expand online through American domains/"free speech" laws. I understand the need to protect speech, however, that speech should only extend as far as there is no desire to eradicate or discriminate against groups based on inherent, unchangeable traits (the person themselves vs. actions committed).

Same goes with making it illegal to allow business owners to refuse service to protected classes, including LGBT. And I do wonder whether the strong racism/homophobia etc. in certain areas of the US are not due to the US government’s negligence on actually cracking down on all avenues of racism (or all forms of bigotry for that matter), rather than the Civil Rights Act (I think progress would have been even slower without it) as you suggest.

[adorable]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I had some thoughts to this post that I'm gonna throw out here. Adorable wrote on the decline of the KKK over the years, and that kind of started my train of thought here. It also makes me wonder if the strong presence of racism in some states is moreso because of the fact that the government hasn’t taken stronger measures to suppress it entirely. I know that Nazi Germany is a more extreme case, however, given where the States sits with racism/minority rights compared with modern Germany and other European nations that suffered dictatorships, I wonder why the US seems to be one of the only ones that has not remedied the effects of its past.

Because the US is different and relatively new. Our history is nothing compared to that of other countries. And, we joined in an already flourishing slave trade. We didn't invent it. In other countries whites were also slaves. So rather then it having to do with skin color, it had to do with class. There are still class and caste structures around the world that reflect less than modern thinking. We don't supress in this country for good reason. Someone would have to decide who and what should be supressed. Our freedom, my freedom, their freedom..depends entirely on respecting everyone's freedom - even if that means to hate. You will ask 30 people what shouldn't be allowed and you will get 30 different answers, all based on their personal preferences.


I decided not to use Canada as an example on this one because, even though we possess many similar laws and policies as Western Europe (primarily laws referred to in this thread: not permitting business owners to refuse service), we do not have a history of extreme xenophobia to the extent of the US, Nazi Germany or Spain under Franco. That isn’t to say we haven’t had our share in the past, because we have, however, I’m not sure that it’s comparable to the US.

Canada is just as bad.
http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org/

When Nazi Germany fell, Germany took measures (and continues to take measures) to assure that it would never be easy for a group like the Nazis to come into power again. Today these measures continue: the swastika is still banned, Neo-Nazi organisations and media are illegal (and this is taken very seriously, despite that some groups still exist) and, perhaps most importantly, the German government has hate speech laws in place that make it illegal for anyone to publicly insult, defame or generally incite hatred toward any minority group. It is also illegal to refuse service on the basis of race/ethnicity.

Germany did that which is was forced to do. Just like they didn't get to have a military anymore. The German people were not in charge following WWII anymore then the Japanese were. The nazi's represent hate and opression NOW, at the time, they were the working class party. When you combine the working class, a generally under educated population with a poor economy bad things generally happen, regardless of laws on the books.

But the US government hasn’t really taken such drastic measures. Freedom of speech laws continue to protect bigots who would, given the chance, eradicate any group that does not conform to their world view. I do not understand the need to allow free speech for people who specifically incite hatred for other groups. That kind of "freedom" does not benefit society in any way whatsoever, and instead threatens social progress. In fact, I think this is a huge reason why the US is so behind when it comes to minority/human rights compared with other Western nations, and why European neo-nazi groups are able to expand online through American domains/"free speech" laws. I understand the need to protect speech, however, that speech should only extend as far as there is no desire to eradicate or discriminate against groups based on inherent, unchangeable traits (the person themselves vs. actions committed).

Because there are plenty of people who would LOVE it if this site didn't exist. If we didn't march. If we didn't have a voice. Who is right? We are of course!

Same goes with making it illegal to allow business owners to refuse service to protected classes, including LGBT. And I do wonder whether the strong racism/homophobia etc. in certain areas of the US are not due to the US government’s negligence on actually cracking down on all avenues of racism (or all forms of bigotry for that matter), rather than the Civil Rights Act (I think progress would have been even slower without it) as you suggest.

Certain areas of the US are less educated. Education matters. I grew up lower working class. It was only through education that I realized most of what I had learned from my family was BS. Unless long held family belief's are challenged at some point in your life, the tendency is go with it. Laws help because it gets people talking about it, makes people pay for it and at least stops people from acting out. Some people realize the absurdity racism/predjudice on their own, and chose not to participate. Others need to be taught, challenged, fought with, ect.
In the US we aren't perfect. BUT there are worse places to be. The right to refuse service is a helleva lot better then being stoned to death in the public square.

[suebee]

Adorable, what do you mean when you say "Canada is just as bad". It's a pretty general statement.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by suebee

Adorable, what do you mean when you say "Canada is just as bad". It's a pretty general statement.

I presume she meant because both Canada and the US had abusive residential schools that First Nations children were shipped off to. (since that's what the link she posted was about. well, the link was about the ones in Canada she didn't mention the ones in the US - although I'm certain she's aware of those schools in the US.)

Canada and the US share some really abhorrent historical practices. We both had slavery. We both had abusive church run and government funded residential schools with the aim to "westernize" First Nations children. We both had internment camps for Japanese, German, and Italian Americans and Canadians during WWII.

[Soon]

I guess it wasn't a ridiculous question!

Thanks for the votes and comments!

[julieisafemme]

The florist in the story is not what I was thinking of. I was thinking of someone bringing a non-kosher item into a kosher restaurant and being asked to leave. Noah's Bagels is now a chain but it used to be owned by an Orthodox Jew and the sign read in the front please do not bring outside food and drink in. So I voted yes. Maybe it depends? On whether I agree? Hee hee!

[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.

[Soon]

I might add, there was a case in B.C. where a bed and breakfast denied accomodations to a gay couple based on the same reasons as in this article. The couple chose to shut down their business rather than facing a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

Article:

http://www.canada.com/travel/couple+...298/story.html

/snip/

This is the second time in five years the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has been asked to rule on a conflict between gay rights and religious rights.

In 2005, in a similar case, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled the Catholic group, the Knights of Columbus, was justified for refusing to rent its hall to a lesbian couple for a wedding reception.

However, the tribunal ruled the Knights of Columbus should have made other accommodations for the couple.

Smith said he plans to use that case in his arguments before the tribunal for the Molnars. He suspects the complainants’ lawyer will also rely on the same case.

“It’s the same argument that on religious grounds (the Knights of Columbus) had the right to refuse to rent to them. But the other side will argue you still have to accommodate them,” said Smith. “So the question becomes, where does one right end and the other right begin?”

[Diva]

If a minister came to me and wanted to commission me to paint the 2nd coming, I'd want to speak to his wife first....
to see if that really happened.

More than likely, though, I'd say no to that religious experience.

[weatherboi]

i think a business owner should have the right to refuse service to a client. i have owned a few different businesses over the years and have exercised that privilege on occasion, all for different reasons. mostly because the client did something along the way to make me uncomfortable to trust them to pay me or treat me decent. never was it over someones religious, political, or social views. i always tried/try very hard to remain sterile with my clients so i don't learn too much about them personally and in the south that is kinda hard. people here want your first born before they do business with anybody.


one last thing...i research who i do business with because it is important to me to know where my money is going. i think that sucks that happened to that couple!!!