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

[Soon]

DomnNC,

I had to to take a break. I also had to keep reading it to make sure I understood it.

My issues with your example is that you are discussing an action--you know will be performed after a service--if you know what their behaviour/actions will be with the service you gave them, you have a right to deny them service. You are not refusing the job based on a CHARACTERISTIC.

Dom, you are not talking about denial of service based on a characterstic of the service seeker; you would be denying service based on the service that is being requested.


Protected classes are there to protect people from being ARBITRARILY treated differently, and being treated worse, based solely on certain characteristics.

Regarding the gendered gym example: In this case, the sex segregated gyms are not saying we hate men or we hate women--it is not a judgement--like discrimination. Discrimination, in my opinion, says, "I judge you to be of lesser value than someone else b/c of this particular characteristic or that you belong to a group that I find socially undesirable; therefore I have the right to refuse you service."


What about the days where women weren't even allowed their own chequing account or mortgages were only given to white men? These banks used to have moral objections to women holding a chequing account and minority groups owning a mortgage. Anti-discrimination laws were put in place to protect these situations from happening. Today, they can deny a a person based on a poor credit history--this is a legitimate business interest (and a behaviour)--it is not about denying someone a service due to a characteristic or the fact that they belong to a certain group.

As far as questions not being answered are concerned: Several of us have asked those who believe that businesses have the right to refuse service based on religious or moral objections, if they are then ready then ready to give up the notion of protected classes ALL TOGETHER?

Those people who do live in areas where many groups are protected--are you willing to give that up?

I know I am pretty happy with Canada very close to passing protections based on gender identity.

[DomnNC]

See Ender and HowSoon that's the crux of the problem, ya'll are coming at people in the US with your laws in Canada which WE do not have in the states for the most part. You can't interject your laws upon us and beat down our responses because they don't mesh with yours because you guys ARE protected. I'm speaking from the standpoint of the laws in the US. I live in NC where there are NO laws on the state books regarding discrimination against the LGBT community, at ALL. We are fair targets and open game to anyone who wants to discriminate against us, except in municipalities that have passed such laws which are few and far in between.

So yes, a company can ask me to write a system that tracks its LGBT employees, a church could ask me to do the same thing in regards to their congregation and it's perfectly legal and acceptable for them to do so and it's perfectly legal to fire said employees or kick members of a congregation out just because they are LGBT as it wouldn't fit within THEIR moral compass (example - a family owned business where the owner may be extremely religious). It doesn't matter if I know what the outcome of those numbers will be, but being in the bible belt I can just imagine that they would be used for no good and with detriment to my community here.

So should I not have the preference and right as a small business owner to say NO, HELL NO to those people who would wish harm upon my community by taking their source of income or kicking them out of a church that they may happen to love? or Should I be forced into doing this programming for them with the threat of a lawsuit if such a law existed on the books stating I cannot refuse my service to anyone for any reason at all?

Remember, they have NO laws to protect them in NC, I have seen people terminated and people kicked out of churches in NC simply because a person happens to be a part of the LGBT community.

Edit: I could have no moral compass at all and say sure I'll take your money and do it anyway. It would be no skin off my back just money in the bank. That is if I had no moral compass. This is a group of people wanting to discriminate against LGBT, same difference, just a different avenue. I would be aiding that discrimination if I took the money.

[julieisafemme]

I understand what Jo is saying. The distinction she is making. I have already answered the question. I do want it both ways. Meaning I want to tell the bigot no and be protected under the law because I am queer. Of course this is not feasible but she asked the question.

This is not about US vs. Canada and I don't see anyone beating down people's responses.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by julieisafemme

I understand what Jo is saying. The distinction she is making. I have already answered the question. I do want it both ways. Meaning I want to tell the bigot no and be protected under the law because I am queer. Of course this is not feasible but she asked the question.

This is not about US vs. Canada and I don't see anyone beating down people's responses.

Julie,

You can tell the bigot no. That is a behaviour in which an owner can legitimately refuse service. It's like a person coming into a store w/o a shirt. It is a behaviour that an owner can legally refuse service.

[julieisafemme]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Julie,

You can tell the bigot no. That is a behaviour in which an owner can legitimately refuse service. It's like a person coming into a store w/o a shirt. It is a behaviour that an owner can legally refuse service.

Woo hoo!! I am protected and no confederate cupcakes!!!

Seriously though anything that would jeopardize equality for gay and transgender people is always going to have to take a backseat.

[suebee]

I think we need to come to some sort of consensus of what we mean by "discrimination". When I use that word I am talking about somebody who is from an identifiable group: ethnic, linguistic, sexual orientation, religion - I'm sure there are others. If a particular business decides not to serve somebody because they're an asshat - is that discrimination? *I* think it's just deciding who you want to serve - NOT discrimination. A good example would be singers who have performed privately for undesirables: dictators, crime bosses etc. When this is made public their reputation suffers. I would think they'd have a right to say no. Is that discrimination? No.

In Canada we are fortunate to have laws protecting us from hate and discrimination. Not that it's a fail-proof system mind you, but it's certainly better than it was before. But if we're looking at the question of whether or not a business "should be able to discriminate", well aren't we looking at a NEED for legislation to protect minorities - whether or not it presently exists where you live?

I seriously doubt that refusing to make cupcakes adorned with the confederate flag would be punishable under Canada's laws - nor should it be.

[julieisafemme]

Originally Posted by suebee

I think we need to come to some sort of consensus of what we mean by "discrimination". When I use that word I am talking about somebody who is from an identifiable group: ethnic, linguistic, sexual orientation, religion - I'm sure there are others. If a particular business decides not to serve somebody because they're an asshat - is that discrimination? *I* think it's just deciding who you want to serve - NOT discrimination. A good example would be singers who have performed privately for undesirables: dictators, crime bosses etc. When this is made public their reputation suffers. I would think they'd have a right to say no. Is that discrimination? No.

In Canada we are fortunate to have laws protecting us from hate and discrimination. Not that it's a fail-proof system mind you, but it's certainly better than it was before. But if we're looking at the question of whether or not a business "should be able to discriminate", well aren't we looking at a NEED for legislation to protect minorities - whether or not it presently exists where you live?

I seriously doubt that refusing to make cupcakes adorned with the confederate flag would be punishable under Canada's laws - nor should it be.

I'm just teasing with that! My goodness! Bete said she would make the cupcakes anyway because that is her job and that might be due to her Canadian sensibilites. It would not be punishable here either. I am not talking about the law per se there. Just a business refusing service. But as Jo pointed out her example is specific to discrimination of protected classes.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

See Ender and HowSoon that's the crux of the problem, ya'll are coming at people in the US with your laws in Canada which WE do not have in the states for the most part. You can't interject your laws upon us and beat down our responses because they don't mesh with yours because you guys ARE protected. I'm speaking from the standpoint of the laws in the US. I live in NC where there are NO laws on the state books regarding discrimination against the LGBT community, at ALL. We are fair targets and open game to anyone who wants to discriminate against us, except in municipalities that have passed such laws which are few and far in between.

So yes, a company can ask me to write a system that tracks its LGBT employees, a church could ask me to do the same thing in regards to their congregation and it's perfectly legal and acceptable for them to do so and it's perfectly legal to fire said employees or kick members of a congregation out just because they are LGBT as it wouldn't fit within THEIR moral compass (example - a family owned business where the owner may be extremely religious). It doesn't matter if I know what the outcome of those numbers will be, but being in the bible belt I can just imagine that they would be used for no good and with detriment to my community here.

So should I not have the preference and right as a small business owner to say NO, HELL NO to those people who would wish harm upon my community by taking their source of income or kicking them out of a church that they may happen to love? or Should I be forced into doing this programming for them with the threat of a lawsuit if such a law existed on the books stating I cannot refuse my service to anyone for any reason at all?

Remember, they have NO laws to protect them in NC, I have seen people terminated and people kicked out of churches in NC simply because a person happens to be a part of the LGBT community.

Dom,

I wrote that you DID had the right to refuse them service based on their actions.


The question I posed in the poll does not say anything about the laws in where you or I reside.

My question is do you BELIEVE (regardless of what is or is not on the books), that business owners have the right to refuse service based on religious or moral objections.

I am not beating anyone down. I am responding to posts and expressing my opinion.

Yes, Ender, Bete and myself are from Canada; however, the USA DOES have protected classes for some groups (and not for others), so I am unsure wherein lies the discrepancy in attitudes towards protected classes.

Just b/c Canada has laws protecting sexual orientation and, soon, gender identity, doesn't mean that citizens of the USA don't understand the idea of protected classes. You already have federal (and local -- some more for others) protections--they are already in place to prevent discrimination based on certain characteristics of the population.


Are you willing to give up laws that currently protect certain classes b/c you believe that the moral and religious objections of a business owner trumps those of a customer?

To me, those who voted yes they do agree with the right to refuse service based on a business owner's moral or religious objections, then it would make sense to remove all current local and federal protections and certainly not work for the inclusion of any other protected classes.

[Julie]

OMG A shiny object.
I hit the wrong CHOICE.
I said YES...
NO NO NO NO --

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

[B][COLOR="Black"]See Ender and HowSoon that's the crux of the problem, ya'll are coming at people in the US with your laws in Canada which WE do not have in the states for the most part.

This is exactly what my last post was addressing.

From my last post:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but your concern seems to be something like: What do I do if I live in a place that has no LGBT anti-discrimination laws? I want to have the right to deny my services to people looking to fire employees specifically for being LGBT/ to people who can legally exploit or discriminate against LGBT folks.

I then I underwent responding to that concern. For example, responding directly to the above concern I wrote:

My response would be that you shouldn’t worry about any kind of contradiction between your wish to deny your private business's services to people actively discriminating against LGBT folks and your wish not to be denied services from other private businesses on the basis of being LGBT. When it comes down to it no such contradictions exist because if the proper laws protecting LGBT folks from discrimination were in place then they would have no right to fire a gay man solely because he is gay to begin with, and so they wouldn’t be asking you to write this programmed to begin with. They would not be able to legally fire a gay man for being gay any more than they would have the right to fire a black man solely for being black.

The issue then comes down to: lobbying for LGBT anti-discrimination laws, which would effectively solve your problem.

The issue does not comes down to: demanding that private businesses have the right to refuse their services on the basis of their religious/moral inclinations. Demanding that this right exists only legally perpetuates discrimination.

Basically what I'm saying here is, if you live in a place with no anti-discrimination laws for LGBT people (or *insert discriminated against minority group here*) then there is no reason why you shouldn't deny someone service based on actions that would otherwise be illegal if there were anti-discrimination laws for LGBT folks. I'm saying that in that case you should act as though you do live in a country that counts LGBT folks as having the same legal protection as other minority groups, because in such a country you would not be forced to provide service for a client who was actively trying to use your services to discriminate against a protected portion of the population. And meanwhile actively fight to a) gain that protection for LGBT employees/LGBT rights in general and b) gain protection for LGBT consumers who might be denied service simply on the premise of being LGBT.

My argument is also: that you do yourself (or the LGBT community or any other marginalised community) no favours by supporting laws that allow private business owners to refuse service based on their own religious morals/beliefs. I would also argue that supporting those laws would actually be indirectly supporting a government that has yet to adequately address LGBT rights. Because having the right not be evicted/fired just because you're gay goes hand in hand with having the right to not be denied services just because you're gay.

Your examples were to try to show us why you said that businesses should be allowed to refuse anyone service for personal reasons. But those kinds of laws are just as harmful as laws that allow workplace or housing discrimination.

[DomnNC]

Not personal reasons, moral reasons as stated in the OP question.

The reason I used the church as an example is because we do have laws on the books about religious discrimination. Suppose ole Fred Phelps came to me and wanted me to write him an application that keeps track of all our military personnel who are killed overseas so he knows where to send his people to picket or he wants some kind of program to track LGBT events in his state/nearby states so again he can send his folks to picket. If I tell him to shove off, hell no, he can take me to court and sue the ever living daylights out of me for religious discrimination. Would he win? Probably so, his lil group of kids boasts 3 lawyers and he was once one himself and a damn good one at that. This is how they make their money to travel. So why shouldn't I have the right to refuse to do business with this man and his religious entity?
Remember he's won all kinds of lawsuits against cities as it is in their attempts to stop him from picketing, the Supreme Court just upheld his right to do so.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

Not personal reasons, moral reasons as stated in the OP question.

The reason I used the church as an example is because we do have laws on the books about religious discrimination. Suppose ole Fred Phelps came to me and wanted me to write him an application that keeps track of all our military personnel who are killed overseas so he knows where to send his people to picket or he wants some kind of program to track LGBT events in his state/nearby states so again he can send his folks to picket. If I tell him to shove off, hell no, he can take me to court and sue the ever living daylights out of me for religious discrimination. Would he win? Probably so, his lil group of kids boasts 3 lawyers and he was once one himself and a damn good one at that. This is how they make their money to travel. So why shouldn't I have the right to refuse to do business with this man and his religious entity?
Remember he's won all kinds of lawsuits against cities as it is in their attempts to stop him from picketing, the Supreme Court just upheld his right to do so.

While Fred Phelps may lead a "church", tracking military personnel doesn't fall under religious freedom. I think the case stated in the OP would be a better example of the question of "religious freedom". However, anti-discrimination laws trump religious freedom of individuals. Basically a religious group/church has the right to do as they wish despite the fact that it may be discriminatory (refuse to marry a same-sex couple because it's against their beliefs, for example) but if you own a business and open your doors to the public, you do NOT have the right to contravene anti-discrimination laws because of your religion.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

Not personal reasons, moral reasons as stated in the OP question.

The reason I used the church as an example is because we do have laws on the books about religious discrimination. Suppose ole Fred Phelps came to me and wanted me to write him an application that keeps track of all our military personnel who are killed overseas so he knows where to send his people to picket or he wants some kind of program to track LGBT events in his state/nearby states so again he can send his folks to picket. If I tell him to shove off, hell no, he can take me to court and sue the ever living daylights out of me for religious discrimination. Would he win? Probably so, his lil group of kids boasts 3 lawyers and he was once one himself and a damn good one at that. This is how they make their money to travel. So why shouldn't I have the right to refuse to do business with this man and his religious entity?
Remember he's won all kinds of lawsuits against cities as it is in their attempts to stop him from picketing, the Supreme Court just upheld his right to do so.

From what I understand, you do have the right to not do business with Fred Phelps if you wish due to the ACTIONS of his group. You are not saying, "I am not serving you because you are Baptist."

You would might serve other Baptists, but you are not willing to serve Phelps--the person--b/c of his actions.

I really don't think there would be a case.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

My argument is also: that you do yourself (or the LGBT community or any other marginalised community) no favours by supporting laws that allow private business owners to refuse service based on their own religious morals/beliefs. I would also argue that supporting those laws would actually be indirectly supporting a government that has yet to adequately address LGBT rights. Because having the right not be evicted/fired just because you're gay goes hand in hand with having the right to not be denied services just because you're gay.

Yes to this.

If one IS intent on supporting private business owners' right to refuse service based on their moral objections, then how can you agree with any other protections afforded to anyone or being presently fought on our behalf--job protection, housing etc?

[The_Lady_Snow]

The Masters it's held at Augusta national Club it is a world wide event that is held where one could say it discriminates NO WOMEN are allowed to join..

Amid much criticism of exclusive and discriminatory admissions, Augusta accepted a black member in 1990.[5]

Notable members

Notable current members include:

Bill Gates, co-founder and chairman of Microsoft[6]
Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway[6]
Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric[6]
James D. Robinson III, former CEO of American Express[6]
Harold "Red" Poling, former CEO of the Ford Motor Company[6]
Carl Sanders, former Governor of Georgia[6]
Sam Nunn, former United States Senator from Georgia[6]
T. Boone Pickens, Jr., oil tycoon[6]
Hugh L. McColl Jr., Former CEO of Bank of America[6]
Lou Holtz former College Football coach[7]
Steve Spurrier, current head football coach at the University of South Carolina[citation needed]
Lynn Swann, former NFL player[8]
Pat Haden, former NFL player and current athletic director at the University of Southern California[9]
2002 membership controversy

Augusta National and Chairman Hootie Johnson are widely known for a disagreement beginning in 2002 with Martha Burk, then chairwoman of the Washington-based National Council of Women's Organizations, over admission of female members to Augusta National.[10] Burk contended that hosting the Masters Tournament at a male-only club, constituted sexism[11]. Johnson characterized Burk's approach as "offensive and coercive",[12][13] and responding to efforts to link the issue to sexism and civil rights,[12] Johnson maintained the issue had to do with the rights of any private club.[12]

“ Our membership is single gender just as many other organizations and clubs all across America. These would include junior Leagues, sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and countless others. And we all have a moral and legal right to organize our clubs the way we wish.[14] ”
Burk, whose childhood nickname was also Hootie,[15] claims to have been "called a man hater, anti-family, lesbian, all the usual things."[11] According to former CEO and Chairman of Bank of America Hugh McColl (friend [16] and member of Augusta National),[6] Johnson was portrayed as a Senator Claghorn type[16] (i.e., a blustery defender of all things Southern) despite Johnson's progressive social record.[17] Following the discord, two club members resigned: Thomas H. Wyman, a former CEO of CBS, and John Snow, when President George W. Bush nominated him to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.[11] Pressure on corporate sponsors led the club to broadcast the 2003 and 2004 tournaments without commercials. The club has women on its membership waiting list, but will not allow them to circumvent the regular membership process to appease those outside the club. By 2010, no woman had been admitted to Augusta National. The controversy was discussed by the International Olympic Committee when re-examining whether golf meets Olympic criteria of a "sport practiced without discrimination with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play."[18]

Unfortunately loop holes will and can be found if someone really wishes to enforce what patronage they want in their place of business. In my opinion it's pretty close to hate considering mysoginy and sexism are super close friends. Matter of fact they are one in the same.

[Miss Scarlett]

Augusta National is a private club and therefore Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not apply to them or any other private club.

"(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)."

While it may appear that Fred Phelps may not have a case against DomnNC (or any business) for refusing service that determination would be left up to the Courts. Baseless lawsuits are filed all the time far too many in the hope that the deep pockets will open rather than spend thousands on legal fees. Sadly far too many companies/corporations/individuals would rather rollover and pay someone to go away than stand up and fight back.

Didn't many of us think there was no way Phelps would prevail before the Court? You never know what Courts will do...another reason why people would rather settle than fight.

If we (as in the entire LGBT community in the US) put half as much energy into fighting for our equal rights that we do in fighting with each other (or whining about things) we'd have our equality in record time and this discussion would be moot.

[DomnNC]

Originally Posted by Miss Scarlett

If we (as in the entire LGBT community in the US) put half as much energy into fighting for our equal rights that we do in fighting with each other (or whining about things) we'd have our equality in record time and this discussion would be moot.

AFreakingMen!!

[The_Lady_Snow]

Hence my loop hole comment, they found a way to discriminate, be classiest up to 1990 racist, sexist mysiginistic elitist and this is an event watched and supported by millions (including women).


Anyways I'm off the merry go round I've a spring break to enjoy with 2 of the handsomest guys around.

Latah!