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

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did! So therefore I would have to provide my service to someone who wants to go on a witch hunt (per my example) lawful or not. Then again I work out of my home for just such a reason, I don't have a retail shop where anyone can walk in off the street, I get my business by word of mouth and I have turned people down if there is something that doesn't sit right with me about them.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. In fact - nobody is saying that.

"what they do" has nothing to do with anything. Businesses have a right to refuse to perform TYPES of services. TYPES of services are not customers. They are types of services.

I want to know if you think that the laws that state you can't refuse to (for example) sell a hamburger to someone just for being Black is a harmful law.

Do you think that the above mentioned law has opened up this giant can of worms that means that Ma and Pa Kettle who own the printing press down the street have to print out "Wanted" posters with the pictures and home addresses of doctors who perform abortions? Do you -really- think that the existing protections for (for example) POC means that business owners now have no rights?

Do you think that if LGBT people were to become similarly protected that it would mean that I could ask my seamstress to embroider "Fuck All Republicans Up The Ass Without Lube" on a teeshirt for me - and that she would not be allowed to say no? Do you -really- think that? If you think that - you're wrong.

Because, again, YOU are talking about actions. I am talking about human beings.

[DomnNC]

I have already answered that question. We have laws in our Civil Rights Bill that states you cannot refuse to sell as you said a black person a hamburger, we have all those rights for minorities (except LGBT) as far as public services go, restaurants, hotels, etcetcetc.

Again, the question was and I don't care if ya'll say 100 times that you were referring to LGBT people or not. The question was does a business owner have the right to refuse a service based upon his/her moral or religious belief?. I stated two perfect examples of providing a service to someone who *I* would object on MY moral compass to provide those services to regardless if they were indeed a minority themselves! If we had a law where a business owner could NOT object to provide service based upon his/her moral/religious beliefs then YES I would have to provide those services in those two instances. That's what I'm saying and no one can seem to comprehend that!

And no suebee, that is NOT the question, no where in that question does it say discriminate against. The question, hell I'm not going to repeat the question again because it has been sidetracked backwards and forwards. If you want to say Does a business owner have the right to discriminate against anyone based on his/her moral/religious beliefs then ask that! Don't ask does a business owner have the right to refuse service based upon his/her moral or religious beliefs! It's TWO entirely separate questions!!

Apparently 62% of the people taking this poll believe as I do that they should have the right to do so!

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

[B]I have already answered that question. We have laws in our Civil Rights Bill that states you cannot refuse to sell as you said a black person a hamburger, we have all those rights for minorities (except LGBT) as far as public services go, restaurants, hotels, etcetcetc.

No, you did not answer my question. My question was not "does such a law exist" because clearly I already know that the law exists. I want to know if you genuinely believe that the existing laws to protect people are fucking over business owners and if extending those same protections to the LGBT community would fuck business owners over even more. THAT is the question that I asked. I asked it several times, in fact.

Again, the question was and I don't care if ya'll say 100 times that you were referring to LGBT people or not. The question was does a business owner have the right to refuse a service based upon his/her moral or religious belief?.

I'm sorry that you don't care what Soon's intent was. She has made it clear that she wanted to know if it's okay for a business owner to refuse to serve someone from a minority group simply BECAUSE they are a member of said minority group. You don't want to talk about that, that's fine.

I stated two perfect examples of providing a service to someone who *I* would object on MY moral compass to provide those services to regardless if they were indeed a minority themselves! If we had a law where a business owner could NOT object to provide service based upon his/her moral/religious beliefs then YES I would have to provide those services in those two instances. That's what I'm saying and no one can seem to comprehend that!

And nobody disagreed with you. I think that, as a business owner, if someone is asking you to do something shitty that you are free to refuse. I comprehended what you said just fine and dandy, thank you.

And no suebee, that is NOT the question, no where in that question does it say discriminate against.

If a business owner refuses to serve someone just because that person is gay, or Black, or a Hindu, or using a wheelchair - THAT is discrimination.

The question, hell I'm not going to repeat the question again because it has been sidetracked backwards and forwards. If you want to say Does a business owner have the right to discriminate against anyone based on his/her moral/religious beliefs then ask that! Don't ask does a business owner have the right to refuse service based upon his/her moral or religious beliefs! It's TWO entirely separate questions!!

I'm sorry that Soon has let you down by not asking the question correctly. She has since clarified what she meant (several times, might I add). Since you know now what she meant, maybe you can stop typing all those exclamation points about how she did it wrong. Okay?

Apparently 62% of the people taking this poll believe as I do that they should have the right to do so!

OMG Might Makes Right!!!!!

[suebee]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

I have already answered that question. We have laws in our Civil Rights Bill that states you cannot refuse to sell as you said a black person a hamburger, we have all those rights for minorities (except LGBT) as far as public services go, restaurants, hotels, etcetcetc.

Again, the question was and I don't care if ya'll say 100 times that you were referring to LGBT people or not. The question was does a business owner have the right to refuse a service based upon his/her moral or religious belief?. I stated two perfect examples of providing a service to someone who *I* would object on MY moral compass to provide those services to regardless if they were indeed a minority themselves! If we had a law where a business owner could NOT object to provide service based upon his/her moral/religious beliefs then YES I would have to provide those services in those two instances. That's what I'm saying and no one can seem to comprehend that!

And no suebee, that is NOT the question, no where in that question does it say discriminate against. The question, hell I'm not going to repeat the question again because it has been sidetracked backwards and forwards. If you want to say Does a business owner have the right to discriminate against anyone based on his/her moral/religious beliefs then ask that! Don't ask does a business owner have the right to refuse service based upon his/her moral or religious beliefs! It's TWO entirely separate questions!!

Apparently 62% of the people taking this poll believe as I do that they should have the right to do so!

Okay. Under what circumstance should a business owner have the right to refuse service to clients/customers? On religious grounds? Should certain minority groups be protected, or does the business have the right to pick and choose who they serve and for what purpose? Here in Canada we have laws in regards to discrimination and hate speech and crimes. Would that work in the U.S. and why or why not?

[DomnNC]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

Let's make one thing clear, no, I do not advocate a person being denied a service based solely on the fact that they are LGBT and whatever other letters you want to toss behind that.

Try pg 4.

The rest of your reply with the attitude, you may keep it. I'm not going to engage with you in that.

I agreed that the business owner should have the right of refusal (however in this instance she was wrong to do it because there is a law where she resides that states she cannot), I have stated that as well. If there was a law where I lived I'd respect that law, however there is not.

I do believe Howsoon also made a post after her original one that said no gang-piling if you agree with the business owner. I am not the only one who has agreed that business owners should have the choice to refuse service, did you miss those posts or is there some reason that you keep coming back to me and aren't challenging their decision to want to have the same right?

Perhaps you can better utilize your need for condescension and snark elsewhere. Have a good night, chuckles.

[BullDog]

Unfortunately, Americans tend to value individual rights over equal protection, and if there is any question they think they are not going to get to do what they want they will side with individual rights. I am not ever going to refuse to provide services to someone based on their sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or religion. I may refuse service to someone who is acting like an asshole or wants me to contribute to one of their activities that is harmful or hateful. There's a huge difference there.

If you run a business that caters to the public you don't just get to do whatever you want. If everyone got to do that, no one would pay taxes, adhere to safety and environmental regulations, have the proper business licenses, pay fair wages, etc. When you are in business- no you don't get to do whatever the hell you want.

[DomnNC]

Originally Posted by suebee

Okay. Under what circumstance should a business owner have the right to refuse service to clients/customers? On religious grounds? Should certain minority groups be protected, or does the business have the right to pick and choose who they serve and for what purpose? Here in Canada we have laws in regards to discrimination and hate speech and crimes. Would that work in the U.S. and why or why not?

I gave 2 or 3 examples already. I'll not waste my breath going over them again. Have a good night as well.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

Try pg 4.

The rest of your reply with the attitude, you may keep it. I'm not going to engage with you in that.

I agreed that the business owner should have the right of refusal (however in this instance she was wrong to do it because there is a law where she resides that states she cannot), I have stated that as well. If there was a law where I lived I'd respect that law, however there is not.

I do believe Howsoon also made a post after her original one that said no gang-piling if you agree with the business owner. I am not the only one who has agreed that business owners should have the choice to refuse service, did you miss those posts or is there some reason that you keep coming back to me and aren't challenging their decision to want to have the same right?

Perhaps you can better utilize your need for condescension and snark elsewhere. Have a good night, chuckles.

Actually it's your way of interacting (I feel like you are trying to bully us ladies with all of your exclamation points and claims that "nobody" is able to "comprehend" what you are saying) that has me responding to you.

For example:

Originally Posted by DomnNC

I gave 2 or 3 examples already. I'll not waste my breath going over them again. Have a good night as well.

"I'll not waste my breath going over them again." Friendly!

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

[B]What is confusing to me is that ya'll want a law or something that says No one can refuse to provide a service to anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what they do! So therefore if we had that law then legally, I, like the woman in the flower shop (as the example) ya'll are using WOULD have to provide my service to ANYONE that wants it, period, end of story or face the legal consequences like the flower shop woman did!

There have been a number of posts in this thread making explicitly clear that this is not what happens when laws are put into place that do not allow a private business owner to legally refuse service. Quite a few posts have pointed out that there is a distinct difference between refusing service based on who the person is, and refusing service based on what the person does or what that person intends to do with that service.

A law that states that private business owners may not refuse service, does not prevent them from refusing service due to some sort of misconduct or an act of discrimination. The law is more specifically in place to protect people from being denied service based on who they are.

So to go back to your example again: You would not be able to deny service to a religious group because they are a religious group. You would be able to deny service to a religious group if they were using your services to directly commit an act of discrimination against a certain group or if they partook in any misconduct in general.

The refusal of service in the second instances would not necessarily be from a personal moral standpoint, but from the stand point of protecting a minority group from discrimination (and whether or not this constitutes morality is debatable).

In the case of the florist, she refused service to the gay couple because they were gay, and because the mere fact that they were gay and getting married went against her personal/religious morals. However, if they walked into her flower shop and started stomping on her flowers, harassing her employees and yelling at her about being Christian and how much they hate all Christians and want them dead...then she'd definitely have grounds to deny them service. A law that denies a business owner the right to refuse service defends people from being denied service on the basis of who they are, even if the denial of service stems from personal/religious morality.

So if Fred Phelps comes into my coffee shop and wants to buy a cup of coffee, I cannot deny him coffee just because he is Fred Phelps and I think he's a douche. But if he began defaming, insulting or generally inciting hatred toward gays, Jews or any other such group, then I would have the right to demand that he leave the shop.

Now I have a feeling that it'll once more come back to the fact that some States don't have these anti-discrimination laws for LGBT folks. However, that has little to do with retaining laws that allow private business owners to deny service on any grounds, be they moral/religious or otherwise. By allowing small businesses to do so, you set up that precedent for discrimination, when in fact there should not only be laws defending citizens from discrimination in the work place and elsewhere, but also laws defending people from being denied service based on who they are simply because the owner disapproves of who they are. Hence the repeated response over and over: fighting for equal rights on all fronts rather than giving up your right to protection entirely just so you can deny a bigot service if they want to use your services for some kind of discriminatory act (which you would be able to do even if the law stated you could not deny service based on moral/religious reasons, because you're denying them service based on their plan to use your services to discriminate.)

[Soon]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

A law that denies a business owner the right to refuse service defends people from being denied service on the basis of who they are, even if the denial of service stems from personal/religious morality.

Yes, even if the business owner's denial of service to an interracial couple stems from religious or *moral* objections (a point I haven't addressed), they cannot be denied service due to current federal protections.

Would people like this protection presently afforded the interracial couple removed b/c they believe the business owner's moral and religious beliefs should take precedence over their right to service?

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Yes, even if the business owner's denial of service to an interracial couple stems from religious or *moral* objections (a point I haven't addressed), they cannot be denied service due to current federal protections.

Would people like this protection presently afforded the interracial couple removed b/c they believe the business owner's moral and religious beliefs should take precedence over their right to service?

And I would just like to stress, again, that in no way is there a similarity between denying someone services because of who they are (race) and refusing to perform a specific distasteful task (making fetus cupcakes) - if there WAS a similarity then business owners in the US would -already- not be allowed to refuse to make fetus cupcakes, since the US -already- has protected people from being denied services because of race/religion/country of origin.

[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.

[Miss Scarlett]

If under the law "Business owner A" is forced to do business with "Customer B" based upon (insert your own scenario), conversely the law should force "Customer B" to patronize the establishment of "Business owner A" based upon the opposite of (insert your own scenario).

If we want everyone treated equally we have to accept the sweet with the sour. Anything else would be lopsided and discriminatory.

[Toughy]

If the business, club, organization, not-for-profit, religious group receives ANY money from local, state or federal entities and/or ANY tax breaks from any government entity, they cannot refuse to provide services/goods to anyone for any reason (except for health/safety laws).

Religious groups are free to use 'against my religion' for whatever they want, however they cannot be a non-profit. Not-for-profit status is a tax break. I do not believe this is against the 1st Amendment as it does not infringe on religious freedom.

[BullDog]

No one is forcing anyone to offer goods and/or services to the public. If someone's religious views precludes them from offering goods and/or services to someone based solely on the fact of someone's sexual orientation, race, religion or other individual characteristics that are protected by law, they can choose not to go into business in the first place. Maybe they should work in some isolated cubicle somewhere where they don't have to deal with people at all.

These laws are to protect against discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion and other characteristics that have been historically discriminated against. Why are people arguing against having laws that protect homosexuals/same sex couples from being discriminated against and being denied goods and services?

[Soon]

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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.


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.

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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


No food for us?

Originally Posted by betenoire

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?

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?

Originally Posted by betenoire

- Is it okay to deny services to someone because of who they are (not because of what they do)

- Even though sexual orientation is not an official protected group in many places, should we be afforded the same protections that people are afforded due to race and religion

- If we should not be a protected group - should there be ANY protected groups?

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I'd be really interested in hearing the answers to these questions on refusing someone based on race vs. sexual orientation from those who do think that business owners should have the right to deny service based on religious beliefs/morals.


One could just as easily state that it is morally wrong (according to their religion) for them to provide their service to Jews (sound familiar?) or Muslims. They could do this with people of different ethnicities as well. Should they be legally able to deny their service based on their religious views? Why should they be allowed to refuse service? Whatever happened to equal access and opportunity?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

If you are going to deny the queers, you might as well take back all other groups of people who are already federally protected.

What is the difference b/w refusing someone b/c they are queer and refusing someone because they are a woman (etc.)--as long as that person has deep religious or moral objections to a certain class of people, they are entitled to refuse service?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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.

Originally Posted by BullDog

.

Why are people arguing against having laws that protect homosexuals/same sex couples from being discriminated against and being denied goods and services?

....................

Thanks, in advance, to anyone who will respond to any/some of these questions.