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

[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.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by 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?

Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.

I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).

(ps.....I have a libertarian streak )

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.

I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).

(ps.....I have a libertarian streak )

Actually no I wasn't responding to your post. So you think it's ok for someone to deny offering their services to someone based on their sexual orientation or race?

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Actually no I wasn't responding to your post. So you think it's ok for someone to deny offering their services to someone based on their sexual orientation or race?

My personal feelings are not really the point. However.........no I don't think it's right and yes I would do my best to avoid giving them my money or time.

Folks/business DO have the right to discriminate against queers or folks who like sparkly stuffed ponies/poodles. However the government certainly cannot reward said business/individuals for having discriminatory practices. No personal or business tax breaks. If your tax bracket is 37%. then 37% of your personal and business income (and I mean ALL income....no deductions ever allowed. Period. Full Stop.)

The government cannot discriminate or reward those who do. Individuals and organizations certainly can, but at a pretty big cost in the area of taxes and government programs.

[BullDog]

Toughy, I am a former accountant so I am familiar with the tax code. Beyond that, I don't know what you are saying.

[Toughy]

to help stop discrimination you must make it less profitable because passing laws is not very effective......

well..........you know all those tax deductions you and every other accountant get for your clients..,those deductions that lower the actual percentage of taxes paid by said business? If one of those clients has discriminatory practices or policies then they get NO tax deductions on their income taxes......they are not eligible for any deductions and will pay exactly what their tax bracket is by law....it works this way:

business tax bracket is 37% of total income
deductions/breaks/subsidies/etc lower percentage payed to 5%
business gets a 32% tax deduction.

business discriminates & tax bracket is 37%
therefore business MUST pay 37% of all income as taxes
because they discriminate they get NO deductions.

as an individual I will do my best to avoid patronizing said business because I do not agree with the business plan, practices, and/or policies

I am talking about governments laws practices and policies vs business practices and policies. Tax deductions are a privilege not a right. deductions are an incentive toward good business practices. The government should not reward repugnant businesses with tax breaks/deductions/subsidies/programs.


This is a capitalist society......profit is king......discrimination makes you pay more taxes and you get less profit,,,,,,,,, business will stop discriminating because it is less profitable

[adorable]

I think there is a difference in reserving the right to refuse service to anyone and discrimination.

As a manager I have refused service to people. All kinds of people, for a variety of reasons. But I have not targeted a specific group of people except when I have....like "locals." I manage a hotel. We don't like locals. We don't want locals staying at the property. There are exceptions of course, some people are remodeling their house, there might be a water or some other type of emergency....but overall locals are staying with us because there is something that they don't want to do at home. Whether it's set up a meth lab, cheat, deal drugs, prostitute or throw a party. It's never anything good for my business.

But we can't have a blatant no locals policy. The reason we can't is because of a case where a hotel owner refused to let locals stay. The reason they did it is because high school kids were reserving rooms for huge parties, trashing the hotel, throwing up in the halls and generally causing a huge headache.
Because most of the kids were local - they just said "No locals." The only problem with that policy was that the geographic area for locals was populated mainly by minorities. (Even though the high school kids they were really trying to keep away were mostly white.) The hotel owner lost a huge lawsuit because the courts decided it was a discriminatory policy.

I rent to people I can't stand personally all the time. Church groups and hunters are a couple big ones. I hate guns. I hate seeing a bunch of strangers walking around the hotel with shotguns which are "too expensive to be left in the truck." People saying to me "Praise Jesus, God is good." Every single time they interact with me in large numbers is just as strange to me as the guys talking to me with shotguns on their shoulders. I smile and nod just the same. Oh, and thank them for coming so that they come back next year.

The good of the business dictates that I don't turn away good customers, regardless of how I feel about their belief's, views or politics. It's best not to discuss it. That is different then people who I feel may put other guests happiness and enjoyment of the property in jeopardy. I have had people set up meth labs (which can level and entire city block,) drug dealers raided by swat, pimps beating up the prostitutes, drunken contractors fist fighting in the halls, college kids on three day crack binges....race has nothing to do with any of it. In fact, no one could guess what goes on in someone's room based on how they look. I have had very wealthy appearing people check in, only to have the FBI check in right behind them and want to be in the room across the hall. Ugh. Anything that brings the police to the property = bad. That hurts business. Paying customers that don't cause drama and are spending money - we want. I don't have to live with them, they eventually check out.

[Soon]

/snipped/

Originally Posted by Toughy

to help stop discrimination you must make it less profitable because passing laws is not very effective......

I have to disagree that passing laws isn't very effective in preventing or reducing discrimination.

I think when businesses realized (and public school boards -- who lately are getting sued a lot due to discriminations against LGBT students) that they can be CHARGED by the federal government, as well SUED by the consumer, due to existing legislation, it makes a very large impact!

Do we see any more signs that say whites only?

If a business did that today they would be charged and sued -- EVEN if the owner's personal beliefs didn't approve of different races mingling.

I think laws were and are necessary to prevent this kind of discrimination.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Since you used my verbiage, I figure ya must be yakking at me. I do not believe you 'grok' what I wrote.

I have trouble with your first paragraph. I can't believe you want the government's nose up your ass and in your business every moment. The government has no right what so ever to tell me how to run my business as long as I don't take government money and I pay all my taxes (no tax breaks) (with normal exceptions of health and safety).

(ps.....I have a libertarian streak )

Toughy,

Doesn't your government already tell you that you cannot discriminate in your private business against certain groups of people?

Didn't your government intervene to stop unfair and prejudicial business practices with Title 2 of Civil Rights Act?

I am asking if people believe that private businesses should be allowed to deny services based on that owner's religious or moral beliefs.

Because of the Civil Rights Act, isn't it true that a local store cannot deny a Muslim couple goods and services just because the owners don't approve of non-Christians?

I thought that since this law has been in place since 1964 that people would largely agree that a private business cannot deny service--regardless of the owner's moral or religious beliefs--to someone based on that person's, race, religion, gender, or ethnicity....and, consequently, support a queer couple's right to goods and services as well.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Toughy,

Doesn't your government already tell you that you cannot discriminate in your private business against certain groups of people?

yes it does, however that does not mean I agree with the laws

Didn't your government intervene to stop unfair and prejudicial business practices with Title 2 of Civil Rights Act?

I'll take your word that it's Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act. I'm not so sure the goal has been accomplished.....depending on where you live.

I am asking if people believe that private businesses should be allowed to deny services based on that owner's religious or moral beliefs.

YES I do think private business should be allowed to deny services based on religious or moral beliefs. I don't believe they should get any tax break or any other governmental monetary reward for doing so. It needs to be a bad business model to deny services to anyone in a discriminatory fashion.

Because of the Civil Rights Act, isn't it true that a local store cannot deny a Muslim couple goods and services just because the owners don't approve of non-Christians?

Yeppers that is a true stateent. Ask any Muslim how it's working for them.

I thought that since this law has been in place since 1964 that people would largely agree that a private business cannot deny service--regardless of the owner's moral or religious beliefs--to someone based on that person's, race, religion, gender, or ethnicity....and, consequently, support a queer couple's right to goods and services as well.

As Gomer Pyle used to say SIR PRIZE SIR PRIZE with that goofy ass look on his face.

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.