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

[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.

[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!

[Soon]

Just b/c someone can go through the backdoor or find a loophole to defy existing protection laws, does that mean that they are not valuable and necessary?

For example, a company may not give the reason that they will not hire someone with a disability...they will say they don't meet the qualifications necessary for the job.

Just b/c we know this unethical and illegal practice is still done, I still would not want people with disabilities to be excluded from Employment/Housing protections.

[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Just b/c someone can go through the backdoor or find a loophole to defy existing protection laws, does that mean that they are not valuable and necessary?

For example, a company may not give the reason that they will not hire someone with a disability...they will say they don't meet the qualifications necessary for the job.

Just b/c we know this unethical and illegal practice is still done, I still would not want people with disabilities to be excluded from Employment/Housing protections.

In 1990 Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA provides "provides comprehensive civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, State and local government services, and telecommunications."

http://www.ada.gov/

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Miss Scarlett

In 1990 Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA provides "provides comprehensive civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, State and local government services, and telecommunications."

http://www.ada.gov/

Miss Scarlett,

I realize that which is why I used it as an example.

[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Miss Scarlett,

I realize that which is why I used it as an example.

I see. What does Canada have on the books that gives similar protections?

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Miss Scarlett

I see. What does Canada have on the books that gives similar protections?

The Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.



As well, Ontario, in particular, has its own Disabilities Act.

[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

The Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As well, Ontario, in particular, has its own Disabilities Act.

I think the CHRA has a wonderful list of prohibited grounds but like most legislation of this type (ADA included) it also contains a handy list of "Exceptions" to be worked around by clever attorneys.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/h-6/index.html

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by DomnNC

Should I (as a member of the GLBT community) accept them as a client knowing full well they are basically going on a witch hunt in MY community???

What if one of my business clients wanted me to do the same thing, since in NC we have no protection due to sexual orientation or gender identification, and they want expressedly state these employees will be fired? Do I retain them as a client and program their system as they wish knowing full well that my peers are going to be terminated???

Again: There is a huge difference between refusing to provide a service that is intended to inflict harm on a minority group (apples) and refusing to provide a service to a minority group (oranges). Actions and people are two different categories.

It confuses me that you think that the only way you can retain your right to not provide a harmful service is to let other people tramp all over your own rights. I can think of a way better way: become a protected class. If it becomes illegal to discriminate against the LGBT community - then it becomes illegal to ask someone to make a spreadsheet to track and fire the gays.

Originally Posted by 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)."

Exactly. A club and a retail business are different. A private club has an intent and a membership base - so they get to decide who joins their club. The intent of a retail business is to sell flowers, or burgers, or sandwiches, or socks - they do not get to decide who buys their burgers or flowers, but they do get to decide if it's burgers or sandwiches that they intend to peddle. You can't really compare a private club and a burger joint (or a flower shop, or a lunch counter).

I am okay with private clubs being able to decide to only cater to whites, or women, or people who use assistive devices, or redheads. Because it's a club. That's what clubs ARE. And, like we already know, the civil rights act in the US says that clubs -are- exempt and are allowed to choose.

I am not saying that gay people should be allowed to join the Grand Heterosexuals With Bad Mustaches Of America Brotherhood. That's not what I'm getting at. I AM saying that gay people should be allowed to walk into any burger joint, sporting goods store, flower shop, or frilly bra emporium and expect to get served.

[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.

[suebee]

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.

Dom NC: Listen to what is being said. We are talking about DISCRIMINATION, and that is based on someone's prejudices against an identifiable group. Usually it's a minority group like US. We're not talking about giving up all freedom of decision of a business owner. Does someone have the right to refuse service to somebody because they're a dirty (insert racial descriptive here)? No. THAT'S discrimination. Do you have the right to refuse to sit someone in your restaurant who is dirty and stinks? Yes.

I think another part of the difference between the Canadians and Americans in this thread is the huge difference in our tendancies to try and resolve problems through litigation. It's a huge part of American society. It's still a possibility in Canada, but not necessarily the first thing that comes to mind. In addition, rewards given out in law suits are paltry compared to the U.S.

Canadians are just like Americans - except when we're not.