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

[Soon]

I just came up with this idea for a poll based on this article out of New Brunswick:

Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding

Apparently, there are still a number of people who feel that this florist's religious beliefs should take precedence over the customer's request for service. Maybe some of you agree that the florist has every right to refuse service to a same sex couple in that it is contrary to her personal beliefs. If so, I'd like to hear why.

There are many in our Canadian community (readers' comments under the CBC article) who DO believe that it is, and should be, an acceptable choice for this private business owner to refuse florist service for a marriage in which she has grave moral objections. Some are citing our freedom of religion clause...others have cited the same document (our Charter as well as NB's human rights' code) in support of the couple and their request for service.

Despite the laws (regarding LGBT protection/equality) where you currently reside, do you believe it is acceptable to refuse service to a customer based on their sexual orientation/gender identity due to a business owner's religious or personal beliefs and objections?

This may be a ridiculous question to be asked of our community, but I was curious if others in our community DO think a business owner's religious/moral beliefs should an acceptable reason to deny a consumer's right to request/purchase a service.

[Soon]

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

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

[Soon]

Interesting! A thee way tie so far!

[wolfbittenpoet]

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

[Soon]

I guess it wasn't a ridiculous question!

Thanks for the votes and comments!

[julieisafemme]

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

[Linus]

And if I can also add, in Canada, religious organizations can choose to not marry a same-sex couple (religious freedom) and for that reason, if that can be allowed, the businesses should have that right as well.

If I was a business owner in Canada I would also have the right to refuse business to straight married if I wanted to.

And if K and I get married in Canada, we'd make sure that all those we chose to business with us were supportive. I certainly wouldn't choose someone who isn't supportive.

[Soon]

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

Article:

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

/snip/

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

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

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

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

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

[AtLast]

From a legal perspective- also depending on laws/regs within municipal/state/federal boundaries and jurisdictions, this could vary. In some instances, a business owner can refuse service legally.

But it sure can take on some personal issues- June's example states this.

There are "service refusal" laws for example, having to do with public health- like no service in restaurants without shoes and shirts. But, historically, racial segregation has played a role in in the US about this issue. I'd have to be stupid to think that some of those "service refusal" signs in businesses have been or are not directed at not serving POC.

I certainly still see "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" signs all over in businesses. Probably because of my age and being an activist during the late 60's and 70's, my response to these signs is different than for a lot of younger people. I immediately see race/ethnicity variable when I see these signs. I do not get these "vibes" if a sign simply points to the health regs about shirts and shoes. I also know that there are laws/regs in some places in which it is illegal to post the "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" sign. The "anyone" is the problem.

Another thought- I know that I could have subjected to legal action (as well as licensure infractions) if I had refused to see patients for psychotherapy based upon their religious beliefs.

[Diva]

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

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

[Soon]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

From a legal perspective- also depending on laws/regs within municipal/state/federal boundaries and jurisdictions, this could vary. In some instances, a business owner can refuse service legally.

I did write, in the body of my text, regardless of the laws in where you live, what is your personal belief regarding this situation.

I know certain areas are protected in this matter, our country (Canada) is a bit more complicated as there are federal protections protecting equal access to service as well as protections for practicing one's religious beliefs.

Thanks for your views providing some historical allowance for your perceptions/beliefs.

I admit--I'm surprised by the poll numbers, but it does make me happy that I put it out there!

[Medusa]

I'd probably err on the side of the business owner, even if in this case I don't care for their reasoning.

I think about how I would feel as the owner of this site if the Federal government came and told me that I had to allow x, y, or z people.

There was an article several years ago about a restaurant owner who had a very upscale establishment that disallowed children. A couple who demanded to bring their children inside sued the crap out of them - I'm going to have to look it up because I can't remember if they won or not but I did remember thinking that the restaurant owner should have the right to create whatever ambience in their establishment that they saw fit without the courts telling them otherwise.

Would it piss me off if a business refused to serve me or significantly altered the services provided to me because of their religion or me being Gay? Probably. But I think a good example of this is that there is a bookstore here in town called "Hastings" that does not have a Gay and Lesbian section of books- so I get to make the choice to withdraw my Gay dollars and spend them elsewhere.

[Spork]

Like many here, I think the business should have the right to deny service, but it has to be stated before you take the client. And, needless to say, it should be approached in a respectful manner.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by June

Yeah, I think they do. Because I want to reserve that same right as a business owner.

If they want to turn money away, that's their decision to make. If someone came to me and wanted me to do a logo or marketing materials for them, and they were in the business of telling people they would go to Hell if they didn't do X,Y and Z, I would turn them away.

It's no different to me. And also, I would never want to patronize and give money to a business like that, so it's good to know. Find another florist.

[weatherboi]

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


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

[betenoire]

Well, you know. Regardless of how I feel about it - this shop owner DID break the law. It's illegal in her province to refuse business based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. It just is.

This is VERY different from the Knights of Columbus refusing to rent out their hall. The whole point of the Knights of Columbus is that they are a religious organisation, so they are protected (just like a church is protected). A flower shop is not a church. A flower shop is not a religious organisation. Perhaps if she wants to run it like it is a church she needs to rename her shop to "Daisies for Jesus!" or something like that.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Well, you know. Regardless of how I feel about it - this shop owner DID break the law. It's illegal in her province to refuse business based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. It just is.

This is VERY different from the Knights of Columbus refusing to rent out their hall. The whole point of the Knights of Columbus is that they are a religious organisation, so they are protected (just like a church is protected). A flower shop is not a church. A flower shop is not a religious organisation. Perhaps if she wants to run it like it is a church she needs to rename her shop to "Daisies for Jesus!" or something like that.

I should have pointed out that the KofC is a religious organization -- NOT a private business. Every province that I know has protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation (maybe Alberta doesn't? but they would be covered due to the Charter?). So, legally, yes, I think they don't have a case. I guess I was wondering where people felt personally on the issue, but, you are right, the law has been broken as far as I can tell.

As far as I am concerned, yes, a law was broken, but also, personally, I think it is very wrong to deny a service (and a very slippery slope) based on sexuality or gender.

I do appreciate everyone's honesty.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I did write, in the body of my text, regardless of the laws in where you live, what is your personal belief regarding this situation.

I know certain areas are protected in this matter, our country (Canada) is a bit more complicated as there are federal protections protecting equal access to service as well as protections for practicing one's religious beliefs.

Thanks for your views providing some historical allowance for your perceptions/beliefs.

I admit--I'm surprised by the poll numbers, but it does make me happy that I put it out there!

Whoops- sorry. Yes, it is good to put it out there.

Personally, I'd have to say no (I actually checked the item with "other"). My personal response is due to my historical perspective and race/ethnicity in the US. I can't seem to get past the history!

But, I also know that under some circumstances (refer to June's example, once more), I probably would "refuse" if I was asked to do something that just was against my values and I felt I could somehow be associated with it. I would also say that "it might be better for you to go to another business for that."

[rainintothesea]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, here, I'm genuinely curious about something. Flowers are one thing, perhaps, no one's going to bleed out if they don't get their flowers (at least I hope not, wow). But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

On the one hand, if someone has a huge moral objection to doing business with me, that's something I'd like to know so that I can take my business elsewhere. There's the whole, "If we don't have free speech, how else will we know who the assholes are?" sort of argument, there. But I think we might be treading in some dangerous territory, too, if we say it's okay to discriminate for whatever reason you like... what kind of discrimination is okay, then, and who sets those boundaries? And, hey, in turn, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with other people making those decisions for me... and I think that when one decides to run a business, one is agreeing that while it might be okay to refuse service to an individual who is being an unreasonable jerkface (that's how I have always read those signs, myself), it's understood that it's NOT okay to refuse service to POC or other generally-agreed-upon protected classes of characteristics that include whole swaths of society.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by June

Daisies for Jesus!

Yes, it is wrong and against the law in some places to do that. I would just rather know what a business' policy is so I can make a choice to spend my money there or not.

I think they should have to post signs:

"We do not serve The Gays here"
or
"We will serve you if you're A Gay, but we might piss in your soup"

Posting their true beliefs would probably hit them pretty hard financially because lots of people love The Gays, even if they aren't one.

Heh, I don't think that would be helpful. In my opinion, just a curt statement: "We only serve heterosexuals." While it's still a little bit... harsh to some, it's not the same as just saying "no gays! go away!".

Perhaps, if the business is interested in keeping a "good face", they could show options for the people they will not serve. "We do not serve non-heterosexuals. But here's a list of LGBT-friendly business: blah, blah, blah."

That's what I think.

Originally Posted by rainintothesea

I'm not trying to stir the pot, here, I'm genuinely curious about something. Flowers are one thing, perhaps, no one's going to bleed out if they don't get their flowers (at least I hope not, wow). But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

I think we can't compare some flowers and medicine that can save your life, or heal a sickness.

If that has been allowed to happen, I'm appalled.

Pharmacies and hospitals should comply with their social obligation, first and foremost. Then think of the money.

Again, just my opinion.