“Ever, or just for a reason that could be seen as discriminatory?”
If you are in the business of printing wedding invitations you cannot turn down a customer if that customer is a member of a protected class. You either stop printing all wedding invitations or print everyone’s. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand.
What I think a printer of wedding invitations can say no to, for instance, is if a couple of any sexual combination wanted to have photographs of their private parts or having sexual relations pictured on the invitation.
No, you can’t turn down a customer because the customer is a member of a protected class. If I turn down the NRA handbill, it doesn’t matter if the person who brought it in was black or white. Obviously, it’s harder to draw that line when the job is an invitation for a same-sex marriage.
Yes I do. I absolutely do. I wouldn’t allow my kid to do it, but I don’t think the law should get into something so personal. I can’t imagine wanting a government that personally involved. Living with someone is as personal as it gets. Do I think it’s ugly? Yes. It would break my heart if my kid did something like that, but I absolutely think that forcing anyone to live with anyone else for any reason is well into the realm of totalitarianism.
This is a good question. I think it depends on the context. If I’m renting an apartment, and I’m looking for a roommate, it’s generally entirely legal for me to choose only to have a roommate of a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever you like. That’s my freedom of association. I think it would be reasonable for a college to overrule that general right for people who want to have on-campus housing. But to turn it around again, what if the kid said, “I’m willing to room with a gay person, but I want you to know up front that I think homosexuality is an abomination against God, and I will take every opportunity to share with you the reasons you should repent and change your ways.” Wouldn’t you want your kid to have the right to demand another roommate? Or would you feel that the other kid’s rights to free speech and free religion should prevent that kind of discrimination against him?
What I asked, based on the wording of your post, was if you thought it was EVER ok to turn down a customer.
For any reason or no reason at all. Law firms turn down potential clients all the time for all sorts of reasons. I was just wondering what you meant by your post.
“But how about this one: somebody sets up a special private bus service for Orthodox Jews that separates men from women in each bus. Is this legal? Should it be?”
If I go to a club that requires my H wear a coat and tie - he either wears them or we choose not to go.
I shop at a jeweler in the diamond district. They sell to anyone who comes into their shops. I don’t have to cover my head, either.
Runswimyoga. Let’s say I run a Christian Science bookstore. I stock my store with books and magazines I think my clientele will enjoy. I also allow people to hang up flyers promoting events.
Surely you see the difference between -
A) Anyone of any ethnicity,religion, sexual orientation, etc can pick up a book, proceed to a register and expect I will wait on them.
B) I am not required to stock the Bhavagad Gita (even though religious minorities are a protected class) nor am I required to stock a LGBTQ-themed magazine or book. Or Playboy magazine.
Likewise, surely you see the difference between
A) Anyone of any ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc can hang up a poster in my store.
B) I am not required to leave up - and can take down - posters about “come and learn about Hinduism” or “march on city hall in support of gay marriage.” I have that right - just like I have the right to take down posters about 5ks because I don’t think they are relevant to my customer base. It doesn’t even matter if x% of my customers might actually be interested in learning about Hinduism or attending a march on city hall or running 5ks.
I have the right not to offer THINGS. I don’t have the right to refuse service to PEOPLE. You keep mixing this up.
“No, you can’t turn down a customer because the customer is a member of a protected class. If I turn down the NRA handbill, it doesn’t matter if the person who brought it in was black or white. Obviously, it’s harder to draw that line when the job is an invitation for a same-sex marriage.”
Isn’t that what I said?
You can turn down NRA, BLM and the female politician but not the same sex couple.
Yes. I think living with someone is a totally personal thing. Which doesn’t mean one is free from consequences of bigotry or saying that this behavior is ok. It’s not. This is my opinion. You don’t have to share it. I am comfortable with that and won’t try to change your mind, either.
Some of those buses are subsidized with public money.
Hunt, I’ve really appreciated your posts on this thread.
In this country, the default is that people get a wide degree of personal freedom. There has to be a good reason to override that freedom – and “because I disagree with you” isn’t in itself a good reason, even if (as in this case) I believe the position the person holds is really, really repugnant.
I’ve struggled with this issue, and think I ultimately come down on the side of requiring business owners to provide service to gay people or couples, but not, in most cases, to participate in gay weddings. For me, making sure that gay people don’t become second-class citizens is a compelling government interest that overrides the general right of a business owner to refuse service. Making sure that gay people have access to every photographer and caterer in the nation is not. I don’t mean to minimize the psychological impact that a denial of service on those grounds could have to gay couples, and I myself would not patronize a photographer or caterer who refused to work gay weddings. But that isn’t grounds for legislation.
I think because of the Civil Rights Act, we get the impression that the default is that private businesses don’t have the right to discriminate. But that is far from an obvious call – no matter how much we deplore bigotry, few people would claim that the government should have the right to force KKK Jim to invite black people to his home, or that he wouldn’t have the right to exclude only the black children in the class from his daughter’s birthday-party celebration. As a matter of principle, it isn’t irrational to say that right should extend to denying black people the right to enter his restaurant or shoe store. In practice, however, it became obvious that the consequences of allowing businesses to segregate were so devastating that the state had to step in.
As I said earlier, I’m not sure that the consequences of allowing a limited number of businesses to refuse service to gay couples ONLY in the very limited context of wedding planning are enough to justify the intrusion. It isn’t a matter of whether or not we should treat LGBT people as a protected class – the interests of members of a protected class doesn’t automatically override other personal freedoms, especially when we add religion to the mix.
“If you are in the business of printing wedding invitations you cannot turn down a customer if that customer is a member of a protected class.”
Yes you can! You just can’t turn them down BECAUSE they are a member of a protected class!
I can turn down your desire to get a wedding cake from me because I’m simply too busy that weekend and already overbooked. Or because that weekend is my kid’s graduation and I’m closing the store. Or because you want buttercream and I just don’t do buttercream. I can’t turn it down because you are black.
A brief legal point of clarification here: often, things that are generally legal to do (i.e., firing an employee) for any reason or for no reason, are not legal to do for certain reasons–i.e., simply because of the race of the person. So, for example, while I might be able to refuse a printing job because I disagree with the message I’m being asked to print, or simply because I don’t like the person asking me to do the work, I can’t turn down the work simply because of the race of the person asking for the work.
There may be cases where you can’t turn down the work for anything but really good reasons–for example, to get a taxi license (which are limited in number) you might be required to agree to pick up any reasonable fare–even if it’s a person with a dog or carrying a bottle of hooch.
Runswimyoga, I would like to make clear that what I’m saying is that the student shouldn’t be arrested or sued for his views, but that the college would be well within its rights to deny him housing or enrollment because of his views.
My issue is the legality of such a personal opinion, not whether he should be able to act on that view with impunity, which I don’t think are the same things.
Oh ok. I thought the “because” would be was assumed - given the topic of this thread and all 23 pages of discussions. I will be more careful from now on in spelling everything out exactly.