Actually, as far as the CRA goes, public accommodation is defined pretty specifically:
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
In the case of wedding planners, they are saying outright that they won’t do it, and saying it again to the media. The response from the Justice Department has been to do nothing. Because there’s nothing they can do.
Those refer to specific state laws, which may or may not have specific (and varying) LGBT protections. Minnesota, on the other hand, specifically outlaws discrimination against gay couples (and specifically calls out wedding planners).
If MN has that law(which they do of course, your cite says so), but no RFRA, then yes, wedding planners can be prosecuted or sued. Although I’d bet that this is only if you have an actual business license. One can do wedding planning on the side much as one can do computer repair as a side gig without actually having to be a business.
While Minnesota doesn’t have an RFRA, according to this cite, state courts have affirmed a compelling interest test when infringing on religious practice in Minnesota:
So a wedding planner compelled to do a gay wedding could probably bring an action in state court and have a good chance of winning, depending on precisely what previous state precedents were.
I’d like to add a caveat to iiandyiiii’s statement. If a clergyman is hiring out his services as a government sanctioned officiant to the public then yes, he should have to officiate a gay wedding (in jurisdictions where it is legal) when asked. As of right now I know of no member of the clergy hiring themselves out in such a capacity as such it is currently a moot point.
Include me among those who don’t understand all the anger directed against adaher. I find him about the least offensive of the vocal Republicans or right-wingers on the Board. (In fact, I’d ask Dopers to nominate a Republican/right-wing they consider less offensive than adaher. No fair nominating a RINO who’s started voting Demo after the GOP shift to looney zone.)
Even the charge of racism may be wrong. I don’t perceive adaher as having the bloated-amygdala hatreds that characterize most right-wingers. Instead his comments were just typical GOP pro-Freedom noise. Of course, like all right-wingers his sense of “freedom” doesn’t extend to goals like Blacks having freedom to access to education.
On the specific issue of climate change, adaher has a stance I wish more progressives would adopt:
Even the Board’s “smartest” right-wingers don’t grasp that much. Chief Pedant would just rave, for the 999th time, that he likes to fly his private jet, and U.S. shouldn’t do anything all the other countries don’t do first. Hyperlibertarians like Sam Stone oppose any use taxes as “interference with free market.” Partisans like Bricker would just laugh: "Ha ha ha. my side is ruining the Earth. You lose!’
You are backing off your previous statements – I think you’ve made multiple assertions that amounted to guesses. I’ve criticized you for this before – I think you can do better by just trying to look up cites that support your assertions in the whole (and not just partially – for example, not just in certain states) before posting them.
Which statement? Perhaps I should clarify. I support state RFRA laws because some states are passing laws that would compel people to provide very personal services that go beyond mere business and force people to do things themselves that they regard as sinful. That’s an unacceptable infringement on religious freedom that requires one heck of a compelling interest to justify.
Not two years ago it was a standard talking point that no one would be forced to participate in a gay marriage if they didn’t want to. This type of rhetoric went a long way towards getting people of faith to support same sex marriage. After all, they would never be forced to participate, right? Well, there’s a movement to force people of faith to do just that. So we have a problem. That movement needs to be nipped in the bud.
I don’t see how it is. I’ve never seen a religious text or any legitimate religious requirement that “thou shalt not bake cakes or arrange events for gay couples” – any more than I’ve seen such a requirement for interracial couples. It sounds like bigotry attempting to mask itself.
No, no one has to participate. If you offer services, you have to sell those services to all couples. Selling a cake is not “participating in a gay marriage”. Even reserving the venue and the florist and decorations isn’t “participating” – the participants are the brides/grooms, the officiant, the best man/groomsmen/bridesmaids, etc. Calling and reserving a wedding hall is not “participating”, it’s reserving a wedding hall.
Still just seems like bigotry trying to hide itself.
I agree on the bakery. A bakery is a public accommodation and baking a cake in no way violates your religion. He could be baking a cake for a hitman and it wouldn’t violate his ethics in any way.
Arranging an event, though, is something different entirely. If the event is regarded as a sin, then arranging it is a sin. In law, if you arrange for a crime to happen, you are culpable for that crime. Why would religious law be any different?
I agree on cakes and venues. But some hired help actually has to be there as accomplices. That’s participation no matter how narrowly you define it.
It’s not hiding. The reason the same sex marriage issue is contentious is because unlike racial bigotry, there is actually literal Biblical support for it. And Koranic support, and even the Dalai Lama says it’s just not a good thing, at least for practicing Tibetan Buddhists:
Of course this doesn’t mean that we should discriminate against gays, but there has to be an exception for direct participation in gay weddings due to the religious prohibitions across multiple faiths.
Who says gay weddings are “sins”? I know the buttsex is a sin, but what says the weddings are? Further, does this mean that if non-Catholic weddings are sinful to Catholics, then Catholic planners don’t have to plan non-Catholic weddings?
I don’t think it is, any more than the guy who owns the venue is “participating”. Even the caterers and florists, who you probably agree can’t discriminate, are more “involved” in the actual ceremony than the planner.
Where is the literal biblical support against providing services for gay weddings (or the weddings themselves)? Sure, no buttsex, but weddings? What does it say about weddings?
They certainly don’t have to do interfaith weddings, at least if they are an expressly religious business. At least in my experience, most affordable wedding planners are affiliated with churches or synagogues and don’t have a secular place of business. They do weddings only for co-religionists.
I think that’s a valid way to interpret it, but the courts don’t do interpretation. They look at whether a religious belief is sincerely held. Since a wedding by nature results in consummation, then the wedding itself could be regarded as a sin. In any case, there are already people on record simply giving up their businesses rather than violate their beliefs. That’s pretty much the definition of sincerely held.
There’s a reasonable and possible loophole – if they only do weddings at church X, and church X only does weddings for congregants (or fellow Christians), then they are okay. But if they offer to do weddings in secular venues, then they can’t (or shouldn’t be able to) deny gay couples their services because they’re gay.
It’s certainly “sincerely held”, but I’m not convinced it’s “sincerely held” religious belief rather than sincerely held bigotry. Racists have been known to close businesses rather than serve black people, after all.
The Christian baker doesn’t even need to offer bride+bride wedding cake toppers. They are perfectly free to say " we don’t have those but we can sell you the cake without the topper and you can bring your own.
They could probably even run their business as a private club, relying solely on direct referrals as a source of business. But as soon as they start advertising, putting up web sites or soliciting at bridal fairs, they become a business that offers their services to the general public.
Granted, the wedding planner in Arizona who solicited on-line won her case, but that was because she was an ordained minister who refused to officiate the ceremony. I think that was the right call.
I believe the plaintiffs in Elane Photgraphy case solicted business via website and had a independent contractor type business model that involved performing the work at the clients venue, yet they still lost - and I don’t think their status as a public accommodation was ever at issue.
And adaher, I’m very sorry I misspelled your name.
