A florist is if they go somewhere to provide the service for you. If you’re just buying flowers, then I agree, they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate. But if you want someone at your wedding, that’s a different ball of wax.
I’ve said before in this thread that in practice, when a person has to actually go somewhere, discrimination is usually tolerated. I’ve been unable to find examples of people being successfully sued or prosecuted for not going somewhere they didn’t want to go, even when the motivation was pretty obviously race-based.
There’s a big, big difference in what the WH is lambasting – it’s not just opposition to gay marriage. Refusing to serve gay people is far, far more than just opposing gay marriage.
No, this is not the issue at hand. No one cares what the opinion of planners or florists on gay marriage. Plenty of people and business owners have expressed opinions in opposition to gay marriage without being boycotted. What we care about is whether they plan to actively discriminate and refuse to provide services to people based on sexual orientation.
Fair enough. But understand that there’s a lot of “it depends” when it comes to this type of discrimination. I suspect that even in the absence of state RFRA laws, a lot of courts would be sympathetic to sincere religious objections. You do not surrender your religious practice rights when you go into business.
There are two responses – one, how is this any different than for interracial couples? And second, what are the actual religious objections? I’m unaware of any religious text that outlaws selling flowers to sinners, or delivering flowers to sinners, etc.
Description: Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Elane Photography and its owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin. In 2006, Elaine received an e-mail from a woman about photographing a “commitment ceremony” between her and her same-sex partner and asking if Elaine would be “open to helping us celebrate our day….” Elaine politely declined to use her artistic expression to communicate a message at odds with her beliefs. The woman who approached Elaine, Vanessa Willock, easily found another photographer for her ceremony—and for less money. Nevertheless, Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. After a one-day administrative trial in 2008, the commission ruled against the Huguenins and ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to Willock. The case then made its way through the New Mexico state court system, and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the ruling. In a concurrence accompanying the court’s opinion, one of the justices wrote that the Huguenins “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”
And back in the Guiliani years the NYC police ran sting operations where they hired black and other minority actors to hail cabs, and fined or pulled the licenses of driver who failed to pick them up.
Well, any state that has a Human Rights Commission is probably going to go after individuals. Witness the Canadian version and Mark Steyn.
That taxi sting I’d forgotten about. Shouldn’t have since it was a really huge deal at the time. However, I’d note that the issue is still an ongoing problem and the sting was counterproductive and opposed even by the guy whose fame caused politicians to try to “do something”.
The moral of both these stories is that on the rare occasions when governments do go after such individuals, rather than businesses as a whole, the results tend to be that no one wins. Not the individual, not the government, not those discriminated against. It’s stupid policy, especially in the cab case since it has nothing to do with past discrimination or oppression. It’s just brown and black people not wanting to pick up brown and black people.
I’d note that our disagreement is only over these extremely rare exceptions. I am perfectly okay with going after businesses that discriminate, or even individuals in business for themselves if the government has a compelling interest at stake. I just don’t see a compelling interest in making a photographer do a gay civil ceremony when the victims in question easily found someone else. Like Canada’s Human Rights Commission, it seems more about punishing the naughty for having the wrong beliefs than correcting actual wrongs.
That’s about as stupid as saying the government doesn’t have a compelling interest in deterring burglary, because the victims are insured and will easily get their stuff replaced.
Except even then, there was actual victimization involved beyond their feelings getting hurt. Forcible entrance into a home is a serious violation in that when it happens to people they don’t feel safe for a long time. YOu need a better example.
I’ll help you out. “That’s like saying if one restaurant won’t serve you, another will.” To which I’d answer that restaurants are public accommodations under the CRA and that a business as a whole does not have religious beliefs(unless it is an expressly Christian organization like Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A), and you can change business behavior pretty easily with government action or lawsuits. Individuals tend to either not change their behavior or just leave the industry entirely. So again, no one wins, unless the object of the exercise is raw punishment for having views you don’t agree with.
I’d argue this even in the case of racial discrimination. If a business has a racist employee, you don’t do anything to the employee, you remind the business that racial discrimination is illegal in public accommodations and the employee will either change or get fired. If it’s someone independently doing a profession, it’s a waste of government resources and disproportionate punishment to go after them. Contrary to the belief of some, your job doesn’t have a right to exist only if it serves the public interest. It has a right to exist because you have a right to earn a living and pursue happiness. If that means you’re a legal escort who only works for white male clients, then so be it. We can certainly be free to criticize such behavior, even boycott it, but when we get the government involved in such cases let’s just call it what it is: simply revenge for hurting someone’s feelings.
I read an interview with a porn star where she said she doesn’t do black guys. She wasn’t talking about her personal life, but her job. Fortunately, our governments aren’t yet crazy enough to force professional sex workers to have sex with those they’d rather not.
Well, you did need it. Worst analogy this month for sure. As someone who has both been discriminated against and burglarized I can tell you that only one of those incidents left scars. The other was more akin to a road rage incident. Pissed off for a day, pretty much forgotten after that.
Government has the legal power to regulate even independent and individual businesses, to prohibit them from polluting, overcharging, deceiving customers…or discriminating on the basis of race.
Your business does not have a “right to exist” if that existence involves illegal practices.
So again we fall back on “it depends”. Not all discrimination is illegal, and enforcement priorities matter just as with any other law. McDonald’s refusing to serve customers with service animals is a serious problem. Herm’s Palace failing to do so is an inconvenience. This is an area of law I’m actually familiar with having a disabled wife with a service dog. If a big company screws with us, a letter to the Justice Department will clear things up pretty efficiently. It never actually gets that far because corporate knows the law and sends out memos to remind employees of what hte law is. But when a small business does it, we usually have no practical recourse other than to put a bad review on yelp. And even in states where there is another layer of enforcement it’s really kinda pointless.
You haven’t established that the CRA doesn’t apply to wedding planners. Maybe there hasn’t yet been a court case for it, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t apply.
Back to the original statement. Even fire fighters and ambulance crews will sometimes refuse to go into an area where their is violence without police escort.
I have a friend who was a carpet installer and once he had this job for this black customer and the customer told him that when he arrives, to not get out of his truck until he comes out and meets him. I have at times performed in black churches and they always had a big guy standing watch over me when I went in and out to my vehicle.
Actually, I did. The CRA’s definition of public accommodation is very specific and very narrow. If you want the cite again, I’ll post it again. Don’t know if it was in this thread or another. The ADA establishes a much broader definition, but it was never expanded to include other types of discrimination. It only applies to the disabled. The ADA cite was the one we were arguing over before. I had no idea that the CRA had a narrower definition, but it does.