A fellow henna artist friend of mine is Muslim. Her religion prohibits her from touching a man she is not related or married to. So when she sets up booths at festivals, if a guy comes along wanting a henna design, she refuses to work on him.
Another henna artist friend works at a law firm and has been told that the first woman can be successfully sued for discrimination, just as if she had refused service because the person was black or Jewish or some other more commonly discriminated-against group.
I know that any idiot can sue anyone for any reason, but in this case, is her sincere religious belief a useful legal defense?
She can refuse service to anyone who isn’t a member of a “protected” group for any reason whatsoever. She can refuse service to a member of a “protected” group if that refusal has nothing to do with their membership in that grouping. Although it would be better if she either told people up front that she only worked on women or quit and went into some other line of work altogether.
She can be sued, but, the person suing her would probably get some kind of sanction from the court for a frivolous lawsuit, or some such, and lose the case.
One’s religion, esp. Muslim, at this time, will carry the day regarding legally compelling one to perform a service.
Esp. since the religious practitioner is a female, and the subject of the said service would be a male…the fems would be all over that…no sober judge in America would rule against her.
IANAL, btw.
I had to reread your post to be sure that your friend wasn’t a lawyer, trying to impress you with his/her power. Friend was told wrong, or else misunderstood.
ETA: And, what **silenus **said. Contrary to popular belief, the ‘anti-discrimination’ laws have certain qualifiers.
Best wishes,
hh
The issue here are laws and regulations which prohibit businesses open to the public from discriminating on the basis of selected categories. For example, see the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 or California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
These laws differ somewhat on a Federal vs. state level, so I don’t want to get into a detailed analysis, but gender discrimination by a public business is going to be prohibited under most circumstances.
Orthodox and Muslim women have been not touching men for decades and have managed to do all right.
I doubt it.
Besides, if the Salvation Army can be discriminatory against its Jewish employees, why the hell not let the poor woman work with women only?
Doubtful.
Usually not correct for public businesses of certain types under Federal law. For some states, this statement would not be correct for all public businesses. Private organizations have more leeway to discriminate, but there isn’t enough information in the OP to determine how private an organization this is.
This is not a legal argument.
This is the only thing in your post I agree with.
If something like this is illegal discrimination, how do women’s only businesses like Curves gyms, day spas and salons not run afoul of the law?
I’m not sure what is meant here by private or public business. Clarify? In this case, I am talking about her setting up a booth at a street fair type event that is open to the public.
If nothing else, I believe the civil rights acts only apply (at least at the Federal level) to companies of a certain size. Since her company is presumably only herself, she flies under the radar…
Some states exempt these types of business from gender discrimination rules and some don’t. Here’s an article about a women’s only health club in CA that was sued.
I don’t know off the top of my head which types of businesses are exempted on the Federal level. I’ll have to look it up.
Indeed. And “Men I’m not married to” is not, and never has been, a protected group.
A private organization is something like a church, which isn’t selling things to the general public. There’s often no clear dividing line, though. CA courts have ruled, for example, that a private school isn’t a public business, and so can discriminate on sexual orientation grounds.
The situation you describe sounds like a public business to me, but it’s not completely clear. If it was a city-run festival, it’s more likely to be a public business, but if it was run by a religious organization, it might be a private organization.
Bo, you cabbot.
In my real estate days, a man could request a male agent if he was a Muslin or an Orthodox Jew. I quickly learned not to offer my hand to shake to anyone in Arab garb or wearing a yamaka.
OTOH, a guy wanting to rent space for an auto repair shop asked for a male agent because “woman don’t know about cars.” That is discrimination supreme.
Cool, I guess bars can just not admit women that are not married to the owner, and law firms can not hire women who aren’t married to the partners.
The Salvation Army is a church.
Someone on another board mentioned the case about the photographer who was sued for not taking on a gay wedding contract, and lost. I’m having a hard time understanding how that happened. Any help? I’m extremely pro-gay rights, but I think the photographer should have the ability to refuse service in this instance.
It happened in New Mexico, and in New Mexico their human rights law states that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:
- any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person’s ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation.*
28-1-7(F)
Section 28-1-7 — Unlawful discriminatory practice. :: Article 1 — Human Rights, 28-1-1 through 28-1-15. :: Chapter 28 — Human Rights. :: 2006 New Mexico Statutes :: New Mexico Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
if a person holds their business out to the public, they cannot choose not to serve gay people in New Mexico any more than they can choose not to serve black people.
What’s interesting is that they did not claim that their religion forbids them from participating. They stated that they “disagree with the message” conveyed by taking pictures of a gay couple in a committment ceremony.
Hmm…I can’t say I like that law. New Mexico’s definition of “public accommodation” is:
Any chance a commercial business could incorporate as a private establishment if they forsee themselves running into this problem?
They would have to have some non-public means of running their business. Such as a private club not open to everyone. For example, if a photographer ONLY worked directly for a church, and ONLY photographed weddings in that church. That’s the only way I can see it working, personally. However, I am by no means experienced in New Mexico Human Rights Law cases. Maybe I’m wrong, but the antidiscrimination law, is, as you say, broadly worded.
Anyway, again I see it as significant that they did not offer a true free exercise defense, because they claimed only that they disapproved of the ceremony because their religion also disapproved of the ceremony, not that participation would be a violation of their religious practice.
I am curious if you think that a photographer should be permitted to refuse to photograph an interracial wedding , because he “disagreed with the message it conveyed”? What if his disagreement had a religious basis?