Per this link, a garage refused to serve members of the Westboro Baptist Church after their tires were slashed.
Interestingly, much of the online debate has centered on why the business refused to serve them. Many speculate that it was due to the WBC’s lack of respect for the military rather than due to the WBC’s homophobia.
Regardless, does the business owner have the right to refuse service to them based on their reputation? Assume that the WBC members are causing no disruption by entering the business, that they simply entered and requested to purchase tires.
Assuming that the denial of service was due to the WBC’s reputation as hateful homophobes or as unpatriotic antagonistic soldier-bashers, this doesn’t seem to fall in categories of federal protection:
They go on to state that courts have ruled it is permissible to protect legitimate business interests by refusing service. For example, a restaurant can refuse to serve gang members wearing identifying color clothing to avoid potential violence.
So, can a garage legally refuse service to Fred Phelps? What about a supermarket? A car rental agency? Public transportation?
A business can refuse to serve pretty much any specific person or in this case a specific group of customers. They can refuse to serve them for pretty much any reason, with the few exceptions being you cannot refuse to serve someone solely because of their membership in a protected class.
So if a black family came in, and I was a hardcore, KKK-loving racist, I could say “I don’t want to serve you because I hate the clothes you’re wearing.” Or “I don’t want to serve you because I don’t like the manner in which you opened the door and walked in.”
Now, if I did this all the time, and only to black customers, maybe someone would have a case against my business. But even then, if I could demonstrate that it was plausible my real reason for denying specific customers was something unrelated to their membership in a protected class, I’d probably have a good shot of prevailing in court.
Restrictions on businesses that cater to the public have mostly had the effect of making it so you can’t put big signs up saying “No Blacks” “No Jews” “No Cripples” and et cetera. But a business owner still has wide and virtually unlimited rights to refuse individuals as long as the reason for the refusal isn’t their membership in a protected class.
The details will doubtless vary from state to state, but the long and short of it is, as long as you’re not discriminating based on membership in a protected class, you can refuse service to anyone you want for any reason you want. And I doubt that homophobia or military-bashing are protected classes anywhere in the country.
The usual counterbalance to this is the free market. If I opened a business and said that I would refuse to serve left-handed people, for instance, I’d be legally within my rights, but I’d probably raise enough outrage that even righties wouldn’t want to patronize me. Opposition to Phelps, though, is hardly controversial, so I can’t see this being an issue here (and in fact, the garage will probably gain some business from the publicity).
Also, public transportation is probably very different in terms of the law than privately owned garages or rental car agencies.
Public transportation in most places is either a direct part of local government or it is a quasi-governmental body (aka private enterprise that has an exclusive monopoly and is highly regulated by the local governing authorities.) In many places where I’ve lived public transit had a specific requirement to pick up pretty much anyone, no matter what. With maybe minor exemptions if the driver of the vehicle felt the person posed a threat to himself or other passengers (aka guy waving a flaming sword at the side of the road.)
In one place I lived I knew it was specifically part of the regulations of the local busing system that they had to stop anywhere on their route that a person flagged them down, not just at bus stops. However that regulation was virtually unknown by the public and bus drivers 90% of the time would not stop for a pedestrian who was trying to flag them down…mostly because they just didn’t want to and it was hard to enforce.
If there is a “Karl Rove” of the gay community, he/she has to be the impetus behind the Westboro Baptist Church. No group has done more to raise the ire of reasonable minded people against those that are homophobic and enhance the cause of gay rights.
I don’t know anything about the law, so please correct me if this is completely off base, but I would think that a business can discriminate against behavior or traits that someone can control (clothing, really awful piercings, ass-holery) but not things that a person does not control (race, handicap, age).
Which raises the issue - wouldn’t the business be discriminating against Phelps & Co. based on their religion? They maintain that God has condemned the United States because of tolerance of gays, and that their funeral protests are the way they get that religious message out. If a business refused to serve them because of the owner’s repugnance of the funeral protests, couldn’t it be argued that the refusal is based on the Phelps & Co’s religious activities, and hence a breach of the civil rights law?
I have no idea what the answer is, and would be curious to hear if there’s any case-law that includes exercise of religious beliefs and religious expression in the protection of the civil rights act.
Their beliefs are protected, but not their abominable actions. Actually I’d say a business has not just a right, but a moral obligation not to serve them.
I would guess (and it’s only that), that they could refuse to serve those who had participated in a demonstration, but they’d be on shaky grounds refusing service to all members of the church just because some members had been to a demonstration. That strikes me as pretty close to if not exactly basing the refusal on religion.
The owner of any buisness refusing the Phelpsites service would be wise to frame their objections in terms of their anti-military activities. Mr.Phelps was an attorney (now disbarred) and his daughter Shirley presently is one. I have no doubt that they’d enjoy bringing suit against anyone who pissed them off if they had anything more than a completely baseless complaint against them.
Yes, for one individual. All I was saying is if they turn away all members of the West Baptist Church even those that never participated in the demonstrations simply because they are members of the WBC, they might run afoul of the law.
The last time I refused service to a customer I did not like, the guy refused to leave. So I called the cops. The officer that responded tried to explain nicely that once the guy was asked to leave and refused, he was trespassing. The idiot then argued with the cop and was removed in handcuffs.
Even with a completely baseless complaint, you can still sue someone right out of business. Witness the judge who sued the dry-cleaners over a pair of pants and basically put them out of business due to legal costs.