It was those nasty Republicans who freed those slaves, ISTR.
Somewhat on topic, there is a current case in the UK in which a baker is being charged with discriminatory practices for refusing to make a cake in support of gay marriage.
The image the customer wanted was of Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie.
IANAL, but it looks like this would be commercial use in violation of some trademark or copyright? I would imagine a baker could refuse that specific image on those grounds.
Interesting point. I hadn’t thought of that. The political dynamic for enactment of anti-discrimination laws in Canada is quite different.
That’s another difference. Our courts have given a much narrower interpretation to the federal Parliament’s inter-provincial commerce power, so the federal Act doesn’t apply to many businesses. Instead, most businesses are subject solely to the provincial Acts.
Oh, Lincoln, that RINO!
There is no federal constitutional protection for religion in the face of laws of general applicability, which includes laws forbidding racial discrimination. I’m not aware of any state constitution that provides religious exceptions to laws of general applicability either. Freedom of religion statutes are generally overridden by the compelling interest of forbidding racial discrimination. So, assuming this caterer is otherwise subject to some law forbidding racial discrimination (which is very likely, if not at the federal level then at the state or municipal level), then the answer is “no.”
(The big difference between racial discrimination and, say, anti-LGBT discrimination is that preventing the latter has not yet been universally held to be a compelling state interest, which is what is necessary to overcome various religious freedom protection laws.)
Restaurants and caterers are two entirely separate things, in that restaurants are a retail location where the general public comes in to transact business. Catering is more of a contracted service.
While a restaurant can’t decline service to someone based on them being in a protected class, it would seem to me to be extremely hard to prove that a caterer discriminated, if they said they didn’t make that kind of food, or didn’t cater in that location, or on that day or didn’t have enough people available then or whatever.
Harder to prove or not, discrimination by a caterer is just as illegal as discrimination by a restaurant.
Well, no. Some anti-discrimination statutes would include restaurants and not caterers. Some include both. It depends on what statute we’re talking about.
I thought there were exceptions for church churches in some situations, for instance if a Catholic church hired a receptionist they could choose to hire a only Catholic receptionist. Or does the nature of a job like this automatically put it beyond the range of anti-discrimination laws?
Yes, there is the so-called “ministerial exception” to Title VII employment discrimination rules, the breadth of which is not entirely clear. But it applies to employees, not customers, and almost certainly does not apply to a for-profit business regardless of the owner’s beliefs.
I’m not sure who could be called a “customer” of a church so long as they don’t operate a business like a restaurant or a clothing store. Can someone who attends a regular church service be considered a customer? Can a church bar a black person from attending a service?
I’m not sure I quite understand. Anti-discrimination statutes do not generally apply to churches at all. Title VII is unusual in that respect. My point was that even if a caterer could assert the ministerial exception (and it almost certainly could not), it would apply to employees not customers.
A problem more pronounced now, however, is when a customer comes in being a total dick and you, as an individual, corporate or not, decide that, fuck him, go find another establishment to be a total dick in. And then, Lo and behold, he’s asking for a service, or be himself, is in “a protected class” and the law, when misdirected, forces you not to serve all intermarriage services–or whatever–but when that total dick, just to 1) bust your balls, 2) win a lawsuit, or, as in the pressing need for gay wedding pizza catering–which was not even asked for, but a hypothetical not even thought of by the pizza guy before bing asked–3) advance and goad others in a hyperactive social cause for some people.
[Obviously it exists all over as a general social stiletto. I was accused of “racism” by a black secretary I worked with (in Orwell land, My crime was using the word “Yowza,” which I had never even heard of), the same secretary who I heard discussing quite openly her path to early retirement by looking for a good racism case.]*
My one experience more in line with the discussion is when I was front-desking a cafe where a woman with a “Gaza=Auschwitz” button came up. Swallowing my disgust and, not to put too fine a point in it, hatred, I placed her take-out order. Later I told the owner, who was furious and said I should have told him, and he would have thrown her the fuck out of there.
*ETA: Neither I nor the human-resource director interrogating my thoughts on the Good Society and why I had thrown a wrench into it was aware even what the word meant, let alone my accuser.
I prased it this way because of what you said earlier, though perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying:
I was wondering whether a church service might be considered a public accommodation, and if not could they simply turn black people away at the door. I haven’t heard of such a case, but I have heard of a few cases such as a black churchgoer who wasn’t allowed to marry in the very church he’d been attending for years. I can’t recall if it involved interracial marriage or not, and I’m not sure whether that would be relevant.
It depends on the statute. Many (most, I think, but have not counted) do not include churches. Some do.
Yes. In the absence of some statute to the contrary, it is legal for a church to racially discriminate because constitutional prohibitions on discrimination apply to state entities, not private entities.
See the provision of the federal Civil Rights Act cited by Really Not All That Bright in post 27: it applies to restaurants etc. who sell food for consumption on the premises. That wouldn’t include caterers, would it?
Catered food is for consumption at the same premises where it’s sold. This is distinct from, say, grocery stores, or even carry-out places.
Huh? That’s the opposite of catered food.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder how far one can discriminate against, based on personal ethos, in Canada or America, legal things one disapproves of that are not tied to the excitable bases of sex or race…
F’rinstance, a small number of people have some objection to child marriage: yet many states in the USA permit marriage ( with parental consent ) from the ages of 13 or 14. If some old gentleman comes in with his 13-yr-old hillbilly bride in cut-off jeans for his prior-booked wedding suite, can the hotelier tell him to take a hike ?
Cue the usual ‘It’s not harming anyone else !’, and ‘Why do you hate those in love ?’.
Yeah, that’s what I’d think too.
My point earlier was that since catering is a contractual deal, there’s nothing that says that if someone comes up to you and asks you to cater a wedding, you HAVE to accept. You could refuse because you want to sleep in that Saturday, or because this person strikes you as a pain in the ass, or because you can’t make the requested dishes very well. Or yes, because you just don’t feel like catering a same-sex wedding. Or even because you just don’t like catering ANY weddings. There’s no Refusal-to-Cater form that you have to fill out with reasons why you refused to cater some event.
This is different from a restaurant where the whole raison d’etre/gestalt is serving food to people who walk in the door. There’s a certain expectation that as long as you meet whatever dress requirements or other reasonable stipulations (no pets, etc…) that you’ll be served.