http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=196691625 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=196691625)
Author: John Burnett Source: NPR
"Suppose you own a bakery or a flower shop, or rent out your hall for wedding receptions, and you oppose same-sex marriage. Should you be required to serve gay couples? Most state public accommodation laws require businesses to serve everyone. But some vendors who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds say accommodating gay weddings would violate their religious beliefs. As gay marriage becomes more widespread, these conflicts between religious and civil rights are growing."
[Audio: 4 min 11 seconds]
There has to be a legitimate business reason for the refusal of service otherwise the Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation. State and local laws may provide broader protections beyond Federal ones. Refusal in the case of non protected classes cannot be arbritary.
If there is a 'legitimate business reason' then service can be refused even if the person or party falls under one or more of the protected classes.
Sadly absent protections in most areas TG can fall into this 'business reason'. Gay alone would not.
Quote from: LearnedHand on June 28, 2013, 05:55:12 PM
But some vendors who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds say accommodating gay weddings would violate their religious beliefs.
Poppycock. They're not the ones getting married. How could it violate
their beliefs for
someone else to get married?
Anyone who says that is justifying bigotry.
The funny thing about the religious objections is that these business owners never deny a wedding cake or flowers to cousins getting married (legal in some but not all states in the USA), people of other religions (they're going to hell in the business owner's eyes, but that's apparently better than being gay), or for that matter things like divorce cakes.
Some reporter called a few of these bakeries that were in the news and asked for things like a cake for an out-of-wedlock child birth and a "congratulations" cake for a divorce. No problem according to the bakeries.
Just shows they're pretty selective about what religious rules they care about.
Quote from: Bailey on July 02, 2013, 09:53:11 PM
Why wouldn't the couple just go somewhere else instead of giving bigots their money?
No idea, but I imagine it making an interesting conversation: "i want to give you my money. Why won't you take it?"
As someone who was in that position, and saw the harm that it did to my wife because the vendor assumed it was a same-sex marriage (I imagine if either of us was the opposite sex than what we are, they still would have objected), I'm glad people do challenge these laws.
You don't challenge it to get yourself a cake. You challenge it so someone else won't have to go through what you went through.
Being denied service was humiliating to my wife - and I completely understand why. Certainly, we both support gay rights, so we would never have done business there if we knew their stance - and ultimately we found a much better business to frequent at a lower cost. But, none-the-less, I would have preferred that my wife was not treated in that way. We didn't challenge it (we didn't have the ability to pull that off at the time), but I'm very thankful to the people who help others by challenging businesses who violate the law in the name of God (yet don't even really hold strongly to their religious beliefs except when it comes down to gays - or perceived gays).
The reason people challenge it is the same reason people people fought for the right for blacks to sit at the lunch counter rather than simply taking their business elsewhere. Sex orientation discrimination is wrong and I'm thankful when people challenge it for exactly the same reason.
Quote from: Slanan on July 02, 2013, 10:12:05 PM
You don't challenge it to get yourself a cake. You challenge it so someone else won't have to go through what you went through.
I agree, such as the case that brought about "separate but equal" (
Plessy v. Ferguson) Homer Plessy was involved with activists group, he agreed to violate the Separate Car Act, and he had informed the conductor that he was only 7/8th white, all for the purpose of having standing to challenge segregation laws. Otherwise, they probably would have just thought he was another white guy since he was only 1/8 African-American.
Quote from: Bailey on July 02, 2013, 09:53:11 PM
Why wouldn't the couple just go somewhere else instead of giving bigots their money?
I hope they would. But public accommodation laws work only if they are enforced by the people being discriminated against. There may be a situation where there isn't a lot of choice, or where one place is cheaper or more convenient.
Unless public accommodation laws are enforced everyone will ignore them.
Quote from: Slanan on July 02, 2013, 10:12:05 PMYou don't challenge it to get yourself a cake. You challenge it so someone else won't have to go through what you went through.
That's the most profound thing I've read today! We challenge these wrongs because society doesn't get better unless we do.