What's new

Supreme Court and Marriage equality/Obamacare ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
700UW said:
11667476_1015751145125488_4764770117761149823_n.png
And I will reserve the right to serve whomever I want, at the business "I" built!
 
eolesen said:
It's as simple as this... The State of Oregon (and other courts as well) are now saying the bakers must do something which is clearly against their will. In the military, you can be a conscientious objector even though you volunteered for the military. Why private citizens don't have that same right is simply astounding.I don't recall reading where owning a business meant giving up the ability to exercise free will or freedom of speech.All of the "progressives" will immediately point at Jim Crow and denying based on race, but it seems pretty clear that there were a specific set of circumstances at play here and in similar cases in other states. The bakers in the Oregon case had served these people in the past, and would continue to serve them in the future, with the singular exception of participating in a marriage celebration.It's hardly the same as refusing to serve blacks in the 1960's, but you know that's going to be the argument that gets thrown back.
Well, you know the Libtards have to put their spin on it!
 
Article Center»Business Management»Business Law»Corporate Law»The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

Jane Haskins, Esq.
by Jane Haskins, Esq.
Freelance writer
Sep 2007


Updated April 6, 2015

You’ve probably seen these signs at restaurants: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Or, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”

But what do these signs really mean? Can a business just refuse service to someone? Can they throw you out if you forgot your flip-flops on the beach? When is a refusal to serve someone justified and when is it discrimination that could lead to a lawsuit?

The issue made big headlines recently, when the state of Indiana passed its Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Gay rights activists immediately protested that the law was just a way to legalize discrimination against gays: any business owner could now refuse to serve them simply by citing a religious objection.

The law caused such a firestorm that the legislature hastily enacted an amendment clarifying that the law could not be used to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. But with other states also considering religious freedom laws, the issue isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays.

Which brings us back to the original restaurant signs. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sounds vague and arbitrary. As we’ve seen, a business can’t just randomly refuse to serve someone.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.

If you feel you have been discriminated against, a LegalZoom legal plan attorney might be able to help. When you sign up for a legal plan, you will have access to personalized legal advice on an unlimited number of new legal matters for a low monthly fee. Learn more about the many benefits of the LegalZoom personal legal plan.

This portion of the site is for informational purposes only. The content is not legal advice. The statements and opinions are the expression of author, not LegalZoom, and have not been evaluated by LegalZoom for accuracy, completeness, or changes in the law.
 
It's the same old argument used on another bunch of people.

There were "religous" reasons by the dozens used for not serving blacks, as well as other ethnic groups, people of other religions obviously, and other "undesirables".

Plenty of people thought God was telling them to keep the races seperate.

(Still,do...)

"We" decided that this was wrong, and outlawed it.

The issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation was not yet "ripe" during the time the laws were written. It is now.

Same thing.
 
Are any of these businesses refusing to serve thieves, philanderers, adulterers, or people having a cake made for their second or third wedding?

Is there a purity test for the bride?

Parental consent regardless of age?



Those are also religous beliefs in some circles.
 
Oh, and btw...

The earth does actually revolve around the sun, the sun is one of a hundred billion or so Stars in one of a hundred billion or do galaxies in our ~ 13.7 billion year old universe.

We know stuff that we didn't use to know.

It can't be unknown, and shouldn't be
 
11692575_10153074075716275_3617159435016097827_n.jpg

And what party was Teddy a member of?
 
Hmm.......
 
700UW said:
11692575_10153074075716275_3617159435016097827_n.jpg

And what party was Teddy a member of?
 
Hmm.......
Socialism, in it's purest form.

And everyone should make the same amount of money, all live in the same 3/2 blue house with an Xbox and one flat screen!

Now there's a reason to excel!......NOT!

Wealth Envy, is a terrible disease!
 
.. Wherever the NEED of such control is SHOWN

Let's just eliminate ALL the regulation

Buyer beware
 
southwind said:
Socialism, in it's purest form.

And everyone should make the same amount of money, all live in the same 3/2 blue house with an Xbox and one flat screen!

Now there's a reason to excel!......NOT!

Wealth Envy, is a terrible disease!
What party was Teddy a member of?
 
Hmm, come on now, I think you can do this, now answer.
 
And your not even smart enough to figure out what you post is communism, not socialism.
 
And government does regulate industry already, so what do you call that?
 
So your a Red, hmm....
 
700UW said:
What party was Teddy a member of?
 
Hmm, come on now, I think you can do this, now answer.
 
And your not even smart enough to figure out what you post is communism, not socialism.
 
And government does regulate industry already, so what do you call that?
 
So your a Red, hmm....
 
 
Bull Moose Party and Progressive IIRC
 
You forgot one party he was a member of and thought himself as its savior.
 
Roosevelt began to envision himself as the savior of the Republican party (the "GOP") from defeat in the upcoming Presidential election and announced himself as a candidate for the GOP banner. In February 1912, Roosevelt announced in Boston "I will accept the nomination for president if it is tendered to me. I hope that so far as possible the people may be given the chance through direct primaries to express who shall be the nominee. Both Elihu Root and Cabot Lodge could then see the ultimate defeat of the party in the next election due to this lethal division; Taft considered that he was witnessing the end of his career – it was only a matter of whether he would be defeated by his own party or in the general election.
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top