# Bill Would Allow Service Refusal To Gay Couples



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*CONCORD, N.H. -- *Florists, caterers and other wedding-related businesses could turn away engaged gay couples under legislation before the House that opponents likened to segregation and Nazi Germany's race laws.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday on the bill, which would allow providers of wedding-related goods or services to withhold those services if they believe doing business with gay couples would violate their conscience or religious faith. The bill also would bar lawsuits against business owners in such situations.

Bill sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin, R-Manchester, called it a "business protection bill" and said a person's personal religious beliefs should receive protection in his or her capacity as a service provider.

Noting that New Hampshire protects against discrimination based on both religion and sexual orientation, Bergevin asked, "How do you strike a balance between them?"

Read more: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/30315990/detail.html#ixzz1kgYPwsJz


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2012)

The government should not be dictating to private businesses about who they have to provide their services to......that's one of my more Libertarian views on things.

If I tried to buy a gallon milk at a convenient store and they refused to serve me because I'm wearing a wedding band, I'd shrug my shoulders and take my business elsewhere.


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

*I'd shrug my shoulders and take my business elsewhere.*
+1


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Delta784 said:


> The government should not be dictating to private businesses about who they have to provide their services to......that's one of my more Libertarian views on things.
> 
> If I tried to buy a gallon milk at a convenient store and they refused to serve me because I'm wearing a wedding band, I'd shrug my shoulders and take my business elsewhere.


But, it is discriminatory to refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation and you have to start thinking of the slippery slope. Do we really want to start going backwards with civil rights? Now with that said, why any gay person would want to do business with anyone who refuses service based on sexual orientation is beyond me. As you said if someone denied you service for whatever reason, you'd shrug your shoulders and go elsewhere as would I. I wouldn't concern myself with suing them or waste my time filing complaints with the state. However, I would make sure I told everyone who would give me the time not to do business with that person or company.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2012)

HistoryHound said:


> But, it is discriminatory to refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation and you have to start thinking of the slippery slope. Do we really want to start going backwards with civil rights?


The government cannot dictate to the people who they have to like or approve of; as Neal Boortz once said, popular speech needs no protection.



HistoryHound said:


> Now with that said, why any gay person would want to do business with anyone who refuses service based on sexual orientation is beyond me. As you said if someone denied you service for whatever reason, you'd shrug your shoulders and go elsewhere as would I. I wouldn't concern myself with suing them or waste my time filing complaints with the state. However, I would make sure I told everyone who would give me the time not to do business with that person or company.


And, that's how things like that should be handled; let the free market determine the fate of a business that refuses to serve a certain population, not the courts. One of the reasons why this country is on life support is because of frivolous litigation.

When I was in the Army, the DoD published a list of banned establishments where we as soldiers could not go. Most of them were because they discriminated based on race; I really had no desire to go to Billy Bob's Diner to begin with, and even less after reading the list, but that's how things like that should be handled. Let the business strangle itself out of existence.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

Liberals had be careful of what they wish for. If fair is fair then shouldn't it apply to both sides. I can think of many minority ONLY entities.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Delta, I think we're pretty much arguing the same basic point which is the government shouldn't be involved and the free market will determine what happens. The difference is our individual opinions on gay marriage and I know my opinion is in the minority here. I think the government should stay out of it all together. Why start with legislation that could ultimately cause more problems that it will solve. As a business owner you should have the right to refuse service especially if providing that service flies in the face of your religious views. If the community doesn't like your practices they will show it by not patronizing your business and you will either change or go out of business. But, for the government to get involved and say it's ok to refuse service based on sexual orientation but it's still not ok to refuse service for other reasons is wrong. The legislature and the courts need to stay out of it and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

So...could these same businesses turn away people because they don't like Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists or Muslims? What if some of the guests at your heterosexual wedding are gay? Can you selectively refuse to serve them, but serve everyone else? Definitely too much slippery slope here, I can't believe after fifty years of getting rid of Jim Crow, we still have all this crap...


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2012)

Killjoy said:


> So...could these same businesses turn away people because they don't like Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists or Muslims? What if some of the guests at your heterosexual wedding are gay? Can you selectively refuse to serve them, but serve everyone else? Definitely too much slippery slope here, I can't believe after fifty years of getting rid of Jim Crow, we still have all this crap...


The real slippery slope is the government being involved in the affairs of private businesses. What next, Catholic hospitals have to perform abortions?


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2012)

So what about businesses that post a sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Are they not allowed to actually refuse service to anyone? 
What if you went to a kosher deli, and specifically requested that your turkey and cheese be cut on the same cutting board? Are they allowed to refuse your request, or should they be worried about being sued for not complying w/ your request due to their religious beliefs and practices? 
Businesses that are not government run should have the right to refuse service. Gay marriage is one of those wishy-washy issues that involves both sexual orientation, and religious beliefs. Does one trump the other? I don't see it as 'the business is discriminating based on sexual orientation'. I see it as 'the business owner is choosing not to operate in a way that goes against their religious beliefs', and I believe they have every right to do so. A restaurant owner may have no problem with gay people eating in their restaurant, but they may choose not to cater gay weddings. If their business suffers, then so be it. What's the problem? The government telling private businesses how to operate... Now that's a slippery slope.


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

HistoryHound said:


> But, it is discriminatory to refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation and you have to start thinking of the slippery slope. Do we really want to start going backwards with civil rights? Now with that said, why any gay person would want to do business with anyone who refuses service based on sexual orientation is beyond me. As you said if someone denied you service for whatever reason, you'd shrug your shoulders and go elsewhere as would I. I wouldn't concern myself with suing them or waste my time filing complaints with the state. However, I would make sure I told everyone who would give me the time not to do business with that person or company.


That the essence of a free market. Organize a boycott, picket the store, and spread the word about their discrimination but the Govt should not be dictating who a private business can or cannot do buisness with.


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

So the government should not have stepped in during Jim Crow because it would have affected the free market?


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

Delta784 said:


> The government cannot dictate to the people who they have to like or approve of; as Neal Boortz once said, popular speech needs no protection.


Jim Crow survived on such a mentality


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2012)

Herrdoktor said:


> So the government should not have stepped in during Jim Crow because it would have affected the free market?


You're comparing apples to moonrocks.

Jim Crow laws were just that; laws, enacted by duly constituted governmental bodies at the state and local levels. The US Constitution guarantees certain rights against government action, not the action of private businesses, so it was entirely appropriate for the federal government to get involved in those incidents.

Not so with a private business.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Herrdoktor said:


> So the government should not have stepped in during Jim Crow because it would have affected the free market?


Is it wrong to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation? IMO it is. But, that doesn't mean the government should get involved in telling private businesses who they have to serve and who they don't have to serve. If this legislation passes it will make it ok to refuse service to a gay couple, but not ok to refuse service to someone based on their race, ethnicity, religion etc. If the legislature wanted to pass a law saying that it's ok for white shop owners to refuse to serve non-whites people would be up in arms. It's the same principle just being applied to different people. The government should not be getting involved here. As a business owner you have the right to refuse service to someone, as a consumer if you feel you have been discriminated against you have the right to take your business elsewhere and encourage others to do the same. If enough people agree with you; then, the business owner will ultimately be forced to change their practices or go out of business. This legislation is an invitation for more problems down the road as it is effectively the state's way of marginalizing gays and lesbians and opens the door for discrimination complaints against the state. Let business owners and consumers make their own choices and the free market will sort it out.


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

Herrdoktor said:


> So the government should not have stepped in during Jim Crow because it would have affected the free market?





Herrdoktor said:


> Jim Crow survived on such a mentality


I'll chock it up to the fact that you wrote this at 0200 hours but Jim Crow LAWS are exactly what we are arguing against. It was the state and local governments sticking their nose where it didn't belong by creating "separate but equal."


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

> The government telling private businesses how to operate... Now that's a slippery slope.


Why? They've been doing it for years with health inspections, fire codes, building codes and regulations on people you can't exclude from hiring. You can't walk barefoot into your favorite restaurant nor can the owner decide to store chicken at room temperature or let his pet chinchilla run around the kitchen. You also can't refuse to serve people based on race, religion, national origin or disabilities.

Refusing service based on sexual orientation does not violate federal law, however, so the purpose of this law is confusing to me. In practice, a photographer, caterer or baker doesn't have to book anyone's business. A simple "I'm busy that day." would suffice if you had such stringent moral objections to these kinds of weddings. Everyone here rails against stupid, "feel good" laws, and this seems like another example of such.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2012)

Killjoy said:


> Why? They've been doing it for years with health inspections, fire codes, building codes and regulations on people you can't exclude from hiring.


Health, fire, and building codes serve an overall good purpose in safeguarding people's health and safety, which is one of the government's core responsibilities.

As far as federal regulations about who you can exclude from hiring....absolutely, positively, 100% wrong.

I was recruited to be an adjunct faculty member at a conservative Christian college, but when I got the application paperwork, they wanted a "pastoral reference", which is basically a statement from your minister that you attend church on a regular basis. I didn't/don't, so I called the HR department about it, and I was told that they were no longer interested in my services. And, shockingly, I accepted & understood their position, so I didn't run crying to the ACLU or some vulture civil rights attorney.

Wait.....are you saying that it's okay for a Christian business to discriminate about certain criteria, but not secular and non-Christian businesses?

Gee......I wonder why the government would possibly want to have that position?


----------

