Religious freedom, political correctness, and the culture of outrage

[Syt]

I'm very much of the conviction that people should be free to voice their opinions, no matter how retarded or backwards. However, freedom of opinion doesn't mean freedom from criticism, challenge, mockery or rejection (which some people seem to think).

[crazy canuck]

So for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc.  Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.

Are you sure of that? The second sentence doesn't seem to be connected to the first. A shopkeeper is not the law.

Just trying to act dumb? 

Not at all. You're trying to equate equal protection under law with equal treatment of each other. It's not the same thing.

I am not trying to equate anything.  The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

[crazy canuck]

I'm very much of the conviction that people should be free to voice their opinions, no matter how retarded or backwards. However, freedom of opinion doesn't mean freedom from criticism, challenge, mockery or rejection (which some people seem to think).

Agreed.  Also freedom of expression does not include the freedom to discriminate against others by denying services based on race, religion etc.

[viper37]

While I think that all people/companies should be treated equal under law, I also think that unless he's breaking any laws, a shop owner, in his shop on his ground should have the right to refuse service to people if he so wishes (but should also be prepared to be called out on it).

The problem I see would be the rights for minorities.  If I refuse to serve gays or blacks in my shop, for whatever reasons, and these people aren't in a sufficient number, or in a effective position to counter this move, than we are back to the era of white only restrooms, white only buses, white only restaurants and so on.

I think there are limits to what I can do.  Discriminating against an individual is ok, but against an entire group because you believe they are inferiors?

[MadImmortalMan]

I am not trying to equate anything.  The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

No it doesn't. It requires that the government not discriminate against anyone on those grounds.

In a transaction between a shopkeeper and a customer it does not apply. Or do you have a different version in Canada?

[Barrister]

I am not trying to equate anything.  The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

No it doesn't. It requires that the government not discriminate against anyone on those grounds.

In a transaction between a shopkeeper and a customer it does not apply. Or do you have a different version in Canada?

The Constitution requires that the government not discriminate.

The government though, has in turn passed legislation which prohibits private people from discriminating when providing goods and services.  In Alberta it's the Alberta HUman Rights Act, and it definitely applies in a  transaction between a shopkeeper and customer.

Do you not have similar laws in the US?  Is it permissible to open a store and have a "No Blacks or Irish" policy?

[crazy canuck]

I am not trying to equate anything.  The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

No it doesn't. It requires that the government not discriminate against anyone on those grounds.

In a transaction between a shopkeeper and a customer it does not apply. Or do you have a different version in Canada?

I would be very surprised if it was legal in your country for a shopkeeper to deny service to a customer because of their race. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Constitution requires that the government not discriminate.

The government though, has in turn passed legislation which prohibits private people from discriminating when providing goods and services.  In Alberta it's the Alberta HUman Rights Act, and it definitely applies in a  transaction between a shopkeeper and customer.

Do you not have similar laws in the US?  Is it permissible to open a store and have a "No Blacks or Irish" policy?

I believe this must be rhetorical, but yah:

42 USC 21, first passed in 1964 and amended several times (one of the big ones was amending it to protect  the disabled similar to race/religious beliefs and such, I believe the elderly were an amendment as well.) It covers a lot of things for government entities and public accommodations, and defines what a public accommodation is--which is basically any business that's not a strict private member club.

[crazy canuck]

The Constitution requires that the government not discriminate.

The government though, has in turn passed legislation which prohibits private people from discriminating when providing goods and services.  In Alberta it's the Alberta HUman Rights Act, and it definitely applies in a  transaction between a shopkeeper and customer.

Do you not have similar laws in the US?  Is it permissible to open a store and have a "No Blacks or Irish" policy?

I believe this must be rhetorical, but yah:

42 USC 21, first passed in 1964 and amended several times (one of the big ones was amending it to protect  the disabled similar to race/religious beliefs and such, I believe the elderly were an amendment as well.) It covers a lot of things for government entities and public accommodations, and defines what a public accommodation is--which is basically any business that's not a strict private member club.

I am not sure what you mean by rhetorical.   It was in response to MiM who apparently believes it is still legal for a shop keeper to discriminate by refusing service to someone based on their race, religion etc.

[MadImmortalMan]

No I just mean the equal protection clause does not apply.

Which is probably why the USSC decided this way and everyone is baffled.

[crazy canuck]

No I just mean the equal protection clause does not apply.

Which is probably why the USSC decided this way and everyone is baffled.

I am not sure what you mean.  Everyone is baffled because the US Supreme Court found that Corporations have religious beliefs.  And they came to that conclusion by ignoring that very reason for limited liability companies which is to create a legal fiction which separates the shareholder from the actions of the corporation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I am not sure what you mean by rhetorical.   It was in response to MiM who apparently believes it is still legal for a shop keeper to discriminate by refusing service to someone based on their race, religion etc.

A rhetorical question is a question used to make a point, not one in which the questioner genuinely wants or doesn't know the answer to his question. My presumption being BB, as a legal type and one who talks with Americans on a regular basis, is probably well aware shopkeepers cannot ban blacks from their stores down here and he was asking the question to make a point to counter MiM.

[Barrister]

I am not sure what you mean by rhetorical.   It was in response to MiM who apparently believes it is still legal for a shop keeper to discriminate by refusing service to someone based on their race, religion etc.

A rhetorical question is a question used to make a point, not one in which the questioner genuinely wants or doesn't know the answer to his question. My presumption being BB, as a legal type and one who talks with Americans on a regular basis, is probably well aware shopkeepers cannot ban blacks from their stores down here and he was asking the question to make a point to counter MiM.

I was 98% sure there must be such a law, but allowing a tiny chance I was wrong.

My understanding though is that in many jurisdictions those laws do not apply to sexual orientation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The construct is that the Federal laws prohibit discrimination in those areas I mentioned as it pertains to protected classes. The protected classes are specifically laid out in the Federal law, which was written in 1964 and amended I believe as recently as the 2000s (to prohibit discrimination against people based on knowledge of their genome, oddly enough.) Sexual orientation is not one of the protected classes, so has no Federal protection under these laws in any jurisdiction.

But many States have their own Civil Rights Acts (because of the Supremacy Clause, the State laws cannot contradict directly the Federal law in this area, but they can cover other things), and many State Civil Rights acts have sexual orientation as a protected class. I couldn't guess as to what number of States does, and in some States I even know cities have such laws but the State doesn't (cities are a total construct of State law, some States allow for very powerful cities with powerful local laws, others cities basically can decide how to spend local money and administer their area, but can make few substantive laws of any kind.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

As an example I'm aware of, Ohio is a strong "home rule" State (home rule in the U.S. means cities have a lot of legislative power within their borders and the State legislature has less), but has no real statewide laws protecting sexual orientation. In Columbus, the local Catholic Bishop fired a woman's phys ed teacher employed at one of the Diocese High Schools when it came out publicly that she was a lesbian. Basically there was an obituary I believe that listed her partner as "her wife" or something of that nature, which alerted parents, who complained to the Bishop, who fired the teacher.

But Columbus actually protects sexual orientation as a matter of municipal law, and does not make exemptions based on being a religious organization. The fired teacher had started to take the action that would have resulted in a ruling (almost certainly against the Diocese), but then dropped the matter--it was revealed she had privately settled the matter with the Dioecese (read: took a fat stack of bills to go away.) It'd be interesting to see what would have happened if Columbus had found the Diocese in violation of the municipal law, it may have resulted in eventually a Federal claim on first amendment grounds, but it never got that far.