what should the limits of non discrimination laws be?

[dsc]

This story:

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/07/071108un.htm

which is about a case in England where a public registrar sued because she didn't want to perform same gender weddings got me to thinking.

There is a great spectrum of activity that is potentially covered by anti discrimination laws. One one end there is employment in large firms, renting hotel rooms and apartments, and getting mortages. On the other end is getting married in the Catholic Church. Laws which didn't cover the first items would be useless while those covering the last item would be overly broad. So where would you draw the line?

Should a widow be forced to rent a room in her house to a 20 year old man if he applies first?

Should a private club be forced to accept gay members?

Should a private club be forced to accept black or Jewish members?

Can an apartment building ban children or elderly people?

So what should the limits of the law be?

[mdmc]

1. let me take a stab my friend

the old lady should rent to the best qualified (not to the first 20 yr old)
the private club can discriminate as long as they get no public support.
The apartment building can't ban kids and old folk (they can prefer middle age single folk).

It is one thing to ban a group (can't be done). It is another to *wink*wink* "ban" a group (can be done).

[Ian David]

2. I don't think ANYONE should be allowed to discriminate against married gay couples.

However, I'm leaning toward allowing individuals to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies for religious reasons.

Not because I feel they're correct.

But because allowing them that right takes away both a stated fears and slippery-slope arguments that the bigots like to use against having gay marriage in the first place-- namely that their church might be forced to perform gay weddings. And it also means that they cannot claim that Marriage Equality somehow infringes upon their "religious right" to be bigots.

So, I am willing-- hesitantly and with uncertainty-- to concede this point to the bigots, essentially to shut them the hell up.

But I think that should be reserved to individuals, not entire jurisdictions.

And that even those civil servants unwilling to "perform ceremonies" should still be required to provide marriage licenses and witness signatures as part of their civil service.

[dsc]

3. I am willing to grant the exception provided it is granted uniformly

thus officials could also refuse to perform interfaith, interracial, or marriages which are not the first marriage for one or both members of the couple.

[Ian David]

4. Agreed! And the Jewish guy at the Registry of Motor Vehicles...

... should be allowed to refuse to issue licenses to Christians, because they drive on The Sabbath.

[papapi]

5. If they refuse to perform for the gay couple they should be forbidden from . . .

performing ANY ceremonies for ANYONE. Should still be required to issue licenses, etc.

[elleng]

6. Good question!

You have an idea about how difficult it can be to draft legislation (and then to pass it!)

[Igel]

7. Here's my stab at it.

The closer a service or good is to be offered by a sole proprietor, the closer it is to free speech and the person's choice to offer the good or service.

I'd also say that as societal mores change, what's required should probably change. Gender equality's been around for a while, gender orientation's been around rather less long as an active issue for most people. I don't think courts should be in the business of setting private mores, much less public ones. And Congress should think twice about private business.

The widow renting a room in her house is a private person, not a public accommodation, and can rent to whoever she wants, for whatever reason.


A private club shouldn't discriminate; however, it can. How it's structured matters, as does its purpose. However, it should be truly private, not receiving public moneys or subsidies. I do not consider the absence of collecting taxes to be equivalent to doling out money.

Businesses are public accommodations. They have fewer expectations on how their restrictions on providing services will be regarded. Moreover, most of the time a lot of behavior (etc.) is immaterial. You buy a guppy from a pet store, it's unclear to me how race, religion, gender, or sex matters. Most businesses also have employees: If the owner shows distaste for a person, there's often an employee around.

I'd make exceptions for purely optional services provided by one person or small group. If Jonathan's a guitarist and get hired for a wedding, he may have an objection to the couple. That's his right; the couple can find another guitarist, and if they can't, it's either they force him to do something he finds wrong or they suffer because of his opinion. I go with freedom of conscience: Being forced to provide service is worse in this case than being denied service.

For medical services, esp. emergency services, I move the line towards not allowing discrimation. For completely voluntarily kinds of services--mole removal--little is gained by forcing a doctor to deal with people he hates. I'm not sure I'd want to be treated by a doctor who disapproves of me. This is esp. true if the practioner isn't alone in town; it may be inconvenient, but it again boils down to his doing something he disapproves of versus my convenience. It's esp. true if the issue is a new one, so I'd grandfather in businesses: If he goes into business when the laws say no discrimination by race, he knows the rules when he starts; if they suddenly change to include sexual orientation, I'd cut him slack. I don't like having rules changed in the middle of the game; when you start a business or a practice, it's with the expectation that you know the rules, not that they'll change in such a way that you'd never start. Peer and public pressure will deal with stragglers after a decade or so.

An apt. building is a public accommodation. Here I start having problems: I've rented in small buildings from large corporations and smallish buildings from an old widow. The old widow's husband built the building in the '50s, and the rules kept changing. She didn't like who she was now forced to rent to, but had no choice, as far as she was concerned. I rather like the idea of grandfathering in owners and buildings: It means that the rules their consciences said were ok aren't going to change to force them to do something that others consider ok, but they disagree with. It also keeps the legislature from being "nice" with other people's property.

"Grandfathering" a building in under new laws makes things complicated, and enforcement non-trivial. Eh. Post the date the place started under the current management, problem mostly solved. As for kids or the elderly, it works the same as with others (under my view). But it's also possible to structure a building so that people own, not just rent: apt. or condo coops. I'd make the laws laxer for them, since they start acting like private clubs. Not sure how much more lax. Haven't thought it through.

Religious organizations frequently take what they consider principled stances on what others consider non-issues. My old church routinely asked new members if they had been divorced; divorce and remarriage was frowned upon, and I know of one couple that was told they couldn't attend any longer when they married. Forcing them to accept the couple would have entailed them ignoring what they considered a defining doctrine, and we couldn't figure out why the couple even wanted to keep on attending. Interracial couples were ok, gay members were fine as long as they were celibate--with the same rules for all other single members. Gay couples were a no-no. The ministers married people, and to ask them to marry a couple they disapproved of would place the couple's rights above the minister's. But in the couple's case, they had the choice of numerous other ministers to choose from; in the minister's case, he was there primarily for church members marrying in accordance with church doctrines. They routinely got calls from non-members asking them to perform a wedding, and routinely said 'no'.

It gets harder when the religious organization provides a secular service as part of their religious calling. Some organizations run schools, shelters, feed the needy, run day care centers or camps, etc., etc. If they're closed, available only to members of their faith community, it doesn't matter: calls of obedience to a slate of doctrines screen out inappropriate (from the organization's POV) people. If they're open to the public, it gets harder. Most of them wouldn't care: if they're feeding the poor, they're feeding the poor. That's what they routinely do, and most don't discriminate between various subcategories of people. If they set up shop under one set of rules, I'm in favor of grandfathering them in. I don't like the idea, again, of the client's rights trumping the rights of the providers, esp. if the providers started with one set of assumptions. Then it's an imposition of one view on those providing the service.

Imagine if a law is passed on 8/1/08 banning discrimination against practitioners of other cultural rites. Then a Muslim male takes his 11-year-old daughter to a doctor for genital mutilation on 8/2. For him, his wife, maybe the daughter it's a big deal. Important. The doctor recoils in horror. We'd support the doctor, because we don't like the practice: He shouldn't violate his conscience. Now think of some practice that we *do* support but others don't. A different doctor may recoil in horror; our response is to say, "Tough, do it or find another job"?

Yes, I think individual liberty is important, and that both the client and the service/good provider have rights. Usually the provider is asked to actively do something; if s/he thinks it's wrong, it's a greater imposition in many cases than being denied a good or service. When to say the client has the greater right depends on whether it's a need (emergency health care) or a want (religious wedding ceremony). Often, by virtue of having a skill, we treat people as serfs: The client has rights to a service, the provider simply has an obligation. I can see why it's that way; at this point, I don't agree with it.

[dysfunctional press]

8. as a former landlord- there's no requirement to rent to the person who applies first.

and "private" clubs are just that- they can accept or deny whomever they please for whatever reason they choose.

as far as apartment buildings banning children or elderly- there are 'retirement' apartment buildings-(and near us there's a 'retirement' trailer park) where children are definitely not welcome(as tenants)...but i've never looked into one as i'm only in my 40's and my parents are still in their own home, so i don't know if children are totally 'banned' in them.

if public servants don't want to perform sevices for same-sex couples, they shouldn't be allowed to perform them for ANY couples, afaic.

[Solon]

9. I don't know about UK's anti-discrimination laws, but in the United States...

On the federal level, they are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, subsequent acts that expand on it, American with Disabilities act, and let's hope, next year, an improved all inclusive version of ENDA as well.

First off, the groups exempt form non-discrimination laws are as follows, private clubs(must have membership lists), religious organizations, and certain other non-profits, within restrictions.

Basically the rule is, if the place is open to the public in general, then they cannot disriminate in either services or employment based on, right now, race, religion, national origin, or disability.

As far as housing, well fair housing laws usually cover these, as far as you widow example, if she put out an ad, and has a leasing agreement, then she can't discriminate against people based on a protected class. This is important, she is free to discriminate against a man because he's divorced, that's not a protected class, but she can't do the same against someone because of their religion, race, national origin or disability because all of those are protected classes.

Notice what ISN'T protected under federal law. Age isn't protected, and age discrimination is quite rampant in our society, movie theaters don't allow kids into R rated movies, and, just to let you know, there is no law, local, state, or federal, that says that had to do that, they just follow MPAA guidelines. Many businesses also offer senior discounts, veteran discounts, etc. This shows preferential treatment towards certain classes of people, but is also completely legal as well.

I don't exactly know what the limits should be, but there are also different classes of businesses, and the government to consider as well. Frankly, the fact is that government has to follow its own rules, and in the United States, that means this woman would have been fired, forthwith, and not allowed back on the job. If she can't do the job, regardless of the excuse used, religious or otherwise, and even if it were a private business, they can fire you for that.

The litmus test, in the United States, is called "reasonable accommodation" and refusing to do even a part of your job, is not a reasonable accommodation.

Some businesses are under stricter guidelines(Medical, EMT, etc.), due to the nature of their business, and the government is under even stricter guidelines.

[JI7]

10. i think when it comes to housing the laws should be different

as for marrying couples. anyone who is working for the state should be required to do it.

because of separation of church and state, religious institutions can do as they wish.

discrimination should be less acceptable when it comes to housing than in some private club .

[dsc]

11. thank you all for the thoughtful responses

My answers. One race is different than the rest. I can't think of any rational reason for discrimination based on race. Thus government power should be highest there. Only purely private transactions should be able to discriminate on race. A private club that has no benefits from the government, a person renting a room in their own house, that kind of thing.

Gender and orientation are different. Here I would let college roomates refuse to room with an opposite gender or opposite orientation people. But for the most part there should still be no discrimination here.

Government should be out of the discrimination business, businesses should be out of the discrimination business, small private organizations, not so much.