05/17/2004: "Personal beliefs? Tough luck"

From Seattle comes news that the ACLU will be forcing you to cooperate with homosexual behavior whether you want to or not:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington today announced an agreement settling a discrimination complaint filed by a gay man against a local business that refused to print invitations to his wedding with his same-sex partner.��Under the agreement, the business owner has apologized for her actions and agreed to abide by Seattle�s anti-discrimination law in the future.��

"Our nation�s commitment to ending discrimination requires businesses to serve all customers equally," said ACLU of Washington staff attorney Aaron Caplan, who represented the gay man in the case. "Business owners are entitled to their private opinions about same-sex marriage, but discriminatory business practices are not permitted."

In August 2003, Seattle resident Tom Butts contacted Starfish Creative Invitations to hire them to print invitations for his upcoming wedding ceremony with Scott Carter in Vancouver, British Columbia. Butts liked samples of the company�s work he had seen and liked the fact that it was a local business.��But Starfish, a Seattle company, refused to provide their services because, in the proprietor�s words, she believes "homosexuality is wrong" and same-sex weddings are "against her belief system."

The business owner's refusal violated Seattle's Open Housing Public Accommodations Ordinance, which protects an individual's right to purchase products and services without regard to sexual orientation.�With legal representation by the ACLU, Butts filed a complaint with Seattle�s Office for Civil Rights, the agency that enforces the non-discrimination law.

Under the settlement announced today, the business owner acknowledged that all persons should be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, and she apologized that her actions offended and hurt Butts.�She agreed not to violate Seattle's anti-discrimination law in the future.�Butts and Carter were married in October 2003.

Same-sex weddings are not only against the owner's belief system�they're also not legal in Washingotn state. So the ACLU would have her forced against her convictions into taking part in a legal fiction or charade. This is "tolerance for me, coercion for you," and constitutes an attempt to make acting on traditional morality illegal. I wish the owner had contacted a legal service like the Rutherford Institute rather than settling. The ACLU shouldn't be allowed to force its moral agenda on the rest of us without a fight.

(Before someone points it out, let me assure you I'm well aware of the legal precedents regarding discrimination in public accomodation, etc. Seattle's law goes way beyond the federal statutes by including sexual orientation. The right of businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race is settled in the US. The right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of personal moral or religious convictions is not, and poses far more difficult problems. Should a printer be accorded the right to refuse to print pornography, for instance, simply because it is contrary to his moral or religious convictions, even though it is a legal product? Keep in mind that Starfish's owner wasn't refusing to serve Butts; she only refused to do a specific service because it involved producing a product that contravened her convictions.)

Replies: 14 Comments

on Monday, May 17th, Little Fly said

It is unfortunate the defendant did not contact adequate council. As far as I see it, the business owner's actions were not contrary to the ordinance. Now, a car salesman refusing to sell a homosexual a car because he needs to get to work is another story, but I don't think an example such as this would be as controversial. In this case, I would say, the ordinance does quite a bit of good.

on Monday, May 17th, Athanasius said

Agreed.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Little Fly said

This secenario does beg more complicated scenarios, though. What if Butts had requested that the printer make an invitation to a GLBTA Prom, which is not illegal? I also wonder about scenarios like these: A film developer refuses to give a homosexual prints of film he has developed because they include pictures of him kissing his partner. A rental agent refuses to let a homosexual rent a van in which he intends to carry friends to a gay pride rally. These do seem to be more ambiguous scenarios, and I wonder how we begin to draw distinctions that can differentiate them.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Athanasius said

I agree that it's a difficult situation, and that there are rights that have to be balanced. I think the discussion has to begin with a recognition that moral and religious objections to homosexual behavior are not simply mindless bigotry, but legitimate points of view that the law must respect as products of conscience, rather than automatically labeling them in a pejorative fashion. Are some anti-gay attitudes rooted in genuine bigotry? No doubt. But there are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made for traditional views.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Little Fly said

I agree entirely. I do not have any idea how to start framing a legal principle that could separate one behavior from another, but I share completely your concern that people not be forced into morally compromising positions without compelling reason. Brown vs. Board has been in the news quite a lot lately, and offers us some opportunity to reflect on the complexity of situations like this. Many opposed this decision on the ground that it violated their morality and tradition. Many felt they had reasonable arguments for this. In this case, though, I think it was right for them to be forced by law to change their ways.

Does every action that is a product of conscience get a legal pass? By no means. Our legal tradition is quite clear that you can still be punished for following your conscience. And I do not think the ACLU was wrong for testing the meaning of the Ordinance, only that a proper defense was not heard. In this case, I feel the distinction you have made between being willing to provide service and being willing to produce a product that you find offensive is an important one. I do not see why a white person should have the power to force by legal proxy an African American seamstress to make a Klan robe.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Phil said

If I were to invoke logic (unlike the ACLU), then the logically, the printers right to free excersize of religion (1st amendment) should take precedence over the plaintif's right to public accommodations (local legislative act).

Taken to its logical conclusion, that ACLU could sue a priest or pastor to force him to perform same-sex "marriages."

on Tuesday, May 18th, Greg S said

I don't see how this case would have held up if the printer had contested the decision. Normally, there has to be some kind of actual injury (physical, monetary, etc) for one party bring such a suit.

Such is not the case here. In Brown V Board, and most other civil rights cases, there was clear evidence of damages.

The ADA is another good example of the difficulty in where to draw the line.

A family owned Pizza shop should not be required to install special equipment for the disabled. It would be nice if they could, but it's not like anyone will starve as a result.

A public library on the other hand, is a special case. Everyone should have access to these types of institutions.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Little Fly said

Thanks, Greg, and I agree that this would not have held up in court. But is the injury test sufficient? I would submit that separate water fountains, even in private institutions, should be illegal, even if there is no threat of physical injury. One of the challenges we face here is how to draw lines around what counts as injury. Maybe you know something about how courts have addressed this. Phil, I think Greg's post should show how free exercise is limited by whether or not that exercise causes harm. I think we all agree that this example does not evidence the sort of harm required to violate the ordinance, but I am interested to consider examples that would. While I agree that the ACLU won a settlement they shouldn't have, the blame lies squarely on the absence of a sufficient defense.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Greg S said

That's pretty much the line of thinking I was on so far, LF.

If it were merely 2 equal water fountains, then no harm would have been done, but in reality it was 1 clean, cold, running fountain - compared to what amounted to a faucet coming out of the wall. I suppose, really the water fountain is more of a symbol representing the whole "separate but equal" phase of racism.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Greg S said

Just realized that sounded a little like I approve of separate water fountains as long as their both nice. Obviously, that's not the case.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Little Fly said

I didn't think that you did, but is it legal? Let's say a pizza parlor owner thinks that people of African descent are descendants of Ham, and therefore should not be allowed to drink from the same water fountain as whites. He provides two equally clean and cold water fountains, but kicks African Americans out if they drink from the wrong one. I want to say this is illegal, even though no one is going to die from thirst. The owner may well be acting consistently with his conscience, regardless of whether or not I agree with his racial theory (which, clearly, I don't). But, if I cannot prove that the African American is likely to suffer physical harm because he got kicked out of the parlor, can I reasonably limit the owner's free exercise (in fact, I wouldn't feel to bad if he went out of business and left town!). Regardless of how one feels about gay marriage (which I am inclined to defend), I think we should make sure that homosexuals are given equal protections on issues like this. So should everyone, regardless of just about everything about them.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Greg S said

Is it legal? I dunno, perhaps it depends on whether or not the Pizza guy is also kicking out the white folks who drink from the wrong fountain.

I'm inclined to think that a place like this wouldn't be in business very long, or at least wouldn't need to contend with Ham's descendants getting hungry for a slice or two of my favorite food. Thus never exposing any racism. Keeping in mind that there are African Americans who agree, in their own way, with our hypothetical pizza guy, they might patronize him.

My intention is not to make fun of your example, but to point out it's sheer impossiblility. I've considered taking a "libertarianish" view of some aspects racism - let the marketplace weed out the bigots. I've searched for examples like yours, but all of them have the same kind of flaw.

My main problem is that I just don't think (trust?) the government does a good job with the issue either. This is similar to my view on censorship. Although it seems noble to most of us, I don't want the government, even in the form of the judiciary, setting these types of standards.
I'm just mulling it over, but not taking that position yet.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Little Fly said

I raise the example not because I think it is as likely in this day and age for us to find this sort of discrimination against African Americans, but because it does happen that we find this kind of discrimination against homosexuals. I have been with friends who have been refused service at restaurants and carded at movies with homosexual content because they "looked" or "acted" gay. Those businesses continue to thrive, I guess, because no one thinks these activities are wrong enough to merit complaining. I'm not convinced the marketplace does protect people, especially when consensus is very low. But I am also not convinced that concensus is the right legal measure either. Part of what our courts and government do is protect minorities against majorities. The libertarian model, I suspect, will never be sufficient to meet this need.

on Tuesday, May 18th, Little Fly said

Fair warning, this post is going to contain some hard language, but I think I should share it with you. Maybe the strangest example of this sort of discrimination I have run into is when an acquaintance of mine went into an all-night gas station to purchase sanitary products because she had suddenly begun her period. She was traveling overnight, and was lucky to find the place. She was told by the attendent that her partner could "lick her out," but he wasn't going to sell her "a G-damn thing." I don't know, but I have a hard time accepting that this is just "free exercise."