Senator Ed Murray said, “I don’t think we want to go into our civil rights laws and decide who gets served and who doesn’t get served.”
In response to Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s filing of a lawsuit against a florist for discrimination for refusing to supply flowers for a gay couple’s wedding Earlier this month, 12 Republican state senators have filed a bill that “would allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT people based on religious or ‘philosophical’ beliefs.” According to Raw Story:
State Sen. Sharon Brown (R) and 11 other of the 23 Republicans in the Washington state Senate want to legalize discrimination against gay and lesbian couples with Senate Bill 5927. The measure goes far beyond religious exceptions, allowing business to discriminate based on “philosophical beliefs” or even “matters of conscience.”
“The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, philosophical belief, or matter of conscience may not be burdened unless the government proves that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest,” the bill states.
Legislation passed in Washington state in 2006 made it illegal to discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation, and in 2012 citizens voted to legalize same-sex marriage. However, unlike race, religion and disability, LGBT people are not considered a “protected class” under federal law, so this new bill does not recognize a business refusing them service as discrimination.
According to The News Tribune, Senator Brown claims the bill’s intent is not to “undermine the law or the rights of gays and lesbians in the state,” she also insists it is not a “commentary on same-sex marriage,” but is instead meant to protect individuals, businesses, and religious organizations from legal persecution. She said, “There’s a glaring lack of protection for religion in state law.”
However, a spokesman for Equal Rights Washington, Josh Friedes said the bill “seeks to undermine the state’s anti-discrimination laws,and it undermines our entire approach to ensuring the equality of all Washingtonians in commerce. It is discrimination, pure and simple.”
The bill has yet to be referred to a committee or scheduled for a public hearing, but if a special session of the state senate is called it may be heard at that time.
Photo: shizzy0/Flickr
Oh and, people can have freedom of association, not businesses.
Women-only gyms are not legal everywhere. They also shouldn’t be.
Support groups can discriminate, businesses who do discriminate are pretty iffy. Like those “white only” clubs in either Chicago or Detroit that do everything in their power to make the experience white-centric (country music all the time), and discriminate underhandledly against black clients (less good service, etc).
I’m a little torn between civil equality and property rights. I don’t like discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but I think there is still some right somewhere for businesses to reserve the right to refuse service to some people, fortunately or unfortunately. Because “philosophical” goes both ways. I would like a restaurant or store to be able to refuse service to people who make homophobic comments. I would like a wedding planner to refuse to do business with a florist who discriminates against gay people. I want to be able to kick someone out of my store for… Read more »
I’m a little torn between civil equality and property rights. I don’t like discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but I think there is still some right somewhere for businesses to reserve the right to refuse service to some people, fortunately or unfortunately. You do know this opens the door to being able to discriminate for “philosophical beliefs” against, well anyone you don’t particularly like? If this law passed and I was a business owner, I could decide to not serve black people, white people, hispanic people, disabled people, able-bodied people, bald people, people with longer hair than X… Read more »
So, you don’t believe people have freedom of contract and freedom of association? That we can required to do business with ‘protected ‘ groups?
If you don’t have a special exemption (like women’s groups, aboriginal groups, etc) tend to have to specify your client/workers etc can only be female, then no, you can’t discriminate on the basis of inherent characteristics.
You could, in theory, discriminate on the basis of class, by charging extremely high prices. Go for it.