pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

[Syphon]

here it is again for you who cant read:

here a link showing an example of a business being sued and the patron winning because they were gay, and the owner of the restaurant refused them service

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

 

[Uncensored2008]

slight correction. He only wants to crush liberties that HE disagrees with.

Looks to me like the only freedom he supports is the freedom of all to obey the party without question.

 

[Syphon]

slight correction. He only wants to crush liberties that HE disagrees with.

Looks to me like the only freedom he supports is the freedom of all to obey the party without question.

that statement would be closer to the religious right such as yourself, which believe that religion shouldnt be questioned and should in fact be law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

so you are for freedom of religion over freedom of choice? guess you made that clear with this post.

So Taco Bell doesn't carry Coke due to religion?

Hey Adolf, you ever seen this before?

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therein."

Your party is dedicated to eradicating those words. You are dedicated to blind obedience to your masters.

so my religion says that i believe women to be inferior human beings. thus if a woman comes into my store, i have a religious protected right to refuse service now. thanks for clearing that up.

I realize that you're stupid - it's why you're a leftist and a totalitarian.

Still, the determination to carry or not carry a product is not the same as refusal to serve based on color, creed or gender.

Again Adolf, if there is no pharmacy, is the hardware store required to carry "Plan B?"

Why or why not?

 

[Syphon]

so you are for freedom of religion over freedom of choice? guess you made that clear with this post.

So Taco Bell doesn't carry Coke due to religion?

Hey Adolf, you ever seen this before?

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therein."

Your party is dedicated to eradicating those words. You are dedicated to blind obedience to your masters.

so my religion says that i believe women to be inferior human beings. thus if a woman comes into my store, i have a religious protected right to refuse service now. thanks for clearing that up.

I realize that you're stupid - it's why you're a leftist and a totalitarian.

Still, the determination to carry or not carry a product is not the same as refusal to serve based on color, creed or gender.

Again Adolf, if there is no pharmacy, is the hardware store required to carry "Plan B?"

Why or why not?

is the hardware store licensed to dispense drugs?

is a pharmacy now considered a place of worship? how is mandating that a business which has no ties to religion dispense a product infringing on a persons right to worship their god?

why is your belief system superior to mine? why should i have to bow down to you values? i dont believe what you believe so why are you forcing your view on me?
no one is telling you to endorse the use of a product, no one is forcing you to use a product. how is this an infringement upon your right to worship?

 

[Syphon]

go back and read the post on refusal of service. its illegal in many cases

 

[Montrovant]

here it is again for you who cant read:

here a link showing an example of a business being sued and the patron winning because they were gay, and the owner of the restaurant refused them service

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

Once again, there is not discrimination if you refuse service to everyone. Is that really so hard for you to understand? Where is the evidence the pharmacist refused to sell Plan B to a particular customer because they were a woman, or gay, etc.?

 

[Syphon]

here it is again for you who cant read:

here a link showing an example of a business being sued and the patron winning because they were gay, and the owner of the restaurant refused them service

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

Once again, there is not discrimination if you refuse service to everyone. Is that really so hard for you to understand? Where is the evidence the pharmacist refused to sell Plan B to a particular customer because they were a woman, or gay, etc.?

read the OP link, the pharmacist refused to sell the product to a woman based on her religious views.

 

[Uncensored2008]

is the hardware store licensed to dispense drugs?

What does that matter?

If there is no pharmacy, then others must obey your will. You are the overlord, you will decide what products a business will or will not carry,

is a pharmacy now considered a place of worship?

What the fuck are you yapping about, Adolf?

You demand that YOU will decide what products a private business will or will not sell, and should they fail to meet your command, then punishment will be severe.

Is this some sort of child sacrifice thing? Every abortion makes Ba'al smile or some shit?

Honestly, I don't give a fuck about your religion, Adolf.

how is mandating that a business which has no ties to religion dispense a product infringing on a persons right to worship their god?

So you think that YOU should "mandate" what a business sells, or doesn't sell?

I take it that you should set the price, as well, Adolf?

why is your belief system superior to mine? why should i have to bow down to you values?

You're yapping again, Adolf.

The only thing I've told you to do is to stop shitting on the carpet.

i dont believe what you believe so why are you forcing your view on me?

No shit?

So you oppose basic liberty including the determination by persons of where they will work, for how much, and of merchants of what they will sell, and for what price?

Color me shocked, Adolf.

no one is telling you to endorse the use of a product, no one is forcing you to use a product. how is this an infringement upon your right to worship?

Who gives a fuck, Adolf?

What authority do you have to decide what businesses do or do not sell? What do you base your power to dictate to others what they will do upon? What gives you the power to shit all over the constitution?

Why not just move to North Korea, stupid fuck? They already run the place the way you dream of.

 

[Immanuel]

heres an example of a business being ruled against for discriminating against a gay couple as well as a bar that could refuse service based on the attire a group wore, since the premise for denial of service was safety and was not arbitrary.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

Once again, for the mentally challenged... the gay couple are members of a protected class and cannot be discriminated against.

From your own link.

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

Did you even read the article? If very clearly defeats your point the motorcycle club... no case, the punk rockers... Outta here... gay couple... protected class cannot be discriminated against.

It is pretty easy to see that you blew your own argument out of the water.

Immie

 

[Montrovant]

use your same argument when it comes to rape, incest or other similar situations where the woman may be too scared or embarrassed to go to a hospital or a doctor........ should she have to disclose that to her pharmacist in order to convince them to dispense it, or is that none of the pharmacists business?

WTF are you talking about? Where was disclosure of reasons for taking Plan B brought into things?

Do you think pharmacies which don't stock Plan B should be charged criminally if a women wants to buy it and it is not available? What would the charge be, refusing to give me what I want?

Uncensored2008 brings up a good point (apparently it happens! ). If there is no pharmacy in town, should some other business be forced to carry Plan B? After all, rape or incest might happen! That means everyone must have access to this particular pill in close range!

this entire thread is about Plan B. maybe you should read it from the beginning.

this argument is not about the pharmacy owner, since the owner already stocked Plan B, it is about the employee refusing to provide service based on a religious view. go back and read about disclosure laws and the plan B mandate which i posted earlier.

you wing nuts are idiots.

First, calling me a wing nut is hilarious.

Second, just because the thread is about Plan B doesn't mean it's about a customer having to disclose their reasons for wanting to purchase it. YOU are the one that brought that up, and I responded to it. If the pharmacist refuses to sell Plan B, whether or not customers disclose their reasons for buying it is irrelevant. It should be up to the store owner whether that refusal to sell is acceptable or worthy of a firing. Now, if a pharmacist refuses to sell because of the reason given, that may involve discrimination, and this argument would change.

If I work at a convenience store, and refuse to sell someone alcohol even though it is in stock, should there be legal repercussions? Or should my employer be the one to determine if my refusal to sell alcohol requires action? Why should it be different with Plan B? At least if we were talking about some kind of life-saving medication I could understand the desire to make sure it's easily accessible might put someone's emotions ahead of their reason, and lead to government intervention arguments; with Plan B, it doesn't even have that impetus going for it.

 

[Immanuel]

heres an example of a business being ruled against for discriminating against a gay couple as well as a bar that could refuse service based on the attire a group wore, since the premise for denial of service was safety and was not arbitrary.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

How wonderful that you brought up California and discrimination, it gives me the perfect opportunity to show you how absurd anti-discrimination laws actually are.

There is a German restaurant called the Alpine Village Inn, in Torrance California. A group of four neo-Nazis went there to eat, each wearing a lapel pin with a swastika on it. The management asked them to take off the lapel pins. They refused. The management asked them to leave. They refused. The management called the police, who arrested them.
Then, remarkably, the Southern California ACLU gets involved, and sues the restaurant for calling the police on the Nazis! This much I’ve confirmed from media accounts. According to the commenter who first alerted me to this story, “the defendants’ insurer eventually settled following unsuccessful pretrial challenges to the complaint, believing they could not prevail under California law!”I’m informed that the restaurant actually lost at trial, and the insurer refused to foot the bill for an appeal.
The lawsuit was brought under California’s Unruh Act, which provides that “all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” The California courts have held that the protected classes delineated by the Act are not exclusive; the Act also protects arbitrary discrimination by a business establishment based on similar characteristics to the above. Apparently, the insurer thought that “political views” was sufficiently similar to “religion” that the courts would likely rule against the insured. (This was, after all, the Rose Bird Court, which issued a series of absurdly broad and illogical rulings under the Unruh Act; in one of those opinions (Isbister) Bird personally gratuitously insulted a little old lady who donated money to a Boys’ Club as one of the “select few” who wish to be “insulated from the 20th century” because the Boys’ Club didn’t admit girls.)

The Volokh Conspiracy » Some Strange Consequences of Public Accommodations Laws

this is interesting because the case i posted talked about the bar being able to refuse service to the bikers based upon their attire as it may lead to violence. i would think the lawyer (had that case been resolved by that time) would have used that as precedent.

overall this is still an interesting argument to have, can a business owner choose not to provide service based on religious views.

i did a little more research and did not know this until now, but the Civil Rights act of 1964 has this section

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having aprostedic leg.

heres another interesting article as well:
You have probably seen the signs: “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service.” Common sense would dictate that a business does not have to serve an unruly customer, or allow its employees to be abused or threatened by a patron. Likewise, many business owners have moral or religious reasons for refusing service and have increasingly exercised the right to their convictions. But does that mean by simply posting a sign that businesses have the right to discriminate against customers for any reason it sees fit? In a word, sometimes. Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public. They actively invite and seek the patronage of the public and therefore are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that protect workers seeking employment or promotion. Specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination and guarantees all persons the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.”

"For example, a restaurant in California was held in violation of the Unruh Act because it refused to seat a gay couple in a booth normally reserved for intimate, opposite-sex patrons. A drug store could not refuse service to a homosexual male who wishes to purchase condoms." At the time of the Unruh Act in the 1960s, California was considered progressive, even for its era. Businesses would regularly refuse service to hippies, police officers, African-Americans, Republicans and other groups of people, simply because the business owner disliked the associated group the individual belonged to.

The Moral and Religious Debate
Despite the anti-discrimination protections in place across the country, some patrons of specific businesses are finding themselves being refused service due to the moral or religious convictions of the business owner or employee. For example, some pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control pills to unmarried women or emergency contraception (the morning after pill) to rape victims because of their religious teachings. These pharmacists are protected under refusal clauses that allow a person’s conscience, moral conflict or moral values to dictate their business practices.

Currently this refusal clause affects the medical field, such as doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics and pharmacists, and with good reason. Imagine a physician with an opposition to abortion being ordered to perform one because the customer demands it. On the other hand, the slippery slope of American legal interpretation is just one court decision away from allowing clerks in bookstores to refuse service to customers buying material they find objectionable. Likewise, if moral convictions are an acceptable reason for refusing service, what is to stop a business owner from refusing service to alcoholics, or women, or any other group of people not specified in either federal or state legislation?

The Right To Refuse Service Or Discrimination? | Lifescript.com

so i guess if the state of washington had a refusal clause, they that pharmacist could object to selling the contraception. if the state did not, then there would be no legal standing. although it does not state that the pharmacy would still have to sell the customer, the pharmacist could simply refuse their personal service and refer them to another pharmacist within the store.

Did you read your link? No, you didn't.

The court found that the biker gang could not sue for discrimination. The biker gang lost. Do you understand that?

For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership.

Please keep this up, it is absolutely hilarious watching you make a fool of yourself. Each time you mistakenly claim that the club had the right to sue, I am going to point out your error.

Immie

 

[Syphon]

heres an example of a business being ruled against for discriminating against a gay couple as well as a bar that could refuse service based on the attire a group wore, since the premise for denial of service was safety and was not arbitrary.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

Once again, for the mentally challenged... the gay couple are members of a protected class and cannot be discriminated against.

From your own link.

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

Did you even read the article? If very clearly defeats your point the motorcycle club... no case, the punk rockers... Outta here... gay couple... protected class cannot be discriminated against.

It is pretty easy to see that you blew your own argument out of the water.

Immie

so by your argument women are not a protected class of citizen? so then, why do we need equal pay laws, and womens right laws?

if gay couples are indeed a protected class, why do we have laws stating that they can not get married? is that not a violation of their rights as well? are you not treating them differently if they not are not allowed the same rights and privileges as a straight couple

the motorcycle club was given an option, (if you fully read the article) and it was a safety issue. they were asked to remove their colors for fear of violence breaking out between rival clubs. since the club refused, the bar had a right to refuse services. they didnt simply refuse them service for being part of a club.

the punk rockers were not banned from the funeral home because they were punk rockers. this was a specific request of the patron (the mother) of that establishment and not the policy of the funeral home itself. had it been the policy of the funeral home, the outcome of the ruling would have been much different.

 

[Syphon]

First, calling me a wing nut is hilarious.

Second, just because the thread is about Plan B doesn't mean it's about a customer having to disclose their reasons for wanting to purchase it. YOU are the one that brought that up, and I responded to it. If the pharmacist refuses to sell Plan B, whether or not customers disclose their reasons for buying it is irrelevant. It should be up to the store owner whether that refusal to sell is acceptable or worthy of a firing. Now, if a pharmacist refuses to sell because of the reason given, that may involve discrimination, and this argument would change.

If I work at a convenience store, and refuse to sell someone alcohol even though it is in stock, should there be legal repercussions? Or should my employer be the one to determine if my refusal to sell alcohol requires action? Why should it be different with Plan B? At least if we were talking about some kind of life-saving medication I could understand the desire to make sure it's easily accessible might put someone's emotions ahead of their reason, and lead to government intervention arguments; with Plan B, it doesn't even have that impetus going for it.

Now, if a pharmacist refuses to sell because of the reason given, that may involve discrimination, and this argument would change. that given reason was her religion. did you not read the OP?

if you worked at a convenience store and were say muslim, and refused to sell alcohol (that the business had already agreed to sell) claiming religious freedom, would that be ok as well? i can even take this a step further, what if you were the only one on duty and no one else could service that customer. does that give you the right to deny service?

 

[Montrovant]

here it is again for you who cant read:

here a link showing an example of a business being sued and the patron winning because they were gay, and the owner of the restaurant refused them service

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

Once again, there is not discrimination if you refuse service to everyone. Is that really so hard for you to understand? Where is the evidence the pharmacist refused to sell Plan B to a particular customer because they were a woman, or gay, etc.?

read the OP link, the pharmacist refused to sell the product to a woman based on her religious views.

Based on the pharmacist's religious views, not the customer's, correct? So the pharmacist wasn't discriminating against this particular woman, the pharmacist refused to sell the Plan B to anyone, yes?

 

[Montrovant]

First, calling me a wing nut is hilarious.

Second, just because the thread is about Plan B doesn't mean it's about a customer having to disclose their reasons for wanting to purchase it. YOU are the one that brought that up, and I responded to it. If the pharmacist refuses to sell Plan B, whether or not customers disclose their reasons for buying it is irrelevant. It should be up to the store owner whether that refusal to sell is acceptable or worthy of a firing. Now, if a pharmacist refuses to sell because of the reason given, that may involve discrimination, and this argument would change.

If I work at a convenience store, and refuse to sell someone alcohol even though it is in stock, should there be legal repercussions? Or should my employer be the one to determine if my refusal to sell alcohol requires action? Why should it be different with Plan B? At least if we were talking about some kind of life-saving medication I could understand the desire to make sure it's easily accessible might put someone's emotions ahead of their reason, and lead to government intervention arguments; with Plan B, it doesn't even have that impetus going for it.

Now, if a pharmacist refuses to sell because of the reason given, that may involve discrimination, and this argument would change. that given reason was her religion. did you not read the OP?

if you worked at a convenience store and were say muslim, and refused to sell alcohol (that the business had already agreed to sell) claiming religious freedom, would that be ok as well? i can even take this a step further, what if you were the only one on duty and no one else could service that customer. does that give you the right to deny service?

Again, it's the pharmacist's religious beliefs, not the customer's, that were the reason behind the refusal to sell, as far as I've been able to see. In other words, it did not matter that the customer was a woman, her age didn't matter, her sexual orientation, etc. No matter who the customer, the pharmacist was refusing to sell. Is that not the case?

And yes, legally, I think a Muslim can refuse to sell alcohol. I also think a store owner can fire said Muslim for it*. It is (or at least should be) a matter of employment rather than legality.

*There may be circumstances in which this is not so clear-cut, but I didn't feel the need to muddy the waters with exceptions.

 

[Immanuel]

here it is again for you who cant read:

here a link showing an example of a business being sued and the patron winning because they were gay, and the owner of the restaurant refused them service

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership.

Damn this is fun!

Immie

 

[kaz]

Pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill what they want to refruse to fill. And their customers should have every right to take their business elsewhere. When did the consumer forget that he is king?

I agree, but the Right started this BS when they said that companies couldn't compel their employees to do their jobs. W was no friend of liberty either.

 

[Immanuel]

heres an example of a business being ruled against for discriminating against a gay couple as well as a bar that could refuse service based on the attire a group wore, since the premise for denial of service was safety and was not arbitrary.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

Once again, for the mentally challenged... the gay couple are members of a protected class and cannot be discriminated against.

From your own link.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

Did you even read the article? If very clearly defeats your point the motorcycle club... no case, the punk rockers... Outta here... gay couple... protected class cannot be discriminated against.

It is pretty easy to see that you blew your own argument out of the water.

Immie

so by your argument women are not a protected class of citizen? so then, why do we need equal pay laws, and womens right laws?

if gay couples are indeed a protected class, why do we have laws stating that they can not get married? is that not a violation of their rights as well? are you not treating them differently if they not are not allowed the same rights and privileges as a straight couple

the motorcycle club was given an option, (if you fully read the article) and it was a safety issue. they were asked to remove their colors for fear of violence breaking out between rival clubs. since the club refused, the bar had a right to refuse services. they didnt simply refuse them service for being part of a club.

the punk rockers were not banned from the funeral home because they were punk rockers. this was a specific request of the patron (the mother) of that establishment and not the policy of the funeral home itself. had it been the policy of the funeral home, the outcome of the ruling would have been much different.

What part of not selling a product to ANYONE is over your head?

The courts ruled the motorcycle club had no case. Sorry, you blew your own case out of the water. Your best bet is to hang it up now.

Immie

 

[candycorn]

Who gives a shit? I , and you, have the FREEDOM to choose a job which we hate, disagree with, and or don't want to do. Unless the government is our BOSS, then they can butt the fuck out. How hard is that for you simpletons to understand?

If I want to open a restaurant and then refuse to cook food when people come in hungry, tough shit, it's MY restaurant. YOU don't have the right to demand that I feed you.

Your childlike mind is really quite endearing. Feel free to go outside and get some sunlight.

When you enter into a regulated profession, you assume certain responsibilities. If you don't like what comes with that regulation, you should not get into the profession. I guess if you're a racist air traffic controller and you have a black pilot trying to land a plane, you'd be fine with steering him into a mountain. Nobody tells the air traffic controller what to do in your warped little world, do they? he he he

Hey dummy ALL industries are regulated, EVERY one of them.

Profession.