[DerbyX]

Just in case people want the law cited:

http://www.gnb.ca/0062/acts/acts/h-11.htm (section 5)

No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with another, by himself or by the interposition of another, shall
(a)deny to any person or class of persons any accommodation, services or facilities available to the public, or
(b)discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any accommodation, services or facilities available to the public,
because of race, colour, religion, national origin, ancestry, place of origin, age, physical disability, mental disability, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, social condition, political belief or activity.

http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-ta ... g/7ec6b3e2

As a citizen, Kim Evans has the right to disagree with same-sex marriage. As a business owner, she has the right to refuse services to anyone whom she believes is threatening her or her employees and her property, or to anyone that is violating the law. As a business owner, however, she does not have the legal right to refuse services to homosexual couples because of her personal beliefs.

None of this brouhaha would have been raised if Evans had not agreed to provide the flowers in the first place. It is only when she reneged on the original arrangement that the discriminatory cause of her objection came to light. If she only realized that the couple was homosexual after she had promised to provide services, she could have worked with the wedding planner to find alternate arrangements so that everyone could be accommodated, instead of flatly refusing to serve because of her beliefs.

Whether you agree with Kim Evans' stance on same-sex marriage or not, it is clear that her refusal to provide flowers for this wedding is in contravention of the Human Rights Act. The right thing for her to do now is to honor her business contract, despite her protestations about the type of wedding that will take place.

In our country, we're all allowed to have our own beliefs; using them as a motive for illegal discrimination, however, can not be justified.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

No you don't. You can't hang up a sign that says "no blacks allowed" can you?

No, but you can, and it happens on mass every day, opt to do business with people. You can discriminate against people all you want, it happens all the time, you just can't talk about it.

It happens in all walks of life and all races are guilty.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Really? How? How are business owners discriminated against in the same vein that gays were being discriminated against? Making them pay taxes isn't discrimination. The biggest thing I hear around here, at least from downtown stores, is that they are discriminated against because the city won't (actually can't) provide mall capacity parking. Hardly discrimination.

Being in a family that owns a construction company, there's a ton of things you see. Certain businesses have no problems getting permits, while others aren't...if you piss off an inspector, they can screw with you simply cause they don't like you....they just can't say it.

The bottom line is, you're able to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason....you just can't tell them the real reason.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

No, but you can, and it happens on mass every day, opt to do business with people. You can discriminate against people all you want, it happens all the time, you just can't talk about it.

It happens in all walks of life and all races are guilty.

The problem here is that it's still against the law just very hard to prove. In this case it isn't hard to prove and as I have cited clearly against the law to refuse services based on sexual orientation. She made a business contract to provide services then reneged when she discovered it was for a gay wedding thus denying services based on sexual orientation in contravention of the law.

She broke the law.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Being in a family that owns a construction company, there's a ton of things you see. Certain businesses have no problems getting permits, while others aren't...if you piss off an inspector, they can screw with you simply cause they don't like you....they just can't say it.

If an inspector screws with you and gives your (and I'm guessing the scenario) building a failing grade based not on construction but because you were Irish (or black, gay, whatever) that would be a violation of the law. You would take that person to court and they would be charged.

What you describe isn't legal anymore then thinking "its legal as long as I don't get caught .."

The city isn't doing it deliberately but rather unscrupulous people who work for the city are and who can be prosecuted for it.

Do you see the difference?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The bottom line is, you're able to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason....you just can't tell them the real reason.

Not legally. Saying you can get away with it is not the same thing as saying its legal.

Businesses can get away with not charging a customer taxes too. I know. I once had the rear window of my car replaced at a 15% discount. Both the business owner and myself knew it was illegal though and had we got caught your argument would not have been a successful one in court.

The real bottom line is that SHE did tell them. She did say she was refusing their service BECAUSE they were gay and that IS in violation of the law.

She might have been able to refuse their services legally .... if she had known ahead of time but the fact remains she didn't. She broke the law by refusing their service based entirely on (her statement proves that) the fact they were gay.

That is a violation of the law.

[andyt]

DerbyX DerbyX:

The real bottom line is that SHE did tell them. She did day she was refusing their service BECAUSE they were gay and that IS in violation of the law.

She wanted to tell them, because they can't handle the truth.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Somehow if this were a muslim shop refusing to do business with a jew you'd have a very different opinion.

No, I'd be asking why a Jew would want to do business with a Jew-hating Muslim and you'd still be finding fault.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Somehow if this were a muslim shop refusing to do business with a jew you'd have a very different opinion.

No, I'd be asking why a Jew would want to do business with a Jew-hating Muslim and you'd still be finding fault.

No you wouldn't. You would not support a muslim business refusing based on those grounds. Would you tolerate an ambulance refusing its services based on sexual orientation/race/religion? That it is a bad business decision nonwithstanding its not allowed under the law, at least our laws.

Regardless you do see that what she did was against the law. It might be your opinion that business owners should have that right but none-the-less it was against the law.

[Choban]

Sorry all, Derby is right, says so in the article

According to the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, anyone doing business in the province cannot refuse customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

[BartSimpson]

Then the law is a ass.

[martin14]

Flowers aren't services.


But the real mistake was telling them why she didnt want the business.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Then the law is a ass.

So is the law that says I can't simply ignore speed limits and stop signs because I'm in a hurry.

If this was a muslim shop being forced to service 2 tarted up queens peacefully drinking their (can't think of a suitable ethnic drink) all the while modestly flirting with each other peacefully you'd be having a laugh.

In fact forcing those nasty discriminating Muslims to deal with customers it has moral objections to because its are law Is exactly the point many people here make daily.

Its exactly the showdown you want. They're religious rights vs our discrimination laws. Perfect opportunities.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

The problem here is that it's still against the law just very hard to prove. In this case it isn't hard to prove and as I have cited clearly against the law to refuse services based on sexual orientation. She made a business contract to provide services then reneged when she discovered it was for a gay wedding thus denying services based on sexual orientation in contravention of the law.

She broke the law.

Well said.

I'm not arguing the legality at all. I don't doubt that what she did was technically illegal.

Had she kept her opinion to herself and stepped back from the transaction citing another reason, there'd be no case whatsoever.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

If this was a muslim shop being forced to service 2 tarted up queens peacefully drinking their (can't think of a suitable ethnic drink) all the while modestly flirting with each other peacefully you'd be having a laugh.

And if such a thing actually happened do you have any expectation whatsoever that the HRC would prosecute their beloved Muslims for offending drag queens?

[Choban]

$1:

And if such a thing actually happened do you have any expectation whatsoever that the HRC would prosecute their beloved Muslims for offending drag queens?

HA not in Canada anyway, gotta pick and choose who to offend less.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I gotta say, it would be interesting to see where the HRC would stand if it came down to that particular scenario.

[2Cdo]

How did this turn into a thread about Muslims?

Oh, wait a second, I see how.