ONTD Political

NH Bill Allows People To Refuse To Serve Gays Civil Lawsuits Would…

12:15 pm - 01/27/2012
NH Bill Allows People To Refuse To Serve Gays
Civil Lawsuits Would Be Barred

People could refuse to provide accommodations, goods or services to gay couples getting married in New Hampshire under legislation being considered by the House.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday on the bill that allows the practice if a business owner, an employee or anyone else felt providing the services related to a marriage or its celebration would violate his or her conscience or religious faith. The bill also would bar lawsuits against people denying services to the couples.

Supporters touted the bill as a balance between freedom of religion and sexual orientation while opponents called it "codified discrimination."

New Hampshire's gay marriage law already exempts churches and religious groups from being forced to officiate gay marriages or provide services to participants.

benihime99 27th-Jan-2012 06:29 pm (UTC)
WHAT? wait... WHAT?
Isn't discrimintion based on sexual orientation forbidden?
What is this fuckery?
Who even thought it was a good idea?
tabaqui 27th-Jan-2012 07:58 pm (UTC)
This, exactly. Fuck these people.
redstar826 27th-Jan-2012 08:09 pm (UTC)
Isn't discrimintion based on sexual orientation forbidden?

not necessarily. I don't know about NH specifically, but depending on where you live in the US, it might be perfectly legal to refuse to hire a person or to refuse to rent to them based on their sexual orientation, so I would assume that it is also legal for a business to refuse to serve someone on that basis.

benihime99 27th-Jan-2012 09:00 pm (UTC)
This is crazy.
bestdaywelived 28th-Jan-2012 02:22 pm (UTC)
It's unfortunately not, in most places. Title VII does not protect individuals based on sexual orientation. Some local municipalities and states offer protection, but it's rare.
kalikahuntress 27th-Jan-2012 06:35 pm (UTC)
NH is trying to outdo Arizona nowadays it seems. This is vile.
iamglory 27th-Jan-2012 06:42 pm (UTC)
Ehh...let them shoot themselves in the foot. They refuse one gay and the liberal family doesn't use them ever again. In a small town that could kill a business.
meran_flash 27th-Jan-2012 07:37 pm (UTC)
Are you for real coming at this from an "they won't tho, it'd be bad for business!" argument?
iamglory 27th-Jan-2012 07:50 pm (UTC)
No, I'm coming from, "They'll do it and then be poor and homeless" argument.
xerox78 27th-Jan-2012 11:46 pm (UTC)
Yeah, but if the town is small enough, whatever that business is could be the only one in town (a la Walmart), then it's a matter of who will fold first, the liberal family or the business.
bestdaywelived 28th-Jan-2012 02:23 pm (UTC)
In small towns, you often don't have choices about where to shop. It's common for people where I grew up to need to drive 45 minutes to a Target or Wal-mart if they want to do shopping there.
arisma 27th-Jan-2012 06:46 pm (UTC)
New Hampshire, get your shit together. Seriously. This is embarrassing.
angi_is_altered 27th-Jan-2012 06:48 pm (UTC)
I just can't with people anymore.
wesaucereyes 27th-Jan-2012 07:12 pm (UTC)
What is this world that we live in and do I still have to stay on it?
margerydaw_s2 27th-Jan-2012 07:20 pm (UTC)
How is this a fucking balance? Fuck you and go step on legos forever.
anus 27th-Jan-2012 07:29 pm (UTC)
Stories like this are the reason why I hate reading up on news sometime. I became so enraged and frustrated. I can't even fathom having that sort of mindset. WTF is wrong with these people? How the hell were they raised so horribly?
kazekageshad 27th-Jan-2012 10:32 pm (UTC)
They went to Church as children.
bestdaywelived 28th-Jan-2012 04:20 pm (UTC)
mollybarton 27th-Jan-2012 08:36 pm (UTC)
Fuck you, New Hampshire. Fuck. You.
aviv_b 27th-Jan-2012 09:26 pm (UTC)
I'm a little confused. Does something terrible happen to you if you serve dinner to wedding guests of a gay couple? Or bake a cake or provide flowers for the wedding? Do your dishes have to be buried in the ground to make them usable again?

Once again the Christian right is acting all butt-hurt & oppressed over something that isn't a problem. What if my religion says that divorce is not allowed. Can I refuse to provide services to Newt Gingrich? If I think Mormons are evil, can I throw Mittens out of my restaurant? Hey, I really, really, don't like cranky old farts - no pie for you Ron Paul.
benihime99 27th-Jan-2012 09:49 pm (UTC)
Yogurt/music/food could turn you gay apparently so just imagine what talking to an actual gay could do to you...
xerox78 27th-Jan-2012 11:47 pm (UTC)
The gays are always looking for recruits and they'll molest your kids into it.
bestdaywelived 28th-Jan-2012 02:24 pm (UTC)
You're totally going against the SACRED NATURE of marriage if you do anything that is even vaguely supportive of gay customers.
sesmo 27th-Jan-2012 09:57 pm (UTC)
I wonder if they realize that this violates the anti-discrimination laws, since it would certainly apply to interracial marriages, religious marriages of a type the vendor doesn't like, etc.

Stupid legislators, figure out what laws mean before you start writing them.
aviv_b 27th-Jan-2012 10:05 pm (UTC)
I'm betting it protects freedom of religion allows blatant discrimination only against gay couples. Since there is no federal law protecting same sex couples, they can get away with it.
sesmo 27th-Jan-2012 10:09 pm (UTC)
The law, at least as posited by these articles is that anyone can refuse to provide the services related to a marriage or its celebration if it would violate his or her conscience or religious faith. This on its face violates anti-discrimination laws.

It doesn't mention sexual orientation at all.

Unless you are positing that there is no one who believes that interracial marriage is wrong... or doesn't support African-American weddings.
aviv_b 27th-Jan-2012 10:22 pm (UTC)
You're right! The article I read earlier today said that it was only gay marriage (I guess they meant only gay marriage was targeted not only written into law).

My comment right above you (http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/9235405.html?thread=568222669#t568222669) makes the same point about how this could to lots of groups being discriminated against.

And of course, even if it only specifically targeted one group, that wouldn't make it OK.
sesmo 27th-Jan-2012 10:25 pm (UTC)
Agreed it doesn't make it OK. But it does make it not facially invalid, since discrimination against homosexuals is currently not expressly against the law in most states. Whereas discrimination against interracial marriage is not OK, nor is discrimination against the disabled, religion, etc., all of which could be swept into this law as written. (see, Loving v. Virginia, aka best case name ever.)
aviv_b 27th-Jan-2012 10:32 pm (UTC)
This is why sexual orientation needs be added to the federal anti-discrimination law.
sesmo 27th-Jan-2012 10:34 pm (UTC)
Fully agreed. Not holding my breath. And concerned about this Supreme Court, and its likely view of the ghay. And why these days I'm a yellow dog democrat. The SCOTUS will define our rights for the next 40 years, and the conservative justices are younger and pushier...
bestdaywelived 28th-Jan-2012 02:27 pm (UTC)
It couldn't apply to interracial couples or hetero weddings for religions that the vendor doesn't agree with, though. After Loving v. Virginia, anti-miscegenation laws were deemed unconstitutional. Title VII protects people based on their religion, so that wouldn't fly, either.

This law would have to work within the parameters of the Constitution, since the Constitution would preempt the state law.
sesmo 31st-Jan-2012 06:37 am (UTC)
Courts don't "fix" laws by interpreting them to mean something other than what they say. This law on its face would apply to clearly protected classes, so the courts would likely strike it down. This law does *not* work within the parameters of the Constitution, that is its core problem.
johnjie 27th-Jan-2012 11:58 pm (UTC)
This law.....whoa. I have no words for how much fuckery this here law is.
kyra_neko_rei 28th-Jan-2012 12:14 am (UTC)
The bill also would bar lawsuits against people denying services to the couples.

This would pretty much mean that the couple in question would have no recourse no matter how vile the manner of refusal was.

Somebody who blindsides them with "you're going to hell, you wicked evil things" or "how dare you come in here, this is a family business" will get no worse than a "I'm sorry, but I cannot in good conscience accept the contract for this event."

And if they're not required to post notice of who they don't serve on the front door or something, that means any gay couple seeking wedding services has to walk a minefield of who-knows-how-many bigoted refusals to their honest requests for service. Which is the very definition of a hostile environment.
bestdaywelived 28th-Jan-2012 02:29 pm (UTC)
That could actually be what crushes the bill, though; since gay people would be denied the same basic rights that a straight person could access quite easily (the legal system), it's discriminating and a violation of their right to due process. It's fairly similar to Romer v. Evans.
farchivist 28th-Jan-2012 08:07 am (UTC)
This won't pass federal scrutiny. At all.
bestdaywelived 28th-Jan-2012 02:21 pm (UTC)
I demand a bill that allows me to refuse service to Christians. Their views are offensive to me, as an atheist, and it violates my conscience to do business with Christians and support them in their endeavors.
kazekageshad 28th-Jan-2012 05:34 pm (UTC)
Ahahahahahaa I love you. If I ever get my own business I'm going to do this. "Poor persecuted Christians!!" Is it legal to refuse services to bigots?
sesmo 31st-Jan-2012 06:38 am (UTC)
This law would attempt to do so (and clearly fail, because of the Constitution.)
This page was loaded Sep 22nd 2017, 9:53 am GMT.