This past Friday, February 24th 2018, an Appellate Court in Hawaii upheld a ruling against a Bed and Breakfast whose owners denied room and board to a homosexual couple due to their sexual orientation. Phyllis Young, owner of Aloha Bed and Breakfast, argued that her, "religious views allowed her to refuse to rent a room to a same-sex couple." The Bed and Breakfast has a 4.5 star rating on BedandBreakfast.com and is described as a, "Hawaii Kai Christian b&b home on ridge [sic] has breathtaking views of marina/mtn w/backdrop of ocean."
According to a Hawaiian News Agency the owner admitted, to turning the women away because she felt that homosexual relationships were "detestable" and "defiled the land." Naturally, Aloha Bed and Breakfast was sued for their decision to turn the couple away based on Hawaiian anti-discrimination laws.
According to a Hawaiian News Agency the owner admitted, to turning the women away because she felt that homosexual relationships were "detestable" and "defiled the land." Naturally, Aloha Bed and Breakfast was sued for their decision to turn the couple away based on Hawaiian anti-discrimination laws.
Without a doubt this is a perfect example of ordinary prejudicial discrimination that should not and is not protected by the free exercise clause. Most Americans would be hard-pressed to imagine a reasonable free exercise argument in favor of the owners; however, I do think that this case can be used to draw an ever important distinction between plain discrimination and the situation surrounding Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The Aloha Bed and Breakfast is providing a general service, a service no different than for example Hallmark selling broad, nonspecific greeting cards. In contrast, Masterpiece Cakeshop is providing, through their customized cakes, a specialized service that requires individual attention and specific creation by the owner. If we were to extend the Hallmark analogy, this would be equivalent to personalized greeting cards that involve Hallmark consenting to what is written on the card. Hallmark as a company is unable to restrict who can purchase their nonspecific greeting cards, but they have the ability to regulate the language on their customized cards. That is the key difference between ordinary discrimination based on prejudice that is made illegal by anti discrimination laws and a non-pejorative discrimination that is protected by the First Amendment.
I think the Hawaiian court absolutely made the right decision and this case goes to show that the slippery slope argument held by those opposed to the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner refusing to endorse a same sex marriage wedding is invalid. I think this lawsuit shows the obvious difference between the free exercise of religion and plain old illegal discrimination.
3 comments:
I agree with the fact that the decision in the Phillips will not cause a slippery slope. Declining to provide a general service to a member of the public due to their beliefs is indeed discrimination, but declining to alter a product to match those beliefs is not something a business can or should be forced to do. All cases regarding the right to free exercise have different subtleties that cause them to have to be looked at on a case by case level, because none of these cases can solely be decided by a precedent created by a case that infringes upon one's rights in a different manner.
I think Max does a good job explaining the difference, especially as it applies to Masterpiece Cake Shop. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, through the 14th Amendment, has explicit anti-discrimination verbiage that can be invoked in situations like these. As Max said, since the bed and breakfast is turning away customers, not allowing them to use their general product, which does not change and is not customized for each customer, this should be classified as discrimination. Just like it would be ridiculous for a grocery store to not sell a steak, which is available to everyone in the same form, to a gay couple, this B&B should not be able to decline its uniform service to a couple just because of their sexual orientation. This scenario changes when you alter the nature of the product from general to specialized, especially when it becomes a form of expression like the cake.
This post is great in forming the distinction between Free Exercise and clear discrimination from business owners. The slippery slope theory for the Masterpiece Cakeshop case isn't plausible because as Rob said you have to look at them on a case by case basis. The bed and breakfast showed clear discrimination by refusing to allow them a room to stay in whereas the baker takes time and creates it as their art. The situation is different for every case.
Post a Comment