Supreme Court rejects appeal of B&B owner who denied room to same-sex couple

[DGUtley]

I'm talking about the rights of the property owner, of course, not social engineering or growing case law.

I believe the law is that you can do so for any reason - except for an illegal reason.

[Peter1469]

I found this interesting: Supreme Court rejects appeal of B&B owner who denied room to same-sex couple. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place Hawaii court rulings that found a bed and breakfast owner violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to rent a room to a lesbian couple. The justices rejected an appeal from Aloha Bed & Breakfast owner Phyllis Young, who argued that she should be allowed to turn away gay couples because of her religious beliefs.

In balancing the state's interest in nondiscriminatory public accommodations against the burden imposed on the freedom of religion (which the court assumed but didn't decide), the court stated: “The freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to violate nondiscrimination laws that protect all individuals from harm, whether on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation,” Peter Renn, an attorney who represents the couple, said in a statement. Last year, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected Young’s appeal of a lower court ruling that ordered her to stop discriminating against same-sex couples.

What do you think is the difference here btw this and the Cake Case? The art/creativity issue? Different Court? These balancing acts of conflicting rights are going to be taking place all over the country.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...le/3209681002/

State Appellate court opinion: https://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/de...23_opinion.pdf

In the cake case the local review board did not attempt to balance the competing right and was openly hostile to the religious rights.

[Lummy]

I believe the law is that you can do so for any reason - except for an illegal reason.

What does that mean?

In other words, the philosophy of the legislature overrules the Bible and individual's property rights.

[DGUtley]

What does that mean?

You can refuse to serve someone b/c you don't like their tie but not because their Chinese.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Thus the B&B operator is denied his property ownership AND is forced into involuntary servitude, violating also the Thirteenth Amendment.

[Sergeant Gleed]

In the cake case the local review board did not attempt to balance the competing right and was openly hostile to the religious rights.

Then there's the fact that nobody argued on Thirteenth Amendment grounds, and yet the 13th clearly forbids compulsory service.

[Sergeant Gleed]

An owner of a bar, restaurant, inn or motel should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason unless the customer has no other choice of a facility but the facility being refused.

I'm old school.

That's new school.

In the old school the property owner said "get out", had a shotgun to back it up and nobody objected to his objection...because it was, and still is, nobody's business but the owners.

[MisterVeritis]

The "Cake" case was a public violation of religion. I don't see how renting a room to tow men or two women means anything. Two conflicting rights is one more thing the founders didn't know about.

Which right is written in the Constitution? When we added an amendment with a boatload of new rights did we take into consideration previously defended rights? How should we evaluate these so called conflicting rights?

[Lummy]

That's new school.

In the old school the property owner said "get out", had a shotgun to back it up and nobody objected to his objection...because it was, and still is, nobody's business but the owners.

I can understand if there was no other option for a place to stay the night, but not on grounds of race.

Find another motel that doesn't object to your race.

[Lummy]

You shouldn't be able to come onto my property and dictate who I can and can't like.

That's absurd.