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

[DGUtley]

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

[Captdon]

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.

[Common Sense]

I wonder if they turned away unmarried straight couples...or did they cherry pick their religious objections.

[alexa]

The cake case was decided in the baker's favor because the court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Board was "hostile" to his religion.

There's nothing in the decision that affirmed his right to deny service to others.

[Tahuyaman]

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 bakery case, the baker was asked to violate his religious convictions by creating a customized cake to celebrate a ceremony which violates those convictions. The homosexual couple could have purchased anything that baker had already prepared and had on display for sale.

In this case, the B&B owner wasn't asked to provide anything other than a normal accommodation which was immediately available to anyone.

[Common]

I wonder if they turned away unmarried straight couples...or did they cherry pick their religious objections.

Thats a good point and thats why they lost, renting a room to two women doesnt vioate or infringe on your religion, what if two single straight women decided to rent a single room with a double bed to save money.

[Lummy]

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.

[DGUtley]

I wonder if they turned away unmarried straight couples...or did they cherry pick their religious objections.

If you read the article or the opinion, it was because of the homosexuality. It wasn't cherry picking.

[DGUtley]

The cake case was decided in the baker's favor because the court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Board was "hostile" to his religion. There's nothing in the decision that affirmed his right to deny service to others.

That's true, but on the re-do didn't they come at him again and he won?

[Lummy]

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