Bill allows refusal of same-sex couples

Business owners could deny service

Share this

Florists, caterers and other wedding-related businesses could turn away engaged gay couples under legislation before the House that opponents likened to segregation and Nazi Germany's race laws.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing yesterday on the bill, which would allow providers of wedding-related goods or services to withhold those services if they believe doing business with gay couples would violate their conscience or religious faith. The bill also would bar lawsuits against business owners in such situations.

Bill sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin, a Republican from Manchester, called it a "business protection bill" and said a person's personal religious beliefs should receive protection in his or her capacity as a service provider.

Noting that New Hampshire protects against discrimination based on both religion and sexual orientation, Bergevin asked, "How do you strike a balance between them?"

State Rep. Cynthia Chase, a Democrat from Keene, called the bill "codified discrimination" and the beginning of a "slippery slope."

"When you begin to codify things for one group, pretty soon it's okay for that group, and then that group," Chase said.

Although the bill was presented in reference to gay marriage, opponents said allowing a "person's conscience or religious faith," as the bill reads, to determine whom they serve would open the door to discrimination against interfaith and interracial couples, too.

"There are some religions that still believe that African-Americans and Caucasians shouldn't be able to marry. They would be allowed to discriminate against them under this bill," said New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Claire Ebel.

New Hampshire's gay marriage law already exempts churches and religious groups from being forced to officiate gay marriages or provide services, facilities and goods of any kind to participants. This bill would provide the same protections to individuals, which gay marriage opponents sought in 2009.

At the time, then-state Senate Democratic Leader Maggie Hassan of Exeter said she had heard of no legal challenges filed by gays over businesses refusing to provide services for their civil unions in the 17 months civil unions had been legal in New Hampshire. No cases were mentioned in yesterday's hearing either.

The committee has not issued a recommendation on the bill.

Another bill facing a vote in the coming weeks would repeal gay marriage and replace it with civil unions of any two adults, including relatives. It would also allow individuals to refuse their services for a civil union ceremony and to refuse to treat the civil union as valid if it conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

of Discrimination:

- the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

This bill being considered is based on discrimination, period. Anyone who votes in favor of this bill is a bigot, plain and simple.

ProudYankee's picture

As a business owner, I am currently allowed to say to any customer: "I'm sorry but I'm not able to meet your needs at this time. I can suggest that you contact xxxx, as he/she may be in a better position than I to provide the goods/services that you require."

I have said this to people when I literally did not have the resources to take on a new customer. I've also said it when I didn't particularly want to deal with that potential customer because they seemed like they could be a big ol' PITA.

As a business owner, I cannot be forced to provide services to anyone. It's my choice.

However, as a matter of self-protection, I should not tell one person that I can't meet their needs, then tell the next person in line that I CAN meet their needs. That kind of statement will raise eyebrows and questions, and lead to messy discussions.

This bill is asking for the ability to directly tell someone that you don't want to provide them services because they are gay, and to be excused from any natural fallout from that statement.

"Codifying discrimination" is exactly the right description.

Gaia's picture

the State House to Berlin.....

hoss's picture
Don't miss this
Customer service: