In suburban Washington, D.C., Bono Film and Video has an announced policy of refusing to duplicate material that owner Tim Bono regards as contrary to his Christian values. Now the Arlington County (Va.) Human Rights Commission has held a public hearing and investigated Bono on charges that he discriminated against Lilli Vincenz by refusing to duplicate her Gay Pride videos. (Hans Bader, Open Market (Competitive Enterprise Institute), Apr. 28; Nancy Yamada, “Discriminated Against Because She’s Gay?”, WUSA, Mar. 9; LiberRants, Mar. 13; Robin Sizemore, Apr. 27). Various social-conservative pressure groups have taken up Bono’s cause, and this would appear to be one of those instances where they have a point. Update Jun. 18: charges dropped.
This seems totally off. I can see permitting a degree of discrimination on the part of owners of public accommodations (like B&Bs) where owners will literally have to live with their choices. But Miss Vincenz is also a tax payer (probably) whose taxes help support via police and fire, etc., Bono’s business. Could Bono refuse her because she is Jewish (assuming)? Or black? or too tall? Or female? And if that’s the case, what about first responders for medical care? Can they refuse to treat blacks or gay people? Did Bono advertise his place as one devoted solely to Christian videos? or to Christian clients? Should he have put up a sign saying “Non-Christians Not Welcome”?
“But Miss Vincenz is also a tax payer (probably) whose taxes help support via police and fire, etc., Bono’s business.”
By that definition, there is NO SUCH THING as “private business” or even “private property” at all, because EVERYONE benefits from those services - of course, everyone (including Bono’s business, I might add) pay for those services.
That doesn’t make Bono’s business public. It doesn’t make him beholden to taxpayers.
First responders ARE beholden to tax-payers OR are bholden to entities that are beholden to tax-payers.
Private entities (including businsses) may do as they like. Examples: NOW. NAACP. Etc. If he wanted to put up a sign saying “Non-Christians Not Welcome”, that would be his prerogative.
Actually, Mormons do this to a limited degree - there are church activities and areas of their temples that are restricted to Mormons.
It could well be argued that Muslims to this as well.
And there are certainly businesses in this country that would turn away (perhaps even violently) people of the wrong skin color. Black, white, brown, yellow, just depending on which particular establishment you went to. There are racists for and against every group.
It’s important not to confuse discrimination based on a customer’s STATUS with discrimination based on the CONTENT of the videos the customer seeks to force a business owner to duplicate, as the Arlington County Human Rights Commission, and some commenters, seem to have done.
For the distinction between status and content, see my April 28 post cited above, which Overlawyered has linked to.
I have seen no evidence that the business owner in the above case didn’t want gay customers.
He merely didn’t want to duplicate particular videos for the customer who accused him of discrimination, because the video itself struck him as glorifying behavior he disagreed with.
I suspect he would have been quite happy to duplicate videos for a lesbian customer of her company’s annual awards dinner, for example.
Arlington, Virginia, has so many gay people living in it that only the dumbest business owner operating there would rebuff all gay customers. It would be economic self-sabotage.
If refusing to reproduce gay pride parade videos constituted sexual orientation discrimination, then refusing to reproduce religious diatribes against homosexuality rooted in a particular religion would presumably be religious discrimination, too, under the same reasoning.
Do those who are defending the ruling against this business owner see where their reasoning will lead? It’s a double-edged sword that could lead to them also being forced to act contrary to their own values in some future case.
First of all, there is nothing wrong in my view with forcing a video store owner to make copies of anti-gay religious diatribes. In fact, apart from illegal content, like pornography or incitement to violence, I don’t think such stores have any business acting as censors. As for the line about no private property, that’s a little extreme. By your reasoning, you might end up giving me control over your children because my taxes support their schools.
Private property, homes, farmland, etc. are clearly private. A business is a public accommodation, right? If the video store owner wants to discriminate, he should close up his business as a public entity and do his work purely among private clients, like private doctors.
I do not know the content of the video, but I must ask if Bono’s would have to duplicate a binLaden tape, bestiality, or other “objectionable” material?
I may not appreciate the refusal of Gay Pride (OTOH I would myself turn down NAMBLA), but I fail to see how it is that private businesses are being treated as if they were government bureaus and obligated to serve all citizens. Could Ford today say that one could order a car in any desired color as long as that color was black?
I think this suit is more for the publicity value than anything else: effective, perhaps, but far from praiseworthy.
First of all, there is nothing wrong in my view with forcing a video store owner to make copies of anti-gay religious diatribes.
The mind boggles.
I’m curious, Kent, why that disturbs you so much? Do you want store owners acting as censors? Combatting anti-gay diatribes should be done in the public discourse arena, not by blocking them. Am I missing something?
Two things seem to be confused with this issue: the person, & the content of the tape. If the person was turned away from a business because the person is ____, I would say that is discrimination. However, I would wonder if a video tape of Gay Pride parade could categorized as pornography? Unfortunately I think there are courts where such a tape would be found to be just that.
First of all, there is nothing wrong in my view with forcing a video store owner to make copies…
Nothing wrong with forcing someone to do something?
Businesses have every right to decide that they will not conduct business with anyone for any reason (and they don’t even have to tell the person why they don’t want to conduct business with them).
“As for the line about no private property, that’s a little extreme. By your reasoning, you might end up giving me control over your children because my taxes support their schools.”
No, that’s by YOUR reasoning. I think that’s crazy (that was my point - that your reasoning lead logically to the complete abolition of private property).
“Am I missing something?”
Yes:
“A business is a public accommodation, right?”
NO. That’s what you’re missing. This business is just as much private as the “private doctor” you mention. (MORE SO, actually, as doctors are licensed by the state and thus have certain obligations to the public!)
This is not “censoring” - the potential customer is quite welcome to go to another store or purchase their own duplication equipment.
Businesses may refuse to serve any individual for any reason… or no reason.
So, then, by your reasoning, a restaurant may refuse to serve black people?
SeymourPaine - yes. It doesn’t make good business sense, but yes, A restaurant can refuse to serve anyone for any reason.
Many businesses even have a sign posted to that effect: We reserve the right to refuse to serve…
A store is private property, the owner can do whatever he wants there as long as it’s not against the law.
This store has a stated policy to not distribute things that go against the religious values of its owners.
The video producer could have therefore known (s)he’d find herself with a refusal when submitting for distribution something that’s clearly in violation of those values.
And yes, a restaurant may refuse to serve black people.
But saying so openly would be discrimination, the policy would have to be unwritten.
Analogy: had this store published a policy stating they will not publish movies featuring gay actors that would be illegal, just refusing to publish such a movie based on a general policy like was posted is not.
SeymourPaine:
That’s not “my reasoning” - that’s a clear and obvious reading of the Constitution. If I own a business, I may do with it as I like. Until the Civil Rights Act, everyone knew and understood this. The Civil Rights Act itself, while of good intention and of generally good result AT THE TIME, was and is clearly unConstitutional to anyone who bothers to actually read the Constitution. This kind of law could likely hav ben passed at the local level and been alright, though.
Either way, yes, that’s the way it is, except for certain protected classes under the Civil Rights Act (race being the primary point, but I think religion and gender are also covered). While I don’t doubt the good intentions of those who passed it, that was precedent for many other unConstitutional nanny-state laws that intrude on us on a daily basis.
JT Wenting - technically, at least at the moment, “sexual orientation” is not covered by any of the relevant laws, so it wouldn’t actually be illegal… not that the groups in power seem to be bothered by actually following the law (as this case clearly shows).
I admire his stance to uphold his beliefs. Religion is not something to be held onto Sunday mornings, then abandoned Monday morning when the business world beckons. If his store has a section of “adult” videos, has a shelf dedicated to the KKK or specializes in anti-Semitic materials then there is a problem here. But if he clearly runs a “G” rated store and lives his life according to his principles then Amen to him. He will be judged by a power much greater than Virginia or the gay community can fathom.