Can a LGBT person sue the parents of a child who refuses to sell lemonade to them?
According to Wikipedia, running a lemonade stand is a business.
If the parents of a child have instructed their child not to sell lemonade to a LGBT person, can the LGBT person sue the child's parents based on sexual-orientation discrimination? Or are home-based businesses exempt from having to serve everyone in the general public?
united-states constitutional-law civil-law discrimination
asked 7 hours ago
HRIATEXPHRIATEXP
14216
|
show 6 more comments
According to Wikipedia, running a lemonade stand is a business.
If the parents of a child have instructed their child not to sell lemonade to a LGBT person, can the LGBT person sue the child's parents based on sexual-orientation discrimination? Or are home-based businesses exempt from having to serve everyone in the general public?
united-states constitutional-law civil-law discrimination
asked 7 hours ago
HRIATEXPHRIATEXP
14216
2
Why do you believe that a business, home-based or not, must serve everybody in the public? The supreme court has ruled otherwise
– Ron Beyer
7 hours ago
3
@Ron Beyer, That ruling was rather narrow. It didn't claim that vendors providing public services were allowed to discriminate against protected classes, nor did it resolve the issue of whether religious liberty or anti-discrimination laws take precedence in general.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
6
@HRIATEXP, In the bakery case, the court chose to sidestep the thorny questions a bit and basically ruled that the baker wasn't treated fairly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because they showed animus in response to his religious liberty arguments. I don't want to speculate on your particular question, but just wanted to clarify that the ruling Ron brought up was more limited than claimed.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
2
It seems discrimatory to me to rule that an athiest couldn't have a sincerely held belief.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
3
@HRIATEXP: Religious Freedom in the United States protects ones right to believe there is no God just as much as it protects ones right to believe in God. Or any notation in between and beyond. And the reverse has happened where shops run by LGBT people refused to make products advocating for things the owner disagrees with.
– hszmv
6 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
According to Wikipedia, running a lemonade stand is a business.
If the parents of a child have instructed their child not to sell lemonade to a LGBT person, can the LGBT person sue the child's parents based on sexual-orientation discrimination? Or are home-based businesses exempt from having to serve everyone in the general public?
united-states constitutional-law civil-law discrimination
asked 7 hours ago
HRIATEXPHRIATEXP
14216
According to Wikipedia, running a lemonade stand is a business.
If the parents of a child have instructed their child not to sell lemonade to a LGBT person, can the LGBT person sue the child's parents based on sexual-orientation discrimination? Or are home-based businesses exempt from having to serve everyone in the general public?
united-states constitutional-law civil-law discrimination
united-states constitutional-law civil-law discrimination
asked 7 hours ago
HRIATEXPHRIATEXP
14216
asked 7 hours ago
HRIATEXPHRIATEXP
14216
asked 7 hours ago
HRIATEXPHRIATEXP
14216
asked 7 hours ago
HRIATEXPHRIATEXP
14216
asked 7 hours ago
HRIATEXPHRIATEXP
14216
14216
2
Why do you believe that a business, home-based or not, must serve everybody in the public? The supreme court has ruled otherwise
– Ron Beyer
7 hours ago
3
@Ron Beyer, That ruling was rather narrow. It didn't claim that vendors providing public services were allowed to discriminate against protected classes, nor did it resolve the issue of whether religious liberty or anti-discrimination laws take precedence in general.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
6
@HRIATEXP, In the bakery case, the court chose to sidestep the thorny questions a bit and basically ruled that the baker wasn't treated fairly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because they showed animus in response to his religious liberty arguments. I don't want to speculate on your particular question, but just wanted to clarify that the ruling Ron brought up was more limited than claimed.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
2
It seems discrimatory to me to rule that an athiest couldn't have a sincerely held belief.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
3
@HRIATEXP: Religious Freedom in the United States protects ones right to believe there is no God just as much as it protects ones right to believe in God. Or any notation in between and beyond. And the reverse has happened where shops run by LGBT people refused to make products advocating for things the owner disagrees with.
– hszmv
6 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
2
Why do you believe that a business, home-based or not, must serve everybody in the public? The supreme court has ruled otherwise
– Ron Beyer
7 hours ago
3
@Ron Beyer, That ruling was rather narrow. It didn't claim that vendors providing public services were allowed to discriminate against protected classes, nor did it resolve the issue of whether religious liberty or anti-discrimination laws take precedence in general.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
6
@HRIATEXP, In the bakery case, the court chose to sidestep the thorny questions a bit and basically ruled that the baker wasn't treated fairly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because they showed animus in response to his religious liberty arguments. I don't want to speculate on your particular question, but just wanted to clarify that the ruling Ron brought up was more limited than claimed.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
2
It seems discrimatory to me to rule that an athiest couldn't have a sincerely held belief.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
3
@HRIATEXP: Religious Freedom in the United States protects ones right to believe there is no God just as much as it protects ones right to believe in God. Or any notation in between and beyond. And the reverse has happened where shops run by LGBT people refused to make products advocating for things the owner disagrees with.
– hszmv
6 hours ago
2
2
Why do you believe that a business, home-based or not, must serve everybody in the public? The supreme court has ruled otherwise
– Ron Beyer
7 hours ago
Why do you believe that a business, home-based or not, must serve everybody in the public? The supreme court has ruled otherwise
– Ron Beyer
7 hours ago
3
3
@Ron Beyer, That ruling was rather narrow. It didn't claim that vendors providing public services were allowed to discriminate against protected classes, nor did it resolve the issue of whether religious liberty or anti-discrimination laws take precedence in general.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
@Ron Beyer, That ruling was rather narrow. It didn't claim that vendors providing public services were allowed to discriminate against protected classes, nor did it resolve the issue of whether religious liberty or anti-discrimination laws take precedence in general.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
6
6
@HRIATEXP, In the bakery case, the court chose to sidestep the thorny questions a bit and basically ruled that the baker wasn't treated fairly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because they showed animus in response to his religious liberty arguments. I don't want to speculate on your particular question, but just wanted to clarify that the ruling Ron brought up was more limited than claimed.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
@HRIATEXP, In the bakery case, the court chose to sidestep the thorny questions a bit and basically ruled that the baker wasn't treated fairly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because they showed animus in response to his religious liberty arguments. I don't want to speculate on your particular question, but just wanted to clarify that the ruling Ron brought up was more limited than claimed.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
2
2
It seems discrimatory to me to rule that an athiest couldn't have a sincerely held belief.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
It seems discrimatory to me to rule that an athiest couldn't have a sincerely held belief.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
3
3
@HRIATEXP: Religious Freedom in the United States protects ones right to believe there is no God just as much as it protects ones right to believe in God. Or any notation in between and beyond. And the reverse has happened where shops run by LGBT people refused to make products advocating for things the owner disagrees with.
– hszmv
6 hours ago
@HRIATEXP: Religious Freedom in the United States protects ones right to believe there is no God just as much as it protects ones right to believe in God. Or any notation in between and beyond. And the reverse has happened where shops run by LGBT people refused to make products advocating for things the owner disagrees with.
– hszmv
6 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There is no federal prohibition against sexual discrimination in public accomodations. Colorado has an applicable state law, which covers "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public", where "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful ...to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ...sexual orientation...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods...". No provision exempts lemonade stands. Churches etc. are specifically exempted: "'Place of public accommodation' shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes". Sex discrimination is allowed "if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation", an argument that can't reasonably be made in the described case.
It is also not obvious that running a lemonade stand is a business (the courts will not admit unsubstantiated Wiki assertions as evidence). It would be relevant to wonder what constitutes a "business" under Colorado law. E.g. is a business license required?
In Colorado (US) law, it has not been definitively decided whether there can be a religious exception to the anti-discrimination law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided without answering that (the state showed clear religious intolerance in its handling of the case). We do not know how a similar case will be decided: Arlene's Flowers was handed back to the state court with the instruction "do it again" (with nothing more than a mention of Masterpiece Cakeshop). The court cannot establish certain beliefs and practices as "valid religions" (Establishment Clause); the proxy expression that is used is "deeply held belief", which includes atheism. The relationship of the issue to the First Amendment is uncertain.
answered 6 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.4k453101
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37477%2fcan-a-lgbt-person-sue-the-parents-of-a-child-who-refuses-to-sell-lemonade-to-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There is no federal prohibition against sexual discrimination in public accomodations. Colorado has an applicable state law, which covers "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public", where "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful ...to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ...sexual orientation...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods...". No provision exempts lemonade stands. Churches etc. are specifically exempted: "'Place of public accommodation' shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes". Sex discrimination is allowed "if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation", an argument that can't reasonably be made in the described case.
It is also not obvious that running a lemonade stand is a business (the courts will not admit unsubstantiated Wiki assertions as evidence). It would be relevant to wonder what constitutes a "business" under Colorado law. E.g. is a business license required?
In Colorado (US) law, it has not been definitively decided whether there can be a religious exception to the anti-discrimination law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided without answering that (the state showed clear religious intolerance in its handling of the case). We do not know how a similar case will be decided: Arlene's Flowers was handed back to the state court with the instruction "do it again" (with nothing more than a mention of Masterpiece Cakeshop). The court cannot establish certain beliefs and practices as "valid religions" (Establishment Clause); the proxy expression that is used is "deeply held belief", which includes atheism. The relationship of the issue to the First Amendment is uncertain.
answered 6 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.4k453101
add a comment |
There is no federal prohibition against sexual discrimination in public accomodations. Colorado has an applicable state law, which covers "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public", where "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful ...to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ...sexual orientation...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods...". No provision exempts lemonade stands. Churches etc. are specifically exempted: "'Place of public accommodation' shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes". Sex discrimination is allowed "if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation", an argument that can't reasonably be made in the described case.
It is also not obvious that running a lemonade stand is a business (the courts will not admit unsubstantiated Wiki assertions as evidence). It would be relevant to wonder what constitutes a "business" under Colorado law. E.g. is a business license required?
In Colorado (US) law, it has not been definitively decided whether there can be a religious exception to the anti-discrimination law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided without answering that (the state showed clear religious intolerance in its handling of the case). We do not know how a similar case will be decided: Arlene's Flowers was handed back to the state court with the instruction "do it again" (with nothing more than a mention of Masterpiece Cakeshop). The court cannot establish certain beliefs and practices as "valid religions" (Establishment Clause); the proxy expression that is used is "deeply held belief", which includes atheism. The relationship of the issue to the First Amendment is uncertain.
answered 6 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.4k453101
add a comment |
There is no federal prohibition against sexual discrimination in public accomodations. Colorado has an applicable state law, which covers "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public", where "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful ...to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ...sexual orientation...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods...". No provision exempts lemonade stands. Churches etc. are specifically exempted: "'Place of public accommodation' shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes". Sex discrimination is allowed "if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation", an argument that can't reasonably be made in the described case.
It is also not obvious that running a lemonade stand is a business (the courts will not admit unsubstantiated Wiki assertions as evidence). It would be relevant to wonder what constitutes a "business" under Colorado law. E.g. is a business license required?
In Colorado (US) law, it has not been definitively decided whether there can be a religious exception to the anti-discrimination law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided without answering that (the state showed clear religious intolerance in its handling of the case). We do not know how a similar case will be decided: Arlene's Flowers was handed back to the state court with the instruction "do it again" (with nothing more than a mention of Masterpiece Cakeshop). The court cannot establish certain beliefs and practices as "valid religions" (Establishment Clause); the proxy expression that is used is "deeply held belief", which includes atheism. The relationship of the issue to the First Amendment is uncertain.
answered 6 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.4k453101
There is no federal prohibition against sexual discrimination in public accomodations. Colorado has an applicable state law, which covers "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public", where "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful ...to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ...sexual orientation...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods...". No provision exempts lemonade stands. Churches etc. are specifically exempted: "'Place of public accommodation' shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes". Sex discrimination is allowed "if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation", an argument that can't reasonably be made in the described case.
It is also not obvious that running a lemonade stand is a business (the courts will not admit unsubstantiated Wiki assertions as evidence). It would be relevant to wonder what constitutes a "business" under Colorado law. E.g. is a business license required?
In Colorado (US) law, it has not been definitively decided whether there can be a religious exception to the anti-discrimination law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided without answering that (the state showed clear religious intolerance in its handling of the case). We do not know how a similar case will be decided: Arlene's Flowers was handed back to the state court with the instruction "do it again" (with nothing more than a mention of Masterpiece Cakeshop). The court cannot establish certain beliefs and practices as "valid religions" (Establishment Clause); the proxy expression that is used is "deeply held belief", which includes atheism. The relationship of the issue to the First Amendment is uncertain.
answered 6 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.4k453101
answered 6 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.4k453101
answered 6 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.4k453101
answered 6 hours ago
user6726user6726
59.4k453101
59.4k453101
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37477%2fcan-a-lgbt-person-sue-the-parents-of-a-child-who-refuses-to-sell-lemonade-to-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Why do you believe that a business, home-based or not, must serve everybody in the public? The supreme court has ruled otherwise
– Ron Beyer
7 hours ago
3
@Ron Beyer, That ruling was rather narrow. It didn't claim that vendors providing public services were allowed to discriminate against protected classes, nor did it resolve the issue of whether religious liberty or anti-discrimination laws take precedence in general.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
6
@HRIATEXP, In the bakery case, the court chose to sidestep the thorny questions a bit and basically ruled that the baker wasn't treated fairly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because they showed animus in response to his religious liberty arguments. I don't want to speculate on your particular question, but just wanted to clarify that the ruling Ron brought up was more limited than claimed.
– Dan Bryant
7 hours ago
2
It seems discrimatory to me to rule that an athiest couldn't have a sincerely held belief.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
3
@HRIATEXP: Religious Freedom in the United States protects ones right to believe there is no God just as much as it protects ones right to believe in God. Or any notation in between and beyond. And the reverse has happened where shops run by LGBT people refused to make products advocating for things the owner disagrees with.
– hszmv
6 hours ago