Quote :

N.J. Bridal Shop Refused to Sell Wedding Dress to Lesbian Bride: Owner says: "That's Illegal"



By NINA TERRERO
Aug. 19, 2011

Popular reality wedding shows such as "Say Yes to the Dress" depict how emotionally trying the purchase of a wedding dress can be, but Alix Genter found that out for herself when she was refused her dream dress from a New Jersey bridal boutique.

Genter, a graduate student at Rutgers University, was refused the sale of wedding dress at Here Comes the Bride, in Somers Point, N.J., after she says its manager found out she was a lesbian and insulted her about her pending "illegal action."

Donna Saber, who owns and manages the small bridal boutique, had initially called Genter to follow up on the availability of a special light-weight version of the dress Genter had coveted from her shop.

Saber told ABCNews.com that when she prepared to call Genter about her order, she noticed that she had crossed out the word "groom" and put in the word "partner" instead.

"When I mentioned it to her, 'Oh, I see you crossed out groom and put in partner,' I got a barrage," Saber said. "I literally got a barrage of 'bigot' and other really cruel words...I might be the kind of person that when you get at me, I might continue the fight, and maybe I shouldn't say this, but I have my beliefs. I did say that I, to the best of my knowledge in the state of New Jersey, that we do operate in New Jersey. If she had remained calm, I would have been able to tell her, that it's illegal, it's an illegal action, that her marriage was illegal in NJ. "

Same sex marriage is illegal in New Jersey, but partnerships are recognized.

Saber told ABCNews.com that she mentioned the information on the form to Genter out of curiosity.

Bridal Shop Owner Refuses Sale of Dress to Lesbian Bride

Genter had her own account of what happened. "She said she wouldn't work with me because I'm gay," Genter told Philadelphia Daily News columnist Ronnie Polaneczky. "She also said that I came from a nice Jewish family, and it was a shame that I was gay. She said, 'There's right, and there's wrong. And this is wrong.'"

This exchange of words ended with a refusal by Saber to sell Genter the Eden Bridals designer gown.

The bride-to-be had visited the shop last weekend with an entourage of six friends and family members to try on wedding dresses, and had even brought along muffins and champagne to enjoy during the happy occasion. As per tradition, her fiancée was not included in the visit to select a gown for the big day.

Lesbian Bride Won't Take Home Wedding Dress After Clash with Shop Owner

Saber said that the troubles first began when Gentry entered the Jersey Shore boutique with their goodies in tow.

"It was clear she was going to be a difficult customer," Saber said, "It started when I told her no eating was allowed, the dresses are white, you know? Lots of stores do that. You know, I thought 'I don't want to deal with this one.'"

Genter is planning to wed her longtime partner in a civil union in New Jersey, where the couple lives, the Philadelphia Daily News reported. They plan to follow their legal union with a formal ceremony in New York and are planning a large celebration for 200 of their closest friends and family to be held next July.

Here Comes the Bride, whose advertising slogan is "Come find the perfect wedding gown for you," sells about 1,000 dresses a year.

Saber says business hasn't suffered because of the recent publicity.

"People have been coming in and literally throwing money at me," she said.

Even so, her store's Yelp profile has received well over 300 reviews, most of them of them negative, in the last 24 hours alone from individuals all over the country, which proves that the topic of gay marriage remains a sensitive issue.

The boutique's Facebook page administrator had removed similar comments from its public wall.

Saber says that she does regret her words towards Genter and said that on Friday afternoon she left Genter a voicemail expressing apology for her behavior.

Genter didn't respond to the apology, telling ABCNews.com, "I can't have this in my life and I've decided not to talk to any more press. I've said what I've needed to."

Kathryn Hamm, president and co-founder of gay-friendly wedding vendor directory GayWeddings.com, said "It's not surprising that this happened, but the good news is that it's happening with less frequency among wedding vendors in the industry. For what it's worth, I can understand how vendors who haven't considered this issue may not be in favor of it [gay marriage] – it feels scary and intimidating."

Bridal Shop Owner Extends Apology to Lesbian Bride

Hamm added, "Alix Genter's wedding will forever now will be associated with that very difficult and disrespectful experience. My heart goes out to her and her family. It's a day of celebration that they are preparing and planning for, and Alix has the same right to experience that joy as any other bride."

In June 2011, New York joined Washington, D.C., Iowa, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont with its legalization of same-sex marriage.

Same-sex unions in New York State are not differentiated from traditional unions statistically, but more than 5,000 couples in New York City have applied for marriage licenses within the last two months, compared with 4,191 over the same time period last year, Mark Botnik of the New York City Mayor's office told ABCNews.com

The jump in marriage license applications and ceremonies has kept the New York City Clerk's office has been busy.

"The atmosphere has been very positive since the law took effect on July 24th, and we have seen a pretty decent increase in volume of people here," said Michael McSweeny, City Clerk of the City of New York.

"Every day I've seen same sex couples coming in for licenses and ceremonies, and the atmosphere is very upbeat – it's been a summer that none of us will ever forget."

The only thing the owner needs to concern herself about is dress size, alterations & payment clearance. Everything else is none of her damn business.

LOL. It's a shame when you let something as trivial as this fuck up your money. But oh well.

I totally am against this owners beliefs.... BUT stores do that the right to refuse service to people. Just the same way that the bride had the right to walk away and spend her thousands somewhere else, then cause the media frenzy this is becoming due to intolerance, ignorance, and plain stupidity. This is america tho. The owner has the right to their beliefs, as does the bride.

You don't have a right to service from somebody else.

Sometimes it isn't necessary to raise a fuss....I'd just take my business elsewhere. Another store will appreciate my money.

This is disgusting and while I am not often one to say that a store should be boycotted, this one should. She is in business to sell dresses and no matter what her beliefs are, she should just sell the damn dresses. Who cares about the manner in which they are used? I sincerely hope the media attention hurts sales drastically.

wants2laugh wrote:

I totally am against this owners beliefs.... BUT stores do that the right to refuse service to people. ...

Actually they don't. If it is a business open to the public they must serve the public without discrimination. Otherwise you could operate a restaurant and not serve ppl of a particular race.

Opa Shale wrote:

Actually they don't. If it is a business open to the public they must serve the public without discrimination. Otherwise you could operate a restaurant and not serve ppl of a particular race.

This is the area of the cheesesteak shop that put out a sign "Be proud to be an American and please order in English". If they didn't order in english, they were not served. Business owners have the right to refuse service--- the shop owner could have found this woman rude, belittling, and nasty. She would not have to serve her. We only heard the bride's story from the articles that I saw. My sister owned a deli in which the customer wanted each individual hoagie item wrapped seperated - cut the roll, wrap the cheese, ham, etc, put the mayo, mustard, oil in little containers, wrap the lettuce, tomato, onions in separate containers---- all for ONE normal size $6 hoagie. So she added 10 cents for each thing that the woman wanted wrapped and the woman became irate, and my sister threw her out. You can do that.

There was a restaurant owner who tried the "English Only" thing around here. Didn't work out too well for him. But in that case it does involve communication. If the business & customer are unable to communicate I can see how that could possibly be a legitimate reason. But selling a wedding dress to a lesbian in no way whatsoever causes the owner difficulty or hardship.

Quote :

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?
Leanne Phillips - Oct 2007

Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.



http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

I think the part in bold is where the owner is going to have a problem. It looks like she might know that because she did this:

Quote :

Saber says that she does regret her words towards Genter and said that on Friday afternoon she left Genter a voicemail expressing apology for her behavior.

It basically boils down to the fact that if she isn't willing to do business with the public she shouldn't be running a business.

The shop owner could have just sold her the dress and mentioned, "You know same sex marrigaes aren't recognized in this state yet, right? Getting married in NY or Mass?"