Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[fskimospy]

dont business have the right to refuse service?

No, they can't refuse service based on a whole bunch of factors like race, religion, and in Washington, sexual orientation.

 

[Smoblikat]

Same sex marriage is about equality, PERIOD

Shouldnt the shop owner have equal rights to refuse service as the customers do to request service?

 

[fskimospy]

Shouldnt the shop owner have equal rights to refuse service as the customers do to request service?

Nope. Running a business is not a right and states have the right to regulate businesses within their borders. End of story.

 

[thraashman]

Shouldnt the shop owner have equal rights to refuse service as the customers do to request service?

The problem with that is the very reason anti-discrimination laws came to be. If an owner decides they refuse to serve black people. Then other owners see they get away with it and they refuse. And all of a sudden you have an entire town who refuses to serve an entire race of people. Sure that's a slippery slope argument that is unlikely, but in the 50's in the South it was WAY more likely. So you get anti-discrimination laws.

In the end the idea is that an owner should have the right to refuse service. But that since refusing service on the basis of something like race, gender, or sexual orientation is discriminatory to a group not based on the individual situation, it has had to be regulated.

If people weren't bigoted this wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately there's still a lot of bigots in this world (at least 4 regular P&N posters come to mind in a couple seconds).

 

[Incorruptible]

The problem with that is the very reason anti-discrimination laws came to be. If an owner decides they refuse to serve black people. Then other owners see they get away with it and they refuse. And all of a sudden you have an entire town who refuses to serve an entire race of people. Sure that's a slippery slope argument that is unlikely, but in the 50's in the South it was WAY more likely. So you get anti-discrimination laws.

In the end the idea is that an owner should have the right to refuse service. But that since refusing service on the basis of something like race, gender, or sexual orientation is discriminatory to a group not based on the individual situation, it has had to be regulated.

If people weren't bigoted this wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately there's still a lot of bigots in this world (at least 4 regular P&N posters come to mind in a couple seconds).

That is a BS argument and fear mongering. You have no idea on how to run a business. Businesses would lose money if they were to do this. You really think that they would risk losing money like this.

 

[Retro Rob]

The problem with that is the very reason anti-discrimination laws came to be. If an owner decides they refuse to serve black people. Then other owners see they get away with it and they refuse. And all of a sudden you have an entire town who refuses to serve an entire race of people. Sure that's a slippery slope argument that is unlikely, but in the 50's in the South it was WAY more likely. So you get anti-discrimination laws.

In the end the idea is that an owner should have the right to refuse service. But that since refusing service on the basis of something like race, gender, or sexual orientation is discriminatory to a group not based on the individual situation, it has had to be regulated.

If people weren't bigoted this wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately there's still a lot of bigots in this world (at least 4 regular P&N posters come to mind in a couple seconds).

While I agree, how would you define "bigot".

Sometimes, I think the word get overused... drastically...

 

[nehalem256]

The problem with that is the very reason anti-discrimination laws came to be. If an owner decides they refuse to serve black people. Then other owners see they get away with it and they refuse. And all of a sudden you have an entire town who refuses to serve an entire race of people. Sure that's a slippery slope argument that is unlikely, but in the 50's in the South it was WAY more likely. So you get anti-discrimination laws.

In the end the idea is that an owner should have the right to refuse service. But that since refusing service on the basis of something like race, gender, or sexual orientation is discriminatory to a group not based on the individual situation, it has had to be regulated.

If people weren't bigoted this wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately there's still a lot of bigots in this world (at least 4 regular P&N posters come to mind in a couple seconds).

You do realize that I made it very clear that the ability to discriminate was LIMITED.

So for example

A Muslim could refuse to sell Koran's to a Christian Koran burning.

It should be obvious why this is different than refusing allow black people to shop for groceries.

 

[thraashman]

You do realize that I made it very clear that the ability to discriminate was LIMITED.

So for example

A Muslim could refuse to sell Koran's to a Christian Koran burning.

It should be obvious why this is different than refusing allow black people to shop for groceries.

I'm not sure if you realize your point and my point aren't divergent here. In your example the reason for refusing to sell the Koran isn't because the purchaser is Christian but because they intend to burn the book. Anti discrimination says you can't refuse on the basis of sex, race, religion, and in some places sexual orientation. Which, might help the shop owner that she previously had served this gay customer from what I understand which would let her argue she wasn't denying service based on orientation. I have no clue if that would be accepted as a legal argument.

 

[lotus503]

Pot meet kettle.

perception is reality, majorty of the country favors Gay marriage also Wa state law says its illegal to discriminate based on sexual oreientation.

So no its not Pot Meet Kettle, for that to be the case Wa would have to not have law on the books that favor my position.

For that to be the case Rape law would exclude fingering drunk chicks at parties without consent.

 

[spittledip]

While I agree, how would you define "bigot".

Sometimes, I think the word get overused... drastically...

You had better get used to that word.

 

[xBiffx]

discriminate based on sexual oreientation.

404 not found. Actually the florist regularly sold to homosexuals.

Would we even be talking about this if it wasn't a same-sex marriage?

How would refusing to sell to a hetero couple be any different. After all, we are all part of some protected class at some point.

 

[Retro Rob]

404 not found. Actually the florist regularly sold to homosexuals.

Would we even be talking about this if it wasn't a same-sex marriage?

How would refusing to sell to a hetero couple be any different. After all, we are all part of some protected class at some point.

**waiting to read "what if they refused a black couple" remark**

 

[lotus503]

404 not found. Actually the florist regularly sold to homosexuals.

Would we even be talking about this if it wasn't a same-sex marriage?

How would refusing to sell to a hetero couple be any different. After all, we are all part of some protected class at some point.

The event that triggered the discrimination was the wedding. As you stated she didn't have an issue prior, it was the gay marriage that offended her religious beliefs and prompted the discrimination.

Easy case for the AG

 

[Retro Rob]

The event that triggered the discrimination was the wedding. As you stated she didn't have an issue prior, it was the gay marriage that offended her religious beliefs and prompted the discrimination.

Easy case for the AG

I'm wondering how good their relationship even was because I can tell you, I am not likely to bring a lawsuit on someone whom I have a good relationship with... even if I feel I've been wronged by them. I would say most people feel the same way...

There may have been previous encounters, dirty looks, etc. Or they could simply be pushing an agenda.... I'm just curious of the real motive behind this lawsuit...

 

[WHAMPOM]

I am still waiting for the Biblical passage where Christ ordains only mixed sex marriage. Anything besides turn the other cheek and let those without sin throw the first stone?

 

[Retro Rob]

I am still waiting for the Biblical passage where Christ ordains only mixed sex marriage. Anything besides turn the other cheek and let those without sin throw the first stone?

I am also waiting for the passage about him condmening child molestation... oh... he didn't mention that either.. so I guess he OK'd it.

One of the biggest fallacies is assuming that since he didn't say anything about it, it must be ok.

That's why there is this thing called "reading"... and I mean the entire book.

 

[bshole]

The event that triggered the discrimination was the wedding. As you stated she didn't have an issue prior, it was the gay marriage that offended her religious beliefs and prompted the discrimination.

She probably thinks she will go to hell if she supplies flowers.

 

[jpeyton]

Washington AG does an interview about the lawsuit: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013040057#start=1640&stop=2205

He responds to the arguments from the florist's attorney, saying he does have authority to file the lawsuit and will easily win in court.

If anything, AG Ferguson seems very well aware that this case will get a lot of attention and support on both sides, and might end up being appealed to higher courts.

 

[spittledip]

Why do you fools insist on quoting stupid scripture when you dont even live by it? Get out that and start killing gay already jeez. God commands it!!

Oh right...pick and choose. My bad.

Sorry, I didn't realize I was living in the theocracy of Israel. Oh wait, I'm not...

I also get tired of responding to people who talk about the Bible and have barely even read it, which is obvious in your case.

 

[buckshot24]

Washington AG does an interview about the lawsuit: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013040057#start=1640&stop=2205

He responds to the arguments from the florist's attorney, saying he does have authority to file the lawsuit and will easily win in court.

If anything, AG Ferguson seems very well aware that this case will get a lot of attention and support on both sides, and might end up being appealed to higher courts.

When does he say he will easily win?

 

[piasabird]

Cant they just put up a sign that says we reserve the right to turn away customers with tasteless requests. You have to prove you have been damaged to file a lawsuit. I dont think merchants have to accept same sex marriage. So if they refused a request from the Klu Klux Klan, then what then? I consider Gay marriage to be a hate crime against America.

 

[nehalem256]

If anything, AG Ferguson seems very well aware that this case will get a lot of attention and support on both sides, and might end up being appealed to higher courts.

Is that a surprise to you? Because its not to me. I think its pretty clear this is a case of the AG trying to get a name for himself by pushing the liberal agenda.

Even if you think the florists actions violate the anti-discrimination law(a point I do not grant you) the AG is still free to exercise his discretion and say you know what this is not a case I should intervene (the same as a cop not issuing a speeding ticket for going 1mph over the limit). I don't think the spirit of the anti-discrimination law is to force private small businesses to service events they oppose. And in the case of a wedding it is pretty much non-nonsensical to force people who are opposed to your union to service it.

 

[jpeyton]

When does he say he will easily win?

He mentions a couple times that it's a clear cut case of violating public accommodation laws, as in no room for interpretation.

Washington is also a fairly liberal state. Besides approving gay marriage by 7.4 points, they also legalized marijuana by 11.4 points, and Obama carried the state by 15 points. Court judges are non-partisan, but many judges are appointed in the general election and would skew more liberal following the statewide trend. In the only contested Washington State Supreme Court seat in the 2012 election, Sheryl McCloud won by 11 points, and is considered heavily liberal (even partnering with the ACLU in her past).

The florist should and will lose.

 

[her209]

Basically, yes. The law states that if you open your services to the public as this shop does, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. If the florist changes their business model to a client based on where she specifically selects clients, etc, then yes she can discriminate.

The impetus for these laws was of course the experience of black people in the South. While maybe not always the case, in that case the free market DIDN'T send those places out of business, black people were just screwed.

One could argue that allowing sellers selectively choose who they would sell to is market intervention, i.e., no longer a free market.

 

[zinfamous]

Government recognized marriage isn't about being attracted to someone. It is about wanting them to make end of life choices for you or allowing them to inherit your stuff tax free. Also the super awesome health care benefits.

Why are you trying to force your beliefs on marriage onto others

EDIT: Oh and so they can visit you in the hospital. Because obviously there is no other way to allow people's friends to visit them than redefining a 1000+ year old institution.

you honestly have no experience with the fact that right-to-visit is often only granted to spouses, and family in many situations?