Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[nehalem256]

Ahhh so when you lose it is because of a librul conspiracy instead of you just being woefully ignorant.

I'm happy you have admitted how bad your arguments are in court. I'll never again say you're entirely impossible to educate.

Imagine the same situation and laws tried in Mississippi.

Which would you bet on it going?

 

[BoomerD]

This is the part where you say:

"Your intolerance of my intolerance is not tolerant!" lulz...

Your *opinion* of what marriage should or should not be amounts to exactly jack squat.

The people of the state of Washington have decided through a voter approved referendum to ensure that same sex couples are afforded the same rights and privileges as opposite sex couples.

If you want to do business in Washington, you have 2 immediate options...obey the law or leave.

It. Is. That. Simple.

Don't like it? I'd suggest Idaho to the east, or the Pacific Ocean to the west...as you would probably be laughed out of Oregon or British Columbia.

Most of the state (area, not population) voted against the gay marriage law...it's the "evil libruls" in and around Seattle that forced it down everyone's throat...

http://seattletimes.com/flatpages/politics/2012-washington-election-results.html

I'm not anti-gay marriage...why should only hetero couples have the right to be miserable?

Many of the people here support the florist's right to choose her customers.
For decades, "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone for Any Reason" has been acceptable...except in employment, housing, and things like medical care...should the right to buy flowers be written into the law too?
Personally, I think the florist SHOULD have the right to refuse to cater to gay weddings because of her religious beliefs. While I may not agree with them, it still should be her right to turn away business.

 

[fskimospy]

Imagine the same situation and laws tried in Mississippi.

Which would you bet on it going?

The florist would lose there as well. The law is super clear and she's in obvious violation.

 

[zsdersw]

You're right that the acceptance of gay marriage is growing, but I believe it's because there are less and less religious people out there. It's not fear or shame, it's people's beliefs about right and wrong. Maturity has nothing to do with it.

Religions are not universally opposed to homosexuality. And yes, maturity has everything to do with it; maturity has a role in everything. Maturity is saying "I don't like homosexual sex, but I don't care if others like it and do it".

Most people have their own ideas or beliefs about morality whether they're religious or not. You consider religious people to be bigoted and socially immature but I imagine your tune might change if the shoe was on the other foot.

For example, incest is considered by most societies to be taboo due mostly to morality issues. Would you support changes to existing law that would free people to express their love how they wish (excluding underage people of course)? Let moms and sons or fathers and daughters get married? Maybe grandpa and little 18-yr old Susie?

I have no problem with anything that consenting adults do with/to each other. I know what turns me on and what turns me off... and while incest turns me off, I couldn't care less if it turns someone else on; I wouldn't vote against them simply because it turns me off.

 

[zsdersw]

Majority opinion doesn't mean anything. It's often sheep following other sheep. So-called modernism will adopt gay rights but it will come with its own set of problems. It might not be out of compassion but maybe out of carelessness that many people are willing to accept gay rights and marriage. They simply have a "Anything does" attitude, especially in our busy society. This is not to say it's better or worse because of it but that might be a big factor too.

Of course there will be problems, but that's what societies do as they grow and mature: deal with and solve problems that arise.

We as a species don't do very well when there are no problems to solve or no obstacles to overcome.

 

[nehalem256]

Religions are not universally opposed to homosexuality. And yes, maturity has everything to do with it; maturity has a role in everything.

And people who are not religious do not universally support homosexuality.

*cough* Ukraine *cough* Japan *cough* China *cough*

The idea that opposition to same-sex marriage must be grounded in religion is a red-herring.

 

[zsdersw]

But I think a lot of it is not so much people actively supporting same-sex marriage. But a lot of people going from going well "I guess marriage is between a man and a woman" to "I am tired of listening to gays whine just let them get married so they will shut up."

You, alone, do not constitute "a lot of people".

EDIT: Also the fact that I think there is an "enthusiasm" gap between same-sex marriage supporters and opponents. Since same-sex marriage is being pushed by people have something clearly to gain as opposed to an abstract notion of marriage having meaning.

Support for same-sex marriage came about because gay people went from being stereotypes observed on a tangent or from a distance to real people that you see, meet, and interact with on a daily basis who have the same needs and desires as everyone else.

 

[zsdersw]

And people who are not religious do not universally support homosexuality.

*cough* Ukraine *cough* Japan *cough* China *cough*

The idea that opposition to same-sex marriage must be grounded in religion is a red-herring.

The only country on your list that has not made any progress in being supportive or tolerant of homosexuality is the Ukraine. Both China and Japan are heading in the "more supportive" direction.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

OP is a retard. Actions of the florist in the story have no merit. If you do not want to do business with someone, you don't have to.

OP: If florist must do business with gays, why don't place have to hire past criminals? And why is it legal for them to know they are past criminals if so?

 

[fskimospy]

OP is a retard. Actions of the florist in the story have no merit. If you do not want to do business with someone, you don't have to.

OP: If florist must do business with gays, why don't place have to hire past criminals? And why is it legal for them to know they are past criminals if so?

You're an idiot. If you do not want to do business with someone based on their race, gender, religion, or in the case of Washington State, sexual orientation you most certainly DO have to. That's the law.

As for your second paragraph, this is a case of open access to public businesses, not employment law. Furthermore, there is no law in Washington that covers discrimination based on prior criminal activity.

Long story short, before you call someone a retard you might want to be sure that your post isn't ignorant of the basic facts of the case.

 

[etrigan420]

OP is a retard. Actions of the florist in the story have no merit. If you do not want to do business with someone, you don't have to.

OP: If florist must do business with gays, why don't place have to hire past criminals? And why is it legal for them to know they are past criminals if so?

I see we have another contestant for ATPN's favorite game show:

"Guess My Medication and Dosage"

 

[nehalem256]

You're an idiot. If you do not want to do business with someone based on their race, gender, religion, or in the case of Washington State, sexual orientation you most certainly DO have to. That's the law.

As for your second paragraph, this is a case of open access to public businesses, not employment law. Furthermore, there is no law in Washington that covers discrimination based on prior criminal activity.

Long story short, before you call someone a retard you might want to be sure that your post isn't ignorant of the basic facts of the case.

And there is no law that covers discrimination against same-sex marriage.

The AG is the one that decided that discrimination against same-sex marriage is discrimination on sexual orientation, because it disporportionally affects people of one sexual orientation.

I imagine one could make a similar argument that criminal is being used as a "dog-whistle" for black since it disproportionally affects people of color. And in fact liberals have made exactly that argument with regard to photo ID requirements for voting

 

[raildogg]

Of course there will be problems, but that's what societies do as they grow and mature: deal with and solve problems that arise.

We as a species don't do very well when there are no problems to solve or no obstacles to overcome.

What problems has society really solved? We've got better medicine, better technology, more education, more access to food (though thousands still die from starvation). But the problems of violence and hatred and human suffering and all the rest of it are still there and are growing. We've been maturing for the past 5000 years yet these problems still exist.

Also, we're not going to create any kind of harmony by passing laws favorable to gays if inside people still resent them (for whatever reason).

 

[fskimospy]

And there is no law that covers discrimination against same-sex marriage.

The AG is the one that decided that discrimination against same-sex marriage is discrimination on sexual orientation, because it disporportionally affects people of one sexual orientation.

I imagine one could make a similar argument that criminal is being used as a "dog-whistle" for black since it disproportionally affects people of color. And in fact liberals have made exactly that argument with regard to photo ID requirements for voting

You realize you already admitted this argument wouldn't hold up in court, right? Do you realize how stupid it is to try and make legal arguments that you already admitted would lose?

 

[zsdersw]

What problems has society really solved? We've got better medicine, better technology, more education, more access to food (though thousands still die from starvation). But the problems of violence and hatred and human suffering and all the rest of it are still there and are growing. We've been maturing for the past 5000 years yet these problems still exist.

Also, we're not going to create any kind of harmony by passing laws favorable to gays if inside people still resent them (for whatever reason).

Solving problems is about the journey, not the destination.

 

[nehalem256]

You realize you already admitted this argument wouldn't hold up in court, right? Do you realize how stupid it is to try and make legal arguments that you already admitted would lose?

I didn't admit it wouldn't hold up in court.

I said I wouldn't bet on it being upheld by a court pack with liberal same-sex marriage justices who want to push an agenda.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't admit it wouldn't hold up in court.

I said I wouldn't bet on it being upheld by a court pack with liberal same-sex marriage justices who want to push an agenda.

Ahhh, so the fact that this argument has lost every time it's been in court so far just means that the US is beset by evil librul justices.

I like how this way you never have to admit that you just don't know what you're talking about... it's always a conspiracy against you.

 

[umbrella39]

I see we have another contestant for ATPN's favorite game show:

"Guess My Medication and Dosage"

I like the "Guess My Old Account Names and Bans" show, too.

 

[compuwiz1]

I once had a sign on my business door. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason we deem appropriate". This was prominently hung above the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. It's my business, not theirs and they didn't build it, so fuck 'em. Any time your business has to be told who you must do business with, you are not living in a free country.

 

[jpeyton]

I once had a sign on my business door. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason we deem appropriate". This was prominently hung above the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. It's my business, not theirs and they didn't build it, so fuck 'em. Any time your business has to be told who you must do business with, you are not living in a free country.

Did you ever refuse to do business with someone based solely on their gender, race, color, creed, age, disability, or sexual orientation?

 

[compuwiz1]

Did you ever refuse to do business with someone based solely on their gender, race, color, creed, age, disability, or sexual orientation?

Nope. Just threw that out for consideration.

I have refused service based on attitude or poor personal hygene.

 

[fskimospy]

I once had a sign on my business door. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason we deem appropriate". This was prominently hung above the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. It's my business, not theirs and they didn't build it, so fuck 'em. Any time your business has to be told who you must do business with, you are not living in a free country.

Then you haven't been living in a free country since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Screw you Martin Luther King and JFK!

I'm glad we can all finally agree that was Robert Byrd's finest hour.

 

[her209]

I once had a sign on my business door. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason we deem appropriate". This was prominently hung above the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. It's my business, not theirs and they didn't build it, so fuck 'em. Any time your business has to be told who you must do business with, you are not living in a free country.

The streets that lead to your business? The transportation infrastructure for people and goods? The basic education that taught your employees? The judicial system that resolves legal matters? The PD that chases after criminals when something happens to your store? The national defense that ensures your business won't be bombed to ruble? etc.

Yes, you built it all by yourself.

 

[K1052]

I once had a sign on my business door. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason we deem appropriate". This was prominently hung above the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. It's my business, not theirs and they didn't build it, so fuck 'em. Any time your business has to be told who you must do business with, you are not living in a free country.

As long as those reasons don't conflict with your state's discrimination and public accommodation law then you can basically do whatever you want. If they do then the impending legal ass reaming is entirely the fault of said business.

We operate stores that service millions of customers a year and I can tell you that this case has loser written all over it from my POV. If they can't abide by state law then they shouldn't be in business.

 

[BoomerD]

If the florist can get a jury trial for this in her home county...the odds are in her favor.
Benton county rejected the gay marriage referendum almost 2:1. (63% / 36%)