• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The florist is an idiot. First, they can't discriminate and they obviously are. Second, if they really didn't want to service the wedding, the easy way out would have been:

Florist: "Oh, we'd love to help you. When is your wedding?"
Couple: "June 12th"
Florist: "Oh geez. Really sorry. We already have 2 weddings that weekend and we are swamped. Here are a few other stores you may want to try."
 
spittledip said:
The florist lives by a higher law. For this, the florist might be punished according to a lower law. It is wrong, but that is how life goes. Hopefully the florist understands this and can accept the penalty for choosing civil disobedience to stand against immorality.
Click to expand...

Then they probably shouldn't have gone into business in the first place.
 
OutHouse said:
sure sounds like the florist civil rights are gettiing trampled upon by the jack booted thuggery of the Washington AG.
Click to expand...

Time and time again it has been shown that you can do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others.

The florist is welcome to practice their own religion and express whatever opinions they want, so long as they don't discriminate or infringe upon someone else's rights.
 
OutHouse said:
sure sounds like the florist civil rights are gettiing trampled upon by the jack booted thuggery of the Washington AG.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't own a business and willfully violate public accommodation laws, which appears to be the case here.
 
I don't like the florist's stance, but I defend their right to choose to be assholes. They want to lose business to the competition and show that they're prejudiced, then that's up to them. Soon they'll be selling to someone else because they can't keep the doors open, and maybe the next owner will choose to be open-minded.
 
3chordcharlie said:
No, the florist is wrong, but so are you.

This is perfectly acceptable civil disobedience; it's not like anyone was injured or killed by the florist.

I strongly disagree with the florists position, but I understand the action.
Click to expand...

Well, let me put it another way: It's BS that they are adhering to a "higher law". Even if they believe in a god and accept the Bible as fact, there's no where within the Bible that supports their position. In fact, it is the opposite.
 
sandorski said:
Well, let me put it another way: It's BS that they are adhering to a "higher law". Even if they believe in a god and accept the Bible as fact, there's no where within the Bible that supports their position. In fact, it is the opposite.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I certainly believe the florist is 'wrong'. And they need to be prepared to accept the consequences, too. But if they are, I see no overwhelming harm.
 
3chordcharlie said:
I strongly disagree with the florists position, but I understand the action.
Click to expand...
Understand in the same way a rational adult would understand any other faith-driven discrimination, such as Sharia Law?

Holy books (take your pick) forbid quite a lot. The florist should stop servicing divorcees, adulterers, people who have had pre-marital relations, tattoos, people who eat pork, etc. Maybe make a pre-screen survey for all walk-in customers.
 
The main part of doing business is doing business.
And donating money to the defense team is wasted money.
Discrimination is not cool in today's world.
They really should just close their doors and go on tour preaching the horrors of small business ownership.
 
While I'm not against gays marrying, this is bullshit.

Businesses should be able to serve or not serve who they want. If the consumers don't like it then they can talk with their wallets not their lawyers.
 
jpeyton said:
If you're for gay rights, than you consider them a protected class, like race, gender, age, etc.


Again, if you're for gay rights, then you consider them a protected class, like race. I replaced the word "gay" with "African American" in your post to illustrate. Your argument doesn't hold with this simple word swap, because race is a protected class nationwide, and a florist who chose not to serve an African American customer because of their race would be hit with lawsuits as well.


It has nothing to do with public versus private. It has everything to do with the legal definition of a protected class in Washington state.

Here's a bonus question. I have two wedding floral arrangements below. Can anybody tell me which one is for a straight marriage and which one is for a gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Because there is such a thing as legal discrimination. Personally I believe a private business that is open to the "public" that discriminates is stupid and will be burned in the market place for it, but I have no problem when stupid business owners make stupid decisions.

The civil rights movement at the time was a special case. Government intervention was needed because the market wouldnt burn a business that made a decision to discriminate against whatever protected "class" that wanted to do business with them. Unless the government wanted another civil war at the time, which it came close to that even with gov intervention. Even still, sexual orientation is not a protected "status" as a large part of this country does not recognize it as something one can not change (ie as in born into it).
 
Last edited:
sourn said:
While I'm not against gays marrying, this is bullshit.

Businesses should be able to serve or not serve who they want. If the consumers don't like it then they can talk with their wallets not their lawyers.
Click to expand...

so should the florist be able to decline a mixed race wedding or a AA wedding? doing that is against the law.
 
jpeyton said:
Understand in the same way a rational adult would understand any other faith-driven discrimination, such as Sharia Law?

Holy books (take your pick) forbid quite a lot. The florist should stop servicing divorcees, adulterers, people who have had pre-marital relations, tattoos, people who eat pork, etc. Maybe make a pre-screen survey for all walk-in customers.
Click to expand...

If someone came in and was having a "getting divorced party" you might have a point.

The florist is discriminating against an event not a person.
 
dawp said:
so should the florist be able to decline a mixed race wedding or a AA wedding? doing that is against the law.
Click to expand...

2 straight men can have a same-sex wedding and therefore there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation.

She is discriminating against an event not a sexual orientation.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

To me thats clear enough that the govt doesn't have jurisdiction over this private business. But unfortunately these rights are becoming more and more extinct.
 
jpeyton said:
Understand in the same way a rational adult would understand any other faith-driven discrimination, such as Sharia Law?

Holy books (take your pick) forbid quite a lot. The florist should stop servicing divorcees, adulterers, people who have had pre-marital relations, tattoos, people who eat pork, etc. Maybe make a pre-screen survey for all walk-in customers.
Click to expand...
To clarify:

I suspect the florist should, and will lose the case. It's possible they could even lose their business if they spend too much defending.

I'm not sure if there could be jail time involved.

If the florist, knowing that they are wrong in the eyes of the law, feels strongly enough that they would rather accept these consequences than change, I understand that.
 
elitejp said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

To me thats clear enough that the govt doesn't have jurisdiction over this private business. But unfortunately these rights are becoming more and more extinct.
Click to expand...

Well the govt can't discriminate so probably the best thing is for the govt to pull his license to operate. That way they don't interfere with the practice of his religion and they don't support discrimination.

Win win for everyone. 😉
 
Paratus said:
Well the govt can't discriminate so probably the best thing is for the govt to pull his license to operate. That way they don't interfere with the practice of his religion and they don't support discrimination.

Win win for everyone. 😉
Click to expand...

So you want to squash businesses who won't cater to same-sex marriage...

So much for the liberal claim that legalizing same-sex marriage won't impact straight people huh?

So much for liberals claiming it is wrong for the government to force their definition of marriage on others huh?
 
No it would be a win for people who dont want religion to have any rights at all. Just as religion cant force things on you neither should the govt force things on religion as stated in the 1rst amendment.
Remember this case is dealing with a private business not a govt business. So the private business is in no way representing any govt stance.
 
jpeyton said:
You do realize the government has already been telling people who they HAVE to do business with for a long time. There are many protected classes in our society, and you can't use personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against them.
Click to expand...

A few years ago I flew out to Washington state. During a layover in las vegas I walked around the gift shops looking for a shot glass.

Guess what, in the giftshops where the workers were wearing arab style of clothes, none of the stores carried shot glasses.

Should the state sue the giftshops for refusing to sell items to drinkers?

What is the difference in a store refusing to carry a certain item because it is against the owners religion, and the store refusing to sell to a certain class of people?

If a store does not want to sale to gays, then the gays need to go somewhere else.

Forcing an ideology on someone is not the answer.
 
Texashiker said:
A few years ago I flew out to Washington state. During a layover in las vegas I walked around the gift shops looking for a shot glass.

Guess what, in the giftshops where the workers were wearing arab style of clothes, non of them carried shot glasses.

Should the state sue the giftshops for refusing to sell items to drinkers?

What is the difference in a store refusing to carry a certain item because it is against the owners religion, and the store refusing to sell to a certain class of people?
Click to expand...

They didn't refuse to sell to you, they merely did not sell the product you were looking for.
 
sandorski said:
They didn't refuse to sell to you, they merely did not sell the product you were looking for.
Click to expand...

From the article:
telling a longtime customer
Click to expand...

Obviously the florist has no problems doing business with homosexuals.

They just do not sell flowers for same-sex marriages. Presumably regardless of the sexual-orientations of those getting a same-sex marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top