Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[bshole]

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?

Actually I remember a rather famous case a few years back. There was a extremely successful dating service on the internet (eHarmony), but it specifically did not provide a service for gay singles.... just straight singles. They were sued and ended up creating a separate site for gay singles.

 

[Texashiker]

Actually I remember a rather famous case a few years back. There was a extremely successful dating service on the internet (eHarmony), but it specifically did not provide a service for gay singles.... just straight singles. They were sued and ended up creating a separate site for gay singles.

Separate but equal.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I can agree with this. As a Christian, I think they should have taken the opportunity to show their patrons love. Not hate and exclusion.

The gay customer was a regular. She didn't have a problem with the customer, but their marriage. She didn't want to support the event itself.

 

[umbrella39]

Except as per the OP:

The florist has no problem with providing service to gays.

Yeah, and the 50's Southern Diner owners all had at least one black friend so that made it all OK to deny service to others back then, too.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Yeah, and the 50's Southern Diner owners all had at least one black friend so that made it all OK to deny service to others back then, too.

I love how you expect everyone to respect your lifestyle but won't respect others.

She didn't refuse service to them. They were regular customers. She doesn't believe in gay marriage and refused to sell flowers for that specific event. Sexual orientation is a protected class. As far as I know you can still refuse to sell your product if you don't want it being used in a specific fashion.

 

[Texashiker]

Yeah, and the 50's Southern Diner owners all had at least one black friend so that made it all OK to deny service to others back then, too.

Shouldn't a business owner be allowed to deny service to anyone? Isn't that one of the basis of free enterprise?

If a store does not want your business, go somewhere else. Or even open your own store.

I do not agree with discrimination, but I do agree with freedom.

When the government tells an organization they have to do something against their will, are we still a free society?

By allowing the government to tell us we "have" to do something, a minority has gained, while the majority has lost part of their freedom.

If the majority is forced to bend to the will of a minority, then we are no longer a free society.

 

[xBiffx]

Florist should use this label:

It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.


NOT FOR USE IN SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Probably would have covered them. :sneaky:

 

[Pens1566]

The gay customer was a regular. She didn't have a problem with the customer, but their marriage. She didn't want to support the event itself.

Regular or first time customer has no bearing on it. If the florist provides flowers for a straight wedding and refuses for a same sex wedding they're violating state law. What is the difference between a straight wedding and a same sex wedding? Sexual orientation. Protected class. End of legal discussion.

Not to mention that this might be the first time said florist was made aware the "long time customer" was in fact homosexual.

 

[nehalem256]

Regular or first time customer has no bearing on it. If the florist provides flowers for a straight wedding and refuses for a same sex wedding they're violating state law. What is the difference between a straight wedding and a same sex wedding? Sexual orientation. Protected class. End of legal discussion.

Not to mention that this might be the first time said florist was made aware the "long time customer" was in fact homosexual.

Wrong the difference is that in a same-sex wedding both people are of the same gender. There is no requirement for them to be gay*. Discrimination based on sexual orientation not found

*And in fact such a requirement would constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[Texashiker]

If the florist provides flowers for a straight wedding and refuses for a same sex wedding they're violating state law.

Any law that protects a certain group is in itself a form of discrimination.

 

[jpeyton]

Any law that protects a certain group is in itself a form of discrimination.

If you say so. But we do have laws that protect people based on their race, color, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

That's the law. You want to overturn it, take the state to court.

 

[sixone]

And now the message to private businesses is that if you don't give us what we want, we'll get the AG and the ACLU to get it for us. We don't have to vote with our wallets, when we can get the police power of the state to bend you to our will.

 

[xBiffx]

And now the message to private businesses is that if you don't give us what we want, we'll get the AG and the ACLU to get it for us. We don't have to vote with our wallets, when we can get the police power of the state to bend you to our will.

That and find better ways to refuse service. Point being this case changes nothing. If people don't want to serve same sex marriages, they will find another way. The law here is nothing but a feel good notion.

 

[nehalem256]

If you say so. But we do have laws that protect people based on their race, color, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

That's the law. You want to overturn it, take the state to court.

The Washington attorney general has filed a consumer protection action against an eastern Washington florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, telling a longtime customer that it was “because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.”

:hmm:

 

[jpeyton]

Shouldn't a business owner be allowed to deny service to anyone? Isn't that one of the basis of free enterprise?

Businesses are allowed to have an equal set of rules for everyone, and if they deny service while maintaining those rules, so be it.

But you can't make one set of rules for, let's say, white people and have another set of rules for black people. That is why we have anti-discrimination laws.

If a store does not want your business, go somewhere else. Or even open your own store.

Arlene might have to go somewhere else if she keeps breaking Washington state law. Maybe Texas would be a good fit?

When the government tells an organization they have to do something against their will, are we still a free society?

The government tells private businesses what to do ALL THE TIME. Are you really that obtuse? Government has regulations for everything from counter-top bacterial counts to the width of an entry doorway. There are libraries full of rules and regulations for every type of business. Regardless of what Jesus Christ whispers in your ear, you have to follow state and federal standards if you want to operate a business.

If the majority is forced to bend to the will of a minority, then we are no longer a free society.

Who were you quoting? This is straight out of Alabama circa 1950.

 

[Texashiker]

If you say so. But we do have laws that protect people based on their race, color, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

And we had laws that protected slave ownership. In that case whites were protected.

In some cases protection of a certain race, religion, sexual orientation may be needed. But when the law specifically protects a certain group, such as slave owners, that law is a form of discrimination.

Instead of protecting certain groups, shouldn't the law protect society as a whole?

But then again, when the government tells society that they can not do something, are we still free?

 

[nehalem256]

That and find better ways to refuse service. Point being this case changes nothing. If people don't want to serve same sex marriages, they will find another way. The law here is nothing but a feel good notion.

The law is nothing more than an attempt for lying hypocritical liberals to force their definition of marriage on people that disagree with them.

Haven't they been telling us for years that doing that was wrong?

 

[jpeyton]

:hmm:

I see we have a real honor roll student here.

Question: who is the person operating a business open to the public in Washington state that has to abide by public accommodation laws?

I'll give you a hint: it's not the customer.

 

[sixone]

That and find better ways to refuse service. Point being this case changes nothing. If people don't want to serve same sex marriages, they will find another way. The law here is nothing but a feel good notion.

Absolutely.

The florist could have agreed to do the wedding, but priced it so high that they would have to seek more affordable service elsewhere. Or claimed that there was already another wedding scheduled that day.

Yeah, it's sneaky and dishonest. But when faced with having the AG and the ACLU making threats, that's what people will do.

 

[Texashiker]

The government tells private businesses what to do ALL THE TIME. Are you really that obtuse? Government has regulations for everything from counter-top bacterial counts to the width of an entry doorway. There are libraries full of rules and regulations for every type of business.

And those regulations are one of the reasons why so many small businesses fail

Who were you quoting? This is straight out of Alabama circa 1950.

Those are my own words.

As I have said before, I do not agree with discrimination.

The government is essentially taking away freedoms from the majority to affirm the rights of the minority.

But then again, does the gay couple have a "right" to buy flowers from that florist? Buying from that store is a privilege and not a right.

Should the government get into the business of enforcing privileges?

 

[nehalem256]

I see we have a real honor roll student here.

Question: who is the person operating a business open to the public in Washington state that has to abide by public accommodation laws?

I'll give you a hint: it's not the customer.

But according to you the public accommodation law is discriminating against the religion of the florist.

Religion is a protected group right? So why can the state of Washington violate the rights of protected groups?

And once again she did not discriminate against gays, but against an event that she finds objectionable.

 

[jpeyton]

The government is essentially taking away freedoms from the majority to affirm the rights of the minority.

Not really. They are saying that you can't have one set of policies for Group A and another set for Group B. I can't charge Group A $5 for a gizmo, charge Group B $6 for the same gizmo, and refuse to sell Group C a gizmo altogether because of my relationship with Allah.

If you want faith-driven discrimination, move to Iran or any other country where they practice Sharia Law.

Here's something to ponder. Why did the florist happily take money from homosexuals in the past, people whom her religion considers an abomination, but all of a sudden decides she can't take their money in this one instance? Did she approve of their lifestyle before, and suddenly did an about face?

 

[jpeyton]

But according to you the public accommodation law is discriminating against the religion of the florist.

Who is operating a business open to the public, subject to public accommodation laws? The florist, or the customer?

 

[nehalem256]

Here's something to ponder. Why did the florist happily take money from homosexuals in the past, people whom her religion considers an abomination, but all of a sudden decides she can't take their money in this one instance? Did she approve of their lifestyle before, and suddenly did an about face?

Because previously the flowers were not being used for a same-sex marriage.

I mean really? Do you have problems understanding that?

Do you have problems see the difference between a gay person wanting a floral bouquet for Thanksgiving and wanting one for their same-sex wedding?

Who is operating a business open to the public, subject to public accommodation laws? The florist, or the customer?

The florist is. And they are in compliance with the law, as per your OP the florist serves gay customers. The Washington AG is attempting to stretch the law in order to oppress the religious morals of the florist.

Why can't liberals stop trying to force their morals onto others?

 

[soulcougher73]

Bigot is about to get pwned.