• 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 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
xBiffx said:
Have fun proving that when they were going to that florist for years.
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer, but the state attorney general sure is.

Again, if you want to see why the florist will lose in the eyes of the court, simply do a word substitution. Pick any protected class listed in the public accommodation laws.

If the florist serviced whites and blacks for years, but refused to service a bi-racial couple getting married, would that constitute discrimination?

Furthermore, prior behavior doesn't excuse present day discrimination. She could have serviced homosexual couples for their weddings for 10 years prior to this one incident, but this one incident of discrimination is punishable under law.
 
Last edited:
Pens1566 said:
Even if that did matter (which legally it doesn't), have fun proving the florist new either well enough to know they were gay before the mention of the wedding.
Click to expand...

No way of proving, one way or the other, when the florist knew the couple way gay. That argument isn't going to stand up.

Facts are the couple went there for years. Facts are the florist didn't refuse service until it was for a wedding.

Whether the florist knew they were gay prior to the wedding request can't be proven. Sexual orientation discrimination argument is on shaky ground.
 
Last edited:
Apple Of Sodom said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess.. Does it matter? I mean, she doesn't support the lifestyle either. At what point is it ok for her (based on her morals) to serve the customer but not serve him because of an event? Jesus could have condemned the marriage, but still found a way to show love. She should have accepted they were going to get married with/without her flowers, and take the chance to say 'I don't really approve of it, but let me make you some awesome flowers so you'll be happy". I don't know.

I just don't see the logic. I'm more of a red letter christian (just really concerned about what Jesus said and what I can learn from it), and I still completely believe in separation of church and state. If we let a majority christian base legislate based on religion to discriminate against others, what's going to happen over time if/when Christianity isn't the majority? Or if another 'religion' gains enough influence that they start legislating their religion into law. No thanks.

Keep government out of marriage. Civil Unions for all. You want a christian marriage, go get it certified by your church after you file your civil union papers.

Don't make laws based on religion. It's really not that difficult.
 
Pens1566 said:
Reality is not a shitty Adam Sandler movie. You've back pedaled into this ridiculous notion that heterosexuals are entering into SSM so you can defend this utterly indefensible legal position the florist is in. Pro-tip : no one in their right mind is going to assume that a couple entering into a SSM isn't homosexual. That's your fantasy.
Click to expand...

And no one in their right mind is going to assume that such a person would approve of SSM between heterosexuals.

What if 2 life-long friends want to get married so they can make life-ending decisions for the other? Or inherit the others possessions tax free?
 
Pens1566 said:
Even if that did matter (which legally it doesn't), have fun proving the florist new either well enough to know they were gay before the mention of the wedding.
Click to expand...

Have fun proving they were discriminated against because of sexual orientation and not the florists object to same-sex marraige(regardless of sexual orientation).
 
xBiffx said:
That argument isn't going to stand up.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? Are state's attorney generals in the habit of filing very public lawsuits that they know they're going to lose?

You've got one podunk florist against a state AG and the ACLU (an organization with 2000 volunteer lawyers and a $100m budget).

I'm not a betting man, but if I was, the florist's argument would be the one that I'd bet against.

At the very least, it's going to be one hell of a ride for the florist if she chooses to fight this. Two major lawsuits will siphon a lot of your time and money. It's a lose lose situation for her.
 
Last edited:
nehalem256 said:
And no one in their right mind is going to assume that such a person would approve of SSM between heterosexuals.

What if 2 life-long friends want to get married so they can make life-ending decisions for the other? Or inherit the others possessions tax free?
Click to expand...

Or to protect their possessions from crazy relatives?
Or to share a good medical plan?
Or to take advantage of tax and IRA regulations?
 
jpeyton said:
Why do you think that? Are state's attorney generals in the habit of filing very public lawsuits that they know they're going to lose?

You've got one podunk florist against a state AG and the ACLU (an organization with 2000 volunteer lawyers and a $100m budget).

I'm not a betting man, but if I was, the florist's argument would be the one that I'd bet against.

At the very least, it's going to be one hell of a ride for the florist if she chooses to fight this. Two major lawsuits will siphon a lot of your time and money. It's a lose lose situation for her.
Click to expand...

So in other words the AG doesn't even have to win the legal case to screw over the woman.

Again, it sounds like liberals engaging in bullying of those who won't support same-sex marriage.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
If the lawyers for the defendant are correct it looks like the Washington AG doesn't have the authority required by the law to bring suit against them. This should be a very interesting case.

http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2013/04/09/1365552182-stutzman_response_to_ag.pdf
Click to expand...

The argument that the AG doesn't have jurisdiction could be compelling but the argument that arranging flowers for an event that the "artist" disagrees with is forced speech is bogus.
 
And this is how we help build the totalitarian state in the 21st century. Sue people into oblivion for not sharing our views or the views of the govt. Even if they prevail in court it will send a msg to others to comply or suffer dire economic consequences. Today it is a topic with which you agree. Next day it may not. Be careful for what you wish.
 
nehalem256 said:
Do I need to explain to you why 2 white people cannot get a bi-racial marriage 😀
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with what you quoted? Dont you get tired of digging for stuff that isnt there in order to make some lame ass point that has nothing to do with anything were talking about?

Deflect! Will Robinson. Deflect!
 
Last edited:
sactoking said:
The argument that the AG doesn't have jurisdiction could be compelling but the argument that arranging flowers for an event that the "artist" disagrees with is forced speech is bogus.
Click to expand...
What's next, Subway's sandwich artists refuse to serve homosexuals because of their relationship with Jesus? 😉
 
soulcougher73 said:
What does that have to do with what you quoted? Dont you get tired of digging for stuff that isnt there in order to make some lame ass point that has nothing to do with anything were talking about?

Deflect! Will Robinson. Deflect!
Click to expand...

I was citing an important difference between a bi-racial and same-sex marriage.

A same-sex marriage can consist of either a gay or straight couple.

A bi-racial marriage cannot consist of 2 white people.
 
jpeyton said:
What's next, Subway's sandwich artists refuse to serve homosexuals because of their relationship with Jesus? 😉
Click to expand...

Don't be stupid. The proper equivalent would be should a Subway's franchise be allowed to decline catering at a same-sex wedding.

As per your article the florist did serve the homosexuals previously.
 
nehalem256 said:
I was citing an important difference between a bi-racial and same-sex marriage.

A same-sex marriage can consist of either a gay or straight couple.

A bi-racial marriage cannot consist of 2 white people.
Click to expand...

So i say you are digging for shit that isnt there and then you dig it deeper? lol

Nobody cares about some straight same-sex couples if there is such a thing. Again you grasp at the smallest straws available to try and defend your bigotry. Try to grow up some so you can contribute to an honest debate for once. You never stay on topic.
 
soulcougher73 said:
Nobody cares about some straight same-sex couples if there is such a thing.
Click to expand...

So you are arguing the florist would approve of a same-sex straight couple getting married?😱

soulcougher73 said:
Again you grasp at the smallest straws available to try and defend your bigotry. Try to grow up some so you can contribute to an honest debate for once. You never stay on topic.
Click to expand...

I am not the one in favor of having the government compel people to implicitly approve of people's relationships. This is what you are asking.

I think if you want to see a bigot maybe you should look in the mirror?

After more thinking I think it would also be wrong to force a florist or caterer to perform services for a bi-racial marriage if they felt such a marriage was wrong.
 
soulcougher73 said:
So glad the world is moving past your kind.
Click to expand...

You mean people that do not feel the need to force their ideology on others? ()🙂

Should you be able to fire someone for being in a homosexual or inter-racial relationship. No. Employing someone does not imply an approval of their out of work activities.

However, providing services to an event(in this case a wedding) is an implicit approval of that event. Forcing people to approve of something is a clear violation of freedom of conscience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top