Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[cuafpr]

Your women's only gym example is false in that any person must pay a membership fee to be permitted access. It is not open to the general public for its services.

peeking from lurker status cause i have a question based on this part of what you said. What if after this is over, she goes to be a membership based private club/florist with a 5 cents membership fee, could she then refuse a gay wedding? If not then how does a women's only gym hold up?

for the record I think its her right to be a bigot and let people boycott her to failure or she changes. Law suits like this tie up an already crowed legal system. Freedom means some people will be racist/bigots and as long as its not a life providing service, privately owned, and not gov't funded so be it. imo.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

peeking from lurker status cause i have a question based on this part of what you said. What if after this is over, she goes to be a membership based private club/florist with a 5 cents membership fee, could she then refuse a gay wedding? If not then how does a women's only gym hold up?

for the record I think its her right to be a bigot and let people boycott her to failure or she changes. Law suits like this tie up an already crowed legal system. Freedom means some people will be racist/bigots and as long as its not a life providing service, privately owned, and not gov't funded so be it. imo.

Gray area. There have been numerous challenges which has resulted in many states passing specific laws exempting single sex gyms from gender discrimination laws. Some challenges against it have also been successful in the courts with clubs ordered to open their roles to both men and women.

As for the example you cite for the florist a court would have to weigh it I suppose were it ever to be challenged. They would have to present a legitimate business reason, however, which would be very hard to do.

 

[nehalem256]

Gray area. There have been numerous challenges which has resulted in many states passing specific laws exempting single sex gyms from gender discrimination laws. Some challenges against it have also been successful in the courts with clubs ordered to open their roles to both men and women.

As for the example you cite for the florist a court would have to weigh it I suppose were it ever to be challenged. They would have to present a legitimate business reason, however, which would be very hard to do.

Doesn't that kind of call BS on the idea that there is some kind of "right" not to be discriminated against. As opposed to one group *cough* liberals *cough* trying to impose their morality on others.

Although again. None of that really matters because no "protected" group is being discriminated against.

 

[bozack]

Also, it's important to note, the couple has not filed the lawsuit. It's Washington State's Attorney General. Meaning the florist is in for a pretty big battle in court if they don't want to stop their discriminatory practices.

Oh please, while the individuals didn't file the suit they did go and gripe to the AG about it and start this whole mess vs just moving on and going with another florist.

I am conflicted on this, part of me feels that small business owners that have moral/religious/or other conflicts with issues should have some rights to select who they want to do business with, but the other feels that work is work.

 

[bshole]

I am conflicted on this, part of me feels that small business owners that have moral/religious/or other conflicts with issues should have some rights to select who they want to do business with, but the other feels that work is work.

I'm kinda with you on this one. The gay couple strike me as total dicks for torching this woman's business. I wonder if she will have to do business with them in the future? Could she refuse them on the basis that they like to start legal actions which threaten the existence of her business?

 

[shadow9d9]

I love how the bigots here are willing to admit to everyone on the forum that they are pro discrimination. They are the current equivalent of all the bigots against civil rights. They can justify, rationalize, and circle jerk each other, but it is as clear as day to us. You are a relic and your kind will continue to be on the wrong side of history. Enjoy your hate and fear!

 

[nehalem256]

I love how the bigots here are willing to admit to everyone on the forum that they are pro discrimination. They are the current equivalent of all the bigots against civil rights. They can justify, rationalize, and circle jerk each other, but it is as clear as day to us. You are a relic and your kind will continue to be on the wrong side of history. Enjoy your hate and fear!

Says the guy who is on the same side with the people reveling in destroying the livelihood of a old woman.

You are just as pro-discrimination as well. You are in favor of discriminating against people who disagree with your view on marriage. Which is highly ironic given that same-sex marriage supporters have spent years saying that is wrong.

There is no civil right to force people to cater to events they find abhorrent.

 

[zsdersw]

Which is highly ironic given that same-sex marriage supporters have spent years saying that is wrong.

It's only ironic if you think same-sex marriage supporters all speak, think, and act alike. Here's a clue for you: they don't.

 

[nehalem256]

It's only ironic if you think same-sex marriage supporters all speak, think, and act alike. Here's a clue for you: they don't.

Are you seriously suggesting there is not a large contingent of same-sex marriage supporters who repeatedly went basically: "WAHHHHH how dare those evil christians try to force their definition of marriage on others"?

Or how about: "Same-sex marriage won't affect straight people, so they should stop whining and let it happen"?

 

[zsdersw]

Are you seriously suggesting there is not a large contingent of same-sex marriage supporters who repeatedly went basically: "WAHHHHH how dare those evil christians try to force their definition of marriage on others"?

Yes, I haven't heard any contingent of same-sex marriage supporters, large or otherwise, criticize Christians of "forcing their definition of marriage on others". The key disconnect is "forcing". Same-sex marriage supporters typically say, with regards to the "definition of marriage" that marriage's definition has changed numerous times throughout history. They don't talk about Christians "forcing their definition of marriage on others".

Or how about: "Same-sex marriage won't affect straight people, so they should stop whining and let it happen"?

This is something closely resembling what I've heard before. The key difference is that they're talking about the fact that one couple's marriage has no affect on the status of another's. They aren't talking about stuff like in the OP of this thread.. which is about business owner rights, not gay marriage.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I haven't heard any contingent of same-sex marriage supporters, large or otherwise, criticize Christians of "forcing their definition of marriage on others". The key disconnect is "forcing".

What's amazing to me is that people like nehalem and other opponents of same sex marriage have tried to argue that if you don't allow Christians to oppress gay people you are in fact oppressing Christians.

This is something closely resembling what I've heard before. The key difference is that they're talking about the fact that one couple's marriage has no affect on the status of another's. They aren't talking about stuff like in the OP of this thread.. which is about business owner rights, not gay marriage.

His argument was sheer nonsense. Nobody ever argued that gays getting married would have NO effect, if it had no effect why would it matter anyways? It is, as you said, that gay marriage has no effect on straight marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

His argument was sheer nonsense.

It almost always is.

 

[nehalem256]

What's amazing to me is that people like nehalem and other opponents of same sex marriage have tried to argue that if you don't allow Christians to oppress gay people you are in fact oppressing Christians.

Same-sex marriage supporters are trying to take a woman's livelihood for not supporting their definition of marriage.

Are you seriously stating that is not oppressing them?

 

[fskimospy]

peeking from lurker status cause i have a question based on this part of what you said. What if after this is over, she goes to be a membership based private club/florist with a 5 cents membership fee, could she then refuse a gay wedding? If not then how does a women's only gym hold up?

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.

for the record I think its her right to be a bigot and let people boycott her to failure or she changes. Law suits like this tie up an already crowed legal system. Freedom means some people will be racist/bigots and as long as its not a life providing service, privately owned, and not gov't funded so be it. imo.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Same-sex marriage supporters are trying to take a woman's livelihood for not supporting their definition of marriage.

Are you seriously stating that is not oppressing them?

Same-sex marriage supporters are trying to force businesses within Washington state to comply with the law. Are you arguing that having shop owners comply with the law is oppressing them?

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, I haven't heard any contingent of same-sex marriage supporters, large or otherwise, criticize Christians of "forcing their definition of marriage on others". The key disconnect is "forcing". Same-sex marriage supporters typically say, with regards to the "definition of marriage" that marriage's definition has changed numerous times throughout history. They don't talk about Christians "forcing their definition of marriage on others".

Wow. Your dishonesty is amazing.

 

[nehalem256]

Same-sex marriage supporters are trying to force businesses within Washington state to comply with the law. Are you arguing that having shop owners comply with the law is oppressing them?

(1) If you a write a law to oppress groups you dislike you are oppressing them. Are you seriously going to argue that Jim Crow laws didn't oppress black people?

(2) "People who get a same-sex marriage" are not a protected group. So she is in compliance with the law.

 

[zsdersw]

Wow. Your dishonesty is amazing.

Your idiocy is not amazing.

Christians "forcing their definition of marriage onto others" implies that Christians are the ones seeking a change in the status quo. They're not.

 

[fskimospy]

(1) If you a write a law to oppress groups you dislike you are oppressing them. Are you seriously going to argue that Jim Crow laws didn't oppress black people?

(2) "People who get a same-sex marriage" are not a protected group. So she is in compliance with the law.

This law was not written to oppress any group, it is a standard regulation on all businesses.

It is illegal in Washington for a public business to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation. She is quite clearly in violation of the law, she will lose in court.

 

[nehalem256]

This law was not written to oppress any group, it is a standard regulation on all businesses.

So then I assume you agree that Jim Crow laws were also not oppressive of black people.

They were just standard regulation of businesses.

It is illegal in Washington for a public business to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation. She is quite clearly in violation of the law, she will lose in court.

She is not discriminating based on sexual orientation. She is discriminating against an event that people of all sexual orientations can have.

The article makes it quite clear she does engage in business with people of all sexual orientations.

 

[surfsatwerk]

So then I assume you agree that Jim Crow laws were also not oppressive of black people.

They were just standard regulation of businesses.



She is not discriminating based on sexual orientation. She is discriminating against an event that people of all sexual orientations can have.

The article makes it quite clear she does engage in business with people of all sexual orientations.

You sir are a troll of exceptional fortitude. I say, "bravo"!

 

[fskimospy]

So then I assume you agree that Jim Crow laws were also not oppressive of black people.

They were just standard regulation of businesses.

Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional. If you would like to argue that anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, go ahead and try.

She is not discriminating based on sexual orientation. She is discriminating against an event that people of all sexual orientations can have.

The article makes it quite clear she does engage in business with people of all sexual orientations.

Actually the article makes it quite clear that she does not engage in this sort of business with people of all sexual orientations. That's the whole point. If you offer a service to the public in Washington state you cannot discriminate in who you offer it to on the basis of sexual orientation. Period. She could stop doing weddings altogether if she wanted, but so long as she does weddings she can't discriminate. She is obviously in violation of the law.

For people who aren't blinded by homophobia and a desire to get special privileges for straight people, this is open and shut.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I love how the bigots here are willing to admit to everyone on the forum that they are pro discrimination. They are the current equivalent of all the bigots against civil rights. They can justify, rationalize, and circle jerk each other, but it is as clear as day to us. You are a relic and your kind will continue to be on the wrong side of history. Enjoy your hate and fear!

It's not 'pro discrimination' it's 'pro do business with whom I choose for whatever reasons I choose because it's my money and I am the one taking risks running a business so stfu and go elsewhere because you call everyone you don't like a bigot and lob generic insults like a crybaby because you're actually intolerant of other peoples beliefs and don't realize you are as much a bigot as those you are calling a bigot'.

Is that more clear for you?

 

[nehalem256]

Actually the article makes it quite clear that she does not engage in this sort of business with people of all sexual orientations. That's the whole point. If you offer a service to the public in Washington state you cannot discriminate in who you offer it to on the basis of sexual orientation. Period. She could stop doing weddings altogether if she wanted, but so long as she does weddings she can't discriminate. She is obviously in violation of the law.

Two straight men can get married. Unless you are arguing she would perform services for such a wedding the discrimination is not on the basis of sexual orientation.

"People having a same-sex wedding" are not a protected group.

 

[Zstream]

Your idiocy is not amazing.

Christians "forcing their definition of marriage onto others" implies that Christians are the ones seeking a change in the status quo. They're not.

I think the definition of Marriage has been long standing. Unfortunately, I'm not following your argument on this one. While Marriage has been long standing, the definition is always up to interpretation it seems? I don't think anyone would care if it was called a civil union or partnership.

To say that Christians are forcing a definition of marriage is pretty weak, really.