Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[fskimospy]

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.

Black people and white people could get married, they just couldn't get married to each other. Therefore when the state prohibited interracial marriage it was not discriminating based on race, it was just prohibiting an activity. "People having an interracial marriage" are not a protected group.

Your legal argument would be laughed out of court.

 

[zinfamous]

In certain cases they are alright with discrimination. Examples include cheaper drinks for women, women only gyms.

My point is that in certain cases where there is discrimination they are alright with it but in other cases where they disagree then they aren't alright with discrimination.

It doesn't matter if its in the public because we have private property rights. The owner of private property is free to service or refuse service.

Most business owners will not discriminate because they aren't racist but if they do then they will lose the customers that they have barred but also other customers who are angry with them.

For example a white guy refuses service to blacks. He will lose money by losing black customers, he will lose more money because some white people will refuse to shop at his place. Boycotts can also be launched against his business forcing him to change his policies or he will go out of business.

Thank you for the civics lesson.

Holy shit! You must have worked really, really hard to string that post together. I only see one or two missing commas, but other than that, this must be the longest continual stream of non-regurgitated non-fluff to come from your fingers.

grats to you, trollbot. Did you blow a gasket, by chance?

 

[xBiffx]

Therefore when the state prohibited interracial marriage it was not discriminating based on race

Your legal argument would be laughed out of court.

You sure yours wouldn't?

 

[nehalem256]

Black people and white people could get married, they just couldn't get married to each other. Therefore when the state prohibited interracial marriage it was not discriminating based on race, it was just prohibiting an activity. "People having an interracial marriage" are not a protected group.

Your legal argument would be laughed out of court.

Ah, but you see:

The only reason to discriminate against a black-white couple is because of race. 2 whites or 2 blacks cannot have an interracial marriage.

Whereas 2 straights, 2 gays, 1gay-1straight can both have an opposite-sex marriage. Or a same-sex marriage for that matter.

The sexual orientation of the individuals has nothing to do with why she is refusing to perform the services.

Also, there is a difference between saying a state must recognize an inter-racial marriage and saying a private citizen must perform services for a marriage implicitly condoning said marriage in violation of their freedom of conscience.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, but you see:

The only reason to discriminate against a black-white couple is because of race. 2 whites or 2 blacks cannot have an interracial marriage.

Whereas 2 straights, 2 gays, 1gay-1straight can both have an opposite-sex marriage. Or a same-sex marriage for that matter.

The sexual orientation of the individuals has nothing to do with why she is refusing to perform the services.

It has everything to do with it. I will repeat that your argument would be laughed out of court.

Also, there is a difference between saying a state must recognize an inter-racial marriage and saying a private citizen must perform services for a marriage implicitly condoning said marriage in violation of their freedom of conscience.

There is in fact a difference, I was just using Loving v. Virginia to show how bad your logic was.

The question here is if the state can force businesses not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The answer to that is yes.

 

[nehalem256]

It has everything to do with it. I will repeat that your argument would be laughed out of court.

No it does not. Can 2 straight men get married?

There is in fact a difference, I was just using Loving v. Virginia to show how bad your logic was.

Loving v Virginia is about the government discriminating.

The question here is if the state can force businesses not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The answer to that is yes.

There are 2 questions

(1) Is there any limit to which the state can force businesses not to discriminate. Could a Jewish Florist be forced to provide flowers for a Neo-Nazi wedding?

(2) Are liberals massive hypocrites for trying to force their view on marriage onto private business owners. To which the answer is a resounding YES.

 

[xBiffx]

(1) Is there any limit to which the state can force businesses not to discriminate. Could a Jewish Florist be forced to provide flowers for a Neo-Nazi wedding?

Doubtful we would see an AG take up that one. It doesn't have the same PR crusade joie de vivre.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Doubtful we would see an AG take up that one. It doesn't have the same PR crusade joie de vivre.

Nor is there any law on the books making Nazis a protected class.

 

[xBiffx]

Nor is there any law on the books making Nazis a protected class.

Nor is their one making same sex marriages a protected class. The analogy is accurate.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Nor is their one making same sex weddings a protected class. The analogy is accurate.

Lol sure it is. :hmm:

 

[xBiffx]

Lol sure it is. :hmm:

Since when is an event a protected class outside of school campus gun free zone? :sneaky:

This has been covered, in detail.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Since when is an event a protected class outside of school campus gun free zone? :sneaky:

This has been covered, in detail.

You have a mental disconnect. The difference has been explained. You and others refuse to knowledge it. The florist is fucked and you are wrong.

 

[umbrella39]

Always amazed at the usual suspects here who are always so willing to open their mouths and remove any doubt that they are fucking idiots on most issues. Congrats bigots and legal scholars, your brilliant replies are here for all to see!!!

 

[xBiffx]

Always amazed at the usual suspects here who are always so willing to open their mouths and remove any doubt that they are fucking idiots on most issues.

The irony of your statement is amazing.

 

[xBiffx]

You have a mental disconnect. The difference has been explained. You and others refuse to knowledge it. The florist is fucked and you are wrong.

From the sounds of it, and from reading the letter from the attorney, the florist is far from fucked.

 

[nixium]

Nor is their one making same sex marriages a protected class. The analogy is accurate.

It's right here, in the article:

The lawsuit seeks $2,000 in fines for each violation and an injunction requiring Arlene’s Flowers to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Doesn't matter if it's "same sex marriage" or just sexual orientation, it's the same thing.

 

[nehalem256]

It's right here, in the article:

The lawsuit seeks $2,000 in fines for each violation and an injunction requiring Arlene’s Flowers to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Doesn't matter if it's "same sex marriage" or just sexual orientation, it's the same thing.

Same-sex marriage and sexual orientation are not the same thing. 2 straights, 2 gays, or 1 gay and 1 straight are all free to enter into a same-sex marriage. Discrimination based on sexual orientation not found.

 

[xBiffx]

It's right here, in the article:

The lawsuit seeks $2,000 in fines for each violation and an injunction requiring Arlene’s Flowers to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Doesn't matter if it's "same sex marriage" or just sexual orientation, it's the same thing.

They are not the same thing. You can't just replace language and equate the two. Same sex marriage, an event/activity is not the same as sexual orientation, a characteristic/quality.

Also, there hasn't been any record of a violation. That is pretty much what the attorney was saying. Someone thought there was a violation, but there hasn't been a finding yet.

 

[umbrella39]

The irony of your statement is amazing.

No... it's not. Keep posting for all to see and come back and get a good laugh at yourself once the ruling/settlement is in. xPftx

EDIT: As stated, if I were betting, I'd bet on a win. More than likely something out of court.

 

[xBiffx]

No... it's not.

Yes... it is.

EDIT: As stated, if I were betting, I'd bet on a win. More than likely something out of court.

I'm going to Vegas next week. Ill check with the bookies.

 

[nehalem256]

Nor is there any law on the books making Nazis a protected class.

Well if you want a less challenging theoretical case for you.

What if some Christians stopped in a Muslim book store to buy some Korans for a Koran burning. Should the Muslim store be obligated to sell the Korans?

After all religion is a protected class.

 

[fskimospy]

No it does not. Can 2 straight men get married?



Loving v Virginia is about the government discriminating.



There are 2 questions

(1) Is there any limit to which the state can force businesses not to discriminate. Could a Jewish Florist be forced to provide flowers for a Neo-Nazi wedding?

(2) Are liberals massive hypocrites for trying to force their view on marriage onto private business owners. To which the answer is a resounding YES.

Yes, a Muslim bookstore would likely be required to sell any book to all customers. What is so hard to understand about this?

No one is trying to force their view of marriage on anyone. Businesses in Washington cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. Denying service to them is clearly that. End of story.

 

[zsdersw]

“Famous Playboy Hugh Hefner managed to successfully stop an order of monks from operating a business on his property. The police forced the friars to close down their stall, which was outside the Playboy mansion where they had been selling flowers. Said one friar, well, if it was anyone else we may have gotten away from it, but, unfortunately, only Hugh can prevent florist friars.”

 

[ElFenix]

Nor is their one making same sex marriages a protected class.

in washington state? are you sure about that?

Same-sex marriage and sexual orientation are not the same thing. 2 straights, 2 gays, or 1 gay and 1 straight are all free to enter into a same-sex marriage. Discrimination based on sexual orientation not found.

bromarriage is a big problem

 

[surfsatwerk]

Well if you want a less challenging theoretical case for you.

What if some Christians stopped in a Muslim book store to buy some Korans for a Koran burning. Should the Muslim store be obligated to sell the Korans?

After all religion is a protected class.

We're comparing flowers for a wedding to book burning. :|