Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[nehalem256]

you honestly have no experience with the fact that right-to-visit is often only granted to spouses, and family in many situations?

Actually I have experience that completely contradicts that.

And also notice that what I was saying is its not like there is any other way we could have changed things other than redefining marriage. And in fact change it in ways that would have been beneficial for more people. If 2 totally straight guys have been best friends for 50 years why shouldn't they be able to visit each other in the hospital?

 

[Retro Rob]

I was just re-reading through the article, and something caught my attention:

Bristol said Arlene’s Flowers doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals, having served them as customers and employed them.

Now.. if she employs them, then I would be hard-pressed to call "outright discrimination". Then I read this:

However, the ACLU letter to Stutzman said her refusal to serve the couple was not only a violation of law, but also personally hurtful to them after they’d spent years coming to her business because they admired her talents.
“It is a disturbing reminder of the history of discrimination and disparate treatment that they and other gay men and women have experienced over the years,” the ACLU letter said.

I don't think this about the Law -- this is flatout personal and vindictive... especially seeing they went on facebook and complained about it. The ALCU are Great-Whites that smelled blood in the water...this should be interesting, nonetheless.

I don't think she has issue with gays period... she doesn't want her products at the event.

This is personal - I think that much is obvious.

 

[umbrella39]

Of course this is personal. Most lawsuits are. I still think it's pretty obvious florist will settle but who knows...

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I was just re-reading through the article, and something caught my attention:



Now.. if she employs them, then I would be hard-pressed to call "outright discrimination". Then I read this:



I don't think this about the Law -- this is flatout personal and vindictive... especially seeing they went on facebook and complained about it. The ALCU are Great-Whites that smelled blood in the water...this should be interesting, nonetheless.

I don't think she has issue with gays period... she doesn't want her products at the event.

This is personal - I think that much is obvious.

See the problem that she is going to have is the fact that she came out and said that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's very specific and discriminatory under WA State law.

You can call it discrimination based on sexuality or gender but the fact remains she refused to provide a service to an even she services regularly since she objected to the gender of the people being married. Same sex marriage is legal in WA. That's really the end of the story.

Call it an event all you want but if she provides floral services to weddings then she is required to for all weddings, not just when she agrees with the genders of those to be wed.

 

[Retro Rob]

See the problem that she is going to have is the fact that she came out and said that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's very specific and discriminatory under WA State law.

You can call it discrimination based on sexuality or gender but the fact remains she refused to provide a service to an even she services regularly since she objected to the gender of the people being married. Same sex marriage is legal in WA. That's really the end of the story.

Call it an event all you want but if she provides floral services to weddings then she is required to for all weddings, not just when she agrees with the genders of those to be wed.

Good point.

I can see why some churches are fearful that if a gay couple requests they preside over a formal wedding, they'll be forced to. I would hate to see this country over the next decade or less if this indeeds starts to happen.

 

[nehalem256]

See the problem that she is going to have is the fact that she came out and said that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's very specific and discriminatory under WA State law.

You can call it discrimination based on sexuality or gender but the fact remains she refused to provide a service to an even she services regularly since she objected to the gender of the people being married. Same sex marriage is legal in WA. That's really the end of the story.

Call it an event all you want but if she provides floral services to weddings then she is required to for all weddings, not just when she agrees with the genders of those to be wed.

So you think that if a Muslim refused to sell Koran's to A Christian Koran Burning that the Washington AG and ACLU would be suing to force them to sell those Korans?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So you think that if a Muslim refused to sell Koran's to A Christian Koran Burning that the Washington AG and ACLU would be suing to force them to sell those Korans?

I have no way to answer that question as I'm not the AG nor the ACLU. That doesn't change the specifics of this situation that actually exist though.

 

[zinfamous]

Actually I have experience that completely contradicts that.

And also notice that what I was saying is its not like there is any other way we could have changed things other than redefining marriage. And in fact change it in ways that would have been beneficial for more people. If 2 totally straight guys have been best friends for 50 years why shouldn't they be able to visit each other in the hospital?

situations are specific, and hospital regulation and law absolutely forbids non-family members visitation rights in many circumstances.

surely you aren't daft enough to think that your isolated experience contradicts well established, and absurdly well-documented cases of fact?

it baffles me that you attempt to base an argument upon a completely flawed premise that is roundly rejected by reality. sad.

 

[1prophet]

Good point.

I can see why some churches are fearful that if a gay couple requests they preside over a formal wedding, they'll be forced to. I would hate to see this country over the next decade or less if this indeeds starts to happen.

And they should be, the Mormon church was threatened in the 1970's with lawsuits for not giving equal access to the priesthood for black people,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-tries-to-re_b_739652.html

The Mormon Church's image also suffered greatly in the 1960's because of its long-held practice of vilifying African Americans and not allowing them Church membership. It wasn't until the United States Justice Department threatened a Federal lawsuit, that they relented and allowed African Americans to join the priesthood. The Mormon Church has faced image problems before, but not to this extent.

Bob Jones university had their tax exempt status threatened by the IRS for not allowing interracial dating which subsequently resulted in the birth of the religious right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

In both cases they were private organizations not open to the general public like a restaurant or a florist yet that didn't stop the government from going after them.

Expect to see the same thing happen in the near future with gay rights.

Sometimes the best way to win a fight is to deny the battle but zealots on both sides can't seem to get this to the detriment of us all.

 

[nehalem256]

situations are specific, and hospital regulation and law absolutely forbids non-family members visitation rights in many circumstances.

surely you aren't daft enough to think that your isolated experience contradicts well established, and absurdly well-documented cases of fact?

it baffles me that you attempt to base an argument upon a completely flawed premise that is roundly rejected by reality. sad.

You mean the premise that you could just hospital policies and laws so that non-family members could visit a sick person

 

[nehalem256]

I have no way to answer that question as I'm not the AG nor the ACLU. That doesn't change the specifics of this situation that actually exist though.

Well ignore the AG for a minute.

Do you think the AG should sue a muslim that didn't sell Korans to a Christina Koran burning?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well ignore the AG for a minute.

Do you think the AG should sue a muslim that didn't sell Korans to a Christina Koran burning?

Do they sell to other book burners? Are book burners a protected class? Freedom of speech allows you to burn them but that's not applicable to the merchant in your scenario. Merchants can refuse service. Just not for certain reasons.

Why would their religion be relevant in that scenario anyway? The denial to sell would be based on the action they intended to take. Unless the merchant sells to other book burners of other religions that is.

And before you make the obvious false equivelency, remember the florist specifically stated she refused on the basis of the gender of the parties being married. Not because she objects to weddings. Gender is a protected class, even if you try to say it's not because it was a same sex wedding.

If they just refused to sell a Koran to a Christian absolutely they should be held to the same standard but what you present is not even remotely the same as the topic at hand.

 

[Retro Rob]

And they should be, the Mormon church was threatened in the 1970's with lawsuits for not giving equal access to the priesthood for black people,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-tries-to-re_b_739652.html

Bob Jones university had their tax exempt status threatened by the IRS for not allowing interracial dating which subsequently resulted in the birth of the religious right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

In both cases they were private organizations not open to the general public like a restaurant or a florist yet that didn't stop the government from going after them.

Expect to see the same thing happen in the near future with gay rights.

Sometimes the best way to win a fight is to deny the battle but zealots on both sides can't seem to get this to the detriment of us all.

Like I said in the DC... the Bible never condenmed people of a different race...this was sheer bigotry on the part of Mormonism with no justification. Why do you think Jesus opened up Christianity to "people of the nations"...meaning non-Jews? There weren't any barriers on race really at all scriptually, which should hold all the weight with Bible-based religions.

Gay marriges, on the other hand are totally different. Sure, Jesus made no direct references to it, but he did speak about marriage still being between a man and woman when he quoted Genesis 2:24. If people want to speak about the polygamy that was allowed in the Bible, well... they still never married persons of the same-sex.

Personally, I don't see why gays would want to marry somewhere they aren't wanted. I wouldn't dare take my wife to a KKK-operated facility to get married.

 

[nehalem256]

Do they sell to other book burners? Are book burners a protected class? Freedom of speech allows you to burn them but that's not applicable to the merchant in your scenario. Merchants can refuse service. Just not for certain reasons.

Are people getting a same-sex marriage a protected class?

Why would their religion be relevant in that scenario anyway? The denial to sell would be based on the action they intended to take. Unless the merchant sells to other book burners of other religions that is.

You mean like the florists denial is based on the event they are planning. Namely a same-sex marriage.

And before you make the obvious false equivelency, remember the florist specifically stated she refused on the basis of the gender of the parties being married. Not because she objects to weddings. Gender is a protected class, even if you try to say it's not because it was a same sex wedding.

If they just refused to sell a Koran to a Christian absolutely they should be held to the same standard but what you present is not even remotely the same as the topic at hand.

The florist has no problems selling flowers to men. She has no problem selling flowers to women. She has no problems selling flowers to gays.

She has a problem with selling flowers to a same-sex marriage.

This is plain and simple nothing more than a liberal AG seeking an opportunity to shove his beliefs down other people's throats.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Are people getting a same-sex marriage a protected class?



You mean like the florists denial is based on the event they are planning. Namely a same-sex marriage.



The florist has no problems selling flowers to men. She has no problem selling flowers to women. She has no problems selling flowers to gays.

She has a problem with selling flowers to a same-sex marriage.

Everything you said comes down to the same answer. She openly stated she objected to a marriage that was not between a man and a woman. That is gender discrimination no matter how you try to build up this ridiculous argument.

Yes it was a same sex marriage. Yes she stated she refused because she objects to the genders off the participants in that marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

Everything you said comes down to the same answer. She openly stated she objected to a marriage that was not between a man and a woman. That is gender discrimination no matter how you try to build up this ridiculous argument.

Yes it was a same sex marriage. Yes she stated she refused because she objects to the genders off the participants in that marriage.

No it isn't. It would only be gender discrimination if she sold flowers to a female-female wedding, but not a male-male wedding.

And the reason she is not selling flowers to the person has nothing to do with the gender of the person she is selling to.

 

[aarontpx]

I don't like the florist's stance, but I defend their right to choose to be assholes.

I agree. It's a private business.

 

[jpeyton]

I agree. It's a private business.

Is the business open to the public? Than it is subject to public accommodation laws, end of story.

 

[Incorruptible]

I agree. It's a private business.

Very true. If someone owns a business then because it is private property they have the right to refuse service to anyone. The laws that deny this should not exist and are supported by people who believe they can tell others how to think and behave.

Why would someone want to go to a business who is only serving them because they are forced to? Wouldn't people prefer to go to a business where the business doesn't care who they are?

That would require a brain but dont expect the big government supporters to understand this.

 

[jpeyton]

Very true. If someone owns a business then because it is private property they have the right to refuse service to anyone.

You should test this supposed right. Start a business that's open to the public, and the first time a black couple walks in, turn them away.

Cite your relationship with Jesus Christ for bonus points (and to help you solicit the inevitable donations you'll need for your legal defense).

 

[nehalem256]

You should test this supposed right. Start a business that's open to the public, and the first time a black couple walks in, turn them away.

Cite your relationship with Jesus Christ for bonus points (and to help you solicit the inevitable donations you'll need for your legal defense).

This is a BS comparison.

The florist believes same-sex marriage is wrong. By forcing her to service the wedding you are making her go against her conscience.

Unless you are arguing the some people believe that black people should not be allowed to do business with others the comparison is invalid.

 

[nehalem256]

I think the real irony here is that the real problem is that the florist was not sufficiently "bigoted" against homosexuals that we have a problem. I mean you don't see many Nazi bookstores being sued for not hiring Jews.

 

[her209]

I think the real irony here is that the real problem is that the florist was not sufficiently "bigoted" against homosexuals that we have a problem. I mean you don't see many Nazi bookstores being sued for not hiring Jews.

No the real irony here is the ones screaming about private property. What does the florist care what buyers legally do with the flowers once they've paid for it since she has no problems selling to gays and straight in the past.

 

[MagickMan]

Is the business open to the public? Than it is subject to public accommodation laws, end of story.

Maybe there, but not here. Many states uphold the rights of business owners to refuse service to anyone for any reason, unless the individual being denied the service is in imminent danger. Last I heard, being denied flowers isn't a threat to life and limb, unless you happen to be marrying a psychopath.

 

[Incorruptible]

You should test this supposed right. Start a business that's open to the public, and the first time a black couple walks in, turn them away.

Cite your relationship with Jesus Christ for bonus points (and to help you solicit the inevitable donations you'll need for your legal defense).

I have the right to choose who to service and it doesn't matter what some law which violates the Constitution says. We have many laws that violate the Constitution.

Only an idiot would deny service to certain customers because they would lose money along with hurting their reputation and people would boycott the business. This is the free market at work and is a much better solution than the government essentially bullying a business.

Would you have the same problem if it was a gay owner who refused to service straight people? A black owner who refused to service whites?

Both those cases the owners are wrong but they have a right to do it but the government cant discriminate though and that is when the people would have a legitimate complaint.

The ACLU ought to be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing.