Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[MagickMan]

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).

Then people would picket you, which is their right, and lawfully work to deny you income. You can't force people to do what you want, trying to legislate and force moral behavior is as bad as the behavior itself.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

See this post from DC by Fern

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34882214&postcount=145

Apparently being a wedding florist goes far beyond selling flowers OTC. And would normally involve being actively involved in the wedding.

Which goes back to the idea why do gay people want someone who finds their union abhorrent actively involved in their wedding?

Since people keep bringing up the comparison to inter-racial marriage. I wonder if they can cite a case of a racist being forced to be involved in an inter-racial marriage?

Maybe its not an issue because people getting an inter-racial marriage have enough sense not to want to involve racists? :hmm:

 

[MagickMan]

See this post from DC by Fern

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34882214&postcount=145

Apparently being a wedding florist goes far beyond selling flowers OTC. And would normally involve being actively involved in the wedding.

Which goes back to the idea why do gay people want someone who finds their union abhorrent actively involved in their wedding?

Since people keep bringing up the comparison to inter-racial marriage. I wonder if they can cite a case of a racist being forced to be involved in an inter-racial marriage?

Maybe its not an issue because people getting an inter-racial marriage have enough sense not to want to involve racists? :hmm:

IMO, it's like a black woman and white guy going to a shop known to be run by the Klan. Why would you want to potentially spoil your big day by dealing with a proprietor who doesn't approve of your union? That's just stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

See this post from DC by Fern

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34882214&postcount=145

Apparently being a wedding florist goes far beyond selling flowers OTC. And would normally involve being actively involved in the wedding.

Which goes back to the idea why do gay people want someone who finds their union abhorrent actively involved in their wedding?

Since people keep bringing up the comparison to inter-racial marriage. I wonder if they can cite a case of a racist being forced to be involved in an inter-racial marriage?

Maybe its not an issue because people getting an inter-racial marriage have enough sense not to want to involve racists? :hmm:

And then look at the responses. There's absolutely no way that the florist is going to be considered a participant in that ritual.

Absolutely no chance. Period.

 

[nehalem256]

And then look at the responses. There's absolutely no way that the florist is going to be considered a participant in that ritual.

Absolutely no chance. Period.

to quote you: "This is not the first case like this, btw. For example in New Mexico a photographer refused to shoot same sex weddings in violation of state law and used the religious freedom excuse. She lost, then she lost again on appeal. If photographers can't opt out, it's highly unlikely the florist can."

You do realize same-sex marriage is not licensed in New Mexico?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_New_Mexico

^_^

But I would be interested to hear about any examples involving inter-racial marriage.

Or do people getting inter-racial marriage just have enough common-sense and respect for other people that do not feel compelled to force other people to be involved in their wedding?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

IMO, it's like a black woman and white guy going to a shop known to be run by the Klan. Why would you want to potentially spoil your big day by dealing with a proprietor who doesn't approve of your union? That's just stupid.

Not sure how you come to that comparison. They shopped there for years and were well received. Why would they think they'd be denied suddenly for this order?

 

[nehalem256]

Not sure how you come to that comparison. They shopped there for years and were well received. Why would they think they'd be denied suddenly for this order?

So your argument is the real problem is not that the woman was bigoted, but that she wasn't bigoted enough?

And why would they think there would be a problem? Maybe because selling flowers to someone does not imply any approval of their lifestyle. But being involved in their wedding does.

 

[fskimospy]

to quote you: "This is not the first case like this, btw. For example in New Mexico a photographer refused to shoot same sex weddings in violation of state law and used the religious freedom excuse. She lost, then she lost again on appeal. If photographers can't opt out, it's highly unlikely the florist can."

You do realize same-sex marriage is not licensed in New Mexico?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_New_Mexico

^_^

But I would be interested to hear about any examples involving inter-racial marriage.

Or do people getting inter-racial marriage just have enough common-sense and respect for other people that do not feel compelled to force other people to be involved in their wedding?

You realize that's pointless, right? Gay people can still have weddings even if they aren't recognized by the state.

And of course the important part is that in NM it IS illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation... which is what happened in this case. It's also why she lost in court repeatedly.

Nice try at blaming the victim here, btw.

 

[nehalem256]

You realize that's pointless, right? Gay people can still have weddings even if they aren't recognized by the state.

Yes and in fact I have made that exact point repeatedly in the past. Funny how even conservatives don't go around send SSm Stormtroops to breakup non-state sanctioned same-sex weddings.

But apparently liberals have no such problem sending SSm Stormtroops to force little old ladies to participate in gay weddings.

So much for liberals having tolerance for other people's values.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes and in fact I have made that exact point repeatedly in the past. Funny how even conservatives don't go around send SSm Stormtroops to breakup non-state sanctioned same-sex weddings.

But apparently liberals have no such problem sending SSm Stormtroops to force little old ladies to participate in gay weddings.

So much for liberals having tolerance for other people's values.

We're trying to ensure that all businesses comply with the law and do not discriminate against people.

I understand that you want special privileges here, but in this case as well you won't get them.

 

[nehalem256]

We're trying to ensure that all businesses comply with the law and do not discriminate against people.

I understand that you want special privileges here, but in this case as well you won't get them.

(1) No PERSON is being discriminated. Do yo not understand the difference between a person and a COUPLE . The discrimination is not because of sexual orientation, but because of an event the florist disagrees with.

(2) Even if you want to argue that the business is technically in violation of the letter of the law. I think it is pretty easy to argue that this is something the AG should look the other way in. Kinda like the cop looking the other direction when you go 3mph over the speed limit.

(3) And if you still disagree (1) and (2) this is still a unquestionably a case of liberals wanting to force their values on others.

 

[jpeyton]

Maybe there, but not here.

So the florist has another option: move to another state.

Then people would picket you, which is their right, and lawfully work to deny you income. You can't force people to do what you want, trying to legislate and force moral behavior is as bad as the behavior itself.

Sure you can. The government forces private businesses to follow all sorts of laws. If you want to open a restaurant, there is a telephone book full of rules and regs covering everything from mandatory employee break periods to the width of exit doorways to accessibility provisions for the handicap. What's laughable is how you think someone can do whatever whenever they want in an open-to-the-public business with zero oversight from the government.

What you do inside your own home, to a certain extent, is your own business. But if you operate a business open-to-the-public, government oversight has been a fact of life for longer than you and I have been alive.

 

[fskimospy]

(1) No PERSON is being discriminated. Do yo not understand the difference between a person and a COUPLE . The discrimination is not because of sexual orientation, but because of an event the florist disagrees with.

(2) Even if you want to argue that the business is technically in violation of the letter of the law. I think it is pretty easy to argue that this is something the AG should look the other way in. Kinda like the cop looking the other direction when you go 3mph over the speed limit.

(3) And if you still disagree (1) and (2) this is still a unquestionably a case of liberals wanting to force their values on others.

1.) So your argument is that instead of one person being discriminated against, it's two. Great argument. The discrimination is explicitly due to sexual orientation, as admitted by the owner of the shop. As I mentioned before, your argument that it doesn't count as discrimination because two straight people could get gay married would be laughed out of court.

2.) Yes, sexual orientation discrimination is totally like speeding. Absurd.

3.) Absolutely! Who cares? Laws against murder are forcing your values on people too. It's not an inherently bad thing.

 

[nehalem256]

1.) So your argument is that instead of one person being discriminated against, it's two. Great argument. The discrimination is explicitly due to sexual orientation, as admitted by the owner of the shop. As I mentioned before, your argument that it doesn't count as discrimination because two straight people could get gay married would be laughed out of court.

2.) Yes, sexual orientation discrimination is totally like speeding. Absurd.

3.) Absolutely! Who cares? Laws against murder are forcing your values on people too. It's not an inherently bad thing.

(1) My argument is that couples are not a protected class. And that the discrimination is not because of sexual orientation. Straight people can get same-sex marriages too.

(2) You appear to miss my point. There is DISCRIMINATION and discrimination. This is clearly the little one. What this shows is that liberals want to completely and utterly destroy anyone who disagrees with them on same-sex marriage. Whether you think the law gives them that right or not is irrelevant, since the liberals were the ones that passed and the executed that law. As I said. Even conservatives do not send SSm Stormtroops to breakup same-sex weddings in their states.

(3) Yeah your right. Telling someone they have to find someone else to do the flowers for their wedding is exactly the same thing as murdering them

 

[jpeyton]

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.

I already provided you way to test your theory. Feel free to discriminate based on gender, race, age, creed, or sexual orientation and see if you are truly free to do whatever you please.

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.

Finally, we agree on something. This florist is the definition of an idiot.

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?

Absolutely.

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.

You keep talking about this "right" to discriminate in an open-to-the-public business, but that right doesn't exist under Washington state law.

 

[fskimospy]

(1) My argument is that couples are not a protected class. And that the discrimination is not because of sexual orientation. Straight people can get same-sex marriages too.

Yes, and I've told you that argument is retarded. There's nothing else to say other than to repeat that your argument would be laughed out of court.

(2) You appear to miss my point. There is DISCRIMINATION and discrimination. This is clearly the little one. What this shows is that liberals want to completely and utterly destroy anyone who disagrees with them on same-sex marriage. Whether you think the law gives them that right or not is irrelevant, since the liberals were the ones that passed and the executed that law. As I said. Even conservatives do not send SSm Stormtroops to breakup same-sex weddings in their states.

I like how enforcing the law (that carries a $2,000 fine) is now complete and utter destruction. You're raving hysterically.

(3) Yeah your right. Telling someone they have to find someone else to do the flowers for their wedding is exactly the same thing as murdering them

I never said they were the same in effect, only that they are both cases of using the power of government to enforce values.

 

[1prophet]

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.

I agree with you about the Mormons, but the point I was trying to make was the government telling a religious group who to include (especially when it comes to religious issues like priesthood) or not based on secular law,

that sets a dangerous precedent no matter how bigoted the group may be,

and since the gay rights movement compares itself to the civil rights movement you will see some in government attempt at actually forcing religious institutions to accept gay rights and/or gay marriage in some capacity.

The first amendment is not just to protect us from religion, but the religion from the state,

forcing ones beliefs on another like religion tries to do should always be illegal,

likewise the government should not be telling religion who can be their priests or who can date or marry in their religious institutions including private schools that accept no government aid no matter how bigoted it may appear to be.

The religious right was created and entered into politics due to the Bob Jones University issue, because some in the government thought they could forcibly wash some pigs of their sins but instead they opened the Pandora box and the rest is history and it seems about to be repeated.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785

For his part, Weyrich saw the evangelical discontent over the Bob Jones case as the opening he was looking for to start a new conservative movement using evangelicals as foot soldiers. Although both the Green decision of 1972 and the IRS action against Bob Jones University in 1975 predated Jimmy Carter's presidency, Weyrich succeeded in blaming Carter for efforts to revoke the taxexempt status of segregated Christian schools. He recruited James Dobson and Jerry Falwell to the cause, the latter of whom complained, "In some states it's easier to open a massage parlor than to open a Christian school."


Weyrich, whose conservative activism dates at least as far back as the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964, had been trying for years to energize evangelical voters over school prayer, abortion, or the proposed equal rights amendment to the Constitution.


"I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed," he recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. "What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation."


During the meeting in Washington, D.C., Weyrich went on to characterize the leaders of the Religious Right as reluctant to take up the abortion cause even close to a decade after the Roe ruling. "I had discussions with all the leading lights of the movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s, post–Roe v. Wade," he said, "and they were all arguing that that decision was one more reason why Christians had to isolate themselves from the rest of the world."


"What caused the movement to surface," Weyrich reiterated,"was the federal government's moves against Christian schools." The IRS threat against segregated schools, he said, "enraged the Christian community." That, not abortion, according to Weyrich, was what galvanized politically conservative evangelicals into the Religious Right and goaded them into action. "It was not the other things," he said.

 

[drebo]

I'll do you one better, and it was only 3 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Louisiana_interracial_marriage_incident

In that case, the Justice was forced to resign a month after the incident, 5 years short of when his term expired. That was an arguably better outcome than him being forced not to discriminate.

Entirely different.

Public officer vs. private business.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

What ever happened to "right to serve"?

Note: I am pro-Gay Civil Union.

 

[fskimospy]

Entirely different.

Public officer vs. private business.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

What ever happened to "right to serve"?

Note: I am pro-Gay Civil Union.

There is no right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

 

[MagickMan]

Not sure how you come to that comparison. They shopped there for years and were well received. Why would they think they'd be denied suddenly for this order?

Because it's common sense? Grabbing some roses at the store is different than a full event with all the trimmings.

 

[MagickMan]

So the florist has another option: move to another state.


Sure you can.

Only if you have no problem with being a part of a Marxist state. Liberty is liberty, warts and all. Don't like parts? Too bad, because there are parts other people don't care for either. Of course, being a dildo and shoving your views and opinions down everyone's throats seems to be what Democracy is all about these days.

 

[MagickMan]

There is no right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

As long as the person's life isn't in danger, they can in my state. Fuck that "you must do this" noise, and fuck a country that would force everyone to believe in the same things.

 

[fskimospy]

As long as the person's life isn't in danger, they can in my state. Fuck that "you must do this" noise, and fuck a country that would force everyone to believe in the same things.

Nope, I guarantee you that they can't. There's a reason we don't have whites only restaurants anymore.

 

[umbrella39]

As long as the person's life isn't in danger, they can in my state. Fuck that "you must do this" noise, and fuck a country that would force everyone to believe in the same things.

Nah... fuck people who think they can discriminate and get away with it in the year 2013. Honestly I had no problem with them being black customers for years. But I'll be damned if they are going to use MY flowers in their wedding. Fuck blacks getting married. That's my belief, I'm a business owner, the laws don't apply to me. Your strawmen don't change any of that.

 

[Ackmed]

Fuck them. Go to a different florist and stop crying about it.