Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[nehalem256]

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.

Please provide one shred of evidence of anyone believing that a black man and black woman should not be allowed to marry each other

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Please provide one shred of evidence of anyone believing that a black man and black woman should not be allowed to marry each other

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/mississippi-black-couple-wedding

Certainly don't want them getting married in certain places anyway.

 

[nehalem256]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/mississippi-black-couple-wedding

Certainly don't want them getting married in certain places anyway.

Which is exactly the difference I was trying to point out.

(1) They don't want black people getting married in MY church, but they have no issue with black people getting married in general.
vs.
(2) They don't think black people should be able to get married at all.

No one believes (2). Whereas the florist does believe (2) for couples of the same sex, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Which is exactly the difference I was trying to point out.

(1) They don't want black people getting married in MY church, but they have no issue with black people getting married in general.
vs.
(2) They don't think black people should be able to get married at all.

No one believes (2). Whereas the florist does believe (2) for couples of the same sex, regardless of sexual orientation.

You don't know what they believe. You are inferring. And umbrella said nothing about they should not be allowed to marry in his example. He was referring to an individual saying they don't have to provide the service based on race.

 

[nehalem256]

You don't know what they believe. You are inferring. And umbrella said nothing about they should not be allowed to marry in his example. He was referring to an individual saying they don't have to provide the service based on race.

Well we could continue with my point.

Someone might not want a black person eating in their restaurant, or getting a haircut at their barbershop, shop at their store, or being employed by them.

But no one believes a black person shouldn't be allowed to eat in any restaurant, get a haircut, shop at any store, or have a job.

So by the same token the florist has no problems with employing or selling to homosexuals.

She has a problem with same-sex marriage regardless of the sexual orientation of the people involved. She is not denying service based on sexual orientation, but on an event she feels is wrong.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well we could continue with my point.

Someone might not want a black person eating in their restaurant, or getting a haircut at their barbershop, shop at their store, or being employed by them.

But no one believes a black person shouldn't be allowed to eat in any restaurant, get a haircut, shop at any store, or have a job.

So by the same token the florist has no problems with employing or selling to homosexuals.

She has a problem with same-sex marriage regardless of the sexual orientation of the people involved. She is not denying service based on sexual orientation, but on an event she feels is wrong.

And under the law she can't do that no matter how finely you want to split hairs. She isn't against marriage or weddings. She services plenty. So her objection to this one is either based on sexuality or gender.

The law doesn't not permit a business owner to withhold service for either of those reasons. You can try to make it not about the people all you want and call it an event but the law will never agree with that distinction.

Removing sexual orientation she is still denying based on gender. She outright said as much.

 

[MagickMan]

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.

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

I don't really care, it's still bullshit to try and force people to do something that they feel is in support of an immoral act. People gotta eat, but people don't have to have flowers at weddings, and they can find 100 other florists to supply them anyway. All you're doing is deepening the divide, instead of allowing society to change on its own. Eventually it will, but it'll take longer when you rub others the wrong way.

Oh, and I checked, and yes, in my state you do still have the right to deny service to anyone, when it involves a non-life threatening situation. I suppose she can move if it bothers her too much.

 

[MagickMan]

Removing sexual orientation she is still denying based on gender. She outright said as much.

and in some states gay marriage isn't recognized, or is outright constitutionally banned. She could say no in Texas, and about 20 other states, but obviously she can't in California.

 

[nehalem256]

And under the law she can't do that no matter how finely you want to split hairs. She isn't against marriage or weddings. She services plenty. So her objection to this one is either based on sexuality or gender.

Nope. She would deny service to a same-sex marriage regardless of whether the couple was straight or gay. and she would deny the the service whether the couple was male-male or female-female.

Discrimination based on sexuality or gender not found.

Basically the problem is you are closed minded and cannot understand that she sees a same-sex marriage to be a completely different thing than opposite sex marriage.

Try being more tolerant and understanding of other people's viewpoints

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I don't really care, it's still bullshit to try and force people to do something that they feel is in support of an immoral act. People gotta eat, but people don't have to have flowers at weddings, and they can find 100 other florists to supply them anyway. All you're doing is deepening the divide, instead of allowing society to change on its own. Eventually it will, but it'll take longer when you rub others the wrong way.

Oh, and I checked, and yes, in my state you do still have the right to deny service to anyone, when it involves a non-life threatening situation. I suppose she can move if it bothers her too much.

Yeah I'm just going to go ahead and call your statement bullshit irrelevant of what state you are in as the Federal Civil Rights Act applies to all states. No one anywhere within the United States operating a public accommodation business can legally refuse service for whatever reason they want.

 

[MagickMan]

Yeah I'm just going to go ahead and call your statement bullshit irrelevant of what state you are in as the Federal Civil Rights Act applies to all states. No one anywhere within the United States operating a public accommodation business can legally refuse service for whatever reason they want.

Flowers aren't a necessity for living (like shelter and food), and marriage is still handled by individual states. Same sex marriage is forbidden in may states. It's hard to make someone supply roses for your wedding, when the place you're having it doesn't recognize that gays can even marry each other.

 

[fskimospy]

Flowers aren't a necessity for living (like shelter and food), and marriage is still handled by individual states. Same sex marriage is forbidden in may states. It's hard to make someone supply roses for your wedding, when the place you're having it doesn't recognize that gays can even marry each other.

Doesn't matter. Federal civil rights act still applies. People in your state do not have the right to refuse service on account of race, gender, etc.

Period.

 

[nehalem256]

Doesn't matter. Federal civil rights act still applies. People in your state do not have the right to refuse service on account of race, gender, etc.

Period.

You do realize that the Federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage right?

 

[Incorruptible]

Doesn't matter. Federal civil rights act still applies. People in your state do not have the right to refuse service on account of race, gender, etc.

Period.

And that shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[thraashman]

Doesn't matter. Federal civil rights act still applies. People in your state do not have the right to refuse service on account of race, gender, etc.

Period.

Sexual orientation does not exist as a protected class at the federal level as the inclusion was blocked by Republicans. This state however does include sexual orientation as a protected class, that makes this a state issue, not federal.

There have however been some federal court cases that established that sexual orientation is a protected class based on the 14th Amendment.

 

[lotus503]

I don't really care, it's still bullshit to try and force people to do something that they feel is in support of an immoral act. People gotta eat, but people don't have to have flowers at weddings, and they can find 100 other florists to supply them anyway. All you're doing is deepening the divide, instead of allowing society to change on its own. Eventually it will, but it'll take longer when you rub others the wrong way.

Oh, and I checked, and yes, in my state you do still have the right to deny service to anyone, when it involves a non-life threatening situation. I suppose she can move if it bothers her too much.

The florist also doesn't have to a run a business and operate it outside of the law. Owning a business is not a constitutional right, when you want to run one you have to abide by the laws of the state in which your incorporated.

Your confusing the right to refuse service to anyone, with the right to discriminate against a legally protected group of people.

 

[nehalem256]

Your confusing the right to refuse service to anyone, with the right to discriminate against a legally protected group of people.

And you are confusing discriminating against a protected group of people with choosing not to provide service for an event the florist disagrees with.

 

[thraashman]

And you are confusing discriminating against a protected group of people with choosing not to provide service for an event the florist disagrees with.

Honestly, while I disagree with the concept, this argument might actually hold legal muster here. The law is full of tiny little technicalities, and the florist may be able to effectively argue that she wasn't denying service based on sexual orientation but based on the event at hand. Oddly enough nehalem made a decent argument earlier about a Muslim denying selling a Koran to a Christian not based on religion but based on the Christian intended to bring it to a Koran burning.

I don't like nehalem's views, but as far as legality he may be correct here.

 

[fskimospy]

Honestly, while I disagree with the concept, this argument might actually hold legal muster here. The law is full of tiny little technicalities, and the florist may be able to effectively argue that she wasn't denying service based on sexual orientation but based on the event at hand. Oddly enough nehalem made a decent argument earlier about a Muslim denying selling a Koran to a Christian not based on religion but based on the Christian intended to bring it to a Koran burning.

I don't like nehalem's views, but as far as legality he may be correct here.

I guarantee you he hasn't. There is in fact prior court precedent for just this sort of thing (only involving a photographer instead of a florist) the photographer lost, big time.

As I said before, his argument would be laughed out of court. This case is open and shut.

 

[fskimospy]

Btw that argument is basically the inverse of "banning gay marriage doesn't discriminate against gays because they can still get straight married".

 

[nehalem256]

Btw that argument is basically the inverse of "banning gay marriage doesn't discriminate against gays because they can still get straight married".

Except that in the one case we are talking about the government and in another we are talking about a private person.

A person has competing rights to freedom of conscience which you want to trample on to push you gay agenda. Its called tolerance and being open-minded. Perhaps you should try it sometime.

 

[zsdersw]

Its called tolerance and being open-minded. Perhaps you should try it sometime.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

 

[nehalem256]

Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

I do not support having government stormtroops go around a breakup private gay weddings in states that do not have legal same-sex marriage.

That would be the equivalent of what the AG is doing. In this case you have the government recognition you want, but even that is not enough. You want to force private individuals to support your unions.

 

[lotus503]

And you are confusing discriminating against a protected group of people with choosing not to provide service for an event the florist disagrees with.

Not at all, its flat out discrimination despite your mental gymnastics.
Its simple, the florist had no problems and did not exhibit discrimination until she was asked to provide flowers for the wedding, the wedding triggered the discrimination.

 

[zsdersw]

I do not support having government stormtroops go around a breakup private gay weddings in states that do not have legal same-sex marriage.

That would be the equivalent of what the AG is doing. In this case you have the government recognition you want, but even that is not enough. You want to force private individuals to support your unions.

No, I do not.