Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[lotus503]

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.

Thats rubbish, the florist can choose not to attend any gay weddings, her business however cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The florist could choose not to do any weddings and to personally attend all hetro weddings and not attend gay weddings.

this is about the business that is incorporated in the state of Washington and subject to the laws of the state in operating that business.

The florist is not personally compelled to do anything, the business however is compelled to provide service in accordance with the law.

 

[thraashman]

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.

A) There is a difference between government sponsoring something and private individuals. So the existing case law may not apply. I've seen other case law mention that since sexual orientation does not constitute a protected class that discrimination laws don't cover them, but that the 14th Amendment explicitly does protect in the case of discrimination coming from the government. It didn't mention private individuals but did specifically mention government. In that case it was likely because they didn't want that ruling to set precedence for private individuals or businesses.

B) Equal rights and protections is not a gay agenda dude.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Doesn't matter. Similar statutes have already been tried by private individuals refusing service to events they disagree with based on religious grounds. They lost. A person does not have a right to violate state anti-discrimination laws with their business in this case. Period.

You want special privileges for people to discriminate against gay people. Despite your constant attempts to secure more and more special privileges, we're going to have to shoot you down again. Sorry. This is called 'not being overcome with irrational hatred of gays and women'. Maybe you should try it sometime.

 

[lotus503]

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.

No we are not

we are talking about the government and the corporation Arlenes flowers inc.
In this case its the corporation Arlenes flowers inc. that is compelled by law to provide service in accordance with the law of the state in which it operates.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

Exactly. She is discriminating based on the wedding not sexual orientation.

 

[nehalem256]

You want special privileges for people to discriminate against gay people. Despite your constant attempts to secure more and more special privileges, we're going to have to shoot you down again. Sorry. This is called 'not being overcome with irrational hatred of gays and women'. Maybe you should try it sometime.

What special privilege are we talking about? She wants the right to not participate as a florist in a wedding she disagrees with.

Ironically you are the one who is in favor of "special privilege". What do you call creating a "protected class" is not "special privilege".

EDIT: You do realize I am supporting a woman in this case right

 

[lotus503]

Exactly. She is discriminating based on the wedding not sexual orientation.

That would only be true if she didn't service hetro weddings.

but since its only gay weddings its discrimination.

 

[nehalem256]

B) Equal rights and protections is not a gay agenda dude.

Forcing a florist to participate in your wedding at essentially gun point it pushing a gay agenda.

Reveling in destroying the livelihood of a old lady because she disagrees with your definition of marriage is pushing a gay agenda.

 

[nehalem256]

That would only be true if she didn't service hetro weddings.

but since its only gay weddings its discrimination.

I think you mean same-sex weddings which are available to both gays and straights.

 

[fskimospy]

What special privilege are we talking about? She wants the right to not participate as a florist in a wedding she disagrees with.

Ironically you are the one who is in favor of "special privilege". What do you call creating a "protected class" is not "special privilege".

Businesses are required to obey the laws of the state in which they operate.

This is inarguably an incident of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

You want a special privilege not to comply with the business laws of her state.

This is simplicity itself.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you mean same-sex weddings which are available to both gays and straights.

Again, your argument is the inverse of the argument that gay people are not discriminated against because they can get straight married. This type of argument has been rejected. Desperately repeating yourself will not make it any less stupid.

 

[nehalem256]

Businesses are required to obey the laws of the state in which they operate.

This is inarguably an incident of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

You want a special privilege not to comply with the business laws of her state.

This is simplicity itself.

Just because you pass a law to force your views on others does not mean you are not forcing your views on others.

At best what you are saying is that Washington passed a law giving gays special privileges , which allow you to force your views of marriage on the florist.

Again, your argument is the inverse of the argument that gay people are not discriminated against because they can get straight married. This type of argument has been rejected. Desperately repeating yourself will not make it any less stupid.

It has not been rejected by anyone who can think. In fact from the original article:

The aborted transaction has caused a brouhaha in Washington, which legalized same-sex marriage in November but remains divided over the issue.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Its called same-sex marriage bro, get with the lingo. And I have no reason to believe that the florist would not discriminate against a straight couple getting a same-sex marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

I think you mean same-sex weddings which are available to both gays and straights.

Why would they (heterosexuals) want a same-sex marriage? Why would they want a reception and the services of a florist?

 

[nehalem256]

Why would they (heterosexuals) want a same-sex marriage?

For the same reasons as a gay couple.

The 1500+ rights associated with marriage. Why wouldn't 2 straight men or 2 straight women want a same-sex marriage?

See post 184 and 185: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34873484&postcount=184

 

[lotus503]

I think you mean same-sex weddings which are available to both gays and straights.

I think once we have discrimination of same sex weddings of straight people in court we can discuss this precident. but thats not the case in this situation and I suspect your argument will be shredded by the courts if its presented at all.

 

[zsdersw]

For the same reasons as a gay couple.

The 1500+ rights associated with marriage. Why wouldn't 2 straight men or 2 straight women want a same-sex marriage?

See post 184 and 185: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34873484&postcount=184

Why would they want a reception and the services of a florist? Receptions in particular and marriages in general celebrate love.. not tax benefits and miscellaneous rights.

The rights associated with marriage are granted to a married couple by government because of the ideal conditions that a committed loving couple represents. In the case of heterosexual marriage, it's the ideal environment for procreation. In the case of homosexual marriage, it is the ideal environment for reducing the spread of disease, improving health and productivity, and reducing crime and drug abuse.

 

[nehalem256]

Why would they want a reception and the services of a florist? Receptions in particular and marriages in general celebrate love.. not tax benefits and miscellaneous rights.

Why would gay people want a woman, who think their relationship will cause them to burn in hell for all eternity, to be the florist at their wedding...

Clearly, people do crazy things sometimes.

Government recognized marriage has nothing to do with love. It is all about the 1500+ rights.

 

[fskimospy]

Just because you pass a law to force your views on others does not mean you are not forcing your views on others.

At best what you are saying is that Washington passed a law giving gays special privileges , which allow you to force your views of marriage on the florist.

So if you want to argue that we should remove protections for gay people you are welcome to do that. That is not what you are currently arguing however, which is for special privileges to violate state law. Stop trying to change the subject and just admit you want special privileges.

It has not been rejected by anyone who can think. In fact from the original article:

Nothing in that quote in any way involves what I said. That's pretty great from someone chastising others for an inability to think.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Its called same-sex marriage bro, get with the lingo. And I have no reason to believe that the florist would not discriminate against a straight couple getting a same-sex marriage.

Irrelevant. In order to be discriminatory against gay people it is not required that straight people be utterly unable to perform the activity requested. This is basic information that you don't seem to understand.

 

[nehalem256]

So if you want to argue that we should remove protections for gay people you are welcome to do that. That is not what you are currently arguing however, which is for special privileges to violate state law. Stop trying to change the subject and just admit you want special privileges.

And by protections you mean special privileges.

Irrelevant. In order to be discriminatory against gay people it is not required that straight people be utterly unable to perform the activity requested. This is basic information that you don't seem to understand.

Straight people have an equal right to same-sex marriage. This is basic information you don't seem to understand.

Furthermore the real problem is that when the florist speaks of marriage and when you, and the state of Washington, speak of marriage you are really referring to 2 totally different things.

 

[zsdersw]

Why would gay people want a woman, who think their relationship will cause them to burn in hell for all eternity, to be the florist at their wedding...

Probably because they were happy with her work on previous occasions and, as she has in the past, thought she wouldn't let her personal problem with homosexuals and/or homosexual relationships interfere with her business.

 

[zsdersw]

And by protections you mean special privileges.

Such as?

 

[nehalem256]

Such as?

You do realize that we are talking about the state of Washington passing a special law forcing people to service same-sex weddings against their beliefs right?

 

[lotus503]

You do realize that we are talking about the state of Washington passing a special law forcing people to service same-sex weddings against their beliefs right?

Not at all,

The state of Washington has passed law indicting a business must not discriminate. Businesses dont have beliefs beyond mission statements and maybe some operating values.

The people that own or operate the business may have beliefs but those beliefs don't matter at all when the business is servicing the public and has to adhere to state law.

The owner of arlenes if free to feel however she does about the issue but her business is not free to discriminate.

 

[fskimospy]

And by protections you mean special privileges.

It's interesting to watch you desperately try and change the subject. Why can't you admit you're asking for special privileges?

Straight people have an equal right to same-sex marriage. This is basic information you don't seem to understand.

Furthermore the real problem is that when the florist speaks of marriage and when you, and the state of Washington, speak of marriage you are really referring to 2 totally different things.

Irrelevant. Not only does the technical ability of straight people to participate in an activity not preclude it being used as anti-gay discrimination, but what she thinks marriage is is irrelevant as well.

 

[nehalem256]

Not at all,

The state of Washington has passed law indicting a business must not discriminate. Businesses dont have beliefs beyond mission statements and maybe some operating values.

The people that own or operate the business may have beliefs but those beliefs don't matter at all when the business is servicing the public and has to adhere to state law.

The owner of arlenes if free to feel however she does about the issue but her business is not free to discriminate.

And what if none of Arlenes employees are willing to service the wedding?

I guess Arlene the business would be forced to take the gay couples business. But then Arlene the florist would be free to refuse to do work for Arlenes the business