Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[fskimospy]

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

You can't be this stupid. Do you just enjoy being dogpiled on internet boards? Is there some part of you that treasures everyone telling you how stupid you are?

 

[nehalem256]

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

Why can't you admit the state of Washington passed a law granting special privileges to gay people?

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.

Of course it is relevant. She provides services for Conservative-Marriage, but not Liberal-Marriage. These are 2 separate things. You are just being confused because you applied the same term to refer to 2 totally different things.

 

[nehalem256]

You can't be this stupid. Do you just enjoy being dogpiled on internet boards? Is there some part of you that treasures everyone telling you how stupid you are?

Are you saying the government can compel people to participate in a wedding?

If none of Arlene the businesses employees show up to perform the work how is that Arlene's the businesses fault?

 

[lotus503]

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

Arlene and her employees are free to say no and not service it, then the AG comes in as a matter of law and what happens, happens.

Fines and whatever other legal recourse the state has at its disposal.

The florist is free to do whatever she wants, she just isnt free to do it without the legal repercussions.

 

[lotus503]

Are you saying the government can compel people to participate in a wedding?

If none of Arlene the businesses employees show up to perform the work how is that Arlene's the businesses fault?

the law doesn't care arlene can employee people willing to work in accordance with state law, or suffer the repercussions of not ahering to the law.

Same thing as an employee not willing to wash their hands at a restaurant.
The restaurant doesn't have to do anything but the health department will.

 

[MagickMan]

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.

Gay marriage is outlawed in my state, constitutionally banned, you can't sue someone for not doing something that the state forbids in the first place. Gays are not a protected class here. Though I believe they should have the right to marry, or be civilly joined, a gay couple doesn't have the right to force someone to provide flowers for their unrecognized nuptials (at least not here).

 

[zsdersw]

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?

When you said "protections" meant "special privileges" I didn't think you were referring to marriage.

"Protections" describes anti-discrimination laws, such as in housing and employment, etc.

 

[MagickMan]

You can't be this stupid. Do you just enjoy being dogpiled on internet boards? Is there some part of you that treasures everyone telling you how stupid you are?

Hey, moron. Keep it in line. Either address the issue or GTFO. We're all doing a fairly decent job of discussing this, without some jackass trying to derail things.

 

[zsdersw]

Gay marriage is outlawed in my state, constitutionally banned, you can't sue someone for not doing something that the state forbids in the first place. Gays are not a protected class here. Though I believe they should have the right to marry, or be civilly joined, a gay couple doesn't have the right to force someone to provide flowers for their unrecognized nuptials (at least not here).

WA is the state in this thread, though.. not your state.

 

[MagickMan]

WA is the state in this thread, though.. not your state.

I was told my state would do the same, I was pointing out that it wouldn't.

 

[lotus503]

Gay marriage is outlawed in my state, constitutionally banned, you can't sue someone for not doing something that the state forbids in the first place. Gays are not a protected class here. Though I believe they should have the right to marry, or be civilly joined, a gay couple doesn't have the right to force someone to provide flowers for their unrecognized nuptials (at least not here).

Yup and in your state the flower shop would not be violating the law.
In my State Washington the flower shop is violating the law.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey, moron. Keep it in line. Either address the issue or GTFO. We're all doing a fairly decent job of discussing this, without some jackass trying to derail things.

I like how the guy who thinks businesses can refuse service to anyone they want is trying to call other people morons.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you saying the government can compel people to participate in a wedding?

If none of Arlene the businesses employees show up to perform the work how is that Arlene's the businesses fault?

The business will be fined in accordance with state law. The burden is on the business to not discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation. If Arlene's had such poor hiring practices that they are unable to comply with state law as a result of them that's Arlene's issue.

You realize that businesses are frequently held responsible for the conduct of their employees, right?

 

[MagickMan]

I like how the guy who thinks businesses can refuse service to anyone they want is trying to call other people morons.

Stay on topic, your irrelevant personal attacks are getting old. Either include pertinent information or STFU.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I was told my state would do the same, I was pointing out that it wouldn't.

No you said you changed and it was legal in your state to refuse to serve anyone as long as it wasn't life threatening. You didn't limit it to discrimination against gays.

You were rightfully corrected based on that claim as it was not accurate.

 

[fskimospy]

Stay on topic, your irrelevant personal attacks are getting old. Either include pertinent information or STFU.

lol.

"Hey moron, stop your irrelevant personal attacks."

You said something that was obviously wrong about anti-discrimination laws and I corrected you. What's the big deal?

 

[Fern]

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

While I disagree, I think you may opened up a potentially interesting avenue for her defense.

If the business cannot compel an employee (her in this case, assuming it's organized as a business) to participate in a gay wedding a defense might be that the business really refused service because it didn't have adequate staff (either enough or sufficiently qualified) to perform the service.

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

While I disagree, I think you may opened up a potentially interesting avenue for her defense.

If the business cannot compel an employee (her in this case, assuming it's organized as a business) to participate in a gay wedding a defense might be that the business really refused service because it didn't have adequate staff (either enough or sufficiently qualified) to perform the service.

Fern

Umm, what? The business could compel the owner to do it... Ta da!

 

[fskimospy]

While I disagree, I think you may opened up a potentially interesting avenue for her defense.

If the business cannot compel an employee (her in this case, assuming it's organized as a business) to participate in a gay wedding a defense might be that the business really refused service because it didn't have adequate staff (either enough or sufficiently qualified) to perform the service.

Fern

If their entire staff quit you might have a point, but considering that if I'm not mistaken the person in question is the owner that clearly would be no defense here. She could choose to close her business, but that's about it.

There really is no defense here. If anyone actually thinks this lady is going to win in court I'm taking any and all bets.

 

[Fern]

If their entire staff quit you might have a point, but considering that if I'm not mistaken the person in question is the owner that clearly would be no defense here. She could choose to close her business, but that's about it.

There really is no defense here. If anyone actually thinks this lady is going to win in court I'm taking any and all bets.

You don't know what work load the business had etc. No one here knows how many employees it had, or what the vacation schedule was. No one knows what the wedding request entails, e.g., how much tine and/or resources it would have required.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in my post, but what I am suggesting is the possible defense the wedding job was turned down because the business lacked the ability to do it, not actually because it was a gay wedding.

I'm more addressing the concept of the poster I quoted. He was stressing the business and the owner are separate and distinct entities.

Fern

 

[nehalem256]

Umm, what? The business could compel the owner to do it... Ta da!

So we are back to compelling individuals to support gay marriage because that is what progressives want.

There tolerance is clearly in full bloom.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't know what work load the business had etc. No one here knows how many employees it had, or what the vacation schedule was. No one knows what the wedding request entails, e.g., how much tine and/or resources it would have required.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in my post, but what I am suggesting is the possible defense the wedding job was turned down because the business lacked the ability to do it, not actually because it was a gay wedding.

I'm more addressing the concept of the poster I quoted. He was stressing the business and the owner are separate and distinct entities.

Fern

The owner explicitly stated that it was due to the fact that it was a same-sex wedding. It's literally in the first paragraph of the article quoted in the OP.

 

[nehalem256]

The owner explicitly stated that it was due to the fact that it was a same-sex wedding. It's literally in the first paragraph of the article quoted in the OP.

And was that Arlene the florist who didn't provide the flowers. Or Arlene's the business

Perhaps afterward Arlene's the business sent Arlene the florist to take homosexual-sensitivity training

 

[jpeyton]

Lawsuit #2 filed by the ACLU: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-usa-gaymarriage-washington-idUSBRE93I08820130419

 

[Hacp]

Government telling people how to run their business? Are we in NORTH KOREA?