Freaking out and flipping tables is a valid response.

iamrex... Paging iamrex to the white courtesy phone...

Why is anyone surprised by this?  It's always been this way for us queers - if you want flowers, wedding cake, whatever - you go to a gay-owned business.  To avoid this very thing.

/Relatioship with a human o the same gender = Bad
//Relationship with 2,000-year-old invisible zombie = A-OK

This case is a refreshing change from the usual drill.  Normally, a gay couple would claim discrimination and the florist would claim religious freedom.  But here, the AG is claiming consumer harm and the florist is claiming free speech.

Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time. Why would anyone give a shiat?

BarkingUnicorn: This case is a refreshing change from the usual drill.  Normally, a gay couple would claim discrimination and the florist would claim religious freedom.  But here, the AG is claiming consumer harm and the florist is claiming free speech.

Artistic expression, even.

Benevolent Misanthrope: iamrex... Paging iamrex to the white courtesy phone...

I love showing up and seeing that my work is already done.

*Applause*

Spad31: Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time. Why would anyone give a shiat?

Substitute "Jews" or "Blacks" for gays.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Spad31: Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time. Why would anyone give a shiat?

Substitute "Jews" or "Blacks" for gays.

Uh, okay. Blacks or Jews aren't special. Just go spend your money somewhere else. Easy. Again, why would anyone give a shiat?

Spad31: Benevolent Misanthrope: Spad31: Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time. Why would anyone give a shiat?

Substitute "Jews" or "Blacks" for gays.

Uh, okay. Blacks or Jews aren't special. Just go spend your money somewhere else. Easy. Again, why would anyone give a shiat?

So you would be cool with a business owner refusing to serve someone because they were black?  Really?   Okay, now I know for sure you're trolling.  Got me.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Spad31: Benevolent Misanthrope: Spad31: Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time. Why would anyone give a shiat?

Substitute "Jews" or "Blacks" for gays.

Uh, okay. Blacks or Jews aren't special. Just go spend your money somewhere else. Easy. Again, why would anyone give a shiat?

So you would be cool with a business owner refusing to serve someone because they were black?  Really?   Okay, now I know for sure you're trolling.  Got me.

No, of course I'm not trolling. If some shopkeeper is being an asshat, just take your money somewhere else.

Benevolent Misanthrope: iamrex... Paging iamrex to the white courtesy phone...

Why is anyone surprised by this?  It's always been this way for us queers - if you want flowers, wedding cake, whatever - you go to a gay-owned business.  To avoid this very thing.

/Relatioship with a human o the same gender = Bad
//Relationship with 2,000-year-old invisible zombie = A-OK

You come to us gays for your wedding needs if you don't want your wedding to look like it was done by Sears and Dollar General.

Benevolent, just so we're clear love, I understand your point and agree. I just don't have the ability to make someone not be an asshole if they've decided they're going to be. no one does. The only thing I can do is take my business somewhere else, go try to continue having a good day and maybe get laid. Then a sammich or something.

"Although gay 'marriage' may be legal in Washington for the time being, the concept offends the conscious [sic] of Ms. Stutzman

Why does it not surprise me that the lawyers representing her either do not know the difference between conscience and conscious or cannot effectively proofread a document that will be submitted to a court. My guess is both.

If she wants to put herself out of business by sticking to her Christian beliefs, that's her choice. I'm sure her gay-friendly competition is cool with it too...so what's the state doing getting involved, besides pandering?

Spad31: Benevolent, just so we're clear love, I understand your point and agree. I just don't have the ability to make someone not be an asshole if they've decided they're going to be. no one does. The only thing I can do is take my business somewhere else, go try to continue having a good day and maybe get laid. Then a sammich or something.

You can't stop them, true, and neither can I.  But the State AG, acting on behalf of The People, can tell her, "Hey - knock it the fark off.  The People don't see that as acceptable behavior, and they've passed laws saying that.  You're being an asshole.  Quit it."

Benevolent Misanthrope: Spad31: Benevolent, just so we're clear love, I understand your point and agree. I just don't have the ability to make someone not be an asshole if they've decided they're going to be. no one does. The only thing I can do is take my business somewhere else, go try to continue having a good day and maybe get laid. Then a sammich or something.

You can't stop them, true, and neither can I.  But the State AG, acting on behalf of The People, can tell her, "Hey - knock it the fark off.  The People don't see that as acceptable behavior, and they've passed laws saying that.  You're being an asshole.  Quit it."

I'm glad you read and responded. Waited all day for it. ;)  I truly wasn't trolling you, you know. You've been here long enough that you're noticed and appreciated.

I'm still not convinced the AG has any ground to tell anyone what sort of customers they want to do business with. If some ass doesn't like a particular person, they don't have to do business with them. The customer isn't obligated in any way to give said ass money. They (the asshole) don't have to "quit it" because someone got their feelings hurt. Yes, that is a slippery slope...where do you draw the line? I'm of the mind we have too many folks worrying about too many things as it is and not enough just actual responsibility. But, I'm old and cranky, so there you go. Have a great day!

Benevolent Misanthrope: But the State AG, acting on behalf of The People, can tell her, "Hey - knock it the fark off. The People don't see that as acceptable behavior, and they've passed laws saying that. You're being an asshole. Quit it."

The People are able to see it as they choose without the state doing it for them. We don't have a situation here where gay couples are charged $2000 but straight couples get to pay $600 for the same flowers, and state would have a logical reason to step in. There are plenty of competing florists who would be delighted to take the gay couple's business. So what we have is a florist who's lost at the very least an employee two customers, and no doubt plenty more since she's earned herself a shiatload of bad press. Looks like the problem will solve itself without the state needing to ride to the rescue.

One of the commenters over at the Stranger brought up a good point, which I'll paraphrase: what if your friendly local Knights of Columbus chapter president walks into your print shop wanting a bunch of anti-same-sex-marriage flyers printed, and you tell him to go shiat in a hat?

I realize the Washington law applies to public accommodation, but does a flower order for a private wedding really fall under that heading?

Gulper Eel: One of the commenters over at the Stranger brought up a good point, which I'll paraphrase: what if your friendly local Knights of Columbus chapter president walks into your print shop wanting a bunch of anti-same-sex-marriage flyers printed, and you tell him to go shiat in a hat?

I realize the Washington law applies to public accommodation, but does a flower order for a private wedding really fall under that heading?

I feel as though this is one of those pick your battles wisely situations.  Denying essential services to anyone based on personal prejudice is and should be against the law and enforced by the State, flowers don't fall into that category.  Basically, this gives every Bible Thumping Bigot reason to point their finger and shout "SEE!  WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED BY THE GAYS!" with spittle flecked lips.  Not every injustice needs to be rectified by the law, sometimes it can be dealt with by going on Yelp and writing:  "This florist refused to serve us because of our sexual orientation, if you support equal rights, find another florist."

Well, how about this then: Since the Religious Right consider homosexuality to be a mental illness which can be cured, I think this would fall under the ADA, discriminating against someone with a disability.

Spad31: I'm still not convinced the AG has any ground to tell anyone what sort of customers they want to do business with. If some ass doesn't like a particular person, they don't have to do business with them. The customer isn't obligated in any way to give said ass money. They (the asshole) don't have to "quit it" because someone got their feelings hurt. Yes, that is a slippery slope...where do you draw the line? I'm of the mind we have too many folks worrying about too many things as it is and not enough just actual responsibility. But, I'm old and cranky, so there you go. Have a great day!

Thanks for your kind words. :)

As a gay person, I see it more as a "sitting at the whites only lunch counter" thing, but that's probably because I've been the recipient of legalized anti-gay harassment for a very long time.   Any business person has a right to deny service, but when you deny service because someone is part of a class of persons that the law (passed by The People) says, "Knock off treating these people differently", then we have a problem.

Gulper Eel: One of the commenters over at the Stranger brought up a good point, which I'll paraphrase: what if your friendly local Knights of Columbus chapter president walks into your print shop wanting a bunch of anti-same-sex-marriage flyers printed, and you tell him to go shiat in a hat?

I realize the Washington law applies to public accommodation, but does a flower order for a private wedding really fall under that heading?

If I did tell them to piss up a rope because they're KoC, and there was a law specifically saying I can't deny them service for being KoC, then I would expect to be sued and have a civil rights violation slapped on me for good measure.  If, however, I denied them service for asking me to print legally-defined hate speech, I'm protected.  When I deny them because I don't like their opinion, that's when the waters get muddy.

Look at it this way:  The gay couple came to her to do flowers.  They were denied because they're gay, not because the florist didn't like their colors or choice of plant species.  There's a law that says you can't do that - nor can she deny someone because they're Freewill Four-Square Gospel Baptist and she's Freewill Four-Square Primitive Baptist, or because they're a Seekrit Ae-rabb Mooslim, or because they're black.

It may seem a subtle difference, but for people like me who have been denied service time and again for just being who we are, and treated as third-class humans (or not EVEN human) by people around us and by the law, for a long time, it's a real difference.

Spad31: Benevolent Misanthrope: Spad31: Benevolent, just so we're clear love, I understand your point and agree. I just don't have the ability to make someone not be an asshole if they've decided they're going to be. no one does. The only thing I can do is take my business somewhere else, go try to continue having a good day and maybe get laid. Then a sammich or something.

You can't stop them, true, and neither can I.  But the State AG, acting on behalf of The People, can tell her, "Hey - knock it the fark off.  The People don't see that as acceptable behavior, and they've passed laws saying that.  You're being an asshole.  Quit it."

I'm glad you read and responded. Waited all day for it. ;)  I truly wasn't trolling you, you know. You've been here long enough that you're noticed and appreciated.

I'm still not convinced the AG has any ground to tell anyone what sort of customers they want to do business with. If some ass doesn't like a particular person, they don't have to do business with them. The customer isn't obligated in any way to give said ass money. They (the asshole) don't have to "quit it" because someone got their feelings hurt. Yes, that is a slippery slope...where do you draw the line? I'm of the mind we have too many folks worrying about too many things as it is and not enough just actual responsibility. But, I'm old and cranky, so there you go. Have a great day!

Except for the fact that occurs when you begin discriminating against those customers not simply because you want to be an asshole, but because you just don't like their skin color, or what god they pray to, or because they like cock.

The first two are against the Civil Rights act of 1966 unless it is a private club that does not do any interstate commerce. The last one is against the Civil Rights Acts of many states.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Spad31: I'm still not convinced the AG has any ground to tell anyone what sort of customers they want to do business with. If some ass doesn't like a particular person, they don't have to do business with them. The customer isn't obligated in any way to give said ass money. They (the asshole) don't have to "quit it" because someone got their feelings hurt. Yes, that is a slippery slope...where do you draw the line? I'm of the mind we have too many folks worrying about too many things as it is and not enough just actual responsibility. But, I'm old and cranky, so there you go. Have a great day!

Thanks for your kind words. :)

As a gay person, I see it more as a "sitting at the whites only lunch counter" thing, but that's probably because I've been the recipient of legalized anti-gay harassment for a very long time.   Any business person has a right to deny service, but when you deny service because someone is part of a class of persons that the law (passed by The People) says, "Knock off treating these people differently", then we have a problem.

Gulper Eel: One of the commenters over at the Stranger brought up a good point, which I'll paraphrase: what if your friendly local Knights of Columbus chapter president walks into your print shop wanting a bunch of anti-same-sex-marriage flyers printed, and you tell him to go shiat in a hat?

I realize the Washington law applies to public accommodation, but does a flower order for a private wedding really fall under that heading?

If I did tell them to piss up a rope because they're KoC, and there was a law specifically saying I can't deny them service for being KoC, then I would expect to be sued and have a civil rights violation slapped on me for good measure.  If, however, I denied them service for asking me to print legally-defined hate speech, I'm protected.  When I deny them because I don't like their opinion, that's when the waters get muddy.

Look at it this way:  The gay couple came to her to do flowers.  They wer ...

Love, you can sit at my counter any day. I cook well and have a passion for it, but I don't know squat about floral stuff. You'll have to find some gay guy for the accoutrements!

Benevolent Misanthrope: Why is anyone surprised by this? It's always been this way for us queers - if you want flowers, wedding cake, whatever - you go to a gay-owned business. To avoid this very thing.

So you're advocating for free market solutions?

Good to see.

BarkingUnicorn: This case is a refreshing change from the usual drill.  Normally, a gay couple would claim discrimination and the florist would claim religious freedom.  But here, the AG is claiming consumer harm and the florist is claiming free speech.

Orientation is a protected class in Washington, florist is a "place of public accommodation", florist admits to discrimination. Suit seems like a slam dunk.