If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Stranger)   Washington state has filed a lawsuit against the florist who refused to do the flowers for a gay wedding due to her "relationship with Jesus". WWJD, indeed?   (slog.thestranger.com) divider line 273
    More: Followup, public accommodations, flower shops, Human Rights Commission, legal defense, discrimination law, federal courts  
•       •       •

4419 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2013 at 11:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



273 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-10 02:17:53 PM

leonel: I would have just moved onto another florist. Don't want my money? Fine. But you can't pay the rent with prayer.


THIS!!!

Denying service to anyone for religious, sexual orientation, race, gender or any other reason doesn't hurt the customer near as much as it hurts the business.
 
2013-04-10 02:19:35 PM
Tellingthem:
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't places like "Curves" be violating the law as ...

Surprisingly, yes. It depends on the particular state, though - as a result of some of those suits, many states amended their laws to give an exemption for health clubs.
 
2013-04-10 02:19:55 PM

Tellingthem: Just out of curiosity, wouldn't places like "Curves" be violating the law as well then?


I believe the argument there is that they are private clubs instead of "public accommodations." And private clubs don't have to adhere to these laws in the same way. Think of Augusta National, Masonic organizations, etc.

There have been successful lawsuits regarding these gyms refusing to employ males, however.
 
2013-04-10 02:20:41 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: IRQ12: Benevolent Misanthrope: IRQ12: Not a protected class, see you in the supreme court.  If it makes it that far.

Protected class in WA.  STFU.

Ohh it's in WA.  I guess that means their laws can't be challenged.  Does this apply to cities in WA too?  Can I buy a city and then make any law I want that cannot be challenged?

Damn - you're a thick sumbiatch.  Come back when you can demonstrate a semblance of understanding about protected classes, discrimination, and the relationship of local, state and federal government.


Ok I'm back.  Still pretty sure that states can't just make up protected classes!
 
2013-04-10 02:23:00 PM
Here's the thing - unless she ASKS EVERY SINGLE POTENTIAL CLIENT to fill out a questionnaire to determine if her relationship with Jesus permits them to do business together, then she has no claim.

Otherwise, she violates her relationship with Jesus every time she sells anything to an atheist, buddhist, etc.

I'm all for the "religious belief" exemption PROVIDED that they test every customer (every time) to make sure that their beliefs aren't being violated.
 
2013-04-10 02:25:02 PM

IRQ12: Still pretty sure that states can't just make up protected classes!


Federal laws require protections for certain groups. If a state wants to take it even further and extend protections to other groups they certainly can. Those protections are only available within the borders of that state, however.

The only thing a state can't do is to NOT extend protections to a class protected under federal statute.
 
2013-04-10 02:25:52 PM

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.


Lets put a spin on things shall we?  How about this question...

So you support the government lead effort to force business owners to do business with people they dislike/distrust?

Let me ask it even easier.  What farking business does the government have tell me who I can and can't and HAVE TO do business with, and why does that make any sense what so ever?

Now, don't get me wrong, I think protected classes are a reasonable reaction by the government.  I think "equality" laws are fine. (well, good idea, bad implementation, but that's government for you).  But I also think it's total bullshiat to force a business to do business with someone they choose not to serve.  That should be up to the business, and the community should shun and destroy that business by voting with their dollars.   The government should not be suing a florist for choosing not to get involved in something her religion says is an abomination
 
2013-04-10 02:28:01 PM

Theaetetus: Tellingthem:
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't places like "Curves" be violating the law as ...

Surprisingly, yes. It depends on the particular state, though - as a result of some of those suits, many states amended their laws to give an exemption for health clubs.


DemDave: Tellingthem: Just out of curiosity, wouldn't places like "Curves" be violating the law as well then?

I believe the argument there is that they are private clubs instead of "public accommodations." And private clubs don't have to adhere to these laws in the same way. Think of Augusta National, Masonic organizations, etc.

There have been successful lawsuits regarding these gyms refusing to employ males, however.


Ok it kind of makes sense and it doesn't. That is where i always have trouble in trying to figure things out. On one hand with places like those that are men only or women only I really have no problem with it because it's not a big deal to me. But on the other hand it does seem like selective discrimination. I highly doubt that we would let these places get away with only allowing a certain race. If curves is women only they get a pass but white only and now they are discriminating? I'm really not sure on what seems right or fair...
 
2013-04-10 02:31:26 PM

Kahabut: 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.

Lets put a spin on things shall we?  How about this question...

So you support the government lead effort to force business owners to do business with people they dislike/distrust?

Let me ask it even easier.  What farking business does the government have tell me who I can and can't and HAVE TO do business with, and why does that make any sense what so ever?

Now, don't get me wrong, I think protected classes are a reasonable reaction by the government.  I think "equality" laws are fine. (well, good idea, bad implementation, but that's government for you).  But I also think it's total bullshiat to force a business to do business with someone they choose not to serve.  That should be up to the business, and the community should shun and destroy that business by voting with their dollars.   The government should not be suing a florist for choosing not to get involved in something her religion says is an abomination


bcblue.files.wordpress.com
Stay classy!!
 
2013-04-10 02:34:57 PM

Tellingthem: I highly doubt that we would let these places get away with only allowing a certain race. If curves is women only they get a pass but white only and now they are discriminating?


Yes. As I said, the legislature can pass a law exempting health clubs. Now, that law would still come under equal protection analysis for constitutionality.
1) Gender is a quasi-suspect classification, so the state would need to show they have an important reason for passing the law. We can certainly argue about whether this qualifies, but a court could find that if a large number of women (or a number of large women) want to work out in a single-gender club for privacy reasons, that serving that population is an important reason. For example, religious muslim women may want to work out without wearing hijabs, but they can't do that around men.
2) Race is a suspect classification, so the state would need to show that they have a  compelling reason for passing the law, and that it's narrowly tailored to meet that reason. That some whites don't want to work out around blacks is probably not a compelling reason, since it's based only on animus and bigotry. Also, a law exempting health clubs from anti-discrimination statutes probably wouldn't be as narrowly tailored as possible.

Remember, the constitution doesn't say that the state can  never discriminate... It just says that they need a sufficiently good reason.
 
2013-04-10 02:41:21 PM

NightSteel: I live near where this occurred (heard of this before, but didn't realize that it had happened *here* until seeing this article). The problem with your idea is that, despite Washington being a blue state, the southeastern corner, though sparsely populated, is drenched in red. Conservatives, fundies, and teabaggers in this area have enormous chips on their shoulders, because those evil libs in Seattle get to decide everything. It fills them with impotent rage. (conservativetears.jpg)

The business might lose the few potential gay customers that are brave enough to be 'out' here, but by refusing to serve gay customers, they ensure that they will draw a lot of that conservative/fundie/teabagger business in support, like that Chick-fil-A hullabaloo awhile ago. I wouldn't be surprised if business there is through the roof--and gets even better now that the evil gub'mint is involved and persecuting a good Christian for her beliefs. This case pushes pretty much all of the conservative/fundie/teabagger buttons.



Sure, but it pushes the gay-rights buttons too. There's got to be a florist in the sinful lewd buttsexy part of Washington who wouldn't mind putting some extra mileage on the delivery van for the kind of free publicity they'd get working this particular same-sex union.

The law is what it is, but it was written by legislators who are by definition attention-seekers, and written as if it was still 1953 and Bull Connor was hosing down black people. Alternatives exist for this couple that were scarcely dreams 50 years ago. There may have been a compelling reason for the state to intervene decades ago, but not any more.

DemDave: I believe the argument there is that they are private clubs instead of "public accommodations." And private clubs don't have to adhere to these laws in the same way. Think of Augusta National, Masonic organizations, etc.


So isn't a wedding reception a sort of private club, at least a temporary one, since they're typically invite-only affairs?

The kind of public transaction involved in ordering flowers for a wedding is of a different nature than the kind of public transaction involved in sitting down at a Woolworth's lunch counter.

Theaetetus: There's nothing barring you from discrimination based on political belief.


So she'd be in the clear if she'd been savvy enough to STFU about the Jesus part and said she didn't agree with the politics that let them get married? That's peculiar.
 
2013-04-10 02:42:25 PM
Another waste of taxpayer money here in good old Washington state. I wonder why this even surprises me any more.
 
2013-04-10 02:44:36 PM
DJ'd weddings in 90s. One time, I get to a gig, set up, and look for bride & groom. Need to know: When do you want garter toss/dollar dance? Can I play Erotic City after kids go to bed? That stuff. B&G no where to be found and lots of confused people acting funny as I ask about. Show starts and the dance floor is pretty slow. I'm trying all the typical wedding stuff, nothing's working. Then, two guys walk up in tuxes. Guy: "I'm Mike, this is my partner, Wade. This is our commitment ceremony celebration. We lied to your boss by pretending to be a 'regular' couple because we were afraid you wouldn't take the job."

Me: "Well...shoot, why didn't you just say so?!" Threw on some B52s, Erasure, Dead or Alive, etc and rocked the party all the way to $300 tip. One of my favorite shows ever.

//the improvised garter toss was highlight of the night
 
2013-04-10 02:45:11 PM

Kahabut: Now, don't get me wrong, I think protected classes are a reasonable reaction by the government. I think "equality" laws are fine. (well, good idea, bad implementation, but that's government for you). But I also think it's total bullshiat to force a business to do business with someone they choose not to serve. That should be up to the business, and the community should shun and destroy that business by voting with their dollars. The government should not be suing a florist for choosing not to get involved in something her religion says is an abomination


Farking you as "pro-Jim Crowe and discrimination in general."

Because you're just endorsed it, dude.
 
2013-04-10 02:47:02 PM

Theaetetus: Tellingthem: I highly doubt that we would let these places get away with only allowing a certain race. If curves is women only they get a pass but white only and now they are discriminating?

Yes. As I said, the legislature can pass a law exempting health clubs. Now, that law would still come under equal protection analysis for constitutionality.
1) Gender is a quasi-suspect classification, so the state would need to show they have an important reason for passing the law. We can certainly argue about whether this qualifies, but a court could find that if a large number of women (or a number of large women) want to work out in a single-gender club for privacy reasons, that serving that population is an important reason. For example, religious muslim women may want to work out without wearing hijabs, but they can't do that around men.
2) Race is a suspect classification, so the state would need to show that they have a  compelling reason for passing the law, and that it's narrowly tailored to meet that reason. That some whites don't want to work out around blacks is probably not a compelling reason, since it's based only on animus and bigotry. Also, a law exempting health clubs from anti-discrimination statutes probably wouldn't be as narrowly tailored as possible.

Remember, the constitution doesn't say that the state can  never discriminate... It just says that they need a sufficiently good reason.


Ahhh sorry, I was thinking more on how i feel about the subject and what i think is right. Always kind of a tough thing to figure out. If I'm against discrimination how can i then support certain types of discrimination. It's a damn tough subject and I'm never sure if I'm on the right side or wrong half of the time.
 
2013-04-10 02:48:07 PM
we used to be a free country.
 
2013-04-10 02:52:36 PM

Gulper Eel: So isn't a wedding reception a sort of private club, at least a temporary one, since they're typically invite-only affairs?

The kind of public transaction involved in ordering flowers for a wedding is of a different nature than the kind of public transaction involved in sitting down at a Woolworth's lunch counter.


The law would not see a florist and a Woolworth's lunch counter as different. You go to the florist for the transaction. The florist is a public accommodation, just like a lunch counter is a public accommodation.

The fact that the flowers are for a private wedding reception is irrelevant.
 
2013-04-10 02:54:43 PM

Tellingthem: Ok it kind of makes sense and it doesn't. That is where i always have trouble in trying to figure things out. On one hand with places like those that are men only or women only I really have no problem with it because it's not a big deal to me. But on the other hand it does seem like selective discrimination. I highly doubt that we would let these places get away with only allowing a certain race. If curves is women only they get a pass but white only and now they are discriminating? I'm really not sure on what seems right or fair...



If we're a private club, then we can discriminate (within our walls) as we see fit thanks to the freedom of association the first amendment affords us. We can ban gays, women, blacks - anyone we want. Hell, it wasn't until 1990 that Augusta National allowed black players. And that was a voluntary decision on their part.

However, we waive our right to private association the minute we open our doors to the general public (like a business).

Places like Curves try to exist in some grey area in between. They operate like a business, but you "join" and pay a "membership" so they're technically a private club. I would imagine that if enough men sued (good luck with that!) then the courts would actually rule them a "public accommodation" and they'd have to allow men. But that's pure conjecture from someone without a JD.
 
2013-04-10 02:56:07 PM

aegean: we used to be a free country.


Sorry you lost the freedom to keep slaves, dude. Bummer.
 
2013-04-10 02:57:58 PM
Dem Dave, thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering.
 
2013-04-10 03:08:02 PM
Uhm, private business can make their own rules, separation of church and state. WA state, get out of their religion.

Sure it's tasteless but it should also be legal to deny service to whoever the hell you want for whatever reason. That this is because of their religious beliefs makes it doubly so. You can't force someone to do business with someone if they feel it violates their religious beliefs.

Your solution would be to open a gay florist next door and take their customers with your fabulous-ness.
 
2013-04-10 03:12:07 PM

ReverendJynxed: You can't force someone to do business with someone if they feel it violates their religious beliefs.


A business isn't a "someone." It's a business. Businesses aren't afforded freedom of religion; only private individuals are.
 
2013-04-10 03:21:28 PM

Begoggle: I'm the libbiest lib that ever libbed, but the AG is wrong.


I doubt that you are, because the AG is not.
 
2013-04-10 03:21:31 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: What she should have done is accepted the contract, then delivered totally farked up and wilted arrangements to the wedding, then said, oh, sorry, here's your money back.

This whole deal is stupid and dangerous... for the protected douchbag class. Say someone is a bigoted surgeon and refuse to do a sex-change operation on you. Do you REALLY want this guy to be FORCED by the State to perform the operation? Really?

People are stupid. Including gays.

Waiting patiently for some whiny moron to complain to Fark Mods about my hate speech.

Hey, go fark yourselves.


Replying to your own posts is a cry for help.
 
2013-04-10 03:29:59 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Slippery slope, indeed.  Looking forward to people getting sued by the State because they refused to strip and bend over for some gay guy who liked cut of their butt.


I look forward to your explanation of how said gay guy's randomly butt-frisking people is a "place of public accommodation".
 
2013-04-10 03:37:14 PM

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.


Okay, what about a KKK initiation ceremony?  They have to serve them too, right?
 
2013-04-10 03:43:47 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Stutzman claimed that "discrimination is not the issue," but rather that she is entitled to exercise her religious conscience and that arranging flowers is an act of personal expression, and as such, any restriction on how and where she sells flowers arrangements infringes on her First Amendment right to free speech.

Then go ahead and do your personal expression on your own time; but while you are operating a business with a business license in a State that says you cannot discriminate against consumers for race/sex/orientation then you must abide by those laws. Or the State has every right to simply sue you to get it through your thick skull that your first amendment right does not trump another's first amendment right. Or they could very well take your license away from you.


So, forced labor is okay, as long as you think the person is a bigot.  Got it.   Your "first amendment rights" include the right to force others to enter into a business agreement.  How nice for you, I wish MY first amendment rights worked that way.

Maybe we could force gay dancers and singers to perform for christian anti-gay rallies!  No religious discrimination allowed!
 
2013-04-10 03:49:35 PM

Canned Tamales: Okay, what about a KKK initiation ceremony?  They have to serve them too, right?



Depends on what grounds you're refusing service. If you claim that you're refusing service based on their political beliefs, then you'd actually be okay.

I'm not sure on what grounds the KKK bases their beliefs, though. If they claim to be a religious organization in any way, then they could try to spin it that you're refusing service based on their religious beliefs. If that's the case, you'd probably want to find a lawyer.
 
2013-04-10 03:52:12 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: socoloco: 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?

Apparently they want to be "more" special.

Honestly was that the only florist in the area? Really?

It doesn't matter if that was the only florist in the area or if they had a florist on every corner to choose from. They chose her business, she chose to refuse them because of their protected status.  AG has every right to lay the smackdown on people who refuse to follow laws, even if their reasoning amounts to "but this thing I think I read once."


That's great...now christians, protected by law against religious discrimination, can forcibly hire gay business people to cater their hate rallies, and even sing and dance for them!

Sauce for the goose, biatches.
 
2013-04-10 03:56:38 PM

Deucednuisance: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Slippery slope, indeed.  Looking forward to people getting sued by the State because they refused to strip and bend over for some gay guy who liked cut of their butt.

I look forward to your explanation of how said gay guy's randomly butt-frisking people is a "place of public accommodation".


media2.kjrh.com
Free prostate exams! And if you don't get one, Obama's death panels will come for you!
 
2013-04-10 03:57:17 PM
DemDave:   Businesses aren't afforded freedom of religion; only private individuals are.


Hmmm... Where do religious book and music stores fit in this? Should a Christian bookstore be forced to carry books from other religions? Or should they be forced to carry porn? Or both? Should a Catholic church be forced to open their doors to a Satanist cult?

The crime this florist committed was that she stated the real reason why she wouldn't serve the couple. As others said, if she had just come up with some excuse, she would not have been sued by the state. So now dishonesty is being propped up as the right way to do business legally in Washington State.
 
2013-04-10 04:03:43 PM

Jim DiGriz: Where do religious book and music stores fit in this? Should a Christian bookstore be forced to carry books from other religions? Or should they be forced to carry porn? Or both? Should a Catholic church be forced to open their doors to a Satanist cult?


It's a business just like any other. But that doesn't mean they have to cater to everyone. They just have to be willing to sell a book they have on their shelves to an atheist or muslim if they come into their store and find one they want.

Nobody tells Barnes and Noble what books they can and can't stock, so why would a Christian store be any different?

A Catholic church is not a business. It's a private organization. They can refuse to open their doors to anyone.
 
2013-04-10 04:03:47 PM

gerrymander: aspAddict: Would the AG sue a Muslim shop owner who refused to do business with someone wearing an "I LOVE BACON" shirt, or would the pork-eater be labelled as "insensitive" for having the NERVE to set foot in the Muslim shop?

Or, would the AG sue a bar owner if some dude is prevented from renting a corner of a gay bar for a 'private party' -- which happens to be a loud anti-gay sermon and scripture meeting, with beer?


This is the question I need answered.
 
2013-04-10 04:11:13 PM

Canned Tamales: That's great...now christians, protected by law against religious discrimination, can forcibly hire gay business people to cater their hate rallies, and even sing and dance for them!


You just can't say that the reason you're refusing to serve them is their religious beliefs.

In the case of Westboro Baptist, people have denied service for political reasons (they don't like them picketing soldiers' funerals) and that has been accepted by the courts. You could just as easily say you're denying service because you don't like their clothes or they smell funny, but I'm guessing the courts might see through that one.
 
2013-04-10 04:12:20 PM
Late but:

AG is wrong
Customer is an idiot
Shopkeeper is an even bigger idiot
The Bible does say gayness is bad
The marketplace could easily solve these issues w/o gov't meddling
 
2013-04-10 04:16:55 PM

Jim DiGriz: Hmmm... Where do religious book and music stores fit in this? Should a Christian bookstore be forced to carry books from other religions? Or should they be forced to carry porn? Or both? Should a Catholic church be forced to open their doors to a Satanist cult?


Goddam it, I really wish that folks who simply cannot be bothered to understand a simple point of law would stop throwing out ridiculous strawmen that have absolutely no bearing on the subject as if they were wise scholars pointing out damning inconsistencies.

What a retail establishment chooses to stock has nothing to do with it, OK?

Criminy!
 
2013-04-10 04:18:29 PM

Great Janitor: Why is this worthy of a lawsuit?  She refused to do business with a couple.  If she took their money and gave them nothing in return, I could see a case.  But saying "No, your being gay is against my religious beliefs."  shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit.  Just go to a different business who will cater to homosexuals.  This really gets to me because business owners should have the right to deny service to who ever they chose for what ever reason.  If they decide not to do business with you, find someone else.  Secondly, she cited her religious beliefs as the reason why.  Honestly, I don't give a damn about those beliefs, but if the government can step in and say "Yes, your religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin and you don't want to support it, but the law says you must or face a lawsuit."  is a dangerous overstep for the government in my opinion, and act as a precedent to allow for more government rules to bypass religious freedom.


Maybe that seems cool with you now, but if a business can deny service to anyone, for any reason, is it okay for a hospital to deny service? Or the only motel in town? Or an ob-gyn? or the only grocery store in walking distance?
 
2013-04-10 04:20:49 PM

DemDave: Tellingthem: Ok it kind of makes sense and it doesn't. That is where i always have trouble in trying to figure things out. On one hand with places like those that are men only or women only I really have no problem with it because it's not a big deal to me. But on the other hand it does seem like selective discrimination. I highly doubt that we would let these places get away with only allowing a certain race. If curves is women only they get a pass but white only and now they are discriminating? I'm really not sure on what seems right or fair...


If we're a private club, then we can discriminate (within our walls) as we see fit thanks to the freedom of association the first amendment affords us. We can ban gays, women, blacks - anyone we want. Hell, it wasn't until 1990 that Augusta National allowed black players. And that was a voluntary decision on their part.

However, we waive our right to private association the minute we open our doors to the general public (like a business).

Places like Curves try to exist in some grey area in between. They operate like a business, but you "join" and pay a "membership" so they're technically a private club. I would imagine that if enough men sued (good luck with that!) then the courts would actually rule them a "public accommodation" and they'd have to allow men. But that's pure conjecture from someone without a JD.


At the very least, the florist should be able to stay open as a "Florist for Christian church weddings".
Especially with small businesses and single -owner services, there is sometimes a deep religious or philosophical investment that I don't think the state should be able to overrule.
 
2013-04-10 04:23:26 PM

Canned Tamales: Okay, what about a KKK initiation ceremony? They have to serve them too, right?


You're either trolling/joking or just damn short bus material.  Private clubs / organizations aren't businesses.

Jim DiGriz: Hmmm... Where do religious book and music stores fit in this? Should a Christian bookstore be forced to carry books from other religions? Or should they be forced to carry porn? Or both? Should a Catholic church be forced to open their doors to a Satanist cult?


And as are you.  Private organizations/clubs (which would include a church) aren't businesses; they're exempt from such rules.

A Christian bookstore can stock whatever the fark they want.   They can NOT, however, discriminate against people shopping there.  If a Rabbi, a Sikh, and a Muslim went into a Christian bookstore and wanted to buy a bunch of books, it would be illegal to throw them out based on their respective religions.
 
2013-04-10 04:23:41 PM
FTFA: "The state cannot require a florist to express appreciation for, or acceptance of gay 'marriage' any more than the state can require a musician to write a song about it, or an artist to paint a picture."

Most musicians and artists don't setup a public storefront and say, "Hey, everyone come on in and I'll write you a song / paint you a picture!" like florists do... If they did, then yes they could force them to, or at least fine/sanction them for failing to obey the damn law! If you're offering to whore out your "creative talent" to anyone with enough cash, you don't get to hide behind the "But, I'm an artist with first amendment rights!!" argument, biatch...
 
2013-04-10 04:25:04 PM
Hi there Mr. Christian Bookstore Owner.  I'm a High Priest of the Church of Satan.  I want to buy 100 copies of your best-selling bible, and then film myself wiping my ass with the pagers, burning them, rolling cigs out of the pages, and spitting and pissing on them, while making speeches about what useless, disgusting idiots Christians are.  Because you operate a public store and not a private club, you MUST sell them to me, even though I have offended you deeply, and even though you believe you might be risking eternal damnation by doing so.

Thanks for understanding, it's all about EQUALITY and FREEDOM.  Peace be with you!
 
2013-04-10 04:26:28 PM

dr.zaeus: Or, would the AG sue a bar owner if some dude is prevented from renting a corner of a gay bar for a 'private party' -- which happens to be a loud anti-gay sermon and scripture meeting, with beer?


While you can't refuse service based on religion, I believe that you could refuse service based on the fact that they would be disruptive to your business (i.e., their loud gay-hating sermon would scare all of your other customers away).

If a muslim comes into your Christian book store and wants to buy a book, you have to help him. If he comes in and starts making a scene and prosthelytizing in the middle of your store, then he's disturbing the peace and you can have him escorted off of your private property.
 
2013-04-10 04:28:08 PM
High there, Mr. Non-Religious Building Contractor.  I'm Dave Miscavige, head of the Church of Scientology.  Even though you believe we are a criminal cult responsible for great amounts of psychological harm and even death, we need a church repaired.  because you own a business that operates publicly and not a private club, you will be our handyman this week.

Thanks for understanding, our religion is a protected class and you cannot refuse service or we'll sue you.  It's all about EQUALITY, don't you know!
 
2013-04-10 04:31:47 PM
Hi there, Mrs. Atheist Advertising Executive.  I'm the Pope, and you may have heard we've had a lot of trouble with our public image.  We need you to help us with a huge advertising campaign that will convince people that there was no church cover-up of child rape.  I'm sure you won't mind.  Oh, what's that, you were raped by a priest, and want nothing to do with our church?

Well, our religion is a protected class, and since this is not a private club, you cannot refuse us service...I see you did a billboard for a Synagogue last year, why are you such a bigot?   I guess we'll have to sue!  EQUALITY!
 
2013-04-10 04:36:01 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Canned Tamales: Okay, what about a KKK initiation ceremony? They have to serve them too, right?

You're either trolling/joking or just damn short bus material.  Private clubs / organizations aren't businesses.

Jim DiGriz: Hmmm... Where do religious book and music stores fit in this? Should a Christian bookstore be forced to carry books from other religions? Or should they be forced to carry porn? Or both? Should a Catholic church be forced to open their doors to a Satanist cult?

And as are you.  Private organizations/clubs (which would include a church) aren't businesses; they're exempt from such rules.

A Christian bookstore can stock whatever the fark they want.   They can NOT, however, discriminate against people shopping there.  If a Rabbi, a Sikh, and a Muslim went into a Christian bookstore and wanted to buy a bunch of books, it would be illegal to throw them out based on their respective religions.


I was talking about the KKK doing the hiring.  They are a Christian organization, and their racist beliefs are very much a part of their version of christianity.

So, a florist should have to provide flowers for their event, right?
 
2013-04-10 04:37:50 PM
After their Facebook page was overrun with comments, Arlene's Flowers is now back to specializing in Prom-Prom-Prom. Their tagline is:  Make it groovy, funky, spunky or glitzy!!

If that's not gay, I don't know what is.
 
2013-04-10 04:38:00 PM
www.genericsubject.com
Doesn't this cover it?
 
2013-04-10 04:48:08 PM

Great Janitor: Why is this worthy of a lawsuit?  She refused to do business with a couple.  If she took their money and gave them nothing in return, I could see a case.  But saying "No, your being gay is against my religious beliefs."  shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit.  Just go to a different business who will cater to homosexuals.  This really gets to me because business owners should have the right to deny service to who ever they chose for what ever reason.  If they decide not to do business with you, find someone else.  Secondly, she cited her religious beliefs as the reason why.  Honestly, I don't give a damn about those beliefs, but if the government can step in and say "Yes, your religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin and you don't want to support it, but the law says you must or face a lawsuit."  is a dangerous overstep for the government in my opinion, and act as a precedent to allow for more government rules to bypass religious freedom.


Your fantasy:

i651.photobucket.com

Actual Reality:


i651.photobucket.comi651.photobucket.comi651.photobucket.com

And then there's that pesky Amendment:


AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[snip]
 
2013-04-10 04:49:51 PM

saturn badger: [www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]
Doesn't this cover it?


Do you really believe that?
 
2013-04-10 04:52:24 PM
Hi there, Mr. Homosexual Florist.  I'm hosting a public reception for my new book "Why Homosexuality is a Sin in the Eyes of Our God".  We're going to need some flowers.  Oh, you don't want to?  Well, it is illegal to discriminate on religious grounds, you know.  You're running a business that is open to the public, so your own human feelings and values have no place in that, even though what you do is a passion and an art in your eyes.

Oh, also, we're doing some weddings at the First Church of Christian Puritans Who Think Gay is Yucky for Purely Religious Reasons.  You don't want to discriminate against us, do you?
 
Displayed 50 of 273 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report