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  
•       •       •

4425 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
 
2013-04-11 10:07:41 AM  

DrPainMD: You're rights aren't violated if someone refuses to associate with you.


Funny thing is....

Yes, they are, in a place of public accommodation.

Gulper Eel: the justification for the law is a lot thinner because this couple is quite able to escape discrimination.


Seriously?  Because one has alternatives, or recourse, that renders a Bad Act somehow Less Bad?

I punch you in the nose.  But because I did it in a open area, where you had multiple avenues of retreat, I am less blame-worthy than if I had you backed against a wall?

What the hell kind of an analysis are you making, here?

Bad Acts are Bad Acts, and are not mitigated by the possibility of the victim's finding alternative situations.

DrPainMD: Suffer? Really?


Hey, everybody!  Point and laugh at the idiot who doesn't know that words have multiple meanings!

"Suffer the little children to come unto Me"

Omigod, Jeezus wants children to suffer!
 
2013-04-11 10:11:24 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Petsmart once refused to sell me rats because its staff (rightly) suspected I planned to feed snakes. I had no legal recourse even though my purpose was perfectly legal, like gay marriage in Washington.  This florist refuses to sell flowers because she knows for certain they will be used in a gay wedding.  I don't see why anyone has legal recourse against her.


Snake feeding is not a statutorily-protected class.

Does it hurt to be so obstinately ignorant?
 
2013-04-11 11:21:56 AM  

Securitywyrm: I argue that you're doing it for religious grounds and not political grounds. You have no way to disprove what I say. Your move.


The courts (and myself) are more interested in legal precedent than in what some guy on a message board thinks. In this instance, the legal precedent is that picketing soldiers' funerals is considered a political statement. And you are free to discriminate based on the fact that you don't agree with their political statements.

It is what the courts have determined, whether we agree or not.
 
2013-04-11 12:19:47 PM  

dv-ous: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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!

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.


Interesting thought...

If we legalized prostitution, and can't discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, can prostitutes who are gender-selective be sued? Or would some other rules override that? (Employee protection rules, or establishment terms of service - I can get kicked out of a movie theater for talking on the phone, despite freedom of speech.)

We'd have to legalize prostitution first. You're just talking about rape, which will likely remain illegal.

Slippery slopes are usually pretty dumb, but I'll address this one:

As far as your hypothetical, I think it's mostly a matter of perspective. Anti-discrimination laws require businesses (and perhaps more importantly, government) not discriminate based on X, Y, or Z. They can still deny service for any number of other reasons, even made up ones. But when they do that, they need to not admit it.

She could easily have taken their order, discussed their needs, and then claimed that she was booked and would be too busy to do it. Recommending a competitor is a surefire way to tell a customer that you don't want to do business with them but are too polite to say so. WITHOUT breaking the law.

Business owners turn that around and complain that they're either being forced to serve people, or that they will be unable to deny service for legit reasons to people who are members of X, Y or Z group. Thing is, that's total bullshiat. If you walk into Starbucks, pee in a corner, threaten a barista, and call another customer a bunch of nasty names, it doesn't matter if you're gay, black, and in a wheelchair - you'll be asked to leave, and forced if necessary.


>>>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.

Actually, I was trolling just a bit there, but....

>>>If we legalized prostitution, and can't discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, can prostitutes who are gender-selective be sued? Or would some other rules override that? (Employee protection rules, or establishment terms of service - I can get kicked out of a movie theater for talking on the phone, despite freedom of speech.)
>>>>We'd have to legalize prostitution first. You're just talking about rape, which will likely remain illegal.


Very interesting. You would have definitely have a conflict there. If a hooker refused to give a black guy a BJ because she says she doesn't like how blacks taste, is she discriminating and committing a hate crime? Remember, she is selling a legal product. And the law says she must sell it to all comers (cumers) without discriminating. That was actually the sort of situation I was thinking of, above, about the bending over.

>>>>Slippery slopes are usually pretty dumb, but I'll address this one

Actually, no. Happens all the time in physics and politics. But for validity one has to limit the consequences and be able to demonstrate the process. As Wiki states: "In slippery slope is an [1] The strength of such an argument depends on the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope - great article.

>>>>>As far as your hypothetical, I think it's mostly a matter of perspective. Anti-discrimination laws require businesses (and perhaps more importantly, government) not discriminate based on X, Y, or Z. They can still deny service for any number of other reasons, even made up ones. But when they do that, they need to not admit it.
>>>>>She could easily have taken their order, discussed their needs, and then claimed that she was booked and would be too busy to do it. Recommending a competitor is a surefire way to tell a customer that you don't want to do business with them but are too polite to say so. WITHOUT breaking the law.

So we teach people to circumvent the law by corrupting their honesty. Yes, that will surely work and lead to a wonderful culture.  I don't remember where it is from (either "Crime and Punishment" or "The Gulag Archipelago" - or maybe it was something by Tolstoy) but there was an interesting series of observations about political prisoners in the Czar's prison system. It had to do with the concept of violence-based crime -vs- political/morality-based crime. The first concerned "positive" (initiated) action against victims: murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. The second involved "passive" (secondary) actions that were arbitrarily designated by the State as crimes. This law is an example of the latter, and, yes, is a slippery slope item. The literary observation was something to the effect that when the prisons fill up with political prisoners, the real crimes become irrelevant - and often acceptable.
 
2013-04-11 12:43:13 PM  

Beeblebrox: 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.


Or simply the fact that I added an afterthought I didn't make in the Boobies.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Oh, wait, I forgot: you're a Mind Reader and a Genius. So sorry, my bad, I defer to your Wonderfulness.
 
2013-04-11 12:47:51 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".


Obviously to be defined as such by some new law (which happens all the time in many areas). Example: Legal definition of an "assault weapon" is just a tad different from what actually IS an assault weapon.
 
2013-04-11 01:02:00 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Obviously to be defined as such by some new law


IOW, "I got nuthin', aside from my fevered imagination".

That people can't (or won't) grasp that the existing statues were drafted precisely to exclude the absurdities that they continue to pointlessly raise genuinely mystifies me.
 
2013-04-11 01:42:43 PM  

Deucednuisance: statuTes


FTFM.  How embarassing.

Management regrets the error.

Oh, and JAOCHG?  Why do you persist in talking about crimes?

This is a civil action, no-one's being exposed to criminal penalty (i.e. jail) here.

Also, your "just don't admit it" concept is profoundly stupid.  Intent can be established by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil case without any admission thereof.  Happens every day. Although it needn't be.  It can simply be inferred from the denial of service, especially if there is a pattern of such denials, and from the remainder of the establishment's business practices.

So, basically, you really, really got nuthin'.
 
2013-04-11 02:06:53 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: >>>If we legalized prostitution, and can't discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, can prostitutes who are gender-selective be sued? Or would some other rules override that? (Employee protection rules, or establishment terms of service - I can get kicked out of a movie theater for talking on the phone, despite freedom of speech.)
>>>>We'd have to legalize prostitution first. You're just talking about rape, which will likely remain illegal.


Very interesting. You would have definitely have a conflict there. If a hooker refused to give a black guy a BJ because she says she doesn't like how blacks taste, is she discriminating and committing a hate crime? Remember, she is selling a legal product. And the law says she must sell it to all comers (cumers) without discriminating. That was actually the sort of situation I was thinking of, above, about the bending over.


Discrimination is business based, not employee based.  If we allow an individual to just go out and become a self employed hooker, then they as a single employee business could be in trouble for refusing to service a customer.  But if prostitution requires a brothel that employs hookers, then as long as the brothel has some hookers who will cater to clients of whatever demographic, then all should be fine.

Side example: A pharmacist who doesn't want to sell birth control is ok as long as the pharmacy has another person on staff and present who will sell it.  Otherwise it'd be like going to a restaurant and saying "I want that vegan girl who makes the salads to also be the one who cooks my steak." and then getting mad if she refused.  As long as one of the cooks will cook your steak, then all is well.
 
2013-04-11 02:19:45 PM  
Also on the prostitution thing, specifically the gender issues, a business doesn't have to engage in the entire spectrum of that business.  A restaurant doesn't have to have a vegetarian menu.  An auto shop doesn't have to replace transmissions.  Discrimination would be based on the reason for refusal of service.

"We can't offer you same sex encounters."  "Why not?"  "We don't have any employees who are gay."
"We can't offer you a blow job."  "Why not?"  "We just don't provide that service."
"We can't sell you baked Alaska." "Why not?"  "We don't have any employees who know how to make it."
None are discrimination.

"We can't offer you same sex encounters."  "Why not?"  "Gay men are gross, if you were a lesbian, then OK."
"We can't offer you a blow job."  "Why not?"  "You're handicapped.  Go away cripple!"
 "We can't sell you baked Alaska." "Why not?"  "Because you're fat, order a salad!"
 All are discrimination.


A brothel doesn't have to offer blow jobs, or anal sex.  They would be fine saying "missionary only".
 
2013-04-11 03:21:14 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: I'm with the florist on this.

Wedding flowers are a big thing. It's not like the happy couple goes into Sears and walks out with a lawn mower. They become clients of the florist, who has to go to the location and work closely with them. Privately owned businesses should be able to choose who they take on as clients, for whatever reason. And yes, that means they should be free to be homophobic or racist or whatever. Let the market take care of them after.


The Market is not God.
 
2013-04-11 03:29:52 PM  

Deucednuisance: This is a civil action, no-one's being exposed to criminal penalty (i.e. jail) here.


Not quite. The AG is making the threat of a $2000 fine with more to come if she doesn't straighten up (so to speak), and the gay couple are demanding five grand and that she recant.

Jesse Jackson would be envious of their shakedown skills.
 
2013-04-11 03:32:28 PM  

shortymac: The Market is not God.


The thing that always gets me about the "let the market take care of it" argument is that it requires harm as a prerequisite to corrective action.  Why is that the preferable position? Why not just prevent the harm in the first place?
 
2013-04-11 03:37:16 PM  

Gulper Eel: Not quite. The AG is making the threat of a $2000 fine with more to come if she doesn't straighten up (so to speak), and the gay couple are demanding five grand and that she recant.


Yes, quite.

It's a civil action, not a criminal one.  What does the loser in a civil case usually do?

Cough up the dough.  This is not news, nor rocket science.
 
2013-04-11 03:38:06 PM  
Whoops meant to add:

"The Florist is being sued, not put on trial."
 
2013-04-11 03:48:19 PM  

Deucednuisance: DrPainMD: You're rights aren't violated if someone refuses to associate with you.

Funny thing is....

Yes, they are, in a place of public accommodation.


No, they aren't.

Gulper Eel: the justification for the law is a lot thinner because this couple is quite able to escape discrimination.

Seriously?  Because one has alternatives, or recourse, that renders a Bad Act somehow Less Bad?


Associating with whom you choose and not associating with whom you choose are not bad acts.

I punch you in the nose.  But because I did it in a open area, where you had multiple avenues of retreat, I am less blame-worthy than if I had you backed against a wall?

You're equating ignoring a person with punching a person? Really?

What the hell kind of an analysis are you making, here?

Bad Acts are Bad Acts, and are not mitigated by the possibility of the victim's finding alternative situations.

DrPainMD: Suffer? Really?

Hey, everybody!  Point and laugh at the idiot who doesn't know that words have multiple meanings!

"Suffer the little children to come unto Me"

Omigod, Jeezus wants children to suffer!


You were using the more common, "to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss," definition, so I don't know what that rant was all about.
 
2013-04-11 03:50:16 PM  

Deucednuisance: Hey, everybody!  Point and laugh at the idiot...


PS. People are pointing and laughing at the idiot. But, I'm not the idiot.
 
2013-04-11 06:12:39 PM  

Deucednuisance: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Obviously to be defined as such by some new law

IOW, "I got nuthin', aside from my fevered imagination".

That people can't (or won't) grasp that the existing statues were drafted precisely to exclude the absurdities that they continue to pointlessly raise genuinely mystifies me.


>>>Obviously to be defined as such by some new law
 
Plenty of historical precedent for that. Read a bit.

Oh, wait, you're a lib, so you don't know or care about history.

Never mind.
 
2013-04-11 06:16:15 PM  

DrPainMD: Associating with whom you choose and not associating with whom you choose are not bad acts.


Bad enough for the State of Washington to make a civil case over it.

Look, it was pretty disingenuous to pull the "Just ignoring" card when the person to who whom you made the initial complaint to has a whole freaking thread of context, which is about retail and service establishments.  If you "just ignore" someone in that context, it is by definition a Bad Act in the state of Washington.  No matter how much you think it shouldn't be.  You're just wrong, dude.

DrPainMD: PS. People are pointing and laughing at the idiot. But, I'm not the idiot.


Yes, we are, considering that I am neither the one who introduced the word, nor its criticism nor ever used your offered "common" definition.

Inability to follow the train of thought and properly attribute what's been said to whom doesn't enhance yer credibility, Doc, much less your poor strawmen.
 
2013-04-11 06:18:59 PM  

Deucednuisance: the person to who whom you made the initial complaint to


OK, I apologize for that little bit of Language Abuse.

Time to leave the office and git mah drink on!
 
2013-04-11 06:23:25 PM  

stonicus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: >>>If we legalized prostitution, and can't discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, can prostitutes who are gender-selective be sued? Or would some other rules override that? (Employee protection rules, or establishment terms of service - I can get kicked out of a movie theater for talking on the phone, despite freedom of speech.)
>>>>We'd have to legalize prostitution first. You're just talking about rape, which will likely remain illegal.


Very interesting. You would have definitely have a conflict there. If a hooker refused to give a black guy a BJ because she says she doesn't like how blacks taste, is she discriminating and committing a hate crime? Remember, she is selling a legal product. And the law says she must sell it to all comers (cumers) without discriminating. That was actually the sort of situation I was thinking of, above, about the bending over.

Discrimination is business based, not employee based.  If we allow an individual to just go out and become a self employed hooker, then they as a single employee business could be in trouble for refusing to service a customer. But if prostitution requires a brothel that employs hookers, then as long as the brothel has some hookers who will cater to clients of whatever demographic, then all should be fine.

Side example: A pharmacist who doesn't want to sell birth control is ok as long as the pharmacy has another person on staff and present who will sell it.  Otherwise it'd be like going to a restaurant and saying "I want that vegan girl who makes the salads to also be the one who cooks my steak." and then getting mad if she refused.  As long as one of the cooks will cook your steak, then all is well.


>>>>If we allow an individual to just go out and become a self employed hooker, then they as a single employee business could be in trouble for refusing to service a customer.

This is what I'm taking about. I'd love to see that court case.

I'm seriously looking forward to all this hate crime and non-discrimination stuff coming back to bite the libtards in the ass. You know it will, someday.
 
2013-04-11 06:39:58 PM  
According to findlaw.com...

You can usually refuse service in the following situations:

When a customer is not properly dressed
When a customer has been, or is being, disruptive
When a customer harasses your employees or other customers
When there are safety concerns
When you know someone can't, or won't, pay
When a customer is intoxicated or high
When you need to protect another customer's privacy

But if you are refusing service BECAUSE someone is part of a protected class of consumer, then it's bad. The two gents in question did not give her a reason to refuse them service; indeed, she told them she was refusing service because it was for a gay wedding. Protected class = discrimination. Boom.
 
2013-04-11 09:29:55 PM  

Voiceofreason01: SuperNinjaToad:
This is a private business and they have the 'right' to sell or not sell to anyone they so chooses.


No they don't. As an example if you run a business that is open to the public you cannot legally refuse to sell to someone because of their religion, race, sex, nation of origin, age, and in the State of Washington sexual orientation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class


I know protected class... but again there is nothing in the state or federal law that specifically states that private businesses can or cannot conduct business dealings with the 'protected class'.
 
Displayed 23 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report