Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4429 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
 
2013-04-10 01:11:26 AM  
Freaking out and flipping tables is a valid response.
 
2013-04-10 01:17:57 AM  
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
 
2013-04-10 01:18:15 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-10 01:18:28 AM  
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?
 
2013-04-10 01:20:47 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 01:21:16 AM  

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


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

*Applause*
 
2013-04-10 01:21:24 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 01:36:19 AM  

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?
 
2013-04-10 01:43:46 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 01:58:12 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 02:00:51 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 02:41:32 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-10 03:06:02 AM  
"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.
 
2013-04-10 06:23:22 AM  
0.tqn.com
 
2013-04-10 07:22:20 AM  
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?
 
2013-04-10 09:37:54 AM  

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."
 
2013-04-10 10:17:01 AM  

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!
 
2013-04-10 10:37:29 AM  

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?
 
2013-04-10 11:03:24 AM  

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."
 
2013-04-10 11:18:20 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-10 11:21:58 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 11:30:45 AM  

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?


0/10
 
2013-04-10 11:35:07 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 11:35:07 AM  
because she believed as a Christian "that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Another "christian" conservative that hasn't read the farking Bible.
 
2013-04-10 11:35:53 AM  

Gulper Eel: 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?


I'm wondering that as well.  I'm pretty sure there's no US constitutional right to purchase flowers.  Maybe it's different in Washington state.

If the customer had ordered a deathshead bouquet for his metal themed wedding and the florist found it unacceptable would it be OK to sue over that one as well?
 
2013-04-10 11:35:57 AM  
Stutzman claimed that "discrimination is not the issue," but rather that she is entitled to exercise her religious conscience and thatarranging 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.

Great, lady. Arrange flowers at home, on your own time. Knock yourself out. Give the arrangements away, even. But if you're going to open a storefront, advertise, and charge for the arrangements, then you have to accommodate everyone willing to pay.
 
2013-04-10 11:36:45 AM  
Why would you want to give your business, your money, to someone that hates you? I'd rather know someone hates me so I can take my business elsewhere. And even if I'm not part of the group being denied service, I'd rather know the owner is a complete ahole, so I don't give them my money in protest.
 
2013-04-10 11:37:01 AM  

Source4leko: 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?

0/10


In situations like this it is still odd to me that when a private company discriminates against a costumer why does it become a legal thing in a so called capitalist economy, why not publicly shame them, take your business elsewhere and let everyone know their policies and try to make change through hitting them in the market, especially in this day in age with the internet just let everyone know
 
2013-04-10 11:37:06 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-10 11:37:27 AM  

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?


In an ideal world, I'd be right in the same boat with you. Unfortunately, it's not an ideal world and this may not be an issue the invisible hand can just solve on its own. America has entirely too many "No Irish Need Apply" signs and whites-only diners in its history---communities full of them, in fact---for me to be comfortable with the otherwise-quite-excellent "Take your business elsewhere" solution.

Granted, if they  could take their business elsewhere (and "elsewhere" isn't "the next county over"), it may not be worth the government's money and time to force this issue. But if the AG is trying to break a bad systemic pattern, then more power to him.
 
2013-04-10 11:38:01 AM  
The Bible clearly states that they should be executed by stoning. It doesn't say anything at all about whether they should have flowers at their weddings.
 
2013-04-10 11:38:43 AM  

number8: Why would you want to give your business, your money, to someone that hates you? I'd rather know someone hates me so I can take my business elsewhere. And even if I'm not part of the group being denied service, I'd rather know the owner is a complete ahole, so I don't give them my money in protest.


I don't know about you, but when I walk into a store, my first question generally isn't what the proprietor's religious views are. I have to admit, though, that if their advertising or storefront includes an icthys symbol, I might be less inclined to do business there.
 
2013-04-10 11:39:05 AM  
Interesting that Christianity is so full of the people who killed Jesus: scribes and pharisees.
 
2013-04-10 11:40:09 AM  

WillofJ2: In situations like this it is still odd to me that when a private company discriminates against a costumer why does it become a legal thing in a so called capitalist economy, why not publicly shame them, take your business elsewhere and let everyone know their policies and try to make change through hitting them in the market, especially in this day in age with the internet just let everyone know


Maybe, but costume shops are few and far between.
 
2013-04-10 11:40:19 AM  
I'm the libbiest lib that ever libbed, but the AG is wrong.
 
2013-04-10 11:41:23 AM  

number8: Why would you want to give your business, your money, to someone that hates you? I'd rather know someone hates me so I can take my business elsewhere. And even if I'm not part of the group being denied service, I'd rather know the owner is a complete ahole, so I don't give them my money in protest.


What if you live in a small community, and all two florists in town have a problem with gays, blacks, jews, whatever?
 
2013-04-10 11:41:42 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-10 11:41:49 AM  
She's screwed.

It's amazing how many people wear their bigotry on their sleeves.

She could have just stated "I'm booked, sorry", and no one would be the wiser.  But instead, she made her real objections known.

At least it's out there now, rather than seething beneath the surface.
 
2013-04-10 11:42:36 AM  
Yeah, like no one saw this coming.

Business owner: I reserve the right to not do business with someone.
Lawyers: Well, yeah...
Business owner: ...including gays...
Lawyers: Get the pitchforks...

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?
 
2013-04-10 11:43:31 AM  

number8: Why would you want to give your business, your money, to someone that hates you? I'd rather know someone hates me so I can take my business elsewhere. And even if I'm not part of the group being denied service, I'd rather know the owner is a complete ahole, so I don't give them my money in protest.


Nobody's really suggesting that the florist should be forced to provide flowers for gay weddings against her will.  They're suggesting that she should be sued for the civil rights abuses her bigotry pushes her into, and that such lawsuits will hopefully drive her out of business completely.

I don't understand this idea that "the market" should fix it.  It seems like a backwards attempt to justify bigotry by hoping that there's enough bigots out there to keep these businesses afloat.
 
2013-04-10 11:43:51 AM  

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!
 
2013-04-10 11:44:13 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: if you want flowers, wedding cake, whatever - you go to a gay-owned business


Wait, let me get this right: you mean to tell me there are straight florists?
 
2013-04-10 11:44:36 AM  

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?


Well, you're quite wrong on the facts, Counselor.

You may want to brush up on the concept of "Places of Public Accomodation".

Unless you're going to get all hair-splitty and say you meant "Not wanting to do business with, but does anyway, because it's the law".
 
2013-04-10 11:45:05 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 11:46:02 AM  

IC Stars: number8: Why would you want to give your business, your money, to someone that hates you? I'd rather know someone hates me so I can take my business elsewhere. And even if I'm not part of the group being denied service, I'd rather know the owner is a complete ahole, so I don't give them my money in protest.

What if you live in a small community, and all two florists in town have a problem with gays, blacks, jews, whatever?


What if you live in a town with no florists?  Can you force someone to be a florist?
If it were a matter of just selling the flowers, I would say the business is considered a semi-public business and they should not discriminate on who they sell the flowers to.
However, we're talking about a contract job, or a pseudo-contract job, and you shouldn't force someone to enter a contract.
 
2013-04-10 11:47:16 AM  

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


Yes.

Seriously, you can ask that question, knowing the terminology, and not know the answer already?
 
2013-04-10 11:48:08 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 11:49:16 AM  

Voiceofreason01: 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.


Hence the constitutional claim, I suppose. Trumps state and federal laws.
 
2013-04-10 11:51:50 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: I'm wondering that as well.  I'm pretty sure there's no US constitutional right to purchase flowers.


The Federal Civil Rights Act has been upheld as constitutional and guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

A florist is considered a "place of public accommodation" because it sells flowers to the general public. So while you don't have a constitutional right to purchase flowers, you have a right to not be denied flowers (that are otherwise available to be sold to the general public) for any of the reasons listed above. Interestingly, that doesn't expressly include gender or sexuality.

Not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with the law. Just reporting how I understand it to work.
 
2013-04-10 11:52:05 AM  

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.


Here is the catch.

When it's as I said, they just keep it their bigotry hidden, the average consumer doesn't know they are dealing with an asshole.

In this case there are also people that are straight, but don't want to patronize businesses that have assholes discriminating against their friends (gay, black, Jews, Muslims). If this owner had just kept quiet, she'd maintain business from the straight customers that don't want to patronize bigots.

Bigot's don't usually put up signs anymore announcing they are assholes.

That kinda went out of practice in the last 50 years.

www.myweku.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

archive.adl.org

//Whoops, that last one IS still in use.
 
2013-04-10 11:52:32 AM  
What the law calls people in one sided "relationship"? stalker.
 
2013-04-10 11:56:07 AM  
I've seen this sign in plenty of businesses:

"We reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason."

Leave it at that. Don't specify the reason.

Of course, now the flower shop has been given free advertising to those who might share those views...
 
2013-04-10 11:56:15 AM  
Did they cite Directive 10-289?
 
2013-04-10 11:56:16 AM  
If your relationship with Jesus is what's preventing you from acting like a decent person to other people, then you've obviously missed the entire point of including Jesus in the bible.
 
2013-04-10 11:56:41 AM  
*checks TFA, confirms it's 2 gay guys*...okay, how do these two not have a dozen gay florist friends to choose from? Seriously. I live in Tennessee and even I know several gay florists.
 
2013-04-10 11:57:05 AM  

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?


What they are doing actually is illegal in the state of Washington.
 
2013-04-10 11:58:09 AM  

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.


No, you don't silently ignore it and hope the problem goes away when somebody acts like an asshat.  Doubly so when their asshattery happens to be illegal in your state, which this is.
 
2013-04-10 11:58:42 AM  

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!


Which is we should ban all Christians from our stores. They are a hateful, bigoted peoples who destroy family values!
 
2013-04-10 11:59:14 AM  

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?


Because it's against the anti-discrimination laws of the State.  The AG in Maryland has also indicated that he will go after any business refusing to provide services to people on grounds of sexual orientation.  We've actually had several prominent wedding-related businesses shut their doors after the referendum passed last November.
 
2013-04-10 11:59:36 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: Maybe it's different in Washington state.


Yes, it is.   In fact, it's illegal for businesses to deny service based on gender,race,sexual orientation, that sort of thing.  It IS a big deal.
 
2013-04-10 12:00:31 PM  

Jim DiGriz: "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason."


States are different with different laws pertaining to business licenses. In my State when I was bartending, I didn't have a right to refuse service to anyone because of their color, gender, or orientation; though I had a right to refuse service to someone who was being an asshole.
 
2013-04-10 12:00:39 PM  

Gulper Eel: 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?


The state is there to enforce the law that the florist happens to be breaking with her asshattery.  The state has every right to get involved.
 
2013-04-10 12:01:41 PM  

Spad31: Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time.


Does it?
 
2013-04-10 12:02:08 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 residents of Washington State disagree with you, as our laws (you know, the entire reason the AG is involved in the first place?) state that people CANNOT deny business based on their personal feelings.
 
2013-04-10 12:03:24 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.


Not sure what the laws in WA are, but some factors (usually including color and religion) are legally proscribed as a basis of discrimination. Often sexual preference is not, though again, I'm not sure about WA.

Of course, either way, this guy didn't have to announce his reason; it would have been easy to claim a schedule conflict and still protect his non-gay preference without drawing attention to him/herself, so the whole thing smacks of attention whoredom.
 
2013-04-10 12:05:01 PM  
Interesting how many of the arguments here sound exactly like the ones made in the 1960s regarding racial integration. Just like the arguments against gays in the military mirrored the arguments against allowing blacks to serve with whites.
 
2013-04-10 12:05:13 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: Jim DiGriz: "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason."

States are different with different laws pertaining to business licenses. In my State when I was bartending, I didn't have a right to refuse service to anyone because of their color, gender, or orientation; though I had a right to refuse service to someone who was being an asshole.


This. And I think it has to be pretty obvious that you're refusing service to the person b/c of their color, gender, etc. etc. (such as the lady in TFA, who spells it out clear as a "Whites Only" sign).
 
2013-04-10 12:05:57 PM  

aspAddict: Yeah, like no one saw this coming.

Business owner: I reserve the right to not do business with someone.
Lawyers: Well, yeah...
Business owner: ...including gays...
Lawyers: Get the pitchforks...

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?


Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeeeessssss.
 
2013-04-10 12:06:05 PM  

Jim DiGriz: I've seen this sign in plenty of businesses:

"We reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason."

Leave it at that. Don't specify the reason.

Of course, now the flower shop has been given free advertising to those who might share those views...


Assuming she's able to stay in business after the AG is done with her bigoted ass.
 
2013-04-10 12:06:18 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-10 12:06:37 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Spad31: Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time.

Does it?


Probably, just not in ways that are obvious: 'Oh, I'm sorry, we're booked that weekend.' - and nobody would ever know.
 
2013-04-10 12:07:12 PM  

kid_icarus: *checks TFA, confirms it's 2 gay guys*...okay, how do these two not have a dozen gay florist friends to choose from? Seriously. I live in Tennessee and even I know several gay florists.


That isn't the point and it isn't the couple that's suing, it's the State's Attorney General. Besides that's like saying, "why do they need to stay in this hotel, there's a perfectly good one down the road". "Why do you need to drink from this water fountain, there's a perfectly good one down that hall". "Why do you need to sit in this seat, there are perfectly good ones at the back of the bus".....this kind of discrimination is wrong and should not be tolerated and more important in the State of Washington it is illegal.
 
2013-04-10 12:08:47 PM  

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."
 
2013-04-10 12:12:16 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?


That's the belief system they choose!
 
2013-04-10 12:12:49 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: Jim DiGriz: "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason."

States are different with different laws pertaining to business licenses. In my State when I was bartending, I didn't have a right to refuse service to anyone because of their color, gender, or orientation; though I had a right to refuse service to someone who was being an asshole.


I think of it the same way Major League Baseball says you can't even describe a Major League Baseball game without their written authorization. They can say they reserve the right to enter your home and take all the beer out of your fridge, but it doesn't make it so.
 
2013-04-10 12:12:55 PM  

Spad31: Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time.


It does happen all the time, but most business owners aren't dumb enough to state a reason and publicly stick by it. The florist wants the fight, and they are getting it.

We're not talkin' rocket surgery here, the florist could have easily said "We're unavailable".. It's the same old derp that the right wing nutballs have been pulling for 20+ years:

1. Publicly say "We don't like teh Ghey."
2. Talk  about free speech.
3. Get all whiney when the boycott is formed. then complain/ try to take away the free speech that is a boycott.
4. Come out with a "why is everybody pickin' on lil old me" statement.
5. Make enough noise so that Coulter or Beck talk about your story and business booms for 3 days.
6. Watch business fail, as only an ignoramus would make such a ridiculous business decision like excluding gays from buying flowers.
7. Blame libtards and the lamestream media.
8. Quietly apply for unemployment and every other "entitlement" under the sun.
9. Buy markers and poster board with taxpayer money.
10. Hold poorly spelled sign at Tea Party rally.
 
2013-04-10 12:13:37 PM  

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


HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GOD! you dirty little heritic you will be sent to the pit to burn for all time.
//Foster watches you!
 
2013-04-10 12:14:28 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.


Being 'cool'   ≠ legally agreeing. I think that's where the disconnect is when it comes to these types of arguments.

This is a private business and they have the 'right' to sell or not sell to anyone they so chooses. You can disagree and think they are a total douche but as Americans still have to stand up for their 'rights' lest you become a hypocrite yourself.

This case is basically akin to what Voltaire said.
 
2013-04-10 12:15:15 PM  

show me: 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.


Ok i like this one here, we have a starting point.
 
2013-04-10 12:17:12 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I think of it the same way Major League Baseball says you can't even describe a Major League Baseball game without their written authorization. They can say they reserve the right to enter your home and take all the beer out of your fridge, but it doesn't make it so.


If the MLB came into my home and took my beer... does that count as a Stand Your Ground defense when I shoot them?
 
2013-04-10 12:18:49 PM  
But instead of agreeing to the terms, attorneys for Stutzman fired back their own missiveto state lawyers yesterday that appeared to lay out the crux of their legal defense. Stutzman claimed that "discrimination is not the issue," but rather that she is entitled to exercise her religious conscience and thatarranging flowers is an act of personal expression,"

Sure, seems reasonable...

"and as such, any restriction on how and where she sells flowers arrangements infringes on her First Amendment right to free speech."

Not so much. You're free to privately arrange your flowers any way you want. This isn't about your free speech, it's about your commercial enterprise.

Additionally, the law is content-neutral. You can arrange them to look pretty, you can arrange them to look like ass. You can use roses, daisies, or farkin' cactuses. The law doesn't care. It's only concerned when you discriminate against a protected class in commerce.
 
2013-04-10 12:19:01 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Spad31: Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time.

Does it?


Yes it does
 
2013-04-10 12:19:59 PM  
due to her "relationship with Jesus"

Yeah, blame it all on your Mexican boyfriend.
 
2013-04-10 12:20:26 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: Jim DiGriz: "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason."

States are different with different laws pertaining to business licenses. In my State when I was bartending, I didn't have a right to refuse service to anyone because of their color, gender, or orientation; though I had a right to refuse service to someone who was being an asshole.


To the utter disappointment of Farkers everywhere, assholes are not a protected class.
 
2013-04-10 12:22:00 PM  

Thorak: number8: Why would you want to give your business, your money, to someone that hates you? I'd rather know someone hates me so I can take my business elsewhere. And even if I'm not part of the group being denied service, I'd rather know the owner is a complete ahole, so I don't give them my money in protest.

Nobody's really suggesting that the florist should be forced to provide flowers for gay weddings against her will.  They're suggesting that she should be sued for the civil rights abuses her bigotry pushes her into, and that such lawsuits will hopefully drive her out of business completely.

I don't understand this idea that "the market" should fix it.  It seems like a backwards attempt to justify bigotry by hoping that there's enough bigots out there to keep these businesses afloat.


So what. I mean really bigots are everywhere. This woman doesnt want a customer for whatever reason than so what.
what are you gonna do put a gun to her and make her do some flowers.

Im sure lots of other florists would like to take the couples business.

you americans and your lawyers sheesh. It would be comical if it wasnt so sad. Most other places the proper response would be "well fark you to buddy" and that would be the end of it
 
2013-04-10 12:22:52 PM  
"We're booked. No chance until later."

/was that so hard?
 
2013-04-10 12:23:46 PM  

Theaetetus: To the utter disappointment of Farkers everywhere, assholes are not a protected class.


I think we've just figured out where the victim complex of old christian white men stems from....
 
2013-04-10 12:24:44 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: but while you are operating a business with a business license


Which brings up the question of why a florist would need to be licensed. For what - so they don't make a flower arrangement out of giant hogweed?
 
2013-04-10 12:24:54 PM  
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
 
2013-04-10 12:26:17 PM  

This text is now purple: Benevolent Misanthrope: if you want flowers, wedding cake, whatever - you go to a gay-owned business

Wait, let me get this right: you mean to tell me there are straight florists?


They're female.
 
2013-04-10 12:27:11 PM  

Duke_leto_Atredes: 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

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GOD! you dirty little heritic you will be sent to the pit to burn for all time.
//Foster watches you!


Meh, Heaven for climate, hell for company.  I was already headed there anyway for kissin' girls.
 
2013-04-10 12:29:22 PM  

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?


Why indeed? Get over it and find another florist.

When are they gonna set up the re-education camps?
 
2013-04-10 12:29:28 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Thorak: number8: Why would you want to give your business, your money, to someone that hates you? I'd rather know someone hates me so I can take my business elsewhere. And even if I'm not part of the group being denied service, I'd rather know the owner is a complete ahole, so I don't give them my money in protest.

Nobody's really suggesting that the florist should be forced to provide flowers for gay weddings against her will.  They're suggesting that she should be sued for the civil rights abuses her bigotry pushes her into, and that such lawsuits will hopefully drive her out of business completely.

I don't understand this idea that "the market" should fix it.  It seems like a backwards attempt to justify bigotry by hoping that there's enough bigots out there to keep these businesses afloat.

So what. I mean really bigots are everywhere. This woman doesnt want a customer for whatever reason than so what.
what are you gonna do put a gun to her and make her do some flowers.

Im sure lots of other florists would like to take the couples business.

you americans and your lawyers sheesh. It would be comical if it wasnt so sad. Most other places the proper response would be "well fark you to buddy" and that would be the end of it


The problem is that we (the US) have a history of a large region of the country acting like this for generations, and making life miserable for a large percentage of the population as a result.

The process of fixing the segregated South created a whole infrastructure of laws and procedures that is easily repurposed to deal with other types of discrimination. Now there's precedent for using the law to make everyone play nicely.
 
2013-04-10 12:30:54 PM  

jshine: 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.

Not sure what the laws in WA are, but some factors (usually including color and religion) are legally proscribed as a basis of discrimination. Often sexual preference is not, though again, I'm not sure about WA.


It's against the law in WA.  IMHO, she deserves public shaming AND a lawsuit.
 
2013-04-10 12:31:06 PM  

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?


You are obviously a racist and a Nazi.
 
2013-04-10 12:32:01 PM  
teenage mutant ninja rapist:
you americans and your lawyers sheesh. It would be comical if it wasnt so sad. Most other places the proper response would be "well fark you to buddy" and that would be the end of it

a three minute internet search suggests that Alberta has far more strict discrimination laws than Washington
 
2013-04-10 12:35:12 PM  

DemDave: Mr. Eugenides: I'm wondering that as well.  I'm pretty sure there's no US constitutional right to purchase flowers.

The Federal Civil Rights Act has been upheld as constitutional and guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

A florist is considered a "place of public accommodation" because it sells flowers to the general public. So while you don't have a constitutional right to purchase flowers, you have a right to not be denied flowers (that are otherwise available to be sold to the general public) for any of the reasons listed above. Interestingly, that doesn't expressly include gender or sexuality.

Not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with the law. Just reporting how I understand it to work.


As I understand it: religion and race are suspect classes with laws regarding them subject to a strict scrutiny test.  That's why the Civil Rights Act has been upheld and it's illegal, nationwide, to refuse service to someone on account of race or religion.  Sexual orientation laws have reached various levels of scrutiny in various courts and local laws but nothing as definitive or widespread as race or religion in the Civil Rights Act and subsequent court cases.  This court case could nudge the law in the right direction but as of now, it's mostly legal to discriminate against people on account of sexual orientation.
 
2013-04-10 12:35:31 PM  
But it's perfectly OK for Washington state-licensed pharmacists to use their Bibles as medical textbooks, amiright?

Makes no sense at all.
 
2013-04-10 12:35:58 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Thorak: number8: Why would you want to give your business, your money, to someone that hates you? I'd rather know someone hates me so I can take my business elsewhere. And even if I'm not part of the group being denied service, I'd rather know the owner is a complete ahole, so I don't give them my money in protest.

Nobody's really suggesting that the florist should be forced to provide flowers for gay weddings against her will.  They're suggesting that she should be sued for the civil rights abuses her bigotry pushes her into, and that such lawsuits will hopefully drive her out of business completely.

I don't understand this idea that "the market" should fix it.  It seems like a backwards attempt to justify bigotry by hoping that there's enough bigots out there to keep these businesses afloat.

So what. I mean really bigots are everywhere. This woman doesnt want a customer for whatever reason than so what.
what are you gonna do put a gun to her and make her do some flowers.

Im sure lots of other florists would like to take the couples business.

you americans and your lawyers sheesh. It would be comical if it wasnt so sad. Most other places the proper response would be "well fark you to buddy" and that would be the end of it


In most other places, the florist probably wouldn't be breaking state law.  She's in Washington state and breaking state law.
 
2013-04-10 12:36:17 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.


I'm a Person of Pallor. Several years ago I went on a job interview at a company owned by a Person of Color, and where all the employees were also Persons of Color. I fit the technical aspects of the job to a tee, but didn't get it, as the owner apologetically told me, "Sorry, legally I couldn't specify "no whites" in the ad, but you would just not fit in here."  And rather than spend my time in he-said-he-said legal bullshiat, I thanked him for his candor, went out and found another job.

Seriously, people, grow up.
 
2013-04-10 12:36:52 PM  
teenage mutant ninja rapist: So what. I mean really bigots are everywhere. This woman doesnt want a customer for whatever reason than so what.
what are you gonna do put a gun to her and make her do some flowers.


No.  Sue her and drive her out of business.  "I don't like gay people" is not a legitimate, and in this case an explicitly <i>illegal</i>, reason to not want a certain customer.


Im sure lots of other florists would like to take the couples business.

you americans and your lawyers sheesh. It would be comical if it wasnt so sad. Most other places the proper response would be "well fark you to buddy" and that would be the end of it


I'm not American, dude.  And the point isn't that there are other florists.  It's that THIS florist should either stop being a bigot, or shouldn't be in business at all.  If that takes a lawsuit, so be it.
 
2013-04-10 12:37:38 PM  
With the florist's lawyers apparently itching for a fight, the case seems poised to reach the state supreme court, or even federal courts, as a test of conservative legal defenses in the name of religious liberty and moral conscience.

Translation:  Someone else is footing her legal bills.
 
2013-04-10 12:38:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 12:39:17 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: jshine: 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.

Not sure what the laws in WA are, but some factors (usually including color and religion) are legally proscribed as a basis of discrimination. Often sexual preference is not, though again, I'm not sure about WA.

It's against the law in WA.  IMHO, she deserves public shaming AND a lawsuit.


If that's true then yes, she's definitely calling this down on herself. The only defense I can imagine at this point would be something along the lines of "i don't mind that they are gay & I sell flowers to gay people all the time, but forcing me to enable gay marriage violates my 1st amendment freedom of religion protections" - but that seems like a real stretch.
 
2013-04-10 12:39:22 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: But it's perfectly OK for Washington state-licensed pharmacists to use their Bibles as medical textbooks, amiright?

Makes no sense at all.


Hopefully this case will set a precedent for those slackers.

/seriously, don't take on a career if you know your religion will prevent you from performing basic functions
 
2013-04-10 12:39:53 PM  
Jesus: What? I've had no relations with that woman. She's just fooling herself.
 
2013-04-10 12:41:13 PM  

Gulper Eel: 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?


Excellent point, but that would probably be considered a failure to enable "hate speech" and would therefore be totally OK.
 
2013-04-10 12:45:10 PM  

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 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.


>>>>people like me who have been denied service time and again for just being ....

... total douchbags?

.... morons?

What. Ever.
 
2013-04-10 12:48:03 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Gulper Eel: 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?

Excellent point, but that would probably be considered a failure to enable "hate speech" and would therefore be totally OK.


In high school I worked at a film developing store in the local mall, and our only 'red-line' was child porn. For that we'd call the cops (though the situation never occurred). Otherwise we'd be happy to print your gay porn or Klan-rally photos. We didn't judge anyone by the content of their print order, just by the thickness of their wallet.
 
2013-04-10 12:50:36 PM  
Submitter here...

Some background on the story: Here, in Tri Cities, these two men in a long-term relationship had bought flowers from Arlene's for years. Suddenly, when it's legal for the two men to be married here, they come in to ask their long-time florist to do the flowers for their wedding. She says she will not do it because of her "personal relationship with Jesus". Apparently Jesus told her men should not marry each other, I guess. The guys were sad and disappointed, and left, presumably to talk to other florists. One of the men mentioned it on Facebook, the press got wind of it, and stuff blew up down here. One of her employees quit over it, as well. She's still got a sign up looking for a new flower arranger as of last time I drove by. The men who were discriminated against are not pursuing this, our AG is using it as a test case. The AG did offer the florist a chance to sign something saying that she wouldn't break the law again, she has refused, and the lawyers are taking over.

Interesting fact: Sexual orientation has been a protected class for the purpose of defining discrimination since 2006.
 
2013-04-10 12:50:37 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-10 12:51:58 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 12:52:25 PM  

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.


Or..... You can contact a lawyer and and take them to court for their discriminatory policies just like the law allows. Now you tell me why an individual would willingly suffer this type of bigotry when the law (notice I used that word again) says you don't have to. Jesus you are a dunce, do you really think things work as you described? I got news for you there are I'm going to go ahead and say thousands of individuals and organizations in this country who have coughed up heavy settlements to women and ethnic minorities against whom they discriminated against. If same sex marriage is made legal LBGTs will protected in the same way.
 
2013-04-10 12:53:15 PM  
Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

jesus christ you're needy today

/you should get a cat or something
 
2013-04-10 12:53:19 PM  
Interesting fact: Sexual orientation has been a protected class in Washington State for the purpose of defining discrimination since 2006.Guess I should use that preview button every so often...
 
2013-04-10 12:55:26 PM  
So she admits to having a relationship with an unmarried man?
 
2013-04-10 12:59:27 PM  

show me: 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.


I like this.
 
2013-04-10 01:02:07 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-10 01:03:33 PM  
Oh - and in answer to all you free-market-solution Farkers...  I am so there with you.  We queers have more disposable income than anyone else, statistically speaking.  And we're far more likely to patronize businesses who make it clear they don't hate us on principle.  It's smart business to market to us and take our money.

But IMHO, this woman deserves the lost gay income, public shaming, a lawsuit (for, you know, breaking the law), and a gay critique of her work.  That'll learn her.
 
2013-04-10 01:05:36 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Benevolent Misanthrope:

>>>>people like me who have been denied service time and again for just being ....

... total douchbags?

.... morons?

What. Ever.


Get a job.
 
2013-04-10 01:05:39 PM  
I don't understand what's going on here.  She's banging the guy who waters the plants in the greenhouse, therefore she can't deliver flowers to a gay wedding?  What, did they roll on the order or something?  Crush all the begonias that were earmarked for that wedding?

/not my best work, gotta be in the lab in 26 seconds
 
2013-04-10 01:09:22 PM  

This text is now purple: Wait, let me get this right: you mean to tell me there are straight florists?



www.mediabistro.com

What a straight florist might look like.
 
2013-04-10 01:11:17 PM  
If Washington lists gays as a protected class, then I most certainly don't have a problem with this.

There are plenty of people (assholes, adulterers, and porn-hounds mostly) who I would rather not do business with, and many of them, yes, offend me deeply by their actions. But as long as they're not too needy and don't irritate other customers, I'll take they're money.
 
2013-04-10 01:13:45 PM  
The My Little Pony Killer: The residents of Washington State disagree with you, as our laws (you know, the entire reason the AG is involved in the first place?) state that people CANNOT deny business based on their personal feelings.

Then the laws should be changed.

Let's go the other way: could a florist refuse to provide floral service for a wedding at the Westboro Baptist Church? SHOULD they be allowed to refuse? If WBC wanted to hire any one of us for something, how would we respond?
 
2013-04-10 01:16:40 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: The My Little Pony Killer: The residents of Washington State disagree with you, as our laws (you know, the entire reason the AG is involved in the first place?) state that people CANNOT deny business based on their personal feelings.

Then the laws should be changed.

Let's go the other way: could a florist refuse to provide floral service for a wedding at the Westboro Baptist Church? SHOULD they be allowed to refuse? If WBC wanted to hire any one of us for something, how would we respond?


"Seat's taken."
 
2013-04-10 01:20:54 PM  
TheOtherMisterP:
Let's go the other way: could a florist refuse to provide floral service for a wedding at the Westboro Baptist Church? SHOULD they be allowed to refuse? If WBC wanted to hire any one of us for something, how would we respond?

you cannot deny someone service based on their religion. full stop. Historically this kind of discrimination has caused far more problems than your being uncomfortable with having to deal with someone you disagree with.
 
2013-04-10 01:22:13 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Benevolent Misanthrope: >>>>people like me who have been denied service time and again for just being ....

... total douchbags?

.... morons?

What. Ever.

Get a job.


Sorry, I'd much rather sit on my ass, collect UI (thanks for your involuntary contributions!) and laugh at you.
 
2013-04-10 01:22:45 PM  
Not a protected class, see you in the supreme court.  If it makes it that far.
 
2013-04-10 01:28:28 PM  

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


Protected class in WA.  STFU.
 
2013-04-10 01:28:37 PM  

Voiceofreason01: TheOtherMisterP:
you cannot deny someone service based on their religion. full stop. Historically this kind of discrimination has caused far more problems than your being uncomfortable with having to deal with someone you disagree with.


I definitely understand that the laws prohibit us from discriminating against people. But while many people are quick to bash on the florist, I'm trying to show that it can be a bit of a grey area. It's a cheap argument on my part to bring in Westboro Baptist Church, but I think it's still valid. If I want to send a big "F You" to WBC by refusing to work for them, then I have to allow the florist to do the same.
 
2013-04-10 01:33:50 PM  

Spad31: 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.


In the US you get to take your money somewhere else AND sue them.
 
2013-04-10 01:37:38 PM  

Spad31: 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.


Good on ya!  Just bend over and take it like a good boy...
 
2013-04-10 01:38:10 PM  

Gulper Eel: 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...


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.
 
2013-04-10 01:42:58 PM  

Spad31: No, of course I'm not trolling. If some shopkeeper is being an asshat, just take your money somewhere else.


This is a rational argument if you assume that all florists offer comparable goods. Maybe this specific florist has access to a type of flower another doesn't and I have my heart set on it. Or they create bouquets that are unrivaled by their competitors. Suddenly I have to settle for the second best florist (who may be far, far worse) simply because of my race/religion/etc.? If I'm forced to buy second-rate goods, then I'm a second class citizen.
 
2013-04-10 01:43:32 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 01:44:11 PM  

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


No he isn't.  The florist gets her flowers delivered to her on roads that we all pay for, even gay people.  She has power which utilizes publicly subsidized infrastructure.  She is given fire protection and police protection, all paid for by the public, which includes gays.  Basically what many here are advocating is that everyone has to chip in and help dig the swimming pool, but only straight people can swim in it when it's done.
 
2013-04-10 01:44:34 PM  
Anyway, long story short - religion is not a free pass to be a jerkass.
 
2013-04-10 01:44:36 PM  
Hey bigoted homeless guy:
I will be certain to convert to being a Jehovah's Witness when you come into my ER bleeding to death and deny you a life saving blood transfusion.

//not really, but come on, discrimination should not be legally protected
 
2013-04-10 01:47:15 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-10 01:52:59 PM  

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?


Considering your handle, are you trying to state that your IQ is 12? 'Cause that would make sense then.

/read the term 'electric potato' in a sci-fi novel last night
//it meant what Fark would think that it meant.
 
2013-04-10 01:53:13 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Gulper Eel: 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?

Excellent point, but that would probably be considered a failure to enable "hate speech" and would therefore be totally OK.


Nope, that'd be fine. The law doesn't say "you have to serve anyone and everyone, period." It says that you can't discriminate based on: "race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability." There's nothing barring you from discrimination based on political belief.
 
2013-04-10 01:53:54 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: The My Little Pony Killer: The residents of Washington State disagree with you, as our laws (you know, the entire reason the AG is involved in the first place?) state that people CANNOT deny business based on their personal feelings.

Then the laws should be changed.

Let's go the other way: could a florist refuse to provide floral service for a wedding at the Westboro Baptist Church? SHOULD they be allowed to refuse? If WBC wanted to hire any one of us for something, how would we respond?


What would I do if the WBC wanted to do business with me? I would tell them that I fully support everything that they stand against, and if they still want to give me their money, fine. I would even take their money.
 
2013-04-10 01:56:40 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-10 01:56:55 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-10 01:57:20 PM  

Mominator: TheOtherMisterP: The My Little Pony Killer: The residents of Washington State disagree with you, as our laws (you know, the entire reason the AG is involved in the first place?) state that people CANNOT deny business based on their personal feelings.

Then the laws should be changed.

Let's go the other way: could a florist refuse to provide floral service for a wedding at the Westboro Baptist Church? SHOULD they be allowed to refuse? If WBC wanted to hire any one of us for something, how would we respond?

What would I do if the WBC wanted to do business with me? I would tell them that I fully support everything that they stand against, and if they still want to give me their money, fine. I would even take their money.


The WBC would argue that you're refusing service based on their religion. You would argue that you're refusing service based on their political actions, and public trolling and harassment. If you could show that you've provided service to other Baptists, you'd probably be just fine. If, on the other hand, you have made a habit of coming up with excuses not to serve Baptists, then you'd probably not be as good.
 
2013-04-10 01:58:51 PM  

Great Janitor: Why is this worthy of a lawsuit?  She refused to do business with a black person.  If she took their money and gave them nothing in return, I could see a case.  But saying "No, your being black is against my belief in the supremacy of the white race."  shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit.  Just go to a different business who will cater to blacks.  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.


images.sodahead.com
 
2013-04-10 02:03:09 PM  

Theaetetus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Gulper Eel: 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?

Excellent point, but that would probably be considered a failure to enable "hate speech" and would therefore be totally OK.

Nope, that'd be fine. The law doesn't say "you have to serve anyone and everyone, period." It says that you can't discriminate based on: "race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability." There's nothing barring you from discrimination based on political belief.


Just out of curiosity, wouldn't places like "Curves" be violating the law as well then?
 
2013-04-10 02:13:27 PM  
I would have just moved onto another florist. Don't want my money? Fine. But you can't pay the rent with prayer.
 
2013-04-10 02:14:10 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: 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.


I'm not "cool" with it, but why shouldn't it be allowed? Businesses are allowed to refuse to serve people because of their gender (think Curves), so why is race or religion any different?
 
2013-04-10 02:15:11 PM  
So you are saying that the Soup Nazi can't say: "No soup for you!"
 
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?
 
2013-04-10 04:58:23 PM  
Satanic_Hamster:   If a Rabbi, a Sikh, and a Muslim went into a Christian bookstore

...and the bartender said, "what is this, a joke?"
 
2013-04-10 04:58:45 PM  
This seems sooooo wrong.   A Business should be able to refuse a customer.

What if a homosexual florist refused to give flowers to the Westboro Baptist church?  I'm sure people would be ok with that.
 
2013-04-10 04:59:16 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


Then Christians should get out of the shrimping business.
 
2013-04-10 05:07:39 PM  

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

Ok it kind of makes sense and it doesn't.


It's easy. Just remember: straight, white males are evil.
 
2013-04-10 05:12:17 PM  

kukukupo: This seems sooooo wrong.   A Business should be able to refuse a customer.

What if a homosexual florist refused to give flowers to the Westboro Baptist church?  I'm sure people would be ok with that.


You should read the thread before posting, since this has been answered easily a dozen times already.
 
2013-04-10 05:13:29 PM  

kukukupo: This seems sooooo wrong.   A Business should be able to refuse a customer.

What if a homosexual florist refused to give flowers to the Westboro Baptist church?  I'm sure people would be ok with that.


Being a member of the Westboro Baptist Church means you're choosing to be an oozing pussball on the ass of society.

If you're gay, that's not a choice. Just like being black isn't a choice.

You can't discriminate against people for being something that they naturally are. Unless they're assholes. Then it's okay.
 
2013-04-10 05:17:44 PM  

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


Surprisingly, no, merely posting a sign inventing whatever made-up rules you wish to be in effect does not actually override the state's laws and prevent them from being enforced against you! Who knew?!
 
2013-04-10 05:25:09 PM  

highwayrun: 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?


A hospital is not a business.  In fact, a hospital, unlike a business has to take a person and treat them even if they can not pay.  Businesses can in fact deny service to those who can not pay and not face any problems.

The only motel in town is, again, a business and the owner is free (or should be free) to deny letting a paying customer a room for the night.  If I ran a hotel and I knew of a guy who frequented the place and each time he stayed he trashed the room and left his semen over the walls and television I'd refuse to let him stay.

An Ob-gyn, given that while it is medical care, is a bit different than a hospital since it's private practice mostly, but why shouldn't they be allowed to tell someone that they don't want to treat them.  What if the OB-GYN was telling a woman to stop masturbating with vegetables because it was causing serious problems (friend who's a nurse, I've heard a few stories) and she refused.  Why shouldn't the ob-gyn be able to tell the woman to stop coming in because she's doesn't want to waste her breath on a woman who isn't listening to her for her own health.

As for the only grocery store in walking distance, yes.  I have seen stores refuse service and even entry to those who have been caught shoplifting in said store.  The fact that it's the only store within walking distance doesn't mean that it has to serve anyone.  If the owner decides that he doesn't want to serve Arabs, he should be free to do so.  And as for the Arabs in that community, just how welcomed do you think they will feel in that store anyways?  I walk into a store and if I feel unwelcomed, I leave.  If the owner is Asian and the store is in an Asian area and I am treated as an outsider and made to feel unwelcomed, I'm going to leave, that simple.  I'm not going to make a stink of it.  He doesn't want me there, I'll spend my money at a place that will make me feel welcomed.

A business owner should be able to serve the clients that they want to serve.  If a business owner feels so strongly against gay marriage that she refuses to cater the wedding, she should have that right.  Three years ago when my wife and I were getting married, we looked at one place for the wedding location.  My wife and I are Pagans and were wanting to do a Pagan Handfasting ceremony.  One location, upon learning what we were wanting to do go upset and told us flat out that she didn't want us having our wedding there.  So we did the simple thing, we found another location that didn't care.  They got our money (or would have if they would have cashed our check).  We didn't biatch to a lawyer about being discriminated against due to our religious beliefs, we didn't run to the government crying about the mean old lady who didn't like our beliefs.  We let her believe that we were devil worshiper wanting to do a devil worshiping wedding and let the person who didn't care what we did accept our check.
 
2013-04-10 05:29:32 PM  

Canned Tamales: Hi there, Mr. Homosexual Florist.


He's promoting a book. You can argue that refusing service isn't based on his religion, but not wanting to assist his business.

Canned Tamales: Hi there, Mrs. Atheist Advertising Executive.


In this instance, you can refuse service because improving their image has nothing to do with their religious beliefs. Same with the book above.

Canned Tamales: High there, Mr. Non-Religious Building Contractor.


Simply claim that you're too busy to do the work. Or they're not willing to pay well enough. Or you don't feel comfortable doing that kind of work. Hell, there's all sorts of excuses you can use.


These might not be the best excuses since they're off the top of my head. My point is just that you can find plenty of legal excuses not to do the work if you really don't want to do the work.
 
2013-04-10 05:31:42 PM  

Canned Tamales: Hi there Mr. Christian Bookstore Owner.


Forgot about this one. You can refuse service because the guy was rude and called you  "useless and disgusting."

Or you might be able to deny him the book because he intends to use it for purposes other than it was intended (I'm not going to sell you a work of art if I think you might destroy it.)
 
2013-04-10 05:35:52 PM  

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


Uh, that is pretty much exactly what she did. From my understanding of the situation, she refused to serve them because of their support of gay marriage rather than because they are gay. Being for or against gay marriage is technically a political belief.
 
2013-04-10 05:41:36 PM  
Great Janitor: If I ran a hotel and I knew of a guy who frequented the place and each time he stayed he trashed the room and left his semen over the walls and television I'd refuse to let him stay...
Why shouldn't the ob-gyn be able to tell the woman to stop coming in because she's doesn't want to waste her breath on a woman who isn't listening to her for her own health...
If the owner decides that he doesn't want to serve Arabs, he should be free to do so...


2.bp.blogspot.com
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...
 
2013-04-10 05:44:44 PM  
Theaetetus:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...


Holy crap, make it stop.
 
2013-04-10 05:45:25 PM  

umad: Uh, that is pretty much exactly what she did. From my understanding of the situation, she refused to serve them because of their support of gay marriage rather than because they are gay. Being for or against gay marriage is technically a political belief.


Yeah, there are actually several angles under which she has room to argue. It could be an interesting case (although on a personal note I certainly hope the AG smacks her all around the courtroom.)
 
2013-04-10 05:49:39 PM  

TrixieDelite: Theaetetus:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...

Holy crap, make it stop.


media.tumblr.com
All colors are accepted here!
 
2013-04-10 05:52:37 PM  

Theaetetus: Great Janitor: If I ran a hotel and I knew of a guy who frequented the place and each time he stayed he trashed the room and left his semen over the walls and television I'd refuse to let him stay...
Why shouldn't the ob-gyn be able to tell the woman to stop coming in because she's doesn't want to waste her breath on a woman who isn't listening to her for her own health...
If the owner decides that he doesn't want to serve Arabs, he should be free to do so...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...


I am well aware that one of those is not like the other, but my point still stands, if a business owner doesn't want to do business with a member of a certain race, that should be the business owner's right.  I live near a area with a very heavy Mexican population.  There have been times when I've been in that area, stopped in to buy a coke and it was made very clear to me that I wasn't welcomed.  There was one time I was stopped at the entry way of a club one Saturday night and was told that clientele of the club was non-white and that while I wasn't being told to leave, it was heavily suggested that I wouldn't be happy at that location and it would be best if I left.
 
2013-04-10 06:03:29 PM  
Next up Jews and Arabs suing each other because they don't cater to the other's needs.
 
2013-04-10 06:07:40 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.


And what's so wrong with it? It's their business, they can choose who they do and don't serve. The law says that you can not discriminate on EMPLOYMENT for things such as sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Let's look at it from the opposite end. You have a customer who is being a douche. They're not paying their bills, they're causing a scene every time, they're badmouthing you to others... but when you try to drop them as a customer they claim discrimination based on sexual orientation, something that's extremely hard to disprove once it reaches the public ear.

Simply put: The government has the authority to dictate HOW you sell your product or service. It has no business dictating to WHOM you sell your product or service. When the government dictates not only how you can sell, but to whom you can sell, it's a step towards communism.
 
2013-04-10 06:07:47 PM  

DemDave: umad: Uh, that is pretty much exactly what she did. From my understanding of the situation, she refused to serve them because of their support of gay marriage rather than because they are gay. Being for or against gay marriage is technically a political belief.

Yeah, there are actually several angles under which she has room to argue. It could be an interesting case (although on a personal note I certainly hope the AG smacks her all around the courtroom.)


One could then argue that it is their right to express their view by not supporting the act by proxy. In the religious person's mind they are still accountable to their deity of choice with the action they make if they know the end result is a no-no. If you know you are selling a gun to someone who will go and murder people, you are guilty of the act as well. They can't be forced to violate their beliefs for others. It isn't like this was the only option to make a purchase.
 
2013-04-10 06:09:51 PM  

Great Janitor: Theaetetus: Great Janitor: If I ran a hotel and I knew of a guy who frequented the place and each time he stayed he trashed the room and left his semen over the walls and television I'd refuse to let him stay...
Why shouldn't the ob-gyn be able to tell the woman to stop coming in because she's doesn't want to waste her breath on a woman who isn't listening to her for her own health...
If the owner decides that he doesn't want to serve Arabs, he should be free to do so...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...

I am well aware that one of those is not like the other, but my point still stands, if a business owner doesn't want to do business with a member of a certain race, that should be the business owner's right.  I live near a area with a very heavy Mexican population.  There have been times when I've been in that area, stopped in to buy a coke and it was made very clear to me that I wasn't welcomed.  There was one time I was stopped at the entry way of a club one Saturday night and was told that clientele of the club was non-white and that while I wasn't being told to leave, it was heavily suggested that I wouldn't be happy at that location and it would be best if I left.


Perhaps you should leave the pointy white hat at home next time.
 
2013-04-10 06:10:49 PM  
Can we force kosher butchers to handle and sell pork?

Why can we force fundies to sell gay flowers and cake?
 
2013-04-10 06:13:35 PM  

Securitywyrm: And what's so wrong with it? It's their business, they can choose who they do and don't serve. The law says that you can not discriminate on EMPLOYMENT for things such as sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Let's look at it from the opposite end. You have a customer who is being a douche. They're not paying their bills, they're causing a scene every time, they're badmouthing you to others... but when you try to drop them as a customer they claim discrimination based on sexual orientation, something that's extremely hard to disprove once it reaches the public ear.

Simply put: The government has the authority to dictate HOW you sell your product or service. It has no business dictating to WHOM you sell your product or service. When the government dictates not only how you can sell, but to whom you can sell, it's a step towards communism.


Annnnnndddd another racist libertarian reveals himself.
 
2013-04-10 06:14:22 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Can we force kosher butchers to handle and sell pork?

Why can we force fundies to sell gay flowers and cake?


Idiot, trolling, or making a stupid/incompetent  joke?   It can be hard to tell on Fark.
 
2013-04-10 06:18:21 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ReverendJynxed: Can we force kosher butchers to handle and sell pork?

Why can we force fundies to sell gay flowers and cake?

Idiot, trolling, or making a stupid/incompetent  joke?   It can be hard to tell on Fark.


Can't answer the question?
 
2013-04-10 07:03:14 PM  

ReverendJynxed: One could then argue that it is their right to express their view by not supporting the act by proxy.


Again, businesses are not people. Businesses have no right to freedom of speech or expression. Only individuals do.
 
2013-04-10 07:09:30 PM  
I just want to say I live next door to this flowershop and I will be taking my floral business elsewhere!
 
2013-04-10 07:09:51 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Satanic_Hamster: ReverendJynxed: Can we force kosher butchers to handle and sell pork?

Why can we force fundies to sell gay flowers and cake?

Idiot, trolling, or making a stupid/incompetent  joke?   It can be hard to tell on Fark.

Can't answer the question?


It's a stupid question, hence my question towards you.

No one is forcing anyone to change the product they sell.  And what, exactly, is a gay flower or cake.  A cake that farks other cakes?
 
2013-04-10 07:14:20 PM  

Theaetetus: Great Janitor: Theaetetus: Great Janitor: If I ran a hotel and I knew of a guy who frequented the place and each time he stayed he trashed the room and left his semen over the walls and television I'd refuse to let him stay...
Why shouldn't the ob-gyn be able to tell the woman to stop coming in because she's doesn't want to waste her breath on a woman who isn't listening to her for her own health...
If the owner decides that he doesn't want to serve Arabs, he should be free to do so...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...

I am well aware that one of those is not like the other, but my point still stands, if a business owner doesn't want to do business with a member of a certain race, that should be the business owner's right.  I live near a area with a very heavy Mexican population.  There have been times when I've been in that area, stopped in to buy a coke and it was made very clear to me that I wasn't welcomed.  There was one time I was stopped at the entry way of a club one Saturday night and was told that clientele of the club was non-white and that while I wasn't being told to leave, it was heavily suggested that I wouldn't be happy at that location and it would be best if I left.

Perhaps you should leave the pointy white hat at home next time.


yeah yeah, I'm a racist for saying that business owners should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason.  Never mind that I didn't say anything against any race...
 
2013-04-10 07:51:06 PM  

Great Janitor: Theaetetus: Great Janitor: Theaetetus: Great Janitor: If I ran a hotel and I knew of a guy who frequented the place and each time he stayed he trashed the room and left his semen over the walls and television I'd refuse to let him stay...
Why shouldn't the ob-gyn be able to tell the woman to stop coming in because she's doesn't want to waste her breath on a woman who isn't listening to her for her own health...
If the owner decides that he doesn't want to serve Arabs, he should be free to do so...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...

I am well aware that one of those is not like the other, but my point still stands, if a business owner doesn't want to do business with a member of a certain race, that should be the business owner's right.  I live near a area with a very heavy Mexican population.  There have been times when I've been in that area, stopped in to buy a coke and it was made very clear to me that I wasn't welcomed.  There was one time I was stopped at the entry way of a club one Saturday night and was told that clientele of the club was non-white and that while I wasn't being told to leave, it was heavily suggested that I wouldn't be happy at that location and it would be best if I left.

Perhaps you should leave the pointy white hat at home next time.

yeah yeah, I'm a racist for saying that business owners should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason.  Never mind that I didn't say anything against any race...


Never mind the obvious implications behind what you did say...
 
2013-04-10 08:12:00 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: And what, exactly, is a gay flower or cake. A cake that farks other cakes?


If you GIS "goatse cake", your question might be answered.
 
2013-04-10 08:19:16 PM  
As a writer, artist, and musician, I just want to say that her defense is insulting and, well, bullshiat.

If arranging flowers is "expression" and free speech protects her, then making a pizza, decorating a cake, laying tile, and driving a cab is also "expression" and nobody should be fired for doing it "wrong" because it's an  art and they're just expressing their unique message through the  art of their manual labor.

Yes, there's artistry involved in all those things, but they most certainly are not "speech" or "expression". What the hell is she saying when she arranges flowers? What's her message? Is it anything more than "these are pretty flowers that look nice"? Because I really doubt she's trying to capture the eternal struggle of man against the ravages of time or express her political opinion with a keenly-placed bunch of mums and baby's breath.

What words or expression are in her arrangement? What original message is in EACH piece she arranged over the years? Where's her gallery exhibit, her portfolio, her published works? Has anyone ever sought to enforce their copyright on a particular arrangement of flowers? (Answer: Yes, but only because they took a photo of it and the PHOTO is copyrighted; Not the flowers).

The argument is clever, but bullshiat. If she wins with that, then prepare for fry cooks everywhere to show in court to defend their copyrighted works and seek royalties from the Waffle House for each one they design.

SUCH bullshiat.
 
2013-04-10 09:27:08 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I'm a Person of Pallor. Several years ago I went on a job interview at a company owned by a Person of Color, and where all the employees were also Persons of Color. I fit the technical aspects of the job to a tee, but didn't get it, as the owner apologetically told me, "Sorry, legally I couldn't specify "no whites" in the ad, but you would just not fit in here."  And rather than spend my time in he-said-he-said legal bullshiat, I thanked him for his candor, went out and found another job.


Well, it's nice to have options then, isn't it?
 
2013-04-10 09:27:31 PM  
Benevolent Misanthrope:

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.

That's what's especially interesting about this case and similar ones.  Service is not being denied because people are gay.  It's being denied because the requested service would further a gay marriage.  If a gay person came in to buy flowers for Mother's Day, I doubt this florist would refuse.
 
2013-04-10 09:33:39 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Satanic_Hamster: ReverendJynxed: Can we force kosher butchers to handle and sell pork?

Why can we force fundies to sell gay flowers and cake?

Idiot, trolling, or making a stupid/incompetent  joke?   It can be hard to tell on Fark.

Can't answer the question?


Discrimination laws can't force kosher butchers to carry non-kosher products.

Discrimination laws do prevent kosher butchers from denying service to non-kosher customers.

Does that answer your question?
 
2013-04-10 09:35:19 PM  

Voiceofreason01: 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.


But it's not about the couple's orientation; it's about their wedding.  Florist didn't refuse them because they're gay; she refused to participate in a gay wedding.
 
2013-04-10 09:42:27 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-10 10:01:42 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: I don't see why anyone has legal recourse against her.


There is the small matter of a law written that says they do have that recourse, but the bigger questions are whether the law is constitutional and whether these kind of civil rights laws, written in an era where bigotry was far more widespread and far fewer choices of public accommodation were available to people, remains necessary as written...and if so, for how much longer.

My hunch is that both sides wouldn't mind using this as a test case.
 
2013-04-10 10:17:45 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: The My Little Pony Killer: The residents of Washington State disagree with you, as our laws (you know, the entire reason the AG is involved in the first place?) state that people CANNOT deny business based on their personal feelings.

Then the laws should be changed.

Let's go the other way: could a florist refuse to provide floral service for a wedding at the Westboro Baptist Church? SHOULD they be allowed to refuse? If WBC wanted to hire any one of us for something, how would we respond?

 
2013-04-10 10:19:16 PM  

Gulper Eel: BarkingUnicorn: I don't see why anyone has legal recourse against her.

There is the small matter of a law written that says they do have that recourse, but the bigger questions are whether the law is constitutional and whether these kind of civil rights laws, written in an era where bigotry was far more widespread and far fewer choices of public accommodation were available to people, remains necessary as written...and if so, for how much longer.

My hunch is that both sides wouldn't mind using this as a test case.


Had she refused them all service because they were gay, it would be a slam-dunk.  But she only refused to sell her service for a gay wedding.  If this couple wanted flowers for a funeral, Mother's Day, or a dinner party I doubt they would be refused.
 
2013-04-10 10:54:21 PM  

Gulper Eel: BarkingUnicorn: I don't see why anyone has legal recourse against her.

There is the small matter of a law written that says they do have that recourse, but the bigger questions are whether the law is constitutional and whether these kind of civil rights laws, written in an era where bigotry was far more widespread and far fewer choices of public accommodation were available to people, remains necessary as written...and if so, for how much longer.

My hunch is that both sides wouldn't mind using this as a test case.


Now to address your "bigger question..."  Yes, discrimination is less pervasive than it was in the past, and might be so even without anti-discrimination laws.  But as long as backwater towns and counties and States exist where people cannot escape discrimination without uprooting their lives and moving, the laws need to remain.  Equal protection means that the laws must apply equally throughout the laws' jurisdiction.  State laws must apply throughout a State and federal laws must apply throughout the nation.
 
2013-04-11 12:22:35 AM  

ZeroCorpse: As a writer, artist, and musician, I just want to say that her defense is insulting and, well, bullshiat.

If arranging flowers is "expression" and free speech protects her, then making a pizza, decorating a cake, laying tile, and driving a cab is also "expression" and nobody should be fired for doing it "wrong" because it's an  art and they're just expressing their unique message through the  art of their manual labor.

Yes, there's artistry involved in all those things, but they most certainly are not "speech" or "expression". What the hell is she saying when she arranges flowers? What's her message? Is it anything more than "these are pretty flowers that look nice"? Because I really doubt she's trying to capture the eternal struggle of man against the ravages of time or express her political opinion with a keenly-placed bunch of mums and baby's breath.

What words or expression are in her arrangement? What original message is in EACH piece she arranged over the years? Where's her gallery exhibit, her portfolio, her published works? Has anyone ever sought to enforce their copyright on a particular arrangement of flowers? (Answer: Yes, but only because they took a photo of it and the PHOTO is copyrighted; Not the flowers).

The argument is clever, but bullshiat. If she wins with that, then prepare for fry cooks everywhere to show in court to defend their copyrighted works and seek royalties from the Waffle House for each one they design.

SUCH bullshiat.


Great. The Westboro Babtist Church wants to hire you to perform hate songs at one of their protests. If you refuse, you're exercising bias based on religion and they can sue you.
 
2013-04-11 01:53:02 AM  

Securitywyrm: Great. The Westboro Babtist Church wants to hire you to perform hate songs at one of their protests. If you refuse, you're exercising bias based on religion and they can sue you.


Refuse on political grounds (as stated numerous times below in regards to the WBC). Refuse because you can't agree on a fee. Refuse because you're already booked. Refuse because you have a sore throat. Refuse because you can't agree on songs to perform. Refuse because you simply don't like the venue. There are virtually infinite legal reasons on which you'd be allowed to turn them down. Just don't say it's because you disagree on their religious beliefs.
 
2013-04-11 02:02:38 AM  

DemDave: Securitywyrm: Great. The Westboro Babtist Church wants to hire you to perform hate songs at one of their protests. If you refuse, you're exercising bias based on religion and they can sue you.

Refuse on political grounds (as stated numerous times below in regards to the WBC). Refuse because you can't agree on a fee. Refuse because you're already booked. Refuse because you have a sore throat. Refuse because you can't agree on songs to perform. Refuse because you simply don't like the venue. There are virtually infinite legal reasons on which you'd be allowed to turn them down. Just don't say it's because you disagree on their religious beliefs.


Wesboro Babtist CHURCH is a religious organization, as recognized by the state of Tennessee. Try again.
 
2013-04-11 02:14:41 AM  

Securitywyrm: Wesboro Babtist CHURCH is a religious organization, as recognized by the state of Tennessee. Try again.


If you refuse to seve them because they picket soldiers' funerals, the courts have upheld that you're refusing to serve them on political grounds, not religious grounds. Try again.
 
2013-04-11 03:29:19 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: But as long as backwater towns and counties and States exist where people cannot escape discrimination without uprooting their lives and moving, the laws need to remain.


Then since there's at least one competing florist physically in Richland, who knows how many others nearby, internet florists, and now thanks to evolving customs and the kind of publicity that wouldn't have been available 50 years ago there'll be plenty of gay-friendly florists willing to step in, the justification for the law is a lot thinner because this couple is quite able to escape discrimination.
 
2013-04-11 05:36:30 AM  

DemDave: Securitywyrm: Wesboro Babtist CHURCH is a religious organization, as recognized by the state of Tennessee. Try again.

If you refuse to seve them because they picket soldiers' funerals, the courts have upheld that you're refusing to serve them on political grounds, not religious grounds. Try again.


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.
 
2013-04-11 06:52:52 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: 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.


What problem? Is somebody who just wants to ignore you the same as somebody who is harassing you? You're rights aren't violated if someone refuses to associate with you.
 
2013-04-11 06:59:41 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Mr. Eugenides: Maybe it's different in Washington state.

Yes, it is.   In fact, it's illegal for businesses to deny service based on gender,race,sexual orientation, that sort of thing.  It IS a big deal.


Unless I'm on the jury at their trial. "Not guilty."
 
2013-04-11 07:02:43 AM  

ScaryBottles: Or..... You can contact a lawyer and and take them to court for their discriminatory policies just like the law allows. Now you tell me why an individual would willingly suffer this type of bigotry...


Suffer? Really? Someone says that she doesn't want to associate with you and that causes suffering? Fark that, and fark the law.
 
2013-04-11 09:20:07 AM  

Great Janitor: Theaetetus: Great Janitor: If I ran a hotel and I knew of a guy who frequented the place and each time he stayed he trashed the room and left his semen over the walls and television I'd refuse to let him stay...
Why shouldn't the ob-gyn be able to tell the woman to stop coming in because she's doesn't want to waste her breath on a woman who isn't listening to her for her own health...
If the owner decides that he doesn't want to serve Arabs, he should be free to do so...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...

I am well aware that one of those is not like the other, but my point still stands, if a business owner doesn't want to do business with a member of a certain race, that should be the business owner's right.  I live near a area with a very heavy Mexican population.   There have been times when I've been in that area, stopped in to buy a coke and it was made very clear to me that I wasn't welcomed.  There was one time I was stopped at the entry way of a club one Saturday night and was told that clientele of the club was non-white and that while I wasn't being told to leave, it was heavily suggested that I wouldn't be happy at that location and it would be best if I left.


They still allowed you to be a patron if you desired.  So what you really are a bigot against is people that are more open minded and tolerant than you are.  Got it.
 
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 273 of 273 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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