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.
Spad31: Gays aren't anything special. A business person not wanting to do business with someone because of their beliefs happens all the time.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
If you like these links, you'll love
More Farking, less working
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 18 2018 21:18:32
Runtime: 0.288 sec (287 ms)