Local florist refuses to service same-sex marriage

[hurley1980]

RICHLAND, Wash. -- A business in Richland has some residents claiming discrimination, while others say it's a business owners' right of refusal. Arlene's Flower Shop is now on the defense after the owner refused to supply flowers for a same-sex wedding.

“He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’" said Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flower Shop. With 37 years in the flower business, Barronelle Stutzman has made bouquets for hundreds of weddings, but has only ever turned down one.

“We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed that was the end of the story,” she said. But, in a twist that Stutzman never saw coming, that story was only the beginning. "It hit Facebook and it exploded," she said.


www.keprtv.com/news/local/Florist-refuses-to-service-same-sex-marriage-195500961.html?tab=video&c=y

Thoughts?  It seems that an awful lot of people support her breaking the law the way she did.  And she is breaking the law, since sexual orientation is a protected class in WA state.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Is the florist getting govt aid? I doubt they are breaking any law. Any business or professional can refuse to service a potential client. A lawyer can refuse to take on a case, etc.

[Peace Of Mind]

I wonder how many atheists bought flowers that she didn't know about?  I don't get that kind of attitude especially in business.  There is no way to know who you are selling to most of the time and I think this person might be using their religious beliefs to discriminate against them because they are gay and she's really a bigot. 

[Deleted]

It's not enough to just be a protected class for it to be illegal descrimination.  There has to be another part to the test (for example, Hooters can refuse to hire men or old people as waitstaff).  What else does the law say that makes it discrimination?  (Just curious.)

[Deleted]

She seems like a very sweet little bigot.  I don't think she deserves the threats of violence, but the rest of it is fair game.  You break the law, you pay the consequences.  You operate a bigoted business, you bear out the realities of the marketplace - and I guess we'll see if there are enough homophobes in Washington  for her to stay afloat.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

She's not refusing to hire them, she's turning down their business. Which I believe business owners have the right to do at their discretion. Whether or not it it'll impact her business in a negative way, time will tell.

[kittensaver]

Isn't the fact that she is treating a protected class differently (will do the wedding of straight folks but not the weddings of gay ones) enough of a test? If she did some gay weddings but not others I think it would be a different story . . . .

Sounds like even though she may be *technically* breaking anti-discrimination laws, nothing will come of it. If you read farther down in the article, the couple feels bad for what happened in the social media universe, and wants it all just to go away.

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 15:31:27 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

She's not refusing to hire them, she's turning down their business. Which I believe business owners have the right to do at their discretion. Whether or not it it'll impact her business in a negative way, time will tell.

Yeah, but it's the *reason* she's turning down their business that could get her into trouble. If she had just said no with no further explanation, no one would be the wiser. But she opened her mouth and gave a discriminatory reason (gay-ness).

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Fair enough. She didn't have to announce her reasons and I agree it was foolish to do so.

But even though I disagree with her I do support her right to be able to turn down business at her discretion no matter how bigoted her logic.

Just don't be dumb enough to say it in a way that the media can later quote.

[hurley1980]

SEATTLE — The Washington attorney general has filed a consumer protection action against an eastern Washington florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, telling a longtime customer that it was “because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.”

The lawsuit seeks $2,000 in fines for each violation and an injunction requiring Arlene’s Flowers to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-washington-gay-wedding-florist-arlene-20130410,0,5981622.story

Here is a better article which explains why this is indeed breaking the law in the state of Washington.

[hurley1980]

Apr 11, 2013 15:40:45 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

 It seems that an awful lot of people support her breaking the law the way she did. 

So a business owner in WA. has no right to refuse service to anyone?

She has the right to refuse service, but not simply because of someones sexual orientation. 

[mmhmm]

They didn't ask her for relationship advice.  They didn't ask her for religious instruction.  They asked for the same services she provides for other customers; nothing more, nothing less.  That said, this will be one for the court to decide based on the applicable law.

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 15:37:08 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Fair enough. She didn't have to announce her reasons and I agree it was foolish to do so.

But even though I disagree with her I do support her right to be able to turn down business at her discretion no matter how bigoted her logic.

Just don't be dumb enough to say it in a way that the media can later quote.

And just don't be dumb enough to say it in a way that will get you into hot water with the Attorney General!

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Exactly.  She could have said "Sorry but I just can't take on another wedding right now" and nobody would have been the wiser.  She still would be a bigot, but she wouldn't be in trouble for it.

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 15:53:26 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Apr 11, 2013 15:43:07 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

She has the right to refuse service, but not simply because of someones sexual orientation. 

She is doing this because of her religious beliefs, and her religious beliefs are protected under the constitution. How then can any law forcing her to service this couple trump that?

The right to practice her religion without government interference is what is protected for her. To offer her services to the public and then refuse to serve a protected class of that same public due to her private/religious views is NOT protected.

And don't come back and tell me that refusing to serve someone in a protected class is practicing her religion, because it's not.

[genericname]

Apr 11, 2013 15:53:26 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Apr 11, 2013 15:43:07 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

She has the right to refuse service, but not simply because of someones sexual orientation. 

She is doing this because of her religious beliefs, and her religious beliefs are protected under the constitution. How then can any law forcing her to service this couple trump that?

And that is the rub that the courts will have to decide within the entire gay marriage debate, whether you support it or not. What liberty is more valid than the other? The liberty to practice your religion without government interference, or the liberty to marry whoever you want? It depends on the leaning of the court, I guess.

[genericname]

Refusing to serve someone based on a moral judgement based on religious teaching is absolutely practicing your religion. Trying to remove someone's religion from how they live their life is like trying to tell a gay man to just deal with it and marry a woman.

[hurley1980]

So now religion is above the law lonewolf? 

Whats even worse is these men had been customers of hers for a decade, and she had sold them flowers many times, but refused to their wedding only.  What a nice way to thank long-standing clients! 

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 16:03:14 GMT -5 genericname said:

Apr 11, 2013 15:53:26 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

She is doing this because of her religious beliefs, and her religious beliefs are protected under the constitution. How then can any law forcing her to service this couple trump that?

And that is the rub that the courts will have to decide within the entire gay marriage debate, whether you support it or not. What liberty is more valid than the other? The liberty to practice your religion without government interference, or the liberty to marry whoever you want? It depends on the leaning of the court, I guess.

But this case has nothing to do with the validity of gay marriage. This is a case of an individual who offers her services to the public and then refuses those services to a protected class in that same public because of who they are.

[Deleted]

DramaQ--I know they were not hiring. That was just an example of how just being a protected class isn't enough to make it illegal. There has to be another part of the law that deals with refusing service. Regardless of the reason for refusing, I hope it's not illegal to do it.

[mmhmm]

There is nothing in the bible to require anyone to apply their religious beliefs to another person and insist that person also follow their beliefs or be refused the services of a business that provides those same services to others in the community.  As was noted, she may have supplied flowers for weddings of atheists, or people who are a different denomination than she.  They don't necessarily fit with her religious beliefs, either, but services were not refused them.  Again, this is a matter for the courts.

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 16:05:30 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

DramaQ--I know they were not hiring. That was just an example of how just being a protected class isn't enough to make it illegal. There has to be another part of the law that deals with refusing service. Regardless of the reason for refusing, I hope it's not illegal to do it.

It is perfectly legal to refuse to serve someone, it's just not legal to do it for a protected class reason. She should have kept her mouth shut.

[mmhmm]

Apr 11, 2013 16:05:12 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

So now religion is above the law lonewolf? 

Whats even worse is these men had been customers of hers for a decade, and she had sold them flowers many times, but refused to their wedding only.  What a nice way to thank long-standing clients! 

Precisely, hurley.  Her need to announce her disapproval of their marriage may well cost her and she didn't have to do it.

[Deleted]

Ok. That's what I was asking about. Thanks.

[genericname]

This is the problem with creating "protected classes" - no matter what the case. Religous liberty is one of the reasons this place exists as a country. I'm not saying the business owner made the right call - I'm just saying that numerous religions have moral "absolutes" that conflict with civil rights. I understand why the lady refused service, and I understand why the couple is upset. I just don't happen to think that cloaking something as a protected class should trump everything else.

[Deleted]

She probably did it because they were friends and she thought she owed them an explanation. If that's the case I'd say the two men betrayed their friendship. Who cares what the law says. They weren't harmed. (Again, speaking hypothetically, here.)

[Tennesseer]

Meh.  They lose the customer's business and more.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 16:10:48 GMT -5 genericname said:

This is the problem with creating "protected classes" - no matter what the case. Religous liberty is one of the reasons this place exists as a country. I'm not saying the business owner made the right call - I'm just saying that numerous religions have moral "absolutes" that conflict with civil rights. I understand shy the lady refused service, and I understand why the couple is upset. I just don't happen to think that cloaking something as a protected class should trump everything else.

Well LOL and LOL again, genericname - - don't forget that Religion is a protected class! If I offer my services to the public, I may have the right to refuse service to you, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF YOUR RELIGION. This is absolutely no different (in the eyes of the law, anyway) than refusing to serve someone because of their sexual orientation.

[hurley1980]

Apr 11, 2013 16:10:48 GMT -5 genericname said:

This is the problem with creating "protected classes" - no matter what the case. Religous liberty is one of the reasons this place exists as a country. I'm not saying the business owner made the right call - I'm just saying that numerous religions have moral "absolutes" that conflict with civil rights. I understand why the lady refused service, and I understand why the couple is upset. I just don't happen to think that cloaking something as a protected class should trump everything else.

Well if she has so many moral absolutes, then perhaps she shouldn't be running a business open to the general public, operating under a business license issued by the State of Washington.  She can be as "moral" as she wants then....

I'm pretty sure shes going to lose this case.  How is this any different than refusing to sell flowers for a jewish wedding, or to a black couple getting married?

[Tennesseer]

I do think businesses that have anything to do with weddings, birthday parties and other events that have floral arrangements should put ads in their local phone book along with signs on their storefront windows they don't cater gay events.  Be up front with it.