Local florist refuses to service same-sex marriage

[genericname]

This is why it is an issue for the courts to decide - TWO conflicting protected classes - which one trumps the other? 

From the sound of it, she has served these gentleman for a long time. I'm assuming she knew their sexual orientation long before the issue of marriage flowers came up. It sounds to me like she is refusing the provide them service for a ceremony she does not agree with. She is not saying, "since you are gay, I don't like you, so I'm not going to sell you flowers." It sounds like she is saying, "you are nice people, but I don't support gay marriage, so I'm not going to participate in a gay marriage ceremony." It may be a subtle difference, but it is there. It sounds like she is attempting to avoid tacitly approving of a ceremony she disagrees with by supporting it via commerce - not even by profiting off it.

[hurley1980]

Thats a very valid point genericname. She obviously doesn't dislike them, she just disapproves of their ceremony, because of her religion.  However, they are not trumping her rights by forcing her to be in the wedding or make her be gay.  I'm sure she does not ask every couple that comes in looking for wedding flowers about their private lives to make sure they don't do anything she disapproves of or is considered against her religion.  The only reason this is different is because she didn't need to ask, it was visibly seen.

[kittensaver]

This is why it is an issue for the courts to decide - TWO conflicting protected classes - which one trumps the other?

============================

I agree the courts will decide this (if the Attorney General decides to forward on the case), but I respectfully disagree that this is an issue of pitting the rights of two protected classes against each other.

This woman says she is a Christian. There is nothing anywhere in any Christian religious text(s) that compels the followers of the Founder of Christianity to shun or refuse to serve someone who does not think or believe like they do as a requirement for practicing their religion. In fact quite on the other hand, The Original Christian frequently "called out" righteous folks who shunned and looked down on others.

Her actions are not protected because her religion does not compel her to do what she did.

Nope, respectfully - the argument doesn't hold up for me. Respectfully. YMMV. 

[Phoenix84]

Apr 11, 2013 15:28:04 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

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.

That's pretty much what I thought, and feel should be appropriate.  Unless it's a government, or some other entity receiving public money, then the florist should have every right to not service a particular customer for any reason they choose. 

If people want to boycott her business over it, that's their right as well. 

[Phoenix84]

Hmmm, it is concerning that you guys think because someone is of a particular religion that dennounces same sex relationships then that makes that person a bigot.  This seems like religious persecution to me, and those of you calling her a bigot are complicit to it.

This is too bad, we'll see what the court says, but I fould refuse to pay anything and close my business and move to another state if I were in her shoes.  This is ridiculous. 

And the whole concept of a "protected class" seems off to me.  I thought we were supposed to have equal protection under the law?  I guess some of us are more equal than others.....

[kittensaver]

Again, any business has the right to refuse service for no reason, or for any reason EXCEPT that the individual(s) belongs to a protected class.

At least in the State of Washington, what she did was as illegal as refusing to serve someone because they are female, a racial minority, disabled, etc etc.

No every State includes sexual orientation in their classes of protected persons, so this may seem strange or wrong to someone living in a State where this type of discrimination is legal.

Again - at least from a LEGAL perspective - she should have kept her mouth shut as to the reason.

 

[shelby]

"Hmmm, it is concerning that you guys think because someone is of a particular religion that dennounces same sex relationships then that makes that person a bigot."

I think many find it concerning how you would NOT see it as bigoted.

[Phoenix84]

"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."

Religion isn't just something you "practice."  It's something you live your life by, something that makes you who you are.

Saying "only the practice of relgion is protected" is like saying only the practice of the gay lifestyle is protected.  Is it the practice of being gay that's protected, or the individual?  And why would there be a double standard where gay people are protected as individuals but Christians are only protected in their ability to practice religon?  If that's the case then gay people should not be protected, only their ability to practice their homosexuality. 

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 16:57:10 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Hmmm, it is concerning that you guys think because someone is of a particular religion that dennounces same sex relationships then that makes that person a bigot.  This seems like religious persecution to me, and those of you calling her a bigot are complicit to it.

This is too bad, we'll see what the court says, but I fould refuse to pay anything and close my business and move to another state if I were in her shoes.  This is ridiculous. 

And the whole concept of a "protected class" seems off to me.  I thought we were supposed to have equal protection under the law?  I guess some of us are more equal than others.....

So if we should all have equal protection under the law, why should she be allow to discriminate against someone who is gay? Are gays not entitled to equal protections under the law? Are gays less equal than others merely because some individual "disapproves" of their life? How would you feel if you walked into a public establishment and they refused to serve you BECAUSE you were male? or under 30? Or single? I'm gonna gander you'd be pretty upset . . .

[mmhmm]

Apr 11, 2013 16:51:16 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Apr 11, 2013 15:28:04 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

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.

That's pretty much what I thought, and feel should be appropriate.  Unless it's a government, or some other entity receiving public money, then the florist should have every right to not service a particular customer for any reason they choose. 

If people want to boycott her business over it, that's their right as well. 

The state’s attorney general Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Stutzman.

“As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington,” Ferguson said in a statement. “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same sex couples the same product or service.”

Read more at www.inquisitr.com/613814/washington-florist-sued-by-attorney-general-after-she-refuses-to-serve-gay-couple/#gs8hLAHdzSecJAxT.99 

[Phoenix84]

"I think many find it concerning how you would NOT see it as bigoted."

Throwing around terms like bigoted is just a tactic to dehumanize and shame those who don't agree with you.  Living your life under religious principles does not make one a bigot. 

[Phoenix84]

"So if we should all have equal protection under the law, why should she be allow to discriminate against someone who is gay?"

That depends on how you define discrimination and who it applies to.  It's equal protection under the law if a business owner or independent contractor can refuse service to a potential client for any reason of their choosing.  That's equal in my opinion. 

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 17:11:29 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"I think many find it concerning how you would NOT see it as bigoted."

Throwing around terms like bigoted is just a tactic to dehumanize and shame those who don't agree with you.  Living your life under religious principles does not make one a bigot. 

A bigot who brandishes a Bible is still a bigot.

[Phoenix84]

"How would you feel if you walked into a public establishment and they refused to serve you BECAUSE you were male? or under 30?"

Actually, that would already happen if I wanted to patronize certain establishments. 

For example, if I wanted to move into a senior living community, they would not let me because I was under 50.  Is that discrimination? 

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 17:13:31 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"So if we should all have equal protection under the law, why should she be allow to discriminate against someone who is gay?"

That depends on how you define discrimination and who it applies to.  It's equal protection under the law if a business owner or independent contractor can refuse service to a potential client for any reason of their choosing.  That's equal in my opinion. 

So tell me you're perfectly okay with someone refusing you a job, or entrance to the university of your choice, or your ability to buy a car, or your ability to rent or purchase housing in the community of your choice, get preferred credit etc etc etc BECAUSE you are male, single, under 30 . . . .

[Phoenix84]

"A bigot who brandishes a Bible is still a bigot."

For someone who champions the cause of equal treatment and justice, you don't seem all that concerned over religious persecution.  Seems kind of hyopocritical to me.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 11, 2013 17:15:57 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"How would you feel if you walked into a public establishment and they refused to serve you BECAUSE you were male? or under 30?"

Actually, that would already happen if I wanted to patronize certain establishments. 

For example, if I wanted to move into a senior living community, they would not let me because I was under 50.  Is that discrimination? 

But it would no longer be discrimination after you turn 50.

In the florist's case, there is no exception to her rule.  None.  Nada.

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 17:15:57 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"How would you feel if you walked into a public establishment and they refused to serve you BECAUSE you were male? or under 30?"

Actually, that would already happen if I wanted to patronize certain establishments. 

For example, if I wanted to move into a senior living community, they would not let me because I was under 50.  Is that discrimination? 

C'mon, you know it's not. You know there are federal housing laws establishing senior housing for the welfare and protection of seniors. Especially since seniors face sometimes rampant (but techically illegal) discrimination in the general housing market . . .

[shelby]

Apr 11, 2013 17:11:29 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"I think many find it concerning how you would NOT see it as bigoted."

Throwing around terms like bigoted is just a tactic to dehumanize and shame those who don't agree with you.  Living your life under religious principles does not make one a bigot. 

I absolutely disagree. "Dehumanize" and "shame" and what exactly is open criticism and judgement against a persons lifestyle and yes I will say identity supposed to accomplish?

[Phoenix84]

"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."

I said this before on this thread, but I think this post sums up why i think this is wrong. 

Religion isn't just something you "practice."  It's something you live your life by, something that makes you who you are.

Saying "only the practice of relgion is protected" is like saying only the practice of the gay lifestyle is protected.  Is it the practice of being gay that's protected, or the individual?  And why would there be a double standard where gay people are protected as individuals but Christians are only protected in their ability to practice religon?  If that's the case then gay people should not be protected, only their ability to practice their homosexuality. 

Why is it that in the case of homosexuality, the gay individual is a protected class, but in the case of religion, only their ability to "practice" said relgion is protected? 

[Peace Of Mind]

When the bible said “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.” I'm pretty sure it meant donkey. 


Sorry!  I've been saving that and finally found somewhere to use it. 

[Tennesseer]

"Why is it that in the case of homosexuality, the gay individual is a protected class, but in the case of religion, only their ability to "practice" said relgion is protected?" 

Because one is born gay and one is not born Christian?

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 17:20:35 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"A bigot who brandishes a Bible is still a bigot."

For someone who champions the cause of equal treatment and justice, you don't seem all that concerned over religious persecution.  Seems kind of hyopocritical to me.

UNDER THE LAW this is not religious persecution. Sorry. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

You may have your religious beliefs all you want - I have no issue with that. You can practice any form of discrimination you choose in a private setting (e.g., among your believers). Go ahead and shun any gay person or any other kind of person you want within the confinds of your church.

You may just not come into a civil arena and impose your religious beliefs on others who do not think or act like you do. That is the State position on the matter. And in this country we have a separation of Church and State.

[Phoenix84]

"C'mon, you know it's not. You know there are federal housing laws establishing senior housing for the welfare and protection of seniors. Especially since seniors face sometimes rampant (but techically illegal) discrimination in the general housing market . . . "

But am I not being serviced equally? 

How about this.  The government gives favorable loans and preference for government contracts to businesses owned by women and minorities.  If I were to start a business I would be at a disadvantage because I'm a white male.  It's codified into law that those groups of people get prefered treatment.  Is that not discrimination?  Is that equal protection under the law? 

[hurley1980]

Apr 11, 2013 17:05:53 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

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! 

I'm not saying what she did is going to be good for her business, only that she had the right to do it, based on her constitutional right to practice her religion as she deems fit.

Thats the thing though Lone, in the State of Washington she does NOT have the right to do what she did.  She discriminated based on sexual orientation which is against the law in WA.  Them getting married does not stop her from practicing her religion, so the whole freedom of religion aspect is completely irrelevant here.  Her rights are not trampled by providing the same service she has provided to them for a decade.  Thats all she would be doing, making flower arrangements.  She would not be at the wedding or forced to view anything, so lets not all act like this is a horrible act of religious persecution in the works.

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 17:30:26 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"C'mon, you know it's not. You know there are federal housing laws establishing senior housing for the welfare and protection of seniors. Especially since seniors face sometimes rampant (but techically illegal) discrimination in the general housing market . . . "

But am I not being serviced equally? 

How about this.  The government gives favorable loans and preference for government contracts to businesses owned by women and minorities.  If I were to start a business I would be at a disadvantage because I'm a white male.  It's codified into law that those groups of people get prefered treatment.  Is that not discrimination?  Is that equal protection under the law? 

In the situation you describe, the government was forced by the courts to provide preferential treatment to the groups you describe as restitution for discrimination. To "level the playing field." Guess what - it's still no where near level. This is a classic example of where business and institutions run by white males were "more equal than others."

[mmhmm]

The Washington Attorney General seems to think this woman's actions broke the laws of the state of Washington.  I figure he knows more about that than I do, so I won't try to pretend I'm the one with the answers.

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 17:34:30 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

Apr 11, 2013 17:05:53 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

I'm not saying what she did is going to be good for her business, only that she had the right to do it, based on her constitutional right to practice her religion as she deems fit.

Thats the thing though Lone, in the State of Washington she does NOT have the right to do what she did.  She discriminated based on sexual orientation which is against the law in WA.  Them getting married does not stop her from practicing her religion, so the whole freedom of religion aspect is completely irrelevant here.  Her rights are not trampled by providing the same service she has provided to them for a decade.  Thats all she would be doing, making flower arrangements.  She would not be at the wedding or forced to view anything, so lets not all act like this is a horrible act of religious persecution in the works.

Exactly! How is any "Christian" personally "harmed" by a gay wedding?

[chiver78]

Apr 11, 2013 16:21:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

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.


 

but then they might have to face the reality that there are plenty of straight couples that wouldn't seek their services on principle, too. I know I wouldn't.

I am surprised there is actually a law in WA that she broke. I haven't followed the link yet, but I plan to.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 11, 2013 17:38:38 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Apr 11, 2013 16:21:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

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.


 

but then they might have to face the reality that there are plenty of straight couples that wouldn't seek their services on principle, too. I know I wouldn't.

I am surprised there is actually a law in WA that she broke. I haven't followed the link yet, but I plan to.

Town folk are now aware of this business and its practices. The owner stood on her principles and will now have to bear the cost.