Flourist sued over refusing to service same sex wedding

[MichelleCarmen]

Washington State voted in same sex marriage and a couple was refused service by a flourist here in WA. The flourist received a lot of flack on FB, Yelp, and probably elsewhere. Now the Attorney General has apparently gotten involved...

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

 

[kenny]

That florist probably has a white-only drinking fountain.

 

[AprilBaby]

In a truly free situation the florist has the right to deny something that offends his religion. There are other florists.

 

[TooPatient]

In a truly free situation the florist has the right to deny something that offends his religion. There are other florists.

I agree.

There are other florists in town. This person should be able to not provide services to anyone for any reason. It is a private business.

 

[iLander]

In a truly free situation the florist has the right to deny something that offends his religion. There are other florists.

I agree.

There are other florists in town. This person should be able to not provide services to anyone for any reason. It is a private business.

I agree. The florist proved himself to be a bigoted moron, but it's still a private business.

 

[NonieMarie]

The bible is open to interpretation. Someone could very well say that they will not serve a different religion, race or nationality because it says says so in the bible or that JC wouldn't approve, hogwash. If you are going to have a business that serves the public you must serve ALL the public, period, the end. I am sick and tired of these so called religious people and their holier than thou attitude (that includes my mother and her idiotic ideas about my gay brother). JC does not care if you provide flowers to a wedding; JC cares that you treat all people with respect and kindness.

 

[NonieMarie]

In a truly free situation the florist has the right to deny something that offends his religion. There are other florists.

I agree.

There are other florists in town. This person should be able to not provide services to anyone for any reason. It is a private business.

The bride is Black, the groom is Chinese and the florist refuses to provide the flowers because she does not believe in the races mixing. How do you think that would go over????

 

[TooPatient]

In a truly free situation the florist has the right to deny something that offends his religion. There are other florists.

I agree.

There are other florists in town. This person should be able to not provide services to anyone for any reason. It is a private business.

The bride is Black, the groom is Chinese and the florist refuses to provide the flowers because she does not believe in the races mixing. How do you think that would go over????

I think it is dumb, but if they don't want to provide service that should be their choice. The negative consequences to their business because of people sharing information on review sites (Yelp, city, whatever), Face Book posts, and other online discussion should be enough incentive to keep people from just refusing service. I still remember hearing about an incident when my middle school class got back from the big year-end trip -- some place had refused to admit the black kid in the group so the entire class (150+ people) left and the school district banned that location for all future trips.
If they choose to refuse service as the business owner they will have to face the impact it has on their business.

 

[HollyS]

Private businesses, not subject to receive federal funding for their usual services, should be able to choose their clients.

Period.

It doesn't matter if any of us think their viewpoint is wrong. Their viewpoint is NOT the issue. The freedom to do exactly as they please is the issue. The only issue.

 

[HollyS]

The bible is open to interpretation. Someone could very well say that they will not serve a different religion, race or nationality because it says says so in the bible or that JC wouldn't approve, hogwash. If you are going to have a business that serves the public you must serve ALL the public, period, the end. I am sick and tired of these so called religious people and their holier than thou attitude (that includes my mother and her idiotic ideas about my gay brother). JC does not care if you provide flowers to a wedding; JC cares that you treat all people with respect and kindness.

Since you're sick of religious people and their holier than thou attitude, perhaps you would care to refrain from self-righteousness as well.

No, they don't have to serve anyone they choose not to serve. That is their business and none of ours. And they should be able to sue for damages for the hate campaign that the same-sex couple started against them.

 

[AprilBaby]

Private businesses, not subject to receive federal funding for their usual services, should be able to choose their clients.

Period.

It doesn't matter if any of us think their viewpoint is wrong. Their viewpoint is NOT the issue. The freedom to do exactly as they please is the issue. The only issue.

Absolutely agree!

 

[Deactivated member 42515]

This florist is local to me. Two blocks away from my work. I used to go to her for my flower needs, but not anymore.

 

[TooPatient]

This florist is local to me. Two blocks away from my work. I used to go to her for my flower needs, but not anymore.

This is exactly how businesses have to face the consequences of their actions. A customer heard about a decision they don't agree with and is choosing to no longer be a customer. The private business made a choice that is theirs to make. Now it is up to their customers to make their own choices.

No need for the courts to get involved.

 

[kenny]

This florist is local to me. Two blocks away from my work. I used to go to her for my flower needs, but not anymore.

And PLENTY of hate mongering bigots (Xcuse me, people with high morals) will flock there.

This is going to take many generations.

 

[Deactivated member 42515]

This florist is local to me. Two blocks away from my work. I used to go to her for my flower needs, but not anymore.

This is exactly how businesses have to face the consequences of their actions. A customer heard about a decision they don't agree with and is choosing to no longer be a customer. The private business made a choice that is theirs to make. Now it is up to their customers to make their own choices.

No need for the courts to get involved.

I didn't think it needed to be such a huge issue. I choose to not support them. My decision. I'm sure she's getting more business from bigots now too.

But I also think that the couple is not suing them. Isn't it the attorney general that is? I don't think the same sex couple is choosing to sue her.

 

[Deactivated member 42515]

This florist is local to me. Two blocks away from my work. I used to go to her for my flower needs, but not anymore.

And PLENTY of hate mongering bigots will flock there.

Yup. Yup. Yup. I'm just appalled. I've been going to this florist forever.

 

[Circe]

The bible is open to interpretation. Someone could very well say that they will not serve a different religion, race or nationality because it says says so in the bible or that JC wouldn't approve, hogwash. If you are going to have a business that serves the public you must serve ALL the public, period, the end. I am sick and tired of these so called religious people and their holier than thou attitude (that includes my mother and her idiotic ideas about my gay brother). JC does not care if you provide flowers to a wedding; JC cares that you treat all people with respect and kindness.

Since you're sick of religious people and their holier than thou attitude, perhaps you would care to refrain from self-righteousness as well.

No, they don't have to serve anyone they choose not to serve. That is their business and none of ours. And they should be able to sue for damages for the hate campaign that the same-sex couple started against them.

Oh, nonsense. Calling people out for being bigots is not the same thing as practicing actual bigotry. They're being criticized for an action, not a status.

 

[kenny]

The bible is open to interpretation. Someone could very well say that they will not serve a different religion, race or nationality because it says says so in the bible or that JC wouldn't approve, hogwash. If you are going to have a business that serves the public you must serve ALL the public, period, the end. I am sick and tired of these so called religious people and their holier than thou attitude (that includes my mother and her idiotic ideas about my gay brother). JC does not care if you provide flowers to a wedding; JC cares that you treat all people with respect and kindness.

Since you're sick of religious people and their holier than thou attitude, perhaps you would care to refrain from self-righteousness as well.

No, they don't have to serve anyone they choose not to serve. That is their business and none of ours. And they should be able to sue for damages for the hate campaign that the same-sex couple started against them.

Oh, nonsense. Calling people out for being bigots is not the same thing as practicing actual bigotry. They're being criticized for an action, not a status.

This is always a tough call ... should we tolerate intolerance, or is pointing out intolerance just more intolerance?

I think we should call out and not tolerate intolerance, even at the risk of being mislabeled intolerant by the intolerant.

They are on the wrong side of history, as time will tell.
Eventually their religions will have to backpedal and make something up to rectify with the times, just like they did when slaves were freed and women started exposing their ankles, voting, and getting credit cards in their own names, and other countless upsetting atrocities forced upon a chaste and pure society by those evil 'liberals'.
Of course a few generations later the gals kind of like and even take for granted what their shocked and offended their conservative and pious great grannies.

We who have added gays to the list of people you just don't crap on any more are just a tad ahead of our time.

 

[cm366]

Kenny, the question doesn't seem to be whether or not it's okay to crap on gays - the question is whether someone should be sued by the state AG for doing so, or whether it's a terrible PR decision that carries its own consequences. None of the posts suggest that the florist is behaving appropriately. I tend to agree with the smaller-government approach; the florist should be able to serve whatever customers they wish in their private business, and the journalists have done their job in publicizing the choices that business makes. Whether customers patronize the business is up to them. Prosecuting the florist serves no-one's goals except the AG's.

 

[kenny]

Kenny, the question doesn't seem to be whether or not it's okay to crap on gays - the question is whether someone should be sued by the state AG for doing so, or whether it's a terrible PR decision that carries its own consequences. None of the posts suggest that the florist is behaving appropriately. I tend to agree with the smaller-government approach; the florist should be able to serve whatever customers they wish in their private business, and the journalists have done their job in publicizing the choices that business makes. Whether customers patronize the business is up to them. Prosecuting the florist serves no-one's goals except the AG's.

Yes, crapping on gays, without looking like you are crapping on gays.

Bigotry, disguised as XYZ.


What's wrong with making blacks ride in the back of the bus or giving them their own water fountain.
They still get there, and they still get to drink, so we ain't discriminating.

IOW, BLAH BLAH BLAH!

 

[cm366]

According to the story, there's no question that the store's owner was discriminating - they're legally in the wrong and it looks like they're going to pay for it. That's perfectly reasonable within the context of their local laws. I still don't think there's an easy border to anti-discrimination laws cloaked as 'consumer protection', and I'm still not comfortable with the idea that the state can compel these folks to change the way they run their business unless it's demonstrably harming their customers. I hope I haven't offended you, Kenny - it wasn't my intention. If you're unwilling to discuss the topic, though, why are you posting?

 

[iheartscience]

The bible is open to interpretation. Someone could very well say that they will not serve a different religion, race or nationality because it says says so in the bible or that JC wouldn't approve, hogwash. If you are going to have a business that serves the public you must serve ALL the public, period, the end. I am sick and tired of these so called religious people and their holier than thou attitude (that includes my mother and her idiotic ideas about my gay brother). JC does not care if you provide flowers to a wedding; JC cares that you treat all people with respect and kindness.

Since you're sick of religious people and their holier than thou attitude, perhaps you would care to refrain from self-righteousness as well.

No, they don't have to serve anyone they choose not to serve. That is their business and none of ours. And they should be able to sue for damages for the hate campaign that the same-sex couple started against them.

Oh, nonsense. Calling people out for being bigots is not the same thing as practicing actual bigotry. They're being criticized for an action, not a status.

DITTO. The audacity of bigots claiming that they're the aggrieved party is jaw-dropping.

 

[Missy]

The bible is open to interpretation. Someone could very well say that they will not serve a different religion, race or nationality because it says says so in the bible or that JC wouldn't approve, hogwash. If you are going to have a business that serves the public you must serve ALL the public, period, the end. I am sick and tired of these so called religious people and their holier than thou attitude (that includes my mother and her idiotic ideas about my gay brother). JC does not care if you provide flowers to a wedding; JC cares that you treat all people with respect and kindness.

Since you're sick of religious people and their holier than thou attitude, perhaps you would care to refrain from self-righteousness as well.

No, they don't have to serve anyone they choose not to serve. That is their business and none of ours. And they should be able to sue for damages for the hate campaign that the same-sex couple started against them.

Oh, nonsense. Calling people out for being bigots is not the same thing as practicing actual bigotry. They're being criticized for an action, not a status.

DITTO. The audacity of bigots claiming that they're the aggrieved party is jaw-dropping.

Count me in with being intolerant of intolerance. I don't see this as much different than refusing to serve blacks or any other group he may not like. It's not OK and it's not right. I hope his business suffers and that he gets what he deserves. Karma is a b***h.

 

[Circe]

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing. It's okay to raise a topic when you have a strong opinion without signing on to coming around to the perspectives raised by opposing parties.

Me, I'm sick and tired of people raising religious objections to doing their own chosen jobs. Don't want to dispense medicine or perform medical procedures? Find another job. The idea of florists raising moral objections almost makes me giggle, it's so petty ... except for the bit where it hurts people's feelings. That's not a religious stance: it's a fear-driven act of social disapproval.

 

[cm366]

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing. It's okay to raise a topic when you have a strong opinion without signing on to coming around to the perspectives raised by opposing parties.

Me, I'm sick and tired of people raising religious objections to doing their own chosen jobs. Don't want to dispense medicine or perform medical procedures? Find another job. The idea of florists raising moral objections almost makes me giggle, it's so petty ... except for the bit where it hurts people's feelings. That's not a religious stance: it's a fear-driven act of social disapproval.

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing, but shouting blah blah blah is neither. It's rudeness calculated to chill any discussion following the poster's proclamation of their beliefs.


The bolded part is where I start to get uncomfortable. The state of Washington is suing the florist for hurting people's feelings?

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing. It's okay to raise a topic when you have a strong opinion without signing on to coming around to the perspectives raised by opposing parties.

Me, I'm sick and tired of people raising religious objections to doing their own chosen jobs. Don't want to dispense medicine or perform medical procedures? Find another job. The idea of florists raising moral objections almost makes me giggle, it's so petty ... except for the bit where it hurts people's feelings. That's not a religious stance: it's a fear-driven act of social disapproval.

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing, but shouting blah blah blah is neither. It's rudeness calculated to chill any discussion following the poster's proclamation of their beliefs.


The bolded part is where I start to get uncomfortable. The state of Washington is suing the florist for hurting people's feelings?

Well, my husband and I both voted in favor of gay marriage and I am glad to see that the Attorney General is suing. How I see it is that gay marriage has been approved by enough people in WA that it has become legal and that people should have to follow this law. I'm not a fan of huge government control, but it's not right to discriminate and the whole point of the law is to provide couples with the same rights regardless of sexual orientation and I guess the AG decided to step in to make a point and hopefully set an example with this case.

 

[iheartscience]

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing. It's okay to raise a topic when you have a strong opinion without signing on to coming around to the perspectives raised by opposing parties.

Me, I'm sick and tired of people raising religious objections to doing their own chosen jobs. Don't want to dispense medicine or perform medical procedures? Find another job. The idea of florists raising moral objections almost makes me giggle, it's so petty ... except for the bit where it hurts people's feelings. That's not a religious stance: it's a fear-driven act of social disapproval.

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing, but shouting blah blah blah is neither. It's rudeness calculated to chill any discussion following the poster's proclamation of their beliefs.

The bolded part is where I start to get uncomfortable. The state of Washington is suing the florist for hurting people's feelings?

Nope, they're suing because the florist broke their state law of not allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[TooPatient]

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing. It's okay to raise a topic when you have a strong opinion without signing on to coming around to the perspectives raised by opposing parties.

Me, I'm sick and tired of people raising religious objections to doing their own chosen jobs. Don't want to dispense medicine or perform medical procedures? Find another job. The idea of florists raising moral objections almost makes me giggle, it's so petty ... except for the bit where it hurts people's feelings. That's not a religious stance: it's a fear-driven act of social disapproval.

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing, but shouting blah blah blah is neither. It's rudeness calculated to chill any discussion following the poster's proclamation of their beliefs.


The bolded part is where I start to get uncomfortable. The state of Washington is suing the florist for hurting people's feelings?[/quote]

I live in Washington so what people can and can't be sued over (especially by the government) really matters to me. I don't agree with the florist's decision, but it is her business and people can buy or not buy from her as they choose.

If the state can sue her for not providing the flowers, then why can't they also sue her for providing the flowers but not meeting the high standards of a customer who claims that she "intentionally" did a poor job because they are (Asian, Hispanic, black, white, homosexual, handicapped, Christian, non-Christian, etc, etc)? That would be pretty subjective, but what would there be to stop them from doing that?

 

[iheartscience]

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing. It's okay to raise a topic when you have a strong opinion without signing on to coming around to the perspectives raised by opposing parties.

Me, I'm sick and tired of people raising religious objections to doing their own chosen jobs. Don't want to dispense medicine or perform medical procedures? Find another job. The idea of florists raising moral objections almost makes me giggle, it's so petty ... except for the bit where it hurts people's feelings. That's not a religious stance: it's a fear-driven act of social disapproval.

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing, but shouting blah blah blah is neither. It's rudeness calculated to chill any discussion following the poster's proclamation of their beliefs.


The bolded part is where I start to get uncomfortable. The state of Washington is suing the florist for hurting people's feelings?[/quote]

I live in Washington so what people can and can't be sued over (especially by the government) really matters to me. I don't agree with the florist's decision, but it is her business and people can buy or not buy from her as they choose.

If the state can sue her for not providing the flowers, then why can't they also sue her for providing the flowers but not meeting the high standards of a customer who claims that she "intentionally" did a poor job because they are (Asian, Hispanic, black, white, homosexual, handicapped, Christian, non-Christian, etc, etc)? That would be pretty subjective, but what would there be to stop them from doing that?

The florist refused service to someone in a protected class, which is why she's being sued. And if the florist did a poor job for a protected class on purpose, she should also be sued. This is a ridiculous slippery slope argument.

 

[Circe]

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing. It's okay to raise a topic when you have a strong opinion without signing on to coming around to the perspectives raised by opposing parties.

Me, I'm sick and tired of people raising religious objections to doing their own chosen jobs. Don't want to dispense medicine or perform medical procedures? Find another job. The idea of florists raising moral objections almost makes me giggle, it's so petty ... except for the bit where it hurts people's feelings. That's not a religious stance: it's a fear-driven act of social disapproval.

Discussion and agreement aren't the same thing, but shouting blah blah blah is neither. It's rudeness calculated to chill any discussion following the poster's proclamation of their beliefs.

The bolded part is where I start to get uncomfortable. The state of Washington is suing the florist for hurting people's feelings?

Nope, they're suing because the florist broke their state law of not allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

T2 nailed it - the bit about the hurt feelings is just me, personally.

I ... just ... florists?!?! As arbiters of social values and conduits for the Word of Jesus Christ? NO.

I respect florists. As I respect anybody who does their job. Are they ministers, priests, or otherwise official representatives of the Christian church? NOPE.

Not their job, then. Have opinions in your off time: discrimination just isn't in the job description for creating aesthetically pleasing combinations of blooms.

(Or dispensing meds, though that is a topic for another day.)