Comments

1
I hope they put her out of business. Bye bye bigots,
2
Does the letter really say "the concept offends the conscious [sic]"? Cause if so that's a great typo.
3
davemiller, totally. I would argue that the concept tends to offend the sub- or barely conscious, myself.
4
@2) That's what it says, all right. I've uploaded the letters so you can read for yourself.
5
Whatta piece of shit letter their "lawyer" wrote. Creative expression defense? Puhleeze.
6
Really? Their defense is that flower arranging is a form of expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment? That's bizarre.

I'm no lawyer, but I would think the stronger (and more obvious) argument would be that Ms. Stutzman is being punished by the state for exercising her religious beliefs.

(Just to be clear, I'm not saying *I* think that, just that it seems the more compelling argument for her side.)
7
Ah, their lawyer went to the fundamentalist Christian law school Regent, founded by Pat Robertson: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/justin-brist…
8
I'd say her next floral arrangement...

*puts on sunglasses*

... will be for her company's funeral.

YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!
9
Can they not see themselves as the ***holes refusing to serve black people after the end of Jim Crow laws? Good for the AG for making an example out of them.
10
Oh! Mercy me! All this is going to be very instructive.

I must say the idea that arranging stuff into your personal expression and selling it is protected by the First Amendment is quite a concept. I've seen some personal expressions up at Safeway and now I wonder what the artistes are expressing.
11
At least the lawyers consistently referred to "conscious" throughout.
12
"Although gay 'marriage' may be legal in Washington for the time being," frames animus in their argument, yes? Suggests non-recognition of a legal and voter ratified law and a belief in the law failing in the near future, maybe. Law types, sup with that?
13
@1:

Au Contrare, mon frere, I hope she stays IN business and every engaged Gay couple in Eastern WA solicits her services. Sure, she'll make a bunch of money in the process, but for her it'll be a living Hell having to deal with icky Gay Peoplez day after day.

Eventually, though, her inevitable business success might convince her what an ignorant bigot she's been, and maybe she'll stop believing in her Gay-Hatin' Jeebuz altogether.
14
Stupid florist for not simply declining their business and not stating a reason, but I guess fundamentalists have to make it plain that everything they do is because they're fundamentalists.

If anyone still thinks there's no difference between Dems and Republicans, ask yourself whether a Republican AG would file such a lawsuit. Yay Ferguson.
15
Illiterate attorney; yeah, that bodes well for the defense.
16
This is the same battle as the civil rights movement. You couldn't discriminate to african americans as a business owner, even if you thought they were a religious sin. You couldn't do it then, you can't do it now. You're going to LOSE! <3 for all!
17
I support the florist. You should be able to refuse any customer for any reason.
18
Thank you Bob Ferguson. This certainly wouldn't have happened under Reagan Dunn.
19
@15: Think many smarter people'd take the case?
20
@8: Goddamn it you just made me spray some quality booze on my crap phone.
21
"The florist's job is to create an arrangement that expresses the sentiment of the florist's clients."

Yes, exactly - "... the sentiment of the florist's CLIENTS."

The fact that arranging flowers may require a certain amount of artistic talent is completely besides the point; a florist is basically just filling an order - just like those bigoted people behind the lunch counters were supposed to do two generations ago - and cannot use someone's memberships as a protected class as a reason not to serve them.
22
I hope somebody contacts the HRC and finds out what they're so busy working on.
23
@13 - Also funny would be if she somehow wins the right to refuse service to gays. Then every gay in range of her shop should stop in and say "My fiancee and I want to use your services for our homosexual wedding. What sort of services do you offer for homosexual weddings? None? Oh dear. Never mind then."
24
wow.

the xtians said it would happen and they were right
25
hopefully they can go after the licenses of the pharmacists who refuse to provide birth control/morning after pills, etc to unmarried girls/whomever for "religious" reasons.

I'm personally sick of people using bullshit theological arguments to justify their bigotry. Its time for everyone to grow the fuck up. Just because you believe in the sky fairy doesn't mean you get a free pass to be a bigot and not get called out on it
26
I dunno. The couple was reluctant to sue and give ammo to the bigots. I think the HRC didn't want to pursue a case if the couple didn't want to pursue a case.
27
I'm no lawyer, but this does strike me as a politically dangerous case for Ferguson, and I can easily imagine the people soon to be yelling about all the special protections for the gays and politicized witch-hunts by the Seattle liberals trying to force everyone to think like a limp-wristed city type. Of course, I expect marriage equality's approval numbers to go up over time, and we already know it's a better-than-50% issue in Washington, but this is definitely going to come up in future campaigns for Ferguson. If he wins, it'll probably generate little more than indignation on the right, but if he loses, his opponents get to bandy around words like "unconstitutional overreach."

Tl;dr I agree in principle with the suit, but it's an interesting choice for a man who very likely wants to be governor or senator some day.
28
@24: There's no religious commandment to not sell gays flowers, dipshit.
30

What ever happen to individual rights? Does it only apply to

Gays?

31
What ever happened to INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ? Do INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS apply only to Gay People?
32
Seems like this would make it that much harder to pass gay marriage in the rest of the states. They'll hold this up as an example of the slippery slope: legalize gay marriage and then your business will be forced to help gays marry. Next your church will be forced to perform weddings. Good for Washington gays, bad for the rest.
33
@30: Do you support the individual rights of a restaurant owner who feels strongly that he doesn't want to serve food to Black people?
34
29

feeling a little defensive?

you should.

this woman has served gay customers for years.

they have been totally pleased with the service she has rendered. for years. to gays.

this suit is about a gay wedding.

you know, where people get gay "married"?

do you where this is going?
35
28

Gosh you're right!
Just that they shall surely be put to death...
It seems a little harsh but have it your way.
asswipe.
36
@18 FTW, and good on Bob Ferguson for sticking his neck out there to do the right thing.

Bob 2020!
37
If they win, then Molly Moon and Cupcake Royale can refuse to serve customers on the grounds that how ice cream is scooped and how cupcakes are frosted are creative expressions protected by the first amendment.
38
I hope someone at the AG's office sees your comment @37, because that is really the whole argument against their ridiculous "freedom of expression" defense all rolled up nicely for them.
39
Good argument, bad attention to detail, re: conscious.. florist will fail in court...just for that sort of reason. the argument is almost the immovable object, irresistible force argument. can God make a rock so big He can't lift it.... I don't think I want art for my joy created by a bigot, thank you...
40
@ 33 Are these black people Gay? Are you Gay? What happened to a business to say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ?
41
Let's see, I'm pretty sure a Barista could use the same argument and refuse to make me coffee. A house painter knows just how to create a perfect palette of colors for their client, the sales person at the tire shop adds their artistic abilities to pick out just the right tire rims for your ride. And let's not forget the chef who makes their food with flair or the printer who interprets that you want those 100 copies on just the right paper. According to these silly lawyers, each one of these people could invoke that argument and refuse service to the Gays. Bunch of idiots.
43
@40:

The short answer is: that sign isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

A restaurant, as a "place of public accommodation", that is, an establishment the primary purpose of which is to sell goods and/or services to the general public, by law CANNOT refuse to extend service on the basis of a patron's race, color, religion, natural origin, gender, disability, and increasingly, sexual orientation, along with a whole host of arbitrary conditions, such as, for example, dominant handedness.

That being said, businesses CAN refuse service in situations when a customer's presence may detract from the safety, welfare, and well being of other patrons or of the establishment itself. So, you can refuse service to drunk, rowdy or argumentative patrons who are causing a disturbance; you can refuse service to patrons who walk in right before the end of regular business hours, or whose presence may cause the establishment to exceed its legal capacity, that sort of thing.

In other words, the conditions under which a business may refuse service are limited, and well-established, and most assuredly do NOT grant said business the right to refuse service to "anyone", regardless of whatever signage stating the contrary may be posted on the premises.
44
@42 - From the looks of his comments, thebob appears to still be living in the '60's, so there you go.
45
@32 / Cthulhu: I can see what you mean, but I think the AG is pretty smart to bring this as a consumer protection act case. Under Washington law, discrimination against gay people is unlawful in public accommodations -- this actually doesn't have anything to do with the gay marriage law, it's part of the older "Washington Law Against Discrimination." (Still, I think you're right that some members of the public might confuse the issues here with the new gay marriage law.) And violations of WLAD that occur in commerce count as unfair or deceptive practices under the consumer protection act.

Shouldn't businesses who discriminate illegally have to pay a price? Having the right to free expression in our personal lives is one thing, but claiming that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on any basis they like seems like a loser to me.
46
"creative expression" feels fishy here. It seems that if the customer is completely interchangeable - another person could go in and request exactly the same service/product for the same wedding (without mentioning the gay part) and be served, then GIVE those flowers to the gay couple, there doesn't seem to be any particular "creative expression going on.

As a counter-example, you couldn't change out someone getting a portrait painted because that creative endeavor is specifically connected to the person served.

And what 40 said.
47
From the earlier report: "The couple has been buying flowers from the shop for the full nine years of their relationship..."

So the florist was perfectly happy to take their money for NINE YEARS, which I think is an important point and really reveals her shameless hypocrisy.
48
This is awesome. This sets a big precedent where the the AG's office will actually enforce the discrimination laws of WA state, instead of waiting to be dragged into it. This is why I voted for Ferguson & am oh-so-very thankful that the pouty twerp is out of there.

Hey, you want to pull that shit in America? Fine. Move to Utah. Or the Dakotas. Or move to Uganda. Or Jamaica. Knock yourself out. In WA state, we're civilized & we're not afraid of putting that into our laws.
49
@43 FTW.
50
@46, re: "And what 40 said," please read @43.
51
See also:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise…


We reserve the right to refuse service.

The sign's message is clear and simple, but the truth is that a business can't reserve a wholesale right to refuse service.

As places of public accommodation, private businesses are subject to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. These statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender and sex. Some also include sexual orientation.

And others, well they outlaw even arbitrary discrimination.

For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits all types of arbitrary discrimination. This includes biases based on physical attributes, political beliefs, and geographical origin.

Courts also tend not to favor arbitrary discrimination. In the past, judges have used consumer protection, unfair business practice, and tort laws to punish such practices.

None of this means that you absolutely cannot refuse to serve a customer. It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to do so.

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

It's still essential to apply these criteria on a bias-neutral basis. Even the most compelling business reason can't overcome obvious discrimination. So remember to use your right to refuse service wisely.

Related Resources:

Discrimination in Public Accommodations: Government Enforcement (FindLaw)
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/m…

NJ Bridal Store Refuses to Sell Lesbian a Dress (FindLaw's Free Enterprise)
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise…
Gay Marriage a Boon for Small Business (FindLaw's Free Enterprise)
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise…
52
It's an interesting juxtaposition of the pro-Equality argument.

The fundamental basis of the modern argument in favor of Equal Marriage is based in personal liberty. Neither the state nor the majority has the right to deprive a minority, however small or despised, of it's individual freedom to pursue happiness in any way that does not inhibit the freedom of others to do likewise.

This florist is arguing that she too enjoys a fundamental liberty to discriminate. Her argument falls apart in that the liberty she wants the state to grant her fundamentally infringes upon the rights of other citizens.

This letter from her attorney contains a menacing reference to Equal Marriage being a temporal glitch in WA state law, as if they expect it to cease to be law at some point in the future. In other words, they haven't accepted that this is the way it is in WA. They believe that by challenging this suit brought by the state they can in some way contribute to that cessation.

It would be nice if we lived in the world of fairly tales, where there is a happily ever after in the story. But we don't. We live in the world where the ERA, which enjoyed massive support, fell apart just when everyone took it for granted. We live in a world where even the Voting Rights Act is endangered, where school desegregation was recently overturned by the SCOTUS. It's easy sometimes to laugh when I see clowns like Rand Paul blather on about how he would bring back Jim Crow. I have a difficult time believing that someone like that even exists, much less got elected to the Senate. But he did.

And had the electoral tides turned ever so slightly in the other direction, Governor Rob McKenna might be throwing his support behind repealing Marriage Equality, along with state Senator Jack Connoly. Given that more people fought for the right to get high than fought for the legal recognition of GLBT people as full citizens before the law, maybe they might have succeeded. For the want of a nail, indeed.

And now this florist has decided that she will be the White Knight in botanical armor that will ride in to save the state from Marriage Equality. Her lawyers are so dedicated and so fierce they couldn't check their legal brief for spelling mistakes before submitting it. Just as Nathan Bedford Forrest could not accept that his was a Lost Cause, neither can they.

This time around, we must not let the bigots in their white hoods turn back the tide of history for a century. We must not take it for granted that we have won. This is no fairy tale, and there is no happily ever after. The bigots are always at the door, rope in hand, waiting for the state to turn it's back when the popular will becomes exhausted from the fight.
53
If she told me she couldn't serve me because of her relationship with Jesus, I would have said "JESUS? Really? I haven't seen him in...well...it's gotta be at least 2000 years! How's he doin'? Have his hands healed up? Anyway, tell him I said, "Hey!" and ask him if there are any other florists that could help me. I'm sure he knows of about eleventy-billion!"
54
You know...I have a bit of a problem with this. In WA, people do not have the right to refuse business based on sexual orientation and religious beliefs. But, what about the refusal based on the event itself?

For instance, didn't we recently, and by recently I mean in the past 3 years, have an incident on Cap Hill or somewhere near here, where some church group was renting out a space and was denied a renewal contract or something because they came out as vehemently anti-gay based in their Christian beliefs?

Is that much different than refusing to serve a gay wedding?

When does a business have the right to turn away an event based on personal attitudes? Should I, as a hypothetical hall owner, be forced to host a rally by the Westboro Baptist Church? What about a conference for a group of mega churches that are well known to be donating against my best interests?

If I, as a hypothetical graphic designer, have a Christian client I've been designing graphics for secular events, and suddenly he puts on a NOM type rally, can I tell him that it's not right for me?

What about if I am a famous gay musician who has been hired for exclusive weddings, can I refuse to do somebody's wedding because they're staunch Republicans? Or a famous gay rights activist and refuse to do a Republican fundraiser rally?

It leaves me wondering where does product start and stop, and personal start and stop? And where does personhood stop and events with endorsements start?

To me it's a sticky line, far stickier than most of the comments here (on both sides) so glibly say "oh it's a sexual orientation thang."
55
WA state FTW yet again. Best state in the union. And this is coming from a gun toting Okanogan County resident.
56
Yeah, hire a freaking land use firm for your first amendment case. Real slick. Sign of a solid case. Let's look at the response *giggles*
57
If that "lawyer" got his JD from Regent, he probably doesn't know there's a difference between "conscious" and "conscience". Having a parchment on the wall is no guarantee of an actual education.
58
@54 - I believe that the incident you are referring to with the anti-gay church being denied space involved them renting a public space. I don't remember whether it was a school or a community center, but in either case, anyone renting public space must conform to anti-discrimination laws. If you as a private citizen owning a similar space want to rent to them, that would be your prerogative. So that is really apples to oranges.

As to whether you as a graphic designer would be required to make a NOM-positive flyer (or similar), if you are open to the public, then yes you would be required to do so, or face similar discrimination lawsuits. It works both ways. Now of course you could just bid the job beyond what would be reasonable to pay for it, thus preventing yourself from having to do it, but just flat out saying "No, I'm not going to do that" - well you can't do that. It's exactly the same as what the flower shop bigot in Richlandistan is doing.
59
@54 well, you start by narrowing it out to places where theres a public accommodation. Good/service offered to the general public? Then don't discriminate against a protected class.

In your rental case, exclusively renting a space to an organization is not an act of public accommodation, and unless you're talking about business to individual consumer rentals like hotels and racquetball courts and the like it's not even close. No general public offers. If you're a graphic artist and you're selling prints, you can't sell prints to whites but not to blacks. If homosexuality is a protected class under your state's law, you can't use it either.

Custom services, if offered to the general public, can't be denied to an individual based on that individual's membership in a protected class. You do have a right to freedom of expression and speech that protects the content of your work, so you wouldn't have to accept a commission for a nazi flag. Also, art is actually expression, so a bigot could probably refuse to take photos of or make a painting of the dudes kissing. That's the rule that this crappy land use firm is trying to twist into an analogous argument about the content of the floral arrangements. It's a terrible argument, but they are entitled to dig through the precedent and try and prop it up. Good luck. Big difference between offering a bunch of floral arrangements from a design book and making a painting.

Your "gay activist doing a republican rally" is the weirdest thing I've ever heard. Again, this is quintessential political free speech, no one will ever be forced to work for a rally. And it's backwards here, there's no public accommodation, at all. The wedding musician is at least a case of real business discrimination, but its not a public accommodation. And political party affiliations are NOT a protected class, at least on the level that gives rise to protection against discrimination in cases like this. This floral person would have a MUCH better argument if she had to attend the wedding or something. But she wouldn't even sell them in a store open to the public. She's an idiot, which is why the lawyers have to try for the expression argument.

Seriously, smart people have already thought this out. Are you in the business of public accommodations or selling goods/services to the general public? Then you can't discriminate against a protected class. Federally, homosexuality is not a protected class (yet), but in many states, it is.
60
That should say for the wedding musician that it's not NECESSARILY a case of public accommodation. Political party affiliation isn't a protected class anyway so it's moot.
61
And to be clear, at the state level some weird and varied shit is a protected class. I think California DOES protect political affiliation, but again, it must be a public accommodation situation, and there must be a (real, not floral) free speech interest on the other side.
62
@54
To expand on what @58 wrote, why don't you go around Capitol Hill to all the printers and graphic designers and commission a bunch of NOM-positive flyers from each, then come back and tell us what happened.
63
Seriously, smart people have already thought this out

Zing!
64
@62 a better law-troll would be to design the flyer yourself and take it to be printed at a place offering print services. But I'd prefer people to not print or design bigoted shit, thanks.
65
@63 I didn't mean that to be rude or a zinger. The poster is probably pretty smart to be thinking about the lines at least. The thing is, really smart people have already done it. I was giving more of a "heads up" than a"you suck."
66
@55 Welcome, Fletch fan.
67
The real issues here are procedural and political. The substance is a non issue.
68
@59 In WA, political affiliation is not protected but in CA it is. So far we haven't tried putting it in our laws yet, but I can easily see the reason for doing so. See @51

And if you didn't catch on, the gay activist at a Republican rally was a thinly veiled generic description of last week's attempt by the RNC to woo Lady Gaga to a youth rally. Not to say its not weird, but it happened. And the gay musician was a thinly veiled description of Elton John actually playing at Limbaugh's wedding and whether he'd have been allowed to say no.

In most of the cases it is selling goods and services to the public. You really are skirting the arguments about the wedding musician by saying its not public accommodation, but neither is floral arrangements. Maybe you're trying to make public accommodation into something more generic than the law provides? I'm not entirely sure.

One could easily say that wedding singer is just as impersonal or personal as floral arrangement, graphic design or printing. You're not writing songs, or anything specific.

Also, I'm not talking about selling prints, as a graphic designer; I'm talking about designing flyers, invites, posters, and any other shit that happens with rallies or conferences. @58 seems to believe that I would have to design for a NOM esque church rally if I had its organizer as a client. Religion is a protected class after all. Which is why I get all sketchy because these limitations to who you can't refuse to serve can cut both ways.
69
@29, you got it right. This isn't a marriage issue, it's a nondiscrimination issue.

That being said, there are tons of florists out there. I dare say many of them would leap at the opportunity to do business with this couple. The Christian florist is being an asshole by climbing up on and nailing herself to her cross, but on the other hand, do you really want someone like that doing the flowers for your wedding?

Look at it this way: the florist did us all a favor by helping us find the right florist, anyone but her.
70
@ 8
You made my day sunny again.
At least metaphorically, because the rain that contributed to me slipping and spraining my wrist is still going strong.
71
@53,

Hilarious. Wonder how the florist would have reacted.
72
@anyone
I'm a cab driver. I once kicked someone out of my cab for being a homophobic dipshit. Was I within my legal rights? I'm just curious. No matter what the answer is I will still continue to do it in the future.
73
Yesterday in Oklahoma, the House of Reps passed a resolution supporting DOMA unanimously. It was an 84-0 vote, with 29 abstentions (all Democrats).

In Virginia, a Federal court refused a request by Ken "The Coochie" Cuccinelli to restore a statewide ban on sodomy. If granted, it would have conflicted with the SCOTUS decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

This is much bigger than WA. Part of this is playing out in our state with this florist, but this is not the only place where bigots are rallying to attack the civil rights of American citizens who happen to be GLBT. It may seem easy to dismiss this silly old biddy with her flower shop in Yack-em-Up, but this isn't about her.

R74 did not end the argument. We must work harder to protect our hard won rights, and not allow them to be stolen away.
74
@50 - late night typo - I meant 43 (who was responding to 40).
75
@40: "What happened to a business to say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ?"

They couldn't ever practice this, in reality. If they discriminated against a protected class of person they could always have been sued to submission, the boilerplate was always and ever bullshit bluster.
76
This legal tactic: using the first amendment protections of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Conscience (religion) to carve out exemptions from the rest of the Constitution and all Congressional Legislative action has been a long-term strategy used by the right and reactionaries to defend their ability to engage in discriminatory behavior arbitrarily.

From a simple reading of the text of the 1st Amendment (a clear line logical perspective), it seems that the 1st Amendment really only says that the Government may not favor or endorse any one religion over another, but unfortunately, there is a long line of precedents where the courts have issued sympathetic rulings to religious groups granting exemptions from purely civil legislation because the civil activity impelled would force an action at complete odds with religious convictions - eg, pacifists being forced to go to war. The problem of course, is that anyone may then conveniently discover some theology in their religion which is at odds with any civil legislation they don't like.

The courts have been sloppy (as they so often are) by relying on real-world limits of scale to curtail the scope of these exceptions. Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence is chock-a-block full of these holes, and so is Intellectual Property law: the courts have relied on the limits of antiquated technology to provide the protections our constitution is supposed to provide. You can see the silly results now in first use doctrine, digital (vs. analog) reproduction (copyright), GPS (boy how did the court beat a scary fast retreat on that one!), drug dogs, etc.

With regard to religious exemptions: in the past these are reactive rights: you may have an exception to being compelled to take an action (eg, killing, vaccination), which violates your own conscience, and affects nobody but yourself - you may react to the government compelling you to undertake an action which is religious in nature by claiming an exemption. It's important to note that in these cases, the exemption only existed for the specific activity (killing) - the government was still free to compel service in a capacity that did not require them to pull a trigger. But that is a hard line to draw clearly and cleanly.

The right, since the 70s, has aggressively sought to expand these previously limited and narrow religious exemptions to essentially carve out a pro-active right to discriminate. Clearly selling flowers does not violate her religious beliefs in general - this is unlike killing for a pacifist, for whom killing in any and all instances is a violation of conscience. Because the florist willingly and without conflict does sell flowers regularly, and selling flowers (unlinke granting communion) is not a religious activity per-se, then the prosecutor is right, and religious protections do not exist.

This really needs to be pushed back, but the Talibangelicals have been rabble-rousing on just exactly this issue for a few years now, and itching for the fight. A guy in MD or PA (can't remember) just shut down his wedding trolley business because MD passed marriage equality and he was going to have to let Teh Gey on his wedding trolley.
77
@65

I didn't necessarily think it was intended in that way, but it was brilliantly understated within a really intelligent comment. I just get tired of some of the slippery slope questions--at some point someone's going to oppose laws against kidnapping dogs for medical experiments because "what if this dog is going to grow up to become Saddam Hussein's dog?"
78
I'm a graphic designer. If Mars Hill Church asked me to design a flyer for them I would tell them to fuck off. Not because they're Christians, but because they're assholes (which is not a protected class).
79
@74, was wondering about that. It didn't jive with the rest of your comment.
80
The strategic timing may not be the best, but the suit is absolutely warranted and good for the WA AG for doing the right thing.

Also dominic holden is kinda cute.
81
I'm a florist in San Diego who is Catholic--I'd love all the business she's turning away. Come on down, I'll set you up! :-)
82
@75: "the boilerplate was always and ever bullshit bluster."

What a nice turn of phrase. I had to google it just to make sure it wasn't a quote from something.
83
Keep your personal expressions at home. The instant you start charging money for your hobby, it becomes a business and you become beholden to state law. And yes, that state law trumps whatever it is you think you read about your little imaginary friend.
84
@6: If your religious beliefs prevent you from performing a basic function of your job, such as administering Plan B to somebody, then you have picked the wrong career. Fix that.
85
The Irony that the homosexual community and it's supporters are jumping up and down at a chance to stomp on others freedoms and liberties is amazing. And to all the geniuses convinced they will go out of business now,how do you suppose that's going to happen. Is all that LGBT business that they don't want and they already refuse going to go away? If anything business will increase. Hell it's been a year since the fake outrage at Chick fil A for their honesty and my local store is still packed every day.

I'm a supporter of gay marriage but it's agenda driven people like most of you that can't see past your own nose that make it harder to justify.

I can support gay marriage but I cannot support forcing others to accept your views. This is a free country. Sometimes that means you're gonna be inconvenienced or have your feelings hurt, oh well. grown up and just go someplace else. If you're gay do you really want to give them your business anyway just because they are having their arm twisted?
86
@78 HAHAHA i love you.
87
@14: Are you trying to imply that a Republican AG wouldn't be up to the task of performing a very basic function of their job?
88
@30: Your individual rights end where they trample over somebody else's individual rights to not be discriminated against.

'Individual rights' should not amount to a free-for-all for bigots, which seems to be all you 'individual rights' assholes argue for anyway.
89
@32: Having to follow existing state laws will make gay marriage not pass in other states? Are you seriously this stupid?
90
@40: They opened their mouth and stated the reason for their refusal of service. Their reasoning happened to be against state law. Are you against businesses following state laws now?
91
@54: Being a bigot is thankfully not a protected status.
92
I suspect the lot of you would object to being forced to do business at an establishment that doesn't conform to YOUR belief system.

Discrimination occurs each and every time you choose one establishment over another.
93
If a florist cannot legally deny services based on the race(s) of a couple, they should not be legally allowed to refuse services based on the sex(es) of the couple.
94
Can a restaurant stop serving black people and Christians?

Food cooking and presentation is an "act of expression". At least according to this Keystone Cop legal defense...

Can a grocery store stop selling groceries to Asians and Muslims?

12 pack soda displays, baked bread, cakes, fruit arrangements, deli items, store decor, seafood displays, etc. are all "acts of expression". At least according to this genius legal defense...

Replace "gay" with "lack" , "Asian", "Mexican", whatever, and there's no debate. (Unless you're in 'Bama)

95
Gay man here. Sorry, but I have to agree with 68 and 85. Turning these religious fanatics into Christian martyrs (for the anti-gay side) is not the way to win over the middle. The gay community IS going to have to meet half-way on this issue. If religious people don't want to be involved in any facet of same-sex marriages, so be it. I think the best tactic is to publicly expose them through the media (Yelp, Facebook, etc.), and label them as anti-gay. Then the public can decide whether or not they wish to do business with them. The reality is, would a gay couple *REALLY* want to do business with a florist that is being forced by law to provide them with services against their will; and why would the couple want to financially support such an anti-gay business in the first place? (Answer those questions honestly, please.) I know that's the last thing I'd want to do. There's no way in hell I'd give money to an anti-gay religious fanatic that doesn't want my business in the first place. Why would I even want to waste my time dealing with this bigoted asshole, when there are plenty of gay-friendly florists available? Forcing this woman to provide flowers for an event that she finds offensive would only taint the wedding. How can you possibly have a joyous occasion when someone had to be coerced by a force of law to be part of it? No one wins in this situation... so just move on. Isn't it possible to be the "better person", label them a bigot, feel sorry for them because of their ignorance, and move on?

I also think these religious zealots should make it known to the public at large that they *do* discriminate based on their religious beliefs. If they wish to do so, they should have to label themselves accordingly: with religious symbols on their storefront, website, business materials. Had this gay man known that the owner was anti-gay, I doubt he would have done business with her all those previous times. I do take issue with the fact that the owner had no problem taking money from a gay man, as long as it didn't involve marriage. There is something extremely hypocritical in doing that. That being said, gay people can't speak of expecting tolerance from the other side, when we are unable to do the same.
96
"The Irony that the homosexual community and it's supporters are jumping up and down at a chance to stomp on others freedoms and liberties is amazing."

Nobody is trying to limit this florist's personal freedoms and liberties - only trying to limit her freedom to discriminate. Her private freedoms end where the public square begins, just like the rest of us. Telling her she can't put a Creche on the public square or proselytize public school students is not limiting her freedom - it's limiting her ability to use the public space to endorse and further her religion - and that is a 1st Amendment violation.

If she had a private flower/garden club instead of a public business, then she'd be back in the private sphere. Private clubs (see Augusta National Golf Club - home of the Masters) are permitted to discriminate. Churches themselves get to discriminate as well under this religious exemption; what's at question is their ability to expand the scope of their discrimination (limiting the rights and freedoms of others) to other non-Church businesses they operate (eg, hospitals and schools).

I'm a supporter of gay marriage...

I seriously doubt it, but maybe you are trying to figure out how to square your own notions of freedom with those of other people.

The florist is free at any time to stop being a florist, free to stop operating a public business. Operating a public business means you have to serve people you don't like or approve of - I do consulting IT work for conservative Catholic lawyers (of whom I disapprove and dislike for three reasons: lawyers, catholics and politically conservative), and that's part of being an IT consultant. Their money is green, and there is nothing spiritual, political or unethical about the IT work. We actually get along quite well, and don't discuss religion or politics.

This florist is deliberately sticking her finger into the fan and then whining that the fan cut it. Nice way to lead with a glass jaw.
97
You're going to turn Washington into the next sodom and gomorrah
98
@95. I respectfully disagree. If a state has the law, it has to enforce it. Otherwise, the legitimacy of the government is undermined and equal protection of the law is denied. Sometimes the need to enforce the law does not coincide with politically or socially expedient methods of winning public support. And any religious exception should be narrowly tailored to religious institutions within their specifically religious functions, not to the way individual church members conduct their public businesses.

You may also have a bit of a big city bias. I am sure there are plenty of florist choices in Houston. But how many are there in Moses Lake, WA? In Sidney, MT? In Latimer, UT?
99
@95 - I'm sorry but there is no avoiding this fight; and my screen name is for Atticus Finch, a "liberal southerner" - accomodationist.

This florist was looking to become a test case - the fact her attorney is a Regent U grad means she was already plugged into a network looking to drag cases like this into the courts and push their agenda. The plaintiffs may not even have wanted to find a case, but sooner or later one of these was coming.

This is really about the Right wing looking for another creative way to turn the Civil Rights laws and legal advances of the 50s and 60s on their head: to undo them by using them against themselves. The reasoning is best summed up: "Impinging my freedom to discriminate is discrimination against me".
100
95, should we have not enforced laws against slavery, or segregation because it would have turned off the middle?
101
97, You do know that Sodom and Gomorrah are mythological places that never existed, right?
102
@95:

Part of the point is, the middle has already come over to support the issue of Marriage Equality, and continues to do so in large numbers, as recent polling indicates that more Americans are now in favor of it than are opposed to it. This plurality is already very close to a majority, and very shortly will be in fact, as members of the so-called "silent majority" and the oldest of the Boomers die off; give it another 3 - 5 years, at most.

See my initial comment @13, for a good reason to SUPPORT such businesses (which, in fact, the couple DID for a number of years, by the proprietor's own admission); you'd be surprised how much of a positive incentive economic encouragement can be - think of it as an "anti-boycott" - particularly in places where there simply may not be a lot of other options. The more these people are familiarized with GLBT's in real-world situations, the less they can rely on religious-based fear and paranoia as an excuse. It won't necessarily turn every anti-Gay bigot around completely, but at the very least it provides an opportunity to create a minimum level of tolerance.

They don't have to LIKE Gay people, but if they can at least learn to do business with them, that's major progress, IMO.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.