Comments
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.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
God, you really are a fucking troll, aren't you Dominic?
6/10.
What does a law mean if you try to render it useless for the sake of convenience and expedience? That's showing a staggering lack of principle and a whole heap of self interest and opportunism.
SUE that BITCH!
Now we need to advertise that there are continued reasons for seeking equality for those that don't yet have it. There is no such thing as bad advertising.
Conservative Christians are arguing for a special right to discriminate against gay people. We can't let that happen—just like we don't want to grant conservative Christian pharmacists are special right to discriminate against hussies, fallen women, slatterns, etc.
I mean, stand up for principle and lose the profit from arranging flowers + thousands in legal fees vs. taking the job, making a small profit, and averting one's eyes while the couple holds hands in the lobby.
Also you do have a right to hold bigoted views. Because this woman runs a business that is open to "the public" she is indeed in violation (tactical issues of the lawsuit aside, I think it's a bad visual and does feed the Christian martyr complex...but these guys think a lawsuit is the way to go I guess....). However, there is a strain I detect among those of us who are for civil equality that the goal is to make everyone think JUST! LIKE! US! Too much clutching the pearls and screaming BIGOT as opposed to sane, rational discussions on civil rights! In America you have a right to bigoted views--even racist ones--you just don't have a right to discriminate. Why don't we get the equal rights under the law (which does indeed mean winning the support of those who are ambivalent toward gay issues but have a basic sense of fair play and live and let live) before we try to play the mind police and punish someone over flowers.
It's nice to see the apologists, liberal and/or gay, be truly exposed for what they are: COWARDS.
Nice follow up!
The florists has a long history of rendering good service to gays.
The florist opposed gay "marriage".
HomoLibereals have grunted for years
"if you don't want a gay "marriage" don't get one.
"no one is forced to get a gay "marriage".
"or go to a gay "marriage".
"or provide creative services for a gay "marriage".
"or.... whoops...."
That's right, isn't it @25?
P.S. Can I marry your sister now? I promise that I'm not gay any more. I've made a new choice.
I was tending toward the "why don't they just find another florist" camp. You've convinced me otherwise.
What good is a law if there's no enforcement?
The Troll hit a nerve.
It sucks getting called out on your oppression and intolerance, doesn't it Haters.....
Give these psychos an inch and we are all doomed.
Allowing, acceding to, the "religious freedom" excuse for illegal discriminatory behavior would be a disaster. Once done, there's nowhere to draw a line. Could a "devout Christian" refuse to serve customers of another religion, or of a denomination she considers to hold heretical beliefs? The Puritan (Christian) government of Colonial Massachusetts whipped Baptists (different Christians) and hung Quakers (yet other Christians). They felt rather strongly about what they considered the heresies of these other denominations. Strongly enough to violate their own Commandment not to kill people.
"No flowers for Jews." What's to stop that sign from being posted in the window of Stutzman's shop if you buy the "religious freedom to discriminate" argument?
As Dan Savage stated so succinctly in an earlier comment in this thread, and I'm paraphrasing: this issue has always been about the extreme christian right wanting the special right to discriminate. It's really that simple.
No amount of kumbaya inanity from the apologists like @20 will ever change their minds or win their hearts. Nor should we be asking them to change their minds or hearts, only to obey the law like the rest of us.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
This is basically the same level is discrimination, but the stranger (David Schmader) is all for it!
Either way, I do think it’s a dent in the “obviously we should just sue her already” argument.
Since this is an issue of justice (which just happens to include a gay couple), then everyone immediately sees what must be done. AG Ferguson obviously agrees. If you begin to look at it as a situation of the Gay Struggle, then you get lost in strategy, over-thinking, what will this all mean, etc. Fuck all that. The florists broke the law. They should be held accountable. End of fucking story.
The AG is absolutely right to sue them.
Can anyone seriously make a case for how that's ok?
I am a small business owner. I don't always like all of my customers. Shocking, I know. I serve them anyway. But if your bigotry means that much to you, then you probably shouldn't run a business open to the public.
Way to take a bite out of crime, McGruff.
The other thing I keep hearing is that this will effect places like bath houses that discriminate against women- but this argument ignores the fact that bathhouses are private clubs, and just like the boy scouts and organized sports, they aren't held to the same anti discrimination standards as businesses.
I realize people roll their eyes at appeals to the free market, but I'll do it anyway—businesses like to make money, and the vast majority know that discriminating against potential customers is a stupid, unsustainable business strategy.
They have no obligation to give her a choice at all. So it is a very generous offer to settle--5000 bucks to put this behind her, or years of litigation and probably a lot more money.
Actually its not, but very similar.
Florist denies gay couple services, because they are gay and plan to get married. Hence they are being discriminated upon. Other people can still get flowers, just not them or people like them and its not their fault they were born gay.
Gay strip club denies straight women services, because she is straight and plans to get married. Hence she is being discriminated upon. Other people can have a good time, just not her or people like her and its not her fault she was born straight.
Were the Florist was cryptic in her language, the strip club owner was not. You cant have it both ways. You cant support suing straight business who discriminate against gays, but then support it when gay business owners discriminate against straights.
White people will be the minority in 50 years, blacks have been convicted of hate crimes, Jews are capable of ignoring modern day holocausts and women are now gang raping men in parking lots in Canada. Why is it so hard for you to believe that some gay people are capable of sexual discrimination?
BTW, I did vote to approve Ref74 last year and Ref 71 in 2009. Banning gay people from getting married, serving in the military, or even adopting is a form of discrimination and has no place in our society.
Footnote: This is NOT a free-speech issue. The florist's free-speech rights are fully intact. She can say whatever she wants. She can take the money for the flowers and condemn the couple in the same breath, though a) her interpretation of Christian values is woeful, and b) her free-speech right in no way grants immunity from well-deserved criticism for said speech.
The issue isn't what she can say. It's what she can DO. Refusal of service is action, not speech.
I don't like bigots and I understand we have to stand up to them. Bigots bigot their bigotty bigot mouths off every day. We should make the Fundamentals retreat from the public institutions -- Hospitals, Schools, Court Rooms -- first.
Old Nobody, I can't remember ever disagreeing with you on anything, but no this, I disagree. This is a war for civil rights. We have to have a strategy if we're going to win the war.
Look to the Civil Rights strategies of King in the 60s. The Bus Boycott played well because everyone should have a right to a seat on the public bus. Rosa Parks picked that fight.
Who gives a shit that you voted to approve 74. I don't.
In fact if I ever met you in person I probably wouldn't give a shit about it in that moment either. In fact I'd probably cum in my pants just spitting in your ugly face. Just assuming you're ugly--probably not wrong on that count though.
No, the Strip Club owner was not cryptic in his language and shouldn't have been. But since I suspect you're a hetero-privileged guy you couldn't even come close to understanding what it would be like to experience the outward turned internal ugliness that can come from someone you can't stand in your presence having to be there. Of course, no matter what, if the gay men in that Club had any balls they'd know how to get rid of those kind of bitches without the owner having to do anything.
Please keep your self-superior attitude for shoving up your ass or the ass of the one or ones you might love.
To my point. You are not a friend, you are just a useful idiot.
If only you really understood what you voted for, then the world really would be a better place. Dumbass.
"Get rid of those kinds of bitches"? Really?
This is not a drill! The Gay Politburo's Minister of Information is offended! Not only is he offended, but not enough butt-fuckers are sufficiently outraged!! Teams of elite drama queens will be dispatched to the homes of fags who do not fall in line and those fags will be forced to convert back to heterosexuality. HEY!! Someone just stepped on my foot on the bus! He must hate fags! I'LL FUCKING SUE!!
This is not a drill! The Gay Politburo's Minister of Information is offended! Not only is he offended, but not enough butt-fuckers are sufficiently outraged!! Teams of elite drama queens will be dispatched to the homes of fags who do not fall in line and those fags will be forced to convert back to heterosexuality. HEY!! Someone just stepped on my foot on the bus! He must hate fags! I'LL FUCKING SUE!!
GET PERSPECTIVE-APOLOGISTS FROM THE SIDE OF THE FACE--This isn't about THAT TOPIC!!!
It's about enforcing laws that specify who/what you cannot discriminate against. Okay!!!
Let's meet and see who survives?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
You mini-penis boy. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Now, if you google the words court ordered apology or some such term, you'll find that in many legal cases, people or companies are required to apologize. You will no doubt also recall that when we watch news reports of high profile criminal trials in which there has been a conviction, victims get to address the convicted party. So there's nothing unusual about personal addresses being part of the process.
And it also doesn't seem unusual that people who have something to atone for make donations to a cause that supports the injured party in some way.
As for hurt feelings, people do tend to have them when they are humiliated, and from the lawsuits I've seen quoted, "emotional distress" appears to be a legitimate category.
This is why I find the Stonewall riots so overwhelmingly inspiring. Yes, an oppressed group fought back physically, but more importantly they fought back by publicly showing and saying that they were no longer going to accept for themselves the identity of 2nd or 3rd class subhumans.
I'm tickled pink if this ignorant shrew turns 'em down. Between the AG and the ACLU (two lawsuits) and her worthless attorneys who don't know the difference between 'conscience' and 'conscious', even the xtianists won't be able to fund the lawsuit for Ms Stutzman to its conclusion. If I had a service provider that had happily sold me flowers to court my husband (knowing full well we were gay), then said FUCK YOU when we wanted her flowers to get married, I would not have even bothered giving her an option, 'cause then I'd have to listen to the likes of you run me down.
You may have missed one of the most significant components in this; There's no down-side for the anti-gay movement when the court rules against them.
Indeed, it will give them powerful ammunition they currently lack that changes the abstract speculation over forced compliance into a tangible reality. It's exactly the example antis need (and currently lack) in states still evolving on the issue, and will resonate with those who'd otherwise might believe the range of practical options available to same sex couples would tend to let off-the-hook the few who don't want to comply.
I'm not saying that's a good reason not to proceed with prosecution. But it's component to why many pro-equality observers believe what we'd otherwise assume to be a court victory, could actually damage the "hearts and minds" campaign still in progress across the country.
In short; We may be trading 100% compliance where SSM is already generally accepted and practical facilitation is available despite a handful of refusers, for slower acceptance where it isn't.
Don't get me wrong - I'm cheering for our Washington State AG. But we should consider how his expected victory may ultimately do more harm in other less progressive states by providing exactly the kind of fodder our opposition currently lacks, and looks forward to firing when they lose in court.
Same difference!
PS: Conservative slog posters and their allies, stop trying to "help", we don't need it.
This is about enforcing equal rights under the law, dipshit. If you can't protect persons under this law, you'll never protect yourself elsewhere. Giving us right-wing arguments about "political correctness gone mad" will not change that human rights are worth protecting.
Curiously, it would have been legal for her to refuse them for reasons like "I think your wedding will be tacky. " For me, the legal gray area is was she refusing services "because they were gay" (illegal) or "because she didn't approve of the wedding event" (gray area...)
You're absolutely right. From now on, anyone who doesn't agree with undead ayn rand is a right-winger who doesn't support the fight for equality and shouldn't try to "help" by presenting an alternate viewpoint.
Thank you undead ayn rand. I see my mistake here. Apologies.
we cannot let this woman, or any other business owner, do this and get away with it. she broke the law, plain and simple. if we don't stop this bullshit in its tracks, other religious wackos will do the same thing. they need to be told 'FUCK YOU. the law says you cannot discriminate. you try this bullshit, we will sue you for everything you have. the ACLJ and NOM will not save you, and you will not be seen as a christian martyr, but a stupid fool. your choice, dumbass.'
remember, these folks are operating from fear. in their eyes, if they condone sinful behavior (being gay), they are just as guilty, and risk the wrath of god. ridiculous, but true.
Good on you, ma'am. If you're worried about the cost, don't. Plenty of good people (NOM, FRC etc) will make sure that isn't an issue here.
As for the fag and dyke apologists for the destruction of marriage, go back to your bathhouses and bars and anonymous couplings and leave decent people alone, m'kay?
This florist hired fag and dyke employees, served fag and dyke customers and so on.
She isn't a homophobe. (Which, unless you have a pathological fear of being hair styled or home decorated to death must be fairly rare as a disorder anyway.)
She isn't a bigot.
She is a woman who made a much needed principled stand against the push to canonize all fags and dykes, to make of these perverts priviledged citizens with the right to set terms for the vast majority of their fellow, decent, citizens.
No thanks necessary for the correction. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled promiscuity, drug use, trolling public parks for a quickie and whatever else pervs like you do.
I doubt there are bathhouses or bars big enough to hold the majority of voters in Washington. Maybe if all the non-voters left.
More than half the people I know who are for marriage equality are married, as am I.
In what way does it "canonize" homosexuals to allow them to access the rights and benefits associated with civic recognition of marriage? Please be specific.
Are you "canonized" by the state's recognition of your wife's lifelong incarceration (aka your marriage)? Am I or my wife "canonized" by the state's recognition of our household as "married"?
Possibly related: http://oglaf.com/slutvirus/
1 - it took 30 years (3 decades) to pass Cal Anderson's non-discrimination bill. Saying it took over a decade, while not incorrect t minimizes the extent of the effort
2 - Roe v Wade had nothing to do with contraception. Contraception is the act of preventing pregnancy. Roe v Wade was about a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. The right of woman to access contraception was Griswold v Connecticut in 1965.
In addition to those two items, Dominic's suggestion that publicized examples of illegal discrimination contribute to increased support for SSM is similarly off the mark.
Because the inconvenient reality is that four states sailed-through voter endorsement of SSM in the absence of any related lawsuits or negative consequences where it's been legal for many years. We don't know how our relatively recent support might have voted if there was something - anything - that could be construed by opposition as a negative consequence. And I'd suggest the lack of such lawsuits effectively negated the opposition's dire predictions and contributed to our support.
I try not to be cynical and obviously want to believe we've established a firm and righteous base of support in this phenomenal shift of public opinion. But it simply makes more sense that some of this support - perhaps a deciding margin - is soft and somewhat conditional on the virtual absence of any affect on anyone of "faith" where SSM has a tangible history. Dominic's suggestion that the NW photographer and OR bakery incidents, where SSM isn't legal anyway contributed to support for SSM, is unsubstantiated and frankly illogical cause and effect - which flatters our self image at the risk of miscalculating our future support.
Again - that's not to say AG Bob Ferguson shouldn't vigorously defend the law. Indeed, that enforcement takes precedent over the interests of our political strategy. But we'd be foolish not to acknowledge the wild cards these cases throw into the ongoing evolution of public opinion. And even more foolish to characterize those who recognize this inconvenient reality as somehow lacking righteous commitment, when in fact the difference is a matter of political strategy to a goal not yet achieved.
Yes, the suit will make SSM more difficult to acheive in other states (unless the SCOTUS settles it once and for all). The suit = $NN in NOM's coffers.
Their side has a strategy here and our side is cooperating.
I suppose a suit -against some bigot, somewhere - was inevtiable. Still, when we know it's their plan, it gives me an uneasy feeling.
What gives me greater unease than where those cards may land, is how Dominic willfully mischaracterizes any acknowledgement of our opposition's strategy as some lack of conviction and commitment to the cause of equality. His rant is a disturbing display of holier-than-thou attitude against dedicated supporters of equality, instead of the informed reason we'd otherwise expect from someone defending objective truth and rational objectivity.
Because there's now virtual certainty SCOTUS will, at best, leave it to states to legislate their own marriage laws that the feds then have to recognize. Prop-8 not with standing, the pathway to new states coming on board depends on majority public acceptance that's enacted through elected or citizen legislation. That's not to say suing every public accommodation isn't necessarily an ineffective strategy to that end. But suggesting that imperative is unquestionable, and then question everyone else's commitment to the cause if they don't fall into lockstep with Dominic's intolerance for reasoned debate on how best to reach our shared goal, is exactly the kind of in-fighting and fracturing our opposition hopes for.
Dominic would do well to keep in mind this isn't just about buying these particular flowers, but changing a national culture for the full inclusion and equality of LGBT people. And our AG's anticipated success against this silly florist has both positive and negative implications going forward, from which those no less invested and committed than he, look at the transcending NET affect this court ruling will have on our goal more than the immediate gratification of sticking it to Arlene's Flowers.