Great News!

Question for anyone who knows these laws well:

How do anti-discrimination laws work with private sellers? What I mean is, let's say someone does wedding photography, but doesn't own a building or anything, she has an LLC or company and people come to her and ask if she'll photograph their wedding, and she accepts or turns them down based on her own schedule or desire to make money. If it appeared she was turning down interracial couples, or LGBT couples, or something, could she be sued? Couldn't she just say she selects clients at her own whims?

Bigots only need to show themselves to the public. Then the public gets to choose whether they want to do business with bigots. These shit brained business people need to see that not everyone will let them discriminate, especially when they take too much glee in doing so.

@4,

Right, in this case, the seller came right out and told them they wouldn't sell based on sexuality. Also, it's a seller who doesn't normally turn anyone down. Clear cut discrimination, yes.

My question is more along the lines of, what if the seller routinely turns down offers based on personal reasons.

What got me thinking about this is a friend of mine who does wedding photography and has an LLC, but she often turns down requests simply because she doesn't need the money, or already has plans on that date, or just doesn't feel like it (she's not prejudiced though, she does tons of gay weddings, I only thought of her because of her situation).

What if it appeared that someone like that was turning people down based on sexual orientation, but it couldn't really be proven... the seller could say "I turn people down for all kinds of reasons."

Would that float in court?

This is really just an academic question. I'm simply interested in how it might be handled by the law.

@2,&@5 Urgutha Forka: Good questions. I have a sole proprietorship myself, but as a musician, my situation would be similar to the one you described---any conflict would be due to a busy performance schedule.
Meanwhile, it sounds like florist Arlene Stutzman, despite her ongoing stubbornly emphasized "relationship to Jesus", is well on her way to bankruptcy, whether via boycotts or legal fees.

@2:

I think it comes down to how the law defines "public accommodation", which, under Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, is somewhat limited, both in terms of the types of businesses affected, as well as the classes of citizens. Presumably, Washington State has a more liberal interpretation of the term, which encompasses a larger pool of protected classes that includes LGBTQA citizens, and denotes a wider range of businesses for which public accommodation applies. But basically, it says that a business open to the general public cannot discriminate against someone in a protected class solely on the basis of their being a member of that class, which clearly was the case here. If the business owner had simply said they couldn't take the job because they were over booked, for example, it would have been very difficult to prove discrimination actually occurred, and they probably would have gotten away with it.

Awww they're so cute. They look so happy together!

@2 & 5, It is a matter of proof.

This case is pretty simple, because the florist openly stated she wouldn't do their flowers because they're gay, and that she routinely did flowers for straight weddings. She openly provided all the proof needed for the couple to easily win their case.

But what if she had said "sorry, I'm already totally booked that weekend; can't do it," and never mentioned their sexual orientation? Well, that just makes the case harder to prove. In most discrimination cases by small businesses like this, it is very difficult to prove a single case. Often, the proof comes over time, if you can show a pattern where they always say yes to one group of people and almost always say no to a protected class of people. So a small florist like this could probably get away with it a few times by claiming to be too busy or whatever, as it would be almost impossible to prove discrimination. But if they do it often enough, and an attorney is able to get a group of rejected clients together and establish a pattern of discrimination, then they can still prevail in a case even if the business is cagey about their reasons for turning down minority clients.

Furthermore, it is even possible to prove a case where the business isn't even doing it intentionally. People can be blind and oblivious to their own bigotry sometimes. A business may be treating a minority group differently without even necessarily being aware of it. The attorney general doesn't have to prove intent. They only have to prove that a pattern of discrimination occurs, even if unintentional.

Oh lord, can't this thing just die and be buried? I couldn't believe when I heard it is still wending its way through the courts.
Yes, she discriminated and that's not a good thing, but became a lesson for the discrimination of others, and that's a good thing. The guys got married (with flowers, one presumes) and they look happy. Can't we just leave the poor woman alone?
I thought this was covered in Ch. 16 of THE GAY AGENDA, entitled "Enough Already".

@6,7,9

Thank you! I had a nuanced question that I felt would lead to a non-typical response. I appreciate the time you spent dissecting it. Even if it was only a brief dissection. :)

@10 crone: I guess that depends on how much longer Arlene wants to keep on appealing the State Supreme Court decision and tie up the courts. I agree--this is like a dead horse someone still wants to keep on beating.

There is a little more to this story. The florist did a deposition in which she said if she did flowers for a Muslim wedding she would not consider that an approval of Islam. That killer her case, I think.

I've said it before & I'll say it again: If your god tells you that to be holy, to be accepted into heaven/nirvana/whatever, you to be an asshole to other people, you worship a fucked-up god.

I mean, if you're going that route, why not worship someone like Tezcatlipoca? Dude got to wear jaguar skin, which is way cooler than a shapeless robe and sandals. Or if you prefer your god to *be* sacrificed, then how about Xipe Totec? Dude got _flayed_, which is way more brutal (and cool!) than being crucified, which is actually a really lame form of execution. You just stand there, watching them die. What's up with that? You want to see them really suffer, don't you? Horribly, brutally, sadistically suffer, right?