Sorry to be so blunt, but fuck "changing the minds of bigots." That very rarely happens anyhow, and really it's beside the point. This is about what's right is right. It would be nice if this fight for equality could be purely a campaign for hearts and minds, but in reality it's also smacking down assholes hiding their prejudice behind their religion- even if these assholes are church ladies selling flowers. So let them pretend to martyrdom if they wish- but make them treat gay people as equal citizens with equal access to services.

@3 Everyone is allowed to "think for themselves"...that's not the fucking issue.

If she had refused to participate in a wedding for an interracial couple because of her beliefs even if she had sold flowers to that same couple for 7-9 years...she would've been written off as a bigot.

Discrimination in public is morally wrong, but more importantly, it's ILLEGAL.

@2, actually, regardless of whether she served them before, the fact that she's discriminating now makes her a bigot. period. just because her bigot-tendencies were latent for so long doesn't change what they are. the whole point of separation of church vs state, and freedom of religion is that we CAN'T discriminate on the grounds of moral issues. or didn't you get that memo? you can "respect" people's views all you want, but the second you deny them basic goods and services based on those "moral values", then you have legal issues. and that's what this is.

Totally agree with this article. Use the hateful bigots own rhetoric against them. It is a slippery slope to let one homophobic florists get away with illegal discrimination.

Found articles about the lesbian couple that sued a Hawaiian B&B for discrimination (and won) very timely. This quote from Executive Director William Hoshijo of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission pretty much says it all:

"When visitors or residents are subjected to discrimination, they suffer the sting of indignity, humiliation and outrage, but we are all demeaned and our society diminished by unlawful discrimination."

I completely agree that this woman should be sued 'up the butt'. BUT, the idea of members the floral/wedding industry denying gays their business is pretty funny in terms of a horrible business decision. They would sink into bankruptcy if they turn away such a wonderful new source of income. If your industry is selling happiness and joy, you will turn away the vast majority of your customers in denying that to 'certain' people. As a straight girl I would NEVER give money to such a bigoted bitch, for any flowers. If I found that a boyfriend had bought me flowers there I would return them and take the money to a sensible fair shop and get myself a new bouquet.

Relationship with Jesus? Her gardener?

Better yet, give her a death of a thousand cuts by placing legit-sounding orders by phone, and never pick them up.

I respect her position. She believes gay sex is morally wrong, and in such a case she has the perfrect right to follow her moral convictions.

What IS the response to the claim by the defense lawyer that, if the State's claim is true, then a Jewish Web designer is also obligated to build a Web site promoting jihad (or Holocause denial, or whatever)?

It strikes me that this is a worthwhile question to ask and answer, because a great many classes of people are protected classes under antidiscrimination law. Can, in fact, a Muslim painter be required to accept a request to paint a picture of Mohammhed if the person requesting the portrait commissions his services to do so? Can he be sued if he refuses?

I don't know the answers to these things, but I'd like to see the opinions of those present on this site. (As it is, the introspection seems limited to, "Yeah - fuck the florist!")

Hear, hear. Boycotts are fine, but they are a step on the way to getting legislation passed. Now that we have the legislation, it's time to enforce it! Hurrah for Bob Ferguson, an AG who does his job.

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

-MLK

Pick a side of history people. Either you believe that gays are born that way and should not be discriminated against like any other group of people. Or you believe that it is a moral failing on our part that this one can reject.

You cannot have it both ways. Trying to do so is just as bad (if not worse) than the bigots.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

I have a question. Is a vendor allowed by law to refuse to work for someone without giving a reason? I know I see signs in stores and bars saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." So wouldn't have it been the florist who made the point of it being because it was a same-sex wedding that she refused to work it? I don't know the law, and that's a serious question. That said, I live in the "hateful Hinterland" and see hatred and bigotry against gays, non-whites, women, other-than-Christians, etc., every day. Bigotry dressed up in its' sunday-go-to-meetin'-clothes is still bigotry, and in fact, hiding bigotry and hatred behind the bullshit of "moral values" is even more egregious than plain, outspoken "gays-have-icky-sex" hatred. It's unfortunate that those who live in rural areas have to force decent, compassionate behavior upon people with legislation and court action, but if that's what it takes, then go for it.

I vaguely think the florist should have the right not to sell, but my response is similar to those kids who refused to testify to the grand jury: ITS NOT A BIG DEAL. No one gives a shit if you sell some flowers to the Gayee McGayerson the gay mayor of Gayville. You run a business. Just sell the damn flowers, make an off color joke as soon as they door closes, then move on. There's no value in such stubbornness.

Fetish: She doesn't want to make off-color jokes. You're assuming she hates, dislikes, or enjoys hurting or insulting gay people. I don't believe that to be the case here, based on what we've read. Rather, I believe she thinks homosexuality to be sinful and that taking part in the wedding would be a sign of her approving of what she believes to be against God's law.

I think the key is that she wasn't merely asked to sell flowers to gay people: something she has done frequently. She would have been participating as a planner and organizer of an event in a way she felt violated her religious beliefs.

If, hypothetically, local Ku Klux Klan members came in and wanted not just to buy flowers but for her to come and decorate a banquet hall for a white supremacy rally - an event that is protected as free speech - and she refused, would the state be right to sue her for violating the civil rights of Klan members who have every right to hold their events and march in parades (as upheld by the First-Amendment-loving ACLU)?

@19, in this case, the flowers represent a larger issue of basic goods and services. if a florist can refuse gay customers, why not a restaurant, etc. it's the larger issue at stake. also, from merriam-webster:

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

i'd say she's being pretty damn intolerant, and that qualifies her as a bigot. whether or not she helped them in the past, she has deemed them second class citizens by refusing to recognize their legal right to get married (since she's obviously not opposed to all marriages, just marriages between two men).

also, @16, Pick1, here here. well-quoted.

Fuck this florist. Also, really bad business decision by them. "Her Christian faith." What a joke. Does she refuse "Christian" weddings where the people involved lie and cheat on each other? I'd bet money this florist is closeted.

What does her relationship with Jesus tell her about the endless stories of clergy molesting children? Does she refuse the catholic church?

A private business should have the right to refuse any customer for any reason. For example, a business named "FOR COUGS ONLY" should be permitted to bar any person wearing a Husky logo. Anything less is involuntary servitude aka slavery.

Private clubs that serve alcohol come under liquor board rules. I don't think WA has a "florist Board" which regulates florists. If any business must serve any person then exercise clubs for females only are in violation.

"Discrimination" is one of many perverted English words. Until this goofy egalitarian generation it meant choosing a higher quality (as in high class, low class)person or product, Choosing a Lincoln over a Ford.

Until this goofy egalitarian generation, "Discrimination" did NOT mean "prejudice" but choosing on the basis of experience or data.

People vote with their money or their feet. Should it be illegal for rich people to own houses in fenced and gated private housing projects so they don't have to have me for a neighbor? Fine with me as long as I, also, can choose my neighborhood.

Only by being rich can one avoid associating with trash of every/any color, religion, and political opinion?

@19: What the fuck are you talking about? I never incited violence in my post ("smacking down assholes" was figurative, as should have been obvious since we're discussing a lawsuit), and I certainly wasn't nearly as condescending as you managed to be. Whether or not you think the term "bigot" applies to the florist, her stance on gay marriage IS indisputably bigoted, even if she is "quite progressive for a Christian." And that phrase alone says quite a bit about the level of tolerance Christians have shown towards gay people, which makes the whining about intolerance towards Christians not just bullshit but hypocritical bullshit.

@23: Did you just "hypothetically" compare gay people to the fucking Ku Klux Klan? A hate group whose very ethos involves doing harm to other people they deem inferior? Whose history is thick with domestic terrorism and murder? Do you really think a Klan rally's destructiveness is exclusive to its participants? Do you actually think that was a sane analogy?

I missed my bus stop cause I was reading this article. I am positive that if a gay couple were running a floral business of their own and a Christian couple walked in and asked them to "participate" in their wedding, and the gay couple refused based on their values, and beliefs, and the fact that people use a person sexuality as reasons to damn them to hell, specifically their kind of people, that the gay couple would be sued as well. This is matter of human rights. Not a matter of religious rights. Disapprove of gay people on your own time. refusing to serve someone because of their sexual identity, religion, lack of religion, age, race, sex or marital status is idiotic

Per the Wolfman81 comment: so take out the KKK reference and instead...should a Muslim florist be forced to make arrangements for my Christian themed event (maybe nice crosses)? Hindu florist make decorations for Cattleman's Assoc meeting where steak is the main meat? Jewish lady as planner and florist for Pork Producers Assoc? Gay florist as floral designer at upcoming ANTI Equal Marriage event? Pro Choice florist forced to design arrangements around graphic pictures of babies' body parts at a Pro Life convention? Best way to handle that is "on the bottom line". If enough folks boycott places that "discriminate", "bigots" will be forced out of business. I agree with billwald!

@30
The comment was purposefully hyperbolic to emphasize that being the florist for an event goes beyond selling flowers; it does become participatory and shows tacit approval and support for that event. Beyond selling goods, the woman is being asked to be part of an event that her beliefs do not allow her to take part in. The metaphor was not meant to equate homosexuals with Klan members, and I do apologize if that was the impression. I see that it was rather clumsily constructed.

#32 actually found much better comparisons that illustrate the point I clearly failed to convey.

@34: Thank you, I appreciate you clearing that up. My point (outside my initial outrage) was that in the case of a Klan rally one could make a legal case against service: the organization has a history (and, in all likelihood, a present) of causing material harm to other people. But the "harm" in the case of a gay wedding is exclusive to the couple. If providing service is also providing tacit approval for the florist, why would she have ever served them at all? A practical example: Have you ever attended the wedding of a couple you knew was a bad idea? Did your presence (and participation and gift) signify your support for the union or just the people in it? It seems arbitrary that the florist could make a distinction between participation in their life and participation in their wedding. And it seems illegal to refuse service based upon "beliefs", especially ones so arbitrarily applied.

wolfman81 @34, if the couple hadn't told the florist what the flowers were for, then took them and used them for a wedding, would she still be showing tacit approval? they weren't asking her to participate, or even be present. they were asking her to sell them flowers.they weren't asking her approval for the wedding, or to create an arrangement that said "gay marriage for all!", just that she do her job and provide the service she was advertising and had provided in the past. all that is showing approval of is professional floral arrangements, and non-prejudiced business practices.

If your faith is so strong that it would prevent you from taking part in secular society, even while you're making money, then you need to find a job within your church. Same goes for pharmacists who don't believe in birth control. You're in the wrong business.

@37: Word.

Can't everyone have their liberty? As strongly as I believe the couple has the right to be married, I just as strongly believe the florist has every right to sell to whomever she wants. To compare a florist refusing to sell flowers to voting rights and anti civil rights laws is a stretch. An individual has the right to be a bigot, the Government does not.

@ 28
Sorry, but you're wrong.

The term "discriminate" appeared in the early 17th century in the English language. It is from the Latin discriminat- 'distinguished between', from the verb discriminare, from discrimen 'distinction', from the verb discernere.[3]

Since the American Civil War the term "discrimination" generally evolved in American English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirable group or social category.

"Discrimination" derives from Latin, where the verb discrimire' means "to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction".

I think Dominic should cut down on the raw meat, and quit hyperventilating.
Irene’s flowers is exercising a very basic right, the right to sit out the dance. Obviously, she feels uncomfortable with this rather drastic social change, and doesn’t want to be involved in it. She’s not interfering with gay rights, she’s simply exercising personal preference—the same one I would choose, if I were in that position: it’s a privately owned business, so personal preference is the law there. Simple reason: same-sex “marriage” is not real marriage, no matter what the courts say. I say this as a Humanist, but could just as easily say it as a Christian. The idea doesn’t make good sense in either frame of reference.
Of course, Washington now has placed it in the same legal status as regular marriage…a ridiculous piece of legal fiction, to say the least. But aside from that, does that mean that we all have to agree with it? Since when does “equal rights” mean that we all have to become enablers? What ever happened to just leaving it alone, and not being involved? Is everyone now required to actively participate, in a supportive role? Is THIS the great civil rights struggle I’ve been hearing about…an “oppressed minority” (oh, brother) wins equality, then immediately uses the blunt force of law to cram its’ beliefs down the throats of everyone who doesn’t agree with them?
A true moral struggle is made of better stuff than that. There are REAL causes in this world, where truly oppressed people are in a battle for mere survival. The gay cause, by contrast, is a socially trendy cultural fad that is currently embraced by a number of celebrities, and flogged by politicians who seem to have a shortage of things to actually believe in. I’m tired of hearing this talked about as a fight for civil rights; it’s nothing of the kind. It’s an attempt to re-engineer society for the whims of a minority of people. It feels like spoiled kids have taken over the classroom.
Personally, I’m against abortion. But even if 98% of the country agreed with me, I still wouldn’t want there to be a law against it. It’s simple, there would always be some people with a legitimate reason for wanting one. America is not a theocracy.
America is also not a gayocracy…so, no one belief system should be held above another. This whole episode shows an astonishing lack of maturity in the gay community—claiming “victim” status, while at the same time enjoying great power, and using the power to bludgeon its ideological enemies. REAL victims tend to be people who don’t have power.

@41: So the florist is right because she's bigoted just like you and gay people are bullies because we're gaining equal rights? You're not a Humanist or a Christian, you're just an asshole.

Boycott!! Yes it works. A lot of people that claim to be Christian have no concept of what it means. What it means is that you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Please quote me the scripture or scriptures that directly quote Jesus saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. I repeat, they must directly quote Jesus. Not Matthew Mark Luke or John or anyone else in the Bible, just Jesus.

@41 Hey Ron do you have any knowledge how the institution of marriage came into existance? Do some research then shut the fuck up!!

If licensed pharmacists don't have to provide legally prescribed contraceptives because fairies told them not to, how can this lawsuit possibly end well?

-sigh-