Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 3 votes

Washington State AG sues florist for refusing to provide flowers to gay wedding


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_TheJudgement_*

Guest_TheJudgement_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2015 - 08:53 PM

Heck, I feel like opening a gay only bakery JUST to bug oft-offended Dougie poo.

#22 douger

douger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 29,735 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 08:53 PM

You could refuse to serve people wearing blue shirts. 

They'll form a lobby and demand protected status too.



#23 Baltimatt

Baltimatt

    Site Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 66,909 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 02:23 PM

http://www.tri-cityh...e133086579.html

The Christian owner of a Richland floral shop violated state laws when she refused to make custom arrangements for a longtime customer’s same-sex wedding, an appellate court ruled Thursday. The unanimous decision by the Washington state Supreme Court affirms a Benton County judge’s ruling in the 2013 case.

Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, had asked the state's highest court to review Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom’s 2015 order. Ekstrom had sided with Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the couple, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. They sued Stutzman citing the state’s anti-discrimination law and the Consumer Protection Act.



Unanimous.
Dieser Weg wird kein leichter sein; dieser Weg wird steinig und schwer.
Nicht mit vielen wirst du dir einig sein, doch dieses Leben bietet so viel mehr. --Xavier Naidoo

#24 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,840 posts
  • LocationHarford County Maryland

Posted 16 February 2017 - 02:39 PM

To the extent that all the florist would have had to do was arrange flowers and have them delivered to the wedding venue then I agree she should have complied, as that would not be placing her in the position of "participating" in a same sex wedding. The more difficult issues arise when it involves a photgrapher, or a DJ, or a band. Those folks would need to actually participate in the wedding and/or reception following, and in such an instance the courts would be telling a person that must actually physically take part in an event that goes against their religious beliefs becasue of their profession. I would hope that the courts would uphold their right to say no. 



#25 jtowne-swim

jtowne-swim

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 03:20 PM

To the extent that all the florist would have had to do was arrange flowers and have them delivered to the wedding venue then I agree she should have complied, as that would not be placing her in the position of "participating" in a same sex wedding. The more difficult issues arise when it involves a photgrapher, or a DJ, or a band. Those folks would need to actually participate in the wedding and/or reception following, and in such an instance the courts would be telling a person that must actually physically take part in an event that goes against their religious beliefs becasue of their profession. I would hope that the courts would uphold their right to say no. 

I see your point although I feel they are offering a service and can't descriminate but I recognize that is different than a florist or baker.


In 20 years....... when global warming causes the polar ice caps to melt....... and the whole planet floods. Swimmers will rule the World:cool: !

ACTION....ADVENTURE.....EXCITEMENT....A Jedi seeks not these things.:D
-Master Yoda

#26 Baltimatt

Baltimatt

    Site Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 66,909 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 03:35 PM

So, should DJs and photographers have carte blanche to discriminate if an event goes against their religious beliefs?
Dieser Weg wird kein leichter sein; dieser Weg wird steinig und schwer.
Nicht mit vielen wirst du dir einig sein, doch dieses Leben bietet so viel mehr. --Xavier Naidoo

#27 Gertrude

Gertrude

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 04:31 PM

Discrimination is morally wrong and illegal. I am glad good prevailed over evil.

#28 Rocketwolf

Rocketwolf

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 22,672 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 05:39 PM

Its the law, but it is kinda creepy a business can be destroyed over a couple bunches of flowers.


I trust the Police
more than I trust President Obama


#29 jtowne-swim

jtowne-swim

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:11 PM

So, should DJs and photographers have carte blanche to discriminate if an event goes against their religious beliefs?


I don't think so but I see the point
In 20 years....... when global warming causes the polar ice caps to melt....... and the whole planet floods. Swimmers will rule the World:cool: !

ACTION....ADVENTURE.....EXCITEMENT....A Jedi seeks not these things.:D
-Master Yoda

#30 karlydee2

karlydee2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:22 PM

To the extent that all the florist would have had to do was arrange flowers and have them delivered to the wedding venue then I agree she should have complied, as that would not be placing her in the position of "participating" in a same sex wedding. The more difficult issues arise when it involves a photgrapher, or a DJ, or a band. Those folks would need to actually participate in the wedding and/or reception following, and in such an instance the courts would be telling a person that must actually physically take part in an event that goes against their religious beliefs becasue of their profession. I would hope that the courts would uphold their right to say no. 

 

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that persons who engage in regulated commercial activities can have their religious freedoms encumbered. Specifically the Court ruled that the Amish cannot use religion as a means to get out of paying the employer portion of SS withholding.

 

In the matter of anti-discrimination statutes, the SCOTUS has ruled many times, that the compelling interest of penalizing discriminatory acts outweighs the encumbering of First Amendment rights, specifically with respect to commercial activities.

 

SCOTUS has also ruled that assigning "expressive actions" to commercial activity would place the court in an untenable position of trying to determine the extent of expression for each business.

 

If you get paid to take pictures, your religious freedom of expression does not allow you to discriminate.

 

Remember, it is not a right to engage in business, it is a privilege allowed by the state and or locality, and regulated per State and Local laws.


Edited by karlydee2, 16 February 2017 - 07:01 PM.


#31 karlydee2

karlydee2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:24 PM

Its the law, but it is kinda creepy a business can be destroyed over a couple bunches of flowers.

 

 

The business was destroyed by the owner's bigotry, and failure to follow the law.

 

Using the argument " someone else will do it for them" is no different than saying "well if they manage to make it to Canada the escaped slaves will be free"

 

it's just a matter of degree.



#32 hst2

hst2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90,807 posts

Posted 16 February 2017 - 07:02 PM

I doubt it will be challenged, but I wonder about the constitutionality.

 

As a businessman, all I see is green. I don't care if you're a man, woman, black, white, or have sex with goats. Just bring the green.

 

On the other hand, if your principles force you in denying yourself business opportunities based on certain characteristics I think the ultimate loser is that businessman.

 

I think if I were in their shoes, I would sit down with the couple for a cup of coffee, tell them that's its great for them, if that's what they want. and tell them that while its no reflection on them, my lawyers tell me its against my religion to provide flowers (pardon the sarcasm). I would tell them that I will provide the flowers, but please understand that you are forcing me to compromise my religious principles, and it is causing me a great deal of anguish. Is that what you want your wedding day to represent?

 

They might back off. They might not. But meeting them as equal human beings with dignity might pave a way - one way or the other.


"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. - HL Mencken

#33 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,840 posts
  • LocationHarford County Maryland

Posted 16 February 2017 - 08:40 PM

So, should DJs and photographers have carte blanche to discriminate if an event goes against their religious beliefs?

They should have the right to say no thank you. Just the same as they should have the right to say no thank you if asked to photograph or provide music at a ceremony celebrating witchcraft or devil worship, both of which could violate most Christian's beliefs. I am not a particularly devout Christian myself (I have my personal spiritual beliefs but do not actively participate in an organized denomination) but if I were asked to go and photograph a celebration of satanic worship I would decline. Why should a person with a spiritual belief that same sex marriage violates their religion be forced to go take pictures at a same sex ceremony? Sorry, but public accomodation has to have some limits when it means going and being an active participant in something that violates one's beliefs.



#34 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,840 posts
  • LocationHarford County Maryland

Posted 16 February 2017 - 08:41 PM

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that persons who engage in regulated commercial activities can have their religious freedoms encumbered. Specifically the Court ruled that the Amish cannot use religion as a means to get out of paying the employer portion of SS withholding.

 

In the matter of anti-discrimination statutes, the SCOTUS has ruled many times, that the compelling interest of penalizing discriminatory acts outweighs the encumbering of First Amendment rights, specifically with respect to commercial activities.

 

SCOTUS has also ruled that assigning "expressive actions" to commercial activity would place the court in an untenable position of trying to determine the extent of expression for each business.

 

If you get paid to take pictures, your religious freedom of expression does not allow you to discriminate.

 

Remember, it is not a right to engage in business, it is a privilege allowed by the state and or locality, and regulated per State and Local laws.

I respectfully disagree. 



#35 karlydee2

karlydee2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:44 AM

I respectfully disagree. 

 

You can disagree all you like.

 

It's the law.



#36 karlydee2

karlydee2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:47 AM

They should have the right to say no thank you. Just the same as they should have the right to say no thank you if asked to photograph or provide music at a ceremony celebrating witchcraft or devil worship, both of which could violate most Christian's beliefs. I am not a particularly devout Christian myself (I have my personal spiritual beliefs but do not actively participate in an organized denomination) but if I were asked to go and photograph a celebration of satanic worship I would decline. Why should a person with a spiritual belief that same sex marriage violates their religion be forced to go take pictures at a same sex ceremony? Sorry, but public accomodation has to have some limits when it means going and being an active participant in something that violates one's beliefs.

 

 

A taxi driver can't deny a ride because the person is black, or because the fare is a gay couple.

 

Why should taking pictures for hire be any different than providing a ride for hire?

 

[ Hint: it's not, under the law ]


Edited by karlydee2, 17 February 2017 - 12:47 AM.


#37 Smokey 1

Smokey 1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33,415 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 03:07 AM

So, should DJs and photographers have carte blanche to discriminate if an event goes against their religious beliefs?

 

They can say they disagree with their politics and refuse to play/photograph at the wedding just like the artists who refused to play at Trumps inaugural events. If they can refuse for political reasons then so should anyone else.



#38 hst2

hst2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90,807 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 04:55 AM

They can say they disagree with their politics and refuse to play/photograph at the wedding just like the artists who refused to play at Trumps inaugural events. If they can refuse for political reasons then so should anyone else.


So clueless.
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. - HL Mencken

#39 Smokey 1

Smokey 1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33,415 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 07:05 AM

So clueless.

 

How so?



#40 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,840 posts
  • LocationHarford County Maryland

Posted 17 February 2017 - 08:03 AM

You can disagree all you like.

 

It's the law.

Perhaps. For now. Let's see what the courts say about this as more cases proceed. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users