Florist sued for not providing flowers for gay wedding...

[username]

The state attorney general has filed suit against a florist in Eastern Washington, claiming her refusal to provide floral arrangements for a gay couple’s wedding amounted to discrimination.

By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter

The state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in Benton County Superior Court against a Richland florist who refused to provide flowers for the wedding of longtime gay customers, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

The state’s suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, came just days after the Attorney General’s Office wrote to ask that Stutzman reconsider her position and agree to comply with the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

“Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”

JD Bristol, attorney for Arlene’s, said his client has many customers and employees who are gay and the claim that she is “discriminating on the basis on sexual orientation is nonsense.”

“This is about gay marriage, it’s not about a person being gay,” Bristol said. “She has a conscientious objection to homosexual marriage, not homosexuality. It violates her conscience.”

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2...itxml.html


Thoughts? On the one hand, I have know problem with her refusing service (I think of those signs at restaurants that often say "we reserve the right to refuse service to any one, any time". However, one talking head compared it to buying a 6 pack of beer. Suppose a clerk decided his religious beliefs precluded him selling you the beer because you're gay or Muslim or something. As the talking head said, "just sell me the damn beer".

What do you think?

[BlueTiki]

Thoughts? What do you think?

Whooda guessed . . . a "straight" florist?

No what I mean?

[username]

Thoughts? What do you think?

Whooda guessed . . . a "straight" florist?

No what I mean?

Shit.

It's times like this where it's very tempting to use my ability to modify a post beyond the 15 minute window.

[HairOfTheDog]

“This is about gay marriage, it’s not about a person being gay,” Bristol said. “She has a conscientious objection to homosexual marriage, not homosexuality. It violates her conscience.”[/color]

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2...itxml.html


Thoughts? On the one hand, I have know problem with her refusing service (I think of those signs at restaurants that often say "we reserve the right to refuse service to any one, any time". However, one talking head compared it to buying a 6 pack of beer. Suppose a clerk decided his religious beliefs precluded him selling you the beer because you're gay or Muslim or something. As the talking head said, "just sell me the damn beer".

What do you think?

Well, she's got a conscious. That's something, I guess. My opinion of her conscious is not high, but she's entitled to her beliefs like I'm entitled to mine.

She has a right to forfeit income, lose good customers, and compromise her ability to be a savvy non-discriminatory vendor if she wishes, imo.

If we were talking about employment practices, or selling goods/services that couldn't readily be acquired elsewhere or were life-sustaining (like beer), I'd probably be more offended.

[ZEROSPHERES]

I am with the law on this one. Sexual orientation like skin color can not be chosen. Behavior on the other hand is something one can control and would be a reason to be denied service in a restaurant. I would also take exception with restaurant owner posting a sign "No Blacks or Homosexuals Served" but have no problem with posting one that reads 'No shirt, No Shoes...NO SERVICE'

[username]

The argument from the other side is that the law is infringing on her freedom of speech rights (writes?). Creating arrangements is expressive for her...similarly, one couldn't force an artist to create a painting that he/she didn't want to create.

I call bullshit but that's what the defense is saying.

[Duchess]

I don't like it simply because I don't agree with her BUT as the business owner she should be able to choose who she sells her creations to. If she's willing to forfeit money for her beliefs, more power to her. I'd sell to a monkey if it was paying me, flower arrangements are expensive.

[username]

I don't like it simply because I don't agree with her BUT as the business owner she should be able to choose who she sells her creations to. If she's willing to forfeit money for her beliefs, more power to her. I'd sell to a monkey if it was paying me, flower arrangements are expensive.

Yabbut, what about the beer analogy?

[Duchess]

Yabbut, what about the beer analogy?

The clerk would be fired.

I couldn't suspend belief for the beer analogy.

[ZEROSPHERES]

I'd sell to a monkey if it was paying me.

What about black homosexual monkeys who hate horses?

[Duchess]

Screw beliefs, money is God.

[ZEROSPHERES]

I would draw the line at Mel Gibson.
I would cut the rosebuds off and send him just a crown of prickly thorns.

[Cynical Ninja]

Free economy? Free enterprise? U don't get to choose who you`re customers are u can't have it both ways. Free economy means freedom of your customers to express themselves.

[BlueTiki]

Free economy means freedom of your customers to express themselves.

Employees, too.

I've always believed in voting with one's pocketbook . . . in both directions . . . as a consumer (outflow) or an employee (inflow).

The market will ultimately decide.