Florist sued after refusing to book gay wedding in Washington State

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 8:22 PM GMT
    Washington State is suing a florist for refusing to provide a gay couple with flowers on their wedding day. The basic story was in another thread here before, but now the State is actually bringing legal action against the florist.

    Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  • Danskerb

    Posts: 286

    Apr 10, 2013 8:33 PM GMT
    hope they go out of business.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Apr 10, 2013 8:40 PM GMT
    And the right wing is out in force: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?source_name=mbase&source_id=2020743969
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 8:52 PM GMT
    When it comes to the elderly I feel really bad. They were raised with that kind of mentality and their time and our time is at a cross roads. I don't wish them to go out of business, but hopefully this shows them that they need to get with the times if they want to survive in the business world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 8:55 PM GMT
    Are they the only florist in Washington.. my guess is no so what the fuck is the lawsuit about. Why would people want to help support a bigot's business? I am sure there are plenty of gay florists who could use their money.. sheesh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 9:02 PM GMT
    dudewithabeard saidAre they the only florist in Washington.. my guess is no so what the fuck is the lawsuit about. Why would people want to help support a bigot's business? I am sure there are plenty of gay florists who could use their money.. sheesh.

    It's a small community there, and this had been their regular florist for years. It wasn't chosen at random.

    But when it came time for their wedding they got rejected. I would feel the insult & hurt myself. Wouldn't you?

    And regardless of whether this was a florist among thousands available to the gay couple, when the business was approached they broke Washington State law by refusing to offer their services. The legal burden is on the florist to provide, not on the gay couple to seek alternatives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 9:10 PM GMT
    I'm torn..

    ..I wouldn't want any businesses providing services for my wedding if they had a problem with me.. or gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 9:18 PM GMT
    Anocxu saidI'm torn..

    ..I wouldn't want any businesses providing services for my wedding if they had a problem with me.. or gays.

    I understand. But this gay couple had encountered no previous problem with this florist. Their business & money were accepted before.

    And then the florist decided to exercise a service denial it did not have a right to do under Washington State law, as a licensed business to the public. Courts have long maintained that a place of public accommodation, especially one licensed to operate by the State, may not discriminate.

    If you allow this, then a business may also refuse to serve divorced persons on religious grounds, or maybe someone who isn't a member of the business owner's religious denomination. If you operate a public business, you must serve all the public, you cannot pick & choose according to arbitrary criteria which the law prohibits.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Apr 10, 2013 9:22 PM GMT
    yourname2000 saidThese fuckin' Christians all wanna discriminate against gays under the guise that their religious freedom should allow them to choose with whom they do business. I'd love to see someone else refuse to give them service BECAUSE they were Christian....you'd sure see the fur fly if anyone dared use their tactics against them.


    Don't forget that a lot of Christians campaigned hard for equal rights for gays! y church is performing same-sex marriages, has gay clergy, and marched in the Pride Parade in support of SSM
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 9:48 PM GMT
    As it is a Washington law I think the enforcement is not controversial.

    However, I have a philosophical problem with businesses being sued for denial of service. Any business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. There will always be someone out there who can see how green your money is. I mean if I owned a business I'd surely like to deny service to Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, or anyone spouting religious intolerance. By all means boycott and protest if you want, but in my opinion they have a right to their beliefs since obtaining someones property, whether advertised or not, is not a right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 10:13 PM GMT
    CaCO3 saidAs it is a Washington law I think the enforcement is not controversial.

    However, I have a philosophical problem with businesses being sued for denial of service. Any business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. There will always be someone out there who can see how green your money is. I mean if I owned a business I'd surely like to deny service to Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, or anyone spouting religious intolerance. By all means boycott and protest if you want, but in my opinion they have a right to their beliefs since obtaining someones property, whether advertised or not, is not a right.


    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
    Not This !!
  • Zinc

    Posts: 197

    Apr 10, 2013 10:37 PM GMT
    CaCO3 saidAs it is a Washington law I think the enforcement is not controversial.

    However, I have a philosophical problem with businesses being sued for denial of service. Any business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. There will always be someone out there who can see how green your money is. I mean if I owned a business I'd surely like to deny service to Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, or anyone spouting religious intolerance. By all means boycott and protest if you want, but in my opinion they have a right to their beliefs since obtaining someones property, whether advertised or not, is not a right.


    I suppose she could have simply 'retired' from wedding flowers all together if her views are so inflexible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 10:49 PM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    CaCO3 saidAny business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.

    Really? That's what you think?

    segregation2.jpg

    Mighty white of ya, partner. icon_wink.gif


    It has nothing to do with me being white as I am in the minority of whose discrimination we are discussing. Reductio ad Hitlerum, I think unpopular views should be allowed to be expressed therefore I'm akin to a white supremacist. A sign like that would surely earn the ire of most, even in the south, and the media would be all over it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2013 11:18 PM GMT
    She's been serving them for so long that she pulls this kind of stunt. I would be pissed.

    Business and religion should not be mingled together, just as State and Religion shouldn't be either.

    I'm pretty sure they've gotten another florist to accommodate them...

    On the flip side I linked news about a same sex couple having to shut down because of the certain members of the towns community hurling insults at them , influencing the rest of them not dine there.

    So if she goes out of business because of denial of service, I won't really shed a tear.

    Makes me wonder what kind of insane debauchery did the same sex people did in the biblical times....

    You guys really put a bad name on us!! icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 12:20 AM GMT
    Why not just go to another florist, or is it the only florist shop in the state? Might as well just go to a flowery meadow and pick your own flowers than to sue a small shop that took time to establish and built from a long time of savings and dreams. All companies have the right to refues service, it just seems like a lot of effort to sue a company who have different beliefs and opinions. Id just start a boycott to where eventually that store would go out of business.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Apr 11, 2013 12:42 AM GMT
    CaCO3 saidAs it is a Washington law I think the enforcement is not controversial.

    However, I have a philosophical problem with businesses being sued for denial of service. Any business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. There will always be someone out there who can see how green your money is. I mean if I owned a business I'd surely like to deny service to Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, or anyone spouting religious intolerance. By all means boycott and protest if you want, but in my opinion they have a right to their beliefs since obtaining someones property, whether advertised or not, is not a right.


    I'm inclined to agree. While I think their view is unpopular, dying, and flat out wrong, I feel they have every right to uphold it. If it is a privately owned company, they should be able to take it to any direction they wish, even if that's ruin from social suicide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 12:58 AM GMT
    Medjai saidIf it is a privately owned company, they should be able to take it to any direction they wish, even if that's ruin from social suicide.

    That is not how the law reads and courts have ruled. The ownership of the business is not the issue, but the State's allowance of this business to operate as a place of public accommodation.

    Say what you wish in private, think what you will privately. That's your inalienable right. But if you enter public commerce, you WILL abide by the laws that govern us all.

    And that is what this is all about. Not about what the owner of this florist shop personally thinks. But how she may conduct her licensed public business among any and all customers.

    Otherwise I could have a public business that rejects Jews. Or Catholics. Or Republicans.

    You can reject Republicans from entering your house, but you cannot reject them from buying something at your state-licensed store. And how are gays different?
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Apr 11, 2013 1:06 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    CaCO3 saidAs it is a Washington law I think the enforcement is not controversial.

    However, I have a philosophical problem with businesses being sued for denial of service. Any business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. There will always be someone out there who can see how green your money is. I mean if I owned a business I'd surely like to deny service to Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, or anyone spouting religious intolerance. By all means boycott and protest if you want, but in my opinion they have a right to their beliefs since obtaining someones property, whether advertised or not, is not a right.


    I'm inclined to agree. While I think their view is unpopular, dying, and flat out wrong, I feel they have every right to uphold it. If it is a privately owned company, they should be able to take it to any direction they wish, even if that's ruin from social suicide.


    Sorry, Medjai, but our society has long agreed that as soon as you engage in society in general, like offering and advertising services, you have to abide by certain rules of our civilization. Like, filing tax returns, or not engaging in discriminatory behavior that is so outrageous and offensive that it has no place in our society. That racial discrimination falls into this category was settled federally in the sixties with the civil rights legislation, and by now many states have expanded that protection to us. And if a business doesn't like to do business under t hese conditions, they're free to close shop or move o Alabama. Until we get our rights federally.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Apr 11, 2013 1:34 AM GMT
    I know it's the law, and as such it should be enforced. But a true capitalist society would take care of this just fine without government intervention. That's all I'm saying.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 2:31 AM GMT
    I understand the invisible hand of the free market argument. However, where was that hand pointing prior to government intervention in our history as a nation? Also, has there ever been a surviving nation that strictly practiced a singular economical ideology?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 4:23 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    CaCO3 saidAs it is a Washington law I think the enforcement is not controversial.

    However, I have a philosophical problem with businesses being sued for denial of service. Any business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. There will always be someone out there who can see how green your money is. I mean if I owned a business I'd surely like to deny service to Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, or anyone spouting religious intolerance. By all means boycott and protest if you want, but in my opinion they have a right to their beliefs since obtaining someones property, whether advertised or not, is not a right.


    I'm inclined to agree. While I think their view is unpopular, dying, and flat out wrong, I feel they have every right to uphold it. If it is a privately owned company, they should be able to take it to any direction they wish, even if that's ruin from social suicide.


    I thought of this too, and while I do believe owners should be empowered to refuse service in some circumstances, this is not one that should be accepted. If such practice was allowed, then the more prejudiced business owners will refuse services to minorities such as people of not just different sexuality but different race, religion, etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 4:32 AM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    CaCO3 saidAny business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.

    Really? That's what you think?

    segregation2.jpg

    Mighty white of ya, partner. icon_wink.gif
    Reminds me of Arizona.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 1:57 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    dudewithabeard saidAre they the only florist in Washington.. my guess is no so what the fuck is the lawsuit about. Why would people want to help support a bigot's business? I am sure there are plenty of gay florists who could use their money.. sheesh.

    It's a small community there, and this had been their regular florist for years. It wasn't chosen at random.

    But when it came time for their wedding they got rejected. I would feel the insult & hurt myself. Wouldn't you?

    And regardless of whether this was a florist among thousands available to the gay couple, when the business was approached they broke Washington State law by refusing to offer their services. The legal burden is on the florist to provide, not on the gay couple to seek alternatives.


    Would I feel rejected if I already had a relationship with the florist, maybe. But to sue because my feelings got hurt is stupid. Talk about a frivolous lawsuit and pushing beliefs down someone's throat. We need to understand that not everyone is going to like us and like that gays can get married. This kind of petty lawsuit will hinder our cause nationwide. There have already been fears of forcing things upon those who do not agree and here it fucking is right before our eyes. Sheesh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 2:09 PM GMT
    Medjai saidI know it's the law, and as such it should be enforced. But a true capitalist society would take care of this just fine without government intervention. That's all I'm saying.

    Southern lunch counters thrived on White-only business, when they refused service to Blacks. The forces of capitalism did NOT take care of that racial discrimination, prior to civil rights legislation being passed in the 1960s.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 2:15 PM GMT
    dudewithabeard said
    Would I feel rejected if I already had a relationship with the florist, maybe. But to sue because my feelings got hurt is stupid. Talk about a frivolous lawsuit and pushing beliefs down someone's throat.

    Please go back and review the OP and the article. My opening words from the article are:

    Washington State is suing a florist...

    The gay couple is not suing but rather it's the State of Washington that brought an action, for a violation of its laws. The lawsuit is not over "hurt feelings" but over disobeying the law. The owners are being sued rather than arrested because this is a code violation, not classified as a criminal act in Washington. It will be heard in civil court rather than a criminal one.