Florist Refusal to Sell to Gays Because of God Ruled Discriminatory

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

    Feb 17, 2017 4:00 AM GMT
    NYT: The Supreme Court in Washington State deemed a florist could not claim religious belief as a defense for refusing to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding under the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/florist-discrimination-gay-couple-washington-court.html
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1138

    Feb 17, 2017 8:22 PM GMT
    In the old days, people found out which businesses were gay-owned or gay-friendly and the entire community would take their business there. Seriously, how hard can it be to find a gay-friendly florist?

    If a business was determined to be unfriendly to gays, the community would boycott it.

    Now, it seems the gay community is preferentially patronizing businesses that are unfriendly to gays, to prove some sort of point.

    What's wrong with this picture?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2017 7:20 AM GMT
    bro4bro saidIn the old days, people found out which businesses were gay-owned or gay-friendly and the entire community would take their business there. What's wrong with this picture?


    Why should gay people have to tip-toe around bigots? It's our right (not just a privilege) to be treated fairly and with respect. We will be 2nd class citizens only till we allow it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2017 2:06 PM GMT
    sweetyork said
    bro4bro saidIn the old days, people found out which businesses were gay-owned or gay-friendly and the entire community would take their business there. What's wrong with this picture?


    Why should gay people have to tip-toe around bigots? It's our right (not just a privilege) to be treated fairly and with respect. We will be 2nd class citizens only till we allow it.


    Agreed. To the people who say we should just take our business elsewhere, would that have been your answer to the colored people of the civil rights movement?
  • SouthBeachJus...

    Posts: 249

    Feb 18, 2017 5:09 PM GMT
    I do believe that once an individual is participating in the public square of commerce, they must serve the public. ALL the public.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2017 6:23 PM GMT
    bro4bro saidIn the old days, people found out which businesses were gay-owned or gay-friendly and the entire community would take their business there. Seriously, how hard can it be to find a gay-friendly florist?

    If a business was determined to be unfriendly to gays, the community would boycott it.

    Now, it seems the gay community is preferentially patronizing businesses that are unfriendly to gays, to prove some sort of point.

    What's wrong with this picture?



    As usual, you support homophobia. Intentionally going to unfriendly businesses simply exposes their prejudice faster and let's everyone know their attitudes concerning gay people.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1138

    Feb 18, 2017 7:11 PM GMT
    It also puts money in their pockets.

    "As usual", I support homophobia? What the fuck does that mean?

    I don't advocate tiptoeing around anybody. I'll walk right past them with my middle finger in the air and patronize someone who appreciates my business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2017 7:57 PM GMT
    bro4bro saidIt also puts money in their pockets.

    "As usual", I support homophobia? What the fuck does that mean?

    I don't advocate tiptoeing around anybody. I'll walk right past them with my middle finger in the air and patronize someone who appreciates my business.



    Maybe I have you confused with another smooth torso. It's hard to keep you guys straight. My apologies.
  • Cutlass

    Posts: 427

    Feb 19, 2017 12:32 AM GMT
    Civil rights are civil rights. If the florist can't provide flowers for a gay wedding, she should stop doing weddings; that way she could continue her business and not go against her religious convictions.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1138

    Feb 19, 2017 7:20 PM GMT
    Am I the only one who notices that virtually all of the people who refuse to serve gays due to "religious" convictions are women?

    What's that all about?

    Can't handle a little competition?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2017 7:32 PM GMT
    Art_Nouveau said
    Yet one can see a democrat florist refusing to provide flowers for a Republican Convention. Because of there [sic] political conviction.
    No diffrent to designers refusing to dress Mrs Trump.
    But we didn't see the left getting all bent out of shape with that.

    First of all, do you know of a case, from there in Australia, of a "democrat" florist refusing to provide flowers for a Republican convention?

    As for high-end clothing designers, are they US companies? Do they operate under our Federal and State public accommodation laws?

    That was the issue in Washington State with this particular florist. Someone who operates a licensed & regulated public shop in that State.

  • Feb 19, 2017 7:47 PM GMT
    Art_Nouveau saidI'd simply go somewhere else.
    Although I've never experienced such a thing.
    Thus not really sure how'd I'd react.
    But I'm not really into drama, or playing the gay victim card.


    I would go somewhere else also. If a person running a business, or any of his employees, demonstrate prejudice, bigotry or bias against me I don't want to patronize that business. I'd much rather boycott people who discriminate against who I am than support them by giving them my money. But I'll be sure to spread the word of mouth in their disfavor and share my negative experience.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2017 7:53 PM GMT
    bro4bro saidIt also puts money in their pockets.

    "As usual", I support homophobia? What the fuck does that mean?

    I don't advocate tiptoeing around anybody. I'll walk right past them with my middle finger in the air and patronize someone who appreciates my business.


    So would I. However, it is good that the business was fined. A $1,000 fine isn't going to put anyone out of business, but it may, as the law intended, get the word out that this kind of discrimination is illegal. The next florist, or caterer, pizza parlor, or motel operator, is much less likely to discriminate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2017 12:33 AM GMT
    I wonder what the reaction would be if it was a gay florist refusing to supply flowers for a fundamentalist Christian wedding... say at the Westboro Baptist Church. Hummmmm...
  • mybud

    Posts: 12176

    Feb 20, 2017 1:44 AM GMT
    Art_Nouveau said
    NOLAman1977 saidI wonder what the reaction would be if it was a gay florist refusing to supply flowers for a fundamentalist Christian wedding... say at the Westboro Baptist Church. Hummmmm...

    Or a republican conversation.
    Or a pleather hat maker...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2017 3:07 AM GMT
    mybud said
    Art_Nouveau said
    NOLAman1977 saidI wonder what the reaction would be if it was a gay florist refusing to supply flowers for a fundamentalist Christian wedding... say at the Westboro Baptist Church. Hummmmm...

    Or a republican conversation.
    Or a pleather hat maker...


    You spend too much time with special needs children. I bet you went into special ed so you could feel smart.
  • mybud

    Posts: 12176

    Feb 20, 2017 3:12 AM GMT
    NOLAman1977 said
    mybud said
    Art_Nouveau said
    NOLAman1977 saidI wonder what the reaction would be if it was a gay florist refusing to supply flowers for a fundamentalist Christian wedding... say at the Westboro Baptist Church. Hummmmm...

    Or a republican conversation.
    Or a pleather hat maker...


    You spend too much time with special needs children. I bet you went into special ed so you could feel smart.
    DUHHHH WAT U SAY MY LIL TWAT?
  • barefootlover

    Posts: 109

    Feb 20, 2017 4:06 PM GMT
    I actually do not agree with this. If I run a bakery shop, I should not have to provide any cakes that are anti gay. Yes, I have to serve everyone, but I should not have to make any cakes with anti gay messages. If a baker was refusing people just because they are gay, that would be wrong, like they won't even sell a loaf of bread to a gay person. Then that is discrimination. But if there is a certain type of service or certain messages they don't want to provide in their bakery, that should be the right of the business owner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2017 6:35 PM GMT
    barefootlover saidI actually do not agree with this. If I run a bakery shop, I should not have to provide any cakes that are anti gay. Yes, I have to serve everyone, but I should not have to make any cakes with anti gay messages. If a baker was refusing people just because they are gay, that would be wrong, like they won't even sell a loaf of bread to a gay person. Then that is discrimination. But if there is a certain type of service or certain messages they don't want to provide in their bakery, that should be the right of the business owner.


    I think if the content of a message being furnished were at issue, the state would not have a case, under freedom of speech grounds. It was not that the florist refused to provide any written message with the flowers that got him/her in trouble with the law, but that he/she simply refused to proved the same service they do for others - that is floral pieces. In some states, like California, it is even illegal for a commercial business to discriminate against anyone for any non-commercial (e.g., not No Shirt No Service rules) reason - not just discrimination on the basis of sex/race/religion/sexual orientation, etc. For example, a restaurant cannot refuse to serve someone because they are blond.
  • barefootlover

    Posts: 109

    Feb 22, 2017 5:03 PM GMT
    Puppenjunge said
    barefootlover saidI actually do not agree with this. If I run a bakery shop, I should not have to provide any cakes that are anti gay. Yes, I have to serve everyone, but I should not have to make any cakes with anti gay messages. If a baker was refusing people just because they are gay, that would be wrong, like they won't even sell a loaf of bread to a gay person. Then that is discrimination. But if there is a certain type of service or certain messages they don't want to provide in their bakery, that should be the right of the business owner.


    I think if the content of a message being furnished were at issue, the state would not have a case, under freedom of speech grounds. It was not that the florist refused to provide any written message with the flowers that got him/her in trouble with the law, but that he/she simply refused to proved the same service they do for others - that is floral pieces. In some states, like California, it is even illegal for a commercial business to discriminate against anyone for any non-commercial (e.g., not No Shirt No Service rules) reason - not just discrimination on the basis of sex/race/religion/sexual orientation, etc. For example, a restaurant cannot refuse to serve someone because they are blond.


    But, if a restaurant doesn't want to serve pizza, , they should not have to serve it because someone says the restaurant is discriminating against people who like pizza. They aren't discriminating against people who like pizza. They just don't want to provide that particular food. They have nothing against people who want to eat pizza. They just don't want to serve it in their restaurant. The same is true with gay marriage. If someone does not want to serve that kind of marriage, they should not have to. Now, if they refused to provide any flowers (i.e Mother' Day) just because they are gay, that would be discrimination. But, if they have chosen not to provide services for gay weddings, that's should be the business's choice, just like a photographer may not want to take any pictures of gays that are pornographic. Nobody should be forced to provide a service, if they don't want to. They are objecting to serving a gay wedding, not gays themselves. They would gladly sell any gay flowers for a birthday or Mother's Day, Valentines, but they don't want to serve a gay wedding. Then that is not discrimination. They are just choosing not to provide a particular service like a gay wedding, just like a restaurant may choose not to serve pizza.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2017 5:58 PM GMT
    ^"They are objecting to serving a gay wedding, not gays themselves."

    I think that is some of the most idiotic shit I've ever read.
    How is providing a service (which is exactly the service your particular business does by its very nature) condone gay marriage? If a black guy came in to buy flowers for his girlfriend, who everyone in town knows is white, should the florist be allowed to deny him service because he or she is opposed to interracial couples? I mean the florist would sell him flowers for his mom or sister or for a funeral just not his girlfriend because the florist has a personal objection to the races mixing, and he doesn't want to give the impression he does.