SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

[Count 'Bility]

Washington Florist Who Denied Service to Gay Couple Over Her ‘Relationship with Jesus’ Sued by the State

http://gawker.com/59...ed-by-the-state

While I dont agree with her reasoning, it is her business. She can provide or refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever. She has that right. Go find a different florist then.

 

Or is this not America anymore?

If the story replaced "gay" with "black" would you still feel the same way?

 

I understand what you're saying but I think that there should be some limits. (Unless you're Rand Paul who was against the Civil Rights Act before he was for it before he never wavered.)

Yes, I would still feel the same. But dont qualify me as a racist. I am not. This is solely about rights as a business owner. What if the man had HIV and she did want to be around him for that reason? It's still her prerogative. As I said, I dont agree with her, but she should still have that right. Hell, she'd only be signing her business's own death wish anyway in terms of perception and such. Regardless, she should still have that right. it's just a fundemental thing to me. How can you justify taking away freedoms from one group or person in order to give some or more to another. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

[carlfense]

Yes, I would still feel the same. But dont qualify me as a racist. I am not.

I won't and as far as I can tell you're not.

 

This is solely about rights as a business owner. What if the man had HIV and she did want to be around him for that reason? It's still her prerogative. As I said, I dont agree with her, but she should still have that right. Hell, she'd only be signing her business's own death wish anyway in terms of perception and such. Regardless, she should still have that right. it's just a fundemental thing to me. How can you justify taking away freedoms from one group or person in order to give some or more to another. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

It's a gray area to me. The Civil Rights Act was totally worth it in my opinion. The right to be a racist (at least in business dealings) was trumped by the right to not be racially discriminated against.

 

Should gays have similar protection? I don't know. It's a closer question than race, IMO.

 

All of that said I think that history will take a rather dim view of the condoning of this kind of discrimination.

[Count 'Bility]

Yes, I would still feel the same. But dont qualify me as a racist. I am not.

I won't and as far as I can tell you're not.

 

This is solely about rights as a business owner. What if the man had HIV and she did want to be around him for that reason? It's still her prerogative. As I said, I dont agree with her, but she should still have that right. Hell, she'd only be signing her business's own death wish anyway in terms of perception and such. Regardless, she should still have that right. it's just a fundemental thing to me. How can you justify taking away freedoms from one group or person in order to give some or more to another. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

It's a gray area to me. The Civil Rights Act was totally worth it in my opinion. The right to be a racist (at least in business dealings) was trumped by the right to not be racially discriminated against.

 

Should gays have similar protection? I don't know. It's a closer question than race, IMO.

 

All of that said I think that history will take a rather dim view of the condoning of this kind of discrimination.

Grey area is right. i dont know why i didnt think of that before.

 

Yes, I think rights of gays and minorities should be protected. But in this case, how should this man's right as a consumer be any more protected than that of anyone else simply because they are gay, AND at the expense of the rights of the service provider. That's where I see a massive amount of hypocrisy. I dont agree with it. Not to mention, she claims the reason of religeous beliefs. So now she's opened the pandora's box of trampling on religous beliefs as well in the same case.

 

I'm betting there's another place to buy flowers.

[sd'sker]

i agree with it being a gray area. business owners often protect their right to refuse service. the difference between then and now (blacks and gays) is that back then, especially in the south, the refusal to serve blacks was nearly universal. i would imagine there are few florists who would deny service. i think that particular florist should be publicly shamed and i would never shop at a place that would discriminate like that.

[Count 'Bility]

i agree with it being a gray area. business owners often protect their right to refuse service. the difference between then and now (blacks and gays) is that back then, especially in the south, the refusal to serve blacks was nearly universal. i would imagine there are few florists who would deny service. i think that particular florist should be publicly shamed and i would never shop at a place that would discriminate like that.

True. But she should still have that right to do. Like I said before, I dont agree with her in any way and she in my opinion is signing her business's death wish with the negative pub anyway. But this is another one of those slippery slopes. I dont agree with stealing rights from one in order to enforce those of another.

[sd'sker]

i agree with it being a gray area. business owners often protect their right to refuse service. the difference between then and now (blacks and gays) is that back then, especially in the south, the refusal to serve blacks was nearly universal. i would imagine there are few florists who would deny service. i think that particular florist should be publicly shamed and i would never shop at a place that would discriminate like that.

True. But she should still have that right to do. Like I said before, I dont agree with her in any way and she in my opinion is signing her business's death wish with the negative pub anyway. But this is another one of those slippery slopes. I dont agree with stealing rights from one in order to enforce those of another.

i understand. and all i was saying is that there was a time when that was necessary, but that may no longer be the case.

[carlfense]

But in this case, how should this man's right as a consumer be any more protected than that of anyone else simply because they are gay, AND at the expense of the rights of the service provider.

How are his rights more protected? I'm not following.

 

(FWIW if I were in this man's plaintiff's shoes I would have just shopped elsewhere . . .)

 

Edit: The AG filed the case . . .

 

Not to mention, she claims the reason of religeous beliefs. So now she's opened the pandora's box of trampling on religous beliefs as well in the same case.

That's not really pandora's box. If your religion requires you to kill someone and you do it you can still be convicted for murder. (Criminal law and not civil obviously . . . actually it's a pretty crappy hypothetical but hopefully it helps illustrate the point.)

 

I'm betting there's another place to buy flowers.

That's probably the easiest solution. I'd be more sympathetic if every flower shop in his area refused service to gays.

[carlfense]

I dont agree with stealing rights from one in order to enforce those of another.

We do that every single day. If you truly believe this you must be against our entire penal system. Every single time that someone is incarcerated their rights are taken from them and it's often to protect the rights of the public.

[strigori]

i agree with it being a gray area. business owners often protect their right to refuse service. the difference between then and now (blacks and gays) is that back then, especially in the south, the refusal to serve blacks was nearly universal. i would imagine there are few florists who would deny service. i think that particular florist should be publicly shamed and i would never shop at a place that would discriminate like that.

True. But she should still have that right to do. Like I said before, I dont agree with her in any way and she in my opinion is signing her business's death wish with the negative pub anyway. But this is another one of those slippery slopes. I dont agree with stealing rights from one in order to enforce those of another.

I think its a slippery slope, but in the opposite direction. Say a town has 2 grocery stores, and both decide they will no longer sell product to gays.

[knapplc]

Yes, I would still feel the same. But dont qualify me as a racist. I am not. This is solely about rights as a business owner. What if the man had HIV and she did want to be around him for that reason? It's still her prerogative. As I said, I dont agree with her, but she should still have that right. Hell, she'd only be signing her business's own death wish anyway in terms of perception and such. Regardless, she should still have that right. it's just a fundemental thing to me. How can you justify taking away freedoms from one group or person in order to give some or more to another. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

 

It's 2013. We shouldn't have to be explaining this.

 

 

What "freedom" is the shop owner losing by serving customers? Isn't that why she opened her shop? Public Accommodations laws simply mean that she has to treat everyone the same - although in the case of your HIV example, disability isn't covered by PA laws, so she can kick that man out of her shop if she chooses. The law isn't perfect.

 

But let's take this to ridiculous extremes to prove a point, because that's what we do on the internet. It's her shop. It's her prerogative how she runs it, right? This is your premise, so I want to be clear here. In that premise, does she have the right to:

 

Sell a customer tulips but call them roses and charge rose prices?

Hide portions of her income from the IRS?

Fudge her scale (presuming she sells something by weight) so that "1 pound" is actually 9/10s of a pound?

Smuggle flowers in from outside America's borders, bypassing inspections?

Add new plumbing or wiring to her premises without having them inspected?

 

 

These are all things that people feel are their "rights," depending on the person. All would violate some law or other, but "it's her shop," so she should be allowed to do as she pleases, right?

 

And if you feel that she shouldn't be allowed to do any or all of those things... why are those rights OK to take away from her, but it's her "right" to turn people away based on sexual preference?

[Count 'Bility]

i agree with it being a gray area. business owners often protect their right to refuse service. the difference between then and now (blacks and gays) is that back then, especially in the south, the refusal to serve blacks was nearly universal. i would imagine there are few florists who would deny service. i think that particular florist should be publicly shamed and i would never shop at a place that would discriminate like that.

True. But she should still have that right to do. Like I said before, I dont agree with her in any way and she in my opinion is signing her business's death wish with the negative pub anyway. But this is another one of those slippery slopes. I dont agree with stealing rights from one in order to enforce those of another.

I think its a slippery slope, but in the opposite direction. Say a town has 2 grocery stores, and both decide they will no longer sell product to gays.

Well, if we're going to use outlandish comparisons, what if exxon-mobile will not allow gays to buy any of their gasoline? What if 7-11 decides not to let gays buy any slurpies?

 

But, yes, I see your point. I agree, it could go the other way, but I doubt it. Too much PR risk for anyone to refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever in this advanced society we live in. But the right should still be there-if they're dumb enough.

 

Another thing that just got me was this was a case where the gal's honesty is what's going to bite her in the ass. All she had to say was "i'm too busy and I'm low on staff right now. Sorry". And that's the other thing here. We're so hellbent on enforcing some things but yet allow so many ways around them.

 

I get to the point where I'm running circles around myself and I bounce in and out of crosseyes.

[knapplc]

Say a town has 2 grocery stores, and both decide they will no longer sell product to gays.

 

Say a state has 1,000 lunch counters, but you can't eat at it because your skin is the wrong color. The geography can - and has - gotten big enough that it literally forces entire classes of people to live in abject poverty because they cannot get a loan, they can barely run a functioning business, they can't get the tools/supplies they need to run a basic family farm.

 

We learned these lessons, as a nation, just less than 50 years ago. But I can see that our society isn't reinforcing what we've learned. And those who forget history... etc. etc.

[Count 'Bility]

Yes, I would still feel the same. But dont qualify me as a racist. I am not. This is solely about rights as a business owner. What if the man had HIV and she did want to be around him for that reason? It's still her prerogative. As I said, I dont agree with her, but she should still have that right. Hell, she'd only be signing her business's own death wish anyway in terms of perception and such. Regardless, she should still have that right. it's just a fundemental thing to me. How can you justify taking away freedoms from one group or person in order to give some or more to another. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

 

It's 2013. We shouldn't have to be explaining this.

 

 

What "freedom" is the shop owner losing by serving customers? Isn't that why she opened her shop? Public Accommodations laws simply mean that she has to treat everyone the same - although in the case of your HIV example, disability isn't covered by PA laws, so she can kick that man out of her shop if she chooses. The law isn't perfect.

 

But let's take this to ridiculous extremes to prove a point, because that's what we do on the internet. It's her shop. It's her prerogative how she runs it, right? This is your premise, so I want to be clear here. In that premise, does she have the right to:

 

Sell a customer tulips but call them roses and charge rose prices?

Hide portions of her income from the IRS?

Fudge her scale (presuming she sells something by weight) so that "1 pound" is actually 9/10s of a pound?

Smuggle flowers in from outside America's borders, bypassing inspections?

Add new plumbing or wiring to her premises without having them inspected?

 

 

These are all things that people feel are their "rights," depending on the person. All would violate some law or other, but "it's her shop," so she should be allowed to do as she pleases, right?

 

And if you feel that she shouldn't be allowed to do any or all of those things... why are those rights OK to take away from her, but it's her "right" to turn people away based on sexual preference?

And that my friend is the difference between your and other's viewpoints from my ultra-conservative one. I was raised on the foundation that it's my business. I built this business and if i dont want to serve you, that's my right. Her biggest mistake was actually giving a reason. But it wouldve been fishy anyways beins he was a long time customer.

[knapplc]

Another thing that just got me was this was a case where the gal's honesty is what's going to bite her in the ass. All she had to say was "i'm too busy and I'm low on staff right now. Sorry". And that's the other thing here. We're so hellbent on enforcing some things but yet allow so many ways around them.

 

That's like saying this guy, who told the cops he was drunk when he crashed his car, got in worse trouble because we're so hellbent on enforcing "some things."

 

I have zero sympathy for people like this. This woman is doubly stupid for being a bigot and for being stupid enough to admit she's a bigot.

[knapplc]

And that my friend is the difference between your and other's viewpoints from my ultra-conservative one. I was raised on the foundation that it's my business. I built this business and if i dont want to serve you, that's my right. Her biggest mistake was actually giving a reason. But it wouldve been fishy anyways beins he was a long time customer.

 

You're dodging the point. The point I was badly trying to make is, there are literally hundreds of laws that a shop owner must abide by to remain in business. They abrogate the ability to do certain things by applying for that business license. They place themselves under the aegis of the law and I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks that their shop is their kingdom and acts like a jackass.