Just find a different florist already

[LDB]

This is ridiculous and if it were a Muslim business refusing to serve Christians nothing would ever be done about it if anything were even said about it.

Elderly Christian florist faces thousands in fines for refusing to provide flowers for gay ?wedding? | Saving Our FutureElderly Christian florist faces thousands in fines for refusing to provide flowers for gay ?wedding? » Saving Our Future

 

[Ragman]

This is ridiculous and if it were a White business refusing to serve Black nothing would ever be done about it if anything were even said about it.

Does your wacko right wing argument still hold true?

 

[LDB]

Apples and tennis balls.

 

[Ragman]

Apples and tennis balls.

Nope. Same principles apply.

 

[Turtle]

Apples and tennis balls.

Not according to the Consumer Protection Act of Washington State. You can't refuse to serve someone based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, military status, or disability.

The case will hinge on whether the objection is to homosexuality, or if it's on same-sex marriage event. If it's the former, she'll lose the case. But if it's the latter she may prevail. The customer is a long-time customer whom she knows, so she's clearly not discriminating based on sexual orientation. It's the same-sex marriage she has a problem with. But, she'll lose for sure if she tries to play the "religious freedom" card, since that will be in effect her saying that she should be exempt from the law because she wants to be exempt from the law. She needs to stick to the event itself, rather than the religious objections to what the couple may or may not do on their honeymoon. But she'll likely want to take a stand for her religious freedom, and just like everyone else who has done so, she'll lose.

 

[AMonger]

Not according to the Consumer Protection Act of Washington State. You can't refuse to serve someone based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, military status, or disability.

Well, he did point out that it's ridiculous, so he's right on that.

 

[cheri1122]

It seems to me that the florist is basing her refusal on religion - hers. Not sure if that's a legal reason to refuse, but it surely isn't a smart business decision.
Nor is it a very Christian attitude, IMO.
Leo: if a Muslim refused to provide flowers for a Christian wedding, the Christians would be screaming bloody murder about it, and that's a fact.
Our forefathers were wise to separate religion from government. People who cannot separate it from their business [assuming the business is secular] are simply creating a problem where none would exist otherwise, then complaining about it.

 

[Turtle]

Anybody see a lot of Christians going into flower shops in Dearborn? Not me.

 

[cheri1122]

Turtle: how would you know if you did? I mean, granted, the locals all know who's who, but I can recall stopping in an unknown town to order flowers for a relative's funeral, [when I was driving, & didn't go home for it] and the question of their religious affiliation [or mine] never crossed my mind.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle: how would you know if you did?

It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Anybody see a lot of Christians going into flower shops in Dearborn? Not me.

Funny how everyone thinks Dearborn is little-Mecca, or something. There are huge tracts of flourishing metropolis there, that is bereft of chanting over loud speakers. There are many caucasian owned flourists there. I recommend the one at Westborn Market. I recommend that market for you vanners. They have a hot deli that gets one's mouth to watering.

 

[layoutshooter]

Funny how everyone thinks Dearborn is little-Mecca, or something. There are huge tracts of flourishing metropolis there, that is bereft of chanting over loud speakers. There are many caucasian owned flourists there. I recommend the one at Westborn Market. I recommend that market for you vanners. They have a hot deli that gets one's mouth to watering.

Well of course there are caucasian owned businesses in the Dearborn area. It is also quite possible for them to be Muslim owned businesses as well since there are MILLIONS of caucasian Muslims across the world.

 

[jaminjim]

It seems to me that the florist is basing her refusal on religion - hers. Not sure if that's a legal reason to refuse, but it surely isn't a smart business decision.
Nor is it a very Christian attitude, IMO.
Leo: if a Muslim refused to provide flowers for a Christian wedding, the Christians would be screaming bloody murder about it, and that's a fact.
Our forefathers were wise to separate religion from government. People who cannot separate it from their business [assuming the business is secular] are simply creating a problem where none would exist otherwise, then complaining about it.

If it were truly separate, then the Government wouldn't be prosecuting them for their religious beliefs.

 

[layoutshooter]

Not according to the Consumer Protection Act of Washington State. You can't refuse to serve someone based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, military status, or disability.

The case will hinge on whether the objection is to homosexuality, or if it's on same-sex marriage event. If it's the former, she'll lose the case. But if it's the latter she may prevail. The customer is a long-time customer whom she knows, so she's clearly not discriminating based on sexual orientation. It's the same-sex marriage she has a problem with. But, she'll lose for sure if she tries to play the "religious freedom" card, since that will be in effect her saying that she should be exempt from the law because she wants to be exempt from the law. She needs to stick to the event itself, rather than the religious objections to what the couple may or may not do on their honeymoon. But she'll likely want to take a stand for her religious freedom, and just like everyone else who has done so, she'll lose.

I have mixed feelings on the act as written above. I do not agree with the types of discrimination that mentioned but I also don't believe that government has any business telling a business owner how to run their business. I also don't believe that government should be requiring a person to go against their religious beliefs. An example would be requiring a pharmacy to sell the morning after pill if they are opposed to it. That requirement is religious discrimination in itself.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Well of course there are caucasian owned businesses in the Dearborn area. It is also quite possible for them to be Muslim owned businesses as well since there are MILLIONS of caucasian Muslims across the world.

LOL Next you're going to tell me there are hispanic Black Panthers. Or better yet... that I can join the NAACP.

 

[Ragman]

LOL Next you're going to tell me there are hispanic Black Panthers. Or better yet... that I can join the NAACP.

There was. Were there any Puerto Ricans in the Black Panther Party

 

[Turtle]

I have mixed feelings on the act as written above. I do not agree with the types of discrimination that mentioned but I also don't believe that government has any business telling a business owner how to run their business. I also don't believe that government should be requiring a person to go against their religious beliefs. An example would be requiring a pharmacy to sell the morning after pill if they are opposed to it. That requirement is religious discrimination in itself.

The government finally had to step in and tell people how to run their businesses because of the rampant discrimination that was going on. It all started with an out-of-the-way restaurant that refused to serve black people. The florist refused to sell flowers to a man. The man is a long-time customer and she knows him, and knows he's gay, and has sold flowers to him many times in the past. Yet this time, suddenly, her religious convictions took hold, not because he's gay, but because what he wanted to use the flowers for. She used her religious beliefs as a shield, yet there is nothing in her religion that prevents her from selling flowers. So the government isn't requiring her to do anything against her religious beliefs. And it's why she'll lose the case if her defense is based on the "religious freedom" card.

As for requiring pharmacists to carry the Morning After Pill, most states (maybe all of them, I'm not sure) require pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community need and to stock a representative assortment of drugs needed by their patients. The regulations apply neutrally to all medicines and pharmacies, since they promote the interest of the timely delivery of medicine (which can be of particular importance of something like the Plan B pill, which becomes less effective as time passes). But there are all kinds of exceptions to the regulations. Pharmacies can decline to stock a drug, such as certain painkillers, if it's likely to increase the risk of theft, or if it requires an inordinate amount of paperwork, or if the drug is temporarily unavailable from suppliers, among other reasons. One of the other reasons is religious beliefs, as a judge in Washington state (and a judge in Illinois, which the Illinois appellate court agreed) recently made unambiguously clear, ruling against the state's mandating the Morning After Pill be stocked and dispensed over the pharmacy's religious objections.

However, if the pharmacy carries the Morning After Pill, it must dispense it without discrimination. They couldn't deny it to, say, black women, while selling it to white women, or deny it to Catholics while dispensing it to Protestants. Same with a florist - if the florist is in the business of selling flowers, they must sell flowers without discrimination. They can certainly refuse to carry daffodils or Wandering Jews or yellow roses, but if they carry those particular botanical lifeforms, they gotta sell them to whoever wants to buy them.

 

[layoutshooter]

I understand how it all came about. I just have mixed feelings about it. What it boils down to is that if it is MY business I should be able to run it how I see fit. IF I run it poorly, I will go out of business. If I run it smartly, I will stay in business. Discriminating against large segments of the population would not be good business. There are, however, many times that not serving some individual would be good for business.

 

[Hightech_Hobo]

guess I'll have to take that Mail run I hate so much the next time it comes around...or I'll be sued for hating multiple center city stops !!!!

Why do we have to sue.....Just mumble @##hole under your breath as you take your business to a new florist....Life would be so much easier...taxes would be lower and there would be less lawyers to plague us in the future....

 

[cheri1122]

If it were truly separate, then the Government wouldn't be prosecuting them for their religious beliefs.

People don't get prosecuted for their religious beliefs, but for using those beliefs as a shield when accused of violating the rights of others. Freedom of religion doesn't include the freedom to force anyone else to adhere to the same beliefs - it is precisely that which it exists to guard against.
Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted without having affected anyone else's rights?