It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Rules Against Christian Florist Who Refused to Provide Flowers for Gay Wedding

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
FYI I am not sure about America, but here in Australia and NZ, all businesses are required by law to give full access, both in terms of physical access for wheelchairs and terms of service to disabled people. There is no issue for disabled folk. I serve them quite regularly in my store.


It's the same here, but hasn't always been. The law had to get involved and MAKE businesses stop discriminating against disabled people, black people, women, etc. Why shouldn't it be the same for everyone? Why should a business be free to choose a group of people and refuse to serve anyone belonging to that group?




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

I'm sure we had a moment.

I mean seriously. Someone has a good or service for sale and another someone wants to purchase said good or service. Why should anything else even factor into the equation.

If the person doing the selling is only selling to certain people, state that and be done with it. But see they know that wouldn't really be too well-tolerated in any universe, so they don't.

I guess weddings are the biggie because it's kind of obvious. These people doing the objecting would probably freak the hell out if they really knew how many "objectionable" people they sell to daily without knowing.

I'ts just stupid all around.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I have no idea why this needs debating anymore.



“As attorney general, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington,” Ferguson said in a statement issued at the beginning of the legal ordeal. “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation.”


The OP quoted that which is in plain english and easy to understand. The florist was in the wrong and violating law.

"It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."

There was a thread started earlier today asking if people wanted a theocracy. So far everyone has said no but I wonder if they are all being honest.
edit on 14-1-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: markosity1973
I just think f#$@ you and go elsewhere with my money.


I totally understand your position and I would probably do the same thing. But there are small towns ALL OVER this country that only have one florist or one bakery. I live in such a town. Not everyone can go down the block to the next florist. What should these people do? I ask that question in EVERY one of these threads and have never gotten an answer.



Well, they might get ready to pay more for their floral arrangements if I were being forced to make them.....or they could get one of their flowery friends to make them.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: wilhelmina

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: markosity1973
I just think f#$@ you and go elsewhere with my money.


I totally understand your position and I would probably do the same thing. But there are small towns ALL OVER this country that only have one florist or one bakery. I live in such a town. Not everyone can go down the block to the next florist. What should these people do? I ask that question in EVERY one of these threads and have never gotten an answer.



Well, they might get ready to pay more for their floral arrangements if I were being forced to make them.....or they could get one of their flowery friends to make them.

That's illegal.

You can not hike prices because you don't like someone.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I'm not for discrimination. I'm not anti-gay. I'm anti-nanny state and governmental overreach.

Same. But we do it to ourselves, don't we?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee


Get over yourself.

You weren't likened to a disabled person. It's about discrimination and access to local business.

No one should have to "test the waters" of a business to see if they are acceptable to the business owner.


Wow


A gay person stands up and says 'hang on a minute' maybe the gay people at the centre of the subject of this thread were acting without thinking the entire thing through by using the law to force the florist to provide service when another florist could have done the same job and the straight people go off their rocker?

Am I in the twilight zone here or something?

The core of this subject is a Christian woman refusing service because of her beliefs.

Christianity is always going to have a problem with homosexuality, the bible enables that. You can pass as many laws as you want to force service but (usually fundamental) Christians are not going to change their attitude as long as they have a bible in hand.

We've got laws in Australia that say you can't refuse service and I still get abused by Fundies from time to time. They just make it so difficult that you dont end up wanting their service anyway.

What really matters is that these things become socially unacceptable.

The gay couple would have been better to use social media to bad mouth the business and start a boycott of it.


edit on 14-1-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 14-1-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
Christians are not going to change their attitude as long as they have a bible in hand.


I don't care if they change their attitude or not. I just think if someone is going to sell flowers for weddings, they shouldn't have the legal right to discriminate against a group of people they don't approve of.



What really matters is that these things become socially unacceptable.


Agreed. And this is one step. Racism isn't socially acceptable, but many people practice it. Businesses, however, are not legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of race, nor should they be.



The gay couple would have been better to use social media to bad mouth the business and start a boycott of it.


Then the supporters of homosexual hate would come out of the woodwork to support the florist and she'd feel vindicated. Business owners need to know that business and private associations are two different things. They cannot push their religion by denying service.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Don't see how this can be seen as nanny state or gov overreach.

We have anti discrimination laws on the books, this is just the state enforcing the laws.

Idc if this couple had other options or not, once you are refused service it becomes a thing of principle IMO.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

There's the law, and then there is real life. A Christian could not, would not and should not refuse service to a disabled person.

They should not refuse it to gay people but sometimes they get all high and mighty and do. I was refused service by a mortgage broker because my partner is also a dude. Trust me, I know the feeling of this too well.

As a gay person who lives this, I'm just saying it's better to take a leaf from the Christian's own bible and use it against them

Matthew 10:14


If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
What baffles me the most is why a florist would care what the flowers are being used for.

Some people.....so worried about what other people are doing.

Something to consider for those who are up in arms over this: would you be OK with having bathrooms and drinking fountains segregated for "gay only" and "straight only"?

The lesson learned from Jim Crow laws: there is no such thing as "separate but equal". It always results in institutionalized discrimination, even for the well intending person.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Good for the judge and shame on the florist.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

That's illegal.

You can not hike prices because you don't like someone.



It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.


Please note that it says characteristics such as age. Who knows what constitutes a valid reason until it is tested in court. For instance the refusal of service is acceptable if there is a legitimate business reason. If bikers must remove a patch so they don't fight or punk rockers can be thrown out of the funeral because they are too loud then what else is a valid business reason?

What if the claim isn't about homosexuality but a ridiculous claim such as "pheromones from elated gay inter-racial transgendered couples destroy flower petals"? What court is going to uphold that argument (even if it were true) as a valid business reason?

It seems to me that society determines dynamically what is and isn't ok for refusing service. I'm not sure that is so bad because it is really a compromise between the two positions in this thread.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: wilhelmina

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: markosity1973
I just think f#$@ you and go elsewhere with my money.


I totally understand your position and I would probably do the same thing. But there are small towns ALL OVER this country that only have one florist or one bakery. I live in such a town. Not everyone can go down the block to the next florist. What should these people do? I ask that question in EVERY one of these threads and have never gotten an answer.



Well, they might get ready to pay more for their floral arrangements if I were being forced to make them.....or they could get one of their flowery friends to make them.


Bigotry is a poor weapon to wield in a debate among reasonable people.

Consider this, however: when a person conducts business, they apply with the state and/or city to recieve a taxing permit. At the very least, you have to have a sales tax permit, or something similar, You can try to conduct business without a permit, but when you get caught you will be hnded a bill that you are expected to pay, back taxes plus fines. Without a sales tax ID, most typical vendors won't do business with you without charging your sales tax. That tax ID makes your work a part of manufacturing, and thus you won't pay sales tax on items that help you create an end result (like buying a stove for a restaurant). With that, its all a calculation of "Cost of Goods" that will determine how successful your business will be. But with a profit margin of 20%, that 9% sales tax cost will drive your margins down closer to 12%. Assuming you have a business that does 20% GPM (not all industries are that lucrative).

Your business is your business, certainly. However, you are "allowed" to conduct your business with the approval of the taxing agencies responsible for your business (unless overseen by a regulatory body). It is a privilege to operate a business, not a right.

When you have a business, your not some dude running a garage sale. There is paperwork, regulations, and codes to be tended to.

If you aren't in favor of that, petition your lawmakers. But good luck.....because the Constitution will still protect individual rights.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I totally understand your position and I would probably do the same thing. But there are small towns ALL OVER this country that only have one florist or one bakery. I live in such a town. Not everyone can go down the block to the next florist. What should these people do? I ask that question in EVERY one of these threads and have never gotten an answer.


Sounds like an untapped market prime for the picking to me.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I totally understand your position and I would probably do the same thing. But there are small towns ALL OVER this country that only have one florist or one bakery. I live in such a town. Not everyone can go down the block to the next florist. What should these people do? I ask that question in EVERY one of these threads and have never gotten an answer.


Sounds like an untapped market prime for the picking to me.


Sure is! The gay owned and run cafe in my hometown back in NZ that I mentioned on P1 has gone from a run down horrible dingy thing to an absolutely happening place that is raking in the dollars.

It's situated on a main highway in a tiny town that is on the way to other cities. This cafe has gone from only serving the local farming community to being a place to stop on one's road trip. All the trendy city folk stop at it and the locals love the buzz and excitement in the place.

It's also had great benefits for the local economy. All that money that is being spent from out of town means that instead of it being a Ma and Pa business with just the owners running it, it now employs 12 local people as well as supporting the couple that own it.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
The problem with this is that if the florist has a religious belief that the “gay lifestyle” is sinful and for her to support it( by contributing to a wedding) and she would be supporting something she believes is against her understanding of God then I believe it is wrong to make her sell the flowers based on that premise.

She may believe her God will punish her by supporting the “Lifestyle”

But it should be understood that this can’t be an absolute premise because then people who believe that God commands them to kill or starve their children can’t be allowed to do these extreme things obviously.

People have to understand that NOTHING is absolute including FREEDOM.

But something such as she wouldn’t sell the flowers just because she doesn’t like Gays should be illegal.

But this, imo, shouldn’t go as far in terms of race.

Moderation and understanding (that nothing is absolute) is the key.

In France they will punish you for verbally mocking someone for their race but allows the mocking of figures in satirical venues



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: compressedFusion

originally posted by: Annee

That's illegal.

You can not hike prices because you don't like someone.



It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.


Please note that it says characteristics such as age. Who knows what constitutes a valid reason until it is tested in court. For instance the refusal of service is acceptable if there is a legitimate business reason. If bikers must remove a patch so they don't fight or punk rockers can be thrown out of the funeral because they are too loud then what else is a valid business reason?

What if the claim isn't about homosexuality but a ridiculous claim such as "pheromones from elated gay inter-racial transgendered couples destroy flower petals"? What court is going to uphold that argument (even if it were true) as a valid business reason?

It seems to me that society determines dynamically what is and isn't ok for refusing service. I'm not sure that is so bad because it is really a compromise between the two positions in this thread.


Coupons, specials, etc singling out a specific characteristic HAVE been challenged in court as discriminatory.

Still, not the same as hiking prices because you don't like someone.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Good.

Hit the bigots where it hurts.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join