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.

 

Flower Power: Christian Florist Rejects Attorney General’s Offer

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn

His position is simple from what I see. You can't legislate away peoples beliefs. You can make all the laws you want, but people are still going to have their own beliefs about certain things. And I happen to agree with him on this. Forcing someone to believe the way you do is just as bad as them forcing their beliefs on you. He said something that hit it right on the head. He would rather be accepted into the community rather than forced on the community. He said if he's legislated into acceptance, then he has not gained any respect, but rather disdain for what he has forced on people.



I just finished watching the movie Selma with my 13-year-old daughter. I watched as Martin Luther King struggled to get President Johnson to get a bill passed that would stop the Southern states from keeping blacks away from the voting poles. Should the blacks have just accepted that they weren't being allowed to vote? Should all the blacks in the South have just left their homes and moved to the Northern states where they would have had an easier time voting? Why should they have had to do that? Rather than slinking away quietly with their tails between their legs, the blacks demanded respect - and their constitutional rights. Eventually, Johnson did get a law passed to ensure blacks got to vote, but that's what it took to make it happen. I'm sure the whites in those communities were pretty disdainful at first, but you know what? They got over it.

Now I know that the right to vote is not the same thing as buying flowers, but the point is that sometimes you have to legislate - not to change beliefs, but to stop discrimination.




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

edit on 24-2-2015 by kaylaluv because: First double post in a long time!



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: retiredTxn

Not all blacks supported Civil Rights either.

HRC/ACLU are not made up of only LGBT. If you think anti-discrimination is only for gays, think again.

I went through all of this growing up with a disabled mother.

It's necessary to learn the difference of personal freedom and the equal rights of commerce.

What you offer to one customer, you offer to ALL customers. It's that simple.

At least in states that have anti-discrimnation laws. Texas not being one that protects LGBT.



edit on 24-2-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: retiredTxn

Does your son agree with this?

Where does he draw the line?



Local governments in Arkansas are now forbidden from passing ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination, after the state's Republican governor let an anti-LGBT bill become law without his signature Tuesday. www.advocate.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

We all know somewhere someone is looking for a way to skirt the law. They will do so with or without a law. I don't believe discrimination is as rampant as it was during the civil rights era. There will always be hatred and discrimination, but now it is more likely to come from Al and Jesse. It's not perfect by any means, but it is slowly getting there.

My son does not think it's OK to discriminate, for any reason.



We all have our own opinions. I don't know how old your son is, but he may change his mind when confronted with it himself. And I agree, in the short term, it's not good for the LGBT community.


`He is 31, medically retired from the Marine Corps, and owns a Sleep Diagnostic company. I know the laws are supposed to protect people, however, sometimes they oppress others in an attempt protect a few. I know, my opinion, but we are still allowed to have one right?






posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: EvillerBob

Bob, you may want to Google "public accommodation" just for fun.

It's really interesting.

EDIT: Sorry, that's snarky.

Perhaps you would do us a favor and link the "well established law" you're referring to? Because if I'm not mistaken, you're referring to tort and contract law.

You're absolutely right. No one can be forced to contract with anyone, but, decision after decision in the English and American court systems as well as established law states quite clearly that holding a business open to "the public" is , well, an OPEN contract for goods and services.

Yours is a much more informed argument than most though! Good job.



It wasn't taken as snarky, actually, don't worry!

Having studied and previously taught this at under- and post-graduate level, I can honestly say I have never come across any still-standing English case law that supports your assertion. No US case law comes to mind either, but I've had less time in that area so I'm not going to commit heavily without checking. If you had references, they would be greatly appreciated as I'm always looking to expand on useful knowledge!

A unilateral offer capable of being accepted is not created absent very specific features. Send a minor into your local supermarket to buy alcohol and see what the cashier says! Sellers (outside of very specific cases) always retain the right to refuse the sale, otherwise they could effectively be forced into contracts that they cannot fulfill (Partridge v Crittenden)[1] or are illegal (Fisher v Bell)[2]

In my jurisdiction, the two key cases are the Boots case[3] and Fisher v Bell. Probably the most relevant for your jurisdiction that I have to hand is Craft v. Elder & Johnson Co[4] though I can't find a public linkable reference to it at the moment and, as it's gone midnight, I'm not that bothered about hunting one down. I've not written on this point for quite a few years so my memory's a bit rusty on the specific case names, there's one or two others that will hopefully come to me later.

The principle stands, however, that (absent specific steps) a merchant is inviting customers to make an offer, the merchant is not making an offer for anybody and everybody to accept. I feel confident that this applies equally whether looking at English or US caselaw - the two often coincide in many matters, in fact, mostly as a result of their commonality of basis, approach, and aims.

----------------
excuse some links to wikipedia, can't link to lexisnexis/westlaw for public access!
[1] Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 (link)
[2] Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 (link)
[3] Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6 (link)
[4] Craft v. Elder & Johnson Co. 38 N.E.2d 416 (Ohio Ct. App. 1941)
edit on 24-2-2015 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You are correct, the right to vote is not the same as buying flowers. Where does the legislation end? When will it finally be enough to appease everyone? Never. We will never all agree on everything, so our future is very dim.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Absolutely off topic.


Completely on topic, because you keep talking about what the seller has "AGREED" to do. You even keep putting it in capital letters!

Public Accommodation, however, is a much more interesting kettle of fish, and has nothing whatsoever to do with what the seller has "AGREED" to do. Sellers can still refuse to sell, even in Public Accomodation, because... the seller is only making an invitation to treat. Unless certain provisions are engaged in the relevant legislation, which is a distinct argument.

Your quoted definition of "invitation to treat" is also... errr... not very good. Too specific, completely misses the subtleties. It's like using a picture of a zebra as a definition of "animal".



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: retiredTxn

Not all blacks supported Civil Rights either.

HRC/ACLU are not made up of only LGBT. If you think anti-discrimination is only for gays, think again.


Did I say either of these things? However, since we are talking about a situation involving a gay couple and a 70 year old florist, that is what I am addressing.


I went through all of this growing up with a disabled mother.

It's necessary to learn the difference of personal freedom and the equal rights of commerce.

What you offer to one customer, you offer to ALL customers. It's that simple.

At least in states that have anti-discrimnation laws. Texas not being one that protects LGBT.


But, you just said anti-discrimination laws protect more than LGBT's, and now state Texas does not protect LGBT's. I have already addressed this in previous posts, if you would go and read them.

And no, I do not have to offer the same to every customer. If I have a really good customer who pays on time, never complains, and is willing to work with me, I can offer them a special deal that is not available to other customers. Especially if they do not meet the criteria to gain that special deal. A high volume customer is always going to get a better deal than someone who is not. It's that simple.





posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: retiredTxn

I owned a business.

You are talking "around" the subject.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: retiredTxn

Does your son agree with this?

Where does he draw the line?



Local governments in Arkansas are now forbidden from passing ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination, after the state's Republican governor let an anti-LGBT bill become law without his signature Tuesday. www.advocate.com...




Hmmm. A law that will fail in it's first test against a federal judge? And you have the audacity to question my son's beliefs based on your inability to comprehend something. I don't believe in this. How about you? Do you think this is something you can agree with? Geesh, really?



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: retiredTxn

I owned a business.

You are talking "around" the subject.


Please explain. I stated fact, and in no way went around the subject, as you continue to do.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: retiredTxn

Does your son agree with this?

Where does he draw the line?



Local governments in Arkansas are now forbidden from passing ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination, after the state's Republican governor let an anti-LGBT bill become law without his signature Tuesday. www.advocate.com...




Hmmm. A law that will fail in it's first test against a federal judge? And you have the audacity to question my son's beliefs based on your inability to comprehend something. I don't believe in this. How about you? Do you think this is something you can agree with? Geesh, really?


Love the personal interpretation.

As I previously stated, I grew up with a disabled mother. Prior to the Disability Act.

She was denied service specifically because of her disability. Wouldn't want other customers feeling uncomfortable.

I love the hypocrisy in these discrimination discussions when people get all weird about discrimination against the disabled, but think they have the right to discriminate against another minority.

I bet all the "good Christians" in Arkansas (or Texas) would be aghast and come to the defense of any disabled person being discriminated against.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I did refuse service in my business to a few people. Actually, I helped them leave.

A Christian who agressively informed me he was doing God's work, therefore I should donate my services.

A relative who thought nepotism meant he should not have to pay.

A homeless person who needed a shower (I gave him $5).

A French Canadian who thought I should know where the money exchange office next door moved to.

I did not deny service to a regular paying customer, because I didn't believe in what they would do with it.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee



Love the personal interpretation.

As I previously stated, I grew up with a disabled mother. Prior to the Disability Act.

She was denied service specifically because of her disability. Wouldn't want other customers feeling uncomfortable.

I love the hypocrisy in these discrimination discussions when people get all weird about discrimination against the disabled, but think they have the right to discriminate against another minority.

I bet all the "good Christians" in Arkansas (or Texas) would be aghast and come to the defense of any disabled person being discriminated against.


Since we have not discussed disabilities in this thread, I have not stated an opinion either way. What beef is it that you have with Christians and Texas? If you are trying to imply my beliefs as a Christian are in line with the nutjobs who claim to be Christians, you are wrong. If you feel Texas is only full of nutjob Christians, you couldn't be farther from the truth.

YOU, and you alone, have been trying to interject disability into this discussion. You are making a claim you know nothing about. Have you personally been denied help by a "good Christian" in Arkansas or Texas? Make a thread, or spit it out. Quit making veiled assumptions. Tell us how a disabled person is relevant to this thread.

By your statements, you are worse than those you are accusing of being discriminatory. Throwing accusations around is not helping whatever your cause is.
edit on 2 24 2015 by retiredTxn because: ETA.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: Annee



Love the personal interpretation.

As I previously stated, I grew up with a disabled mother. Prior to the Disability Act.

She was denied service specifically because of her disability. Wouldn't want other customers feeling uncomfortable.

I love the hypocrisy in these discrimination discussions when people get all weird about discrimination against the disabled, but think they have the right to discriminate against another minority.

I bet all the "good Christians" in Arkansas (or Texas) would be aghast and come to the defense of any disabled person being discriminated against.


Since we have not discussed disabilities in this thread, I have not stated an opinion either way. What beef is it that you have with Christians and Texas? If you are trying to imply my beliefs as a Christian are in line with the nutjobs who claim to be Christians, you are wrong. If you feel Texas is only full of nutjob Christians, you couldn't be farther from the truth.

YOU, and you alone, have been trying to interject disability into this discussion. You are making a claim you know nothing about. Have you personally been denied help by a "good Christian" in Arkansas or Texas? Make a thread, or spit it out. Quit making veiled assumptions. Tell us how a disabled person is relevant to this thread.

By your statements, you are worse than those you are accusing of being discriminatory. Throwing accusations around is not helping whatever your cause is.



I just love how posters (not just now) dismiss and refuse the disability discrimination parallel.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
i think a good analogy would be if you worked in a restaurant. you serve people food, cook it, clean the dishes, or manage the floor. regardless of who the customers are or whether they are celebrating an event, such as a gay couple having an anniversary dinner, most likely you wouldn't be stressing over the fact they are gay people being provided a service by you, to commemorate their relationship.

much ado about nothing.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

she could've just said she would be busy elsewhere, which would be true, because she would be busy doing anything other than what she didn't want to do. this is how most people deal with stuff they don't want to do. but she was honest with the guy, apparently because she knew him as a frequent customer. it backfired, terribly.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RoadCourse

Welcome to the site RoadCourse!

I had not realised before how new you are to the site in terms of using it as a member! I am going to send you a U2U with a couple of pointers to get you moving around the site a little easier. Just in case you are not aware of it, if you scroll to the top of the page, on the right hand side, second row down, next to the magnifying glass icon, there is an envelope icon. When you get a message, it will go solid white.

Back on topic now, hypocrisy is killing my faith world wide. In the church, and in the streets, and it is not just my faith that it is happening to, but the faith that sparks but dwindles in those yet to come to Jesus either in part, or in whole, who see these fools, puffing out their chests and casting stones, as if they had never read the bible. It is self defeating and wholly, profoundly sad. It also makes me volcanically angry. It is moments of anger like those, that make me say a little prayer to Jesus, thanking him on behalf of all humanity for the hand he places on my shoulder, that every once in a while leads me away, when the foam starts forming in the corner of my mouth!



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Thank you for an enchanting argument. In each of cases 1-3, the question answered by the court is not the condition of the business-at-large as regards public accommodation status, but rather refers to, in each case, a defense against accusation under other standing law dependent on the specific legal meaning in each case of "an offer of sale."

The restricted goods were in each case (1) Birds (2) Knife (3) Poison offered by advertisement either in a periodical, sales window or newspaper. These are all British cases dealing with other law which forbade, specifically, the "offer for sale" of said good. However, in each case, there had been an actual transaction that had taken place NOT a refusal to transact.

In Craft v. Elder, et. al. again, the issue decided is relates to the meaning of a printed "offer" (this was also in a newspaper). Again, the employee accepted and had been paid for work under terms.

In each of these cases, indeed, the court finds that advertising creates a open contract, or, as stated, an offer to treat. Thus the question is to what constitutes a sale, in light of other prescriptive law.

However, the question in this case is specifically not the nature of the offer of sale or offer to treat, but regards the nature of the business itself and a refusal to serve, not a refusal of terms.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II of same; (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) establishes restriction on discrimination by businesses in public accommodation.

In this specific case, discrimination of this sort is specifically restricted in Washington state law at RCW 49.60.030
Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights


To wit:



(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;


The question of same was asked in court and was answered:



On February 18, a Benton County Superior Court judge ruled that florist Barronelle Stutzman had illegally violated the state's Consumer Protection Act when she refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple's wedding ceremony. Though Stutzman claimed her actions were religiously motivated, the judge made clear that religious belief did not create a blank check to violate the state's non-discrimination law, writing:

For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief. In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.

Following the ruling, Washington's attorney general offered Stutzman a settlement - stop discriminating, pay the law's $2000 penalty, and pay $1 to cover the cost of the case - but Stuztman refused the deal.


Tri-City Herald - Arlene's Flowers Violated the Law

Perhaps if Arlene had argued about the meaning of "offer for sale" ... your position would have more merit or at least bearing on the matter at hand.
edit on 22Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:19:35 -060015p102015266 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling formating



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join