Comments

1
Give 'em hell, guys-whose-photo-has-me-giggiling-happily!
2
Could you please hire a copy editor.
3
@2) Should be tidied up now. Thanks.
4
Amazing reporting Dom. A few typos along the way, but so glad you're on this story.

"It would be a different story if she said she would sell wedding flowers to anyone."
"would have piked up the flowers"
"had no plant to invite"
5
Good. Courageous men.
6
Quite a few typos in the last two paragraphs, just fyi.
7
First sentence of the second to last is still missing a word.
8
@ 4, 6) Thank you. Was trying to post the news quickly, and I'd cleaned up the typos before you commented.
9
@1: Indeed Dom (aka TomJohnsonJr).
10
So the number of lawsuits against this florist is now three? Good. Maybe this will encourage her to take a job with her church where she can work without fear of violating her relationship with Jesus.
11
Nooooo! We're going to alienate some idiots and assholes with this!

It seriously takes some enormous balls to equate arranging flowers for a gay wedding with web design for jihad and catering a cross burning. Go fuck yourself, JD Bristol.
12
Thanks for doing this guys! You're making it better for the rest of us. Your sacrifice is cherished by me and my family.

Much love to you!
13
Go Curt & Rob! Behind you 100%.
14
Thank you.
15
HomoLiberals, of course, eat this shit up.

However Real Americans will see them as preening assholes.

nice doggy...
16
I kinda agree with the florist to be honest. I mean yeah I get why this lawsuit is relevant in some ways but in others, she can deny anyone service for any reason can't she? An interracial couple getting married, a jewish wedding.
If she can deny service based on her ideology/religion when it comes to ethnicity, gender and religion - she should be allowed to deny service based on sexuality. Of course if she CAN'T deny customers based on gender, ethnicity or religion, they should sue her.

Now this will cause allot of backlash "little old peachykeen lady vs the gay mafia" but wtf. If it isn't this woman, someone else will be the banner-symbol of idiots so it doesn't pay to tiptoe around the issue just because of that.
17
Sry I ment "I kinda agree with the pro-florist side to be honest. Sorta, kinda."
18
They have already destroyed the florist's business and made a very good example on how to handle LGBT discrimination. Suing her seems like overkill to me. They've made their point, they've done it in the best way possible, by keeping it out of court. I think they should continue to make the example, with the media's help, but let the ACLU handle the legal side. They need to continue to be the 'bigger' people and suing the florist destroys that position.
19
Yes, should a Jedi affiliated hotel, be forced to book rooms for a Sith convention? Funny how the Lawyer (Bristol) is using known hate groups to compare his client to.

20
Slog poll: Which is gayer?
A. The recent pics Dan tweeted of Terry
B. The picture above used for the post

@16: It is illegal for her to discriminate based on sexuality, as it is a protected class (like race, creed, religion, etc.) in WA, as I understand.

The "we reserve the right..." signs are meaningless theater.

21
@16 - That's the whole point. She cannot legally discriminate against gender, religion or ethnicity. Nor can she discriminate against sexual orientation. The law is VERY clear. So do you still agree with her side?
22
"Religious liberty" is the liberty to practice your own chosen religion (including none), as long as you're not interfering with anyone else's religious liberty or civil rights.

If the apparent wingnut absolutist version of religious liberty were true, then any business person, citing religious liberty, could refuse to serve anyone who didn't attend the same church as them, or with whom they had even the tiniest theological disagreement.

And, that's just nuts.

Framing this as Christians v. Gays is way too tiny a frame to hold this particular nightmarish panorama.

Freedom of Religion is one of several civil rights, not the only one, and everyone gets to claim the same civil rights in equal measure to everyone else. I hope whichever judge gets to hear this case crushes Stutzman's lawyers into little tiny pieces.
23
Yes, should a Jedi hotel be forced to book rooms for a Sith convention. Funny how their lawyer (Bristol) used know hate groups for his comparison.
24
People who text in acronyms all day long have the time to bitch about typos in an blog?
25
@18: They destroyed nothing. She set the wheels in motion when she made the choice to deny them service based on her religious values.
26
These men are fucking heros. Reading people say otherwise makes my heart hurt. Discrimination is discrimination. Somebody has to take a stand against shitty people and their magic sky dad.
27
@JensR, if any business could refuse any customer, we'd still have race laws and folks sitting at lunch counters in protest. There are very good reasons not to allow the refusal of service when it's discriminatory. If the florist was refusing to serve them because they had bounced every check they'd ever written to her, well, that would be different...or they weren't wearing shoes or a shirt.

But, as I mentioned, they made their point in the court of public opinion and I'm very glad they did. They should keep this out of the actual court room because they're lowering themselves to do so. They should leave it to the ACLU to handle the legal side.
28
So would a gay hairdresser have the right to refuse his salon's services to an anti-gay politician or anti-gay activist like Ken Hutchison?
29
@28 - We've been over this. No, not based on their religion. Why do you ask these questions if you're not going to read the answers?
30
A Jedi hotel would be required to offer services to Sith guests. However, if a Sith guest behaves disruptively, then that's when the Jedi hotel can reserve the right to kick the Sith guest out.

Similarly, the homophobic florist can be as homophobic as she wants, as long as she doesn't act on her homophobia in her capacity as florist.
31
#29: You mean the gay hairdresser can't deny Ken Hutchison because he's an Evangelical Christian? I get that. I'm just wondering about politics. Could gay business owner A refuse service to the governor of NM because her political vetos on gay marriage? Or because she chooses the Republican party? I know he can't refuse her service because she is a Catholic.
32
@31 - Well then that's a very good question and maybe I shouldn't have been so snippy. I'm not sure what the law in Washington says about political affiliation, but there would be a very good case to be made in court against a business that denied service based on political affiliation.
33
These men didn't choose what sex they were born any more than an interracial couple chose what race they were born. If she cannot legally deny service to an interracial couple, than she shouldn't be allowed to deny service to a same sex couple.
34
@31 Please see @30. It is very, very simple. The law is extremely clear.
35
22, +1

This is the critical aspect that fundamentalist & evangelicals don't understand: your religious liberty does not give you the right to force your religion on others, even though your religion demands that you force your religion on others.

This is why the 1st Amendment was so progressive & remains controversial/misunderstood 250 years later.
36
"in the case of events, Bristol asked, "Should an African American caterer be required to do that catering for a KKK event?""

When the KKK becomes legally protected from discrimination as part of human rights law, yes.

Until that point the "loving Christians" continue to remain horrible persons for using that analogy.
37
The Florist can refuse service to anyone she wants. She just can't tell them why if her reasons are in violation of the rights of protected classes.
38
Bare in mind that the opposition sees this as a test of all anti-discrimination laws.

Many of them would love the right to be able to refuse service to people who didn't show up in church last weekend.

This is the core of the issue.
39
How did they "ruin her business"? Not taking sides
40
@38 - But I'm pretty sure the courts have already addressed the idea of religious exemptions in the secular world, and no one's real keen on letting people do whatever they want as long as they say they hold a sincere, religious viewpoint that says they were right to break whatever law.
41
@40 --

What do you mean "no one's real keen on letting people do whatever they want"?

For the most part, almost everyone I know and admire is real keen on letting people do whatever they want.

I am almost always against telling other people what to do. I don't give a damn why they want to do it as long as it doesn't affect me in any significant way.
42
I'm with these guys 100%. I would be happy to host a fundraiser for them.
43
Life in a democracy means compromise. I'm a Quaker and a pacifist. My tax dollars go directly to funding things against my religion, funding the war machine - missiles, cluster bombs, you name it. There is a balancing point on religious issues. I get to be a conscientious objector and not have to fight myself. I still have to pay taxes for what the majority wants. I'd suggest selling people flowers is not nearly as significant an infringement of religious rights as being required to fund killing against ones religion.
And somewhere in between there lies the issue of insurance being required to fund abortion. I'd suggest the $1000s I have paid for war and violence in my name are not near the infringement of the pennies abortion adds to an insurance bill. Trying to turn everything into a "fundamental" religious is inflammatory nonsense. Civilized society has been making these compromises for a long time. It's the cost of civilization and society that you have to do somethings you'd rather not. Selling flowers is nowhere near the core of religious freedom.
44
@42, same here. You go, guys!
45
I understand suing her to make the point. But this $5,000 cash demand and the "paying for unspecified damages" part are seriously bothering me.

Does is really not creep any of you out that a lawuist that is ostensibly serving to solidify anti-discrimination laws involves an element of financial gain, either for themselves or any allied organization? It makes me see why the florist could sincerely view this as extortion.
46
@41 - I'm saying that waving the Bible around or citing "sincerely-held religious beliefs" is not a way out of obeying the law.

I sincerely believe Jesus wanted me to barrel down the freeway at top speed. Nobody got hurt, what's the problem?
47
(And yes, there are plenty of circumstances where nontrivial damages would be justified in the event of discrimination. I'm not convinced they're justified here.)
48
The $5000 is in lieu of attorneys fees. It's not about gain.
49
Good for her for not giving in to extortion!
50
@45: Hrm, let's read the article and the suit.

"Freed and Ingersoll had given an ultimatum to Baronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers & Gifts, that said she could settle the issue by apologizing in the local newspaper, promising to never discriminate again, and paying $5,000 to an LGBT youth center (in lieu of attorney's fees). But Stutzman's deadline passed yesterday—and she'd said nothing—so they are suing her this morning in Benton County Superior Court."

I see in the suit:

"2. ... damages in an amount to be proved at trial, including trebling as permitted by statute.
3. an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs that the plaintiffs incur in connection with this action; and
4 such other relief as the Court deems proper and just."

This is all reasonable.

"Does is really not creep any of you out that a lawuist that is ostensibly serving to solidify anti-discrimination laws involves an element of financial gain, either for themselves or any allied organization? It makes me see why the florist could sincerely view this as extortion."

No. Donations to charity in lieu of actual lawsuits do not creep me out.
51
"I'm saying that waving the Bible around or citing "sincerely-held religious beliefs" is not a way out of obeying the law."

Except that's what people do with the Koran, Torah and other religious texts. Why should the Christian Bible be treated any different?
52
@49: Lol at all the sockpuppets that join for astroturfing support.

Arlene's Flowers and Baronelle Stutzman come off as bigots, no matter how many accounts employees create.
53
@51: Jewish/Islamic courts aren't about subverting the law, no matter what Glenn Beck poops in your ears.
54
@51 - Got any cases to cite? What laws have people gotten out of obeying by claiming this supposed Muslim/Jewish/Other privilege?
55
@54: I don't think you'll be very satisfied with any honest answer of "syphilis-drenched ravings" and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
56
"No. Donations to charity in lieu of actual lawsuits do not creep me out. "

It removes the claim of greed on the plaintiffs' part. But there is, inevitably, a perception here that the charity involved is politically aligned with the organization(s) supporting the lawsuit. And Baronelle Stutzman is not Pat Robertson or whomever; she's a random small businessperson to whom a $5K loss might well be a serious blow. I don't know her exact situation, but personally I don't think they should've asked for more than a small and purely symbolic amount.
57
This is insideous behavior on the florist's part. Who next would have the right to deny a gay couple medical care? Who next would have the right to refuse anybody but Christians? No Muslims! This is what religion does. It tries to undermine any effort for equal acommadation with people not like them. They seek to divide. We must seek to unify. Go forward guys, knowing you have a belief in one nation with freedom for all. You can't lose either way.
58
@55 - Every once in a while, I hope to find a reasonable, sensible person on Slog.
59
@56: "here is, inevitably, a perception here that the charity involved is politically aligned with the organization(s) supporting the lawsuit."

This is a very common practice with PR fuckups, for the consumer to "punish" someone through capitalism when you can't morally shame the businessowner. Honestly, that perception is your own, I never hear about cases where a sham charity is used. Perhaps these incidents exist, but the charities are always long-standing and good-doing groups. You're reading a lot in here.

"And Baronelle Stutzman is not Pat Robertson or whomever; she's a random small businessperson to whom a $5K loss might well be a serious blow"

Human rights should be considered a serious matter, yes. I agree.
60
Keep it up pervert faggots! Let decent Americans know that there really is no stopping point in your incessant demands to be priviledged citizens with the right to force others to your minority agenda. Yesterday marriage, today the thought police (albeit in flamboyant dress with a silly lisp...)

Keep up your spirits, ma'am! Nom and all the other groups of good and decent Americans will give you moral and financial support as you fight the good fight against the perverts and deviants.
61
@58: Totally, but rarely in the threads where employees or their friends try to hamfistedly play damage control and pretend to be "independent citizens".

Protip: Saying "BUT THE JEWS GET TREATED SPECIAL" is not a good, sane defense when you're being accused of being a crazy bigot.
62
60, There was a time when "good decent Americans" fought "the good fight" against the "perverts and deviants" like you, who practiced the lifestyle choice of miscegenation, biracial sex and marriage.
63
@62

Again, apples and oranges. This really isn't difficult, this logic stuff.

My wife didn't choose her skin color. Treating her with approbation or disapproval entirely on the basis of that would be stupid and unjust.

A gay person may or may not choose their erotic inclinations. I neither know nor care whether they do. They do choose the behavior which alone makes them different from anyone else. Granted such behavior hurts only them and those who care about them, so it isn't a matter for the criminal law. But comparing chosen behavior to non-chosen physical characteristics is as unjust and stupid as discriminating against my wife on the basis of her gender or skin color.
64
@59 - I didn't mean it was a "sham" charity, just that it's going to be politically aligned with the groups supporting the lawsuit by its very nature.

Anyways, a court ruling saying Baronelle Stutzman can't deny these folks their flowers could definitely be considered a strong victory for LGBT rights. I think driving her out of business through threats and legal action would be considerably less of a victory, and could possibly backfire. We will probably continue to disagree on that point, however.

(You could bleed Seattleblues dry if you like, though. I won't feel so bad about that.)
65
@63 Dating someone of a different race isn't a choice?
66
63, These men didn't choose what sex they were born Treating them with approbation or disapproval entirely on the basis of that would be stupid and unjust

A biracial couple may or may not choose their erotic inclinations. I neither know nor care whether they do. They do choose the behavior of biracial sex and marriage which alone makes them different from anyone else. Granted such behavior hurts only them and those who care about them, so it isn't a matter for the criminal law But comparing chosen behavior to non-chosen physical characteristics is as unjust and stupid as discriminating against these men on the basis of their gender.
67
@60 Hey, SeattleBlues, you disgraceful low-life, I am a text-book example of your so-called "decent American." Married 30+ years to one person of the opposite sex. "Completely straight." (Never had a same-sex contact of any sort, nor the desire for one.) Homeowner (actually 2 at the moment). Financially well-off, "self-made". College-educated, on an academic scholarship. Weekly church-goer. Vice-President of my co-op board. On the finance committee of my church.

And you know what? Fuck you. I fully support the civil rights of gay people, and I wouldn't give the time of day to any religious denomination that didn't. In fact, I actively work for the civil rights of gay people. And trans people. Do you want to know why?

Because I am a decent American. And you are clearly not.
68
@67

All the profanity makes you so tough! Or just incapable of making your point without it.

You know what? I fully support EQUAL rights for fags and dykes too. Deviant adult perverts have the right to be deviant perverts with other consenting adults whatever I think of their lifestyle choices. What I don't now and never will support is the right of fags and dykes to dictate legal and social terms for the 97% of their fellow citizens who aren't fags or dykes.

Good for you on the decent citizen front. Want a medal or something? Now, for a person like this florist, I'm all for awarding her one, but for someone active on the 'fags and dykes are more equal than others' like you I'll just feel the contempt such behavior deserves.
69
@66

Umm, no.

First, I have no quarrel with what sex these men were born, just that two men born male seek to tell everyone else what marriage means.

And, it's a manifest injustice to deny marriage based solely on the physical characteristic of skin color or cultural background. That's because laws denying such marriages sought to exclude those who in every other respect could have been married.

Equating real civil rights movements to marginalized people based on non-chosen characteristics to the effort of fags and dykes to set terms for everyone else isn't just wrong. It's profoundly insulting to those who had real civil rights challenges.

Fag so called marriage seeks to redefine marriage in such broad terms as to make the term meaningless. I love my TR6, but I don't wish to marry it. I love my dogs, with a similar caveat. And you may love another guy, and have every right to express that love so long as you don't ask everyone else to give you legal and social approval.
70
68, "You know what? I fully support EQUAL rights for race mixers too. Deviant adult perverts have the right to be deviant perverts with other consenting adults whatever I think of their lifestyle choices. What I don't now and never will support is the right of race mixers to dictate legal and social terms for the 97% of their fellow citizens who aren't race mixers."
71
First, I have no quarrel with what races you and your wife were born, just that two people of different races seek to tell everyone else what marriage means.

And, it's a manifest injustice to deny marriage based solely on the physical characteristic of gender or cultural background. That's because laws denying such marriages sought to exclude those who in every other respect could have been married.

Equating real civil rights movements to marginalized people based on non-chosen characteristics to the effort of race mixers to set terms for everyone else isn't just wrong. It's profoundly insulting to those who had real civil rights challenges.

Race mixed so called marriage seeks to redefine marriage in such broad terms as to make the term meaningless. I love my TR6, but I don't wish to marry it. I love my dogs, with a similar caveat. And you may love someone of anther race, and have every right to express that love so long as you don't ask everyone else to give you legal and social approval.
73
@71

Keep it up, as these, for lack of a better term, men in Richland are. These shrill claims based in no discernible reality are the antidote for rational people against the demands of gays and lesbians for priviledged citizen status.
74
Keep it up, as these, for lack of a better term, race mixers in are. These shrill claims based in no discernible reality are the antidote for rational people against the demands of race mixers for priviledged citizen status.
75
Damn, SB... Most subs have to pay handsomely for the sorts of lashings that Slog posters dole out to you free of charge. You're, you know, using Slog as a sort of sub-cyber Glory Hole - online punishment for naughty, naughty boys!

Do you have to have a giant box of tissues next to your computer when you go on these punishment-begging screeds? 'Cause you know, dude... it's 2013 now, and it's TOTALLY OKAY to be all upfront about your kinks. That would be the more honest thing to do... just sayin'.
76
@68 "ALLLLL" the profanity?? Let's see... Ummm... now lemme count... umm... one curseword. One.

What about the rest of the message? Ignore it and pull out the high-dudgeon card? Meanwhile, what you say to my neighbors, my friends, my relatives, my fellow Americans, is infinitely more hateful.

You need to wake up. Your hatred, your animus, is not the sign of an upstanding Christian. You are doing nothing more than the work of Satan, spreading dissension and chaos, undermining peace and happiness. Jesus was accepting, was Love, was Peace, was humility, and He preached Equality. I don't know what Church you identify with, but they or you are doing it wrong.

Oh, yeah. One more thing... Fuck you.
77
@ 76, it's okay. Anyone who decries profanity is a hypocrite. EVERYONE swears. Some use cutesy words like "darn" and "heck," but they are every bit as much swear words as damn, hell, and fuck.
78
@63: "My wife didn't choose her skin color."

Oh, the poor dear! I'm sure you'd then have license to hate her if she did. So at least we know what you would've been back in the day. The same wart on the anus of humanity.
79
I find the hateful way that SB throws around the words "fag" and "dyke" - and even "pervert" - to be far more offensive than a well-placed use of the word "fuck".
80
I especially like how he claims that "fag" and "dyke" aren't offensive and don't count as profanity. If you called me a kike, I'd consider that grounds for beating the tar out of you (at the risk of ITG, of course). If you called a black guy "colored", he'd look at you funny; if you said "jigaboo", you'd probably get your shit slapped. But no, legbutts are minorities that Seattleblues doesn't like, so he can call them whatever he wants and feign innocence.
81
This woman broke the law. It's like me saying I ran a red light but red lights are against my religion so I don't have to pay the fine for it. She also took your money previous to this and it didn't seem to bother her that those flowers were going to another man. Someone is just trying to garner media attention while choosing which parts of the bible she wishes to believe in. "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's." Jesus himself (if she chooses to believe in him) tells her not to break the law and she's done so. Lets hope the bigoted Christian's run out of money to pay court costs and stop confusing their beliefs with right to discriminate. Our Country was founded on religious freedom not just 1 religion.
82
@80

You're mistaken. I use those terms in full knowledge of how vulgar they are. Prior to the attacks on family, morality, marriage and so on in the last election, I would never use words like that. I've never used the word nigger or kike or dago, and never will. I don't use derogatory referent words with respect to women because such words tell far more about the person using them than about the subject of them.

But if fags and dykes want to declare war on everything that makes our culture worthwhile, even that makes it work, then I feel no compunction in treating them with the contempt they deserve.

There simply isn't a stopping point for 'fags and dykes are citizens with more rights than others' movement. Today a florist doesn't get to decide on grounds of principle whether she wants to sell her product to a pair of perverts. Tomorrow a church will be sued to force them to host a fag so called marriage. After that simply calling such deviant pairings sinful from the pulpit will become a crime as it is now in parts of Europe. It will never be enough, never 'fair' for these great babies with no sense of reality, never mind morality.

83
If race mixers want to declare war on everything that makes our culture worthwhile, even that makes it work, then I feel no compunction in treating them with the contempt they deserve.

There simply isn't a stopping point for race mixers are citizens with more rights than others' movement. Today a florist doesn't get to decide on grounds of principle whether she wants to sell her product to a pair of perverts. Tomorrow a church will be sued to force them to host a mixed race so called marriage. After that simply calling such deviant pairings sinful from the pulpit will become a crime as it is now in parts of Europe. It will never be enough, never 'fair' for these great babies with no sense of reality, never mind morality.
84
@82 They may sound to you like solid reasons, but you're actually babbling complete incoherencies. How can you demonstrate that proponents of marriage equality "want to declare war on everything that makes our culture worthwhile?"

In fact, can you illustrate even one thing about it that changes culture in any way that affects you?

I'm a logical person. I can follow point A to point B to point C. I can follow even some pretty complex multi-variate logic. In fact, I made a nice living at it. So, explain this to me.

Meanwhile, among my neighbors in our 20-unit building is a young lesbian family. I attend a church (being Quaker, we call it a Meeting) where I have witnessed a same-sex wedding and we have a number of gay members. I had gay colleagues at work. You know what the result of all this is? I'm still completely straight. I still like all the same things I liked before I knew about same-sex couples living normal lives. I have lost my fear of the "big, gay, unknown" that was part of the macho culture I grew up in. Other than now reacting with irritation to stupid, fearful people who spout homophobic nonsense, nothing in my life has changed from this, at least not in a negative way.
85
"If a Christian is legally required to make bouquets for a gay wedding, Bristol contended, "A Jewish web designer would have to design a website promoting jihad." Or in the case of events, Bristol asked, "Should an African American caterer be required to do that catering for a KKK event?""

Well, no. Promoting jihad or being part of the KKK aren't protected by federal law.
86
@82 You're right. Such words do say a lot more about the person using them than they do about the subject of the words.

Congratulations on finally admitting that you're a terrible person.
87
Let decent Americans know that there really is no stopping point in your incessant demands to be priviledged citizens with the right to force others to your minority agenda. Yesterday marriage, today the thought police (albeit in flamboyant dress with a silly lisp...)
What privileges do homosexuals currently enjoy, and/or what privileges are they requesting, that you and I do not currently enjoy? Please be specific, coherent, and prepared to respond cogently to would-be refutations.
Keep up your spirits, ma'am! Nom and all the other groups of good and decent Americans will give you moral and financial support as you fight the good fight against the perverts and deviants.
Moral, perhaps, given that such a thing can only be subjectively defined. Financial, probably need. NOM and groups of its kind have essentially bankrupted themselves in recent years fighting a losing cultural battle.
They do choose the behavior which alone makes them different from anyone else. Granted such behavior hurts only them and those who care about them, so it isn't a matter for the criminal law.
You actually cannot demonstrate that it does. Thus your mention of this "damage" is simply an attempt to enter speculation and subjective judgment as if it satisfied rules of evidence.
What I don't now and never will support is the right of fags and dykes to dictate legal and social terms for the 97% of their fellow citizens who aren't fags or dykes.
No terms are being dictated. Your marriage means exactly what it did before the vote last November. Worth noting, also, that the vote could not have passed if the measure was relying entirely or even primarily on the gay vote.
First, I have no quarrel with what sex these men were born, just that two men born male seek to tell everyone else what marriage means.
That two men can marry has no more bearing on what marriage means than any of the many features that distinguish my heterosexual marriage from yours. That is, the "definition of marriage" has always applied to the socio-spiritual aspect of marriage, not the legal contract.
Fag so called marriage seeks to redefine marriage in such broad terms as to make the term meaningless.
I'm sorry the meaning you assign to your marriage is so weak and ill-founded that one of which you disapprove threatens it. My marriage retains its meaning not only in the face of same-sex marriage, but even in the face of whatever sorry excuse for a union would be so sick and sad as to allow you to be a party to it.
And you may love another guy, and have every right to express that love so long as you don't ask everyone else to give you legal and social approval.
Again: Allowing access to a civic contract does not amount to social approval. Legal approval doesn't amount to anymore than Mormons tolerating the existence of liquor stores or Seventh Day Adventist tolerating the legal consumption of meat.
Prior to the attacks on family, morality, marriage and so on in the last election, I would never use words like that.
So your principles are a matter of convenience? Interesting stance for someone who presents himself as something of a moral philosopher (through a proclivity for making moral pronouncements rather than through any demonstrated aptitude).
But if fags and dykes want to declare war on everything that makes our culture worthwhile, even that makes it work, then I feel no compunction in treating them with the contempt they deserve.
On what have they declared war, and in what way? Please be specific.
There simply isn't a stopping point for 'fags and dykes are citizens with more rights than others' movement.
Again: What rights do they have or seek that you or I currently lack?
Today a florist doesn't get to decide on grounds of principle whether she wants to sell her product to a pair of perverts.
Is it your opinion that I, as a theater artist and personal trainer, should be allowed to refuse to sell a ticket, teach a class, or offer training services to an individual who believed in the Five Solas, or, being a Buddhist, to refuse such services to someone who I believed had "slandered" the Mystic Law?
Tomorrow a church will be sued to force them to host a fag so called marriage.
If they're renting the space as a commercial service, yeah. Otherwise, no. How many non-Jews have synagogues been forced to marry?
88
@85

We have a manifestly silly law in Washington protecting the lifestyle choice of homosexuality.

We have a Constitutional right to free expression, including abhorent expression.

So yes, promoting jihad or the KKK are protected by Federal provisions.

To compare it to something you'd understand, Little Danny Boy the Savage, that abhorent subhuman thing, has the right to spill his vulgar and depraved bile in what the Stranger is pleased to call the press. And as abhorent as Savage is in every respect, I'd fight as much for his free expression as that of a decent human being.

The question raised was valid. Do you have a real answer for it?
89
FYI-

Speech advocating criminal behavior is not protected. An Immam or a pastor, a professor or generic nut on the internet, may advocate religious war or violent revolution as a concept. What the law prohibits is use of the pulpit (lecture dias, op-ed pages or blog etc) as a means for distributing bomb making plans or setting dates for people to meet under arms to revolt.

Of course there's a lot of gray in that, but the courts have been in the vast majority of cases deferential to expression unless it shows some imminent harm to others.
90
88, We have a manifestly silly law in Washington protecting the lifestyle choice of race mixing.
91
Wow These guys actions should make anyone who is gay very embarrassed. It is amazing that GAYS feel the need to shove down everyones throat that they are buggering another guy, and before any of you respond back with snarky comments, I am gay and don't think the women did anything wrong. Business owners should have the right to decline service to anyone they want. If you have shoplifted at Nordstroms and were caught you are not welcome there to shop EVER again, so what is the difference? If these guys really had any balls it wouldn't have bothered them at all, but since they are the petty type of gays that give the rest of Gays a bad reputation. I wouldn't be suprised if they both have profiles on Adam4adam looking for an additional partner to add to their mix.
92
@88: The Constitutional right to free expression restricts government bodies, not private citizens, from retaliating against others' speech. (Remember when Dr. Laura lost her job over the "nigger nigger nigger" bit, and Sarah Palin made a fool of herself whining about 1st Amendment rights?) That is, you have a right to hold whatever opinions you want, and Uncle Sam can't do a damned thing about it, but Joe Blow could refuse you service for believing that hate crime legislation is immoral. (He'd probably lose customers for doing it, but it's his customers' right to stop patronizing his business if they don't like his opinions.)

What political opinions you hold is not a protected category under anti-discrimination legislation the way gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability are. Thus, a black proprietor has every right to tell a Klansman to get the Kluck out of his place of business, and a Jewish-owned venue has no obligation to rent to a Nazi convention. However, the florist in question here had no qualms against selling wedding flowers to straight people; it was only gays that couldn't buy wedding arrangements from her. Evidently, her discrimination was against gays. Set and match, Seattleblues.
93
@91 - Obviously you are a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. You really should take something for that.
94
@92

There is no such thing as sexual orientation. (Or homophobia, since the word implies a clinical condition not recognized by the APA. Well, given the non-scientific method by which mental conditions are recognized and the politically correct bs the method actually used employes, homophobia is not yet recognized.) There are people who act on sexual inclinations ranging from the perverse to the wholesome. To the extent that such people are consenting adults, this really isn't my business, but to the extent that such people demand accomodation from me for their perversions it absolutely is.

I don't rent to fags or dykes. (As it happens I refused to renew a lease with someone who tried to get me to be involved in some white separatist bullshit too.) After the last election, I severed connections with suppliers or subcontractors who employ fags or dykes. I don't sell a house on contract to a fag or dyke couple. I won't perform work for a fag or dyke, nor will I help my gay neighbors the way I would any other neighbor with home repair or upkeep problems. This is entirely because of the recent movement to seek priviledged status for fags and dykes. Up until the last election none of this was true.

Know what? I have that right since it is my damn business, not anyone elses, how and with whom I conduct that business.

95
The actual best strategy is simply for all decent citizens to do as I am. No explanation is necessary to the fags and dykes refused service. I'm too busy, or a reference to a fag or dyke business would be ample. Up to this time fags and dykes have had the full equality they are insensibly demanding. (Or rather, they haven't had the right to dictate terms to the vast majority of their fellow citizens on how to think and behave.) Maybe it's time they realized what the real consequences of their thuggish behavior is.
96
@94: "There is no such thing as sexual orientation."
Yes there is. Gays differ markedly from straights in the structure of certain parts of the brain known to be involved in attraction and sexual arousal. (Specifically, gay men's brains are more like straight women's, and gay women's brains are more like straight men's. Bisexuals and transgendered persons vary from case to case.) I've laid out the evidence for you multiple times, and you have more than once accepted that sexual orientation is innate. This gets back to the whole "pretend we never had that discussion" thing you do.
As far as homophobia goes, claiming it's not real because it's not a clinically-recognized phobia doesn't pass the sniff test. I suppose there's no such thing as xenophobia then, right?

As usual, you save the best stuff for last.
"Know what? I have that right since it is my damn business, not anyone elses [sic], how and with whom I conduct that business."
WELL WELL WELL. WHAT HAVE WE HERE?
The Constitution of the United States, specifically the 14th Amendment to it, guarantees the right of equal protection under the law to all citizens. Under the doctrine of incorporation, the States are also bound to this guarantee. And every state has the power to regulate commerce within its borders. If you do any commerce at all across state lines, you additionally fall under the purview of the Federal government. So no, it is not only your business. See, we live in a country where there are authorities, where our elected representatives enforce justice. If your business violates municipal, state, or Federal law, you're going to have a bad time.

@95: Thousands of people take this approach every year; the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates 2 million violations of the Fair Housing Act alone per annum. Only instead of discriminating against fags and dykes, they're usually discriminating against the spics, chinks, and niggers. And the most egregious violators generally get sent to prison. Even if you don't officially give a reason, it's pretty easy to tell why some people get refused service and not others.
Of course, the real obstacle to your plan is less legal and more societal. Over half the adults in this country support allowing gays to get married. That's how accepted gays are in this country! Do you really believe that enough people hate gays enough to refuse to do business with them? The revolution will not be participated in, buddy.
97
Seattleblues, remember when you said you'd move to your fictional house in Tuscany if Washington state voted in favor of marriage equality? We don't need you. Marriage equality came to your state without you. Your side is losing. You're panicking, and it's showing. Your mental breakdown is entertaining though.
98
Re so called sexual orientation-

No, there isn't any such thing. Taxonomy is an attempt to impose order. It's useful for figuring out how things work, but it is always, always an external system and useful as long as the limitations of the concept are acknowledged and only for that long.

Were I attracted to Volkswagen beetles sexually that doesn't make me a Beetlesexual. It would make me mentally ill, and in need of help in recognizing how my desires and reality are at odds. Just because the object of a perverted sexual desire ('perverted' used in a definitional rather than a pejorative sense) happens to be human does not make the desire natural or desirable for the long term good of the person experiencing it. Gay men die much earlier on average than their straight brethren, for example. They experience illness of varying kinds more commonly, though granted these are mainly due to promiscuous lifestyles. They experience depression and other mental conditions more commonly.

Were people like Savage truly interested in those like him feeling perverted inclinations, he'd be at the forefront of those demanding really scientific research into why physical and mental illness so often accompany homosexuality. But reality is a real problem for him. His solution? Why, deny reality of course!

So using taxonomy to excuse mental disorder isn't useful. It's actually harmful to those who otherwise could have treatment systems devised so that they could come to a more healthy relationship with reality.

@97

I did say that, but my country now needs people like me desperately. People who stand firm on the notions of personal accountability and responsibility and true equality before the law are needed now more than at any time since the odious FDR. The left has no use for these concepts in any way. The media is a mouthpiece for the left, as are most universities and colleges. So decent Americans standing up for what made this country great are needed more than I need my house. In Tuscany yes, but the unfashionable corner of it bordering on Liguria.

It isn't that people like the idea of fag or dyke so called marriage so much. It's that Americans are nice people. The fag and dyke special rights lobby is flying under a false flag of inclusion and equality, and people hear that and want to be nice. It's time the truth were more broadly spoken, and Americans realize they're being blackmailed by the fags and dykes, and that no amount of accomodation will be enough. The great babies of your movement will never believe life is fair to them. They will never concede that they've reached their goals. Like any blackmail, the only way out is refusal to continue. The only way to stop the fags and dykes from bullying decent Americans is to stand up and refuse to take it any longer.
99
98, Yes, your posting on Slog has changed so many minds. Despite all your frantic ranting, the public ignored you, and voted for marriage equality. Every day equality gains ground even with your side screaming and stomping trying in vain to stop it. It's almost as if people see your fear and hatred of gay people, and are turned off to your message that they too should fear and hate their fellow cicitizens, humans, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers simply because they are gay. Why are you having such a tough time getting others to join in your obsessive desire to rid the world of gay people.
100
@98: We're not talking about taxonomy here at all. My best guess is that you don't know what that word means.
Now as far as higher rates of physical illnesses (for the most part STDs) that gay men suffer from, you may notice that lesbian women tend to have lower rates than the general population. While there may be some second-order effects, this disparity implicates gender, not sexual orientation, as the cause. That is to say, gays are not the problem; men are. And I'll go out on a limb and blame our testicles for this one, since our higher levels of testosterone encourage aggressive and promiscuous behavior.
While homosexuals of both genders are more likely to struggle with depression or other psychological problems, we have both correlation and a mechanism attributing that to the struggle to fit into a generally heteronormative society. (Multiple studies have shown that gays whose parents are accepting of their orientation tend to do better in general.)
Dan doesn't deny that gays suffer from these problems. (On a side note, you seem happy to deny that we already know why gays suffer from these problems.) He encourages safe sexual behavior and opposes irresponsible promiscuity, and the entire purpose of the It Gets Better Project is to combat the risk of depression and suicide that rejected queer youth are subject to.

Now, there is such a thing as people being sexually attracted to automobiles. It falls under the broader category of mechanophilia. The difference between a sexual orientation and a paraphilia is EXACTLY that the object of the former's desire is an adult human, the only thing capable of giving informed consent. If you think a guy wanting to fuck a guy is more like him wanting to fuck a car than wanting to fuck a girl, you really need to stick your head under the faucet for a few seconds.
101
@100 - "you really need to stick your head under the faucet for a few seconds"

Or in the oven with the gas on.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.