Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Watching Gleeks Watch Glee...… | People Shocked to Discover That No-… »

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Homo Another Homophobic Florist

Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Who knew there were so many homophobic florists?

A florist in Riverview, N.B., is refusing to provide wedding flowers to a same-sex couple, according to the event's planner. After agreeing to provide the flowers for a wedding, Kim Evans of Petals and Promises Wedding Flowers sent an email last month to the couple, saying she didn't know it was a same-sex wedding and would have no part of the ceremony. "I am choosing to decline your business. As a born-again Christian, I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter," the email said.

It's illegal in New Brunswick to turn away customers "based on race, religion or sexual orientation," so we're not just talking about a homophobic florist, but a dim florist. As for this...

Mario Bourgeois Leduc, wedding planner for the couple, who didn't want their names released, said he was appalled by the florist's email, especially since "you're celebrating love and you're going against all of the odds to celebrate what is important in your life. This is going to stay with them for years, because they were again told that their lives are not OK."

Oh, please. Shrug the bigot off, faggots, and make a big show of taking your business elsewhere. This can't be the first you've about or from anti-gay bigots over the course of your lives. There are lots of people out there who don't think your lives are OK and you haven't let them stop you—or reduce you to tears—up to now, right? Don't give this stupid petal pusher so much power. How about you double your flower order and take it to—hey!—a gay florist who would welcome your business?

And as for folks who'll argue that this bigoted florist has a right to deny services to gay couples based on her religious beliefs, Johann Hari put it best (read "flower shop" where she writes "B&B"):

In order to justify their desire to discriminate against gay people, the few remaining homophobes have concocted a scenario where they are The Real Victims. They can say what they want, set up churches or mosques that preach what they want, and turn away gay people from their homes every day of the week if they so desire—and I would defend every one of those rights to the last ditch. There is only one thing they can’t do. They can’t choose to offer a service to the general public, and then turn people away on the basis of race or sexuality. They can’t put up de facto signs saying ‘No blacks, no Irish, no gays’ at their B&B.

This isn’t a form of prejudice—it is a way of preventing prejudice.... Yes, I know your religious texts mandate bigotry against gay people. They also mandate slavery and stoning adulterers, and they laud a God who feeds small children to bears (see II Kings ii, 23-24). As secular morality has evolved, you have managed to overcome those beliefs. Here’s another that has to catch up.

Thanks to Slog tipper Paul.

Comments (52) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

When my husband and I were planning our wedding three years ago, it took us about a nanosecond to settle the issue of what we would do if a baker, caterer, photographer or florist didn't want to serve a same-sex couple. We decided that we'd happily take our business elsewhere!

To that end, with every call to every service provider, we said up front that this would be for a same-sex wedding. They all said that they were happy to have our business. If someone had objected, we wouldn't have cared. There's always another place to buy roses.

Posted by Clayton on March 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Fortunately, there are probably tons of gay florists out there that would love their gay business. I hope gay couples spread the news on these discriminatory businesses as widely as possible for those people out there planning straight but not narrow weddings as well.

Posted by gember on March 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM

I think the best thing in this situation would be to inundate the florist - not with protests, complaints or castigations - but with legitimate requests from same-sex couples for wedding floral arrangements - every single one of which she will have to personally decide whether or not to accept or decline.

Let's see how strong her "conscience before God is" when confronted with tens of thousands of dollars of potential lost revenue...

Posted by COMTE

on March 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM

"Christian" marriage commissioners tried this here, too. Didn't work out for them. Of course, there were the usual conservative editorials about freedom of religion, which strangely only consider the freedom of Christianity...imagine the response if a Jewish bus driver refused service to a Christian, or if an atheist working at the public library refused to loan out Bibles? It's all well and good when it's your own religion, but it never occurs to bigots that discrimination works both ways.

Posted by Canuck on March 16, 2011 at 10:22 AM

I'm glad the homophobic florist identifies as a Christian. Now, when the Canadian courts crucify her, maybe she'll enjoy it.

Posted by Brooklyn Reader on March 16, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Dudes, whatever you do don't let this ruin anything for you. It's your day, find someone else who is happy to accept your business. Then make an announcement at your reception asking family and friends to please not patronize this florist ever again and to spread the word to their family and friends. It'll make you feel better and hopefully put the bigot out of business.

It's all about KARMA baby and payback's a bitch.

Posted by despicable me on March 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Johann is a man.

Posted by Waves on March 16, 2011 at 10:31 AM

I don't mind so much a homophobic florist as a homophobic doctor. Can we at least get the doctors to shut up about their beliefs in the workplace?

Posted by sadini on March 16, 2011 at 10:38 AM

"This can't be the first you've about or from anti-gay bigots over the course of your lives."

The first What?

About What?

come on Danny, tell us- the first WHAT?! ABOUT WHAT?!

Posted by edited by chimps on March 16, 2011 at 10:39 AM

My advice: shrug that florist off in terms of -- shit, just find another (& no doubt better) florist. Then sue the ass off the original florist shop for violating the law. No fuss, no muss: enjoy your big day, and sic the ACLU on 'em.

I agree that the florist shouldn't "ruin their day," on the other hand, I absolutely do not thing they should "ignore" or only "take business elsewhere" -- I think the full force of the law should be dropped on 'em.

It's not just florists... it's doctors, pharmacists, everyone else who does business with the public. No discrimination *anywhere*.

Posted by BEG

on March 16, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Psst - Dan, Johann Hari is a *boy* and, IIRC, a gay one too.

Posted by Herfderfderf on March 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM

@9: What Dan wrote is actually grammatically correct, as "first" can be a noun. You mad?
Dictionary.com:
"-noun
10. the person or thing that is first in time, order, rank, etc."

Posted by venomlash on March 16, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Where are the gay florists who discriminate against born-again Christians? Not that I'm advocating that, I'm just surprised we haven't heard any stories like that.

Posted by Julie in Eugene on March 16, 2011 at 10:59 AM

The newly born again can be interesting individuals. You sometimes hear them called "milk Christians" from 1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 2:2, because they're often biblically illiterate and enthusiastic like a child that wishes to please its parents. Hence they are vulnerable to manipulation and often times arrogant in their understanding, everything is black and white, easy. And when they find one of those contradicting passages they go to someone who they see as a spiritual superior and allow that person to interpret how they are to understand the passage(s), church position, etc. They also are often anxious to be "counted worthy" which is evident by the suffering they must endure for their faith. A once very regular, now infrequent, Slogger was a textbook example with her comments and desire for "spiritual uplifting".

Posted by kim in portland

on March 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM

12

Thank you, Cheeta.

please translate:

"the first you've about "

Posted by there's a banana in it for you..... on March 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Sam Arora's sudden turn on the pro-marriage equality bill he co-sponsored would be a classic example of the point I was attempting to make @ 14.

Posted by kim in portland

on March 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM

You might want to check out Riverview, NB on a map before you all suggest finding another florist will be just the ticket. Sure, it's not far from *Moncton* (which has eight florists according to Yellowpages.ca), but it's basically a bedroom community for a city with 126,000 (ish) people. Couldn't say how many of the 8 florists are gay, but my guess is not many especially considering that southern New Brunswick is generally fairly heavy on the born-again Christian types.

Posted by jamief on March 16, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Heck, if anyone finds me the florist and the phone number, I will try to have flowers delivered to said same sex fiance's lawyers office at least. then put the kabosh on it as soon as I make it clear that if this is the bigot florist, I will take my business elsewhere

making it clear that if they dont do work for same sex couples, they lose money.

Posted by Womyn2me $http://http:\\www.shelleyandlaura.com$ on March 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

They will continue to pick and choose which verses to follow, all the while accusing others of being ignorant and calling for a witch hunt.

Posted by suddenlyorcas on March 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

@17

Even if the nearest town in Moncton, and it only has 8 florists, my guess is that at least one of the 8 is either gay, gay-friendly, or sufficiently neutral on the issue to accept a few hundred dollars in return for some flowers.

But let's assume that what you imply is correct--that no florist within a 100 mile radius of the wedding is willing to provide flowers to a same-sex couple. In that case, the couple can (a) sue all 8 florists for violating the anti-discrimination laws already on the books, and/or (b) get married without the friggin' flowers. To the best of my recall, no law in the world says that a wedding only counts if there are flowers present.

Posted by Clayton on March 16, 2011 at 11:46 AM

This bigoted florist has a right to deny services to gay couples beause the florist shop is his/her property. The religious belief line of argument is purely instrumental, as far as I'm concerned. And yes, by the same line of reasoning, he/she should have the right to deny services based on race, sex, and religion, too.

Anti-discrimination laws for private businesses treat economic relationships as special class of relationships different from other human relationships. That's plain wrong. Unless you believe that people should not be allowed to "discriminate" in choosing friends and lovers based on their tastes and beliefs, you should believe that business owners should be allowed to discriminate in their choice of customers. And yes, customers should be allowed to discriminate right back in their choice of businesses to patronize.

Posted by David Wright on March 16, 2011 at 11:51 AM

There's a florist in New Brunswick?

Posted by sirkowski

on March 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

I don't understand why a gay couple would want a homophobe anywhere near their wedding. The motherfucker would probably just passive-aggressively sabotage the wedding, ordering orange roses instead of pink or conveniently "losing" the order. At least this bigot was upfront about it.

Posted by keshmeshi on March 16, 2011 at 12:05 PM

What part of "Love one another" does this florist not understand? Jesus never told you to hate anybody.

Posted by Corylea

on March 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM

this being my home town, and having moved away many moons ago, I´m glad to see the locals standing up to this bigot.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=grou…

Posted by Tdot_john on March 16, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Having been born-raised there and leaving many years ago, it´s refreshing to see the locals standing up to this bigot.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=grou…

Posted by Tdot_john on March 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

@jamief, New Brunswick is no way a born again christian province. We're very liberal & accepting or at least most of us are. Check out the facebook group http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=grou…

Just for the record:

Business owners can not discriminate. It is illegal. We have laws now regarding the legal operation of businesses. Among other things, most provinces and territories have human rights legislation, including New Brunswick.

Here is the relevant section of the N.B. Human Rights Act:

5(1)No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with another, by himself or by the interposition of another, shall
(a)deny to any person or class of persons any accommodation, services or facilities available to the public, or
(b)discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any accommodation, services or facilities available to the public,
because of race, colour, religion, national origin, ancestry, place of origin, age, physical disability, mental disability, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, social condition, political belief or activity.

Posted by Shedaisy11 on March 16, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Posted by Shedaisy11 on March 16, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Johann Hari is a guy - it should be "where HE writes B and B)

Posted by elsaamo on March 16, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Not to traffic in stereotypes or anything, but if this born-again florist is anything but a raging, self-loathing closet case, I'll eat my hat.

Posted by Lance Thrustwell on March 16, 2011 at 2:26 PM

@21: Not so much; economic relationships ARE a special breed of human relationship, because they are codified and mediated by law, specifically private property law. The only reason that "the florist shop is his/her property" in the first place is because of the intervention of the legal system in limiting the behaviors that are going to be allowed with respect to that property (i.e. it's the law that grants the florist certain rights with respect to that property that are denied to everyone else), so an intervention of the law that limits or defines in specific ways how those rights may be exercised is perfectly consistent with the very idea of private property in the first place. It's no more of an intervention to say that you can't do something with that thing that you own than it is to say that I can't do something with that thing that you own because you own it. In short, laws that limit the expression or enactment of certain rights have no greater nor lesser legitimacy/rationale than laws that establish rights in the first place (as 'rights' can also be viewed through the lens of limits on someone else's ability to treat one in a certain fashion). Your comparison to how we form friendships or select lovers is specious.

Your assertion also makes little sense from a material/pragmatic standpoint. Because of our economic system and its particular legal enactment, privileged groups own WAY more property/businesses/etc. than unprivileged groups. This means that, functionally, marginalized social groups will have much less access to goods and services (and possibly no access) if we allow class-/group-based discrimination in businesses serving the public. Unequal access is in opposition to the idea of individual equality, so in order to functionally preserve equal, individual rights, laws against irrelevant-group-identity-based discrimination are necessary. The unequal power relationship between businesses and customers (due the the fact that the businesses control resource and service access, while customers only control relatively small amounts of capital) means that the ability of customers to discriminate against businesses is not a functionally-equal counter to the ability of businesses to discriminate against customers. From a functional material standpoint, we anti-discrimination laws protect freedoms more than they restrict them.

More...

Posted by John Horstman on March 16, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Thank you, John @ 31.

Posted by Ophian on March 16, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Thank you, John @31.

Posted by Ophian on March 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM

save yer breath, john. mr. wright is an idiot.

Posted by scary tyler moore

on March 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM

@ 21 -- The florist didn't refuse their business because she was booked up, or because they later got into an argument and she no longer wanted to work with them. She accepted their business and then rejected them later because they were gay. That's illegal, and it's illegal for a very important reason.

Maybe in this case there are lots of other gay and gay-friendly florists in the area ... but maybe there aren't. And what if all of the florists in the area happen to be born again evangelicals?

What if your driving across a remote, rural area and need to stop for the night. But the hotel refuses you because the owner is an evangelical Christian and you're a gay couple, and they only want properly married couples to share a room? And the three other hotels are also owned by evangelicals?

What if your car breaks down in that small town but the three car mechanics are all evangelicals who refuse to repair it because they think you're living in sin?

Yeah, lots of times we can take our business to someone else. But sometimes we can't. That's why we have laws in place to protect against that have faced historic discrimination.

Posted by Kevin_BGFH

on March 16, 2011 at 5:44 PM

@35: Remember when the WBC went and protested in some small Plains town...and came back to find their van's tires slashed, and that nobody in town would repair it for them because they're total assholes?

Posted by venomlash on March 16, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Weren't the Homophobic Florists the opening act at the first Sex Pistols concert in 1976?

Posted by The Beatles on March 16, 2011 at 6:26 PM

I'm against Death, so when I open my floral shoppe I'm going to insist on a No Funerals policy.

Posted by Suzy on March 16, 2011 at 8:33 PM

If anyone had bothered to notice, its not the couple that is making this complaint but they're wedding planner. Nor is there any indication that they intend to take this to Human Rights Tribunal (as they are entitled to). Rather it seems that they've simply decided to publicize this particular business' decision, probably because it will encourage most fair minded New Brunswickers (who as a majority are opposed to this sort of discrimination) to simply stop shopping at this particular business. She'll be out of business in no time, without having to resort to any particular legal action against her, at this is a perfectly legitimate way to undermine a business that acts in this fashion.

Posted by Canadian Boy on March 16, 2011 at 9:44 PM

The one thing you should never do when planning a wedding is tell a business owner you're planning a wedding. Doesn't matter if it's a het or gay ceremony; businesses hear "wedding" and instantly charge double or more. This would be a non-issue if they were planning smarter, not harder.

Posted by Rach3l on March 17, 2011 at 5:24 AM

17 - Riverview is not just "near" Moncton, it is, for all practical purposes, more of Moncton. I'd e very surprised to hear of a resident of Riverview who doesn't go into Moncton for some reason or other weekly, at the very least. And, yes, lots of Catholics in Acadia, but also lots of defiant anti-Catholics. The "screw the Church" backlash (for lack of a better term) is very strong in French Canada.

Posted by agony on March 17, 2011 at 5:57 AM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200…

Posted by Ivan on March 17, 2011 at 6:26 AM

@28. Never said NB was a born again province, but southern NB does have its fair share of bible thumpers (as does central NS). My only objection to the general commentary was that it would be a simple matter to take your business elsewhere. Possibly not as simple in Moncton as in, say, Seattle.

Posted by jamief on March 17, 2011 at 8:48 AM

@21: Apparently you're ignorant of the entire history of civil rights. Or maybe you just wish you were.

Posted by Chase on March 17, 2011 at 9:50 AM

They have to pretend to be upset to get a large settlement when they sue. Which I hope they will. And laugh all the way to the bank.

Posted by Moonmaid on March 17, 2011 at 10:34 AM

I don't understand why disagreeing with someone makes a person a homophobe. As a extensively training counsellor (to the doctoral level), I do not find any grounds for concluding an "irrational fear" (i.e., phobia) when someone disagrees with another person.

Posted by Maloma on March 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I don't know anything about the law in Canada. In the US though, an anti-discrimination law very likely would not apply to this situation. Those laws generally have two thresholds to test whether they apply to a particular situation.

The first is whether the business is one of "public accommodation." That generally means a business providing transportation, lodging, or eating and drinking. Those businesses are held to the highest standards. The person who wrote the text you quoted was aware of this and chose a B&B consciously to invoke the highest level of scrutiny. As such, you can't just substitute florist for B&B without distorting the meaning.

The next test in how many people the business employs. The number varies, but the fewer employees you have the more likely you are exempt from the anti-discrimination laws.

People in business for themselves who are not providing public accommodation can pretty much discriminate against whomever they want. It is likely in fact that attempting to take away their right to serve who they want would be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. This is as it should be. I should be able to refuse servicing some klansman or other person I detest.

The florist in this case, in the US, would be able to discriminate in this way if she had few or no employees. If you think she shouldn't be able to do that, come talk to me after you spend a few days giving the Koch brothers massages or acting as Sarah Palin's stenographer. Perhaps you would prefer being Glen Beck's janitor (and chalkboard preparation artist) or playing in the band at Rush or Newt's next wedding. We need big businesses to treat everyone the same, but we also need the freedom to serve who we want to serve in our personal capacity.

More...

Posted by Learned Hand on March 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM

@ 47: You're overlooking the most pertinent difference, which is that anti-discrimination laws in the US usually do not include sexual orientation.

Posted by Chase on March 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM

@48, One of Dan's big issues is that anti-discrimination laws should include sexual orientation. I took the post in general to be a sort of fantasy fulfillment dream where he points out what happens in Canada which does have these laws as an example of what would happen here if we did as well.

I should have been more clear in my second sentence. For the purpose of that post I was trying to show what would happen in the US if our laws did include sexual orientation and illustrate that the revenge fantasies expressed in the comments would probably not come to pass even if we were to adopt sexual orientation into our non-discrimination laws.

Obviously you are correct in terms of current law.

Posted by Learned Hand on March 18, 2011 at 10:27 AM

The good part of this suckiness:

Yay New Brunswick for including sexual orientation in anti-discrimination statutes! Can we have a shout-out for a province that has decided that discrimination is not OK?

Posted by rca on March 18, 2011 at 12:00 PM

@47 Johann Hari was referring to a specific case in the UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom…

Although this has no effect on discrimination in America, Canada, etc, e.g the florist in question, it's perhaps interesting to see that Johann wasn't just invoking a technical example. The quote has a lot more meaning when you read about the case, rather than looking at it as a carefully chosen example of an industry that has to be held to a high level of scrutiny. You know, because it becomes about behaving lawfully rather than standards.

Posted by A.Mc on March 19, 2011 at 9:47 AM

#3: Brilliant. Getting her to realize that she is the one cutting her own throat is much better.

I suppose organizers could arrange to periodically deliver a report with a running total of the number of jobs she has declined and the cumulative lost revenue. It would be good for straight supporters to also boycott, but I think calling and telling her that you are taking your business elsewhere will only harden her position and create a martyr complex. Perhaps just pretend that your event is same-sex oriented, so as to make it again that she is the one turning away revenue.

Posted by avast2006 on March 21, 2011 at 2:40 AM