Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 7, 2013
Gay Marriage Did This Florist Break the Law by Refusing Service to a Gay Wedding?
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:15 PM
A flower shop in Richland, Washington, is refusing to do business for a same-sex wedding, teeing up what could become the state's first big test of its anti-discrimination law since voters approved gay marriage last fall. Now you may be thinking: an anti-gay florist? But Arlene's Flowers owner Barronelle Stutzman confirmed in a phone interview this morning that she refused to serve Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed's wedding "because of my relationship with Jesus."
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," Stutzman explained. "If they choose to get married, that's fine, if that is what they believe. I just choose not to be a participant in the wedding."
But Freed, 43, points out that the owner was never asked to "participate" in a wedding she disagrees with—just sell them flowers. "We had no intentions of sending her an invitation to our wedding. We don't want her to walk us down the aisle," he says. The couple has been buying flowers from the shop for the nine years they've been together, but when Ingresoll asked the owner last Friday to provide floral arrangements for their September 19 ceremony, Stutzman refused. Freed was seething the next morning and posted about his experience on Facebook, he says. "After I posted it, I started crying. I said to Rob that I had to do this. We are not wanting to cause some fight or create national debate about this, but it was wrong what happened to us."
And apparently against the law.
This appears to be a cut-and-dried case of illegal activity under Washington State's 2006 anti-discrimination law, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, says Anne Levinson, a former Seattle Municipal Court judge and a leader of the marriage campaign. "If a business is putting themselves out there as serving the public, then they cannot discriminate," Levinson explains. And the Washington State Attorney General said in a statement that "if they sell wedding flowers to any other opposite sex couple, they must not discriminate against a same-sex couple seeking to buy wedding flowers."
Asked if she thinks she broke the law, Stutzman replied, "Well I guess we will find that out, won't we." Still, it's unclear if Stutzman will even have to defend herself in court.
Freed and Ingersoll haven't yet filed an official complaint. The couple, who initially provided comments yesterday to the TriCity Herald, are weighing their legal options. "We are unsure of how we will respond at this point, but we know we have many options available to us," Freed tells me today. "We don't want to be rash, we don't want to be vindictive, we don't want to do something that isn't moving toward the greater good."
"We are quite shocked," he continues. "I would like to make sure that people can't do this and get away with this, because it hurts people. We think it's unfair to put anyone through this kind of experience."
The couple has reason to be wary of becoming poster children and risking the religious right's backlash if they litigate. As we saw during fights last fall in four states voting on gay-marriage proposals, campaigns funded by the National Organization for Marriage cited anti-discrimination cases to argue that business owners, parents with kids in schools, and others could be forced to violate their religious mores by recognizing same-sex marriage laws. It was a clever ploy to cast anti-gay conservatives as the victims of discrimination themselves. So as the country considers future gay-marriage laws, filing a lawsuit against Arlene's Flowers could arguably make this couple the whipping boys of the far right.
But Ingersoll and Freed don't necessarily need to file a lawsuit. The Washington State Human Rights Commission could independently seek a settlement or sue for them, even though it typically responds to complaints. "We don't do a whole lot of commission-initiated complaints, but it is something the commission has the power to do," explains commission spokeswoman Laura Lindstrand, who adds that it is "a possibility."
If the couple chooses to file a lawsuit, the state is certainly brimming with legal advocates loaded for bear to make their case. But if this couple doesn't elect to pursue this case, they shouldn't have to. The state should. The Human Rights Commission has an obligation to guarantee that businesses cannot treat gay people as second-class citizens with impunity. These are relatively new laws—both the anti-discrimination law and the marriage law—and the state should enforce it even if couples don't want to become mired in fighting a lawsuit. Granted, the state's action would also keep the spotlight on the couple, but they're already in it.
Arlene's Flower's owner Stutzman says she's received lots of calls and Facebook comments, about an even split of positive and negative reactions from customers who "just support our decision to stand up for our beliefs" and others who say they "choose to buy their flowers elsewhere."
I asked Stutzman how she legally justified her actions as different from, say, a lunch counter denying service to African Americans. "We aren't even going to get into that," she said. Since her objection is religious, I asked if biblical denouncements of other activities also influence which weddings she would work for. Would she provide flowers to a wedding serving shellfish, which the Book of Leviticus considers an abomination? "I think that is a ridiculous question," she said.
Levinson points out this florist is in the slim minority here. "The overwhelming number of business across the state have... have welcomed the increase in business that has come to them from the [marriage equality] law," says Levinson, confirming the enthusiasm I found for gay marriage at a recent wedding expo.
While the legal aspects of the case are about civil rights, Stutzman acknowledges that she had no trouble selling floral arrangements to Ingersoll, 42, until he was getting married to a guy. "We've done business with him for years," the flower shop owner says, and "he is just an awesome guy."
But Freed says he regrets spending money there for years. Asked again if he's pondering legal action, he says, "Businesses should probably know the anti-discrimination laws better so they don't break them and put their business and livelihood at risk by doing these kind of things."
1
Would she provide flowers to a wedding serving shellfish, which the Book of Leviticus considers an abomination? "I think that is a ridiculous question," she said.
Someone please sue the fucking stupidity out of this lady. What an asshole. And I'm straight str8!
Someone please sue the fucking stupidity out of this lady. What an asshole. And I'm straight str8!
2
What an idiot and how despicable to take their money for nine years and then refuse them now. SUE HER!
5
Please guys do the right thing and sue the crap out of this bigot. This is the only way people will learn and figure out that conducting business with gay people will not cause problems with their mythical lord. I'm guessing that this florist is getting a lot of support from other bigots right now, especially financial support, so sue the shit out of her and make them all pay.
As a gay man, I say be vindictive when it comes to ridiculous shit like this.
As a gay man, I say be vindictive when it comes to ridiculous shit like this.
6
I keep wanting to break this down across national and state vectors and calculate how to secure the most equality but it seems like the Washington State Human Rights Commission can not let this slide and still claim legitimacy as an agency.
Still, it seems that Barronelle "helped awesome guy Ingersoll in his totally gay wooing" Stutzman may not be all that great of rallying point for the bigots, what with her having played such an important role in their homoSEXual reLAYtionSEX.
Still, it seems that Barronelle "helped awesome guy Ingersoll in his totally gay wooing" Stutzman may not be all that great of rallying point for the bigots, what with her having played such an important role in their homoSEXual reLAYtionSEX.
8
It's sad that this couple is clearly unwilling to be in the middle of this. Eventually there will be a point where people specifically try to bait businesses with total fucking morons running them, like this shop, just to ream them in the spotlight later.
He was right, businesses do need more training on the law, and this is how they all get it.
He was right, businesses do need more training on the law, and this is how they all get it.
9
Cherry picking religion for your own piece of mind? If the religious right wants to make her a poster for anything why not for my atheism? Thanks biggoted florist, you're the reason religion isn't reaching the next generation, so I'm thankful for here even if she wont sell me flowers.
10
"We've done business with him for years," the flower shop owner says, and "he is just an awesome guy."
Translation-- We love taking his money. For a sub-human, he's great.
Conservative philosophy in a nutshell.
11
This does seem to be a more flagrant case of discrimination than the printer who refused to print (somewhat racy) fliers for a gay bar a few years ago. That said, there's something to be said for live-and-let-live on these kinds of issues. Is the couple having difficulty finding a florist who will sell them flowers? If not, what is the problem here? Any businessman turning down business in this economy is already paying a price for discriminating.
12
@10, remember, what we are angry about is that the business is NOT taking their money. What you are describing is precisely the outcome that people want to bring about by legal action.
13
Legal action just gives ammunition to the bad guys.
Conservatives are always complaining that we are trying to "force them to accept" gay folks, that we are "persecuting them for their beliefs". And if this florist incurs civil or criminal penalties for not doing business with this couple on the basis of their stated religious beliefs, those arguments become rather difficult to refute.
If I were (say) NOM or the FRC, I would be hoping for prosecution and salivating at the chance to challenge the non-discrimination law in court.
It isn't worth it. Publicize the hell out of their bigotry, and patronize another florist.
Conservatives are always complaining that we are trying to "force them to accept" gay folks, that we are "persecuting them for their beliefs". And if this florist incurs civil or criminal penalties for not doing business with this couple on the basis of their stated religious beliefs, those arguments become rather difficult to refute.
If I were (say) NOM or the FRC, I would be hoping for prosecution and salivating at the chance to challenge the non-discrimination law in court.
It isn't worth it. Publicize the hell out of their bigotry, and patronize another florist.
14
@13 No, we are not forcing them to accept, we are forcing them to abide by the law, forcing them NOT TO DISCRIMINATE. She had no trouble accepting their gay money before but all of a sudden she has a crisis of conscience. Bullshit. She needs to have her ass sued so other businesses aren't able to hide behind JEEBUS anymore.
15
Yeah, @14, I have to say, it would be a perverse result to use the courts to bring about a transaction that neither party wants. The florist doesn't want to take the money. The couple doesn't want to give the money to the florist (" Freed says he regrets spending money there for years"). But what @14 and others want is to compel both parties to complete the transaction.
Now look, I think in some circumstances it would be a good idea to enforce these kinds of laws. LBJ was outraged that a black person couldn't drive through the South because there would be nowhere along the highway where black people were permitted to use the bathroom. They ended up squatting by the roadside, humiliated. LBJ put a stop to that.
But not being able to buy flowers from a person you don't want to buy flowers from anyway is . . . not quite so bad as what blacks faced. In a case like this, what can you really accomplish by threatening or bringing legal action?
Now look, I think in some circumstances it would be a good idea to enforce these kinds of laws. LBJ was outraged that a black person couldn't drive through the South because there would be nowhere along the highway where black people were permitted to use the bathroom. They ended up squatting by the roadside, humiliated. LBJ put a stop to that.
But not being able to buy flowers from a person you don't want to buy flowers from anyway is . . . not quite so bad as what blacks faced. In a case like this, what can you really accomplish by threatening or bringing legal action?
16
@14 Exactly!
@13 Laws have no weight if they aren't enforced. We might as well throw out anti-discrimination laws if we're too timid to prosecute violators.
@13 Laws have no weight if they aren't enforced. We might as well throw out anti-discrimination laws if we're too timid to prosecute violators.
17
@15
"But not being able to buy flowers from a person you don't want to buy flowers from anyway is . . . not quite so bad as what blacks faced."
Did you read the article? The ONLY reason they "don't want to buy flowers…anyway" is because the bigot discriminated against them. Had she been congratulatory and welcoming, they'd be continuing long-term happy couples - they picked her because so far, they had been. Then she throws this in their face.
Your argument is like saying that it was okay to have whites-only lunch counters because no black people would want to eat where they weren't welcome anyway. That's not how this sort of thing works.
What planet are you on?
And no, there are far more potential legal consequences than simply compelling them to "complete the transaction." They can, and will get their flowers elsewhere, but the florist should be hit with a steep fine or lose her license - and if that fine is given to the couple, they can donate it to some pro-equality cause or some bigot-outreach program.
No, this particular incident is not comparable to the worst abuses of the black struggle for civil equality. But it's also not comparable to the worst abuses of the gay struggle for civil equality, either.
And unless she is a member of a religious sect that bars selling flowers, nobody asked her to violate her religion, and what she did was against the law, and she should be subject to it.
"But not being able to buy flowers from a person you don't want to buy flowers from anyway is . . . not quite so bad as what blacks faced."
Did you read the article? The ONLY reason they "don't want to buy flowers…anyway" is because the bigot discriminated against them. Had she been congratulatory and welcoming, they'd be continuing long-term happy couples - they picked her because so far, they had been. Then she throws this in their face.
Your argument is like saying that it was okay to have whites-only lunch counters because no black people would want to eat where they weren't welcome anyway. That's not how this sort of thing works.
What planet are you on?
And no, there are far more potential legal consequences than simply compelling them to "complete the transaction." They can, and will get their flowers elsewhere, but the florist should be hit with a steep fine or lose her license - and if that fine is given to the couple, they can donate it to some pro-equality cause or some bigot-outreach program.
No, this particular incident is not comparable to the worst abuses of the black struggle for civil equality. But it's also not comparable to the worst abuses of the gay struggle for civil equality, either.
And unless she is a member of a religious sect that bars selling flowers, nobody asked her to violate her religion, and what she did was against the law, and she should be subject to it.
18
@16, do you really want to stand for the principle that every violation of any law should be punished? You want everyone smoking pot (except in WA and CO) to be arrested, and many of them imprisoned? You don't want the police ever to let a youthful shoplifter go with a stern warning instead of a record? I mean, okay, but that seems repugnant to me.
19
@18 "16, do you really want to stand for the principle that every violation of any law should be punished? [...] that seems repugnant to me."
Perhaps we need better laws, but it sounds like you're suggesting putting a hell of a lot of power in police and prosecutorial discretion.
Perhaps we need better laws, but it sounds like you're suggesting putting a hell of a lot of power in police and prosecutorial discretion.
20
@17 I don't think it's true that the only reason they don't want to buy flowers is that she refused to sell flowers to them. If she had said, "All right, I'll sell you flowers, but just to be clear, I think your love is a perversion and you shouldn't be allowed to get married," they would have said, "All right, sweet! Let me give you the exact delivery instructions..." The reason they don't want to buy flowers from her is that she is a bigot.
Now I don't believe that black people in the South didn't want to patronize businesses owned by bigots. But even if that were true, we would be talking about a very different situation. Bigots controlled pretty much all of the important businesses in some areas, so that (to repeat my example) you couldn't use the restroom of a non-bigot for significant stretches of highway in the South. Nothing remotely approaching that exists in Seattle.
What we have are people with different beliefs trying to live side by side. Gay people do not face any kind of flower shortage, or really any difficulty obtaining any goods and services they are willing to pay for. In these circumstances, using the court system seems like overkill. The woman is already losing business because she shot off her mouth. Seems as though that is a pretty good outcome for all involved.
Now I don't believe that black people in the South didn't want to patronize businesses owned by bigots. But even if that were true, we would be talking about a very different situation. Bigots controlled pretty much all of the important businesses in some areas, so that (to repeat my example) you couldn't use the restroom of a non-bigot for significant stretches of highway in the South. Nothing remotely approaching that exists in Seattle.
What we have are people with different beliefs trying to live side by side. Gay people do not face any kind of flower shortage, or really any difficulty obtaining any goods and services they are willing to pay for. In these circumstances, using the court system seems like overkill. The woman is already losing business because she shot off her mouth. Seems as though that is a pretty good outcome for all involved.
21
@20 "Nothing remotely approaching that exists in Seattle."
How about in Richland (one of the tri-cities, ie the other side of the political divide)?
You know, where this shit actually happened.
How about in Richland (one of the tri-cities, ie the other side of the political divide)?
You know, where this shit actually happened.
22
According to a tv station from the TC "Stutzman is within her legal right to refuse service to anyone."
I'm surprised that they haven't edited that out since the AG's office makes it pretty clear she is no where near her legal right to do that.
http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/Richlan…
I'm surprised that they haven't edited that out since the AG's office makes it pretty clear she is no where near her legal right to do that.
http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/Richlan…
23
Thousands of couples just able to get married, wouldn't a florist want to bank in a new cash crop? Isn't taking money from a previously "lesser" group of people new found wealth Jesus's flawless business plan?
24
I remember when they were trying to pass this law and pastors and businesses were worried that they would be forced to service weddings that conflicted with their religious beliefs. They were assured they wouldn't. You can't say "Why do people care what other people do in their private life?" as an argument to get something passed and then punish people who are not hurting anyone, just refusing a service. We need to be respectful of other people's beliefs here... Including Christians.
25
@21, fine, I've never been to Richland, but I very much doubt gay people have any trouble obtaining pretty much any product or service available there. I don't think you quite grasp how bad things were for blacks in the South.
26
I despise religion and I'm completely in favor of LGBT rights and marriage equality...
That said, I don't believe she broke the law. It's her business, if she doesn't want to sell them flowers, she doesn't have to.
Suing her will only throw gas on the fire between religious fuckers and equal rights advocates. All it will do is help this florist look like a victim.
That said, I don't believe she broke the law. It's her business, if she doesn't want to sell them flowers, she doesn't have to.
Suing her will only throw gas on the fire between religious fuckers and equal rights advocates. All it will do is help this florist look like a victim.
27
@24's comment is spot on:
I remember when they were trying to pass this law and pastors and businesses were worried that they would be forced to service weddings that conflicted with their religious beliefs. They were assured they wouldn't. You can't say "Why do people care what other people do in their private life?" as an argument to get something passed and then punish people who are not hurting anyone, just refusing a service. We need to be respectful of other people's beliefs here... Including Christians.
28
@26 If you don't believe she broke the law, then you're simply wrong.
"If a business is putting themselves out there as serving the public, then they cannot discriminate," Levinson explains. And the Washington State Attorney General said in a statement that "if they sell wedding flowers to any other opposite sex couple, they must not discriminate against a same-sex couple seeking to buy wedding flowers."
29
The florist is asking to be sued by stating their objection so clearly. The florist could have let them know that she's a bigot without actually refusing service.
The remedy if this case was brought would not be for the transaction to be completed, but most likely for the store owner to implement a non-discrimination policy and go to training so they can enforce it.
And remember, the same law protects the right of straight people to be served at gay bars even if they flaunt their heterosexuality.
The remedy if this case was brought would not be for the transaction to be completed, but most likely for the store owner to implement a non-discrimination policy and go to training so they can enforce it.
And remember, the same law protects the right of straight people to be served at gay bars even if they flaunt their heterosexuality.
30
@28,
Then I must, unfortunately, admit that the anti-gay bigots finally have an arguing point that is valid. Up until I now, I thought all their points were baseless.
That's really too bad, because I had always been 100% on the side of gay marriage. I can't say that anymore.
I don't agree with laws that force someone to conduct business against their will.
Then I must, unfortunately, admit that the anti-gay bigots finally have an arguing point that is valid. Up until I now, I thought all their points were baseless.
That's really too bad, because I had always been 100% on the side of gay marriage. I can't say that anymore.
I don't agree with laws that force someone to conduct business against their will.
31
Yes this was quite possibly illegal, and to be honest I agree with Freed's argument at the end of the blog post that business owners should have the fear of God put in them (so to speak). You really shouldn't be doing what this woman is doing. But that said, she's got her beliefs, she's not hiding them, and she's turning away (and losing) business. Can we really achieve anything by imposing a legal penalty on top of that? Besides making her a martyr, that is.
32
@18:
Laws HAVE to be enforced, otherwise there's no point in having them in the first place. The real question is whether the punishment exacted is in proportion to the crime committed. In this case, the florist clearly broke the law and SHOULD be punished, but I seriously doubt anyone would consider imprisonment for example, a reasonable response. I would even go so far as to say revocation of her license (as another commentor suggested) to be extreme. But paying a fine, along with perhaps some further education on the content and scope of the law she broke seem completely reasonable, IMO.
@24:
The difference in this case, is that a private business owner providing goods or services to the general public cannot discriminate by refusing to provide said goods and services to one group without also providing them to other groups; they do not have the option to cite a religious objection, because their business is not predicated on any such religious belief. Churches, on the other hand CAN restrict access to their property based on religious beliefs, but only to the extent they do not similarly offer that access to the general public, at which point it becomes the same issue.
Laws HAVE to be enforced, otherwise there's no point in having them in the first place. The real question is whether the punishment exacted is in proportion to the crime committed. In this case, the florist clearly broke the law and SHOULD be punished, but I seriously doubt anyone would consider imprisonment for example, a reasonable response. I would even go so far as to say revocation of her license (as another commentor suggested) to be extreme. But paying a fine, along with perhaps some further education on the content and scope of the law she broke seem completely reasonable, IMO.
@24:
The difference in this case, is that a private business owner providing goods or services to the general public cannot discriminate by refusing to provide said goods and services to one group without also providing them to other groups; they do not have the option to cite a religious objection, because their business is not predicated on any such religious belief. Churches, on the other hand CAN restrict access to their property based on religious beliefs, but only to the extent they do not similarly offer that access to the general public, at which point it becomes the same issue.
33
@30 that has been the case for a long time, there was a string of Supreme Court cases forcing restaurants to serve black people, despite various arguments (for instance, that the business was not "interstate" in nature and was beyond the federal government's ability to regulate). The Court rejected all of the arguments and forced businesses to serve black people pretty much no matter what.
This obviously goes against a lot of basic American principles, but then, so does racial bigotry. My general feeling is that the reign of terror perpetrated on blacks in the South (and elsewhere) justified an extreme response. I am not so sure about laws like Washington's, but it's probably good to have as a sort of fleet-in-being, a cudgel that doesn't get used very often.
This obviously goes against a lot of basic American principles, but then, so does racial bigotry. My general feeling is that the reign of terror perpetrated on blacks in the South (and elsewhere) justified an extreme response. I am not so sure about laws like Washington's, but it's probably good to have as a sort of fleet-in-being, a cudgel that doesn't get used very often.
34
@31:
Making the florist pay a fine for breaking the law doesn't make her a martyr; it makes her someone who broke the law and paid her debt to society for doing so. Let the religious bigots declare her a martyr; all they'll be doing is degrading the definition of martyrdom into something petty and ridiculous, which will do squat in terms of their attempts to perpetuate themselves as victims. Believe me, if the tables were turned and this had been a case of a gay business owner refusing service to Christians, they'd be the first ones howling in outrage, and demanding "justice".
Making the florist pay a fine for breaking the law doesn't make her a martyr; it makes her someone who broke the law and paid her debt to society for doing so. Let the religious bigots declare her a martyr; all they'll be doing is degrading the definition of martyrdom into something petty and ridiculous, which will do squat in terms of their attempts to perpetuate themselves as victims. Believe me, if the tables were turned and this had been a case of a gay business owner refusing service to Christians, they'd be the first ones howling in outrage, and demanding "justice".
35
@32 I am not sure you really mean what you are writing. A store owner nabs a kid who is shoplifting. He turns him over to a cop, who recognizes the kid as a good kid who is going through some problems. The cop decides to give the kid a harsh talk, scare him a little, and then take him home to his parents (who, the cop knows, will give him 10 times as harsh a talk). The cop feels he has done a good job. The kid will probably not steal again, and hopefully will have a productive life (whereas juvenile detention could be very disruptive).
But you would tell the cop that he has not done a good job, he has done a terrible job. "Laws HAVE to be enforced, otherwise there's no point in having them in the first place," you lecture the cop. "I'll have your badge!" you roar, a little piece of spit flying from your mouth onto the desk in front of you. You sit back in your chair and straighten your shirt, slightly embarrassed that you lost control of your emotions, but secure in the knowledge that you have done the right thing.
But you would tell the cop that he has not done a good job, he has done a terrible job. "Laws HAVE to be enforced, otherwise there's no point in having them in the first place," you lecture the cop. "I'll have your badge!" you roar, a little piece of spit flying from your mouth onto the desk in front of you. You sit back in your chair and straighten your shirt, slightly embarrassed that you lost control of your emotions, but secure in the knowledge that you have done the right thing.
36
@25 "I don't think you quite grasp how bad things were for blacks in the South."
Probably not.*
It is worth asking how difficult you think it should be for Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed to go around being all gay and stuff before their right, as codified by Washington State, to do so is protected?
Racism has certainly found other outlets, and I don't see any reason that the anti-gay bigots shouldn't have to stoop to more subtle forms as well.
Admittedly, only 21 states outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, only 16 outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression, and only 9 provide marriage to same-sex couples, so there is certainly merit in asking if this action would make it more difficult to secure these rights across the nation.
I just don't know that we, and am less convinced that the Washington State Human Rights Commission can let this slide and still claim legitimacy.
@35 So, what happens when it turns out that this results in finding out that your specific cop, or perhaps that entire department only "knows" good white kids? Too bad for the minorities?**
* Then again, some of my family were blacks in the South.
** Not that this ever happened or even continues on to a lesser degree to this day.
Probably not.*
It is worth asking how difficult you think it should be for Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed to go around being all gay and stuff before their right, as codified by Washington State, to do so is protected?
Racism has certainly found other outlets, and I don't see any reason that the anti-gay bigots shouldn't have to stoop to more subtle forms as well.
Admittedly, only 21 states outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, only 16 outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression, and only 9 provide marriage to same-sex couples, so there is certainly merit in asking if this action would make it more difficult to secure these rights across the nation.
I just don't know that we, and am less convinced that the Washington State Human Rights Commission can let this slide and still claim legitimacy.
@35 So, what happens when it turns out that this results in finding out that your specific cop, or perhaps that entire department only "knows" good white kids? Too bad for the minorities?**
* Then again, some of my family were blacks in the South.
** Not that this ever happened or even continues on to a lesser degree to this day.
37
@35 The difference here is that you don't think the cop should be called in the first place, i.e., you don't think this woman should be sued.
38
Ms. Stutuzman claims she's received an equal number for and against her discrimination? Looking at her Facebook page, there have been very few comments backing her up. What a ditz!
39
@35:
Nice straw man there, but you might want to tone down the spittle-flecked hyperbole a notch or two, just so my rabid saliva doesn't get mixed up with the blood splurging from your hemorrhaging cardiac muscle.
Because, here's the thing: the cop doesn't have the authority to let the kid go, IF the store owner decides to press charges. In order to achieve the outcome you describe, both the cop and the store owner have to act in concert, and if the owner, for whatever reason, refuses to let the kid off, there's nothing the cop can do about it. The cop is not a judge, and if the store owner insists on seeing justice served, ONLY a judge (in this instance) has the authority to do that.
Now, why, you may ask, would the ogreish store owner act so callously towards this poor child? Well, maybe he's just having a bad day; maybe he's seen this kid lurking around his store before and suspects him of stealing from him previously; maybe he's just tired of kids like this walking in and helping themselves to his inventory and decides to make an example of him - whatever, doesn't matter. I can interject as many given circumstances into the scenario as you can, because, hey, we're just making shit up here, right?
So, now the kid has a court date and gets to go before a judge, from whom, if they're lucky, they'll hear more-or-less that same lecture you put in the mouth of your imaginary cop, which will have even more of an effect coming from them, because they DO have the authority to put the kid into juvie, to stain them with a record that, once administered will be very difficult to erase But, they also have the obligation to view more than just the immediate circumstances, as well as the power to alter or mitigate the sentence based on those circumstances, because that's THEIR job (not the cop's, see?) to ensure that justice is served, and that the penalty is proportionate with the crime.
The funny thing is, our juvenile courts are full-to-overflowing with kids, who in reality have experienced precisely the same circumstances you lay out in your hypothetical example: first-time offenders who may be good in general, but who did something incredibly stupid and who are now suffering the consequences of their actions.
More...
Nice straw man there, but you might want to tone down the spittle-flecked hyperbole a notch or two, just so my rabid saliva doesn't get mixed up with the blood splurging from your hemorrhaging cardiac muscle.
Because, here's the thing: the cop doesn't have the authority to let the kid go, IF the store owner decides to press charges. In order to achieve the outcome you describe, both the cop and the store owner have to act in concert, and if the owner, for whatever reason, refuses to let the kid off, there's nothing the cop can do about it. The cop is not a judge, and if the store owner insists on seeing justice served, ONLY a judge (in this instance) has the authority to do that.
Now, why, you may ask, would the ogreish store owner act so callously towards this poor child? Well, maybe he's just having a bad day; maybe he's seen this kid lurking around his store before and suspects him of stealing from him previously; maybe he's just tired of kids like this walking in and helping themselves to his inventory and decides to make an example of him - whatever, doesn't matter. I can interject as many given circumstances into the scenario as you can, because, hey, we're just making shit up here, right?
So, now the kid has a court date and gets to go before a judge, from whom, if they're lucky, they'll hear more-or-less that same lecture you put in the mouth of your imaginary cop, which will have even more of an effect coming from them, because they DO have the authority to put the kid into juvie, to stain them with a record that, once administered will be very difficult to erase But, they also have the obligation to view more than just the immediate circumstances, as well as the power to alter or mitigate the sentence based on those circumstances, because that's THEIR job (not the cop's, see?) to ensure that justice is served, and that the penalty is proportionate with the crime.
The funny thing is, our juvenile courts are full-to-overflowing with kids, who in reality have experienced precisely the same circumstances you lay out in your hypothetical example: first-time offenders who may be good in general, but who did something incredibly stupid and who are now suffering the consequences of their actions.
40
THE DILEMMA FOR THE COUPLE...................
How to push that justice is served, and she can't do this to others, without spoiling the joy of their marriage
How to push that justice is served, and she can't do this to others, without spoiling the joy of their marriage
41
I live in Richland. If I'm invited to their wedding, I'll send them flowers from Arlene's. I'll let you know if she fills the order.
42
If a gay man owned a sign making business, and the westboro baptist group came in and ordered a dozen "god hates fags" signs, and the owner refused, then you all agree that the owner should be sued by the state for violating the anti-discrimination laws?
43
30/UF: I don't agree with laws that force someone to conduct business against their will.
That is, of course, exactly what anti-discriminations laws do.
If one is against those laws -- I'm on another forum with a bunch of Libertarians who would banish all anti-discrimination laws if they could -- that's one thing. But if one is in favor of those laws, then they need to apply to everyone covered under the laws. A business owner can't refuse service to gays & lesbians (or blacks, Jews, women, etc.) simply because of their religion.
That is, of course, exactly what anti-discriminations laws do.
If one is against those laws -- I'm on another forum with a bunch of Libertarians who would banish all anti-discrimination laws if they could -- that's one thing. But if one is in favor of those laws, then they need to apply to everyone covered under the laws. A business owner can't refuse service to gays & lesbians (or blacks, Jews, women, etc.) simply because of their religion.
45
You know, I just sort of wonder if we should allow them the "right to refuse service" to anyone. #SSM is picking up momentum and rolling down hill. It will soon be just as shameful (in polite company) to be homophobic as racist. There is also word of mouth.... If I was planning a Straight wedding, or buying valentines for my opposite sex g-friend/b-friend, or indeed, even planning a funeral... I would boycott this florist. Not that folks won't anyway, but the fact is, this very action makes them a pariah to progressives, and a martyr to tea-baggers. I feel bad for the turned away couple, but really... Once done is done. Screw them and the horse they came in on, and then let the market decide.
46
@42, I know you're reaching for the absurd, and trying to get a rise, but I actually would defend Westboro in your made up scenario.
It isn't as crazy as you imagine. I'm gay, and own a small business. Since gays make up a tiny fraction of the population, a vast majority of my customers are straight, and some of them are bigoted assholes. As a business offering my services to the public, I can't discriminate against religious assholes any more than this florist can discriminate against me. Religion is a protected class, just as sexual orientation is. So I must offer them the same service I offer anyone else. And I do. And it really pisses me off sometimes (fortunately, it's pretty rare). But if I expect others to follow anti-discrimination laws, then I must do so as well. That is part of doing business with the public.
It isn't as crazy as you imagine. I'm gay, and own a small business. Since gays make up a tiny fraction of the population, a vast majority of my customers are straight, and some of them are bigoted assholes. As a business offering my services to the public, I can't discriminate against religious assholes any more than this florist can discriminate against me. Religion is a protected class, just as sexual orientation is. So I must offer them the same service I offer anyone else. And I do. And it really pisses me off sometimes (fortunately, it's pretty rare). But if I expect others to follow anti-discrimination laws, then I must do so as well. That is part of doing business with the public.
47
@42 -- Can't the sign makers say they don't sell signs with a hateful message, that it is not a product they offer. It would be like a vegetarian restaurant refusing to sell meat to someone.
48
@25 - I was born in Mississippi when Ike was President, so I clearly remember "whites only" drinking fountains and all the rest of that shit. That being said, you SO wrong it's a mind bender.
49
The law doesn't require businesses to "recognize same-sex marriage laws". The law only requires businesses not discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. This florist sells flowers - not her approval. If this were a case of a florist who held anti-miscegenation beliefs refusing to sell flowers to an inter-racial couple getting married, she'd be sued good and proper. Your right to hold bigoted, discriminatory beliefs is protected by law, but your right to practice those beliefs on other people by discriminating against those you don't approve of isn't.
50
I like how people cite things like "due to my relationship with Jesus." You know, not much in the words and actions attributed to Jesus directly would support claims that he would approve of bigots. And he probably wouldn't have approved of bigots being bigots in his name.
That said, I realize zealots are very good at squirming and worming words to suit their own agenda whether insisting the world is flat, Indigenous people make good slaves, or that Jesus give props to philistines.
That said, I realize zealots are very good at squirming and worming words to suit their own agenda whether insisting the world is flat, Indigenous people make good slaves, or that Jesus give props to philistines.
51
@46,
I honestly wasn't trying for absurdity. Just checking for consistency, and am pleased to have found it (I'll admit I was expecting the opposite... I'm happy to be proven wrong in this case).
Although I still dislike the idea of being forced to do business against your will, at least it is equally applied. And your point is the best one to make: That one of the costs of starting a business here is that you are not allowed to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Then don't start a business here. But the rules apply to everyone.
I can support that, even if only grudgingly.
I honestly wasn't trying for absurdity. Just checking for consistency, and am pleased to have found it (I'll admit I was expecting the opposite... I'm happy to be proven wrong in this case).
Although I still dislike the idea of being forced to do business against your will, at least it is equally applied. And your point is the best one to make: That one of the costs of starting a business here is that you are not allowed to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Then don't start a business here. But the rules apply to everyone.
I can support that, even if only grudgingly.
52
Maybe I'm wrong, but if the florist does not want to sell flowers to same-sex weddings, couldn't she get away with that by choosing not to provide flowers for any wedding? Yes, she would lose income if she did not sell to any weddings, but she could truthfully say that she was upholding her religous belief that gay marriage is wrong and not break the law. She apparently does not have an issue selling flowers to gay people as she has done so in the past, she just has an issue with gay weddings. Stop selling flowers to any weddings and, voila, problem solved. Of course she may go out of business if much of her sales are wedding-related, but shouldn't she be willing to pay that price/take that risk to uphold her religous beliefs?
53
@35 This is not a kid busted for a shop lift being given a break because he seems like he's learned his lesson. This is a person blatantly violating the law, who is proud of it, and thereby *encourages* others to discriminate. It is a political act. At some point if the law is ignored bigots will be encouraged to discriminate in all number of different businesses. What is the difference between getting married and simply just being gay? Why not discrimination at coffee shops, grocery stores, theaters, car repair shops? Til we are full circle again to housing. Sooner or later the state or some individual victims will have to do something or the law will be meaningless. "Please self police yourself. Breaking the law isn't nice or polite." People here suggesting this is no big deal and "why be so mean?" are being willfully dense, or willfully bigoted.
There is a reason for the law.
There is a reason for the law.
54
What she did was great. She showed her ass and now people know to avoid her. Why would I want to spend my money at a store owned by a bigot whether that bigot is open or closeted?
55
Well, I'm waiting for her to further codify her ~because Jesus~ principles with a notice in the front window:
Though I, too, find it mind-boggling that she was on board with having had an active role in the couple's flourishing romance. Because I'm certain she couldn't have been so oblivious to the presumption of sexual intimacy between them - which would also be a no-no in her Jesus book.
We will happily arrange flowers for your wedding provided you are virgins. We apologize for not being able to supply flowers for people who have already broken God's law by having had premarital sex and/or being divorced.
Though I, too, find it mind-boggling that she was on board with having had an active role in the couple's flourishing romance. Because I'm certain she couldn't have been so oblivious to the presumption of sexual intimacy between them - which would also be a no-no in her Jesus book.
56
@47 meat eaters are not a protected class, so you could discriminate against someone for being a meat eater.
people who hate gays are not a protected class... etc.
Of course this is seperate from 1st Amendment rights which say the *government* can't stop people from speaking, and if the gov wants to discriminate against meat eaters they would have to show there was reason that met the standards for regulating that behavior, etc. etc. But I have no obligation to let you publish hateful messages in my newspaper, if I had one.
people who hate gays are not a protected class... etc.
Of course this is seperate from 1st Amendment rights which say the *government* can't stop people from speaking, and if the gov wants to discriminate against meat eaters they would have to show there was reason that met the standards for regulating that behavior, etc. etc. But I have no obligation to let you publish hateful messages in my newspaper, if I had one.
57
Why does everything have to boil down to a legal fight? The florist is a scum sucking bitch. That's the main event. Whether or not they sue her is secondary.
58
#42 regarding the hypothetical situation where the Westboro Baptist Church requests that a gay sign maker create signs that say "God Hates Fags". There are three things to consider here. One would be whether the sign maker was to refuse the service on the basis that he/she did not like the beliefs of the Church. If the sign maker printed other signs with negative messages abut gays, but refused the Church's request, this might be illegal. A related issue would be whether the sign maker stated that he/she did not like the church, or simple did not like the message. The fact that the sign maker him/herself is gay does not make any difference. The whole point of discrimination laws is to protect people from being denied services on the basis of membership in certain groups. It does not matter if the business has reason to feel personally offended by providing the service.
There is a third issue. Under some circumstances, there are protections against "compelled speech", even for businesses. The case of the sign maker could fall under this exception. For example, a printing business may not have to produce flyers for an abortions rights group. A t-shirt company may not be compelled to print shirts with messages promoting things the owner finds offensive. The key issue could be whether a court determines that the printer/signmaker was forced to promote a message or simply to provide a service.
I think the florist has violated the law. Providing flowers is not a form of speech. I am commenting on the hypothetical sign maker. Cases in which non-discrimination law and First Amendment laws conflict are complicated and do not lend themselves to easy analysis, as they are very dependent on the facts of each situation.
There is a third issue. Under some circumstances, there are protections against "compelled speech", even for businesses. The case of the sign maker could fall under this exception. For example, a printing business may not have to produce flyers for an abortions rights group. A t-shirt company may not be compelled to print shirts with messages promoting things the owner finds offensive. The key issue could be whether a court determines that the printer/signmaker was forced to promote a message or simply to provide a service.
I think the florist has violated the law. Providing flowers is not a form of speech. I am commenting on the hypothetical sign maker. Cases in which non-discrimination law and First Amendment laws conflict are complicated and do not lend themselves to easy analysis, as they are very dependent on the facts of each situation.
59
@56 -- It seems that you missed my point. Discrimination and protected class has nothing to do with it. Just as meat is not on the menu of a vegetarian restaurant, the sign maker is free to not have hate speech on their "menu".
60
wow.
so much bullshit.
let us help you out....
The lady is not prejudiced against gays.
She sold flowers to the gays for years.
They had a cordial commercial relationship.
The lady thinks marriage is between man/woman.
That is a position half of Americans share with her.
It is the position your president ran and governed on until very recently.
The difference between her and your president is that she is honest and does not lie about her position to obtain personal advantage.
It does not matter one flying fuck if she sells flowers to nonvirgins or shellfish.
She does not have to justify or explain her religious beliefs to your satisfaction. Assholes.
The Right said these kinds of situations would happen and they were right.
Homosexual Advocates are Liars.
They put Civil Union on the Washington State ballot and said it would satisfy their demands. They then put homosexual "marriage" on the ballot because civil union was not good enough.
Homosexual Advocates are not satisfied to get "equal rights".
They insist on forcing every last person in the Qunited States of Gommorica to embrace homosexuality. Your personal convictions are not safe in your heart. You must produce them for the HomoFascist Thought Police to be inspected and approved.
Danny once said on Slog that it would not be OK for someone to believe in their heart that homosexuality was immoral even if that belief never impacted their actions.
Not even Hitler aspired to root out and police the inner convictions of his subjects.
Homosexual Advocates are intrusive controlling enemies of free thought and free discussion.
They seek to economically destroy anyone who dares disagree with them.
Tyranny always fails, eventually.
Tyrants always get what they deserve, eventually.
Danny is Winning!
Long live the Theocratic HomoLiberal Qunited States of Goimmorica!!
Enjoy. While you can.
The ash heap of history awaits.
Babylon. The Third Reich. The Soviet Union.
History has seen your type before.
More...
so much bullshit.
let us help you out....
The lady is not prejudiced against gays.
She sold flowers to the gays for years.
They had a cordial commercial relationship.
The lady thinks marriage is between man/woman.
That is a position half of Americans share with her.
It is the position your president ran and governed on until very recently.
The difference between her and your president is that she is honest and does not lie about her position to obtain personal advantage.
It does not matter one flying fuck if she sells flowers to nonvirgins or shellfish.
She does not have to justify or explain her religious beliefs to your satisfaction. Assholes.
The Right said these kinds of situations would happen and they were right.
Homosexual Advocates are Liars.
They put Civil Union on the Washington State ballot and said it would satisfy their demands. They then put homosexual "marriage" on the ballot because civil union was not good enough.
Homosexual Advocates are not satisfied to get "equal rights".
They insist on forcing every last person in the Qunited States of Gommorica to embrace homosexuality. Your personal convictions are not safe in your heart. You must produce them for the HomoFascist Thought Police to be inspected and approved.
Danny once said on Slog that it would not be OK for someone to believe in their heart that homosexuality was immoral even if that belief never impacted their actions.
Not even Hitler aspired to root out and police the inner convictions of his subjects.
Homosexual Advocates are intrusive controlling enemies of free thought and free discussion.
They seek to economically destroy anyone who dares disagree with them.
Tyranny always fails, eventually.
Tyrants always get what they deserve, eventually.
Danny is Winning!
Long live the Theocratic HomoLiberal Qunited States of Goimmorica!!
Enjoy. While you can.
The ash heap of history awaits.
Babylon. The Third Reich. The Soviet Union.
History has seen your type before.
61
I'm just saying... If you start prosecuting business owners for this stuff, eventually you'll see the proposition legalizing gay marriage challenged and likely defeated. Lots of people were on the fence about it and this was their exact fear. You finally got what you'd been fighting for, is it really worth it to lose it? Go to another damn flower shop! I see businesses all if the time with signs that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" what happened to that? Why would you want to buy from someone who had bad juju toward your wedding anyway? Seriously, there will never be a time when EVERYONE welcomes ANYTHING with open arms. C'est la vie, right?
62
@10: This is essentially every "I have black/gay" friends ever. They're "people who love and respect me" when used to combat the inevitable "you hate gays because of how you vote" claims until suddenly (surprise!) it comes time to treat them as subhuman.
63
@61: "I'm just saying... If you start prosecuting business owners for this stuff, eventually you'll see the proposition legalizing gay marriage challenged and likely defeated."
Exactly, and enacting civil rights legislation will just empower the Klan.
Exactly, and enacting civil rights legislation will just empower the Klan.
64
Also- "I see businesses all if the time with signs that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" what happened to that?"
Nothing, you fucking idiot. Legally protected classes are (thank god) still protected from racists and bigots.
Nothing, you fucking idiot. Legally protected classes are (thank god) still protected from racists and bigots.
65
i'm half of an interracial couple who is trying to get his mind around the idea that the florist couldn't refuse service to me legally because i'm an african american getting married to a white man, but can refuse me service because i getting married to a man. the parsing here just doesn't work for me. it just doesn't . there are people ( both white and black ) who disapprove of my relationship on both grounds and they're free to discriminate us on one hand but not the other ? and i'm supposed to accept this because , well.. they reject the idea that religion should have no bearing on who they choose to do business with ( even though i'm a christian ) and now i have no chance of converting them to respecting me because i shouldn't have made an issue about it in the first place and now they'll hate me even more. that's the weirdest justification for not suing someone I've ever heard. but see, isn't this why this issue shouldn't have come to a vote in the first place ? because inalienable rights for minorities shouldn't EVER come up for a vote.
yeah... this explodes my brain as well.
yeah... this explodes my brain as well.
66
If comments 63 and 64 are indicative of the way your case will be made then I hope the law gets repealed. And I'm not a "fucking idiot". You guys don't know what you're asking for, and you're ruining the chance for any other states to pass similar laws. I never even said what my stance was on the issue, simply that suing this woman will be VERY bad for the cause. I used to be one of the advocates, but as time goes by I see that the earlier comment rings more and more true. It's never fucking enough! Recognized partnerships not enough, marriage not enough, you've got to force EVERYONE to participate? You're stabbing yourselves in the foot and it's going to go backwards.
Good luck with that
Good luck with that
67
@66: "I never even said what my stance was on the issue"
You did tell us what it was. You're more interested in being coddled and allowed to discriminate than you are to protect yourself.
Fuck tone trolls, fuck concern trolls, go lie on your fainting couch because you're eternally too cowardly to do the right thing without being forced to by law.
You did tell us what it was. You're more interested in being coddled and allowed to discriminate than you are to protect yourself.
Fuck tone trolls, fuck concern trolls, go lie on your fainting couch because you're eternally too cowardly to do the right thing without being forced to by law.
68
This "law" doesn't sound constitutional to me. She's has a right to be a pinhead and a bigot - the business is hers to run the way she sees fit. To compel her to conduct a privately owned business the way she doesn't want is just wrong. That said, I hope she loses a lot of business from this. But then again, she might just pick up new business from other bigots. She might have found a whole new niche.
69
"You guys don't know what you're asking for, and you're ruining the chance for any other states to pass similar laws."
Anyone who thinks the Civil Rights Act was a mistake has no place in polite society. Go an seethe off to Stormfront.
Anyone who thinks the Civil Rights Act was a mistake has no place in polite society. Go an seethe off to Stormfront.
70
Nope, I didn't. People like you only hurt your cause. Why do you think fucking idiots like the Tea Party can get so many followers? People like you push centrists in their direction with your crazy nonsense. (Not that i would ever let one douche like you make me drink the Tea Party Kool-Aid). Unless you want Christians to start trying to convert you to their beliefs on a daily basis don't try to force yours on them! Why is that so fucking hard to grasp
71
@68: "This "law" doesn't sound constitutional to me. She's has a right to be a pinhead and a bigot - the business is hers to run the way she sees fit. To compel her to conduct a privately owned business the way she doesn't want is just wrong"
You too. Have you been in cryo-storage since the 1950s? The CRA doesn't fall afoul of the first amendment either. Businesses can most certainly be kept from discriminating under the law. If you can't treat someone as human, what's wrong is you.
You too. Have you been in cryo-storage since the 1950s? The CRA doesn't fall afoul of the first amendment either. Businesses can most certainly be kept from discriminating under the law. If you can't treat someone as human, what's wrong is you.
72
@70: These laws exist because these people will not stop segregating on their own. Human rights are more important than your fee-fees.
73
@30 The law that makes her actions illegal is not the recent marriage equality law. This kind of discrimination has been illegal in WA since 2006 when the state anti-discrimination law was amended to include sexual orientation.
74
@70 "Why is that so fucking hard to grasp[?]"
Simply put, because these statutes are not about beliefs or thoughts.
The question is to what extent should bigots be able to openly hassle people?
So, I seriously ask you, how difficult should anyone be able to make your life based on whatever protected status is dear to you, until we should step in?
Simply put, because these statutes are not about beliefs or thoughts.
The question is to what extent should bigots be able to openly hassle people?
So, I seriously ask you, how difficult should anyone be able to make your life based on whatever protected status is dear to you, until we should step in?
75
Ehhhhh ... I don't know about this one. Maybe I'm wrong, but it was my impression that the anti-discrimination statute applied to discriminating against people, not services. This is why the 1960's Deep South lunch counter argument might not apply: that was a refusal to serve a specific group under any circumstances, while this is a refusal to perform a specific type of service (e.g. provide flowers for a gay wedding.) For example, if the florist would sell flowers to gay customers for a birthday party, but not for their wedding, they're off the hook.
Do I have the law wrong? Because it seems like the florist should be in the clear here - legally, at least, if not morally.
Do I have the law wrong? Because it seems like the florist should be in the clear here - legally, at least, if not morally.
76
@75: It's an interesting question, certainly made more complex by the-
"Stutzman acknowledges that she had no trouble selling floral arrangements to Ingersoll, 42, until he was getting married to a guy. "We've done business with him for years,"
They DID sell plenty of flowers to him until they learned that he was gay.
"Stutzman acknowledges that she had no trouble selling floral arrangements to Ingersoll, 42, until he was getting married to a guy. "We've done business with him for years,"
They DID sell plenty of flowers to him until they learned that he was gay.
77
Nothing pisses me off more than when people compare this to the rights of Aftican Americans and what they've struggled through... It's not even close to the same thing! Black people were forced to come here, enslaved, beaten, raped, killed, and had to fight just to be considered A PERSON!!! Sorry, but it's SO far from the same thing... What an insult to fancy that your plight is anything close to theirs... Seriously. Keep talking, you're just making more people turn against your cause. Sexual orientation is like religion, but race is a completely different issue.
78
"it was my impression that the anti-discrimination statute applied to discriminating against people, not services
I do not see this as correct.
http://www.hum.wa.gov/documents/Brochure…
"PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
• Public resorts;
• Places of accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;
• Public schools;
• Private institutions open to the public for an event or gathering;
• Places of patronage, including government offices, stores, shopping malls, theaters, libraries, hospitals, and transit
facilities."
"UNDER RCW 49.60.215, A PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION CANNOT:
• Refuse or withold entrance;
• Charge a different rate or offer different terms and conditions of service;
• Prohibit entrance of a service animal.
• Make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment that is discriminatory."
I do not see this as correct.
http://www.hum.wa.gov/documents/Brochure…
"PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
• Public resorts;
• Places of accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;
• Public schools;
• Private institutions open to the public for an event or gathering;
• Places of patronage, including government offices, stores, shopping malls, theaters, libraries, hospitals, and transit
facilities."
"UNDER RCW 49.60.215, A PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION CANNOT:
• Refuse or withold entrance;
• Charge a different rate or offer different terms and conditions of service;
• Prohibit entrance of a service animal.
• Make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment that is discriminatory."
80
Also, to reiterate you and your kin-in-cowardice have been making the same arguments since well before blacks were granted human rights, and you've been making the same "property rahhhhhts" arguments against reverting protecting them from discrimination.
You really need to come to terms with how your words sound when they escape your lips.
You really need to come to terms with how your words sound when they escape your lips.
81
Let me phrase this better, you're right here, right now, arguing towards removing State and Federal protection of the rights of minorities and women.
82
@78 - hmm, this would likely qualify as "offering different terms and conditions of service". It does seem to me like that qualifier could take us all to some uncomfortable places, but I guess there is a case here after all.
83
@77 "Nothing pisses me off more than when people compare this to the rights of Aftican Americans and what they've struggled through..."
Not even when someone puts an empty container back in the 'fridge? ...or cuts you off in traffic? ...or calls you a bigot?
I don't know that you're a liar, but this being at least tied for your number one most anger inducing thing, quite simply can not be true in real life.
Now, as tempting as the rest of your tangent is, discrimination is very much like discrimination, what with them both being, you know, discriminatory discrimination. Certainly there are matters of degree, boldness, pervasiveness and the like, but discrimination is just that.
Not even when someone puts an empty container back in the 'fridge? ...or cuts you off in traffic? ...or calls you a bigot?
I don't know that you're a liar, but this being at least tied for your number one most anger inducing thing, quite simply can not be true in real life.
Now, as tempting as the rest of your tangent is, discrimination is very much like discrimination, what with them both being, you know, discriminatory discrimination. Certainly there are matters of degree, boldness, pervasiveness and the like, but discrimination is just that.
84
@77.. well this should piss you off mightily. as an african american i see absolutely no difference between denying civil rights, inalienable rights, to gays and blacks ( and women and native americans etc. ) the architects of the civil rights movement understood this (http://rustin.org/sure ) even as they disagreed as to how this could work. , the suffer numbers may not add up but gays suffer from every conceivable injustice from the petty to the severe from being denied basic rights to employment and refused civility, to outrageous harm and loss of life (http://www.queerty.com/fbi-to-investigat…) civil rights are civil rights an no one should have to prove that their suffering is legitimate when their rights are being ignored. to separate any of the issues is to ignore and denigrate the fact that human dignity is wonderfully complex. but no one should have to discuss what the modicum of suffering should be before any action towards gaining their rights.
86
@82: "It does seem to me like that qualifier could take us all to some uncomfortable places"
Most things worth fighting for take us to uncomfortable places. Especially when delineating how a person can legally be horrible, how they are not to, and all areas on the edge.
Thankfully the "property rahts" inbreds seem to be fully uninterested in nuance, so the argument here is easier.
Most things worth fighting for take us to uncomfortable places. Especially when delineating how a person can legally be horrible, how they are not to, and all areas on the edge.
Thankfully the "property rahts" inbreds seem to be fully uninterested in nuance, so the argument here is easier.
88
@77 What about black gays? Is there a chart that you can provide which shows the hierarchy of victims of discrimination? It's all so confusing.
89
75/Morsoph: For example, if the florist would sell flowers to gay customers for a birthday party, but not for their wedding, they're off the hook.
Besides weddings, this florist probably doesn't approve of gays & lesbians having birthdays.
Besides weddings, this florist probably doesn't approve of gays & lesbians having birthdays.
90
What is it with all the chickenhearted in this thread! "Oh my, what will happen if we pick on those poor, poor, christians?!" I understand the dumbass "with friends like these" Colorado commenters like Urgutha Forka--after all Colorado is about to pass one of the Jim Crow-type civil unions bills which coward filth like Urgutha Forka proffer and support.
The Romans understood only too late what to do with the christians. Breakfast of champions indeed.
The Romans understood only too late what to do with the christians. Breakfast of champions indeed.
91
@77 As a straight descendent of black slaves, I feel quite comfortable equating persecution due to sexual orientation to persecution due to race (or gender). Rights are rights.
92
@77 -
Insisting that prejudice based on sexual orientation is somehow inherently different from prejudice based on race should, and hopefully one day will, be looked upon as a recusal from serious conversation. Do you really think that gays have not had to fight just to be considered a person?
That said, I'm not sure race is so very different. A complex network of incidentals (genetics, family culture) create a bed for a series of cultural perceptions applied subjectively and sub-cultural markers taken on voluntarily.
Nothing pisses me off more than when people compare this to the rights of Aftican Americans and what they've struggled through... It's not even close to the same thing!I was with you right up until here; now knowing who you are underneath the rhetoric actually gives me pause in my essential belief that pluralistic society must recognize our rights to hate whomever or whatever we like.
Insisting that prejudice based on sexual orientation is somehow inherently different from prejudice based on race should, and hopefully one day will, be looked upon as a recusal from serious conversation. Do you really think that gays have not had to fight just to be considered a person?
Sexual orientation is like religion, but race is a completely different issue.Sexual orientation shares many properties with religion, 'tis true, most notably that there's a basis that is not chosen (one does not choose whom one loves OR what one believes) that give rise to behaviors that one does choose (we determine how we manifest love, or how we act according to it; we also choose what beliefs we observe and how we attach our acts and interests to various truth posits).
That said, I'm not sure race is so very different. A complex network of incidentals (genetics, family culture) create a bed for a series of cultural perceptions applied subjectively and sub-cultural markers taken on voluntarily.
93
The lady thinks marriage is between man/woman.What she thinks is not at issue; how she conducts business is.
That is a position half of Americans share with her.
I'm not sure I'm okay with the law telling her that she must conduct business with anyone, but there are some interesting arguments being made to that effect. If you're interested in meaningful debate (it's a trick hypothetical; we all know better), you might do well to address one of those.
It does not matter one flying fuck if she sells flowers to nonvirgins or shellfish.Well, it speaks to her consistency and integrity. But I agree that one is not legally obligated to display either.
She does not have to justify or explain her religious beliefs to your satisfaction.
The Right said these kinds of situations would happen and they were right.The most common concern expressed is that churches would be forced to recognize same-sex unions. This is not what's happening.
They put Civil Union on the Washington State ballot and said it would satisfy their demands. They then put homosexual "marriage" on the ballot because civil union was not good enough.Separate-but-equal is never equal. Civil unions do not carry with them all the civil rights of marriage.
That said, I would personally have been satisfied if ALL marriages, regardless of the gender of participants, were to be called "civil unions," allowing the question of marriage to be addressed by churches, communities, or impotent basement dwellers as all parties saw fit.
They insist on forcing every last person in the Qunited States of Gommorica to embrace homosexuality.How so? Please be specific.
Your personal convictions are not safe in your heart.She did not keep her convictions in her heart. She brought them into a business exchange. Well and good if you can reconcile them with the law, or if you're willing to run afoul of the law (and face the consequences) to manifest them.
Like I said, I have mixed feelings. But let's talk about what we're talking about, and not waste time with straw men.
Danny once said on Slog that it would not be OK for someone to believe in their heart that homosexuality was immoral even if that belief never impacted their actions.I agree. I also don't think that it's OK for someone to believe in their heart that the Eagles make decent music. My conviction shouldn't stop anyone from listening to the Eagles.
96
@93: I wouldn't bother devoting that much time to the usual Slog trolls. The "Danny" guy obsessively lurks on every thread mentioning gays.
97
In this case it is abundantly clear that the discrimination was due to service provider's objection to the legal actions of a member of a protected class. Not sure what the case law is but it seems to me like a winnable discrimination suit.
I've always been bothered by the hypothetical, though. If I'm an asshole, have brown eyes, smell bad, [fill in the blank] you are free to discriminate against me. If I'm any or all of those AND a member of a protected class you are not free to discriminate against me. What is the burden of proof? I also like to believe, along with John Kerry, that in America we have the right to be stupid.
I've always been bothered by the hypothetical, though. If I'm an asshole, have brown eyes, smell bad, [fill in the blank] you are free to discriminate against me. If I'm any or all of those AND a member of a protected class you are not free to discriminate against me. What is the burden of proof? I also like to believe, along with John Kerry, that in America we have the right to be stupid.
98
@97: "What is the burden of proof?"
Generally them directly admitting that they are discriminating against a protected class. Modern bigots have all sorts of excuses for why they are discriminating and are tough to pin down, but the old-school proud racists, gay haters, and ablist jerks are an easier win.
Generally them directly admitting that they are discriminating against a protected class. Modern bigots have all sorts of excuses for why they are discriminating and are tough to pin down, but the old-school proud racists, gay haters, and ablist jerks are an easier win.
99
1. case law says discrimination in contracts is banned.
2. but that was a contract to work for services, something a bit more important than a contract to provide flowers.
3. selling flowers not necessarily a public accomodation -- doesn't the florest let anyone come in and buy?
4. if there is a discrimination claim here, it's likely that while liability is clear, the amount of damages is minimal -- if you want to get married and are denied flower services by this jerk, likely, you could have found someone else to provide flowers and had your wedding just fine and your compensatory damages are minimal. you can ask for emotional distress damages and likely they are ...not great. this is not like a discrimination case where you walk into a salon and are refused service based on race in that in that case, the emotional distress is more significant. public humiliation. here, the insult and humiliation is (a) some jerk christian doesn't like gays, and (b) you had to go elsewhere to get flowers.
5. blue, if your brown eyes had led to centuries of slavery and jim crow, murdered civil rights workers, long term denial of rights and property, requiring a civil war amendments and civil rights laws to remedy, the comparison between brown eyes and black skin might hold more water. we, in society? we have the right to pass laws making certain acts of stupidity agianst the law and providing remedies, so your general idea we hve th right to be stupid is epynominous, no?
2. but that was a contract to work for services, something a bit more important than a contract to provide flowers.
3. selling flowers not necessarily a public accomodation -- doesn't the florest let anyone come in and buy?
4. if there is a discrimination claim here, it's likely that while liability is clear, the amount of damages is minimal -- if you want to get married and are denied flower services by this jerk, likely, you could have found someone else to provide flowers and had your wedding just fine and your compensatory damages are minimal. you can ask for emotional distress damages and likely they are ...not great. this is not like a discrimination case where you walk into a salon and are refused service based on race in that in that case, the emotional distress is more significant. public humiliation. here, the insult and humiliation is (a) some jerk christian doesn't like gays, and (b) you had to go elsewhere to get flowers.
5. blue, if your brown eyes had led to centuries of slavery and jim crow, murdered civil rights workers, long term denial of rights and property, requiring a civil war amendments and civil rights laws to remedy, the comparison between brown eyes and black skin might hold more water. we, in society? we have the right to pass laws making certain acts of stupidity agianst the law and providing remedies, so your general idea we hve th right to be stupid is epynominous, no?
100
"selling flowers not necessarily a public accommodation"
You missed where I cited the law. It is a public accommodation as per their specific definition, which includes stores.
You missed where I cited the law. It is a public accommodation as per their specific definition, which includes stores.
101
Why do people continually compare blacks/jews and other minorities to gay and lesbians. There is no where in the Bible that this comparison is made! I don't hear anyone stating that they have a religious belief that prohibits them from serving blacks/jews or any other race or culture. This country was founded on religious freedom. Does anyone really want to lose that freedom? For those of you who are unclear; here is just one example of where those of us who you are calling names derive our beliefs:
"Romans 1:24: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. ...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts w/other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ...and "claiming to be wise, they became fools."
It is amazing to me that liberals claim "to each his own, everyone has a right to do as they personally want" until someone disagrees with them. Then that person is called names.
"Romans 1:24: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. ...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts w/other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ...and "claiming to be wise, they became fools."
It is amazing to me that liberals claim "to each his own, everyone has a right to do as they personally want" until someone disagrees with them. Then that person is called names.
102
Why do people continually compare blacks/jews and other minorities to gay and lesbians. There is no where in the Bible that this comparison is made! I don't hear anyone stating that they have a religious belief that prohibits them from serving blacks/jews or any other race or culture. This country was founded on religious freedom. Does anyone really want to lose that freedom? For those of you who are unclear; here is just one example of where those of us who you are calling names derive our beliefs:
"Romans 1:24: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. ...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts w/other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ...and "claiming to be wise, they became fools."
It is amazing to me that liberals claim "to each his own, everyone has a right to do as they personally want" until someone disagrees with them. Then that person is called names.
"Romans 1:24: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. ...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts w/other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ...and "claiming to be wise, they became fools."
It is amazing to me that liberals claim "to each his own, everyone has a right to do as they personally want" until someone disagrees with them. Then that person is called names.
103
Why do people continually compare blacks/jews and other minorities to gay and lesbians. There is no where in the Bible that this comparison is made! I don't hear anyone stating that they have a religious belief that prohibits them from serving blacks/jews or any other race or culture. This country was founded on religious freedom. Does anyone really want to lose that freedom? For those of you who are unclear; here is just one example of where those of us who you are calling names derive our beliefs:
"Romans 1:24: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. ...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts w/other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ...and "claiming to be wise, they became fools."
It is amazing to me that liberals claim "to each his own, everyone has a right to do as they personally want" until someone disagrees with them. Then that person is called names.
"Romans 1:24: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. ...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts w/other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ...and "claiming to be wise, they became fools."
It is amazing to me that liberals claim "to each his own, everyone has a right to do as they personally want" until someone disagrees with them. Then that person is called names.
104
My name is Michael Fisher and I would love to state God bless Barronelle Stutzman I feel diseased living in a state where they take civil action against businesses that pay taxes. It is not wisr to bite the hand that feeds you. We voted against homosexual marriage and the goverment which is supposed to support the populous voted against it's people and passed the law. Smells like some rich homos had their wallets packed. I prey that my God does not show them mercy unless they repent and confess Jesus as Chriat. This country was made in the image of the holy bible and wechangehave been suffering from change. This is a stain to my country and ontop of that my Lord and savior Jeaus Christ I condemn the homosexuals they have a mental disease which has been on the loose since the late 60's 70's and untill we recognize that we will be having to deal with decodance. And if anyone wants to mess with Arlenes flowers in my home town for making this stand I would just have to say my care does not lie with you and I rebuke you.
105
My name is Michael Fisher and I would love to state God bless Barronelle Stutzman I feel diseased living in a state where they take civil action against businesses that pay taxes. It is not wisr to bite the hand that feeds you. We voted against homosexual marriage and the goverment which is supposed to support the populous voted against it's people and passed the law. Smells like some rich homos had their wallets packed. I prey that my God does not show them mercy unless they repent and confess Jesus as Chriat. This country was made in the image of the holy bible and wechangehave been suffering from change. This is a stain to my country and ontop of that my Lord and savior Jeaus Christ I condemn the homosexuals they have a mental disease which has been on the loose since the late 60's 70's and untill we recognize that we will be having to deal with decodance. And if anyone wants to mess with Arlenes flowers in my home town for making this stand I would just have to say my care does not lie with you, and I rebuke you in the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
106
My name is Michael Fisher and I would love to state God bless Barronelle Stutzman I feel diseased living in a state where they take civil action against businesses that pay taxes. It is not wisr to bite the hand that feeds you. We voted against homosexual marriage and the goverment which is supposed to support the populous voted against it's people and passed the law. Smells like some rich homos had their wallets packed. I prey that my God does not show them mercy unless they repent and confess Jesus as Chriat. This country was made in the image of the holy bible and wechangehave been suffering from change. This is a stain to my country and ontop of that my Lord and savior Jeaus Christ I condemn the homosexuals they have a mental disease which has been on the loose since the late 60's 70's and untill we recognize that we will be having to deal with decodance. And if anyone wants to mess with Arlenes flowers in my home town for making this stand I would just have to say my care does not lie with you and I rebuke you in the name of Jesus of Nazareth...
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (106) RSS