LGBT News Florist fights lawsuit for refusing gay wedding

I guess there really is no such thing as "private businesses" anymore.

I don't know why people have to shove this down the throat of people. Is it really that hard to find another florist? Another baker? Personally, I would WANT to find a new provider; nothing makes things artistic and beautiful like suing them until they're forced to do it, am I right? Least of all, I wouldn't want to give a bigoted business my money. I just don't understand it.

 

On one hand, I agree: Better to choose another florist.

But on the other hand, this brings up another larger issue: That of another form of segregation. In the past, certain stores and businesses refused to serve black people; similarly, I think it's dangerous to allow businesses to refuse to serve gay people. It may start with cakes and flowers, but it's a slippery slope.

Granted, it's hard to just 'tell' if somebody is gay/bi, but in small towns, word gets around fast, and in cases of marriage, would be a matter of public record.

 

If the florist had done this to a black person on the basis of their skin colour she'd be labelled a racist, if she'd refused to do a Jewish wedding on the basis that they're Jewish she'd be labelled an anti Semite.

I fail to see why it should be any different for us. She can hide behind her relationship with Jesus Christ bullplop all she wants but she's a bigot and should be called out as such.

 

When you agree to do business with the general public, you agree to engage in business with all of the public. You're not allowed to discriminate. We made this decision back during the segregation era when we said that businesses had to serve black and white customers equally.

The issue here is that if there was a ruling in favor of the florist, which allows people to have a religious objection to serving the general public, this could really grow out of hand quickly. Suddenly, every individual that a gay couple might seek to do business with has veto rights on their marriage and relationship. If the florist can do it so can the caterer, and even the owners of a building they might seek to rent to hold the ceremony. Of course, why stop there? Why shouldn't people who issue the marriage licenses have the right to object to issuing them if they have a religious belief that puts them in opposition to gay marriage?

...and naturally, this is not limited to gay people. This easily jumps the fence to having pharmacies denying things like the morning after pill to women because they're opposed to abortion. Or perhaps even worse, having doctors in private practice denying their patients request for information and consultation regarding contraception or abortive care.

Really, allowing this opens up Pandora's Box for a whole lot of shit that we can't even begin to imagine, because there are a lot of wacko's out there with crazy beliefs. How would you like to suddenly discover your doctor was a member of Scientology, and was actively avoiding telling you about life saving drugs because he wanted to push you to undergo dianetics instead? This really has implications that could impact everyone - not just LGBT people.

So, no - you shouldn't receive a religious exemption when dealing with the general public. Licensing groups also have the right to impose ethical standards on those engaged in private practice to ensure quality, fair, and equal treatment of patients and clients. People who want certain exemptions shouldn't engage in business with the general public, or go into professions that require ethical standards to be met.

You only want to sell flowers to straight Christian people? Fine. Do not advertise to the general public, and limit those who can receive business from you to pre-approved groups such as pre-screened churches. It's two different things to say: "I sell flowers to everyone in town." vs "I only sell flowers to those who go to the First Baptist Church and the Lord's Grace Temple, and I will only continue to do business with them so long as no gay people are allowed to openly join their churches." Those are two very different things.

 

Personally i would pick another florist/restaurant/whatever, as i would not trust them to not spit in my food even if they relented. But i also have no sympathy at all for bigots. They can die in the gutter for all i care.

 

Bullshit,in Canada,if you have a business,you have to accept all reasonable clients, you cannot discriminate against any clients, it is common sense, at least in Canada.This would be "segregation" if it was racial... you are basically saying that segregation would be reasonable because it is "private business"?

I assure you that the person implied does not want the flowers,but wants to make a statement and win the case.

It is like the constitution of the US,it was made for 1700s standards,some constitutions and expectations in society should change after that much time,but for some reason people in the US think that the Constitution is sacred and can not be changed much. Canada changed it's constitution and added to it's constitution multiple time.

 

The biggest question I have is ---- is this legal? I think before we start getting all up in arms, we have to make sure of the legality.

Yes, it is wrong. On the same token, it's this person's business. If they don't want us, that's fine - it's just our job to make sure they go out of business.

 

The Bible says to respect the laws of the land. While she might not approve, she should not deny the law (Assuming it is in part with it).

Stories like this really should not be necessary, and if the gentlemen were sincere in their words they could simply pick another florist. If they were not sincere and want to be vindictive then the news story coming to light would follow those actions.

They're flowers, she did not deny the people, she denied providing an extra service. Would you rather she lied and kept her feelings in her heart, perhaps festering and turning negative instead of being 100% happy to provide for the wedding?

I would want someone to be honest with me, regardless of whether it hurt my feelings or not.

 

Question: Could said florist refuse to sell flowers to black people, Jews, Muslims etc.? Could they refuse to do a non-religious wedding or a Jewish wedding or a Muslim wedding because their religion says that only people married in a church by a Christian priest are actually married? If the answer to any of that is "no," then they should pay up.

 

Don't agree with her actions and take on morality,
But she has the right to choose who she does business with,
She's the one loosing out on business,
She'll get her pay back soon enough

 

It is illegal. In Washington State it's illegal to discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation, that includes refusing to do business with them if they do business with the general public.

The two guys getting married aren't the ones who filed the lawsuit. It was the state Attorney General. Washington law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and when the office heard about what had happened, they contacted her to try and get her to change her mind. When she refused they had no other option but to file suit because she is breaking the law.

The courts will determine whether or not the law is constitutional. I outlined in my previous post why a court should side with the state Attorney General to uphold the law. The primary reason being two fold: First, it gives every business veto power over gay people. Suddenly, you're not only dealing just with wedding issues - what if you're with your boyfriend or husband in a restaurant and they refuse to serve you because they don't approve of your relationship on religious grounds? Second, because it goes beyond gay people, opening the door for things like pharmacies and doctors to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. Suddenly, you could have pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for certain medications (like the morning after pill) due to their religious beliefs, or licensed doctors refusing to talk to their patients about HIV risks and condom usage because they're Catholic and have a moral objection to condoms and other forms of contraception.

It's not as if a court is going to say, "You can only discriminate against gay people." A court is going to rule whether or not your religious beliefs can influence how you do business with the general public.

This is a much bigger issue than whether or not some dudes can get flowers at a specific florist.

 

I don't feel the racial segregation card really work here. I know people love to use it, but as far as I know, people weren't citing religious beliefs, and various other religious elements when it came to civil rights violations against blacks. Segregation issues were also written LAWS in many states, as a form of institutionalized racism. That said though, I'd be willing to bet that for every person who is "kind" and merely asserting their religious beliefs, there are people who use the excuse as a form of quasi-legal bigotry.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't agree with the florists viewpoint. I think the majority of these people hide behind the religious defense when stuff like this happens. I don't think suing people into tolerance and acceptance is the right method either. I believe, in America, that the people who do not support and accept these kinds of bigoted viewpoints, can and should boycott stores like this florist. Making big "public examples" of these people never works though.

What's going to happen, is this will turn into a big media stink, just like the baker for the lesbian couple's cake earlier this year. All the religious nuts will come buying goods to "show their support", giving the business far more advertising and revenue than a trivial and pointless $2000 fine would hurt. The city where this happened is a religious/conservative enclave in the state; 70% of the area is on the side of the florist.

 

I think the part in bold is the most important problem. The wording of a court action won't limit itself to a tiny section of business or a tiny section of consumers. It'll be broad, and will esentially condone/allow or condemn/forbid commercial religious-based discrimination in all sectors of business.

 

Preists or wedding planners seem more in a position to deny performing services for gay couples on the religious exemption basis, but to me a florist is not "performing" anything, they are merely providing a product--the flowers, just as a baker is providing a cake. It really seems like none of their business since they have no legal authority over the wedding and are not involved in sanctioning it in any way. It's kind of like if go into a restaurant with my partner (and lets say the owner has some knowledge that I am gay), could he/she refuse us service? Also, a realtor could deny to sell a gay couple a home...the list goes on and on. I say lets keep the "religious card" or exemption rule to those who actually have the legal authority to decline a service--such would be a minister or priest. We have to ask ourselves just how personal service provider such as florists and bakers need to be getting...if they are only for traditional Christian marriages, I would be curious to know if they also "screen" their heterosexual clients to find out if they're athiests or not, because two atheist holding a secular wedding I am betting would not be denied service.

 

Even then, no. A priest can refuse anyone a service (they provide as much legal weight to a marriage as the flowers do), but for a civil marriage celebrant to refuse to marry a same-sex couple could mean that same-sex marriages would cost a fortune in going far away to have it, and is even worse in the idea that the government can have employees/people given government authority refuse to obey equality and impartiality.

 

If the priest is acting as the officiant is he or she not exercising a legal action? Florists and bakers are not officiating. The act of a marriage is made legal by the officiant including certain legal aspects and signatures, regardless of whether it is a secular or religious ceremony.

 

This still happens. To make a link to the racism part, since that is a popular comparison:

I've been in the deep south part of the country. Panhandle Florida, those kinds of states. There isn't policy like "Don't serve blacks". Some friends and I arrived at a restaurant, alongside 2 or 3 other groups of whites. There was a black couple sitting and waiting for a table. The hostess served the other parties first, and when they came around to us, we pointed out that the black couple was waiting before us. The answer we got was kind of a nervous look from the hostess, and after a talk with her and the black couple, we left, because we "didn't understand how things worked around here." We weren't gonna pay a racist business.

This kind of stuff is still very much present. Certain people may not be welcome in some kinds of establishments. Owners are "smart" now; they won't kick people out or refuse to serve them, but you might find yourself waiting longer for a table. Your food might be lukewarm. Opportunities in real estate might not come up as often for a gay couple as others. There are still plenty of "legal" ways to discriminate against people, and let people know they aren't welcome without saying it.

I would never want to give my money to that kind of a business, for that kind of a low-class service. Not all would "sabotage" like this, but I would much rather be told that I'm not welcome, than get a lower-class of service without my knowledge.

This is why I don't think suing is the right answer; it only provides advertisement for the businesses, and attracts the clientele that support bigotry, grossly overpowering any kind of fine or sanction that might be levied against a business. "There is no such thing as bad publicity."

As far as I know, they don't really have any legal authority anymore; you file for a license at the courthouse. It's all for show anymore. So in reality, the priests are technically just denying them his ability to "officiate" the wedding, and permission to use the church. They would be falling quite close to a business if they made money off renting their services. (This has become a lawsuit somewhere I'm sure.)

 

Spitfire: I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that some priest officiant and sign off as a witness and file the paperwork on behalf of the couple...that would be their legal "hand" in making the wedding happen/marriage offical.

---------- Post added 6th Dec 2013 at 05:18 PM ----------

No one owes a florist or baker an explanation of the details of their need for a product; so technically, a gay couple could send one partner in to do the ordering and then upon receipt of service, let them find out they're gay It just goes to show that you don't have to reveal anything personal when ordering a cake or flowers...all the stuff about the florist or baker wanting to "know" the couple is just fluff and they're using this "fluff" to insert religious beliefs on something that is nothing but a buying and selling of a product.

Of course, I am just being silly as no soon to be married couple has those types of plans on their mind as they're most likely happy for the joyous occasion, but it does go to show that the "religious" aspect of a florist or baker is nil in the course of the services they provide.

 

Exactly. It's not about whether or not a gay couple can purchase flowers at a particular florist. It's about whether or not people's religious beliefs can be used as justification to deny people service when you're dealing with the general public.

Imagine being openly gay in a small town in which there is only one grocery store. Suddenly it becomes perfectly legal to deny someone service based on your religious beliefs. The owners of that grocery store decide that doing business with gay people is tantamount of "supporting their sinful lifestyle." Now, suddenly if that grocery store discovers that you're gay you could literally be denied the right to purchase food.

What are you going to do? Go way out of town to get food? Have someone else secretly do your grocery shopping for you? What if you secretly sneak into the store and buy food when the owners aren't around, and they later find out - can you be punished in some way for violating their ban? Can you be sued by them because of it?

That may sound nuts and extreme, but if you've actually lived in a small town in some parts of this country - it's likely to happen somewhere to someone. This is especially true if they receive this "victory" - it will be empowering to them, and since they're losing the larger debate - this could empower them by allowing them to strike back against individuals in their local communities.

There is a very good reason why we outlawed this type of discrimination in the past.

When people decide to do business with the general public, just as when they decide to practice law, or become a doctor, they make an agreement with the government. They're given certain benefits and privileges, and in exchange they have to follow the laws put down. You don't get to pick and choose the laws that you like, even when they conflict with your religious beliefs.

Whether you're a small town florist who doesn't want to support gay weddings, or you're a larger business franchise like Hobby Lobby who doesn't want to provide contraception coverage to their employees - you don't get to make that decision. You give up that right to function as a business, and in exchange for that you receive other benefits and privileges.

The law in Washington state is clear. If you own a business you can't discriminate against gay customers. This florist broke that law knowingly. Certainly, she's entitled to her opinion, and she has the First Amendment right to voice it as loudly as she sees fit. She even has the right to put up a "I hate gays" sign outside her business if that's what she wants to do - she just has to serve all the gays who show up.