• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case[W:455]

Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

MaggieD said:
Not me. I'm not a protected class.
Click to expand...

Everyone is in a protected class. You have a sex, you're member of a race, and you have a sexual orientation.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

TheGoverness said:
You are, actually.
Click to expand...

Especially considering she is a woman that is why they created the protections on sex.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
Everyone is in a protected class. You have a sex, you're member of a race, and you have a sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

A protected class is one that is spelled out in Civil Rights legislation.

Assuming Wiki is up to date, here are the Federal protected classes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
Especially considering she is a woman that is why they created the protections on sex.
Click to expand...

If you know this, why are you arguing?
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

MaggieD said:
A protected class is one that is spelled out in Civil Rights legislation.

Assuming Wiki is up to date, here are the Federal protected classes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
Click to expand...

I'm aware. Race, sex, and orientation protections all apply to you. Even pregnancy protections could apply to you since you're a woman.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

ReverendHellh0und said:
So if it was a couple dressed up in full nazi regalia, they have to be served? how about in klan outfits and black face?
Click to expand...

Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! What if the couple was one fire? What if the couple was Dracula conjoined with The Mummy? What if it was a 50 foot tall great white shark wearing a yarmulka with a swastika sewn into it?
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
They didn't want to take part in something they disagreed with. When dealing with commerce that is all the reason they should need.
Click to expand...

Huh. It's so sad that in this day and age folks are still hate things they don't understand. Gay people can't help that they're gay just a black people can't help that they're black.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

MaggieD said:
If you know this, why are you arguing?
Click to expand...

Because I happen to disagree with it.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

rockabillylaker said:
I'm about 70/30 (in support) for this. I don't like anybody being discriminated but then again, couldn't they just find another florist?
Click to expand...

Eh, you have a point there.

That's probably what I'd do if I was ever denied service because of my sexual orientation. Hopefully I never have to end up getting into a situation like this to begin with.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

lurchadams said:
Huh. It's so sad that in this day and age folks are still hate things they don't understand. Gay people can't help that they're gay just a black people can't help that they're black.
Click to expand...

So what? Why would you think that is important to my position?
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

MaggieD said:
Not me. I'm not a protected class.
Click to expand...

To expand on what TheGoverness told you, you cannot be discriminated against for being a woman, for being white, for being Christian(or not), your DNA (yes, that's a thing), for being heterosexual, your ancestry, or your age. So that's at least seven different ways that you're a protected class.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Cardinal said:
To expand on what TheGoverness told you, you cannot be discriminated against for being a woman, for being white, for being Christian(or not), your DNA (yes, that's a thing), for being heterosexual, your ancestry, or your age. So that's at least seven different ways that you're a protected class.
Click to expand...

Then who isn't?
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Praxas said:
when they opened their business to the public, they automatically agree to adhere to public accommodation laws. They don't get to cherry pick those sorry. That's why the anti-gay idiots always lose. good luck with your continued losing on the subject.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. In order to survive in this world you HAVE to conduct business transactions. Doesn't matter if your an employer or an employee. You don't "agree" to it like you agree to sit in front of a tv on a couch. Which is what your claim gives the impression of. That people have a choice. They don't. A business transaction is a MUST. It is something that one must do regardless if they want to do so or not. And the fact that your a business owner is irrelevant to this fact. Where it does matter is that when you're a business owner you're supposed to be able to choose how you conduct your business. Only time that they can't is when it violates a persons Rights. And no one has a Right to other peoples flowers, cakes or other frivolous things that are not tied to their survival. And not selling flowers for a wedding does not, cannot, stop people from getting married. There isn't a wedding out there that is completely dependent on those things. Those things are wants, not needs.

And stop with the "anti-gay idiots" propaganda BS. I'm very pro-SSM and argued for it ever since I became interested in politics. Yet I fully support a business that isn't tied to survival necessities (such as food or housing) to say "no, i won't sell you those flowers for a wedding that I don't approve of".
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

MaggieD said:
Then who isn't?
Click to expand...

People who specifically behave a certain way or who aren't up to dress code, are two examples off the top of my head.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Kal'Stang said:
I don't agree with this. In order to survive in this world you HAVE to conduct business transactions. Doesn't matter if your an employer or an employee. You don't "agree" to it like you agree to sit in front of a tv on a couch. Which is what your claim gives the impression of. That people have a choice. They don't. A business transaction is a MUST. It is something that one must do regardless if they want to do so or not. And the fact that your a business owner is irrelevant to this fact. Where it does matter is that when you're a business owner you're supposed to be able to choose how you conduct your business. Only time that they can't is when it violates a persons Rights. And no one has a Right to other peoples flowers, cakes or other frivolous things that are not tied to their survival. And not selling flowers for a wedding does not, cannot, stop people from getting married. There isn't a wedding out there that is completely dependent on those things. Those things are wants, not needs.

And stop with the "anti-gay idiots" propaganda BS. I'm very pro-SSM and argued for it ever since I became interested in politics. Yet I fully support a business that isn't tied to survival necessities (such as food or housing) to say "no, i won't sell you those flowers for a wedding that I don't approve of".
Click to expand...

So you would prefer the law only cover things people need to survive? Frankly I don't think it really matters if we are talking about medical care or flowers as the same underlining fact remains that the person providing the service and property may or may not agree. Even if we are talking about things just for survivals sake forcing the issue is assuming ownership of the persons labor and property and thus a right violation.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

danarhea said:
The vote was unanimous, and is in line with almost every other court decision in the nation which uphold that whoever walks into a business with money is a customer in the eyes of the law. You don't get to cherry pick who you serve. That was decided decades ago in the matter of who could eat at lunch counters. SCOTUS will quickly knock down any appeal. The act of selling your product is not free speech, which is what the south claimed back then. Don't like gays? Don't like Muslims? Don't like black people? You are free to talk to your heart's content about your hatred towards others, but if you do business with the public, you are not allowed to act on that hatred by refusing to do business with them. That is illegal, and unamerican too.

Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case
Click to expand...

That's what the lunch counter fight was all about. The public has no room for racists or evangelical right-wingers.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
Shame. People should have the right to control their labor. I want to ask everyone here that believes in this ruling to tell me exactly they feel they have a right to force their neighbor to labor for them.

Oh and it's not unamerican to believe people have a right to control their property and labor. The belief is in the Constitution actually.
Click to expand...

I am pretty on the fence about this one. On one hand there is your argument, on the other hand...

That person isn't being forced to do labor. I don't see how this is different than not selling to people based on skin color. They can still refuse to sell to people for a legitimate reason (no shirt, no shoes ect) but in my opinion not selling to someone based on gender, race, religion, or anything else that is part of who we are is wrong.

They aren't being forced to sell flower or hire employees, but if they do then they can't discriminate.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

jet57 said:
That's what the lunch counter fight was all about. The public has no room for racists or evangelical right-wingers.
Click to expand...

I thought it was about people trespassing on private property and then demanding service from a private individual.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
So you would prefer the law only cover things people need to survive? Frankly I don't think it really matters if we are talking about medical care or flowers as the same underlining fact remains that the person providing the service and property may or may not agree. Even if we are talking about things just for survivals sake forcing the issue is assuming ownership of the persons labor and property and thus a right violation.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would rather it only cover necessities. The difference between being a doctor and being a florist is that what type of job one goes into IS a choice. As such the person that became a doctor chose to be placed under the directive of providing life saving services. A florist chose to go into a business which does not. Just like a bystander to a building burning down has a right to not have to go into that building to save people, the person that chose to be a fire fighter does have to because they chose to give up that Right while they are fire fighters.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Nomad4Ever said:
I am pretty on the fence about this one. On one hand there is your argument, on the other hand...

That person isn't being forced to do labor. I don't see how this is different than not selling to people based on skin color. They can still refuse to sell to people for a legitimate reason (no shirt, no shoes ect) but in my opinion not selling to someone based on gender, race, religion, or anything else that is part of who we are is wrong.

They aren't being forced to sell flower or hire employees, but if they do then they can't discriminate.
Click to expand...

First: Please refer to post 65 regarding "choice".

As for it being "wrong" to not serve someone due to gender, race etc etc...yes it is morally wrong. But isn't it just as wrong to force someone to provide a service that they do not wish to provide? (keep in mind post 65)
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

MaggieD said:
If you are a business inviting the public into your shop and you have a license or permit to do business, in my opinion it is more than fair that you not be allowed to discriminate against people based on their being a member of a protected class. These people are not forcing their neighbor to labor for them. They are coming into an establishment with money in hand. Wanting to transact business.

It may not be perfectly fair, but then we know that life ISN'T fair -- and its close enough. It's MUCH more unfair to turn someone away because of their sexual oroentation.
Click to expand...

I see it this way...

If someone walks into that shop and says "I like those flowers over there... I'll take them." If the shop owner refuses to sell to them because the person is gay, black, Muslim, etc... that to me is discrimination and the person has every right to take legal action against the florist.

However, if someone walks into the florist and wants them to cater their wedding, which requires specialized arrangements, delivery and setup at the event, and that wedding ceremony violates their religious beliefs, then I feel the florist has a right to refuse to cater to that particular event.

I felt the same way with the baker controversy and the pizza shop incident... I'm sorry if you disagree with me but being hired to cater an event, is not the same as purchasing items from a retail store.


Let the hate begin.

.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
So what? Why would you think that is important to my position?
Click to expand...

I was stating my opinion about the small-mindedness of the florists. If you don't wish to discuss it that's fine with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom