• 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

Hatuey said:
Free speech doesn't cover taunting the parents of people that are raped while being the rapist.

Try again or find a court case covering it?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The Constitution clearly protects free speech. Nothing in the First Amendment says that taunting is exempted.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

ludin said:
I am just pointing out that being white is a protect class.
Click to expand...

And I'm just saying...see my post to Maggie.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Hatuey said:
... No. It wouldn't be ruled like this case because there is nothing protected about taunting the parents of somebody who you rape but got off with on a technicality. There is a lot protected about who you marry though.

Your turn? :)
Click to expand...

I don't see how any of that applies to the court decision. We know many of these businesses were targeted, the "customers" knew before hand that they would be denied service. Taunting? Maybe. Yet, they were directed by the government to provide service, against their wills, or be punished.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
For gays or all together?
Click to expand...

Sure, gays. How many times were they sued?

Henrin said:
Btw, the recent transgender case against the Boy Scouts didn't have any legal basis either, but they lost. Care to tell me why the boy scouts have to accept FTM's in their group? You know, with them being a private club and all.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

I found this interesting, and provide it neither endorsing, nor condemning its content.

"[FONT=&quot]According to the Human Rights Education Associates, an international non-government human rights organization, sexual orientation is defined as one’s “emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to another person,” referring specifically to feelings and self-concept. To agree that sexual orientation is a nondiscrimination class is to presuppose that the parties involved are aware, and therefore prejudiced against another’s sexual orientation.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Sexual orientation” is not an innate, indisputable characteristic, like race, nationality or sex, and instead encapsulates a concept based on changing personas and personal sexual decisions. The United States Supreme Court grants protected status to immutable characteristics, present from birth and has not recognized “sexual orientation” as a protected class. Therefore, to include sexual orientation is nontraditional as it compares to other nondiscrimination provisions. In including this protected class, the North Carolina State Bar would have assumed that every person is born with an inherent sexual orientation, a fact that is not widely accepted or scientifically proven.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) acknowledges the absence of a biological link to homosexual behavior and instead offers studies to show that homosexuality is a combination of social, psychological and biological factors. The American Psychological Association confirms that “sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender… and is defined in terms of relationships with others.” Dr. Dennis McFadden, a University of Texas neuroscientist, clarifies: “Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment.”



https://www.nccivitas.org/2009/why-sexual-orientation-not-protected-nondiscrimination-class/[/FONT]
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
So? They disagreed with the service being asked for and refused. I honestly don't care if they did so because of their religious beliefs or not.
Click to expand...

No, they did not disagree with the service...they supply flowers for weddings all the time. They disagreed with WHO was receiving the service based on the fact that the customers did not observe the florists religious beliefs.

It's the same thing as when Muslim taxi drivers (in Minneapolis, 2014) were fined for refusing to take passengers who had alcohol in their possession and passengers with service animals.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

apdst said:
Food is food. Caterers sell food. If someone wants porkchops, then a Muslim caterer has to put his religion to the side and provide them. He can't put his religion ahead of service.
Click to expand...

That is utter and total nonsense, you don't go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and demand they sell you a beef burger, hell they are a fast food restaurant so chop chop, double beef burger please!!

That is the same nonsense you a peddling.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

apdst said:
Food is food. Caterers sell food. If someone wants porkchops, then a Muslim caterer has to put his religion to the side and provide them. He can't put his religion ahead of service.
Click to expand...

Your analogy would only work if the florist was being asked for a type of flower he did not have. Now, let's say there is a Muslim or Jewish caterer who is not Halal/Kosher and does carry pork products. Would he be in his rights to refuse to sell pork products to Muslims/Jews on the grounds that it is against the teachings of Islam/Judaism?

No one was asking the florist to provide a service not already provided.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

pinqy said:
No, they did not disagree with the service...they supply flowers for weddings all the time. They disagreed with WHO was receiving the service based on the fact that the customers did not observe the florists religious beliefs.

It's the same thing as when Muslim taxi drivers (in Minneapolis, 2014) were fined for refusing to take passengers who had alcohol in their possession and passengers with service animals.
Click to expand...

They served the gay couple before so obviously it wasn't over the fact that they were gay. When the issue came up is when the gay couple wanted to have the florist provide flowers for their wedding. At this point it goes from just providing service to the gay couple to providing service for a wedding that they don't agree with on moral grounds.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Peter King said:
That is utter and total nonsense, you don't go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and demand they sell you a beef burger, hell they are a fast food restaurant so chop chop, double beef burger please!!

That is the same nonsense you a peddling.
Click to expand...

I can demand a Muslim caterer serve porkchops at my function. That's what caterers do; they cater.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

pinqy said:
Your analogy would only work if the florist was being asked for a type of flower he did not have. Now, let's say there is a Muslim or Jewish caterer who is not Halal/Kosher and does carry pork products. Would he be in his rights to refuse to sell pork products to Muslims/Jews on the grounds that it is against the teachings of Islam/Judaism?

No one was asking the florist to provide a service not already provided.
Click to expand...

Caterers will serve what is requested. That's their job.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

apdst said:
I can demand a Muslim caterer serve porkchops at my function. That's what caterers do; they cater.
Click to expand...

You can demand it, but you have no case to demand that any vendor provide a service they don't offer. Regardless of anyone's religion, you cannot demand the caterer provide a food he doesn't offer. As was pointed out, you can't go to KFC and demand a hamburger.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

pinqy said:
You can demand it, but you have no case to demand that any vendor provide a service they don't offer. Regardless of anyone's religion, you cannot demand the caterer provide a food he doesn't offer. As was pointed out, you can't go to KFC and demand a hamburger.
Click to expand...

Of course I can demand it. The law says so. If he refuses, I can sue him.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
They served the gay couple before so obviously it wasn't over the fact that they were gay. When the issue came up is when the gay couple wanted to have the florist provide flowers for their wedding. At this point it goes from just providing service to the gay couple to providing service for a wedding that they don't agree with on moral grounds.
Click to expand...

Ok, so if a florist sold flowers to Blacks and Whites and Asians, but refused to provide flowers for a mixed-race wedding, you would not consider that discrimination based on race?
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

apdst said:
Of course I can demand it. The law says so. If he refuses, I can sue him.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the law that supports requiring anyone to provide a service they don't offer. You cannot sue him because no lawyer would take your case and no judge would hear it.

but tell you what....go ahead. Go to any restaurant, store, etc, and demand a good or service they don't offer or provide to anyone. When they refuse, sue. Tell us how that goes.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

pinqy said:
There is nothing in the law that supports requiring anyone to provide a service they don't offer. You cannot sue him because no lawyer would take your case and no judge would hear it.

but tell you what....go ahead. Go to any restaurant, store, etc, and demand a good or service they don't offer or provide to anyone. When they refuse, sue. Tell us how that goes.
Click to expand...

He's a caterer. That's the service he offers. He can't refuse to serve the food I request, for religious reasons.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

apdst said:
He's a caterer. That's the service he offers. He can't refuse to serve the food I request, for religious reasons.
Click to expand...
He does not offer pork chops. that is not a service he offers. Nor is there any requirement that he does.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

pinqy said:
He does not offer pork chops. that is not a service he offers. Nor is there any requirement that he does.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what a caterer does?
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

prometeus said:
Yea, no different from the florist choosing to serve the public.
Click to expand...

Wrong. In order to survive in this society you HAVE to conduct business transactions. You can choose the type of job that you're in. But you cannot choose to not conduct business transactions. Doesn't matter if you're an employer or an employee.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

apdst said:
Do you understand what a caterer does?
Click to expand...

A caterer offers food from their catering menu, just like a restaurant has a menu. Menus are limited in scope. Does a caterer or restaurant legally have to offer every possible food choice in that exists in the world? No, they do not. Do you understand the concept of a menu?
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

apdst said:
Do you understand what a caterer does?
Click to expand...
I do....my aunt was a caterer. A caterer has set services...they do not provide everything and anything a client requests. A caterer can be a vegetarian caterer. You cannot go to them and demand meat. The caterer can be Halal or Kosher...you cannot go them and demand pork or shrimp.

Discrimination is ONLY when a service provider discriminates and refuses a service to one person/group that would be provided to another.

Example....A caterer who does not provide any pork products is not discriminating against anyone.
A caterer who will provide pork for anyone put Jews or Muslims is discriminating.

No one is suing Chik-fil-a for not opening on Sundays.
 
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...

I don't think classes of people should be discriminated against but I do think businesses have the right to not make things that are offensive to them. Bakers should not have to make a penis cake. Bakers should not have to make a cake decorated with gay people on it. Florists should not be forced to make arrangements that form the shape of gay people kissing (if that's even possible). But, to just deny regular service, as in this case, should be illegal. I'm surprised that this actually had to make it the state Supreme Court, especially in the state of Washington.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

pinqy said:
You can demand it, but you have no case to demand that any vendor provide a service they don't offer. Regardless of anyone's religion, you cannot demand the caterer provide a food he doesn't offer. As was pointed out, you can't go to KFC and demand a hamburger.
Click to expand...

The florist doesn't (or I guess now didn't) provide a service to gays marrying.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

pinqy said:
No, they did not disagree with the service...they supply flowers for weddings all the time. They disagreed with WHO was receiving the service based on the fact that the customers did not observe the florists religious beliefs.

It's the same thing as when Muslim taxi drivers (in Minneapolis, 2014) were fined for refusing to take passengers who had alcohol in their possession and passengers with service animals.
Click to expand...

It's not the same. The cab ride is the service. The florist sold the couple flowers.

The equivalent would be were the cab company to refuse to contact out with the AKC to haul dogs around because such violated their religious principles.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

pinqy said:
There is nothing in the law that supports requiring anyone to provide a service they don't offer.
Click to expand...

Aye. But the state of Washington disagrees. They just issued a ruling requiring just that. That is, in fact, what this thread is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom