• 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]

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state's antidiscrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

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
 
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 upholds 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...

It takes somebody pretty low down to refuse service to customers based on their being members of a protected class.

I'm not EXACTLY sure, but I think a florist is on solid ground if he refused service to people who wore blue shoes... since they aren't members of a protected class.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

All the florists I know are gay, go figure.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

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.
 
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...




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?
 
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...

Silly argument is silly.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

MaggieD said:
It takes somebody pretty low down to refuse service to customers based on their being members of a protected class.

I'm not EXACTLY sure, but I think a florist is on solid ground if he refused service to people who wore blue shoes... since they aren't members of a protected class.
Click to expand...

They didn't. They refused because they didn't want to be associated with the wedding.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

danarhea said:
Silly argument is silly.
Click to expand...



No it's not. You just said "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."
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

I don't agree with this ruling. I think someone has a right to refuse service for any reason at all... Not that it feels good to defend a racist or someone who is anti-gay. It is a core value of mine that it is morally wrong to force someone, under the gun, to provide any action or service.

If you find someone's choice to do so vile or wrong... protest them... or give them a bad yelp review. Bigotry is bad for business, and they would soon know that.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

ReverendHellh0und said:
No it's not. You just said "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."
Click to expand...

You got to admit that people in Klan outfits with black face would be kind of silly.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Yeah, it is fairly well established law. It is law I disagree with, but the law nonetheless.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

They aren't forced into labor, they CHOOSE to operate a business open to the public and to ADEHERE to rules of public accommodation by opening their business to the public.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
They didn't. They refused because they didn't want to be associated with the wedding.
Click to expand...

And that was because of their sexual orientation... a protected class in our country.
 
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...

What do you think the florists were worried about by serving the gay couple? What were they worried would happen to them if they did?
 
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...

Only if they're gay. Gay nazis have to be served but you can kick a straight nazi out of your store.
 
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...

You are aware that businesses are required to have business licenses, right? You can't lean on something that is likely a right violation to support another law, imho. Oh and yes, if someone refuses to take part in commerce and the law forces the issue then force was used.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

lurchadams said:
What do you think the florists were worried about by serving the gay couple? What were they worried would happen to them if they did?
Click to expand...

They didn't want to take part in something they disagreed with. When dealing with commerce that is all the reason they should need.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Praxas said:
They aren't forced into labor, they CHOOSE to operate a business open to the public and to ADEHERE to rules of public accommodation by opening their business to the public.
Click to expand...

They clearly didn't want to provide commerce to the gay couple for their wedding. Sorry, but the law most definitely exists to force the issue.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

MaggieD said:
It takes somebody pretty low down to refuse service to customers based on their being members of a protected class.

I'm not EXACTLY sure, but I think a florist is on solid ground if he refused service to people who wore blue shoes... since they aren't members of a protected class.
Click to expand...
What if it was for Gay Hindu Clowns whose believe system said they had to wear long blue clown shoes?
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

MaggieD said:
And that was because of their sexual orientation... a protected class in our country.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's because they wanted them to take part in their wedding. If consumers were simply gay then likely flowers would be provided.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
They clearly didn't want to provide commerce to the gay couple for their wedding. Sorry, but the law most definitely exists to force the issue.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

These laws for gays didn't likely exist when they opened their store. Anyways, business incensing is a human right violation, so whatever.
 
Re: Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

Henrin said:
Nope, it's because they wanted them to take part in their wedding. If consumers were simply gay then likely flowers would be provided.
Click to expand...

Providing flowers is not taking part in their wedding. That's like saying the company that makes napkins is participating in the wedding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom