WA Supreme Court Finds Florist Discriminated Against Gay Couple

[Carolyn Marie]

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/washington-supreme-court-rules-florist-discriminated-against-gay-couple-n721931

Claims of religious freedom do not give license to discriminate.  Selling someone a product is NOT an expression of religious belief, at least in the state of Washington,

 

Carolyn Marie

[Guest]

"The ruling noted that Stutzman agreed that furnishing flowers for a Muslim wedding wouldn't necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam."

I love it when they change the narrative and test it again, to prove a point. I guess I see it as a business shouldn't have rights, and I'm doing business with the business, not a person per se. I bet other people sell things they don't personally use or agree with, they aren't whining........

[Cyndee]

This woman received a lot of money to fight this from fundie groups and lost, it's not just the poor old grandma that does not like gays, it's been a long calculated effort at weakening anti-discrimination laws in this state. 

That's one of the reasons I love living here, let freedom ring for all. 

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Religious freedom = freedom from religious bigots !!

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, CyndiRae said:

This woman received a lot of money to fight this from fundie groups and lost, it's not just the poor old grandma that does not like gays, it's been a long calculated effort at weakening anti-discrimination laws in this state. 

That's one of the reasons I love living here, let freedom ring for all. 

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Religious freedom = freedom from religious bigots !!

[Briana]

41 minutes ago, Fiona said:

I guess I see it as a business shouldn't have rights, and I'm doing business with the business, not a person per se.

My wife & I both have professional careers.  We also have a small business on the side that we recently sold.  As one who has been in the position of 'being a small business', on a broad level I have to disagree with your statement.  While we as individuals and as a business entity would have never discriminated against a customer based on race, religion, gender, etc. etc., there were times when we did excessive our 'rights' as a business under the law to use our discretion or judgement to refuse sale or entry to someone.   Again, never based on things like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but other criteria that some may feel are just as important.

But in general, most businesses - those that want to be successful anyway, don't really care care who they sell to.  To me, to refuse to do so based on something like the above scenario is just silly.  Why would someone want to alienate potentially a whole new customer base and revenue stream???  Perhaps attention-getting...taking things wayyyy too far. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Briana said:

My wife & I both have professional careers.  We also have a small business on the side that we recently sold.  As one who has been in the position of 'being a small business', on a broad level I have to disagree with your statement.  While we as individuals and as a business entity would have never discriminated against a customer based on race, religion, gender, etc. etc., there were times when we did excessive our 'rights' as a business under the law to use our discretion or judgement to refuse sale or entry to someone.   Again, never based on things like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but other criteria that some may feel are just as important.

But in general, most businesses - those that want to be successful anyway, don't really care care who they sell to.  To me, to refuse to do so based on something like the above scenario is just silly.  Why would someone want to alienate potentially a whole new customer base and revenue stream???  Perhaps attention-getting...taking things wayyyy too far. 

Well, I've been on a fine line about that issue for a long time. I don't think that a business should have rights like people. But it doesn't really matter since it will never be that way.....

[VickySGV]

Of probably several dozen other real reasons she could not or would not sell to them, playing the religion card was the most volatile and sure to cause problems.  I personally am suspicious that this was a set-up for a lawsuit.  I know a local business that refused on the very true basis that they were winding up business and would be closed before the wedding date. 

[Tejana]

6 hours ago, Fiona said:

"The ruling noted that Stutzman agreed that furnishing flowers for a Muslim wedding wouldn't necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam."

I love it when they change the narrative and test it again, to prove a point. I guess I see it as a business shouldn't have rights, and I'm doing business with the business, not a person per se. I bet other people sell things they don't personally use or agree with, they aren't whining........

I disagree with the highlighted statement in the above-quoted post.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Posted 5 hours ago...[By Briana]

6 hours ago, Fiona said:

I guess I see it as a business shouldn't have rights, and I'm doing business with the business, not a person per se.

"My wife & I both have professional careers.  We also have a small business on the side that we recently sold.  As one who has been in the position of 'being a small business', on a broad level I have to disagree with your statement.  While we as individuals and as a business entity would have never discriminated against a customer based on race, religion, gender, etc. etc., there were times when we did excessive our 'rights' as a business under the law to use our discretion or judgement to refuse sale or entry to someone.   Again, never based on things like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but other criteria that some may feel are just as important.

But in general, most businesses - those that want to be successful anyway, don't really care care who they sell to.  To me, to refuse to do so based on something like the above scenario is just silly.  Why would someone want to alienate potentially a whole new customer base and revenue stream???  Perhaps attention-getting...taking things wayyyy too far. "

Not that it matters...but I really, really like the above-quoted post.

3 hours ago, VickySGV said:

Of probably several dozen other real reasons she could not or would not sell to them, playing the religion card was the most volatile and sure to cause problems.  I personally am suspicious that this was a set-up for a lawsuit.  I know a local business that refused on the very true basis that they were winding up business and would be closed before the wedding date. 

I am quite taken with the notion expressed in the afore-quoted post. 

W/ re: to my reply to this thread, I have made similar posts in other threads relating to this thread's topic....I cannot for the life of me imagine a reason why someone would want to enrich a business whose owner is suspected of being hostile to said customer (i.e., other than as a setup for litigation).  Frankly though, I also can see no reason why a shopkeeper should be prohibited from refusing business to someone. 

Yes, I think that this business was set-up of by progressive-leftists for a lawsuit that they thought would stand a good chance of being successful in this particular state. 

In a related story, I read that the florist was fined $1,000.  That's just a slap on the wrist, for which I am grateful.  However, I suspect that there might have been other, civil penalties.  [Just guessing...hope I'm wrong.]

It would seem to me that in future such cases, a shopkeeper might consider accepting to accepting such customers' business, enrich himself/herself as much as ethically possible in the process, and provide the customer with average, so-so, floral arrangements.  I believe such a strategy would render it very difficult  for anyone to successfully obtain to a favorable court decision. [I mean, why not?  After-all, it's now obvious (at least in some states) that religious freedom is no longer respected, so being honest/dishonest (whichever the case may be) about one's religious scruples is a non-starter in terms of a personal defense.]

[Guest]

On 2/17/2017 at 2:13 PM, Tejana said:

I guess I see it as a business shouldn't have rights, and I'm doing business with the business, not a person per se

I disagree with the highlighted statement in the above-quoted post.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

 

Fair enough but you don't state why. How does an inanimate object have rights?

[MarcieMarie12]

Furthermore, would they be allowed to refuse to do flowers for a Muslim wedding? A hindu one? A catholic one? If not, then why does the same principal not apply to an LGBT wedding.

 

I think if you have a shop that serves the general public and is advertised as such, you cannot pick and choose your customers. Now if you ran your flower shop  for only Southern baptists and advertised as such and did not allow the general public to purchase your goods and services, then I might be ok. But this was not the case here.

[CrystalMatthews0426]

26 minutes ago, MarcieMarie12 said:

Furthermore, would they be allowed to refuse to do flowers for a Muslim wedding? A hindu one? A catholic one? If not, then why does the same principal not apply to an LGBT wedding.

 

I think if you have a shop that serves the general public and is advertised as such, you cannot pick and choose your customers. Now if you ran your flower shop  for only Southern baptists and advertised as such and did not allow the general public to purchase your goods and services, then I might be ok. But this was not the case here.

Agreed 100%. As a general service provider, you don't get to choose who you service and how.  But if you specify yourself, then it is a little different.  You won't go into a Kosher Deli and get mad that they won't serve you a cheeseburger and call them discriminatory because you don't practice Kosher law. However, if a person who does Kosher law gets a job as a cook at McDonald's, they have no right to refuse to make a Big Mac with cheese just because it is against their religion. 

[Briana]

No one here is really arguing that this particular business was right in what they did.  Nor would any business be right in doing that - discriminating against someone based on gender, sexual orientation, etc.  We know that doing so is the wrong thing to do.  I'm not sure that the scenario that Marcie described would even fly in some states - maybe most.  Businesses don't have the right to do that - behave that way. 

My point is that under the law, business do have rights (...very few).  We may see a business as an inanimate object - a 'thing', but it's still important for that 'thing' to have some protections, or rights.  Remember, there's still a person or people behind that business and they've invested their time and money in it.  Besides serving its customers, that 'business' also pays taxes, buys products or services from various sources supporting peripheral business and jobs, and puts food on the table for the owner(s) and perhaps others. 

[Briana]

Crystal, you make a good point with the scenario you describe.  Under the law, consumers have rights, and businesses have rights.  Consumers also have obligations/responsibilities, and businesses have obligations/responsibilities. 

As a consumer, you can go into a Jewish-owned deli that practices kosher food preparation as part of its business plan, and demand a cheeseburger.  The deli has the right to refuse to make that for you.  You can sue them if you want, but based on their business plan and/or mission statement and the type of business they are, you probably won't win for a variety of reasons.  

The other part of that scenario is a little more tricky.  That really falls under employment law, not consumer law.  If you are Jewish and practice kosher 'law', you have a pretty strong case for making McD's accommodate you as an employee based on your religious practice and belief.  i.e. You're on fry, drink, and shake duty etc. vs. burger prep and assembly involving meat and dairy.

Bottom line is that it's wrong for a business on many levels to discriminate against others based on race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation etc.

[CrystalMatthews0426]

Agreed, but if one were religious in any sense, I highly doubt they would seek employment at any sort of venue in which the job could cause you to contradict your personal beliefs, so a kosher person seeking employment at a place that is best known for cheeseburgers, would be quite ridiculous. The flip side to that of course would be that the manager at McDonald's could, of course, not refuse employment over these reasons.

[Jani]

Places that wish to cater to specific audiences or clientele typically set themselves up as clubs with "memberships" like Sam's or BJ's, (in a broad sense).  More focused groups have done the same.  Nothing wrong there as they advertise their intentions to serve a specific group.

Jani 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Jani423 said:

Places that wish to cater to specific audiences or clientele typically set themselves up as clubs with "memberships" like Sam's or BJ's, (in a broad sense).  More focused groups have done the same.  Nothing wrong there as they advertise their intentions to serve a specific group.

Jani 

Fair enough, then how about the Boy scouts or Girl Scouts? I believe their rules are quite clear, they still got sued. I'm not defending anything, simply devils-advocate......