Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

I've got a suggestion. Why not let juries sort these things out instead of commissions?

 

Sure, but you’ve not proposed any change in the law, only that if someone is Christian, they should be free to ignore it. How is that viable?

No, I think anyone involved in any kind of dispute will present the facts in a manner that favours them, if only subconsciously. If we had a similar description of events from the other side, I’d have the same opinion of that too. That’s why it needs to go to the courts to assess on the facts rather than perceptions.

None of us can ignore our convictions but we still have to obey the law of the land, dealing with any contradictions as best we can. We can campaign to change the law to better suit us, but everyone else’s opinions and preferences get taken in to account so we’re never going to perfectly satisfy everyone. Religious convictions aren’t special though and aren’t worthy of any greater (or lesser) consideration than the convictions of anyone else on any other basis. That underlying argument here needs cutting short straight away because it vastly over-complicates these kinds of cases.

 

I disagree. Freedom of Religion is a Constitutional Right. PA laws are State Laws. The Constitution does not specifically protect "Gay Rights". The Constitution has jurisdiction over States Laws.

This case is not about the florist refusing service. She was willing to arrange and sell them flowers. She just refused to set them up at the venue and participate in the event.

 

I do it at work based on whether I think the prospect will be a pain in my ass.

I upcharge big time and suggest nearby competitors. Works 90% if the time.

I dont think discrimination based on my opinion that the customer is ****** illegal. Hopefully

 

1) We do not have a free market economy
2) your argument had nothing to do with a free market economy - and neither did my comment
3) I believe that less Gov't is better in general but this is a black vs white, good vs evil paradigm - It is not one or the other - Less is not always better - and certainly not in this case.

My comment was in response to your "they can just go somewhere else argument". This is essentially saying that it is OK for businesses to engage in discrimination, bigotry and so on, against certain groups of people.

The problem with bigotry and discrimination is that the person who accepts this as OK - ends up being a hypocrite - and it is the hypocrisy that is senseless.

If you truly believe it is OK - they you would not have a problem with the power company discriminating against you for what ever reason it chooses. You could claim "but there is only one supplier" to which the company could respond "You can just go somewhere else - the town down the road uses a different power company.

You can say - Oh but this is different - I would be forced to quit my job and move if I wanted power. So what ? If it ok to discriminate it is ok to discriminate. You do not get to pick and choose for the company when they can discriminate and when they can not - Right - is this not the argument you were making.

The second reason for disliking the above is that it violates the golden rule - "do unto others as you would have done to you" - if you don't want others discriminating against you - don't do this to others.

 

I must have misread the OP ... I was under the impression that the florist refused to sell floral arrangements to the couple.

 

1. Legally? So far, it isn't. But all laws are coercive by definition, and many have been found unconstitutional, some facially, some as applied. I can only hope ....

That said, this case does not look promising for the florist. She cannot under current Washington law, and under current supreme court precedent refuse to provide goods or services to gays if the state says it cannot so refuse.

All she has left is an argument that says "I must provide services in general, I know that, but if I am required to design flower arrangements in a way that celebrates a gay union qua gay union (as opposed to a vanilla wedding arrangement), that is a violation of my rights under the First Amendment.

Also, there were dissents, if not many, in the Masterpiece cake case, and several concurrences, and so we need not assume that the supreme court will speak with one voice on this florist case, or even the same voice, as time goes on.

I think it's only 50-50 that the supreme court will agree to take certiorari in the case anyway, and the florist will then close down (happy now?) or move to Oklahoma.

2. If you mean how is it logically or morally viable, that gets into philosophy, and to that I can only say, "you go your way and let the florist go her way."

 

If that's what you think, you are misinformed.

 

Correct.

Let’s boycott NY and CA because of their politically correct laws aimed at fundamentally changing the U.S.

We should be just as petty as the left.

 

The link does not provide information to the contrary. What is the issue here then - is this an artistic license claim ?

 

She did not refuse to sell them flower arrangement. The guy has been a customer for 10 years prior to this incident....and she knew he was gay. What she refused was to set up and maintain the flower arrangements at the wedding venue. Basically, they wanted her to participate in the event.

The State's contention was that since she sets up and maintains flowers at straight weddings, then she is discriminating if she does not do the same at a gay wedding.

 

Legislation does not create animosity, people do.

 

If she would actually be "participating in the event" - I would side against the State's contention. The question is whether or not setting up the flower arrangement at some venue is "participating in the event".

I am not sure I buy this characterization. The venue itself is not a gay wedding. Prior to the gay wedding - the gay wedding is not actually happening. Obviously - the flowers are placed prior to the actual wedding.

The Baker case was based on artistic licence and he won on this basis. Pizza guy - whose case was based on him not wanting to provide pizza to a gay wedding lost.

 

I never argued we have a free market economy... I said "if you believe in a free market economy". Strike one.

I believe my power company is a publicly owned company. They are a "public" utility. I even think they have public in the name.

Your local mom and pop shop is not.

Strike two.

Obviously the fire department or the water company or a school system cannot discriminate as they are all public entities.

But to your point, by all means, if you dont want my business, then discriminate against me. If you think your shop can handle the backlash, go for it. Stores that do so would quickly go out of business UNLESS that business only catered to one demographic and even then, that may not be enough.

If you want to ban me from your grocery store in the hood, it wont offend me one bit, and if made you uncomfortable to have white people in your store, then so be it. It's your store, do what you want.

Let the free market sort it out.

 

1) this is not about what your power company happens to be ... assume it is private as there are private power companies - or assume that in the future it becomes private or you were in a similar situation with another product (water, fertilizer, seeds if one is a farmer).

2) even if it is a publicly traded company - or even a Gov't owned company - this makes no difference - if discrimination is allowed - it is allowed. You don't get to tell companies (be they public or private) whether or not to discriminate.

The bottom line is that if you found yourself in such a situation - you would be screaming bloody murder.

 

Going to the location of any event and setting up items like decorations, flowers, tables, centerpieces, dance floors, lighting etc.....IS participating in the event. It might not be participating in the wedding itself, but it is participating in the event.

I would have an issue if she refused to not sell him flowers at all for the event (like Pizza guy), but that is not the case here. However, forcing her to physically work at the event that she opposes (for ANY reason) is just plan wrong.

If the florist was gay, should they be forced to set up an event for a wedding of a couple of alt-right people? Granted, "alt-right" is not a "protected class", but if we as a society believe that NOBODY should be discriminated against for any reason, then the analogy should apply.

 

You both seem to be heading towards the position that personal religious conviction should be able to override the law. That wouldn't just mean in this specific area but literally any law at all - if someone claimed obeying the law would contradict their religious convictions, they should be free to ignore that law. I don't see how anyone could seriously suggest that and if your Constitution really said that, your Constitution would be a crock.

 

Just claiming something is "against my religion" does not make it a valid argument. There needs to be some standing that such is a valid case.

 

Or not give any reason at all!

 

I get the distinction between Flower Girl and Pizza guy. At the same time there is a difference between Flower Girl and Baker - as it is far more difficult to claim "artistic license".

Where I disagree is that - participating in the set up for an event - is participating in "The Event". If I set up stage for a concert - I do not go out and tell people "I went to the concert" - and the lyrics were horrible and offensive to me - because I did not actually attend the concert.

Going and visiting and empty hall - and placing some flowers - is not the same as attending a gay wedding - or being forced to experience any aspects things about a gay wedding (say kissing of two members of the same gender) that one might find offensive - just like the guy that set up the sound system for the concert did not experience the music.

In the case of the concert - if the fellow could claim - "that music is offensive to me" - he would have a case. The problem is that this person was not actually exposed to the music. If one was not forced to listen the music - it is difficult to claim that one experienced- or was forced to experience offence in relation to listening to that music - since setting up the stage does not involve listening to the music.

I am not saying that there are not other arguments that could be made - what I am saying is that I am having trouble buying into this argument.

Say one runs a delivery service - and there is some equipment that is to be delivered to some Hall. No one will be at the Hall during the delivery except one Staff member who runs the hall - a person who is not gay - and has no connection to the gay wedding - other than renting it out to the gay couple.

Does it pass the giggle test to claim that the delivery person will be subjected to something offensive during the delivery ? He will be delivering to an empty hall and dealing with the Staff person at that hall - just like any other delivery.

To claim -"well the equipment will be used for a gay wedding" does not cut the mustard. While the gay wedding may be offensive to the fellows religious beliefs - the fellow was not exposed to any aspect of that wedding that could be deemed offensive.

 

That righteous religious finger was extended followed by: We don't serve your kind here. While I support the right to refuse service for any reason, Christians enjoy legal protection from having it done to them based on their religious beliefs.

 

I'm guessing that you have never been involved with setting up floral arrangements for a wedding. It is not just an "empty hall". Depending on how extravagant the wedding is, there are many people running all over the place setting things up in a way that are consistent with the theme of the event. The florist do not just drop off the flowers and ride off into the sunset. They are often there for many hours arranging...and rearranging their display. They are even sometimes there during the ceremony, "freshening" their display as the flowers wilt and droop throughout the day....again, depending on how extravagant the wedding is.

The gay couple were not just customers, either. They were friends of the florist. That puts the florist is a conflicted position of not being comfortable being a part of a gay wedding (even if it was just setting up) and feeling emotionally investing in the wedding of her friends.

Religious beliefs are not something a person can turn on and off. No person should be forced into a position where they feel conflicted over their valid religious beliefs. I may not agree with their religious beliefs, but I do respect that they do have a right to those beliefs.

 

Why not? They can just go someplace else.

 

Wouldn't that lead to a questionable precedent of the courts having to validate individual religious beliefs? They could declare that the owner isn't being Christian correctly? It just feels too fuzzy a line to work in practice (as cases such as this demonstrate) and that'd before we even get in to non-mainstream religions and personal expressions of religious faith.

 

Special rules for religious people is not necessary. All that is necessary is an exemption for wedding services.

I'm sure nobody would have a problem with that.