• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access.

    By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.

    Membership is absolutely FREE and registration is FAST & SIMPLE so please, Register Today and join one of the friendliest communities on the net!



    You must be at least 18 years old to legally access this forum.
  • Hello Guest,

    Thanks for remaining an active member on GayHeaven. We hope you've enjoyed the forum so far.

    Our records indicate that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks. Why not dismiss this notice & make your next post today by doing one of the following:
    • General Discussion Area - Engage in a conversation with other members.
    • Gay Picture Collections - Share any pictures you may have collected from blogs and other sites. Don't know how to post? Click HERE to visit our easy 3-steps tutorial for picture posting.
    • Show Yourself Off - Brave enough to post your own pictures or videos? Let us see, enjoy & comment on that for you.
    • Gay Clips - Start sharing hot video clips you may have. Don't know how to get started? Click HERE to view our detailed tutorial for video posting.
    As you can see there are a bunch of options mentioned in here and much more available for you to start participating today! Before making your first post, please don't forget to read the Forum Rules.

    Active and contributing members will earn special ranks. Click HERE to view the full list of ranks & privileges given to active members & how you can easily obtain them.

    Please do not flood the forum with "Thank you" posts. Instead, please use the "thanks button"

    We Hope you enjoy the forum & thanks for your efforts!
    The GayHeaven Team.
  • Dear GayHeaven users,

    We are happy to announce that we have successfully upgraded our forum to a new more reliable and overall better platform called XenForo.
    Any feedback is welcome and we hope you get to enjoy this new platform for years and years to come and, as always, happy posting!

    GH Team

Judge: Washington florist who refused gay wedding broke law

W!nston

SuperSoftSillyPuppy
Staff member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
11,938
Reaction score
1,200
Points
159
Judge: Washington florist who refused gay wedding broke law
Associated Press | February 18 2015

RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) — A florist in Washington state who refused to provide flowers to a gay couple for their wedding violated state consumer protection and anti-discrimination law, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom rejected arguments from the owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland that her actions were protected by her freedoms of speech and religion. While religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren't necessarily protected, he said.

"For over 135 years, the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," Ekstrom wrote. "The Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."

Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers, sold flowers for years to customer Robert Ingersoll. She knew he was gay and that the flowers were for his partner, Curt Freed. After Washington state adopted gay marriage in 2012, Ingersoll went to the shop the following spring to ask Stutzman to do the flowers for his wedding. At the time, floral arrangements for weddings made up about 3 percent of her business.

She placed her hands on his and told him she couldn't, "because of my relationship with Jesus Christ," she said in a deposition. As a Southern Baptist, she believed only in opposite-sex marriages.

Ingersoll and Freed sued, as did Washington state, alleging violations of Washington's Law Against Discrimination and Consumer Protection Act. The couple went ahead with their wedding, but they had it at home with 11 guests and flowers from another florist, instead of the larger event they had originally envisioned.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which represented the couple, welcomed the ruling.

"The law is clear: If you choose to provide a service to couples of the opposite sex, you must provide the same service to same-sex couples," Ferguson said.

The law allows for penalties of up to $2,000 per violation, as well as legal fees. The state will likely seek those against Stutzman individually as well as her business, said Peter Lavallee, a spokesman for the attorney general's office.

A lawyer for the flower shop didn't immediately return an email seeking comment.

SOURCE

I loved this part:

"For over 135 years, the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," Ekstrom wrote. "The Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."
 

gb2000ie

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,532
Reaction score
223
Points
0
Good - if you offer a service to the public, you have to offer it TO THE PUBLIC, not just to the bits of it you like.

B.
 

brmstn69

Super Vip
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,340
Reaction score
318
Points
0
Stirring the shit a bit more...

So, if some skinhead neo-nazis went to a gay florist and asked for 20 centerpieces made of red, white, and black carnations arranged to resemble NAZI flags, should they have the right to refuse?
 

cban

Junior Member
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
211
Reaction score
9
Points
18
About time these bigots were brought to book.
 

gb2000ie

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,532
Reaction score
223
Points
0
Stirring the shit a bit more...

So, if some skinhead neo-nazis went to a gay florist and asked for 20 centerpieces made of red, white, and black carnations arranged to resemble NAZI flags, should they have the right to refuse?

Your analogy doesn't quite hold up because the swastika is a hate symbol, while flowers for a gay wedding are not.

Also - are neo-nazi groups illegal? If they are prescribed organisations then that is nothing like law abiding gay people.

Neo Nazies cannot be denied service just for being fans of how Adolf did things, but they can have a specific request refused because the requested thing is obscene.

A straight person can order a cake with a cock and balls on it, and a gay person can order a cake with a cock and balls on it. If both requests get refused because they cake maker won't make a cock and balls cake, that is not illegal. If the gays are turned down but the straights not when they both request the same thing, that is illegal.

So - for your Nazi example to be fair, they Nazis would need to be ordering an ordinary bouquet of flowers.

B.
 

brmstn69

Super Vip
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,340
Reaction score
318
Points
0
Your analogy doesn't quite hold up because the swastika is a hate symbol, while flowers for a gay wedding are not.

Also - are neo-nazi groups illegal? If they are prescribed organisations then that is nothing like law abiding gay people.

Neo Nazies cannot be denied service just for being fans of how Adolf did things, but they can have a specific request refused because the requested thing is obscene.

A straight person can order a cake with a cock and balls on it, and a gay person can order a cake with a cock and balls on it. If both requests get refused because they cake maker won't make a cock and balls cake, that is not illegal. If the gays are turned down but the straights not when they both request the same thing, that is illegal.

So - for your Nazi example to be fair, they Nazis would need to be ordering an ordinary bouquet of flowers.

B.

I beg to differ...
The swastika is not a hate symbol, it is in fact an ancient symbol used throughout the world for many different purposes.

from wiki...
The swastika (also known as the gammadion cross or cross cramponnée) is a symbol that generally takes the form of an equilateral cross, with its four legs bent at 90 degrees (as a Chinese character: 卐 or 卍). It is considered to be a very sacred and auspicious symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

And no, neo-nazi organizations are not illegal in the US, just like the KKK, they are covered by the umbrella of free-speech. As long as they are not linked to any criminal activity they are free to spew all the bile they want.

So say the florist had previously made such arrangements for a Hindu or Buddhist wedding, should the be legally obligated to do the same for the NAZI's?
 

gb2000ie

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,532
Reaction score
223
Points
0


So say the florist had previously made such arrangements for a Hindu or Buddhist wedding, should the be legally obligated to do the same for the NAZI's?

Yes - that is what it means to offer a service to the public. If you sell things to the public, you don't get to pick and choose which public you sell things to. That is a the law. It's supremely simple.

B.
 

W!nston

SuperSoftSillyPuppy
Staff member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
11,938
Reaction score
1,200
Points
159
If it were a Hindu or Buddhist wedding they refused to serve there would be the whole 'religious' discrimination thingy involved - maybe - or at least I think so - but maybe not - on second thought I'm not sure either way - I'll go back to twiddling my thumbs - forgive the intrusion :rofl:
 

Mardo

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
461
Reaction score
40
Points
0
Let's reverse the roles... let's say a church group go into a print-shop and ask them to print 500 copies of a sermon to be read at church (imagine the church's printer broke down, so they pop out to a print-shop). Somewhere in the leaflet it states the church's belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. However the printer happens to be gay and because he disagrees with the position taken in the leaflet, he refuses to make copies for the church. Can the church sue him?

OR, let's say a blood-bank have a policy where-by they will not accept blood from active gay men. They go to the printer and want some copies of their set of blood-bank rules printed... but the same printer refuses as he disagrees with their position. Can the blood-bank sue him?

Not sure people going into court should be the first consideration. Even if it makes the lawyers happy.;) If someone refuses services because of a moral prerogative, then just give them the finger lol and storm out of the store saying you'll bring your business elsewhere. Then tell all your friends to do the same. Vote with your wallet. Easier that the allegedly 'simple' legal route.

For some reason this discussion reminds me of a case where a woman was refused entry to a gay bar. Perhaps it was a pretty hard-core place with dark-rooms or perhaps it was not considered safe for the woman. Forget the details... but she sued the gay bar and won her case. I must admit to having some sympathy for the gay bar. I'd imagine in such a case that afterwards they would have to change their set-up and tone it down. But, maybe to achieve a truly equal world we all have to make compromises.:)
 

W!nston

SuperSoftSillyPuppy
Staff member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
11,938
Reaction score
1,200
Points
159
Let's reverse the roles... let's say a church group go into a print-shop and ask them to print 500 copies of a sermon to be read at church (imagine the church's printer broke down, so they pop out to a print-shop). Somewhere in the leaflet it states the church's belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. However the printer happens to be gay and because he disagrees with the position taken in the leaflet, he refuses to make copies for the church. Can the church sue him?

OR, let's say a blood-bank have a policy where-by they will not accept blood from active gay men. They go to the printer and want some copies of their set of blood-bank rules printed... but the same printer refuses as he disagrees with their position. Can the blood-bank sue him?

Not sure people going into court should be the first consideration. Even if it makes the lawyers happy.;) If someone refuses services because of a moral prerogative, then just give them the finger lol and storm out of the store saying you'll bring your business elsewhere. Then tell all your friends to do the same. Vote with your wallet. Easier that the allegedly 'simple' legal route.

For some reason this discussion reminds me of a case where a woman was refused entry to a gay bar. Perhaps it was a pretty hard-core place with dark-rooms or perhaps it was not considered safe for the woman. Forget the details... but she sued the gay bar and won her case. I must admit to having some sympathy for the gay bar. I'd imagine in such a case that afterwards they would have to change their set-up and tone it down. But, maybe to achieve a truly equal world we all have to make compromises.:)

In your analogy you used heterosexual couples and a female. What if it were a Black or Interracial couple who is refused service on religious grounds as was the case during the 1950s and 1960? Would you still say they should just take their business elsewhere? And tell all their friends in some sort of boycott action? What if it were a disabled person or couple? What if it were an Asian couple? What if it were a non-English speaking couple? There should be no religious exceptions. What they do behind the closed doors of their cult's temple may be beyond the anti-discrimination laws but out here in the real world absolutely no exceptions.

If a gay baker refuses service to a str8 couple I would be surprised to start with but eventually I would say they should serve the public without exception as the laws dictate.
 

gb2000ie

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,532
Reaction score
223
Points
0
Let's reverse the roles... let's say a church group go into a print-shop and ask them to print 500 copies of a sermon to be read at church (imagine the church's printer broke down, so they pop out to a print-shop). Somewhere in the leaflet it states the church's belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. However the printer happens to be gay and because he disagrees with the position taken in the leaflet, he refuses to make copies for the church. Can the church sue him?

Yes.

If you offer a service to the public, you offer a service to the public - you don't get to discriminate, that is what the civil rights act was all about.

OR, let's say a blood-bank have a policy where-by they will not accept blood from active gay men. They go to the printer and want some copies of their set of blood-bank rules printed... but the same printer refuses as he disagrees with their position. Can the blood-bank sue him?

Yup - see previous.

Not sure people going into court should be the first consideration. Even if it makes the lawyers happy.;) If someone refuses services because of a moral prerogative, then just give them the finger lol and storm out of the store saying you'll bring your business elsewhere. Then tell all your friends to do the same. Vote with your wallet. Easier that the allegedly 'simple' legal route.

That works fine against the odd exception, but not against systematic discrimination. The reason the civil rights act exists is because in many parts of America, voting with your wallet did not work, because every shop was the same.

Once you make it OK to discriminate, there'll be a rash of it all over the place.

For some reason this discussion reminds me of a case where a woman was refused entry to a gay bar. Perhaps it was a pretty hard-core place with dark-rooms or perhaps it was not considered safe for the woman. Forget the details... but she sued the gay bar and won her case. I must admit to having some sympathy for the gay bar. I'd imagine in such a case that afterwards they would have to change their set-up and tone it down. But, maybe to achieve a truly equal world we all have to make compromises.:)

No - to achieve an equal world, we need to stand up to discrimination. It's not just going to go away on its own.

B.
 

brmstn69

Super Vip
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,340
Reaction score
318
Points
0
O.K. let's clarify things a bit here... In the U.S. laws differ from state to state, but in general business have the right to refuse service to anyone so long as it doesn't violate anti-discrimination laws. That means race, religion. gender, etc., and in some states sexual orientation/identity.

In order to refuse service there must be reasonable belief that providing service would adversely affect your business.

For example, if a customer at a restaurant was being rude and belligerent they can be refused service on the grounds that they were disturbing other patrons.

A florist can refuse to make a racially offensive flower arrangement if they feel that doing so may alienate other customers.

And a printer can refuse to print anti-gay literature on the basis that it would affect his reputation with gay clients...
 

gb2000ie

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,532
Reaction score
223
Points
0
This law forces gay people to print anti-gay literature, so I am against it.

We need a more common-sense approach that puts limits on people but allows them a level of freedom at the same time. Otherwise it is political correctness gone mad -ultimately everyone suffers.

As always - when someone says 'its political correctness gone mad', I find myself in complete disagreement.

The law is really very simple, and superemely fair - if you provide a service to the public, you provide it to all the public, as long as they are not breaking the law.

Simple, and 100% fair.

B.
 

Mardo

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
461
Reaction score
40
Points
0
if you provide a service to the public, you provide it to all the public, as long as they are not breaking the law.

Simple, and 100% fair.

B.

A Fur company puts in a order with a delivery man -he is required to make deliveries of fur coats, to put all these coats into the back of his van and take them out one by one and deliver them...... but he is a committed animal-rights activist! He refuses to do this kind of work. He gets sued, loses his business and even his home. Is that right?

A Jewish printer receives an order from a magazine to make copies of magazines. But the magazines he is asked to work on are filled with cartoons that ridicule the Jewish religion. He refuses to do this kind of work. He gets sued, loses his business and even his home. Is that right?

'Simple and 100% fair' might apply in some theoretical or academic sense, but the real world is a different kettle of fish.;)
 

gb2000ie

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,532
Reaction score
223
Points
0
A Fur company puts in a order with a delivery man -he is required to make deliveries of fur coats, to put all these coats into the back of his van and take them out one by one and deliver them...... but he is a committed animal-rights activist! He refuses to do this kind of work. He gets sued, loses his business and even his home. Is that right?

Companies are not people, they cannot be discriminated against based on their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or anything else.

The fur company would have no right to sue, and the rest of the utterly OTT anecdote would fall apart.

A Jewish printer receives an order from a magazine to make copies of magazines. But the magazines he is asked to work on are filled with cartoons that ridicule the Jewish religion. He refuses to do this kind of work. He gets sued, loses his business and even his home. Is that right?

A magazine is a company, so see above.

Despite what Willard Mit Romney thinks, corporations are not people.

'Simple and 100% fair' might apply in some theoretical or academic sense, but the real world is a different kettle of fish.;)

In order to try make a dramatic point, you've moved from discrimination against people, which is illegal, to discrimination against corporations, which is a nonsense, since they are not people, and hence do not have human rights!

Equal rights are only possible if every person gets to be treated equally, so long as they remain within the law. Nothing you have said in any way counters that, and the experiences of the segregated lunch counters in the American south very much support my point of view.

The civil rights act didn't come into being on a whim, it came into being to tackle a very real problem - discrimination, and it did so by making it illegal for a company providing services to the public to discriminate against people.

B.
 

Mardo

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
461
Reaction score
40
Points
0
A magazine is a company

Not necessarily. The question:

A Jewish printer receives an order from a magazine to make copies of magazines. But the magazines he is asked to work on are filled with cartoons that ridicule the Jewish religion. He refuses to do this kind of work. He gets sued, loses his business and even his home. Is that right?

still requires a honest answer. Why avoid answering?
 

gb2000ie

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,532
Reaction score
223
Points
0
Not necessarily. The question:

A Jewish printer receives an order from a magazine to make copies of magazines. But the magazines he is asked to work on are filled with cartoons that ridicule the Jewish religion. He refuses to do this kind of work. He gets sued, loses his business and even his home. Is that right?

still requires a honest answer. Why avoid answering?

I am not avoiding answering - I was very clear, companies are not people, they do not have human rights. One company can refuse to do business with another for any reason at all, and they are not breaking the law, nor indeed doing anything wrong.

There is a big difference between a business discriminating against a person, and a business choosing what other business they do business with. One is illegal and immoral, the other is perfectly fine.

So, the printer can tell the magazine to sod off without repercussions, but the florist cannot refuse service to the gay men, because the gay men have human rights, but the magazine does not.

B.
 

Mardo

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
461
Reaction score
40
Points
0
@gb2000ie:

In the cases we discussed of the church group, you said that the gay person is compelled to do the work -and is also compelled to do the work for the blood-bank, which, if privatized, would be a company. But now you have changed your mind?:?

In the case you discussed with brmstn69 you claimed that a gay florist would have to do work for the neo-nazi who wanted swastikas. I take then that this also applies in the case of the order for copies of the magazine with a theme of cartoons ridiculing the Jewish religion -provided that the order is placed by a person, and not a company. Imagine that the person is a cartoonist who created the magazine in order to distribute it freely to his neighbours -no company is involved.

Imagine a Jewish printer being forced by law to work on making copies of a magazine full of cartoons ridiculing his religion.X_X

Let's see how the law evolves in the future...
 

gb2000ie

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
4,532
Reaction score
223
Points
0
The power of a discussion is that all sides get to learn form each other. My understanding of the issue has deepened, so I now have a better understanding of the complexities of the issue. My early replies are not as well thought out as my later ones because I have learned things from taking part in this discussion. I'm not going to apologise for treating a discussion as a learning opportunity instead of a competition to be right. I'm not interested in scoring debating points, but in deepening my understanding.

If a business provides a service to the public, it must provide that service to the entire public, it cannot choose to not serve some people because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

A key point I didn't grasp the importance of at the start of the discussion is that there is a difference between not providing a service based on who is the customer, and not agreeing to do something because it it outside of what you normally do. One is illegal and immoral, the other is perfectly OK both morally and legally.

The gay couple at the start of this thread asked the florist to do exactly what she does for everyone else, provide floral arrangements. She said no, not based on WHAT she was being asked for, but because of WHO was doing the asking. That is why she broke the law.

It sounds like splitting hairs, but in both a legal and moral sense, there is a huge difference in refusing to do a particular task because of what it is, and refusing to serve a particular person because of who they are.

In the case of a lunch counter it's all very simple. Lunch counters serve the food on their menu to people who are not disruptive and pay their bills. It is illegal for a lunch counter not to serve a non-distruptive bill-paying black person food from the menu.

In the case of more creative services, the distinction between saying no based on the person, and on the task needs more careful consideration.

Imagine you are a Jewish baker, and you make cakes to order, people can ask for a shape, and they can ask for a design to be printed onto that shaped cake. It is entirely legal and proper for you to set rules on what you will and won't do. You can say that you will not produce cakes that are lewd, political, or offensive, PROVIDED, you clearly publish those rules, and, apply them equally to all customers.

Now, imagine the neo-nazi comes in and orders a cake. If he orders an ordinary cake that is not offensive, lewd, or political, you cannot refuse him simply because you don't like his beliefs.

But, if that same neo-nazi walks in and orders a cake in the shape of a swastica, you CAN reject his order, not because of who he is, but because he is asking you to provide him with a service you do not provide to anyone else - remember, you do not do political, lewd or offensive cakes. Should the neo-nazi try to sue, you just show the court your published terms of service, and the case will get thrown out.

As long as a business treats all members of the public the same, they do not have to do anything they are un-comortable with, they just can't refuse services based on the customer's gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

I think that accurately sums up my current opinion on the topic at hand.

B.
 

gorgik9

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
13,855
Reaction score
12,993
Points
120
@gb2000ie

Brilliant summary!!! I learned a lot from this latest post!
 
Top