WA State Judge Explains Ruling Against Christian Florist

[Jose Fly]

oh, ok... i get it . You think being made to sit in the bakc of the bus is comparable to not getting flowers..

You're missing the point of why she was brought up in the first place. Rusha was trying to make the argument that "harm" only exists when there is actual physical harm. I cited Rosa Parks being forced to sit in the back of the bus as an example of "harm" that didn't involve physical harm.

 

[Rusha]

Washington State Human Rights Commission

All people of Washington have certain rights and responsibilities under the Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60). Under the law, everyone has the right to be free from discrimination at work, in housing, in a public accommodation, or when seeking credit and insurance. Discrimination occurs whenever we treat someone differently and deny him or her equal treatment or access because of: their membership in a Protected Class.

Protected Class Includes:

Race/Color
National Origin
Creed
Sex/Pregnancy
Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity
Veteran/Military Status
The presence of any sensory, mental, or physical actual Disability or perceived Disability
Use of a Service Animal
HIV or Hepatitis C
Marital Status (except in public accommodation)
Breastfeeding (in public accommodation)
Age (40+, employment only)
Families with Children (housing only)
State Employee Whistleblower


A business open to the public constitutes "public accommodation". In this case the florist provided flowers for opposite-sex weddings, but refused to do so for same-sex weddings. Therefore she was guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is clearly illegal in Washington. She was even given the opportunity to work with the state and correct the situation, but she refused. So it went to court and the court easily ruled against her. Now she's crying that her business is being ruined, I guess hoping that most people won't pay attention to the fact that she was offered a way out but refused.

Oh. Strange. Religion is not on that list. Funny that.

This is exactly why this supposed anti-hate crime laws and anti-bigotry laws fail. It is a fact that certain people use these laws to target businesses and business owners.

How awesome it must be to have one's priorities in order in such a matter that the happy couple puts a political agenda above a happy, memorable wedding.

Law suits and court proceedings are draining and stressful. Normal people who are planning a wedding would not wish to bring the chaos of a lawsuit into it.

Ah, memories of a lifetime.

 

[Rusha]

You're missing the point of why she was brought up in the first place. Rusha was trying to make the argument that "harm" only exists when there is actual physical harm..

No ... the point is that the supposed *harm* is about hurt feelings ... aka pettiness.

Obviously it's of higher priority than the wedding. Perhaps they will put it in their scrapbook. Frame it. Use it as an inscription on their wedding rings.

Priorities, priorities.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh. Strange. Religion is not on that list. Funny that.

That is odd. But discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal at the federal level.

This is exactly why this supposed anti-hate crime laws and anti-bigotry laws fail. It is a fact that certain people use these laws to target businesses and business owners.

It wouldn't work if business owners would just abide by the law.

How awesome it must be to have one's priorities in order in such a matter that the happy couple puts a political agenda above a happy, memorable wedding.

Where is your specific evidence that that's what happened here?

No ... the point is that the supposed *harm* is about hurt feelings ... aka pettiness.

Again, tell that to Rosa Parks. She still got where she wanted, right? So she had to sit in the back of the bus....big deal, right?

 

[Rusha]

Again, tell that to Rosa Parks

So sorry, but I don't see her posting on TOL. Nice distraction though.

Oddly enough, most people who are planning their wedding have services provided by those who wish to share in their joy. The flowers at my wedding were done by a family friend and awesome.

However, I bet if I went to someone who I knew wouldn't want my business, those flowers would have been of superior quality and much more sentimental.

 

[shagster01]

You're missing the point of why she was brought up in the first place. Rusha was trying to make the argument that "harm" only exists when there is actual physical harm. I cited Rosa Parks being forced to sit in the back of the bus as an example of "harm" that didn't involve physical harm.

That is harm because she paid for the same service as everyone else, but did not get it.

The gay couple did not pay for anything.

Which, as has been demonstrated, is illegal.

My argument is that it shouldn't be.

 

[Jose Fly]

So sorry, but I don't see her posting on TOL. Nice distraction though.

:rotfl:

Neither is the Christian florist, but that didn't stop you from talking about her.

You ToL Christians sure are a hoot! :chuckle:

 

[republicanchick]

hmmm... no answer to Post 17

I'm SOOOOO surprised...

you can't argue w/ the truth

truth is irrefutable




____

 

[Jose Fly]

That is harm because she paid for the same service as everyone else, but did not get it.

Yes she did. She got to her destination. A bus fare doesn't guarantee you a specific seat on the bus, does it?

The gay couple did not pay for anything.

They were denied the ability to, which is the point.

If you open a business to the public, you are expected to accommodate the public. Gay people are part of that public.

My argument is that it shouldn't be.

What part? There shouldn't be any anti-discrimination laws at all, or sexual orientation shouldn't be a protected class?

 

[rexlunae]

You think being made to sit in the bakc of the bus is comparable to not getting flowers..

Yep, sure do.

hmmm... no answer to Post 17

I'm SOOOOO surprised...

There. Happy?

 

[Ardima]

The truth of the matter is the florist was found to be hypocritical in their selling practices. the prosecution could prove that the sale of flowers was withheld because the flowers were for a "gay wedding." If they could have shown a consistent pattern in their sales practices that proved that the refusal was based on religious beliefs (i.e. the consistently refused to provide flowers for weddings in which one or both of the participants came from a divorce) the outcome would have been different. Unfortunately, all evidence pointed to the florist's sales practice as being hypocritical and discriminatory against one specific sin. In this case I believe the ruling was fair based on the evidence. All the evidence points to a bigot florist hiding behind the claim of a religious belief.

 

[Rusha]

:rotfl:

Neither is the Christian florist, but that didn't stop you from talking about her.

Or you ... :baby:

You ToL Christians sure are a hoot! :chuckle:

We ... wait ... *they* are.

Reading comprehension. Get some.

 

[resodko]

:rotfl:

Neither is the Christian florist, but that didn't stop you from talking about her.

wait a tic - who started this thread?


(looks at op)

Judge: Florist violated state law in refusing flowers for gay marriage



That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Lon]

Tell that to Rosa Parks.


Where has that happened?

Here

Yes there's a double standard....between reality (the case in the OP) and the imaginary world in your head (the case you describe above).

:nono: The standard in the above case should go to court, if the man decides to press charges. Right 'now,' it is a double-standard.

 

[Rusha]

That is harm because she paid for the same service as everyone else, but did not get it.

The gay couple did not pay for anything.

They were denied the ability to, which is the point.

They didn't have the ability to go to A baker, order A cake, and pay for THE cake once THE baker baked it?

The happy couple must have been unfortunate enough to live in a town with only one bakery, with no other town or city within 30 miles huh?

 

[Jose Fly]

wait a tic - who started this thread?


(looks at op)

Seriously....pay closer attention. Rusha claimed it was a "distraction" to mention Rosa Parks, since she isn't posting at ToL. I pointed out the hypocrisy in that by pointing out how Rusha was just fine with mentioning the Christian florist even though she wasn't posting at ToL.

 

[republicanchick]

Yep, sure do.



?

yeh, you libs have no shame

you will when you go meet God, as all of us do in the End

you will be so ashamed of yourself in the Light of His Countenance, that you will pitch yourslef into hell rather t han stay in said Countenance




sad...


___

 

[Rusha]

Seriously....pay closer attention. Rusha claimed it was a "distraction" to mention Rosa Parks, since she isn't posting at ToL. I pointed out the hypocrisy in that by pointing out how Rusha was just fine with mentioning the Christian florist even though she wasn't posting at ToL.

Uh ... the Christian florist IS mentioned in the OP. Details, details.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here

That's not what Rusha imagined.

The standard in the above case should go to court, if the man decides to press charges. Right 'now,' it is a double-standard.

Nope. In that case the guy wanted a Christian baker to write "God hates Gays" on a cake, which is asking her to engage in a specific type of speech. She refused. The guy is mad, but has no case because "people who hate gays" are not a protected class, nor are you entitled to compel a business to engage in a specific speech.

In this case the same-sex couple just wanted flowers for their wedding. They didn't ask the florist to write or say anything, or engage in any sort of specific speech. Just sell them flowers like you do for any other wedding. She refused purely because they are gay, which is illegal.

I honestly can't believe so many of you here at ToL can't understand this.

 

[rexlunae]

yeh, you libs have no shame

For supporting civil rights?

you will when you go meet God, as all of us do in the End

you will be so ashamed of yourself in the Light of His Countenance, that you will pitch yourslef into hell rather t han stay in said Countenance




sad...

Yes. Sad is exactly how you sound when you contemplate it. You aren't looking forward to it at all...