T1B

The AG in WA is suing a florist who declined to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She says she doesn't support gay marriage and therefore is referring such business to another shop. The AG sent her a letter asking her to comply with the gay couple's request and when she declined the state filed suit. The State is seeking $2,000 and a perm injunction forcing the owner of the florist shop to provide flowers for any and all gay weddings.

The state says she is discriminating based on sexual orientation. She says she isn't because she has (likely now had) many gay customers and gladly serves them, just not gay weddings.

She claims she is being discriminated against based on her religious beliefs.


Any predictions on this one?

There's no need to sue the florist. She wants to be a dumb cunt and turn down business, let her. The dominos will fall where they should.

Don't gay people REALLY like their flowers and stuff?

R-Jack wrote:There's no need to sue the florist. She wants to be a dumb cunt and turn down
business, let her. The dominos will fall where they should.

yup.

R-Jack wrote:There's no need to sue the florist. She wants to be a dumb cunt and turn down business, let her. The dominos will fall where they should.

maybe she's one of those capitalists who has standards and values.

She'll get more business, just like Chick fil A.

Carson wrote:

R-Jack wrote: She'll get more business, just like Chick fil A.

Fatass bible thumping fast food addicts suddenly buying more flowers in the U&L ?

I'm gonna say it's apples to oranges.

I'm sure there are plenty of decent people going about their business who are well tired of faggots and their constant complaining...even in the U&L.

I get what you're saying, but chic fil'a thing was more about their core customer using god as an excuse to shovel more shit down their gullets.

We're talking flowers here. I severely doubt anything could offset the faggot business

R-Jack wrote:
Fatass bible thumping fast food addicts suddenly buying more flowers in the U&L ?

I'm gonna say it's apples to oranges.

I'm gonna say you've never been to Tri Cities. Makes Texas look pretty liberal.

a florist is obligated to sell to customers she does not choose to do business with?

was she also obligated to give them a 20% discount and extended credit terms?

twere you limber enough, you'd do ATM on yourself.

If you own a gun, do the right thing.

and I was correct.


So Jsc, if this lady just refused service to these folks without giving them a reason that would have been ok? But since she voiced her opinion as to why she was denying service she breaks the law?

If I was the attorney for the florist, I would suggest that if the situation happens again, then she should kindly tell the same sex couple that they were fully booked for that day and thus would be unable to accept their order. Or some other excuse.
Bet that wouldn't work too well if the couple were of black African ancestry.

Dinsdale wrote:

R-Jack wrote:
Fatass bible thumping fast food addicts suddenly buying more flowers in the U&L ?

I'm gonna say it's apples to oranges.

I'm gonna say you've never been to Tri Cities. Makes Texas look pretty liberal.

I understand all that. Just saying Fat Fucking Retards+Fast Food+Bible Belt drive-thrus is a bigger recipe for success than U&L teabaggers + flowers.

Plus Chick fil'a (or however it's spelled) never refused service to anyone. Like I said, apples to oranges

Why the fukk would these people want to patronize the florist? Or are they looking for a check out of this?

I think the store owners are right in this case. They are not withholding anything from the lesbos.They should be able to shop for flowers elsewhere and if they couldn't, flowers aren't a requirement of marriage. The storeowners could point out that forcing them to make this sale does interfer with their religious rights.

R-Jack wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

R-Jack wrote:
Fatass bible thumping fast food addicts suddenly buying more flowers in the U&L ?

I'm gonna say it's apples to oranges.

I'm gonna say you've never been to Tri Cities. Makes Texas look pretty liberal.

I understand all that. Just saying Fat Fucking Retards+Fast Food+Bible Belt drive-thrus is a bigger recipe for success than U&L teabaggers + flowers.

Conservatives don't have weddings, funerals and other special events which require the service of a florist? Is that your final take?

Wrong. If there was gay marriage then there is no case. The owner serves gays all the time, she just has a religious objection to them getting married.

what a bunch of faggotry.

oh dear, she violated the law in a state that allows the sale of weed. What are they gonna' do, deny her a hashish license?

as always Gaysc, go fuck yourself.

Jsc810 wrote:Do you have a point?

If so, then perhaps you could try to articulate it.

Apparently his point is that he only obeys laws with which he agrees and that discrimination is okay in the Wag's household. That shouldn't be too surprising to anyone.

you're damn right I discriminate, against all sorts of things. PC bullshit being high on that list.

War Wagon wrote:you're damn right I discriminate, against all sorts of things. PC bullshit and laws I don't like being high on that list.

FTFY

If the people don't agree with the law, they should get it changed.

With JSC back, we can all look forward to daily melts from Whitey where he resorts to JSC killing himself. Always entertaining.

Jsc810 wrote:Mace, if those laws are unconstitutional, then they also can get the courts to strike down those laws.

This law, however, is constitutional.

Agreed.

Jsc810 wrote:The state is not telling her that she cannot have faith as she chooses.

That is exactly what the state is doing.

Mace wrote:FTFY

If the people don't agree with the law, they should get it changed.

We tried that in California...twice on this issue alone.

If people don't agree with the law, they need to find some asshole in a black robe who will agree with them. The people have fuckall to do with anything anymore. We are living in a post-Constitutional society.

Mace wrote:
If the people don't agree with the law, they should get it changed.

The people have spoken repeatedly on the issue, they vote it down time after time. Gay marriage is legal by popular vote in only 3 states. Every other state is due to courts or legislation. Three of thoses after voters turned it down at the polls.

On the flip side 26 states ban gay marriage by either state statue or in their constitution.

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:FTFY

If the people don't agree with the law, they should get it changed.

We tried that in California...twice on this issue alone.

If people don't agree with the law, they need to find some asshole in a black robe who will agree with them. The people have fuckall to do with anything anymore. We are living in a post-Constitutional society.

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:FTFY

If the people don't agree with the law, they should get it changed.

We tried that in California...twice on this issue alone.

If people don't agree with the law, they need to find some asshole in a black robe who will agree with them. The people have fuckall to do with anything anymore. We are living in a post-Constitutional society.

So you think people's rights should be subject to a popular vote...no surprise coming from a dumbfuck like you.

Diego in Seattle wrote:So you think people's rights should be subject to a popular vote...

Hmm. I see. Well what is the wellspring of "people's rights" in your opinion?

g0d and baby jesus, ya silly.

Left Seater wrote:The AG sent her a letter asking her to comply with the gay couple's request and when she declined the state filed suit. The State is seeking $2,000 and a perm injunction forcing the owner of the florist shop to provide flowers for any and all gay weddings.

The wheels of justice turn slowly.

Any link to this case Lefty, or are you just trolling?

let's assume the AG did indeed send this letter (the premise of the thread).

Which means the AG of the Great State of Washington has nothing better to do, while PedoinSeattle remains unscathed under the jurisdiction.

Pretty nice troll job, I must admit.

You could have googled that in far less time than it took you to post.


Next time give it a try.

Jsc810 wrote: But if you engage in commerce, then you can't discriminate.

Wrong again Jsc. More than half of the states in this country allow a business owner to discriminate based on sexual preference. Same for gender identity.

The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission joined the lawsuit.

"The court's decision is based on Hawaii's strong state civil rights laws which prohibit discrimination," commission Executive Director William Hoshijo said. "When visitors or residents are subjected to discrimination, they suffer the sting of indignity, humiliation and outrage, but we are all demeaned and our society diminished by unlawful discrimination."

Got to love the ED's true colors coming out in his quote. Unlawful discrimination is bad and hurtful, but some discrimination is ok as long as it doesn't violate the law.

Left Seater wrote:Got to love the ED's true colors coming out in his quote. Unlawful discrimination is bad and hurtful, but some discrimination is ok as long as it doesn't violate the law.

There actually is nothing "wrong" with what the ED said. Discrimination based on criminal records, drug/alcohol abuse, etc. is lawful and generally encouraged and accepted by society. He was right to include the qualifier "unlawful" in his statement, though there is, of course, disagreement as to what should constitute unlawfulness in some cases.

Right so according to this ED, if this same situation were to happen in Florida he would be ok with it because it was lawful discrimination? We both know he wouldn't.

But, I am certain that this same ED is ok with business owners discriminating against those with a concealed carry license. I am sure he would argue that the business owner has a right to not provide goods or services to someone who is carrying a gun legally. After all, it is the owners store and the person with a gun can choose another provider if they want to carry their gun.

So Aunt B's Bed and Breakfast can discriminate based on CHL, but not choice of partners. What a load of crap.

Thanks smart guy.

Doesn't change the fact you were wrong in more than half of the US on your previous take.

Problem is the ED doesn't post here so we are left to guess at what he means by his quote. Smackie pointed out criminals and those with will power issues. I provided a different view. I also note that you didn't disagree with my guess.

Not really arguing with you, Lefty - I sort of agree with your take. Just pointing out that the word discrimination is interpreted by most folks to have only a negative connotation, when in fact it is sometimes socially acceptable. In this case, we have an ED of a Civil Rights Commission who happens to live in one of the states in which discrimination by business owners based on sexual orientation is unlawful. Were he to live in a state where such discrimination was legal, it would be a safe bet that he would still be against it, and if the case went to trial and the ruling came back in favor of the business owner, he couldn't make the statement he made. That's why:

I wrote:there is, of course, disagreement as to what should constitute unlawfulness in some cases

If he lived in a state where the court's ruling went against his beliefs, his beef would be that he disagreed with the ruling because he disagreed with the law. In this case, he didn't have to do that, because the ruling was in line with his beliefs, and he could legitimately claim that what the B&B did constituted unlawful discrimination. I doubt in the Hawaii case the ruling will be overturned on First Amendment grounds.

The CHL example you cite poses an interesting scenario. All states except Illinois issue permits for concealed weapons. In at least some of the states that issue permits, business owners have the right to deny patrons from entering their establishments while packing. As an example, bar & restaurant owners in South Carolina can choose to prohibit firearms by posting signs that ban them. Would the proprietors' right to do so be considered a civil right? Regardless, Aunt B's B&B couldn't legally discriminate against patrons simply on the basis that they have permits, but she could legally discriminate against them if they refuse to unstrap prior to entering.

Edit: It appears as of now, guns are not allowed in SC bars & restaurants. The bill before the State Senate would allow them, but would give owners the right to prohibit them if signs are posted.

Jsc810 wrote: I was talking about that state, and you changed my position to the entire country.

That state? Wow, you certainly cleared it right up.

Which state? Washington or Hawaii?

And if you werent trying to make the commerce line stand on its own why a separate paragraph?

Jsc810 wrote:But if you engage in commerce, then you can't discriminate.

Spoken like a true bootlicking fascist. Your utter contempt for the concept of freedom and individual liberty is noted.