27 replies to this topic

[furrykef]

But you can't just refuse anyone for whatever reason you like. If you could, the American South would probably still be full of businesses with signs saying "no coloreds".

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

"Sexual orientation" would be an appropriate addition to that, I think, in which case the florist would obviously legally be in the wrong. As it stands now, though, it probably depends on jurisdiction.

[RedAuthar]

But you can't just refuse anyone for whatever reason you like. If you could, the American South would probably still be full of businesses with signs saying "no coloreds".

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

"Sexual orientation" would be an appropriate addition to that, I think, in which case the florist would obviously legally be in the wrong. As it stands now, though, it probably depends on jurisdiction.

But this would be based on refusal of serving Homosexual costumers period. Read the story again.

Robert Ingersoll and his partner, Curt Freed, had been buying flowers from Arlene’s for nearly a decade when Ingersoll asked Barronelle Stutzman to provide flowers for their upcoming wedding in September, according to the couple's attorneys.

She ISN'T refusing gay costumers. She's refusing just the one thing. She isn't denying their patronage. She is denying doing a job she does not believe is appropriate. Which is her right. She CANNOT be forced to accept their request.

It would be the same as if an artist refused to draw nude pictures or and photographer from taking nude photos. She is not refusing to sell to them. She's just refusing one job that she doesn't feel comfortable doing because of her religion.

[furrykef]

But this would be based on refusal of serving Homosexual costumers period. Read the story again.

It's not very nice to assume I have a reading comprehension problem. I'm just saying that she is still discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Two straight people getting married, no problem. Two gay people getting married, problem. The variable that caused the "problem" was "they are gay".

[RedAuthar]

Which should not hold any more right then her religion.

Basically what I'm getting from you is that it is "not okay" for a gay couple to be discriminated against just because they're gay but it is "okay" for a religious person to be discriminated against because religion is a choice. You should not have to hide your religion because of prejudice just like you should not have to hide your sexuality because of prejudice.

She should be allowed to make decisions based on her religious beliefs. It is infringement on her rights to say her religion (aka her beliefs that gay marriage is not okay) are not as important as the gay couple's beliefs (that gay marriage is okay). It's not like she was attacking them. She exercise her right to Free Speech and her right to practice her religion (both constitutional rights) and said because of her religion she didn't want to provide the flowers for their wedding. There are OTHER stores. She should NOT have to give in to their desires just because it was her choice to be the religion that she is.

[furrykef]

And I say again that her right to practice her religion ends when it infringes on someone else's rights. Someone else's rights always take precedence over your own rights. My religion could say I have to murder a stranger on a certain day as part of a ritual, but my religious "right" would be overridden by the law that gives precedence to other people's right to life.

Also, it's not like she has no choice if she wants to practice her religion either. She has the choice of not running a store at all.

[RedAuthar]

But she should not have to choose between the two. You shouldn't have to give up work or religion.

And the Couple had the choice of other stores. They just wanted her to do it.

Yes religion should never infringe someone else's rights, but neither should being homosexual. In fact on that note the homosexual couple is in the wrong as they technically infringed on two of her constitutional rights while she only infringed on one of theirs (technically you could add "pursuit of happiness" to both parties...but that's cheating).

[Vlad Yvhv]

One should never cross their religious convictions. To do so is to lie to one's self and make a fool of one's self in front of God. If someone says "sorry, I can't do that because of my religious convictions", that should be the end of the discussion. She could perhaps refer them to someone else, but that's just going out of her way...

[SonicAaliyahFan]

Though it was wrong for the florist to discriminate, she also had a right to defend her religious beliefs as well. And like some of you said, the gay couple could've found another store that would've proudly accepted their sexual preference, and the florist could've handled the situation more appropriately without offense. That's my point of view