Case of Florist Who Denied Service for Gay Wedding Is Heard

[Paganus]

If they frequented this florist, than it is clear to me that they were not discriminating against them for being gay, it was only when they were tasked with participating in an event they found immoral (same sex wedding) that they refused to do that.

Thus they were not denied service for being gay, but because they were being tasked with participating in a same sex wedding event. By conflating the two, one sets a deadly precedent, which is why I am amazed that judges and others can’t seem to see the difference, or maybe it’s because they don’t want to?

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

You have it right. This woman is an inspiration to people of faith. She is showing the world that the land of the once free remains the home of the brave.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ll answer with this hypothetical.

If a man wanted to cheat on his wife, and came into my shop to buy flowers for his mistress, he could buy any flowers he wants to, I can’t stop that, nor would I feel I were participating in the event by selling standard flowers to him, he would simply buy them and I wouldn’t ask or know where they were going.

But if he wanted me to write a note to put on the flowers for his mistress, I believe I should absolutely have the right to refuse to do that. Because that I believe would be contributory.

If he were asking you to compose the message it might be considered different than if he had a message that he wanted written down (where the latter would be considered to be only his expression). In either case I think a presumed desire to keep the mistress secret might result in something like this never making it’s way to court, and it doesn’t seem to fall under one of the consumer protection laws.

I took a glance at the court documents and their discussion never got as far as him communicating what it was that he wanted from business owner.
"Court Ruling:

Q: Tell me what you remember about your conversation with [Ingersoll].
**A: He came in and we were just citchatting and he said that he was going to get married. Wanted something really simple, khaki I believe he said. And I just put my hands on his and told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ I couldn’t do that, couldn’t do his wedding. **
Q: Did you tell him that before he finished telling you what he wanted?
**A: He said was going to be very simple. **
Q: Did he tell you what type of flowers he would want?
A: We didn’t get into that.

There was no discussion between the parties about any particulars regarding whether Defendants were being asked to deliver flowers to the wedding (as opposed to picking them up from the store) or whether Stutzman was being asked to attend the wedding. Stutzman’s position was that she “chose not to be part of this event,” because she believed Ingersoll “Wanted me to do his wedding flowers which would have been part of the event.” Stuzman did state in her deposition testimony that Ingersoll communicated to her that he wanted to purchase raw materials (variously described as “Stems” and “branches” throughout the depositions and declarations), she would have provided those items.

Ingersoll’s recollection of the interaction is not materially different. In deposition testimony, when asked what he had contemplated having Stuzman provide for his wedding, he indicated:

**A: Just some sticks or twigs in a vase and then we were going to do candles. We wanted to be very simple and understated. **
Q: Did you tell Barronell that you wanted to do sticks or twigs?
**A: Barronelle never gave me the opportunity to discuss the flower arrangements. **

Ingersoll left Arlene’s Flowers shortly thereafter, upset because he had thought Stuzman would “do my flowers.” This interaction effectively severed the relationship between the parties and ultimately gave rise to the present actions.

…]which implied that, the person and the acts were one and the same, so to speak out against the sexual acts of homosexuality or same sex marriage, was to speak out against the homosexual person(s), which was and is just not true…]

There was a relevant comment in the court documents.

Specifically, the AG alleges that Stuzman’s conceded statement to Ingersoll that she couldn’t do the flowers for his wedding on March 1, 2013 on the premise of Arlene’s Flowers constitutes an admission to committing a violation of the WLAD in trade or commerce , and as such is a per se violation of the CPA as a matter of law. Further AG argues that the courts have routinely rejected Defendants’ affirmative defense of the following reasons: one cannot escape a claim of discrimination by seeking to distinguish between status and conduct of the protected party; entry into the state licensed commercial arena imposes limits on the religiously motivated conduct (as opposed to belief); and defining one’s commercial activity as expressive does not change the propriety of that regulation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

They frequently patronized this florist. They didn’t go out of the way to find someone to sue, they went to the person they regularly bought flowers from to buy flowers for their wedding. They had no way of knowing she was going to deny them service because they were gay.

Adding on to this:
Court Ruling:

Plantiff Robert Ingersoll is a gay man who was an established customer of Arlene’s Flowers. During the approximately nine years leading up to the present action, Stutzman, on behalf of Arlene’s Flowers, regularly designed and created flower arrangements for Ingersoll. Ingersol estimated that, with respect to the purchase of flowers only, Stutzman had served him approximately 20 times or more and that he had spent in the range of $4,500 at Arlene’s Flowers. Stuntman prepared these arrangements knowing both that Ingersoll was gay and that the arrangements were for Ingersoll’s same-sex partner, Curt Freed for occasions such as birthdays, anniversaries and Valentine’s Day

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Stutzman, the owner of the company, says the man that sued her had been her customer for ten years.

I’ve purchased flowers several times within a year. Usually for the birthdays if friends, my mother, sisters, aunts, girlfriend and sometimes for other special events.I don’t buy flowers for all of those people every year, but it is enough within a year for me to hold an account. Nothing fishy going on here.

This seems like an unusual case to me. Obviously the florist had strong morals against gay marriage, not against gay people, just of the idea of them getting “married”. Very vindictive of the customer if you ask me but --

But usually, these are not long time customers who sue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

She can agree or disagree with whatever she wants. She can think whatever she wants about gay people or gay weddings. What she can’t do is voluntarily agree to follow state law and then not follow state law. She’s not losing her business, she’s facing a financial penalty for breaking the law.

She’s not being persecuted because of her views on gay marriage. She’s facing a penalty for breaking anti-discrimination laws.

Which completely ignores and begs the question of whether those supposed “anti-discrimination laws” are themselves discriminatory against those who don’t agree with them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you are making extrapolations from the laws it may be better to do it based on the word of the law instead of the word of the article. I believe the word of the Washington state law relevant to this thread can be found here.

Information on the intended usage of their words and other information can be found here. For example, the phrase “Full enjoyment of” is used in the above. Information on the usage of the phrase : “Full enjoyment of” includes the right to purchase any service, commodity, or article of personal property offered or sold on, or by, any establishment to the public, and the admission of any person to accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, without acts directly or indirectly causing persons of any particular race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, or with any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, to be treated as not welcome, accepted, desired, or solicited.

There’s lots of definitions, but they may be helpful in making a more precise expression of what is intended.

What is perfectly clear is that the state is siding with one party Re: sexual orientation against another party Re: creed and arbitrarily coming down on the side of sexual orientation. “Full enjoyment of” also pertains to the right of the florist to fully engage in her business venture without having to compromise her creed merely because someone with a different creed regarding marriage are coercing her to see things their way using the letter of the law and a politically correct judiciary.

If this were as inconsequential as some make it out to be, then the gay couple should have simply gone to another florist since their right to believe something about marriage does not supersede the right of the florist to believe something different.

It isn’t as if the florist’s beliefs are completely at odds with reality or biology – they have been the received views of humanity regarding marriage for tens of thousands of years, gay activist objections notwithstanding.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What is perfectly clear is that the state is siding with one party Re: sexual orientation against another party Re: creed and arbitrarily coming down on the side of sexual orientation. “Full enjoyment of” also pertains to the right of the florist to fully engage in her business venture without having to compromise her creed merely because someone with a different creed regarding marriage are coercing her to see things their way using the letter of the law and a politically correct judiciary.

If this were as inconsequential as some make it out to be, then the gay couple should have simply gone to another florist since their right to believe something about marriage does not supersede the right of the florist to believe something different.

It isn’t as if the florist’s beliefs are completely at odds with reality or biology – they have been the received views of humanity regarding marriage for tens of thousands of years, gay activist objections notwithstanding.

 

[lmachine]

Which completely ignores and begs the question of whether those supposed “anti-discrimination laws” are themselves discriminatory against those who don’t agree with them.

They aren’t. She has exactly the same rights to not be discriminated against as a private citizen that the couple she discriminated against do.

 

[EIF5A]

Hypothetically, heterosexual people who want to be in same-sex “marriage” would also have be been denied floral arrangements.

It’s not discrimination against gay people. It’s discrimination against same-sex marriage.

 

[lmachine]

Hypothetically, heterosexual people who want to be in same-sex “marriage” would also have be been denied floral arrangements.

It’s not discrimination against gay people. It’s discrimination against same-sex marriage.

As I already said that would be discrimination on the basis of sex, which is also illegal.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It’s not discrimination against gay people. It’s discrimination against same-sex marriage.

The “she isn’t discriminating against gays, only gay weddings” argument was addressed in the court case.
Court Ruling:

The United States Supreme Court has long held that discrimination based on conduct associated with the protected characteristic constitutes discrimination on the basis of the characteristic. (Bob Jones University v United States…university’students student group claimed that it did not prohibit gay members, only those who engaged in or supported same-sex intimacy rejected because of prior decisions “have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context”…)

…In fact, in Elaine Photography, under a cognate New Mexico anti-discrimination law, the Court held, “when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that law similarly protects conduct [such as marriage] that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation.”…

…Defendants’ refusal to “do the flowers” for Ingersoll and Freed’s wedding based on her religious opposition to same sex marriage is, as a matter of law, a refusal based on Ingersoll and Freed’s sexual orientation in violation of the WLAD.

Also relevant:
Court Ruling:

When the followers of a particular sect enter into a commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statuary schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exception …operates to impose [the followers] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law].

United States v. Lee

 

[Peter_Plato]

They aren’t. She has exactly the same rights to not be discriminated against as a private citizen that the couple she discriminated against do.

Having “rights” does not mean others are forced to provide you with something. Having rights means others ought not be an impediment to you attaining by legitimate means that which is for your ultimate well-being.

The florist should not be forced to legitimize some perceived “right” that a gay couple believe themselves to have.

If I have a right to safety that doesn’t mean others are forced to protect me no matter what I do or whatever situation I put myself in, it merely means that others ought not cause me harm intentionally or negligently.

In commerce, no one ought to be forced into a transaction where they must exchange or barter goods. The sole place of the state is to ensure that agreed-upon transactions are completed and not reneged, and that products are not liable to cause unforeseen harm – everything else ought to be left to the good will and mutual agreement of the transactors. That is the very essence of a free market economy.

It is pretty clear that overuse and abuse of terms like discrimination and rights has meant that no one is very clear about what those words even mean any more. As a result, the sense of fairness and justice that individuals ought to intuitively grasp has been battered beyond recognition.

Everything is right and everything is wrong and the difference between the two is indistinguishable because it changes minute by minute in order to disqualify those next in line that the progressive left wants to disqualify.

 

[Peter_Plato]

They aren’t. She has exactly the same rights to not be discriminated against as a private citizen that the couple she discriminated against do.

So what would you say to the fashion designer refusing to “dress” Melania Trump?

"As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady,” the letter reads. “The rhetoric of racism, sexism, and xenophobia unleashed by her husband’s presidential campaign are incompatible with the shared values we live by.”
thefederalist.com/2016/11/18/refusing-serve-customers-dont-agree-suddenly-cool/#disqus_thread

Besides the blatant self-contradiction in her statement, would you say she has a right not to do so if she chooses?

 

[sallybutler]

So what would you say to the fashion designer refusing to “dress” Melania Trump?

"As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady,” the letter reads. “The rhetoric of racism, sexism, and xenophobia unleashed by her husband’s presidential campaign are incompatible with the shared values we live by.”
thefederalist.com/2016/11/18/refusing-serve-customers-dont-agree-suddenly-cool/#disqus_thread

Besides the blatant self-contradiction in her statement, would you say she has a right not to do so if she chooses?

It would depend. If Melania was buying the dresses, then the designer doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If the designer is lending or donating the dress (as they often do), then the designer has a right to not “dress” Melania.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Besides the blatant self-contradiction in her statement, would you say she has a right not to do so if she chooses?

Where is the contradiction?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Where is the contradiction?

Take your blinders off. She said the exact same thing as the florist in the opposite direction.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Anti-discrimination laws are usually based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited refusal of service based on racial classification, color, religion, or national origin. The protected classes have since been expanded to include some other attributes on which refusal of service is illegal such as disabilities, and some regions and states include other classes within their anti-discrimination laws (sexuality being among these). One can legally discriminate for some other reason provided that their reason doesn’t have the effect of discriminating on a protected class. Ex: imagine a business that doesn’t prohibit providing service to women, but does prohibit service to people wearing dresses. The business might be found to be discriminating based on sex (I say might because I can think of some situations in which dresses raise safety concerns). On the other hand considered “No shoes, no shirt, no service.” While it is a discrimination it is not an illegal discrimination.

I don’t believe that Sophie Theallet’s preemptive statement that she doesn’t want to provide services to Mrs. Trump touches on any anti-discrimination laws/attributes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It would depend. If Melania was buying the dresses, then the designer doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If the designer is lending or donating the dress (as they often do), then the designer has a right to not “dress” Melania.

Why does she have a “right” not to dress Melania if she is lending or donating the dress? It seems to me that, even under leftist rules of discrimination, she would be discriminating against Melania on the basis of some ideological difference she has with Melania, which is essentially the same issue which raises its head in the florist case.

All of a sudden, and for no real substantive reasons, credal considerations are no longer considered grounds for discrimination here while color, sexual orientation or some other “legislated” protection remains in effect for merely capricious “reasons.” The logical inconsistency is blatant here, and shows that these “civil rights” determinations are contrived and arbitrary.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Anti-discrimination laws are usually based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited refusal of service based on racial classification, color, religion, or national origin. The protected classes have since been expanded to include some other attributes on which refusal of service is illegal such as disabilities, and some regions and states include other classes within their anti-discrimination laws (sexuality being among these). One can legally discriminate for some other reason provided that their reason doesn’t have the effect of discriminating on a protected class. Ex: imagine a business that doesn’t prohibit providing service to women, but does prohibit service to people wearing dresses. The business might be found to be discriminating based on sex (I say might because I can think of some situations in which dresses raise safety concerns). On the other hand considered “No shoes, no shirt, no service.” While it is a discrimination it is not an illegal discrimination.

I don’t believe that Sophie Theallet’s preemptive statement that she doesn’t want to provide services to Mrs. Trump touches on any anti-discrimination laws/attributes.

Which demonstrates that the Civil Rights Act is itself inconsistent in terms of how it is construed, applied and for which reasons.

That is pretty clear from your admission that “While it is discrimination it is not an illegal discrimination,” as if there is some substantive difference between what counts as legal vs illegal discrimination in the first place. The difference isn’t a de jure, logical or meaningful one, but merely a sociologically contrived and de facto one – which is reason to question and reassess the premises upon which the act is based to begin with.

 

[sallybutler]

Why does she have a “right” not to dress Melania if she is lending or donating the dress? It seems to me that, even under leftist rules of discrimination, she would be discriminating against Melania on the basis of some ideological difference she has with Melania, which is essentially the same issue which raises its head in the florist case.

All of a sudden, and for no real substantive reasons, credal considerations are no longer considered grounds for discrimination here while color, sexual orientation or some other “legislated” protection remains in effect for merely capricious “reasons.” The logical inconsistency is blatant here, and shows that these “civil rights” determinations are contrived and arbitrary.

As soon as you choose to enter into the public market square of making money which is governed, at least in the United States of America, not by religious creeds (unless you consider greed to be your creed), but by federal, state, and local laws, you must abide by those. If you want to run your business by your religious creed, you need to either remove it from the public market square and/or get the laws changed.

For this reason, donations are not subject to the same laws as sales. If it were, you would be required to give to Planned Parenthood every time you gave to the Catholic Church.