Case of Florist Who Denied Service for Gay Wedding Is Heard

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Your inferences don’t make sense.

Why would I be required to give to PP every time a gave to the Catholic Church, even if the same “laws” governed donations?

I would counter that perhaps this demonstrates something odd with the laws that “govern” sales, but before even going there, you have to explain how you get from laws regarding sales to requirements regarding donations as if you haven’t made a whole boatload of presumptions with regard to the correctness – as opposed to overreach – of such laws to begin with.

 

[sallybutler]

Your inferences don’t make sense.

Why would I be required to give to PP every time a gave to the Catholic Church, even if the same “laws” governed donations?

I would counter that perhaps this demonstrates something odd with the laws that “govern” sales, but before even going there, you have to explain how you get from laws regarding sales to requirements regarding donations as if you haven’t made a whole boatload of presumptions with regard to the correctness – as opposed to overreach – of such laws to begin with.

I suggested that the designer may have lent outfits to Mrs Obama, in which case she was not obligated to lend to Mrs Trump. If she refuses to sell to Mrs Trump, she is just as wrong as the florist, although, truth be told, political party is not, according to the Supreme Court, a protected class (neither is size).

I was suggesting that lending for non-monetary reasons and/or donating do not fall under the same regulations that selling does. And hopefully they won’t.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

In conversational speech “to discriminate” can simply mean to distinguish among available choices. Back in #48 Brandon touched on this with an etymological/cognate comment. Some distinctions are lawful, others are not. Unlawful/illegal discrimination as used in the legal context is the unequal treatment of parties who are similarly situated on the basis of race, sex, nationality, religion, or age in matters of employment, housing, education, voting rights, and access to public facilities. Further, states or any governmental bodies may not engage in any actions which result in discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, nationality, religion, or age.(adapted from Barron’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition) . A state, district, or city may also have protected classes in addition to those that are part of federal law. A land lord that doesn’t rent to anyone with a credit record below 700 isn’t engaged in illegal discrimination. A land lord that refuses to rent to someone because of their racial classification is engaged in illegal discrimination.

If someone were to use their own money to feed homeless people so long as that homeless person is not a man is engaged in discrimination, but not legal discrimination. While it involves a protected classification (sex) it’s not a matter that is regulated by law. In the case that inspired this thread Stutzman is running a business that is subject to federal and local laws. Pursuant to WLAD the refusal to sell the “flowers” (actually twigs and sticks) a same sex ceremony was illegal discrimination. Theallet’s preemptive statement to not dress Mrs. Trump doesn’t touch on any protected classes and isn’t a legal matter.

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

I think the inconsistency that you are seeing might be resolved by consulting a legal reference on how these terms are used in a legal context and conversational context. A legal dictionary, the laws themselves (Which often include the definitions being invoked) or a student legal text book may all be helpful. Adding additional definitions to phrases (such as what was done with “Full enjoyment of” in #85) may lead to an interpretation of a law that doesn’t match the intended meaning.

The difference isn’t a de jure, logical or meaningful one, but merely a sociologically contrived and de facto one

Legal systems themselves are social constructs. We don’t typically find constitutions or civil laws forming outside of societies.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I suggested that the designer may have lent outfits to Mrs Obama, in which case she was not obligated to lend to Mrs Trump. If she refuses to sell to Mrs Trump, she is just as wrong as the florist, although, truth be told, political party is not, according to the Supreme Court, a protected class (neither is size).

Well given all the anti-Trump rhetoric, violence, and intimidation, perhaps there is a case to be made for making political “orientation” a protected class, given how the leftist, progressivists have lost their collective minds over Trump’s election victory. If something so unmoored from biology and reality as sexual orientation can be a “protected class,” under the law, why not political persuasion?

On the other hand, it would only be orientation towards leftist politics that would end up being protected – just as ONLY one view on sexuality is currently protected – since leftist snowflakes seem so dependent on the state to protect everything about them in the face of reality.

I was suggesting that lending for non-monetary reasons and/or donating do not fall under the same regulations that selling does. And hopefully they won’t.

I don’t think the designer was talking about “lending” or “donating” when she spoke of not dressing Melania. Pretty sure she meant “selling dresses to.”

So you think it “wrong” for the designer not to sell dresses to Melania?

That, however, doesn’t address the crux of the issue. Should it be against the law for her to refuse?

Be careful how you answer this because it leads to some pretty absurd repercussions with regard to how and why the law ought to be invoked with regard to forcing individuals to supply goods and services to others and the conditions under which they must. I would THINK this through just a bit before committing yourself to a position.

 

[sallybutler]

Well given all the anti-Trump rhetoric, violence, and intimidation, perhaps there is a case to be made for making political “orientation” a protected class, given how the leftist, progressivists have lost their collective minds over Trump’s election victory. If something so unmoored from biology and reality as sexual orientation can be a “protected class,” under the law, why not political persuasion?

On the other hand, it would only be orientation towards leftist politics that would end up being protected – just as ONLY one view on sexuality is currently protected – since leftist snowflakes seem so dependent on the state to protect everything about them in the face of reality.

I don’t think the designer was talking about “lending” or “donating” when she spoke of not dressing Melania. Pretty sure she meant “selling dresses to.”

So you think it “wrong” for the designer not to sell dresses to Melania?

That, however, doesn’t address the crux of the issue. Should it be against the law for her to refuse?

Be careful how you answer this because it leads to some pretty absurd repercussions with regard to how and why the law ought to be invoked with regard to forcing individuals to supply goods and services to others and the conditions under which they must. I would THINK this through just a bit before committing yourself to a position.

As I have said several times, all of which you have ignored, yes, I think it is wrong for this designer to refuse to sell to Mrs Trump. If it is not illegal to sell to a particular group, for example liquor to a minor, guns to a felon, etc, a seller cannot refuse a buyer.

I am sure you will come up with some absurd situation, such a a doctor performing C-section on a man. However, since this is medically impossible, being that a womb is a requirement for the procedure, I will not engage in discussions that involve flights of fancy.

 

[lmachine]

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

She’s not being forced to legitimize anything. She’s being penalized for refusing service to a couple because they were gay.

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.

It is pretty clear what the definition of discrimination was in this case. The florist refused to sell to a gay couple something she sells to straight couples. This is against Washington State law.

 

[Peter_Plato]

She’s not being forced to legitimize anything. She’s being penalized for refusing service to a couple because they were gay.

Nope. If that were the case she would have refused to serve them at all and would not have sold flowers to them ever. That is not even in dispute. She sold flowers to them without any regard for whether they were gay. The question has to do with her stand on what marriage essentially is.

Let’s not introduce red herrings.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For those interested there is another thread about the Civil rights act and sexual orientation here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1031878

 

[Peter_Plato]

For those interested there is another thread about the Civil rights act and sexual orientation here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1031878

Actually, for a perfect summation of the basic issue at hand, watch…

youtu.be/c-CiLgBlG-4

…from about 42:25 to 43:00.

The entire discussion, however, is well worth viewing. Time to grow up and see reality.

 

[lmachine]

Nope. If that were the case she would have refused to serve them at all and would not have sold flowers to them ever. That is not even in dispute. She sold flowers to them without any regard for whether they were gay. The question has to do with her stand on what marriage essentially is.

She can take whatever stand she wants on marriage she wants. What she can’t do is discriminate against gay people in the public commercial arena, an arena she chose to enter.

If a shop sells something to a black person and then one day decides not to sell to that person because he’s black, the shopkeeper has illegally discriminated. Following the law in the past doesn’t mean you get to break it now.

Time to grow up and see reality.

I generally believe that someone disagreeing with me doesn’t make them not grown up or unable to see reality, but whatever.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Agreed.

Additionally, I would suppose that the objecting florists, bakers, photographers, et al, would be quite willing to bear the force of the market on them and let the chips fall where they will. That would be the proper test of their conscientious objection.

This is precisely why a free society with the free exchange of ideas ought to prevail – the underlying assumption is that the truth will prevail eventually because reality has a way of making itself known by resolving superficial conflicts and the inherent inconsistencies that biases, lies, falsehoods and reasoning errors, generally, introduce into issue.

When the force of law arbitrarily enters on the side of some narrative or other or is unfairly appropriated, the equilibrium of “free exchange” is disturbed and skewed in one direction or other which makes it much harder (and takes much longer) for reality and the truth to reveal itself where that has been the case.