First of all, this wasn’t a case of just “selling flowers and nothing more”. The couple wanted the florist to provide the arrangements designed for the wedding. They wanted to purchase not only flowers but the personal skills of the florist.But only a specific class of people have that kind of event.
The florist is not participating in anything. The florist is selling flowers and nothing more. It’s no business of the florists what’s being done with the flowers once the delivery is made.The florist (no florist specifically) is making something that isn’t at all about them, into something about them. It’s ridiculous.
The KKK and NAMBLA could do worse than buying flowers.
No it is not.People who have same sex weddings are still a class of people. In either case refusal of service on those grounds is abhorrent.
It is abhorrent for a class of people to force its beliefs on another class of people. No practical disadvantage results from a declination. Plenty of florists and photographers that will take their business gladly.People who have same sex weddings are still a class of people. In either case refusal of service on those grounds is abhorrent.
Those are health-related issues…jeez. You’re really trying to compare the two?It is abhorrent for a class of people to force its beliefs on another class of people. No practical disadvantage results from a declination. Plenty of florists and photographers that will take their business gladly.
Nobody flinches or bring a lawsuit against restaurant owners, for example, who reserve the right not to serve patrons who walk in the dining room without shoes or bring their dogs in.
,
The question that needs to be answered is this: In the course of business or practice of one’s profession or occupation, should one be obligated to contradict his religious belief?Those are health-related issues…jeez. You’re really trying to compare the two?
People compare immoral unions with moral unions all the time. How is that fair?Those are health-related issues…jeez. You’re really trying to compare the two?
How so? Legally speaking there is no immoral or moral union. It’s a union. Separation of church and state.People compare immoral unions with moral unions all the time. How is that fair?
Yes, abhorrent isn’t enough. It’s disgraceful and dangerous.No it is not.
It’s not about religion it’s about business and commerce. Business can’t arbitrarily refuse service to people of the same sex who are getting married to each other. Religious belief has no bearing.It is abhorrent for a class of people to force its beliefs on another class of people. No practical disadvantage results from a declination. Plenty of florists and photographers that will take their business gladly.
Sure they can and legally, too. For example, an attorney could choose to take divorce cases only when there is a husband and wife involved. A family counselor could take only man-woman couples as patients for couples counseling. There are lots of examples.It’s not about religion it’s about business and commerce. Business can’t arbitrarily refuse service to people of the same sex who are getting married to each other. Religious belief has no bearing.
“People who have same sex weddings” is not a class of people; it’s a class of activity. If someone refused service on the grounds that the client was homosexual, that would be wrong. Refusing service based on the type of activity, is not wrong. In this case, it is laudable.People who have same sex weddings are still a class of people. In either case refusal of service on those grounds is abhorrent.
personal service contracts like that are a little different, especially for attorneys, who have their own set of professional ethics. an attorney or a singer who is forced to provide services against his or her will is a bad thing.Sure they can and legally, too. For example, an attorney could choose to take divorce cases only when there is a husband and wife involved. A family counselor could take only man-woman couples as patients for couples counseling. There are lots of examples.
exactly.A bakery gets complicated since it is also a place of public accomodation. If the baker simply changed her wedding cake business to one that does not take orders off the street, she could pick and choose her customers based on whatever criteria she wanted as long as she wasn’t publically discriminating.
exactly.As has been noted above, this isn’t about a sale; it’s about a service. A service that must be provided by a specific individual must restpect the rights of both the service provider and the service requetor. A service can be defined in what ever way the service provider wants to protect his/her rights.
on the other hand… with fungible stuff like flowers, the seller can’t plausibly be concerned with the end use, so long as the end use is legal.“People who have same sex weddings” is not a class of people; it’s a class of activity. If someone refused service on the grounds that the client was homosexual, that would be wrong. Refusing service based on the type of activity, is not wrong. In this case, it is laudable.
Sure, and like I said before, if someone came in and just wanted to buy flowers, it wouldn’t matter. But the case underdiscussion involved a couple wanting the florist to provide not only flowers but flower arangement and delivery services. That make it no longer a fungible item but a personal service.on the other hand… with fungible stuff like flowers, the seller can’t plausibly be concerned with the end use, so long as the end use is legal.
People who have same sex weddings are people.“People who have same sex weddings” is not a class of people; it’s a class of activity. If someone refused service on the grounds that the client was homosexual, that would be wrong. Refusing service based on the type of activity, is not wrong. In this case, it is laudable.
You’ve changed the conversation away from religious belief into one of expertise. Your analogy applies if the couple was refused on the grounds that the couple was asking for something larger or more complicated than the florist felt he or she could provide.Sure they can and legally, too. For example, an attorney could choose to take divorce cases only when there is a husband and wife involved. A family counselor could take only man-woman couples as patients for couples counseling. There are lots of examples.
A bakery gets complicated since it is also a place of public accomodation. If the baker simply changed her wedding cake business to one that does not take orders off the street, she could pick and choose her customers based on whatever criteria she wanted as long as she wasn’t publically discriminating.
As has been noted above, this isn’t about a sale; it’s about a service. A service that must be provided by a specific individual must restpect the rights of both the service provider and the service requetor. A service can be defined in what ever way the service provider wants to protect his/her rights.
ok, close. close call. I’ll give you that.Sure, and like I said before, if someone came in and just wanted to buy flowers, it wouldn’t matter. But the case underdiscussion involved a couple wanting the florist to provide not only flowers but flower arangement and delivery services. That make it no longer a fungible item but a personal service.
Interesting that you mention a singer. Why should a singer be protected from being forced to provide service against his will but a floral aranger or cake decorater being forced to provide service against his will not be protected?personal service contracts like that are a little different, especially for attorneys, who have their own set of professional ethics. an attorney or a singer who is forced to provide services against his or her will is a bad thing.
.
And a custom-decorated wedding cake or a specialty floral arangement is neither a flower or a hamburger. It’s not the item that is being sold, it’s the personal skill involved in providing the service.but a hamburger or a flower is just a hamburger or flower. and we’re long past the point where personal scruples could deny basically interchangeable products or services to people based on preferences like sex, sexual preference, race, or religion, or even rad trad vs. liberal RCs.
Well, that’s not a **real **solution but it is part of the push to marginalize anyone who wants to provide a service while maintaining thier religious beliefs. There is one poster here who described his photography business. He takes requests and chooses who to take on as a client based on a questionairre. A baker could sell cookies and cupcakes to the “public” but do wedding cakes on a request and “as available” basis. Same thing for a florist - a dozen roses, or a bunch of daisies to the public but consultations on wedding arrangements are offered privately. Being choosy is not the same thing as discriminating. (at least not in the eyes of the law)the solution is simply to stop providing public services if one isn’t willing to serve the public
No, I didn’t change the conversation at all. As soon as the “product” involves the personal contribution of the “seller” his/her rights matter too. The service doesn’t have to be larger or more complicated, it doesn’t have to be beyond the providers capabilities. It just has to be different or even something he/she doesn’t want to do.You’ve changed the conversation away from religious belief into one of expertise. Your analogy applies if the couple was refused on the grounds that the couple was asking for something larger or more complicated than the florist felt he or she could provide.
We’re talking about refusing service to a couple solely on the grounds of having a gay wedding.
its a matter of degree. the skill in flower arrangement is probably trivial compared to a professional singer or an attorney’s services, although I’m open minded enough to hear the contrary from professional florists and that is how a court might entertain the problem.Interesting that you mention a singer. Why should a singer be protected from being forced to provide service against his will but a floral aranger or cake decorater being forced to provide service against his will not be protected?
And a custom-decorated wedding cake or a specialty floral arangement is neither a flower or a hamburger. It’s not the item that is being sold, it’s the personal skill involved in providing the service.
Well, that’s not a **real **solution but it is part of the push to marginalize anyone who wants to provide a service while maintaining thier religious beliefs. There is one poster here who described his photography business. He takes requests and chooses who to take on as a client based on a questionairre. A baker could sell cookies and cupcakes to the “public” but do wedding cakes on a request and “as available” basis. Same thing for a florist - a dozen roses, or a bunch of daisies to the public but consultations on wedding arrangements are offered privately. Being choosy is not the same thing as discriminating. (at least not in the eyes of the law)
That pretty much sums the whole thing up. These people don’t care about anything but thier own agenda. They don’t care about other people, their feelings or their rights. They just don’t care.remember, the people who are going to use that whip **don’t care **about whether or not the florist stays in business. the florist either provides services, pays fines, or goes out of business, its all the same to them.