WA florist who is being sued by the state for her religion files countersuit

I suppose that is true. So now the burden is on anyone to prove that they are actually harmed if a flower shop refuses to sell flowers to them. My guess is that not even the most insane person could with a straight face claim they were harmed.

 

Harm? Well, it isn't being tortured, beaten, and left to die on a fence. But the latter has happened, and much much else. Discrimination at the flower shop, while relatively mild in and of itself, is certainly a reminder of the hate that is out there. I think there has been harm enough, and bad enough.

 

You have no right to not be offended or insulted.

You have no right to someone else's flowers.

 

no it doesn't work that way. You have to prove the actions of the florist caused DIRECT harm to anyone. You can't simply say "hey some gays were beat up , somewhere. So this florist MUST sell to gays"

 

But you have a right not to be vexed over selling to people you don't like?

 

It works that way if society wants it to. Get the law fixed to match your values if you can.

 

The CURRENT law works the way I want it to. If this (*)(*)(*) takes this woman to court claiming damages, he has to prove SHE damaged him by HER actions, not just that some gay somewhere may have been damaged by something she did.

 

Don't get mad, we're just talking.

We're not talking suing for personal damages, are we? I thought we were talking about applying the doctrine of non-discrimination in public accomodations.

 

The florist is not a slave. Starting a business does not make you a slave.

 

I'm not mad lol

I am however done with this conversation because I can no longer take part in a discussion where people believe that a private business is a public accommodation.


Does the public come in and help do the work? Does the public come in and pitch in when things are tough? No ? Then why would the PUBLIC get a say in who I do business with?

 

Gosh, was someone telling the shop owner he had to work for nothing, and he'd be whipped at any sign of complaint?

Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic here?

 

By all means take a break. I won't even call you a coward and crow about 'winning,' like seems to happen to me a lot in these situations....

 

No. So you think slavery is OK as long as you pay them and don't whip them?

 

Nope. I'm just bemused by your misuse of the word, and I fairly sure you chose to do so because of the extreme connotations.

Slavery of course means in some sense forced labor. There are many variations, from the extreme of chattel slavery in which the slave is not really recognized as a human being, to medieval serfdom in which the serf received a crop share and had other rights. Probably the common defining thread is that the slave is bound to the arrangement. He can't quit. In this way the slave is forced to accept less-than-market remuneration for his efforts.

Are the florists being forced to accept low remuneration? Are they prevented from leaving the work if the legal and social requirements do not suit them?

 

correct, it means forced labor. It doesn't even mean forced labor without remuneration. It simply means forced labor. So if you are FORCING someone to provide flowers to someone they don't want to provide them to, even if that person is paying................

 

As I said, I think it means more than that. I think it means material exploitation (low pay or no pay) in a more-or-less permanent forced labor arrangement. It's notable that the dictionary definitions all go beyond what I have said, and emphasize the ownership of a person by another:

"The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household"
"the state of a person who is a chattel of another"
"a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant."
"the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune"

My definition really is broader, and covers more forms of forced exploitation, but would not include a forced sale at the market price, when the subject is free to walk away from the work. I think that takes us far from what is generally understood as slavery, and is blatantly polemical.

 

I would actually agree with you in the broadest sense, but you have to agree that telling someone they MUST do business with another person is hardly the hallmark of a free society.

I ask this in all honesty Why can't people just say "oh you don't want my money okay I'll go elsewhere" instead of using the government to FORCE someone to do business with them?

 

The only absolutely free society is one with no government, no laws. Which doesn't result in freedom, but in a "winner takes all" situation that is sure to ultimately lead to the opposite of freedom.

Some societies allow more freedom than others. Characterizing the situation of having less freedom than you think you should as 'slavery' is extreme, and meant to play on emotion, not speak with reason.

 

and to get reactions which it appears that it did. It's the same tactic used to justify the anti-liberty laws which force people to do things against their free will simply to spare the emotions of a group.

 

okay let me ask it another way.

Do you really contend that forcing one person to do business with another person is a personification of the American way?

oh, and let me add to, I think it is beyond IDIOTIC for this woman to counter sue. She isn't harmed by selling flowers to gays.

I hope the judge tosses them BOTH out on their asses.

 

I don't. I do, however, contend that refusing the business of certain groups of people for no legitimate reason related to actually doing business can have legal consequences and is inadvisable. A business owner can make that call, but they are taking the chance of making themselves a target of civil actions if they do. It's therefore not a very smart way of doing business.

Edit: I will just add this inquiry: Do you contend it is the personification of "the American way" to discriminate against whole segments of the population without a real business-related reason for doing so, and merely because one doesn't like certain groups of people?

Agreed on both counts.

 

In this case though, and in many others, it's more than just a civil action the business owner faces.Now obviously under our current system a person can sue another person over just about anything - they may not prevail but they certainly can bring suit.

But the government should not be interjecting itself into these cases , they should only involve themselves in cases which cause ACTUAL and verifiable harm. "I had to go to a different flower shop" isn't any harm.

 

This case was heard a month ago, with promise of a ruling in about a week. Whatever happened to it?

 

Lots of pretrial motions and stuff. Nothing in the news about a judgment.

I found this on Arlene's flowers facebook page:

"In reply to comments on our site:

Thank you for all your comments on Facebook and email concerning the customer that came in and asked us to do his wedding.

This customer has been in many times and purchased flowers from us. When it came to doing his wedding, I said, “I could not do it because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.” He thanked me and said, “He respected my opinion.” We talked and gave each other a hug and he left.

Since that day, we have received many comments on same sex marriages. I believe, biblically, that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my conviction, yours may be different.

I have hired all walks of people in different circumstances, and had the privilege of working with some very talented people that happen to be gay.

I’m sure there are many places you can purchase flowers, if you choose not to purchase them from Arlene’s, because of your beliefs, then I certainly understand."