Flower Power: Christian Florist Rejects Attorney General’s Offer

In terms of recent case law see:

Elane Photography LLC v. Willock

SCOTUS Declines to Hear Appeal from Elane Photography LLC

New Mexico Supreme Court Rules against Elane Photography

Etc. etc.

From the New Mexico SC finding:

First, we conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.

edit on 22Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:12:20 -060015p102015266 by Gryphon66 because: Format

a reply to: Annee

So I recall that you're aware of my stance on LGBT folks. I have to say that at first I was fairly irked this woman was getting hassled so much, but you make a very good point and I think it's changed my mind.

I thought it was kind of a dick (sorry) move on the florists part, but at the same time thought that she should be able to refuse service.

It's necessary to learn the difference of personal freedom and the equal rights of commerce.

What you offer to one customer, you offer to ALL customers. It's that simple.

At least in states that have anti-discrimnation laws.

That seems completely fair. I would sure be pissed off if someone refused to do flowers for my wedding because I have tattoos.

originally posted by: Domo1
That seems completely fair. I would sure be pissed off if someone refused to do flowers for my wedding because I have tattoos.

Or imagine if nobody in town would sell you or your family gasoline or food.

a reply to: Elton

Or, refused to offer medical and/or pharmacy services ...

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Annee

So I recall that you're aware of my stance on LGBT folks. I have to say that at first I was fairly irked this woman was getting hassled so much, but you make a very good point and I think it's changed my mind.

I thought it was kind of a dick (sorry) on the florists part, but at the same time thought that she should be able to refuse service.

It's necessary to learn the difference of personal freedom and the equal rights of commerce.

What you offer to one customer, you offer to ALL customers. It's that simple.

At least in states that have anti-discrimnation laws.

That seems completely fair. I would sure be pissed off if someone refused to do flowers for my wedding because I have tattoos.

Thanks.

Me too.

originally posted by: Elton

originally posted by: Domo1
That seems completely fair. I would sure be pissed off if someone refused to do flowers for my wedding because I have tattoos.

Or imagine if nobody in town would sell you or your family gasoline or food.

I think it makes people uncomfortable when I parallel discrimination of the disabled. We (mom & 3 kids under age 7) were refused service and asked to leave places just because of the disability.

You'd be surprised how many people "believe" they can catch a disability by being in the same room. Can't let one family ruin it for everyone else having dinner in a restaurant.

Not so easy, when you can't walk, to go find an establishment that will accept you.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: kaylaluv
And what happens in a small town where there is only one florist? We've been through this with blacks. If you don't want to service the public - ALL the public - then don't be in the service business. No one is forcing her to be a florist. There are plenty of other jobs she could have where she wouldn't have to deal with gay weddings.

If you live somewhere where you feel you're not welcome then do this:

LEAVE.


Yes, it's that simple.

I completely do not understand people wanting to force their personal choices into everyone elses lives. It's like some powertrip or something akin to: "I WILL MAKE YOU DO SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES YOUR VALUES"

Honestly; Fvcckk anyone who thinks this woman should have to violate her personal values!!


Just like in Japan a foreigner can never be "Japanese", you will always be Gaijin. It's THEIR culture, THEIR country, THEIR traditions. Get over it and move along. You don't like it? Leave Japan.

The US has a secular government. If you don't like it...well, you know the rest.

I'm having two problems with this case.

On the one hand, she has the right to refuse service. That's a right all businesses should have.

On the other hand, I don't believe a business has any right in dictating the terms of use of their product. Once you buy it, it's yours and you can do whatever you want with it.

Since she didn't sell him the flowers, I suppose that would fall under refusing service. At the same time though, I don't think she has any right to be upset if they use flowers bought from her previously in the wedding. I also don't think she has any right to be upset if a straight person goes in, buys flowers for a wedding, and then gives them to the gay man.

a reply to: retiredTxn
How would the AG even know about it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well that has to take the biscuit for one of the best replies on ATS ever. Reasoned, logical, and supported by arguments with merit and case law, something which is missing across most of this site. I need to resurrect the Bobbie awards.

I'll address it later, though, have to spend some time earning a living first!

a reply to: EvillerBob

One waits with bated, er, fingers?

I'd love to see your counter, when you have time!

Best,

a reply to: Aazadan

There are legitimate reasons under law to deny service to the public as a public business.

All of them depend on the public individual causing some sort of nuisance, in the legal sense.

Being loud, threatening, smelly, partially dressed, etc. Potentially causing actual harm to the public or to the business.

"Right to refuse" is mostly a fiction, IF you are a business holding open to the public.

If folks are so concerned about what their customers are going to do with their products, I have suggested, and will suggest again, that they take their business to a private model ... as a subscription or club.

Of course, to my mind, in light of the free market, if one is not in business to do business they won't last anyway.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Thanks to Gryphon for the detailed response to EvillerBob on the laws. Very informative.

I couldn't seem to convince EvillerBob that business owners AGREE to follow the law (even though I used capital letters!).



But the simple fact is that businesses MUST follow the law. (duh!)

Business Law: Follow All Regulations of the State

Following the business law of the state government is the foremost responsibility of a business organization.

Source

Jurisdiction

All businesses need to comply with all federal legislation connected with the business.

The business needs to comply with the laws of not just the state where the business is located but also of all the states where the business conducts its operations. While small businesses usually remain confined to a single state, mailing a product into a particular state through internet transaction is also a form of doing business in that states.

The exact requirements vary from state to state.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for your always consistent and logical support for equality as well!

I believe that EB is caught up in a fine nuance of contract law. Or rather, I want to believe that. I see their point. I just argue that it's not the most applicable scenario in terms of our discussion.

The thing is, in none of these cases that we have discussed, has the business owner sought to question the status of their business as a public accommodation. Once that condition or status is established, the laws in New Mexico and Washington state, at least, are crystal clear, and of course their claims to "religious freedom" fail.

I'm not sure why the point is so subtle for so many. Religious freedom does not mean that one can do anything anywhere at any time so long as its claimed to be part of religious faith or belief.

It means that government is not going to establish a religion FOR everyone, nor will government keep someone from practicing their beliefs. Also, claiming "belief" has to have some basis in historical, traditional, or minimally objective fact.

Neither selling a cake nor taking a picture (in any case) are forbidden by Christian dogma.

It's not that hard to see, unless, one DOESN'T WANT to see it.

If one is looking for special rights, as I would argue these folks are, one tends to ignore those facts that would detract from that special status.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's not that hard to see, unless, one DOESN'T WANT to see it.

If one is looking for special rights, as I would argue these folks are, one tends to ignore those facts that would detract from that special status.

And that's the bottom line. If logic doesn't support their position, they look elsewhere for some nuanced ( and irrelevant) bit of information that may "get around" the law, but in this case, doesn't apply and fails.

I would love to sit down with Barronelle Stutzman and have a heart-to-heart about her religious views and why she thinks the "Christian" thing to do is to refuse to sell flowers for this wedding, instead of voicing her disagreement with the idea of his marriage, but lovingly helping her friend... as Jesus would.

What's more important? Making a public stand for the political notion of "religious freedom" or being more Christ-like?

Did Jesus Christ Preach Against Gay Marriage?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

What a perfect article! If you don't mind I'll quote from it:

In the Old Testament, marriage is quite clearly defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, a man and several women, a man and his fertile slave girl, and a man and his rape victim. But assuming that Kern is referring to Jesus and the New Testament, the evidence for holy matrimony is a little thin on the ground.

While Jesus is adamantly opposed to divorce, he never once speaks in favor of marriage. He never celebrates a wedding (from a historian’s perspective, facilitating drunkenness at the Wedding at Cana is less evidence of Jesus’s support of marriage than of his desire to keep the party going) and describes heaven as a place where marriage no longer exists. It’s called heaven for a reason.

I have long said that anyone really interested in defending marriage would be combating our 50% divorce rate.

From the biblical perspective though, the facts are clear that there is no basis for a religious claim that opposing marriage equality, or refusing to provide services on an equal basis to the public, is a religious matter.

There's probably more scriptural basis for: "Jesus doesn't want me to pay taxes, so I'm not gonna" given how one interprets the bit about "rendering to Caesar."

None at all for opposing marriage equality.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah, it's not from the bible that these people are getting their information, it's from bigoted preachers and fearful followers who are uneasy with homosexuality to the point that they will fight it tooth and nail, every chance they get.

I was raised in a Christian home. My mother taught me that it is not my place to judge whatsoever! It's an affront to God to think that I know his mind or can do his job. She taught me to find the lovable in each person and concentrate on that, not their faults or sins.

a reply to: TrueBrit
T.B., You rock man! No pun intended....unless you want it to

Thankyou for the info and the Welcome. Some of it I have figured out by hitting buttons to see what happens (A lot of the time I visit this site using my cell phone). Most of it was very helpful. More importantly, I thankyou and appreciate you sharing your personal time with a ROOKIE and offering future help (I'll do my best to not abuse the priviledge).
While I'm at it, I'd like to compliment you on your writing skills. I'd be pretty happy if I was a 1/4 as good as you and a lot of others here on ATS.
METALLICUS- I'm sorry for using your thread for a personal message board. I'll do my best to not let it happen again. I feel the need to explain myself a little, and reply to TrueBrit for his much needed pointers and info. It wouldnt let me reply. It says I can't send PM's unless it's to a Mod. I'm assuming it's because I'm a ROOKIE. And for the record....I wanted to 'STAR/FLAG' you up....but either I'm not able to do that yet, or again I'm missing something. i'll do more homework and figure this all out. As I was telling T.B., I've been reading material here on ATS for close to 10 years, but only signed up a handful of days ago.

Again, my thanks and apologies, Gentlemen.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: retiredTxn
How would the AG even know about it?

From the court filings I have found, it appears the AG heard about it from news media and Facebook.
Facebook = All the news you need to know!
LOL

originally posted by: Gryphon66



There's probably more scriptural basis for: "Jesus doesn't want me to pay taxes, so I'm not gonna" given how one interprets the bit about "rendering to Caesar."

None at all for opposing marriage equality.

The render to Caesar is not about paying taxes, you have misunderstood the teaching and transposed it to what you think.
"Whos image is on the coin?" Caesars image, its Caesars coin. We were created in Gods image, we are Gods creation, we are to worship God, the coins are Caesar's.
Its not about money and tax, its a spiritual statement.

Are you preaching Christianity?