Here, since we've done this dance quite a few times recently:

People who are for the poor florists who simply want to discriminate in the name of religion:

1a. Let the "Free Market decide"
2a. They should be able to serve/not serve whomever they want!
3a. The (insert minority here) can just go to another provider that caters to them!
4a. If they want to discriminate, let them, it's bad for their business.
5a. You just hate believers!
6a. The believers are being targeted on purpose to ruin their business!
7a. They're being denied their freedom!
8a. They're just exercising their freedom of speech!
9a. They shouldn't have their livelihoods destroyed over this!
10a. You should be tolerant of their intolerance!
11a. The Bible says (insert obscure usually out of context reference from a usually ignored section of the Bible explaining that the minority is awful here)
12a. Some version of seperate but equal.
13a. You're asking to provide a service product that they don't normally provide, like asking a landscape photographer to do portraits
14a. What if they name it "hetro-" {insert product or service here}, that should stop it
15a. (insert straw-man argument here)
16a. (insert slippery slope argument here)

People who are for equality and expect people who provide services to provide them equally to all people

1b. The concept of a free market doesn't work, it didn't work in the 60's in the south so laws needed to be created to stop discrimination. Those laws are still on the books, like it or not, if you're a public accommodations business, which a florist is, you must serve all people equally.
2b. Allowing discrimination removes choice and equality from the population.
3b. They are being hypocritical because they aren't checking all their clients histories and making sure that they aren't doing something else against their beliefs with their products.
4b. We've been through this in the past with race, do we really want to do it again now with (insert minority here)
5b. Separation of church and state.
6b. If you receive public, tax paid services, you are required by law to serve all people equally, if you can't do that, don't run a public business.
7b. Religions are exempt from the non-discrimination laws, a florist isn't a religion.
8b. It's a slippery slope, who will be allowed to deny what if this is allowed.
9b. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of ramifications for speech, after all the people who oppose you are allowed their speech as well.
10b. They took money from them for other services, why not this?
11b. Christ never said you are going to be dammed for (insert legal public business service here) for (insert minority here)
12b. Many believer owned businesses have no problem serving (insert minority group here)
13b. There would be public outrage if (insert a different religous block from that listed in the article) descriminated against (insert religion of the person(s) listed in the article here) if you don't want it for one, you shouldn't do it to any.
14b. Basic decency
15b. Response to 13a above, no, they are asking for the same produc or service provided to everyone else.
16b. Response to 14a above, name it whatever you want, as long as they sell it to everyone equally
17b. Response to 15a above, that's a straw-man and pointless to argue against.
18b. Response to 16a, that's a slippery-slope argument, lets keep the discussion to what's actually happening.

I think I've covered most of the arguments on both sides. What did I miss? I'm sure we'll rehash all of it regardless.

Edited because I apparently missed a few, I'm sure there'll be more.

Edited again because I missed a few more... It's getting to be quite the list!



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2016 11:36AM by Finally Free!.

Actually, this local florist of ours was offered by the State Attorney General to pay a fine of $1000 plus $1 in court costs to settle the case. She chose to keep it going.

So she had her way out of this. She chose to "take a stand".

Couldn't she just have been fined, and required to serve them, instead of it being taken to the point where she faces financial ruin?

I think the point was that she CHOSE financial ruin. Perhaps she was thinking she'd get a bunch of money as the cake bakers did down south?

So she was perfectly happy to sell thousands of dollars worth of flowers to a gay man before he was married, but not when he was being married. How nice for her.

If the law were interpreted the way the flower shop owner thinks it ought to be, then anti-discrimination laws (in general) would fall as soon as they were legally contested.

People thought to (or known to) have had abortions...or married/reproduced interracially...or, in geographical places well known on this board, drink alcohol, etc., etc., etc. could be denied service by their local businesses, because business owner's/manager's/employee's religious beliefs do not accord with those of the customer.

This is why we have anti-discrimination laws: so that in this country every citizen, resident, and visitor has equal access to the products (groceries, clothes, automobiles, computers...)and services (medical services, hair-cutting services, dry cleaning services, auto repair services, veterinary services, etc.) which are a normal part of everyone's daily life.

The law is clear: if you own/operate a business which is open to the public, then you are required to serve the members of the public who seek your products or services, regardless of your, or their, religious beliefs.

“As deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me.”

Maybe somebody should tell her that "Jesus" didn't, once, tell anyone to not sell flowers to gay people getting married.
Then again, if she had a "relationship" with Jesus, she'd already know that.

When someone chooses superstitions over rational thought, there is a problem.

If a "Kosher" only restaurant were asked for a Ham sandwich,and the restaurant said "no," would be considered a hate crime? Would the restaurant be fined? Remember the signs on restaurants that used to say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?" Don't agree with her views, but she DID stick to her guns......yea? Feeling a bit ambivalent....

A ham sandwich would not be on a Kosher menu. It is not a denial of service issue if they do not offer the item.

By that logic the florist could have "heterosexual flower arrangements" on the menu, and simply tell gay customers that "gay flower arrangements" aren't on the menu...

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By that logic the florist could have "heterosexual
> flower arrangements" on the menu, and simply tell
> gay customers that "gay flower arrangements"
> aren't on the menu...

How would a court be convinced that there was a difference between "straight flower arrangements" and "gay flower arrangements"???

What criteria could be used to legally differentiate between the two???

(And remember...it's not just two men getting married, because the same thing applies to two women getting married too.)

There are a couple of problems with that line of reasoning.

One, as pointed out there is no such thing as a "gay flower arrangement" nor is there a "straight flower arrangement". The same goes for cakes and pretty much any other product or service that would be applied in these situation that I can think of. (and yes, there might be a "gay wedding photographer" but the photography itself is not, in anyway, homosexual or otherwise). Just putting a name on it doesn't preclude it from being purchased for use at a homosexual or heterosexual wedding.

Which leads the the next problem with your argument. Even if you were to put " 'heterosexual flower arrangements' on the menu", you'd still have to sell them to a homosexual couple who wants to purchase them. Naming it "gay" doesn't mean that straight people can't buy it, naming it straight doesn't mean that gay people can't buy it. After all, gay people go to straight bars all the time and straight people can and do go to gay bars all the time as well.

So, name it whatever you want, just sell it to everyone.

Oh, and thanks, I'll update the list with these at the top!

AFT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember the signs on restaurants that
> used to say, "We reserve the right to refuse
> service to anyone"

The unspoken and unwritten part of this sign is: "UNLESS it is against the law."

Otherwise, there would be racially segregated restaurants in many different parts of the US.

Today, anti-discrimination laws can apply (depending on the specific jurisdiction) to gender...sexual orientation...gender orientation...women nursing infants...the disabled... (I can't think of any others right now, but I'm sure that other protected classes exist.)

No sign put up by a business owner can contravene whatever federal/state/local laws exist.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2016 01:42AM by Tevai.

A Kosher restaurant will sell a meal to anyone. And it will probably be tasty. :)

I wonder if there's any middle ground to be had here.

Should a commercial artist who paints landscapes and the occasional portrait be required to paint a portrait of a gay couple in a passionate embrace if he does not wish to?

Should a gay community outreach center be required to employ an evangelical worker who is fully qualified, but believes the gay lifestyle is sinful?

Should a Christian bookstore be required to hire an avowed Satanist with related tattoos to work for them?

And taking from AFT's example, Kosher foods require specific handling restrictions. This limits the suppliers they'll choose, and under some circumstances, the foods cannot be prepared by a gentile. Should this be disallowed?

She was selling flowers. They didn't ask for special pornographic flowers, just what she provides to everyone.

I heard a great quote about slippery slope arguments: a slippery slope argument allows your opponent to argue against a position no one proposed [see strawman].

> "Should a commercial artist who paints landscapes and the occasional portrait be required to paint a portrait of a gay couple in a passionate embrace if he does not wish to?"

As a nonny mouse pointed out, they aren't being asked for anything that the florist doesn't already provide to other people. You are comparing apples and oranges.

> "Should a gay community outreach center be required to employ an evangelical worker who is fully qualified, but believes the gay lifestyle is sinful?"

If the worker is qualified, meaning that they meet the requirements for the job and can keep their personal beliefs to themselves (which, if they can't it might disqualify them from the job) while working, sure, why not?

> "Should a Christian bookstore be required to hire an avowed Satanist with related tattoos to work for them?"

Again, if the worker is qualified, meaning that they meet the requirements for the job and can keep their personal beliefs to themselves (which, if they can't it might disqualify them from the job) while working, sure, why not? They can not discriminate in their hiring practices or they potentially face a law suite.

See (http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/can-nonprofit-organizations-discriminate-4438.html for more info, specifically the section under "Nonprofit Exemptions" for a simple summary)

> "And taking from AFT's example, Kosher foods require specific handling restrictions. This limits the suppliers they'll choose, and under some circumstances, the foods cannot be prepared by a gentile. Should this be disallowed?"

Again, you can not force a store/business to provide a service that they do not already provide. A Kosher business serves their kosher menu to everyone equally. A vegetarian business does not serve meat, as long as they serve their vegetarian menu to everyone equally, it's all good, no one can demand they make a steak.

But you know this already as it's been pointed out to you time and time again. Repeating it isn't going to make it real.

According to the article, "In each case, they were found guilty of violating state anti-discrimination laws for refusing to offer same-sex couples the same services they offer to heterosexual couples."

There have been limits placed on how far free exercise of religion extends since the 1870's.

Religious freedom/free exercise of religion does not exempt a person from having to obey "the law of the land" as outlined in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States


"...to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.