More unresolved conflict over differences in beliefs concerning same sex weddings.
This time it is narrowed down to whether "religious animus" was involved or can even be proven. Doesn't that also require "faith based" judgment as well
So both the
* belief in same sex marriage vs. the belief against it
and now the
* belief in whether any "animus" or bias against beliefs was involved
are involved where govt is not supposed to be deciding issues of beliefs
so as to establish one over the other or "discriminate by creed or beliefs."
Those AREN'T the issues that govt should be used to determine.
The issues that CAN be distinguished and addressed
* was the business discriminating against serving PEOPLE (due to their personal beliefs or orientation)
* was the business refusing certain SERVICES they don't believe in offering to ANYONE REGARDLESS
Also
* were there other alternatives that would solve the problem which the complainants refused or failed to offer the business to resolve the dispute amicably to avoid legal action and expenses
Normally I'd recommend either
* subcontracting the work to assistant service staff that don't have a religious conflict
(similar to enlisting help of a bilingual translator or interpreter in case of language barriers)
* providing the goods or materials to the customer and letting them take responsibility for the rest
* signing agreements in advance (similar to arbitration waivers in user agreements)
where both clients and businesses agree to settle disputes by mediation and consensus,
or if there are unresolved conflicts, they agree to refrain from conducting business together
to AVOID legal action or expenses. So both sides agree not to penalize in case of conflicts in beliefs.
Original story in the Florist's own words about getting sued by a friend over the wedding issue:
Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowers story
In this case, I would have recommended a third party intervene and work out
an agreement. In NO WAY should Courts or Govt be abused to force anyone to violate their conscience by dictating what message or artwork they should be "forced to create" for any customer. The business
owner was willing to provide other services to the same customer, who was a longtime friend.
But did not believe in creating any artwork, including floral decorations, for use in a same sex marriage.
That's like a designer business NOT wanting to design sets or costumes for a movie project they turn down, whether they don't like the script, the message in the movie, or whatever reasons.
Why aren't the business owner's beliefs and consent respected equally as the customer requesting it?
If they don't agree, then as with artistic differences in the movie industry, they don't work together
but go FIND SOMEONE ELSE.
NOTE: I WOULD AGREE with the courts if the owner had discriminated and refused to serve the PERSON.
(There ARE cases of clear harassment and discrimination against the PERSON. One I remember reading in particular, where the owner sat the person down and preached to them about their beliefs. So to PREVENT that kind of conflict from escalating, that's why I strongly suggest a mediation waiver and agreement, signed by any customer seeking to use business services. So if disputes arise, both sides are protected from harm.)
==================================================================================
Washington Supreme Court upholds ruling against Arlene's Flowers
The U.S. Supreme Court last year kicked the case back to the state court, asking it to decide if Washington courts in previous opinions had violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious neutrality.
Thursday's opinion says that neither the Washington Supreme Court or the lower state court acted with religious animus when they ruled the florist violated the state's law against discrimination. The opinion says that Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers to the same-sex couple constituted discrimination against sexual orientation.
This time it is narrowed down to whether "religious animus" was involved or can even be proven. Doesn't that also require "faith based" judgment as well
So both the
* belief in same sex marriage vs. the belief against it
and now the
* belief in whether any "animus" or bias against beliefs was involved
are involved where govt is not supposed to be deciding issues of beliefs
so as to establish one over the other or "discriminate by creed or beliefs."
Those AREN'T the issues that govt should be used to determine.
The issues that CAN be distinguished and addressed
* was the business discriminating against serving PEOPLE (due to their personal beliefs or orientation)
* was the business refusing certain SERVICES they don't believe in offering to ANYONE REGARDLESS
Also
* were there other alternatives that would solve the problem which the complainants refused or failed to offer the business to resolve the dispute amicably to avoid legal action and expenses
Normally I'd recommend either
* subcontracting the work to assistant service staff that don't have a religious conflict
(similar to enlisting help of a bilingual translator or interpreter in case of language barriers)
* providing the goods or materials to the customer and letting them take responsibility for the rest
* signing agreements in advance (similar to arbitration waivers in user agreements)
where both clients and businesses agree to settle disputes by mediation and consensus,
or if there are unresolved conflicts, they agree to refrain from conducting business together
to AVOID legal action or expenses. So both sides agree not to penalize in case of conflicts in beliefs.
Original story in the Florist's own words about getting sued by a friend over the wedding issue:
Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowers story
In this case, I would have recommended a third party intervene and work out
an agreement. In NO WAY should Courts or Govt be abused to force anyone to violate their conscience by dictating what message or artwork they should be "forced to create" for any customer. The business
owner was willing to provide other services to the same customer, who was a longtime friend.
But did not believe in creating any artwork, including floral decorations, for use in a same sex marriage.
That's like a designer business NOT wanting to design sets or costumes for a movie project they turn down, whether they don't like the script, the message in the movie, or whatever reasons.
Why aren't the business owner's beliefs and consent respected equally as the customer requesting it?
If they don't agree, then as with artistic differences in the movie industry, they don't work together
but go FIND SOMEONE ELSE.
NOTE: I WOULD AGREE with the courts if the owner had discriminated and refused to serve the PERSON.
(There ARE cases of clear harassment and discrimination against the PERSON. One I remember reading in particular, where the owner sat the person down and preached to them about their beliefs. So to PREVENT that kind of conflict from escalating, that's why I strongly suggest a mediation waiver and agreement, signed by any customer seeking to use business services. So if disputes arise, both sides are protected from harm.)
==================================================================================
Washington Supreme Court upholds ruling against Arlene's Flowers
The U.S. Supreme Court last year kicked the case back to the state court, asking it to decide if Washington courts in previous opinions had violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious neutrality.
Thursday's opinion says that neither the Washington Supreme Court or the lower state court acted with religious animus when they ruled the florist violated the state's law against discrimination. The opinion says that Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers to the same-sex couple constituted discrimination against sexual orientation.
