Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowers story Court upholds ruling against Florist refusing service at same sex wedding OldLady offered to address and defend points related to the above issue (which I posted as a thread under Law and Justice on further disputes over same sex wedding services vs. discrimination against people) A. My point is there is a difference between "discriminating against PEOPLE unequally" (which I agree is in violation of accommodation laws) B. vs. choosing or refusing certain services at the discretion of the business or service provider (which I do NOT agree is the same as discriminating against the person) I believe MAKING this distinction would better solve problems in all such cases of disputes. I also believe in seeking alternative solutions to prevent legal actions and expenses, including: 1. Enlisting the services of a subcontractor or other staff who don't have the same conflicts with the beliefs of the customer (similar to hiring a bilingual translator or interpreter to help in cases of language barriers) 2. Signing "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration in user agreements (where customers and businesses agree to resolve disputes amicably by mediation and consensus, or in cases of conflicts that cannot be resolved agree to refrain from conducting business together to avoid legal actions and expenses) 3. Providing goods and materials to the customers on site and letting them take responsibility from there. 4. For renting facilities, agreements for the customers to take responsibility for hiring staff for providing services on site, including covering insurance for damages to the property, and licensing agreements on terms or releases for use of the site for images or publicity (similar to agreement to use property for movie shoots) Since these specifications would be helpful to ALL businesses to prevent or resolve ANY dispute from escalating, I would recommend this anyway. I address this thread to OldLady or to others who want to help explain to me why cases of disputes over beliefs about marriage should be treated as "discrimination against people" IF it's the SERVICES and ACTIVITIES that the business doesn't agree to support, endorse, engage or participate in. I equate this with photographers who don't want to film an adult party with drinking. Or set designers and movie producers who don't like a storyline and don't want to be involved in or associated with production of it. Why isn't the discretion and free choice of the business owner TREATED EQUALLY as the beliefs, values and choice of the customer? Isn't it just as bad or worse to force a business to provide or create a message against their beliefs and free choice, as it is to "force" a customer to take business elsewhere? Why is the belief of the customer more important than the beliefs of the business owner? Isn't the customer also discriminating by trying to force the business owner to comply with their beliefs? If it's wrong for the business to do this to the customer, why isn't it equally wrong for the customer to impose that instead of going with a different business, and shouldn't they both decide equally they are incompatible and agree not to work together? That's what they do with movies and music - if the people disagree on creative direction, they part company and work with other people who agree with their interests and ideas! Why not take this approach to resolve issues with wedding services?