Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[dblack]

Boycotts of gay owned businesses. Or, Muslim owned, or [name your protected class] owned. Should the same legal principle be applied?

You can boycott any business you like. Business isn't protected from boycotts under PA law.

I understand the current legal status. I'm asking if you think it should be prohibited on the same grounds. Why is it any different?

A business isn't a person. You could have a business run by gay people that caters to gay people but the business itself is not gay (or muslim, etc.).

We're talking about the people working at the business. You really don't see the inconsistency here?

The principles at the core of these kinds of laws are corrosive, and as they are applied more generally will become ever more problematic. Every time a new "protected class" is added to the list it's going to get worse.

yeah. Having xstians being a protected class is enough right?

That's not what I'm saying at all. Quite the opposite. If we're going to have this kind of "protection" everyone should get it. I believe in equal protection of the law, so if religions and racial groups can't be discriminate against, then all discrimination should be outlawed. But it's when you try to extend the concept to everyone that it's underlying insanity is impossible to ignore.

 

[Syriusly]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

 

[Redfish]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

be glad to answer, but first I want you to tell us the difference between public and private.

 

[Katzndogz]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

 

[Redfish]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

 

[TemplarKormac]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

No. But they should not apply to private transactions or business.

b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals

They are all fine for all people, but not the expense of someone violating their religious beliefs. Capische?

c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

I think religious beliefs should be considered when doing business with people who participate in practices which your religion says is sinful.

 

[bendog]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

be glad to answer, but first I want you to tell us the difference between public and private.

I'm not sure "private accommodation" is an oft used term, but generally speaking if a private club, that by its own bylaws, only serves members or perhaps guests of members, then courts generally don't interfere with racial or other exclusions. For example, Augusta Golf course was at one time only white male, with limitations on what even wives and daughters of members could do. For years, Elks Clubs had only white male members.

 

[Seawytch]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

No. But they should not apply to private transactions are business.

b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals

They are all fine for all people, but not the expense of someone violating their religious beliefs. Capische?

c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

I think religious beliefs should be considered when doing business with people who participate in practices which your religion says is sinful.

So you think racists should be able to use the bible to discriminate against blacks. You've got a lot of legal precedent to overcome.

 

[Seawytch]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

be glad to answer, but first I want you to tell us the difference between public and private.

There is a legal definition for both.

Private club legal definition of Private club

The Civil Rights Cases legal definition of The Civil Rights Cases

 

[Katzndogz]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

 

[bendog]

I don't really have much issue with public accommodation laws. I think GLBT aren't doing themselves any favors in going after bakers or florists when there are other people willing to provide equal services, but the florists and bakers are bullies, so ... ef them and the bigoted horse they rode in on.

But, I do note that there's a value in public shaming. Augusta now has black and female members, and the Elks welcome men of any race, and their families.

 

[Syriusly]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

 

[Syriusly]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

 

[Syriusly]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

No. But they should not apply to private transactions are business.

b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals

They are all fine for all people, but not the expense of someone violating their religious beliefs. Capische?

c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

I think religious beliefs should be considered when doing business with people who participate in practices which your religion says is sinful.

Thanks for replying to the question.

I am going to paraphrase your response- basically to consolidate it with the rest- and feel free to tell me if I get this right or wrong:

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?
d) think that public accommodation laws are fine, but religious people should be exempt if they claim a religious exemption?

 

[PratchettFan]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

The customer does not have the right to disrupt the business. "No shoes, no service" is perfectly acceptable. But that is about the behavior of an individual, not the banning of a class of people. A Muslim grocery store has no obligation to sell kosher anything, but if they do then they can't refuse to sell it to Jews.

Of course it has far reaching implications. These laws were not created for homosexuals, it just applies to them as well.

 

[Seawytch]

Of course it has far reaching implications. These laws were not created for homosexuals, it just applies to them as well.

Indeed. Some states include things like height and weight. Let me repeat that for the "state's rights" folks...STATES have enacted these laws.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a) with conditions.

1. The equivalent of public accommodations laws should still apply the medical profession regarding life saving or emergency procedures but would not apply to elective procedures.

2. "Public Accommodation" laws would still apply to government entities and their employees when acting in their official duties. Where there government duties are optional, the individual employee can choose to either perform them or not perform them in an entirety, not selectively.

3. Legislatures and other cognizant bodies (county supervisors, school boards, etc.) can limit the ability to for government entities under their jurisdiction to enter into contracts to procure goods and services from private businesses who have a history of discriminatory business models.

4. It shall remain legal for customers of businesses who practice under a discriminatory model to community such practices to the community through news media stories, email, social media, internet review sites, and other forms of pubic communication.​

>>>>

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course it has far reaching implications. These laws were not created for homosexuals, it just applies to them as well.

Indeed. Some states include things like height and weight. Let me repeat that for the "state's rights" folks...STATES have enacted these laws.

Exactly. If one holds that the federal government should be hands off with the states, then it is a tad hypocritical to run to the feds when a state does something they don't like.

 

[bodecea]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

I don't have a problem with ALL public accommodation laws being revoked.....if that is possible...but until then, enforce it equally, eh?

 

[WorldWatcher]

be glad to answer, but first I want you to tell us the difference between public and private.

The "Public" in Public Accommodation laws refers to for-profit business that sell to the general pubic as opposed to "private" clubs that genuinely limit sales and access to club members, private clubs excluded from the law also must typically operate in a not-for-profit basis.


>>>>