Florist appeals case to Supreme Court hoping to win the right to discriminate

[DonViejo]

Source: LGBTQ Nation




By Jeff Taylor · Monday, July 17, 2017

A florist in Washington who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes it will grant her the right to discriminate in the name of religion.

Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, refused to provide flowers for a gay couple’s big day, despite having done business with them in the past and claiming to have viewed them as friends.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously in February that Stutzman had violated the state’s nondiscrimination law, and fined her $1,000. The court found no basis to the argument that providing flowers for a same-sex wedding constituted an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

“As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism,” the opinion read. Still, Stutzman is not satisfied, and, as the Washington Blade reports, filed the petition to the court on Friday before the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that the rulings against her violate her freedom of speech and religion.


Read more: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/florist-appeals-case-supreme-court-hoping-win-right-discriminate/

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Bigot.

I hope she loses big, but I am almost afraid she won't. Too many of these "Christians" like to play the victim, when in fact they are the victimizer. It is similar to abusive relationships where the abuser "feels" s/he is the one actually being abused or that her/his abuse is warranted for some slight, real or imagined.

[Sunlei]

9. yes a Bigot business. Interesting history, its a group of merged lawsuits. here's a link-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlene%27s_Flowers_lawsuit

[gilbert sullivan]

2. Isn't there another case involving a cake in the pipeline? Either way

American citizens are perfectly free to embrace whatever flavor of medieval superstitious nonsense hiding under the skirts of overly protected "faith" (a pisspoor substitute for thinking) that validates their own personal biases, agendas and bigotry. They can hold those beliefs in their ample bosoms or vacuous craniums until the goddamn cows come home; nobody has, to my knowledge claimed otherwise.

What they do NOT get to do is apply them as levers on the law to mitigate the rights of others who don't share their deistic delusions, or to violate laws protecting minorities from the tyranny of a majority. If that's what they want, they should emigrate to Iran or one of the other theocratic cesspools of 'holy' insanity.

[old guy]

4. Said it a lot better than I could without swearing.

[Old Vet]

5. Deistic delusions, I like that and is quite proper for this subject.

Nice post gilbert sullivan.

[Initech]

3. God, these people are liars and bullies.

I hope SCOTUS does the right thing here but I am very worried.

[pfitz59]

6. Gorsuch is on the Court

Perhaps he'll have a biblical revelation..

[Vinca]

7. Arlene's Flowers must be rolling in money to be able to reject doing a wedding.

I really don't get it. A floral arrangement has zero to do with what a person's religious beliefs might or might not be. Idiots. No one asked for the flower provider's blessing of the union.

[maxrandb]

8. Or, more likely

they know that once they get this in the Alt Right websites, there will be a million suckers to send them a donation via a Go Fund Me page

[haele]

10. Yup, they don't want the right to discriminate, they want the right to complain about not having it.

An honest business that is "open to the public" understands that you want as many customers as you can get, and discrimination based on some sort of personal belief is a poor business model.
If the business owner advertises they are providing a specific service or product to a specific cliental - a particular field or organization, then they can discriminate all they want.
But if they're open to the public, they're supposed to be open to anyone that can come into their shop or go on to their website and pay for that service. If I wanted to go to a halal butcher shop to get my meat, they have to serve me, whether I'm Muslim or not. Now, I can't just go to the halal butcher's house without invitation and try to buy out of his garage storage - because that can be an invasion of his privacy. So long as the transaction meets financial, safety and sanitary regulations of course.
That's been pretty much the law since the Civil Rights Act.
Now, if they want to overturn that...it gets rid of a major victimhood industry scamming Fundies for cash. How else can a lot of those marginal "Fishy" businesses stay afloat, without the occasional "Go Fund Me" requests due to of all those (sic) "Nasty Liberal <FITB> SJW activists are attacking my labor of love business just because I follow my Religion and won't sell to or serve *those people*". After all, these businesses too often don't have a viable business plan other than "Turn a Hobby into a Business, Pray for Customers and use the Business as an ATM".

Haele

[MosheFeingold]

11. Interestingly, I see a distinction between a florist and baker

Let's say I was a baker and a cute little Aryan couple wanted a big birthday cake with a swastika on it to celebrate Hitler's birthday. After contemplating baking a poison cake, I'd tell them to get stuffed.

A cake, to me, would involve speech. Or at least, it could. And freedom of speech, includes freedom to refrain from speech from which you disagree (e.g., this is why schoolkids can't be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance).

So I get sued for discriminating on the basis I don't care for Aryans. I would counter that I have a First Amendment right to not bake the cake, and the state actor issue comes into play by the government laws forcing me to make the cake.

I suppose a plain cake with nothing on it would not be speech. But maybe it would.

And I do not see flowers as speech, at all, although I suppose they are an artistic expression. A banner, however, would be distinct.

Anyway, I see these people as asshats. But so much of things come down to manners -- not legal or illegal. This lady is a bigot and was impolite.

I'd deal with this as I deal with all rude people and not run to lawyers.

[gilbert sullivan]

13. As with so many things, the conclusion is largely influenced by

whose ox is being gored.

shrug

[yardwork]

15. That's a completely separate issue.

Nobody is forcing bakers to make cakes with hateful images.

Why do people assume that gay people want obscene cakes for their weddings? That is insulting.

I'm tired of seeing this argument. I'm gay. When I got married we had a beautiful wedding cake.

[MosheFeingold]

16. Um no

That's not what I said at all.

[HockeyMom]

12. Bigoted Bridal Shop Owners?

Oh, how in the world are they going to know whether the Bride is marrying a man or a woman? The Spouse to be does not go with the Bride to look for wedding gowns. Considered Bad Luck; straight and gay. Demand to see who she is marrying? Unlike cakes and flowers, gowns are not delivered to the wedding.

It also applies to Men's Tuxes. Who is he marrying? He could even be the Father wearing a Tux for that matter.

They could be participating in a Gay Wedding and not even know it.

Edit: My DIL's Mom and Sister went with her for her bridal gown. I went with my Daughter to look for her Tux which she bought at a high end retail store where she worked.

[Alwaysna]

14. What about flowers for funerals

if she suspected the deceased was gay? Does she turn away that business too?