Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you feel I have been snide and insulting to you?
Snide, no. Insulting...not necessarily. I do feel you were not honest in your response regarding inferences drawn the KKK analogy I proposed. I take you at your word, but I remain skeptical based on my understanding of human nature.
It is human nature to associate those who participate in an event or support the position of someone you oppose with those events or people.
I don't believe that you are being honest about what your response would be in that situation. I know that if I knew that a certain restaurant was catering an event being held by the KKK, I would no longer have an interest in patronizing that restaurant. If I knew a local business was holding a fundraising event for a political candidate I opposed, I would assume that business supported the candidate or the candidates policy positions, and I would likely no longer patronize that business.
If I have been rude or snide to you, I apologize. I should not vent my frustration with others on you. Mea Culpa
The outcome was that they were told to serve all customers, or they could lose their cab licenses. They now serve the public, all of the public.
It is the same thing, they claimed religious belief to try to discriminate, they lost, just like the florist.
They also faced pressure from fellow Muslim cabbies and at least one Iman to serve all customers including those carrying booze or with dogs. Public comments on the news articles mostly stated they should obey the laws of the country or go back to Somalia.
You are basing your response on YOUR opinion, NOT the facts of this case. The services she provides for weddings includes attending the ceremony. Wouldn't her failure to provide the same services to the gay customer result in the same lawsuit by the State?
Is providing substandard service to a gay customer more acceptable than decline the service initially?
If you were able to focus on the facts of this case, you would know that the florist and customers had a friendly relationship, and his intention was to have her personal involvement in the wedding, not to have his business pushed off on just anyone that worked at her shop.
Her business could have provided the same service without her personally doing anything. Those services need not be substandard just because she was not the one who actually made the arrangements. For all we know, her (gay) employees are just as talented as she might be.
I doubt your ability to discern the customer's "intention". How would the customer know that the owner did not make the arrangements herself unless she told him?
They also faced pressure from fellow Muslim cabbies and at least one Iman to serve all customers including those carrying booze or with dogs. Public comments on the news articles mostly stated they should obey the laws of the country or go back to Somalia.
And nothing about that case has anything at all to do with this case. The facts are not at all similar to this case. There was no legal action instigated by the STATE, a family business was not involved, the only pressure the florist is facing is from the STATE and the GLBTQQ+++ coalition.... So stop trying to create a fruit salad and stick to the facts in this case.
Her business could have provided the same service without her personally doing anything. Those services need not be substandard just because she was not the one who actually made the arrangements. For all we know, her (gay) employees are just as talented as she might be.
I doubt your ability to discern the customer's "intention". How would the customer know that the owner did not make the arrangements herself unless she told him?
Why are you tossing out assumptions and asking irrelevant questions. The facts are, the florist and the customer had a long term friendly relationship. He told another employee that he wanted THE florist/owner to create the wedding flowers; otherwise, why would he wait to talk directly to the florist instead of placing his order with the employee he originally spoke to?
Your doubt in my ability to discern the intent of the customer does not invalidate the actual facts that prove out his intentions.
Coulda Woulda Shoulda does not magically create the basis for a valid argument. If you have a point you want to convey, at least rely on the KNOWN FACTS of this case and stop rewriting them to support your desired conclusion.
just because you deem something irrelevant doesn't make it true.
are you ok with people discriminating against people of color or different religion beliefs? anyone can say my religion says, again don't want to serve people you don't approve of get out of retail. easy.
Um, I don't deem it irrelevant. If it has nothing to do with the fact pattern of this case, it is irrelevant.
I am not okay with discrimination on any basis, but I do support religious freedom and an individual's right to decline services to anyone that would be in direct conflict with their religious conscience.
I do not support institutionalized discrimination and agree that no governmental agency has the right to discriminate against any citizen for any reason.
I do not support the allowing the government to foreclose certain professions from citizens because those citizens follow religions with certain tenets that the individual refuses to betray.
The florist has filed a counter-suit against the State Attorney for violation of her constitutionally protected rights. We shall see what happens as that case progresses through the court system.
Has she? Now that is interesting. It may be years before the legal proceedings have concluded. I will be watching with interest.
Guests are asked to help the couple celebrate. Service providers are asked to provide a service.
Correct---the shop owner was asked to PROVIDE the service she had been providing all along---which was to simply sell flowers.
She was not asked to PARTICIPATE in their ceremony.
It is not the same thing as being sued by the STATE and threatened with the loss of their family business and livelihood.
They were threatened with losing their cab license, that is their business and livelihood. They drive a cab as a profession.
They were going to be sued, but they decided to follow the law instead. They didn't try to be idiots and fight it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
