Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding

Ok then.

So, Draco, what made you decide that property rights have primacy over all other rights? Did you just pick them out of a hat one day and decide "well, these are the most important ones".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Geeze man, you really are dense. "The governments" are saying that oral contracts are as valid as written ones, because otherwise we'd run into massive problems. It's a matter of practicality, man. You can disagree all you want, reality says otherwise. You got it all backwards: "The governments" did not stipulate the contract types to be equal because the felt like it. They made them equal because it always has been so. It's an acknowledgment of facts and is needed to bring oral contracts into the same line as written ones in order for them to be covered by laws regarding fraud, false advertisement, warranties and so on.

And only a fool disagrees with reality just because it doesn't suit his fool notions of how the world ought to run.

---

Uh, the term is actually "implied" contracts. Oral agreements are a sort of implied contract, as are large-scale everyday mercantile exchanges, like buying something in a shop. But they aren't equal to a written contract. They are quite unequal. There are significant limits on how far they can go. Bringing this back to the original discussion, I do expect there were a written contracts between either the marrying party or their wedding planner/related agent and the major vendors, like the florist. Depending on how things were arranged there might have been a standing contractual arrangement between any wedding-planner and the florist *and other major vendors* which the planner regularly uses, or it might be for a one-off exchange. But because most of these have fairly strict performance requirements, they will involve written contracts either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Uh, the term is actually "implied" contracts. Oral agreements are a sort of implied contract, as are large-scale everyday mercantile exchanges, like buying something in a shop. But they aren't equal to a written contract. They are quite unequal. There are significant limits on how far they can go. Bringing this back to the original discussion, I do expect there were a written contracts between either the marrying party or their wedding planner/related agent and the major vendors, like the florist. Depending on how things were arranged there might have been a standing contractual arrangement between any wedding-planner and the florist *and other major vendors* which the planner regularly uses, or it might be for a one-off exchange. But because most of these have fairly strict performance requirements, they will involve written contracts either way.

---

Sure, but none of that actually disputes Khen's wonderful idea that a libertarian paradise would implicitly involve an endless amount of paper-work, people having to sign contracts on both sides of the aisle for the purchase of a light-bulb. I wonder what kind of contracts child-labour would involve. College at the company school for N years in the transistor mines?

Without a government there is no agency to ward against poisons, radioactives and diseases in products for sale, only consumer-based, competing agencies each taking money from some corporation or other to paint their product as the safest one. It is within that environment that a single consumer might feel compelled to make a written contract with the local k-mart over purchasing a light bulb; if it explodes, will k-mart support the family now laden with the expenses of one lead-ingesting cancer victim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Without a government there is no agency to ward against poisons, radioactives and diseases in products for sale, only consumer-based, competing agencies each taking money from some corporation or other to paint their product as the safest one. It is within that environment that a single consumer might feel compelled to make a written contract with the local k-mart over purchasing a light bulb; if it explodes, will k-mart support the family now laden with the expenses of one lead-ingesting cancer victim?

---

Without a sovereign of some sort. :noob: It doesn't have to be the welfare state of today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Without a sovereign of some sort. :noob: It doesn't have to be the welfare state of today.

---

Welfare state where, exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Welfare state where, exactly?

---

In every country in the West. Or is the US, where about 30% of GDP is spent by the government on non-defense/justice issues, not a welfare state?

Palin 2012, baby!

The same Palin who has massive disapproval numbers from even Republicans? :noob: It's nice to think the other side is dominated by extremists, isn't it?

A lot of people who claim to be Catholics are, in general, nice people. They support their neighbours, they raise their kids with a sense of morality resembling decent, and so forth. This, however, has nothing to do with the fact, the fact that the Catholic Church is an, by their spending and vote-rearing habits, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-rights organization.

It is possible to vote locally for a Pubbie whose ideas make more sense than the Dem alternative. But as a national organization, who by the way votes lock-step on all issues, the GOP is against human rights and indeed against everything that does not benefit the percent of the percent of US earners making top dollar. It isn't "nice" to think this of the other side, it is horrific, but it is what they are.

I'm sorry, I seem to have introduced facts into a Loki baiting questions discussion. LAWL EVERYTHING IS GOOD ASK ME MORE

Or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Uh, the term is actually "implied" contracts. Oral agreements are a sort of implied contract, as are large-scale everyday mercantile exchanges, like buying something in a shop. But they aren't equal to a written contract. They are quite unequal. There are significant limits on how far they can go.

---

As far as I know, they are equal. However, you'll have a harder time proving the actual contents of the oral contract in case of a disagreement. You probably mean that there are limits regarding "fairness" - highly unequal agreements will be found invalid. That's true for written contracts as well, though.

And the law will require some types of contracts to be written - but that's a practical consideration rather than finding the contract types unequal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

The article never mentioned that. It only said that she agreed so please don't twist the discussion.

---

Sorry I missed this post, in Switzerland a oral agreement is a contract. I don't know the Canadian laws.