Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding

[Draco]

Why is this so scary to answer?

I didn't see it as something important to answer, I'm not 'afraid' of being different or suffering discrimination, and if I'm ever directly discriminated against, depending on the circumstances, I'll go about my day as usual. Anyway I've made some points that weren't exactly addressed or answered..

You have yet to explain why doing away with equal access laws makes your business more "Free", or how you can equate private home with private business, and cite property Rights as at the reason. Property ownership in itself is a legal concept, and something a gov't jurisdiction has to recognize before you have it. Civil Rights, however, are natural things we're born with, that can only be taken away or restricted.

Doing away with such equal access laws makes the business owner more free, since they're not being coerced into providing their services to everyone who walks through.

As for a private home = private business, this is the fundamental basis for property rights, at least to me. That there are no distinctions or conditions on property. You own a house, you own a hotel, a small shop selling flowers, a car, whatever. Now unless you are posing a threat to another persons life, then the government/police force is within reason to 'impose' themselves upon your property.

The only right that we are born with is the right to our own life, and from that it branches out to the right to live our life as we wish, to do what we want with our property, to marry whomever we want, to do whatever we want with our body, etc. We're not born with the right to impose ourselves on ones business, even though they don't want us there for discriminatory reasons. I wasn't aware that I was born with the right to demand equal service treatment from business owner xyz.

I'll leave you with a suitable quote by Ludwig Von Mises: If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.

[Ominous Gamer]

I didn't see it as something important to answer, I'm not 'afraid' of being different or suffering discrimination, and if I'm ever directly discriminated against, depending on the circumstances, I'll go about my day as usual.

Its tied pretty closely to the idea of allowing people to discriminate againist others simply because they own or believe something (via the point that you're coming at this with with an armchair perspective). I'm amazed that you think discrimination is so unimportant that you even consider it possible that people are able to go about their day as if it didn't happen or doesn't exist.

[GGT]

Not all private is equal. Homestead is not the same as a private-public business. You're not born owning Property---that's something you have to buy and legally negotiate with the gummint. Without the gov't recognizing the legal contract and property boundaries, you own nothing.

Natural Rights (gender, age, race, ethnicity etc) existed before your land ownership rights. You'll allow the gummint to define property owners, but don't want laws that protect everyone else's civil rights?

[Aimless]

I wasn't aware that I was born with the right to demand equal service treatment from business owner xyz.

Are you aware of this fact now?

[Khendraja'aro]

Are you aware of this fact now?

There's a lot he is not aware of. Does that mean it does not exist?

[Draco]

^^No actually that's your misconception. Just because I'm advocating for something that's so opposed to what you stand for, doesn't mean that I don't understand why your views are the way they are, why there's anti-discrimination laws, equal service laws etc.

[Aimless]

Hmmm it'd be interesting to learn your ideas on why our views are the way they are, why these laws exist, etc.

[EyeKhan]

IMHO a private business should not be compelled to provide flowers to a wedding of any type if they don't want to. OTOH, I see that there is a law on the books that says she can't descriminate based on sexual orientation, so not sure where she stands legally. It seems odd that she would be forced to take on business that she doesn't want. Is she the only florist in town? Why would they want to give her money if she's a biggot? Is it a principal thing?

[earthJoker]

^^ They already had a contract!

[Flixy]

Yup. At the very least, this florist should arrange for another florist to deliver exactly the same, and cough up the extra costs. And that's if you ignore the discrimination laws.

[EyeKhan]

So?

[earthJoker]

So?

"So" you don't break a contract without facing consequences, otherwise we could get rid of contracts in the first place. Of course if we don't have a government to enforce contract we can get rid of them all togheter as well.

[EyeKhan]

"So" you don't break a contract without facing consequences, otherwise we could get rid of contracts in the first place. Of course if we don't have a government to enforce contract we can get rid of them all togheter as well.

She could make the argument that the contract was not entered with full disclosure - she did not know it was a sinful wedding. And that's only half a joke. On the part of the groom and groom, if it were my wedding, I would tell her to go to hell. And I like Flixy's suggestion to go to a more expensive florist and sue the biggot for the cost difference.

[earthJoker]

She could make the argument that the contract was not entered with full disclosure

Seh could but in any serous country with serious courts the argument would not even be enough to start a lawsuit, simply because the sexual orientation of a business partner doesn't make a contract nil.

[EyeKhan]

Yes, she's full of shit. She's a biggotted idiot. And yes, if she signed a contract, she should fulfill it.

[Draco]

Hmmm it'd be interesting to learn your ideas on why our views are the way they are, why these laws exist, etc.

As I understand it, such laws exist to protect what once were (and ok, still are to a varying degree) marginalised groups of people, or ones that are prone to be. They're there to ensure that everyone is 'equal', that everyone gets a 'fair go' (as the saying goes in Australia), so that everyone can be included in the workings of a society (by force).

The argument/claim that I was trying to make, was that whilst groups of people were discriminated/mistreated/etc in the past (such as African Americans), by a majority, at the same time it was also the respective government(s) encouraging/doing the said discrimination. This is why I kept on bringing up those Jim Crow Laws, or for Australia there was the White Australia Policy.

The second point that I was trying to make, in regards to African Americans (or anyone who isn't of a Anglo-Saxon background), was that the Western world had long viewed such people as sub-humans, so you couldn't expect everyone to suddenly have a change of mind, and not discriminate.

These days it's a different story. Discrimination is no where near to how rampant it once was in the Western world. Now whether that's due to actual anti-discrimination laws, government programs etc, or whether it's just a natural development, is up for debate. I think it's a combination of the two, but the latter one contributed more.

^^ They already had a contract!

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

[Khendraja'aro]

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

In Germany, a spoken agreement is the same as a written agreement - both are equally valid contracts. Should work the same way in the US - after all, if you buy something in a store you don't enter a written contract. And yet the store is held to rules regarding warranties and the object being what the store says it is.
That would not be possible without equaling written and spoken contracts.

Of course you may run into problems regarding the proof of what exactly was agreed upon. But as soon as you as a shop owner agree to do something for someone, you have just entered a binding contract.

There also is the concept of an implied contract - a contract agreed upon through sheer facts (or demanded by law). For instance, if you go to your doctor you don't need to tell him expressly: "I will pay you for your time!" Similarly, he does not need to demand a fair compensation for his work before helping you.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/bus...act_law.html#2

[Draco]

^^I don't agree that a spoken agreement should be treated the same as a written one (at least in such instances of conducting business). Whilst I can see the reasoning behind it, it all comes down to the proof. I can think of some tricky situations if we relied on spoken agreements.

[Khendraja'aro]

^^I don't agree that a spoken agreement should be treated the same as a written one (at least in such instances of conducting business). Whilst I can see the reasoning behind it, it all comes down to the proof. I can think of some tricky situations if we relied on spoken agreements.

Oral and implied contracts are the basis of nearly all our interactions. Just think about how many papers you would have to sign if an attitude like yours were to become widespread.

Buy a loaf of bread? Sign a contract. Buy a light bulb? Sign a contract. Go to the doctor for a checkup? Sign a LONG contract. Fill up your car? Sign a contract. And so on and so forth. And, you'd have to sign a contract BEFORE you entered any store. And then another one as soon as the merchandise is rung up.

We'd be buried in paper.

[Draco]

^^You're taking my comment out of proportion. I said in such instances of conducting business, such as the florist.

Btw, this happened in Canada.

[Khendraja'aro]

^^You're taking my comment out of proportion. I said in such instances of conducting business, such as the florist.

Btw, this happened in Canada.

You need contracts of any kind to be binding, especially when conducting business. You noticed that I gave examples where oral and implied business contracts were closed, yes? You buy a light bulb, you just agreed to a contract. You buy some pretty flowers, you just agreed to another contract.

That's why you can buy something and when it's broken, you can return it to the vendor and demand a repair/refund. Because you entered a binding contract with the vendor upon agreeing upon a price.

I also dare say that any sensible code of law looks upon oral and implied contracts the same way, regardless of country.

[Draco]

^^Yeah, you can return a product, so long as the business that you bought it from has a refund policy (and you can present a receipt).

Purchasing a light bulb or a flower bouquet is different to verbally agreeing to outfit an entire wedding with flowers. Of course you wouldn't need a contract to purchase something as small as a light bulb (it's a simple matter of walking into a supermarket and taking it off the shelf), but to agree to outfit a wedding would involve a lot more than simply saying "yes." So your examples/analogies of buying light bulbs or loaves of bread don't really hold up.

[GGT]

.... Of course you wouldn't need a contract to purchase something as small as a light bulb (it's a simple matter of walking into a supermarket and taking it off the shelf)....

Not according to your ideas of 'private property' owners denying access to anyone, for any reason.

[Draco]

^^Well as I said in my post addressed to Aimless, discrimination isn't no where near to how rampant it once was. It's not like we're hearing cases of black people being turned away from supermarkets every day.

[Nessus]

One wonders why that is

[Khendraja'aro]

^^Yeah, you can return a product, so long as the business that you bought it from has a refund policy (and you can present a receipt).

Purchasing a light bulb or a flower bouquet is different to verbally agreeing to outfit an entire wedding with flowers. Of course you wouldn't need a contract to purchase something as small as a light bulb (it's a simple matter of walking into a supermarket and taking it off the shelf), but to agree to outfit a wedding would involve a lot more than simply saying "yes." So your examples/analogies of buying light bulbs or loaves of bread don't really hold up.

Of course you need a contract to purchase a light bulb. Without a contract, a vendor could pass off 15 Watt light bulbs as 60 Watt ones - and since there was no contract, there also was no fraud. A contract is an agreement between you and the vendor about a fair exchange of goods. Without such an implied contract, stuff like fraud has no legal meaning.

[Draco]

^^I meant you don't need a written contract to purchase the likes of light bulbs. Something that can be bought in a matter of minutes.

In the case of the florist, she may have merely said yes but made no obligations on paper. On her part it shows very poor business conduct.

[Khendraja'aro]

^^I meant you don't need a written contract to purchase the likes of light bulbs. Something that can be bought in a matter of minutes.

In the case of the florist, she may have merely said yes but made no obligations on paper. On her part it shows very poor business conduct.

You obviously have no idea how to work a shop. If I go to a drug store and order a certain drug, I don't sign a contract. If I go to a bookstore and order a book, I don't sign a contract. If I go to a computer shop and order some parts, I don't sign a contract. If I order a pizza over the phone, I don't sign a contract.

And so on and so forth. You obviously run through your life with your eyes closed if you don't recognize the simple truth of it: Paper contracts are simply not practical at many interactions. That's why those oral and implied contracts have the same importance as a written contract.

"Poor business conduct", indeed. You can't set up a written contract for every $1, $5 or $50 business interaction you take part in.

[Draco]

^^I get that though. What I'm saying is that when purchasing something as meager as a lightbulb, there's no point to a contract. The fact that the owner does not object to you being in their store means that you can make any purchase there. But something that would require more planning and the likes, such as outfitting a wedding with flowers and what not, you'd expect there to be a written contract, stipulating the entire transaction/agreement. If I'm a business owner, and I say to someone over the phone or email, that they can conduct business with me in person, but then I find out they they're gay, then I still have the right to refuse them my services. I just don't agree with governments saying that an oral contract is the same as a written one.

[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.