Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding

[Illusions]

I'm sure he would be...

Is that somehow a surprise?

Yes I am okay with the florist going out of business. Or should I not be? Actually I don't even care if she does.

I'm actually just trying to discern at what point people with this political viewpoint stop viewing The Government as the boogeyman and start viewing society as it.




Fun Hypothetical: If we got every business owner in Australia to agree to not sell Draco food, and everyone else to agree not to buy it for him, and then the government allows him to starve to death, or arrests him when he tries to steal someone's property (food), would he consider this a triumph of his political view of minimal government...

[Dreadnaught]

Besides the near-impossibility of that happening (classic case of lots of people willing to break embargoes for profit), everyone recognizes that food is different than wedding flowers.

[GGT]

As for schools, I think all schools should be privatised. I'm only being consistent with my claim for the government to have as little involvement as possible.

Privatizing all schools would be disastrous. Have you really thought that through, or is it just a way to demonize the gummint?

Every human being has the right to live their own life as they please, and nobody else has the right to deny them that.

But gays can be denied a hotel room, wedding flowers, open military service...or an education...simply because they're gay? How's that translate to your idea of freeeedom? Sounds to me like you'd rather have private businesses relegate certain human beings to second-class status. If teh gummint did that you'd be railing against discrimination.

If she had committed to a contract, then she should hold up her end of the deal (but I'm not that familiar with the likes of contracts so I can't say for sure).

But what rights are being infringed on?! I said this before, but how in the world does the gay couple have the 'right' to make a purchase from the florist, if she doesn't want them to?
I was responding to GGT who seemed to be saying that, because it's the law, it should be followed. I thought it was obvious why I gave the example of the Jim Crow Laws.

The florist knew the law before making a contract with the couple, and can't legally back out for illegal reasons. We talked about this in the hotel thread, Draco. If someone holds racist or homophobic beliefs, nothing will legislate away their 'right' to be haters. But they're not legally allowed to operate a business 'open to the public' based on those discriminating principles.

Surely you can see why, and what the civil rights movement meant regarding equal treatment for all, and freedom from something matters as much as freedom to do something.


edit: In case anyone forgot, there was a time in the 80s when private insurance companies refused coverage to male florists (and other professions), based on demographic data showing a high percentage of homosexuality. That was their way of avoiding expensive HIV treatment or life insurance claims. It was deemed a proxy for discrimination, and made illegal.

[Khendraja'aro]

Besides the near-impossibility of that happening (classic case of lots of people willing to break embargoes for profit), everyone recognizes that food is different than wedding flowers.

You did not quite grasp the scope of Draco's argument: It's Either - Or, no in-between. Which means that under HIS argument, food is NOT different. That's the idiocy of it, you see?

[Illusions]

Besides the near-impossibility of that happening (classic case of lots of people willing to break embargoes for profit), everyone recognizes that food is different than wedding flowers.

Well there is this...

You did not quite grasp the scope of Draco's argument: It's Either - Or, no in-between. Which means that under HIS argument, food is NOT different. That's the idiocy of it, you see?

...which was what I was getting at.

What I see is a person, Draco, who doesn't understand why the government does what it does, and so comes up with generalizations about how they shouldn't do X or Y. But then the rest of us come up with specific circumstances where the government not doing X or Y results in people's lives being harmed, or rights being infringed upon. Which then leads to Draco coming up with specific circumstances where its okay for the government to do X or Y because of this, and we slowly inch towards the laws we see in modern governments today. Then of course the debate in that thread ends, Draco forgets all of this, and we have to start from the beginning in another thread.

While my hypothetical question may seem ridiculous, the American South post Civil War, and a good portion of the US would have been a good example of something like that happening, except instead of Draco it was African Americans, and instead of food it was a large range of things from jobs to schooling, and also including food. Which is why we have laws dealing with discrimination. Its like we have to drag him through the last few hundred years of history to get him to understand why certain ideas of his are either horrible on a societal level, outright stupid, or leads to bad things happening (tyranny of the majority, massive class divides, societal degradation, etc).

I'd also like to know about the other thing I stated. At what point does society become as bad as the government. Why is a law that causes a business to do things its owner doesn't want or face going out of business any different than a society that would accomplish the same ends?

[Aimless]

Its like we have to drag him through the last few hundred years of history to get him to understand why certain ideas of his are either horrible on a societal level, outright stupid, or leads to bad things happening (tyranny of the majority, massive class divides, societal degradation, etc).

Re. your question, it seems axiomatic.

[GGT]

I'd also like to know about the other thing I stated. At what point does society become as bad as the government. Why is a law that causes a business to do things its owner doesn't want or face going out of business any different than a society that would accomplish the same ends?

I think he's working on the assumption that government in general is bad, too big, too intrusive in private lives, over-reaching, too many laws. There's a lot of that going around in US politics, too. It's the familiar rallying cry from Conservative Republicans and Tea Party People --- small is better by virtue of being small, get government out of our lives, freee enterprise should reign. Oh, but let's make laws to control personal choices like abortion, birth control, marriage, and public unions. And hands off those SS or Medicare benefits!

[oldmunchkin]

As a business owner, doesn't the florist have the right to refuse service? I mean, every business I have been in, in the state of Wyoming, has a sign posted somewhere that says "We have the right to refuse service." The state courts have decided that means a business owner has "the right to refuse service, to anyone, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all". I don't know what the laws are in this case, but purely from a business perspective, the florist should be able to say no to this order without being taken to court for discrimination. Or is this just another way to infringe on business owner rights, just like the indoor smoking issue?

[earthJoker]

The article says that she agreed, but it seems that she wasn't informed that it would be a same-sex wedding. It also mentions that there's the usual anti-discrimination law in the province, so it will be interesting to see whether she'll be 'penalised' in the same way that the Christian hotel owners were in the UK.

If she agreed she has to do the job or organize a replacement. You can't say that "not to be informed" about something like the sexual preferences of your client can make a contract obsolete, that's ridiculous. She made a contract, now she has to provide.

[Aimless]

wait, did we just compare discrimination against gays and blacks to discrimination against... smokers??!

[Enoch the Red]

I'm actually just trying to discern at what point people with this political viewpoint stop viewing The Government as the boogeyman and start viewing society as it.

Why would society be the boogeyman in your example?

[Illusions]

Why would society be the boogeyman in your example?

So whats the supreme difference between these two events:

The Government has a law that states a business cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation when serving customers. The result of this law is that people who do want to discriminate either have to serve customers they don't want to, or face going out of business.

Our society has a moral code that states a business should not discriminate based upon sexual orientation when serving customers. The result of this moral code is that people who do want to discriminate either have to serve customers they don't want to, or face going out of business.


...because what I'm seeing here is the government accomplishing the same ends society would, and if the government is classed as "bad" for making people do X then it should follow that society is also "bad" for making people do X. Either there is some other reasoning that negates this that Draco hasn't yet provided, or there is no rationality behind it other than its "bad" the government did it because the government is "bad".

[GGT]

As a business owner, doesn't the florist have the right to refuse service?

Read the article. It's in Canada. According to the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, anyone doing business in the province cannot refuse customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

I mean, every business I have been in, in the state of Wyoming, has a sign posted somewhere that says "We have the right to refuse service." The state courts have decided that means a business owner has "the right to refuse service, to anyone, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all". I don't know what the laws are in this case,

US Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title II Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

but purely from a business perspective, the florist should be able to say no to this order without being taken to court for discrimination.

You mean like.....We don't do business with or for Indians?

Or is this just another way to infringe on business owner rights, just like the indoor smoking issue?

What? We covered this in those smoking threads --- they can start a private smoking club to be excluded from indoor smoking laws.

[RandBlade]

So whats the supreme difference between these two events:

The Government has a law that states a business cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation when serving customers. The result of this law is that people who do want to discriminate either have to serve customers they don't want to, or face going out of business.

Our society has a moral code that states a business should not discriminate based upon sexual orientation when serving customers. The result of this moral code is that people who do want to discriminate either have to serve customers they don't want to, or face going out of business.

...because what I'm seeing here is the government accomplishing the same ends society would, and if the government is classed as "bad" for making people do X then it should follow that society is also "bad" for making people do X. Either there is some other reasoning that negates this that Draco hasn't yet provided, or there is no rationality behind it other than its "bad" the government did it because the government is "bad".

One was individuals having a conscious choice, one was not. That you can't see the difference between individuals and the government is the difference between you and me.

[Khendraja'aro]

One was individuals having a conscious choice, one was not. That you can't see the difference between individuals and the government is the difference between you and me.

Ah. Here's a fun thought though: Why exactly is it then okay for insurance companies to discriminate men? It's almost the same logic - you just don't bar them from getting the service, they just have to pay more.

I mean, what would you say if that same florist made gay people pay 20% more for their flowers just because they're gay?

[Enoch the Red]

So whats the supreme difference between these two events:

The Government has a law that states a business cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation when serving customers. The result of this law is that people who do want to discriminate either have to serve customers they don't want to, or face going out of business.

Our society has a moral code that states a business should not discriminate based upon sexual orientation when serving customers. The result of this moral code is that people who do want to discriminate either have to serve customers they don't want to, or face going out of business.


...because what I'm seeing here is the government accomplishing the same ends society would, and if the government is classed as "bad" for making people do X then it should follow that society is also "bad" for making people do X. Either there is some other reasoning that negates this that Draco hasn't yet provided, or there is no rationality behind it other than its "bad" the government did it because the government is "bad".

You don't see a difference between laws and morals? Really?

[Khendraja'aro]

You don't see a difference between laws and morals? Really?

Then educate us regarding the earthshattering differences between the two.

More to the point: Will two civilizations, having different morals, still arrive at the same laws?

[LittleFuzzy]

So whats the supreme difference between these two events:

The Government has a law that states a business cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation when serving customers. The result of this law is that people who do want to discriminate either have to serve customers they don't want to, or face going out of business.

Our society has a moral code that states a business should not discriminate based upon sexual orientation when serving customers. The result of this moral code is that people who do want to discriminate either have to serve customers they don't want to, or face going out of business.


...because what I'm seeing here is the government accomplishing the same ends society would, and if the government is classed as "bad" for making people do X then it should follow that society is also "bad" for making people do X. Either there is some other reasoning that negates this that Draco hasn't yet provided, or there is no rationality behind it other than its "bad" the government did it because the government is "bad".

Do you see any real distinction between soft power and hard power?

[GGT]

Better scenario of events would be (1) gov't laws prohibiting discrimination by public business based on race/gender/religion/sexual orientation; violators prosecuted and (2) random community 'moral' codes that allow discrimination and segregation based on anything at all --- with no recourse for the person refused service.

End up in a town with the 'wrong' characteristics and you're SOL. No service at any diner, motel, gas station, grocery store. Keep on movin' bud, your kind aren't welcomed here.

[Enoch the Red]

Then educate us regarding the earthshattering differences between the two.

More to the point: Will two civilizations, having different morals, still arrive at the same laws?

Two civilizations can arrive at similar laws having different moral standards, sure. The reverse is also true. Civilizations with different morals can have vastly different laws.

For instance, I find it morally wrong to curse around children. That being said, I fully support a persons first amendment rights to free speech.

[GGT]

Free speech has legal limits, too. A business owner can have you ejected from their premises if you come in f-ing this and g-damn that with every @$%& in-between. Disturbing the Peace or Disorderly Conduct, you know....civil laws.

[Enoch the Red]

Free speech has legal limits, too. A business owner can have you ejected from their premises if you come in f-ing this and g-damn that with every @$%& in-between. Disturbing the Peace or Disorderly Conduct, you know....civil laws.

Generally speaking profanity is not considered obscenity.

And of course, I would absolutely agree that a business owner could eject someone from their business for swearing. As you know I think they should be able to eject someone from their business for any reason.

But that's neither here nor there, nor does it address the premise of my post.

[RandBlade]

Ah. Here's a fun thought though: Why exactly is it then okay for insurance companies to discriminate men? It's almost the same logic - you just don't bar them from getting the service, they just have to pay more.

I mean, what would you say if that same florist made gay people pay 20% more for their flowers just because they're gay?

In that one it would have been because gay men's flowers cost the florist 20% more than other mens flowers.

[Illusions]

One was individuals having a conscious choice, one was not. That you can't see the difference between individuals and the government is the difference between you and me.

Technically they are my hypothetical situations, both dealing with under what conditions society is the boogeyman and when the government is, so in one its an optimal government whereby its laws are a reflection of what society would do, and the other is society directly acting on its morals. The only difference in my two hypothetical situations is who would be dolling out the punishment for breaking society's moral codes/the government's laws.

You don't see a difference between laws and morals? Really?

I was originally going to call it "social law". See my reply to Randblade. The morals in my hypothetical would be equivalent to law. If you broke societal moral code, society would punish you. If you broke government law, the government would punish you.

Do you see any real distinction between soft power and hard power?

There is none in my hypothetical. We're discussing at what point society becomes the boogeyman, since its entirely possible for it to do so in Dracoland.

For instance, I find it morally wrong to curse around children. That being said, I fully support a persons first amendment rights to free speech.

In my hypothetical situation if society found it morally wrong to curse around children, and someone did so, society would exercise its right not to do business with this person (everything from selling to them, to buying from them, to employing them, etc.) until they either changed their ways, or died.

[Khendraja'aro]

Two civilizations can arrive at similar laws having different moral standards, sure. The reverse is also true. Civilizations with different morals can have vastly different laws.

For instance, I find it morally wrong to curse around children. That being said, I fully support a persons first amendment rights to free speech.

That's not a good example. Because, you see, supporting free speech is also a moral choice.

In that one it would have been because gay men's flowers cost the florist 20% more than other mens flowers.

Actually, no. You're confusing incident rate and cost of the incident. Nice try, but wrong.

[Draco]

I would have to seek far and wide for a world view more reprehensible and disgusting as yours. Never mind the hargle bargle about individual rights, but all schools should be privatized? Your views sicken me.

So I'm advocating for a system where every single person has the freedom to do what they want with their life (so including their body, property and the likes), so long as they are not denying another persons right to life, where as you're advocating for one where there's a level of control to regulate what one can do with their life..and I'm the 'bad guy' or my view is 'disgusting'?

yes and you accept the enforcement of laws that serve to prevent the rights of some people from infringing on the rights of others so what's your problemt? this is at least partly about protecting the right of gay people to not be shafted by their own society. this florist enjoys the benefits of her society and then thinks she can get away with shafting that society? pah! let her do business elsewhere if she can't contribute more meaningfully to the functioning of her present society

I've asked this before, and so far nobody has responded, so I'll ask again: What rights are being infringed here?! The fact that the florist is denying her services to a gay couple, leads to what rights being infringed?!

Answer the question. Are you allowed to build a nuke in your backyard or not? Yes or no?

No dodging the question.

Or, if you're astounded that someone would attempt to do that because it's so difficult - what about nerve gas? Are you allowed to produce nerve gas? Some of those are pretty easy to create.

Yeah well I'm asking questions that nobody has answered...but to answer yours, if a person or persons are out to create a nuclear bomb with the intention of using it against innocent civilians (I can't imagine it would be for research purposes) then they should be stopped. I could say that they may as well be doing it for research purposes, but I don't know enough about nuclear bombs to know whether you can do any research without destroying a city.

I'm really curious about why you think the Jim Crow laws are a good example of why people should be able to break the law to discriminate. That seems more fucked up than anything else you've said, and I'm sure it's also why everyone has found your suddenly bringing them up puzzling.

Ask me without using vulgar language and I'll answer you.

Fun Hypothetical: If we got every business owner in Australia to agree to not sell Draco food, and everyone else to agree not to buy it for him, and then the government allows him to starve to death, or arrests him when he tries to steal someone's property (food), would he consider this a triumph of his political view of minimal government...

Who's 'we'? You and everyone else on this forum? It's not a very realistic hypothetical scenario.

Privatizing all schools would be disastrous. Have you really thought that through, or is it just a way to demonize the gummint?

I thought it was obvious that by privatising schools, it would lead to a greater competition amongst them to attract potential 'buyers' or students, by lowering their tuition fees, etc. Also keep in mind my style of system, one where the only tax would be for the military, police and courts (I'm unsure about that at the moment though. Voluntary tax would mean zero involvement by the government but it raises many other issues), people would be earning more since they wouldn't be taxed for unnecessary things (so services that a lot of people probably don't even use) such as health care, public schools, public libraries, infrastructure (well everyone uses this, but it can still be privatised), etc. So affording the tuition fees for a school, which I'd expect to be affordable owing to the whole competition thing, shouldn't be a problem.

But gays can be denied a hotel room, wedding flowers, open military service...or an education...simply because they're gay? How's that translate to your idea of freeeedom? Sounds to me like you'd rather have private businesses relegate certain human beings to second-class status. If teh gummint did that you'd be railing against discrimination.

Gay/homosexual people shouldn't be denied military service though. But if the owner of a private business wishes to deny them their services, then they have every right to do so, for the simple fact that it's their property/business.

The florist knew the law before making a contract with the couple, and can't legally back out for illegal reasons. We talked about this in the hotel thread, Draco. If someone holds racist or homophobic beliefs, nothing will legislate away their 'right' to be haters. But they're not legally allowed to operate a business 'open to the public' based on those discriminating principles.

Open to the public doesn't mean that the owners shouldn't have the right to decide whom they wish to do business with.

Surely you can see why, and what the civil rights movement meant regarding equal treatment for all, and freedom from something matters as much as freedom to do something.

I understand all of that and I'm all for equal before the law, but leave it at that. But you make a good point "freedom from something matters as much as freedom to do something."

What I see is a person, Draco, who doesn't understand why the government does what it does, and so comes up with generalizations about how they shouldn't do X or Y.

Right. So because I'm not agreeing with you and others, it MUST be because I don't understand your view.

While my hypothetical question may seem ridiculous, the American South post Civil War, and a good portion of the US would have been a good example of something like that happening, except instead of Draco it was African Americans, and instead of food it was a large range of things from jobs to schooling, and also including food. Which is why we have laws dealing with discrimination. Its like we have to drag him through the last few hundred years of history to get him to understand why certain ideas of his are either horrible on a societal level, outright stupid, or leads to bad things happening (tyranny of the majority, massive class divides, societal degradation, etc).

But the whole issues with African Americans stems from European colonialists who were using them as slaves. Before that, history just goes on with one group of people using others as slaves. So even when slavery was abolished, how could you have expected the white people of the time to suddenly form an unprejudiced view of all these people that they once saw as 'their property'? When something is ingrained in a society to such an extent, it takes some generations for it to be 'filtered out.' Oh and I'll bring out the 'Jim Crow Laws' again...some of you have an issue with me repeating them, yet how can I not when I'm posed with such topics. So tell me what you think Illusions, if the US government had not enacted the Jim Crow Laws at the time, do you think that they would not have lived through all the crap that they originally did? Here we have a good example of the government involving itself in the lives of others, basically encouraging discrimination and I'm being attacked for my views.

I'd also like to know about the other thing I stated. At what point does society become as bad as the government. Why is a law that causes a business to do things its owner doesn't want or face going out of business any different than a society that would accomplish the same ends?

I'd say that there's a positive correlation between society and its respective government. Look at the Jim Crow Laws for instance. Or Nazi Germany.

[Enoch the Red]

That's not a good example. Because, you see, supporting free speech is also a moral choice.

Supporting free speech is a moral choice. Supporting speech which you may find immoral but never-the-less protected by law provides a clear demarcation between personal morality and law.

In my hypothetical situation if society found it morally wrong to curse around children, and someone did so, society would exercise its right not to do business with this person (everything from selling to them, to buying from them, to employing them, etc.) until they either changed their ways, or died.

I mean this with all due respect; your hypothetical situation is idiotic. There are a range of options available to people of all societies that don't involve making every offender of any crime a pariah.

[Khendraja'aro]

Supporting free speech is a moral choice. Supporting speech which you may find immoral but never-the-less protected by law provides a clear demarcation between personal morality and law.

You made it sound like it wasn't. Because, y'see, you can have a graded set of morals: "This comes first. Then that. In case of exceptions, do that..."

From which then come laws which, strangely enough, are graded as well, some are absolutes, others depend on the circumstances.

And since laws stem from morals, divergent moral views won't arrive at the same laws. I can't see a system where divergent morals will arrive at the same laws. If your society finds homosexuality absolutely abhorrent, they will have laws against it. If your society tolerates it, they'll have no laws against it.

Yeah well I'm asking questions that nobody has answered...but to answer yours, if a person or persons are out to create a nuclear bomb with the intention of using it against innocent civilians (I can't imagine it would be for research purposes) then they should be stopped. I could say that they may as well be doing it for research purposes, but I don't know enough about nuclear bombs to know whether you can do any research without destroying a city.

Yeah, right. And how do you determine the intention? Asking them?

"Pardon me, Mr. Terrorist, do you intend to detonate this bomb on our soil?"

I guess it was such genius which led to the questionnaire one has to fill out during a flight to the USA: "Are you a member of a terrorist group?"

http://www.immigration.net/immigrati...-questionnaire

[GGT]

[...]I've asked this before, and so far nobody has responded, so I'll ask again: What rights are being infringed here?! The fact that the florist is denying her services to a gay couple, leads to what rights being infringed?!

In an open society, people have the right to move about freely and conduct daily business, engage in "interstate commerce" or "public accommodations", without having to meet random, inconsistent, or exclusionary criteria. Gay people have the right to be included in every sphere of society, and not be diminished to second-class citizenship. Everyone has the right to live their own identity without being segregated or denied public participation. Gays shouldn't have to "hide in a closet" just to have access that heterosexuals do, and they shouldn't have to try and "pass" as straight.

<If you substitute the word Gay or Same-Sex with the word Black in the florist story, it should be clear what's wrong with this discrimination.>

Question for you: what right would the florist lose by providing flowers at a gay wedding? She can still be hateful, and still hold (what she calls) a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, and gay marriage is wrong. No one is forcing her to be gay, or marry another woman.

If she feels compelled to have her business reflect her religious views, she can advertise it that way. Put signs on the shop window, put them on her website or business card.....Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes.....Marriage is one man and one woman or whatever. That's not uncommon in the US. I doubt an engaged gay couple would even consider her for their wedding flowers, knowing her beliefs.

As to your comments on privatizing schools, you should re-think that from the perspective of children and their right to an education. Even if their parents are poor or indigent. Consider what our societies used to look like when education was private pay, and poor or rural children were uneducated and ignorant. I don't think you really want to bring back the time when kids barely learned to read and dropped out after 8th grade. For a contemporary example of that --- look at migrant farm workers and their children.

[Enoch the Red]

You made it sound like it wasn't. Because, y'see, you can have a graded set of morals: "This comes first. Then that. In case of exceptions, do that..."

From which then come laws which, strangely enough, are graded as well, some are absolutes, others depend on the circumstances.

And since laws stem from morals, divergent moral views won't arrive at the same laws. I can't see a system where divergent morals will arrive at the same laws. If your society finds homosexuality absolutely abhorrent, they will have laws against it. If your society tolerates it, they'll have no laws against it.

Not true. I know people who personally find homosexuality abhorrent, but they believe in and consistently vote to give homosexuals equal rights.

This is the very basis of freedom and liberty. People are free to think, and do things that may not agree with the morality of the majority.

Can there be limits to those rights? Absolutely.

Consider this: is it morally wrong to cheat on a girlfriend or boyfriend? I think most everyone would agree it is. Is it, or should it be illegal?