Posted on 04/28/2013 4:03:27 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I am troubled by Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s crackdown on florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, for refusing to make a flower arrangement for a same-sex wedding.
#I’m not arguing here against gay marriage. I voted for it. I’m not even sure that Stutzman has a legal right to refuse the business. Ferguson says that under Washington’s anti-discrimination statute, she doesn’t, and probably he’s right. She might, however, have a superior right under the state constitution, depending on how you interpret it.
#The constitution has nothing in it about freedom from private discrimination. But Article 1, Section 11 does say, “Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual ...”
#This doesn’t refer to commerce, but in 1889, when it was written, nobody questioned a person’s right not to deal with someone in a matter of commerce. America made an exception to that principle in the 1960s to end racial segregation in the South, where African-Americans could often not eat at lunch counters or rent rooms in motels. Those practices put blacks at a social and economic disadvantage that visibly harmed the race. This pervasive disadvantage was the reason for setting aside the long-standing principle that any business owner could say “no” to a transaction.
#We’ve extended the nondiscrimination principle for 50 years and now arrive at its nether regions. With gay marriage there have been a handful of publicized cases of discrimination — by a wedding photographer in New Mexico, the baker of wedding cakes in Oregon, and now this wedding florist in the Tri Cities. Most of these cases have been about wedding ceremonies. Should a gay couple’s extra hassle in finding wedding professionals matter to the state?(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at union-bulletin.com ...
Simply can’t put up a sign in your shop saying, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. Guess that doesn’t work anymore.
I wonder to what degree the ADA has led to this entitlement. Every business must be made to accommodate everyone, even the Harley shop must have handicap accessible ramps though no handicap person can use their bikes. Businesses were defined as public space and therefore must accommodate everyone.
Now we say that businesses must take all comers.
if you don't have the right to refuse business... then you're a slave.
whether or not i perform my work / services is entirely at my discretion. you can claim discrimination all you want, it doesn't matter. unless American business people are slaves forced to perform their tasks, it's entirely voluntary
In a previous article, I read that the florist and one of the gays were friendly - she had served them before. When he came and asked her to do the wedding flowers, she told him she couldn’t and even gave him a hug. She thought he understood why and would take his business elsewhere. Of course, that wasn’t the end of it.
We used to have the right of ‘free association’. No more.
NO... “We reserve the right to refuse service... no reason required”
The Sodomites came, saw and conquered. One can even admire the Sodomites over their enemies as at least the Sodomites have beliefs upon which they act.
The article makes weak arguments, from a weak mind that approves homosexuality.
What more can anyone expect?
The obvious solution to this is to go ahead and provide the flowers and then vomit through the entire ceremony.
“No First Amendment for you!”
Local florist refuses to service same-sex marriage
http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/Florist-refuses-to-service-same-sex-marriage-195500961.html
What is constantly attempted is trying to equate this to racial discrimination, in which a person is not served due to his skin color, nationality, etc., but which is an invalid analogy. The florist is not refusing to serve a customer because they are homosexual, but because they want her to help celebrate an immoral homosexual act.
A black florist cannot legally refuse to serve a communist member, but should be allowed to refuse to serve one if he wanted an arrangement for a celebration of Lenin’s birthday.
But as the gov. itself sanctions immorality, here you have the weakness of democracy, which depends upon a populace which is largely controlled enough from within, by God and conscience reflecting basic Biblical morality, so that they need not be much controlled from without by a vast controlling government, and which voters have the moral sense and wisdom to elect leaders who themselves are thus controlled.
For gov. itself must be government, and the people choose what leaders it consists of.
• ...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (From a letter Adams wrote on 11 October 1798 to the officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, of the Massachusetts Militia).ion of the Militia of Massachusetts,” October 11, 1798) More: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Quotes_compare.html
While I agree with your central belief, there are circumstances where it becomes murky, at best.
For example, should a sports franchise be allowed to refuse entrance to a paying customer?
if you accepted payment, you must provide the service or refund the payment. basic business.
so yes, a sports franchise definitely has the right to refuse you entrance to an event... BUT... they must also refund the fee they took in exchange.
of course, if they are refusing you due to the fact they sold the seat for more money to someone else, that’s a different problem. they should not reneg on the agreement due to a better offer. that would not be smart business, as people would quickly realize they cannot be trusted to provide the service they advertised as they would sell it from under you
in the situation of a floral shop owner refusing to provide his services to a homosexual couple... that’s entirely up to him. he did not take money nor did he promise services under contract. he is not their slave and he is not obligated to provide services he does not want to provide (one of the perks of having your own company... you’re the boss. YOU decide what you want to do)
Homosexual agenda always pushing pushing pushing. They could probably get those flowers in plenty of places, but chose this guy just to push their agenda even further and scare other businesses. They know their actions are repugnant, but their psychological disease is to the need for everyone to applaud their known pervasion and to play lip service to how great their perversion is.
Your scenario is after the fact. For example, should the Dallas Cowboys be allowed to not sell a ticket to someone based on race or sexuality?
As to the other part of your scenario, teams already withhold enormous amounts of tickets to sell them at higher prices to agencies, with zero negative impact to their business.
On a side note, here in NY, it is illegal for you to re-sell a purchased ticket while it is legal for franchises and agencies to do the same. The game is rigged.
it’s your business. if you decide you do not wish to provide your services to a group, be it based on race, religion, gender, or shoe color, that’s entirely up to you.
if you were not able to decide when, where and to whom to apply your services, then you are nothing more then a slave.
of course, being forced to take the fruits of that labor and putting it towards acts that go against the very essence of your being (tax payer funded abortion mills) makes you little more then a slave
i’m still stuck how to resolve that issue... besides not participating in the economy (ie: shut down business and spend minimally)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.