I read the article, and unless I missed something, there is no detail/background, other than what the author claims, that explains the florist’s reason for not serving the gay couple’s wedding. Interesting enough - it does reference that the florist had served them before. So, does the florist really have a problem with gay marriage, or is the couple asking for something unrealistic/extravagant/off-the-wall (either in design, price, or method of payment) that the florist is unable to provide as a business person? I’ll admit that I don’t agree with gay marriage, but this article is so lacking of detail about the florist’s refusal that it makes me wonder if the author is purposefully presenting it this way to advance the anti-gay marriage agenda.
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.
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.
Local florist refuses to service same-sex marriage
http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/Florist-refuses-to-service-same-sex-marriage-195500961.html