WA Attorney General Filing Suit Against Florist Who Refused to Provide Arrangements for a Gay Wedding

Reason

The Attorney General of Washington has filed suit against a florist who refused to provide an arrangement for a gay wedding, saying that doing so is in violation of the Consumer Protection Act. The florist's attorney says that the refusal stems from an objection to gay marriage, not an objection to homosexuality. 

From The Seattle Times:

The state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in Benton County Superior Court against a Richland florist who refused to provide flowers for the wedding of longtime gay customers, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

The state's suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts, came just days after the Attorney General's Office wrote to ask that Stutzman reconsider her position and agree to comply with the state's anti-discrimination laws.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at [e-mail], or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Comments

[TheIronSheik]

All the libertarians were laughing at people like me who refused to support the faggots precisely because of this issue.

[Hyperion]

Actually, some of us said, marriage is no business of the government.

This won't only go bad for businesses like this. It will go bad for gays once they arrive in family court.

[Episiarch]

Shut the fuck up, you pathetic bigoted scumbag. Collectivizing all homos because some of them don't respect freedom of association is...collectivist. This lawsuit is wrong and stupid and should lose, but you're also a fucking shithead asshole.

[John]

But it is not going to lose. It is going to win. And we have the fact that no one would ever accept civil unions as a compromise to thank for it.

[jesse.in.mb]

To be fair, anytime I floated the idea of civil unions for all and marriage as a purely religious institution, it was rejected pretty equally by my SoCon friends and my liberal friends.

[Hyperion]

Of course, because both your SoCon friends, and liberal friends, are statists.

[KDN]

Funny thing is that I have gotten the opposite reaction. Middle-aged Black women in particular loved the idea; though this was in 2008 and I suspect everybody's gotten a bit more ornery about the issue since then.

[Stormy Dragon]

Just because Person A1 has wronged Person B1 doesn't justify Person B2 wronging person A2. The fact that Bob Ferguson is treading on Barronelle Stutzman's rights doesn't justify Thelron being a bigot.

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

And we have the fact that no one would ever accept civil unions as a compromise to thank for it.

No, we have retarded anti-discrimination laws to thank for it. In NM the court ruled against a photographer in the same situation?minus the marriage part.

[$park?]

we have retarded anti-discrimination laws to thank for it

Exactly this.

[TomD]

minus the marriage part

I'm not being snarky here: How far do I need to read into that long story with a headline that distinctly says "gay wedding" to learn how it doesn't have a "marriage part"?

[TomD]

Oh shit, I just scrolled down, and it's not a long story.

But I still don't understand how a "gay wedding" story doesn't have a "marriage part."

[Tonio]

I stated many times that I would accept civil unions as a compromise provided that the state only granted civil unions, leaving marriage to the churches and other NGOs. This also implied that all existing civil (govt granted) marriages would become civil unions. IIRC correctly, you howled first and loudest at my modest proposal.

Also no such thing as seperate but equal, John.

John, you may well be an effective lawyer, but you're either a piss-poor legal scholar, or intellectually dishonest to a profound degree.

[Rasilio]

"John, you may well be an effective lawyer, but you're either a piss-poor legal scholar, or intellectually dishonest to a profound degree."

Um, isn't the second bolded section kind of a prerequisite for the first?

[Tonio]

A good point, Ras. But some of the other JD's here (thinking or you, RC) manage to have some integrity.

[Rights-Minimalist Autocrat]

I see the light! I hate teh gayz now!

[Jordan]

If they had been sued for refusing a mixed race couple, would this be an argument in favor of anti-miscegenation laws?

Actually, given that you're a bigoted fuck, you probably do support such laws.

[TheIronSheik]

Did I hurt your feelings? Sorry, bro.

[sarcasmic]

Only ten minutes before predictable accusations of racism.

[Tonio]

I don't see an accusation of racism, sarc. I see a valid question about equal protection.

I do see a racist here, though (hint T...)

[Skyhawk]

Just popped some popcorn and am eagerly awaiting Godwin's Law to do it's thing.

[John]

If you think gays should be a perfected class, then admit as much and stop pretending this is about marriage.

[CampingInYourPark]

"If you think gays should be a perfected class"

Well, maybe not perfect, but superior.

[Tonio]

John's commentary - the laughtrack of HandR.

[sarcasmic]

Funny (not really) that you mention that. In Maine there was a drive to make gays a protected class, and of many said it was a pretext for gay marriage. They were of course dismissed and mocked and ridiculed. The bill passed, and before the ink was dry the gay marriage drive began.

[darius404]

And of course one HAD to cause the other, it's not like they could both be caused by changing social views. No sir, has to be gay marriage causing anti-discrimination lawsuits, not like those lawsuits have ANYTHING to do with cultural ideas of "protected classes".

[sarcasmic]

If you here a "whoosh" noise it's my point flying over your head.

[darius404]

I got your point, and it has no evidence. Can you provide the evidence that the "protected class" argument got a gay marriage bill signed? Oh wait, of course you can't. "Whoosh" indeed.

[darius404]

Sorry, the other way around.

Can you provide the evidence that the imminence of the gay marriage drive got the protected class bill signed? Oh wait, of course you can't. "Whoosh" indeed.

[darius404]

It couldn't POSSIBLY be that they were both caused by the same social climate. Nah, gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws HAVE to cause the other, not matter if there's not proof one causes the other.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

"perfected" Not all gays have lisps, John.

[DJF]

""""If they had been sued for refusing a mixed race couple, would this be an argument in favor of anti-miscegenation laws?"""

No, what it would be is an argument against both laws preventing people from being together and laws to force people together

The 1964 civil rights act we went from a country where some states and localities had laws against some people being together to a country where the Federal government forced people together.

[Rasilio]

Actually some of us said we supported their right to get married but would oppose this when it occurred.

[Tonio]

Why, yes, Rasilio, yes we did.

[Jordan]

DOES NOT COMPUTE /yokeltarian

[TheIronSheik]

You supported this result when you supported ssm. We knew with 100% certainty this would happen.

[MJGreen]

We know with 100% certainty that there will be more mass shootings and suicides by gun. Doesn't mean gun confiscation is justified.

[Rasilio]

Indeed, and maybe some good can come out of this.

Inevitably bigots of all stripes will begin to seek out Gay and Lesbian small business owners to perform services for their obviously bigoted activities and file similar anti discrimination suits, then if we're lucky the entire concept of these idiotic anti discrimination laws can be thrown out on their ass.

However even if that does not come about one cannot justify mistreating one just because preventing it would cause mistreatment of another, to be morally consistent we must oppose both injustices separately.

[Rights-Minimalist Autocrat]

Rape happens, therefore your dick is banned. Turn it in to the authorities at once.

[Hyperion]

Only Hugh can prevent florist friars.

[John]

But gay marriage will never be used as a way to oppress people, never!! Do you guys really think the left gives a fuck about gay marriage? This is what gay marriage has always been about.

[entropy]

Racist homophobe.

[Tonio]

No, just a troll.

[Mickey Rat]

Thoughtcrime.

[Way Of The Crane]

This is what gay marriage has always been about.

Gay weddings?

[John]

That too.

[sarcasmic]

Lawsuits.

[a better weapon]

And easily falsified ones as well, like that Pigford shit.

Just imagine an equally superfluous class-action lawsuit but with an aggrieved LGBT victim class. Now if I was chasing money, there's no way I could claim being discriminated on the basis of race because I'm white. But anybody can say they're gay or bi and claim discrimination.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

You can claim it but I don't think you want to go through the discovery motions, if you know what I mean.

[darius404]

Prove the connection. Prove one causes the other. You can't, because they both happen for the same reason, cultural bullshit.

[Tony]

Is there a belief in your head that isn't the product of sweating, jittery paranoia?

[T]

Pie. My belief in pie has nothing to do with paranoia.

[Auric Demonocles]

What is Feeney's reasoning for the refusal of providing alt-text?

[generic Brand]

What alt-text could there be?

Read more at Reason's 24/7? I'd prefer none.

[Auric Demonocles]

They've been putting it up for some of the 24/7 articles.

In this case, maybe "Reason is always open for gay readers", though it doesn't even have to be about 24/7.

[$park?]

Anti-discrimination laws don't cover alt-text apparently.

[Marshall Gill]

The florist's attorney says that the refusal stems from an objection to gay marriage, not an objection to homosexuality.

Why would this matter? It is illegal to object to either? What if one objects to homosexuality but not SSM? Is that illegal? I obviously don't understand the thought police.

[John]

What if one objects to homosexuality but not SSM? Is that illegal?

For all practical purposes, yes.

[H. ReardEn]

I believe that it's an argument crafted by the wording of the anti-discrimination law.

[DesigNate]

marriage isn't a protected class, but being homosexual could be. Lawyer is just hedging.

[grrizzly]

You can check what the gay Left thinks about this here.

[entropy]

Shockingly, most of the gay left activists seem to agree with John.

[John]

This one seems typical

Let all the whingers whinge and all the sheeples bleat. This is what I love about the law. Cry yourself a river, but it won't float you far enough away from its long arm. I hope the prosecution of this rather stupid bigot (but is there any other kind?) serves as a shining example.

[generic Brand]

What's a whinger, and how does one whinge? Is that like a whining cringe?

[Lord Humungus]

we'll have to ask the resident troll, PB Bill, for an answer.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

whinge is aussie for whine. I know this because I am a surfer and we are required to know aussie slang.

Ya whingin' seppo!

[Blogimi Dei]

Cops and Charley DON'T SURF!

[Enough About Palin]

Just STFUFFS.

[jesse.in.mb]

It's British for whine, it may also be Canadian.

This is the problem with Canadians, they look like us and sound (roughly) like us, the only way to tell them apart is having them spell theater and color.

[Auric Demonocles]

Also you can give them fries and see what condiment they reach for.

[Matrix]

don't forget about/aboot!

[BakedPenguin]

Ask aboot "junior hockey". If they understand you, it's 99% certain they're Canadian.

[Ice Nine]

Most reliable: Ask them what brand of coffee they love.

[Pro Libertate]

As Aresen mentioned in a previous thread, see how much they tip.

[A Serious Man]

Let all the whingers whinge and all the sheeples bleat. This is what I love about the law. Cry yourself a river, but it won't float you far enough away from its long arm. I hope the prosecution of this rather stupid bigot (but is there any other kind?) serves as a shining example.

Ladies and gentlemen, a gay fascist!

[Pro Libertate]

A lot of Nazis were gay, you know.

[John]

Night of the long knives. Wasn't the SA pretty much a gay S&M club?

[A Serious Man]

Yeah, it was pretty easy for Hitler to discredit Rohm and his boys after the purge.

[Pro Libertate]

Sure sounds like it from what I've read. Hitler wasn't exactly a standard heterosexual, either. Bet he batted both ways.

[Fist of Etiquette]

OH MY GOD. Do we really need to find extra ways to demonize Hitler? Wasn't the Holocaust enough material to hammer him with?

(Huh, it kinda seems like I'm defending Hitler here in some way.)

[Pro Libertate]

I'm not concerned about sliming Hitler. His evil is asymptotic already. But it's all a little weird if you look at the early days of the SA.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Oh, that was just hazing. You know how boys are.

[Pro Libertate]

Nazism was just a fraternity prank gone horribly wrong. You know how practical jokes have a tendency to escalate.

[Joe M]

Good thing they didn't have Asian swamp eels in Germany in the 1940s.

[$park?]

Good thing they didn't have Asian swamp eels in Germany in the 1940s.

Good thing? That could have ended the Nazi threat before it even got rolling.

[Hyperion]

He used drugs also. Drugs are bad, Mmkay. So there's Holocaust, being bisexual, and drugs. Hitler was a really bad guy.

[Pro Libertate]

Don't forget that he was a vegetarian, too. And a Nazi.

[SIV]

Hitler was a big animal rights guy.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Hitler was a vegetarian? Fuck him.

[Pro Libertate]

That's why he did all of that bad shit--hatred for meat-eaters.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

Only during the Great War. He was a HUA
Homo until armistice.

Or as the Marines pronouce it u(r)a.

[Tonio]

A lot of Nazis were gay, you know.

I believe I've corrected you on this before, Pro L. Do pay attention this time. It's your credibility that suffers when you trot this out.

At the beginning the Nazis were pro-homo. Then they purged Ernst Rohm, and became socially conservative. Then they started putting homos in concentration camps and gassing them, just like jews.

So your conflation of nazism with homosexuality is a blood libel. Fuck you very much.

[Pro Libertate]

Lord, give it a rest. I was talking about the SA. I know they launched pogroms against gays.

[Tonio]

No, some things are out of bounds. I consider genocide to be one of those. Sorry your upbringing didn't provide you a better sense of perspective.

[$park?]

Tonio, sometimes you need to lighten the fuck up, man. Seriously.

[Tonio]

I am very much in charge of my own needs, Sparks. Thanks for your concern.

[Warty]

Calm down, little lady.

[Pro Libertate]

Lighten up, Francis.

Since we haven't been blood enemies, I will say that I was joking, and I don't personally see any significance in the SA having a lot of gays at the beginning or even in Hitler's sexuality. They were bad people doing bad things to a lot of people who didn't deserve it.

[Virginian]

Dude, you just equated social conservatism with Nazism. So....something something glass houses.

[Tonio]

Uh, no.

[Virginian]

Then they purged Ernst Rohm, and became socially conservative.

Uh, yes.

[mr simple]

No, some things are out of bounds.

Where do you think you are, emotions: stay&chat; blog?

[Rights-Minimalist Autocrat]

To be fair, John is here.

[Fist of Etiquette]

It's not about convincing, about changing minds. It's punishment. This prosecution, aside from the personal liberty angle, is bad because it will only breed resentment for their cause from those who aren't already on board.

[John]

That is the sad fact. The gay rights rights movement has totally been co-opted by shitbag leftists. They don't care about equality. They care about leftist politics. GLAD gave Bill Clinton, the author of DADT and the guy who signed DOMA an award for God sakes.

[Tonio]

Had the right stepped up, perhaps they wouldn't have found themselves in that position. You've made your bed, now lie in it.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

The language of a triumphalist.

No doubt, the social conservatives in the 80s and 90s who said the same about the "godless Left" are wondering where it all went awry for them.

[thom]

So? "Their" movement got co-opted so they shouldn't have rights? Fuck off.

[The Late P Brooks]

Dear faggots,

Find a different goddam florist.

How fucking difficult is that?

[JW]

Doesn't everyone want to enrich and do business with, someone who hates your guts? I know I do.

[a better weapon]

The florist's attorney says that the refusal stems from an objection to gay marriage, not an objection to homosexuality.

It certainly helps her case that this couple are labeled as "longtime" customers. So its not really about discrimination. It'd be harder to prove if this was the first time this gay couple had entered the store.

A good hypothetical comparison would be a local florist somewhere refusing to do the flowers arrangement for a wedding involving a home wrecker or a man's second marriage because of her strict religious belief about divorce. She'd be well within her right to in that case as well.

[John]

The homewrecker example is a good one. You can refuse service for any reason you want generally, provided said reason is not prohibited by law. And gay marriage has always been intended to be a back door way of making being gay a protected class.

[Rock Action]

And gay marriage has always been intended to be a back door way of making being gay a protected class

That's too blanket and broad. It's only for some people/activists. Notice this is the AG here. I'd venture that most people simply think that gays should be able to receive the benefits and sanction that straight couples do.

[John]

Sure they do. But the activists have always wanted something different and of course lied about that.

[Rock Action]

Well, of course. And I'll bet there are people that want to remove state recognition of the religious ceremony of marriage performed by those people and entities who won't perform gay marriage. But such is life in the identity politics/pluralistic world we live in.

[jesse.in.mb]

gay marriage has always been intended to be a back door way of making being gay a protected class

Huh, I always thought it was a backdoor for smashing smashing the church. Wait, no it was about paving the way for a new golden age of pederasty. Hmm, I really can't keep up; I really should start reading my UNIFIED GAY AGENDA monthly news letters.

[John]

I can't help you if you are too stupid or bull headed or dishonest to understand the implications of the arguments.

[jesse.in.mb]

Oh John, I'm perfectly aware that some gay rights activists, often the very loudest ones, have a bone to pick with organized religion, and I realize that some of them are going to push their aggrieved status for all it's worth, but your argument is that there is no benefit to gay marriage for gay people other than as a way to screw straight people is, let's face it, insane.

I have no interest in having a church wedding, and am fairly certain that I can find florists, bakers and tailors who are gay or gay friendly (although I'm more of an elopement guy myself), but I do have an interest in 5A spousal privilege, and quite frankly, I do very well with foreign men, so there's a definite possibility that sponsoring a spouse could be important to me. But you can continue making an incredibly simplistic argument that the only reason to support gay marriage is to oppress you.

Would I rather see expansive conscience clauses with gay marriage laws, absolutely, and I firmly believe that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone, but I find it incredibly dickish that you'd gleefully prevent me from having access to those things because you can't help but conflate non-discrimination ordinances with access to the civil trappings of marriage.

[generic Brand]

John has this (not so unique) ability to generalize arguments, some would even say collectivize people. It's why he can be referred to as Red Tony on occasion.

I'm more curious about how the 5th amendment evolved into spousal privilege, as that issue, along with taxes/death benefits and visitation rights are the only ones that I see as legitimately worthwhile in the gay marriage movement. And I've always thought going for those by broadening contract law would be better than just including another group under the married fold.

But I don't want this to turn into Episiarch accusing me of being a closeted homo, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

How about immigration sponsorship?

[generic Brand]

Open immigration would eliminate the need for sponsorship.

I don't fault the gay marriage proponents for wanting benefits that for the most part should be granted to them; my hang up is that these benefits should be available to everyone who wants to enter into a contract, whether married or not.

I don't see the gay marriage movement being a spring board off which freedom can be expanded for all, because we've already witnessed an era where a disenfranchised (I can never remember if I'm using that correctly... is it only in regards to voting??) group is no longer so and they are slow to support other groups gaining in equality before the law, i.e. the Civil Rights movement in the 60s and black communities now being some of the staunchest anti-gay communities.

I don't have an easy answer for what should be done; I just don't feel that gay marriage as it is currently being pushed is the right one.

[jesse.in.mb]

I don't think your position is unreasonable, GB, and I agree with it in intent, but I don't see the tax code, insurance coverage, immigration law, the 5th amendment et al lining up to be reformed in a way where marriage doesn't matter. You'll forgive me if I'm not content with "wait until we have a libertarian overhaul of many key government structures and then you can not be coerced into testifying against your partner."

[Episiarch]

Dude, you can't be the gayest monster since gay came to Gaytown, because I am.

[jesse.in.mb]

I don't have a problem with disentangling marriage from the state completely, but I have yet to hear how some of these things would work without it, particularly immigration and 5A spousal privilege.

[Apatheist ?_??]

Easy, immigration and refusal to testify shouldn't be tied to marriage at all. Open immigration and no forced testimony.

[Tonio]

And that's a structural problem with libertarianism. People are not rational actors. Laws exist to codify cultural traditions such as spousal immigration and 5A spousal privilege. You can't just wish those things away.

Libertarians, having never wielded power, are unused to compromise.

[$park?]

Libertarians, having never wielded power, are unused to compromise.

And that a structural problem with collectivization. You make dumb statements assuming that every member of a group thinks the same way.

You can't just wish those things away.

In a more people friendly world, yeah you can. Or in any case, they don't even become laws to begin with.

[entropy]

Laws exist to codify cultural traditions

Oh. Doesn't that mean fuck off with gay marriage?

[darius404]

I can't believe you are too stupid or bull headed or dishonest to understand your argument has no proof one causes the other, rather than them both being caused by a third factor. Oh wait, yes I can.

[Tonio]

Good luck with your reality-acceptance issue, Darius.

[darius404]

No issues at all. No evidence that gay marriage "causes" anti-discrimination lawsuits. Good luck with your bullshit issues, Tonio.

[a better weapon]

I always took it more as an attempt to curb 1st amendment religious rights.

Hate crime laws are doing more to advance homosexuals as a protected class than the marriage way is IMO.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

That may be because I'm sure the defense will bring up First Admendment religous protection. Not sure how that will hold up.

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

How about "the fact that anti-discrimination laws often include homosexuals as a protected class is doing the most to advance homosexuals as a protected class"? How does that sound to people?

[jesse.in.mb]

Hate crimes laws are frustrating because they feel like an attractive way of of DOING SOMETHING.

Less than a year ago some dude was beaten to shit by some marines outside a gay bar I've been to a few times. It makes one feel less safe about going to a bar in a neighborhood I felt was generally safe. I can see why people would want to implement laws to discourage such attacks, although I think those laws cause more problems than just throwing the book at the attackers under existing assault laws.

I find non-discrimination ordinances flat out awful, particularly in the case of gays because we aren't being systematically excluded from basic services.

[Virginian]

Yeah, I think a better marker for the racism/hatred of the other in society is how people who commit hate crimes are treated. Like when those guys dragged the black guy behind the truck. It didn't get winked at or shoved under the rug. The three killers got death sentences or life in prison.

I don't like to dignify criminal acts with any kind of description. You're not fighting for the white race or standing up against the homosexual agenda. You're just a murderous thug.

[Hyperion]

There was a youtube video that went viral a couple years ago, where 3 or 4 black girls beat a white girl nearly unconscious, in a McDonalds in Baltimore, while the staff just stood around and watched. And one of them filmed it and posted it on youtube.

They apparently were not even going to bring serious charges in the case, until they suddenly found out that the white girl, was actually a white guy cross dresser, or a transsexual. THEN the case was suddenly elevated to HATE CRIME.

This is what's wrong with laws like this. It's ok to beat a straight girl half to death in a public place, but try that with a special transsexual person, and you are in big trouble!

That's equality? It's sick, is what it is. A crime is a fucking crime and the victim is a victim, no matter who they are. Anything else is not equality, and it's not justice.

[DesigNate]

^THIS^

[Tonio]

Always about the poor, persecuted religious. It is quite possible that an atheist, or a mere non-believer could also come up with non-religious motivations for discrimination.

[$park?]

It is quite possible that an atheist, or a mere non-believer could also come up with non-religious motivations for discrimination.

You know what, if you want to get so far into the weeds that you blow your own feet off then you're on your own.

[entropy]

Not ALL gay people even want homo marriage to begin with man.

There is, for lack of a better term, a homosexualist movement.

You don't even have to be gay to get in it, and you don't have to be in it to be gay, but lets not pretend like it doesn't exist.

These people are already planning out their next lawsuit.

[Tonio]

Awww, how quaint.

[CampingInYourPark]

"Huh, I always thought it was a backdoor for smashing smashing the church. Wait, no it was about paving the way for a new golden age of pederasty. Hmm, I really can't keep up; I really should start reading my UNIFIED GAY AGENDA monthly news letters."

I thought it was to secure funding for rectal gestation research after reading about so many gay couples wanting to be parents. There is no equity when only women can be pregnant.

[Rasilio]

" I really should start reading my UNIFIED GAY AGENDA monthly news letters."

yeah, how else will you remember to pick up the milk on the way home from work?

[thom]

So if a gay florist refused service for a straight wedding based on an objection to opposite sex marriage, would that also be prohibited by law?

If so, is that not, using your own logic, a perfectly acceptable argument against opposite sex marriage?

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Absolutely. Why would it not be? Government recognition of opposite sex marriage is not a bulwark of libertarian freedom.

[Sigivald]

Yup.

Just like a Jewish baker should be able to tell the American Nazi Party to go do something anatomically impossible if they came to him for a cake (they wouldn't if they knew he was a Jew, of course, but still...).

Or like a black baker could tell the Klan he doesn't want their business (same caveat, but of course if the owner's black but the guy at the counter's white, the Klan wouldn't know, would they?).

Or like Julia's Progressive Pastries should be able to refuse to cater CPAC.

Nobody should ever have to serve a customer they find repugnant, even if I/you/we think that very judgment is itself repugnant.

It's not the State's damned job.

[Fist of Etiquette]

She should be sued for turning away paying customers. And by sued I mean not sued at all because it's her dumb choice.

[Auric Demonocles]

Well, being sued results in you spending money. Turning away paying customers results in your losing money. Therefore, by Supreme Court logic, they have already been sued.

And in a rare, double whammy decision, I find polygamy constitutional.

[a better weapon]

Penal-Loss

...no that doesn't sound right at all

[Fist of Etiquette]

Booooooooo!

[Auric Demonocles]

I can't wait to tell my husband!

[Rock Action]

I'll bet the public was assured that this would never, ever happen. Not in a million years. This is hilariously pathetic.

[thom]

Why would the public be assured of this? What would the argument be? "We're going to extend marriage to everybody but we're only going to enforce existing consumer protection law when it involves opposite sex partners"...? That hardly seems like effective policy.

[Sigivald]

The problem is that such a law even exists.

Which "consumer" is this protecting? And from what? Not doing business with a company that doesn't like them?

(Yeah, I really want to do business with companies that dislike what I stand for.

I'll obviously get the best service in such an adversarial context, right?

The State will make them be awesome to me. That'll work.)

[Rock Action]

In order to pass legislation, yes, you'd assure people that they wouldn't be compelled in any way to actively participate in gay marriages. That's been the mantra of activists the whole time: How does gay marriage affect you? What's your problem with something that doesn't affect you, etc. I've heard it a million times.

[Lord Humungus]

how does one get on the "protected class" list?

[Hyperion]

Don't be a white male. That's all there is to it.

[Hyperion]

I should have said, straight white male.

[jesse.in.mb]

Eh, I'd give it time, the fact that men are falling behind in education metrics seems like a great way to make EVERYBODY a protected class.

[AlexInCT]

No, because you always need the "them" to point fingers at, and if straight white men also become a protected class, then you have nobody to blame.

[Rights-Minimalist Autocrat]

It's nice to know I'll always be considered useful for something, at least until I get Alzheimer's.

[Lord Humungus]

damn!

[Fist of Etiquette]

If you have to ask you can't be on it.

[generic Brand]

Collectivize yourself.

[Rhywun]

I hate this "protected class" double-speak. Such laws mention things like race, gender, and sexuality. That means EVERY race, gender, and sexuality is a so-called "protected class", not just the subset of each classification that has historically got shit on.

[Virginian]

Yeah, in theory. Meanwhile, in the real world, these laws are not enforce equally.

[Rhywun]

Nonsense. You just don't see the reverse situations happen very much.

[Hyperion]

What's going to happen when there's a case like this, and the florist is Muslim?

I think this is a legit question.

[entropy]

Absolutely nothing.

[Hyperion]

As in the state keeps their mouth shut about it? IF that's what you're saying, I agree, and no one on the left will say a word.

[entropy]

Yup.

[Tony]

A Muslim florist. Is the other half of this sitcom a gay engineer?

Dunno about you but I don't hear about a lot of US Muslims protesting policy and mores, but that could be the result of the Bush Racial Panic.

[Tonio]

Oh, entropy can predict the future. Give me some winning numbers for tonight's Powerball drawing to prove it.

[entropy]

Are you pissed cuz you suck at it?

[Tonio]

No number = no credibility. Sometimes a moral victory is better than a monetary prize.

[entropy]

You are one emotional dude.

[DesigNate]

Dude, calm down.

Do you really expect any of the progressive AG's out there to go after a muslim business that refuses to provide services to a gay couple?

I'd say that's a safe bet.

[a better weapon]

That couple wouldn't have the fucking balls to file a lawsuit on an objecting Muslim florist.

[Hyperion]

Neither would the attorney general.

[Tonio]

Easy to say, lads. Someday this will happen and I'll call you out on it. Looking forward to that day.

[Hyperion]

Go ahead and call me out, Tonio. I don't see it ever happening, but if it does, won't be the first time I've been wrong, and I will admit it.

But I don't see it, the Muslim community would go ape shit.

[John]

We will never know because no gay couple would ever have the courage to sue a Muslim over this.

[sarcasmic]

Since intolerant people hate Muslims, Muslims are victims.
Members of a victim class don't go suing other victims.
Professional courtesy and all.

[Hyperion]

It's even stupider than that, sarc. Leftists, even feminists, think that Muslims are their allies.

I don't know if it's because they really are that stupid and delusional, or because they're just scared, and can't admit the truth.

[Rock Action]

By any means necessary to mess with the system.

[sarcasmic]

Like I said, they are perceived as fellow victims.

[Hyperion]

That's an understatement. That florist could just hang a sign in his window saying 'no faggots, no exceptions!'. And nothing would be said, by anyone, except for us Libertarians laughing about the hypocricy of the left.

[Rich]

You have to ease into it.

First, a Rob Reiner sitcom about a couple of gay lawyers whose office is next to a Muslim floral shop ....

[Tonio]

John, this will happen some day. And, predictably, you'll do an about-face and whine about the poor oppressed muslims. And on that day I'll unearth this quote of yours and post it as a response to anything you post here.

[Tonio]

Forever.

[Enough About Palin]

"And, predictably, you'll do an about-face and whine about the poor oppressed muslims (sic)."

I've been reading HyR for six or seven years now and I believe you are mistaken about this.

[Matrix]

Comedians routinely make fun of Jews and Christians. They blaspheme their God. Do they dare do the same to Muslims? No, because they aren't stupid. Even Penn Jillette said the reason why he lays off of them... he doesn't want to get his head cut off.

[Mickey Rat]

Then the ones who won't make fun of Muslims but will make fun of Christians and Jews are craven bullies, only picking on the people who will not fight back.

[Bee Tagger]

The company should blow all of their money on awesome stuff, then declare bankruptcy, and then have the government bail them out in order to become a business again so that the government can force them to arrange flowers for the gay wedding.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Too bigoted to fail.

[a better weapon]

+1

[The Late P Brooks]

What would be the outcome if the florist accepted the job and then, come wedding day, presented them with an elaborate floral arrangement comprised exclusively of pansies?

[gaijin]

hate crime

[WomSom]

This makes a lot of crazy sense dude.

http://www.AnonNow.tk

[sarcasmic]

"Are you a LGBT couple who has been discriminated against by a business? Call the law offices of STEVE SMITH to get the settlement you deserve."

[a better weapon]

And nobody wants to be the Judge who rules against the drummer for Journey!

NOBODY!

[Stormy Dragon]

Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts

What I want to know is who this Arlene person is. Are we sure this florist isn't just a front?

The state's suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts, came just days after the Attorney General's Office wrote to ask that Stutzman reconsider her position and agree to comply with the state's anti-discrimination laws.

The letter went on to demand that Stutzman "bring him a shrubbery".

[Tonio]

It's possible that Stutzman bought an existing flower business and kept the name because of the name recognition.

[Stormy Dragon]

I know, I was being facetious.

[$park?]

It's also possible that she wanted to come up with a name more common than Barronelle to name her shop.

[Hyperion]

If she takes the shrubbery, then they'll just demand that she chop down the biggest tree in the forest, with a herring.

Then when she tries that, both the greens and the animal activists will file suits of their own against her.

This poor lady is just screwed.

[DesigNate]

Did they send a second letter demanding more "shrubbery and a little white picket fence"?

[Tonio]

Interesting how nobody here trots out the states' rights argument when the state to define discrimination is inconvenient.

[John]

Sure the state has a right to pass such a law. No one is saying the feds should stop them. But that doesn't make that law desirable.

[Xlotl]

Some would argue that the law violates the florist's U.S. constitional right of free association.

[Rasilio]

And free speech.

Since the Supremes have ruled that economic activity = speech, the right to refuse to engage in such activity could not be abridged (however it could be penaltaxed)

[DesigNate]

Maybe I've just gone retarded, but I'm not sure what you are saying. Could you explain?

[Eduard van Haalen]

Washington state's gay-marriage law has an exception for some religious people, but not for secular businesses like florists:

"A religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action, including a claim pursuant to chapter 49.60 RCW, based on its refusal to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/def.....=26.04.010

So the authors of this law recognized that private businesses could be penalized for refusing to recognize gay marriages, they just didn't care. So long as the private business in question is purely secular, it has no rights the government is bound to respect.

If only there were a movement demanding the same protection for secular business as for religious organizations!

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

And years before that law was passed, a "public accommodation" discriminating against people based on sexual orientation was already illegal.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Before Washington state recognized gay marriage, it was unclear whether private entities were required to give more recognition to SSM than the government itself.

Do you have a case prior to Washington's recognition of SSM where private entities were required to do what the state did not even require of itself: Regognize same-sex relationships as being equal in all respects to marriage?

[Eduard van Haalen]

Here's an interesting clause of the Washington state antidiscrimination law:

"This chapter shall not be construed to endorse any specific belief, practice, behavior, or orientation. Inclusion of sexual orientation in this chapter shall not be construed to modify or supersede state law relating to marriage."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/def.....=49.60.020

This clause is also noted by the state "Human Rights Commission:"

"Q. Does Washington State condone homosexuality or same gender marriage?

"No. In fact, the law (49.60.040) specifically says, "This chapter shall not be construed to endorse any specific belief, practice, behavior, or orientation. Inclusion of sexual orientation in this chapter shall not be construed to modify or supersede state law relating to marriage.""

http://www.hum.wa.gov/faq/FAQS.....tion2.html

Oops, time to update that Web site, now that SSM has been legalized in Washington.

Tell us again about how these subjects are unconnected.

[Xlotl]

Of all the jack-booted thugs in this country, the jack-booted thugs of human rights commissions are the WORST!

(Well, not really, I guess. They don't usually kill people. But still.)

[Tonio]

Whereas racists, homophobes have actually killed people. Cry me a river.

[Apatheist ?_??]

No this homophobe. She hasn't done anything to anybody. The attorney general on the other hand is violating her freedom of association.

[Hyperion]

If she loses, then we will have a precedent.

Then when some right wing gay couple sues a Muslim florist for not doing their wedding, and the state has to take the case... JIHAD!

This could be how it all ends.

[Mickey Rat]

Tonio loves Big Brother.

[RandomJackass]

This issue seems to have little or nothing to do with gay rights in particular, this has to do with the constitution of the State of Washington, and whether it permits this particular type of regulation of consumer business practices.

I'd argue that this regulation creates an unenforceable thoughtcrime because you could refuse to do business with anyone for almost any other reason (they kicked your dog, they don't pay their bills, they asked for flowers you can't provide, they insulted you, etc).

This business owner's legal problem is due to the fact that she openly acknowledged her reason for refusing to serve them was "gay marriage", and not some other reason that wouldn't fall afoul of the Washington law.

I think this is a violation of her freedom of expression. Either she can choose who she does business with, or she can't. Deciding she cannot chose not to do business with this couple based solely on her thoughts on the subject is where I say this law is bad law, but not because the reason "gay" is any better/worse than any other reason a business owner would have for refusing service to someone.

[Xlotl]

In the good old days, you wouldn't have had to work that hard to find a basis for finding the WA law unconstitutional.

Rehabilitating Lochner

[The Immaculate Trouser]

On the one hand, libertarians who support gay marriage tell those who do not that privatizing marriage is a waste of time -- that we have to live in the real world and decide based on real-world considerations of what is possible.

On the other hand, these same libertarians refuse to look at the second-order consequences of gay marriage in the context of our anti-discrimination laws. (This is especially true when it comes to judges un-Constitutionally imposing gay marriage based on equality concerns, as was done in Iowa.)

What should we make of this?

[Tonio]

Uh, no. See my 3:36 above.

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

This type of discrimination would almost certainly have been illegal years before SSM was available in Washington, because sexual orientation-based discrimination was already illegal for public accommodations. So in the real-world this wasn't a second-order consequence of gay marriage.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

It is a second-order consequence of government recognition of straight marriage; why would it not be a second-order consequence of gay marriage?

None of the benefits associated with government-crafted marriage is a negative right. It's one of three things:

*Civil rights/immunities (e.g., immigration & spousal 5th Am)
*Free shit
*Making other people do things (e.g., businesses can't discriminate when providing health benefits for married couples)

Of those three general categories, only the first is a valid concern. The other two include the anti-libertarian second-order consequences that I refer to, and it's certainly the case that in most places, a gay marriage statute makes government persecution and anti-discrimination laws that much more likely.

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

I'm not sure what you mean in your first paragraph. I looked up anti-discrim statues in WA, and this florist's behavior would have been illegal years before SSM was available in the state.

[Sigivald]

I believe he's saying that "because it's a second-order effect of MARRIAGE, it is ALSO axiomatically a second-order effect of GAY MARRIAGE" [because GAY MARRIAGE is a form of MARRIAGE]; I don't know how else to parse "It is a second-order consequence of government recognition of straight marriage; why would it not be a second-order consequence of gay marriage"; the first clause is perfectly clear in its construction.

I'm not sure how that is meant to work in terms of the law at question, which I believe speaks of "sexual orientation', not "marital status".

That's the puzzling part; I don't see how it's a second-order effect of non-gay marriages at all, given the law as I'm led to understand it.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Isn't there quite a bit of anti-discrimination legislation that is contingent upon marriage? IIRC there are several services which you cannot deny interracial couples on that basis, and extending marriage to a homosexual pairing almost assuredly requires that those anti-discrimination ordinances be extended to include sexual orientation, as well.

I am not sure if the WA anti-discrimination laws are structured that way but my understanding is that many anti-discrimination laws as currently written (both state and federal) function as I have described.

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

The SSM statutes had further anti-discrim provisions, and IANAL, but it seems this couple would have had enough grounds to sue under the earlier statutes regardless. Obviously this is all different state-to-state and it's definitely possible that a given state would genuinely increase protections for married couples, but I haven't yet seen one of these cases where the anti-discrim issues wouldn't have held regardless of SSM status (and, in the case of the NM photographer, did hold where there was no SSM).

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Wrong again, Nikki-person. In the old days, the florist could have claimed he only provides flowers for legally valid marriages, which is not an illegally discriminatory position.

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

And yet in New Mexico that was totally ruled to be illegally discriminatory. And I think we both know that the gay couple would be able to say "actually it's because we're gay" and courts would buy that argument and rule in their favor.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

We're talking about the law here, not what courts actually do.

[Warty]

I imagine the law covers this, but I wonder if the florist bigot could skirt the law with a creative pricing structure. Just have a sign on the wall that says

NORMALS: $1000
FUCKING FAGGOTS: $100000

and everyone should be satisfied, right? Plus, I'm sure she'd be willing to do their wedding for $100,000.

[darius404]

"Price gouging".

[AlexInCT]

Would they get a discount if they are only into petting and rubbing, and not fucking?

[Death Rock and Skull]

I think the best compromise between libertarianism and statism may be just to blow the fucking planet up.

[$park?]

Now you're talkin.

[jesse.in.mb]

Umm, I'm pretty sure that just means Epi wins.

[Benjamin]

I am confused.

1) Can she not choose to decline services to who(m?)ever she chooses, regardless of the reason? It is her business and her income to lose.
2) Is she not protected by the 1st Amendment since servicing them would violate her religious beliefs?

[$park?]

1) No.
2) No.

Government says sell to everyone or close your shop.

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

(1) No, she can't, because of anti-discrimination laws.
(2) She should be, but she probably isn't.

[Virginian]

What nicole said.

The 1st Amendment seems to basically only apply to speech or writing or videos or other expression things. Actually doing things like homeschooling your kids in accordance with your religion, or refusing service to people is a lot harder to pull off.

[califernian]

the state decides how you can run your business. You know this.

(PS: discrimination laws are if anything more immoral than actual discrimination)

[Sigivald]

One would like the answer to both of those to be "yes".

In Washington state, the answer to both is "no".

[Brandybuck]

Why would a gay couple want their flowers from a homophobe? Seriously? Do they really want wilted flowers, out of focus pictures, and tasteless hors d'oeuvres?

[Some call me Tim?]

^^^ This.

If you're a racist/bigot/homophobe, you are only hurting your own pocketbook by refusing this business.

Go right ahead and deny gays your services, you'll lose a lot of straight business too from all the bad publicity.

[Auric Demonocles]

I remember a case from the past year or so that was even more ridiculous. A gay couple wanted their cake from a homophobe. Yes, forcing someone that hates you to make you food is a good idea.

[Tony]

Seems like many of you have figured this out already, but yeah, it's a violation of the state's antidiscrimination law. Allowing gay marriage means wedding service providers are now at risk of violating that law just as any other business already was in the event it wanted to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I guess the sort of interesting question is whether being against "gay marriage" for religious reasons but not "gays" is really discrimination based on sexual orientation. But it kind of is, since the people being gay is rather central to the issue.

[Auric Demonocles]

Actually the people being gay is irrelevant. If two straight guys got married they would object to that two. Or if a gay guy married a lesbian they wouldn't.

[Benjamin]

Fucking brilliant this is.

[Tony]

I'm invoking the Chuck & Larry rule?once hypothetical straight men start getting married, I win the argument.

[Rasilio]

Actually I can see this happening more than a few times. 2 guys, lifelong buddies with no interest in EVER getting married (for real) get married to each other for the benefits while they each proceed to bang/date all the chicks they want on the side. It will probably happen with women too, but my guess is it would be the more sexually repressed women who just didn't ever want to think about sex that did it.

[Tony]

A form of fraud all straight people are capable of committing already in opposite-sex partnerships.

[califernian]

So much easier (and moral) to let the business sell to whoever they want however they want. Discrimination laws are a fucking ridiculous jobs-creation program for lawyers.

[Some call me Tim?]

Has anyone pointed out that the AG would have just as been as likely to sue this person even if same-sex marriage was not recognized?

He's suing under the anti-discrimination act, and saying it's on the basis of the customer's sexuality. If the florist refused their services for a non-state recognized marriage, would this have somehow changed the AG's view on the situation? I think not.

[Shine on, Nikki Diamond]

I've pointed it out about half a dozen times on this thread but no one seems to respond...

[Warty]

Good find, Tim. I'm glad you found this information first, not, like, some annoying chick.

[SugarFree]

Who probably has cooties.

[Warty]

God, that hypothetical chick is the worst.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

In the absence of gay marriage, the florist could claim that he only provided flowers for legally valid weddings and he would be off scot-free. So long as he didn't provide wedding arrangements for incestuous or bigamous weddings.

[eyeroller]

What do you want to bet this florist supports antidiscrimination laws regarding other things? (Just not the thing SHE cares about.)

[Some call me Tim?]

Exactly. I'd be in favor of allowing her suppliers to voluntarily freeze her out based upon her views. It cuts both ways.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Who gives a shit?

People shouldn't have their rights taken away from them simply because they don't follow the One True Libertarian Way. Hell, I thought that was the whole point of libertarianism -- that people have rights that should be respected regardless of what they think, say, and do (violent acts exempted).

[Some call me Tim?]

You're missing the point. The reason people lose their rights is because they support other people losing their rights and fail to see how this will be applied against them in the future.

[Virginian]

Yeah, but it's always hard to resist that reaction. Like I remember some of my techie/Internet is the future!!! people who are huge Obama fans getting all pissed about SOPA. But they support every other big government scheme. "They can take our money, they can take our guns, they can touch our balls at the airport....but they will never take...our INTERNET!!!!"

So yeah, that shit kind of makes me laugh. I always point it out when a lefty whines about the Total State fucking with things they like. "This is what you want, this is what you vote for. Don't complain that you got it."

[Sigivald]

Yeah, that's "every Progressive* I know on Facebook".

They somehow think that they can arrange it so that the State has effectively plenary power but never, ever uses it "wrong".

I know better than to argue with them on the matter, so I just sigh.

(* There's a strain of Conservative that has the same idea, but I run into them a lot less for unrelated reasons.)

[The Immaculate Trouser]

True, but if even libertarians are ambivalent about this then how can you expect regular people to even have this stuff show up on the radar?

[Some call me Tim?]

This particular incident doesn't ring wit them, but everyone has their own pet causes that they want to protect.

My gf is a huge liberal but is always annoyed at how the state regulates things like midwives and home birth, I keep pointing out to her that this is the consequence of state interference. Once you unleash the gates of hell you don't get to pick their targets.

[Leigh]

Really,!?!?

Now how hard would be to find a gay friendly florist? All you have to do is see if the the florist is guy, then you've got a 90% he's gay himself.

[HazelMeade]

Why would a gay couple WANT to use a florist that is against gay marriage?

[Matrix]

this is the question I ask repeatedly in different circumstances.

I, being Jewish, do not want to give my business to a known anti-semite. I would prefer his hatred be known so I do not support him with my money.

Besides, he could provide me lousy service knowing I'm Jewish, because he is forced to provide me service under the law.

Honestly, I really don't understand why people want to give their money or employment to people who hate them.

[$park?]

I would prefer his hatred be known so I do not support him with my money.

This is the perfect reason to despise anti-discrimination laws. I think people should be allowed to put their bigotry on display for all to see. I'm not black, but wouldn't shop at a place that doesn't serve blacks. I'm not Jewish, but wouldn't shop at a place that doesn't serve Jews, etc.

[Tony]

In a world where discrimination is almost universally considered repellant, I would probably come down on the libertarian side. The problem in the mid-20th century was that discrimination was so widespread in certain parts of the country that its practical effect was to exclude blacks from participation in their own communities and markets. That's simply a much worse violation of civil rights than telling a business owner he can't discriminate, and sometimes these tradeoffs are unavoidable. I could be persuaded that antidiscrimination laws have an expiration date tied to social progress.

[Sigivald]

That was, note, much more due to local laws than anything else.

Jim Crow laws were, remember, laws.

It wasn't the bus company that wanted black people to have to sit at the back - it was the State that made them do it that way.

The only - and very slim - justification for the Civil Rights Act was to remove those laws.

Business already had all the incentive it needed to serve black people - their money's just as green as the white man's.

[Tony]

I wonder what made these racist politicians making these racist laws concentrate in the South, where the normal citizens were obviously lurching at the opportunity to serve blacks, if only the people they elected would let them.

[Calidissident]

Tony, you can't deny history. There were integrated public transportation services in the South before Jim Crow laws were passed. That's simply a historical fact. It's not that the business owners weren't racist, but that they realized that turning away blacks was a shitty business model.

[Homple]

I don't think they want to give money or employment to those who hate them; they want a justification to push people around. Because they can.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

They don't want to use the florist, they want to punish someone who disapproves of their relationship. Just like the Freedom From Religion Foundation isn't really offended by all those nativity scenes they never see, and blind people really don't want to shop on Amazon.com; they just use the law/constitution to push their agenda and if you get in the way, too bad for you.

[buybuydandavis]

I wonder when they'll start arresting heterosexuals who "discriminate" against homosexuals by not dating them. Will they arrest homosexuals who won't date heterosexuals too?

[Tony]

Truly a burning question in our time.

[Hyperion]

In the glorious future, you won't make decisions for yourself. The government will just decide, if you are born, or aborted, what you will be when you grow up, if you are gay or straight, who you will marry. Everything will be decided by your appointee from the bureau of everything.

This is what that dingy leftist girl was getting at when she said that the children belong to everyone. Everyone belongs to the government. Perfect outcomes for everyone, can only come about through total government. The progressive dream.

[Rasilio]

It'll be a brave new world when that happens

[Night Watchman]

"Everything you think, do, and say
Is in the pill you took today"

[Dunphy (the real one)]

"Honestly, I really don't understand why people want to give their money or employment to people who hate them."

ah, the "hate canard". Fwiw, there is no reason to believe the florist in this case HATES the gay couple. In fact, they were supposedly longterm clients prior to this clusterfuck.

Can people accept that disapproving of gay marriage does not necessarily = hating gays or hating gay married couples?

Fwiw,I support gay marriage. I know plenty who don't and also who do not HATE gays or gay couples who have married.

I've seen several posts in here where it's accepted that people who disapprove and/or wouldn't want to service a gay married couple HATE them. There is simply no reason to assume this.

Fwiw, imo the floral arrangement is an interesting one because a floral arrangement is "art" and certainly a method of artistic expression and thus 1st amendment issues might apply here that wouldn't apply with, for example, a guy refusing to provide a non-artistic service to a married gay couple.

[Tony]

That's really the question, and a good test is how you'd feel if it were an interracial couple instead and the vendor had no problem with blacks or whites, just with them marrying each other.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

"This is the perfect reason to despise anti-discrimination laws. I think people should be allowed to put their bigotry on display for all to see"

This imo is a compelling argument for why "hate speech" should not be banned. It's not banned in the USA, but is in most "civilized " countries e.g. Canada, France, etc.

Iow, our philosophy is a free marketplace of ideas, even abhorrent ones, get a seat at the table. In most countries, the govt. is the decider and they think their job is to protect society and individuals from that mean, evil speech.

Here, we protect against certain conduct (as in this case), but not against speech.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

The problem in the mid-20th century was that discrimination was so widespread in certain parts of the country that its practical effect was to exclude blacks from participation in their own communities and markets.

The fact that there had to be Jim Crow laws obviate your contention. If a behavior is prevalent and widespread, then you would not need a law to enforce it.

That's simply a much worse violation of civil rights than telling a business owner he can't discriminate,

This is a lie, Tony. You can't even make a properly-supported judgment. It is far worse to make a businessowner sell his own property or labor to someone than it is for a businessperson to refuse selling his own property. The latter may be a bad business decision but the former is a clear violation of his property rights. The customer is not and will never be entitled to the businessperson's property or labor.

and sometimes these tradeoffs are unavoidable.

Oh, yes they are. They're quite unnecessary.

I could be persuaded that antidiscrimination laws have an expiration date tied to social progress.

Since social progress is a red herring, based on subjective judgment and not objective measures, I fail to see when such a sunset could ever be achieved. Do you know the meaning of the phrase "moving the goalposts"?

[Tony]

If a behavior is prevalent and widespread, then you would not need a law to enforce it.

But it's so much more effective when you can enforce it, wouldn't you agree? Or were these nice pure colorblind Southern whites completely oblivious to the political and racial views of the people they elected to office? In that case they may not have been racists but they sure were idiots.

clear violation of his property rights.

This is the moral judgment. Bizarrely for an anarchist, you think property rights are so sacrosanct that they're more inviolable than a basic right to mobility and community participation.

Let's not forget the important point that bigotry and discrimination are bad things. The laboratory of democracy has produced some results on that. You may be free to do it, but it's not admirable. So if that right conflicts with the right of every member of an entire population to participate in his own society in a remotely equitable way, then why pick that one? (You don't expand on your claim that rights never conflict.)

social progress is a red herring

Fine then. I was throwing you a bone. I was saying let's "liberalize" free association to allow racist discrimination once it becomes a very minor problem. But since we can't take social progress into account, I'll have to stick with my original weighing of priorities.

[DesigNate]

$

[OldMexican]

The Attorney General of Washington has filed suit against a florist who refused to provide an arrangement for a gay wedding, saying that doing so is in violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Attorney General of Washington is on drugs. If you read the CPA (which is aimed at so-called "unfair business practices") it mentions NOTHING about refusing to sell to a party or refusing service. It only lists unfair business practices (a problematic concept in itself) which may include torts, misleading or fraudulent advertising or information, damages to the consumer's business or property, etc. It mentions NOTHING about hurt feelings.

[Tomjerry]

The biggest problem that I have with this issue is that the Attorney General is being paid and using taxpayer dollars (including money received from the florist) to file this law suit. In my opinion, in a free country, there is absolutely no place for forcing a company to sell to someone regardless of the reasons for doing so. If a company chooses to ignore a specific market and their company goes bankrupt, that is based on their decision. This is very indicative to me that government needs to be scaled back. The question is, how do we do it.

[ant1sthenes]

The thing that bothers me about these stories is that (regardless of the right's speculation that fundamentalist Christian churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings), there is a an assumption on the part of the legal system that there is a substantial difference between forcing a pious florist to participate in a gay wedding and forcing a priest to do so.

Look at the administration's position on birth control (the Catholic Church can't be forced to offer it without violating the first amendment, but a Catholic small business owner could), and a pattern emerges: the right to religious freedom has been taken away from the people, and left solely in the hands of the religious elite whose membership can be determined by the state.

[ant1sthenes]

Despite owning the Democratic Party, progressives are the most anti-democratic mainstream ideology in America (much moreso than libertarians and Republicans who like to complain about tyranny of the majority). Democracy isn't defined by elections, it is defined by whether the common people (as opposed to any particular flavor of elite) have power. Any sort of power or autonomy that is both legally and practically available to the masses is democratic. So of course, the progs must attempt to redefine our rights as the privilege of an elite...

Freedom of the press, of the common person to use technology to disseminate written works, becomes freedom of The Press, restricted solely to largely progressive J-schoolers.

Freedom of religion, of the common person to avoid having to face the terrible choice between what is lawful and is righteous, becomes a privilege of priests alone.

The power of the militia, of the whole common folk (acting collectively, for any practical purpose) to destroy any enemy that threatens them (including their own government) has been transformed into the right of government officials and government armies answering to Washington to be armed.

And so on and so forth.