“You are correct that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
Yes I know.
“Washington State code does however.”
Yes I know that too. I just do not think that it should be written in such a way that is open to abuse such as in this case. You keep repeating that the florist was in breach of the law. That is not the issue here.
My contention is that the law is a bad one and needs to be changed. Any law that gives the state to dictate to a private citizen how to run their private business; is an unjust law. It is also the precipice of a very slippery slope.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is land mark legislation. When discussing anti-discrimination legislation, it is helpful to understand the history and reasoning behind the legislation.”
No it is not helpful. It is simply an attempt to evade the point. You are basically saying that a bad law should not be amended because there were very solid reasons for the framing of related laws half a century ago.
“Not being a florist, I’m not too sure of what activities are required of a florist”
You do not need to be a florist to understand that as a human being you should have the right to refuse to provide any service you do not wish to provide.
It really isn’t complicated.
“I’m having a hard time understanding the problem here?”
Well I cannot help it if you do not understand. This is a simple question — do you believe the state has the right to force you to work for someone you don’t want to work for?
I think the Thirteenth Amendment covered that. That was pretty landmark too.
“Providing a service to the public doesn’t imply endorsement of any part of your customer’s personal or public life.”
Completely irrelevant: Freedom of association is the issue. I don’t need a reason if I do not to want to deal with Christians, Muslims, gays, bird-watchers or anybody I do not want to deal with.
It is called freedom of association and it is covered by Article 20 or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: That was a landmark document too.
“I’ve been to quite a few weddings in my life and the last thing on my mind was who provided the flowers.”
Irrelevant: It doesn’t matter what the florist’s motivation was. It matters that the florist was denied her right to make her own choice according to her own beliefs: Your whole tangent into weddings, guests and whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyle is all irrelevant.
You are simply filibustering to avoid the point.
“Nobody is asking a religious organization to violate its tenets.”
No: The state is demanding that a private citizen violate her religious tenets. That is far worse.
“You are free to think whatever you like about gay men and women. You are not free to use whatever power or influence you have to harm other people based on your personal belief system.”
Refusing service is not harming anyone. The florist did not have “power or influence” to harm anyone. The florist did not go out looking for gay people to harm. They came to her business looking to harm her.
“There is a concept in anti-discrimination law called a protected class, or protected group.”
Yes I know. My contention is that there should not be; because it turns anti discrimination laws into a Trojan horse for discrimination as in this case.
But according to you pretty much everybody in the country is part of a “protected class” except for straight white men. Wouldn't that indicate that there is systemic discrimination against straight white men and wouldn't that further mean that they should be a protected class.
You have already pointed out that according to your logic, it is perfectly fine for gay people to discriminate against straight people; but not the other way around.
It is quite obvious to me that that is pure undiluted hypocrisy. It is political correctness not fairness; It is blind ideology, not objectivity and when someone calls it out you simply waffle about the Civil Rights Act and shout “bigot” at them.
Just for the record I am not a religious believer and I do not have anything against gay people. I am simply pointing out the fact that if the law does not treat everyone equally then the law is bad. Furthermore any law that dictate who any private individual must do business with is a violation of the most basic of human rights. I do not care if that business person is black, white, gay, straight or whatever, and nor should the law.
In a free society you do not have the right to buy flowers from the florist of your choosing. You do have the right to refuse service in private business to anyone you do not wish to serve. Your motives do not matter. It doesn’t matter whether you are a florist, a baker or a candlestick maker. If the state is trying to take away your right to choose who you do business with, then that is tyranny.
Babbling about the Civil Rights Act does not change that.
“As a business person, offering a service to the public, you have a responsibility to offer your services to all of the public regardless of your views on the harmless choices of your customers.”
No you don’t. A quick online search will yield organisations all over the USA that refuse entry or service to Christians, to men, or to straight people. They range from writers workshops to book-shops to hair-dressers to gyms and sports clubs. Businesses that refuse to serve men are by far the most common.
But that is OK. We do not need to depend on the business owners private beliefs not causing her to discriminate against some people. If the florist won’t serve you then get another florist. In the end the florist is only hurting her own business; but that is up to her.
At least it should be in a free country.