General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWashington State Sues Florist Who Refused Service to a Gay Wedding
Source: The Stranger
In an unusual legal maneuver, Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit today against a florist in Richland, Washington, who last month refused to provide flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding because of her "relationship with Jesus."
As The Stranger reported at the time, Arlene's Flowers owner Barronelle Stutzman told Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed that she refused to do business with themor "participate in the wedding," as she called itbecause she believed as a Christian "that marriage is between a man and a woman."
Filed in Benton County Superior Court, the lawsuit alleges that when Stutzman refused to provide goods or services on the basis of sexual orientation in a place of public accommodation, she was violating the state's anti-discrimination law and was, therefore, also violating laws designed to protect consumers. As a business that sells wedding flowers to opposite-sex couples, the AG's office argues, it must provide the same wedding services to gay couples.
The case is set to emerge as the first major test of anti-discrimination protections since Washington State voters legalized same-sex marriage last fall. It is also a rareif not unprecedentedinstance of the government initiating a discrimination suit. With the florist's lawyers apparently itching for a fight, the case seems poised to reach the state supreme court, or even federal courts, as a test of conservative legal defenses in the name of religious liberty and moral conscience.
Read more: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/04/09/state-sues-florist-who-refused-service-to-a-gay-wedding
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)while there's a lot of applause for this action, the larger principle behind it bears watching.
She refused to service a wedding she found distasteful for religious, or other, reasons. OK, that's bad, we say. But what if she refused to service a wedding at a local witch's coven or Nazi Party headquarters? Or Republican headquarters?
A flower shop doesn't have the licensing and ethical canons that law or medicine does, so there's no real comparison to pharmacists not selling birth control pills. It's a business refusing to sell to someone it disagrees with while there is no physical or financial harm coming to the potential customer.
So, what are the limits of a policy saying you have to do business with everyone? And yes, compare it to segregated lunch counters because the question of discrimination does rear its ugly head. The question of the class of those discriminated against and whether it is their actions or very existence that is being discriminated against is areal one.