In a victory for common decency, the Benton County florists who wouldn’t sell to a gay couple for their wedding were in violation of the state’s Consumer Protection Act [h/t]. Here’s the text of the AG’s office press release.
A Benton County Superior Court ruling today held that a Richland florist violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act by refusing to serve a same-sex couple seeking to buy wedding flowers in 2013.
“The law is clear: If you choose to provide a service to couples of the opposite sex, you must provide the same service to same-sex couples,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson said. “Washingtonians have enacted laws recognizing equality for same-sex couples, and I will continue to vigorously uphold these laws. I appreciate the judge’s decision and am very proud of my team’s hard work to stop this unlawful discrimination.”
I haven’t read the whole ruling but it’s here (.pdf)
It’s important that we as a state not just passively don’t discriminate but that we’re actively a place where you can’t discriminate. While the law was quite clear, it’s still good for the couple and good for the state that it was upheld.
Amen Carl. Nice job.
It looks like the florist will appeal.
How dare those florists think they have freedom of religion. I mean in America of all places.
Well, waddya know, a Republican judge in a Republican county decided that being a bigoted asshole is against the law. Now we’ll hear from the wingers about “erosion of freedom.”
Conservatives yearn for the good ol’ days when their ancestors made a living by breaking open animal bones with rocks to get the marrow the lions and hyenas left behind and everyone did as they pleased because there were no laws, lawyers, or courts.
@3,
They do have freedom of religion. They don’t have the freedom to discriminate against gay people in commerce in Washington.
They have chosen to enter the public sphere and operate a business. It’s too bad common sense here doesn’t rule the day. The customer orders a cake and you make it, and decorate it. Even if the customer is Charlie Hebo, ISIS, the Grange, ect. If the client wants something beyond a companies capacity it’s ok to say no. They can’t pay for what they want well they don’t get what they want. It may be ok to tell someone no if they want phallic symbols of a sexual nature on the cake and you don’t make sexual bakery goods no is probably ok in the circumstances.
If your the bakery at the convent or for the church and your goods are for the church then it’s ok to refuse to make cakes for gay marriages or any other marriage not approved of by that church because this would be a religious institution making the cake. Those nuns and friars at the Vatican can whip up some good grub. Has the new pope put on a few pounds? Still come good Friday any bakery even some that cater to leather goddesses will likely have some hot cross buns. Just good business.
@7
What do you have against the Grange?
@3 Too Funny and Physcotic.
The new claim is merchants shouldn’t be forced to participate in a ceremony that violates their “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
This is a crap argument.
Florists and bakers aren’t around for the ceremony. Ever been to a wedding where the florist hasn’t delivered and set up hours before the first guest arrives? Ever see the cake show up during a reception or is it nicely displayed on a table as guests file in? If you are worried about how your flowers might be used AFTER you have delivered them you need to close up shop. I mean, how do you KNOW that nice young lady didn’t pull the petals off those roses and spread them around her bedroom and romp around in a fragrant bout of premarital sex with a farm animal and a bacon cheese burger and her sister’s husband and another woman?
My other favorite is, “What if a Jewish baker was asked to make a swastika cake.” This was actually asked by my Antioch/Mars Hill devotee relative of mine. Easy. “Here is my catalog and a book of photos of cakes I have made. Do you see a swastika? No. I don’t make that.” That’s very different from “Oh, you want the blue buttercream with the fondant sea life and white chocolate shells that is EXACTLY like the cover photo on my brochure and these pictures of the one I delivered to Mary and Joseph Christ nee Stiglitz just last week? No, you are gay, you can’t have that.”
They aren’t participating in any ceremony, religious or otherwise. They are selling goods and services in a marketplace created by my neighbors and me through the laws, regulations, services, and resources provided by the government we elect.
Fuck, for all I care if some smelly, end-timer wants to arrange wild flowers they grow on their own land and trade them in barter with other kooks over their CB radios, and in doing so ignore the law, they can have at it. But if they want to avail themselves of the commercial opportunities created by government regulated public commerce, they’ve got to abide by the law, regardless of their religion.
There is no such thing as a functional “free market”. If you doubt it visit Somalia. And everyone’s religious orthodoxy stops dead at the boundary between private practice and public commerce. If the victims of this discrimination were anything other than LGBT, we wouldn’t even consider the question worthy of debate. If Thomas Monson ordered a Mormon tire dealer not to sell tires to African Americans, decent rational people would easily see that for the unlawful discrimination that it is. And more importantly, they’d recognize why it needs to be unlawful.
@10 “Florists and bakers aren’t around for the ceremony. ”
When it comes right down to it, the cake and flowers aren’t even part of the ceremony. I don’t know of any religion that requires people to eat cake so that they can be married.
@10 Yeah, it’s not like the bride is asking the florist to kiss her, or anything like that. She only wants the florist to deliver the damn flowers.
The funny thing about these moralizing rightwing bigots is they have absolutely no compunctions about killing and torturing. It’s only the little things in other people’s lives that they get worked up about.
Speaking of bigots being assholes, here’s one for the ages:
“Bay Windsor Contreras is 4 months old and she’s the apple of her mothers’ eyes. … Her two moms, Krista and Jami Contreras, were married in Vermont in 2012 under the state’s same-sex marriage law …. A month before the arrival of their daughter, the moms connected with pediatrician Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville, Michigan. … Six says after she was born at home, the family headed to the pediatrician’s office. But … another doctor … told the mothers that Roi decided … she wouldn’t be able to take Bay on as a patient, because of the mothers’ sexual orientation. …
“Krista Contreras said the news took the two of them by surprise …. ‘As far as we know Bay doesn’t have a sexual orientation yet so I’m not really sure what that matters,’ Jami Contreras said. ‘We’re not your patient — she’s your patient. And the fact is that your job is to keep babies healthy and you can’t keep a baby healthy that has gay parents?’ …
“On February 9, nearly four months after the appointment, the Contreras family finally received a letter from Roi. The doctor wrote: ‘After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationships that I normally do with my patients … please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice.”
“It turns out Roi has free choice, too. In the state of Michigan, there are no laws that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families from discrimination. … The American Medical Association says that while physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, doctors can decline to provide a specific treatment sought by an individual if it is ‘incompatible with the physician’s personal, religious, or moral beliefs.’ …
“Late last year, the Michigan State Senate considered but failed to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would allow people — including doctors and other health professionals — to refuse to do business with others based on moral or religious beliefs.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/de.....ay-couple/
Roger Rabbit Commentary: First of all, it sounds to me like Dr. Roi did violate AMA rules, but I’m not sure their rules apply to her, because she’s a D.O. not an M.D. Second, Michigan’s legislature is controlled by Republicans, and laws like the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act that legalize, authorize, and encourage bigotry are being pushed by Republicans all over the country; so, if you vote Republican, you are aiding and abetting bigotry. Last, but not least, what kind of fuckass refuses medical care to a BABY because she doesn’t like the parents’ sexual orientation? About the only thing I can say is these mothers shouldn’t want this jerk to be their baby’s doctor, because they’re better off without her. At least Dr. Roi is being honest with them and herself that her bigotry prevents her from giving this baby the medical care it needs and deserves. Thank God for small favors.
Dr. Roi apparently didn’t learn anything from her Bible studies, because based on what I know of the Bible, Jesus wouldn’t approve of her actions, much less encourage her to do this in His name. It doesn’t look like she prayed very hard about this. More likely, she got her guidance not from prayer but from the rightwing “Jesus freaks” she hangs out with.
@15 and 16 – Amen Roger! Right-on. Even the complacent, who say they don’t care, are aiding and abetting, by voting for the bigots.
It would be like if I voted for North Korean dictator fuckhead or voted for the KKK. These days are suppose to be over, but the Republican Party wants to start all over again.
First you toss out a black guy from the Subway Car, the next day you are tossing out someone else, either a gay guy or chinese guy or etc…..but I’m actually surprised they tossed out the black guy before tossing out a gay guy. But petty much discriminatory people don’t discriminate against who they discriminate against. A bigot is a bigot.
Now, I ‘m not taling aobut having to be comfoortable or being accepting of the belief(s) – be all you want to be – but ones actions are completely different. That’s where the liine has to be drawn. No bigoted actions.