WA State Judge Explains Ruling Against Christian Florist

[Jose Fly]

Judge: Florist violated state law in refusing flowers for gay marriage

A Benton County judge, in a case followed nationally, has ruled that a Richland florist violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act when she refused to sell flowers to a longtime customer preparing for his marriage to another man.

In his ruling, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom went to the heart of the argument by Barronelle Stutzman, a Southern Baptist, that she was exercising her religious freedom when she spurned customer Robert Ingersoll.

“For over 135 years,” wrote Judge Ekstrom, “the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief.

“In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.”...

...Judge Ekstrom, in a lengthy opinion, cited legal precedents ranging from a state consumer protection action brought against high-profile auto dealer Ralph Williams in the 1970s, to the historic U.S. Supreme Court discrimination case of Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States.

He discussed the Supreme Court’s controversial Hobby Lobby decision, which allowed a private business to opt out of providing contraceptive services under the Affordable Care Act.

He rejected the argument that the state’s anti-discrimination law violates the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ekstrom wrote:

“Again, defendant mixes the distinction between belief and conduct, clergy and laity, and the distinction between accommodation and public accommodation, and as a result cites two cases that are distinguishable on their facts.”

Ultimately, the decision rested on the distinction between religious belief and the exercise of trade and commerce under laws that forbid discrimination.

“Religious freedom is a fundamental part of America. But religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or harm others because of who they are,” said Sarah Dunne, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which backed Ingersoll.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[resodko]

i look forward to watching God cast Ekstrom into hell :thumb:

 

[Rusha]

Judge: Florist violated state law in refusing flowers for gay marriage

That pretty much sums it up.

From the article:

“Religious freedom is a fundamental part of America. But religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or harm others because of who they are,” said Sarah Dunne, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which backed Ingersoll.

I agree that the right to religion ends when it includes harming others. I am just not seeing how refusing anyone flowers constitutes harm.

Anger. Sure. Hurt feelings. Possibly. Harm? THAT is a huge stretch.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're denying them equal access to public accommodation. It should be obvious how that constitutes harm.

 

[resodko]

i suspect Sarah Dunne would not hire a pedophile to babysit her children

 

[Rusha]

You're denying them equal access to public accommodation. It should be obvious how that constitutes harm.

No ... it constitutes ANNOYANCE. HURT FEELINGS. ANGER. Even if the florist is being obnoxious, it does not cause literal/physical harm.

 

[Jose Fly]

No ... it constitutes ANNOYANCE. HURT FEELINGS. ANGER. Even if the florist is being obnoxious, it does not cause literal/physical harm.

Seriously? You do understand that "harm" does not only mean being physically hurt, right?

Using your argument, Rosa Parks had no case because it was merely "annoying" to have to sit at the back of the bus. No one actually hurt her.

 

[Rusha]

Seriously? You do understand that "harm" does not only mean being physically hurt, right?

I understand that people get treated *unfairly* every day and they don't need to run around suing people over it.

I also understand that in cases like these, a Christian who insisted a gay florist should make a bouquet accompanied by a banner that reads "In Support of Traditional Marriage", the same people who support the gay customer would not be giving their support to the Christian customer when they were denied service.

That is called a double standard ... and I do not support these types of antics.

 

[Jose Fly]

I understand that people get treated *unfairly* every day and they don't need to run around suing people over it.

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

I also understand that in cases like these, a Christian who insisted a gay florist should make a bouquet accompanied by a banner that reads "In Support of Traditional Marriage",

Where has that happened?

the same people who support the gay customer would not be giving their support to the Christian customer.

That is called a double standard ... and I do not support these types of antics.

Yes there's a double standard....between reality (the case in the OP) and the imaginary world in your head (the case you describe above).

 

[republicanchick]

That pretty much sums it up.

how does not getting flowers "harm" someone?

please tell me



__

 

[Jose Fly]

how does not getting flowers "harm" someone?

please tell me

How does making someone sit in the back of the bus "harm" them?

 

[Rusha]

Yes there's a double standard....between reality (the case in the OP) and the imaginary world in your head (the case you describe above).

Uh huh. Which is why you went out of you way to avoid explaining how one case would be merited and the other not.

Feel free to keep listening to those imaginary voices in your head that tell you that there are no agendas involved. IF there weren't, you would have just addressed the example given instead of relying on insult.

 

[Jose Fly]

Uh huh. Which is why you went out of you way to avoid explaining how one case would be merited and the other not.

One's reality, the other only exists in your head.

Feel free to keep listening to those imaginary voices in your head that tell you that there are no agendas involved. IF there weren't, you would have just addressed the example given instead of relying on insult.

I always love this....so what "agenda" do you imagine is working behind the scenes here?

 

[Jose Fly]

Washington State Human Rights Commission

All people of Washington have certain rights and responsibilities under the Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60). Under the law, everyone has the right to be free from discrimination at work, in housing, in a public accommodation, or when seeking credit and insurance. Discrimination occurs whenever we treat someone differently and deny him or her equal treatment or access because of: their membership in a Protected Class.

Protected Class Includes:

Race/Color
National Origin
Creed
Sex/Pregnancy
Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity
Veteran/Military Status
The presence of any sensory, mental, or physical actual Disability or perceived Disability
Use of a Service Animal
HIV or Hepatitis C
Marital Status (except in public accommodation)
Breastfeeding (in public accommodation)
Age (40+, employment only)
Families with Children (housing only)
State Employee Whistleblower


A business open to the public constitutes "public accommodation". In this case the florist provided flowers for opposite-sex weddings, but refused to do so for same-sex weddings. Therefore she was guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is clearly illegal in Washington. She was even given the opportunity to work with the state and correct the situation, but she refused. So it went to court and the court easily ruled against her. Now she's crying that her business is being ruined, I guess hoping that most people won't pay attention to the fact that she was offered a way out but refused.

 

[Rusha]

Uh huh. Which is why you went out of you way to avoid explaining how one case would be merited and the other not.

One's reality,

Still incapable or unwilling to answer the question, I see.

That's okay. Your dishonesty and refusal to engage in a civil discussion has been noted.

 

[shagster01]

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

The difference is that Rosa paid for that seat and they took her money for it and then treated her unfairly. Plus, it was also a tax funded service.

The flower place did not take the gay couple's money and then treat them unfairly, and they are a private business. They just refused business.

 

[republicanchick]

How does making someone sit in the back of the bus "harm" them?

oh, ok... i get it . You think being made to sit in the bakc of the bus is comparable to not getting flowers..

I'm sure Blacks would love to know this about u



___

 

[rexlunae]

I also understand that in cases like these, a Christian who insisted a gay florist should make a bouquet accompanied by a banner that reads "In Support of Traditional Marriage", the same people who support the gay customer would not be giving their support to the Christian customer when they were denied service.

There is a difference between the objection "I will not write that on a banner and sell it to you" and "I will not sell a banner to you". One is the exercise of creative control. The other is bigotry. The later is what the case in Washington is about, the former is what a few Christians have tried to offer as an example of hypocrisy. Which it isn't.

If we go back to the last civil rights era, what black people were demanding was that the hotels and the lunch counters seat and serve them in exactly the same way that white customers were served. They didn't demand menu changes, or special messaging. Just exactly what other people were getting. What LGBT people are asking for today is no different.

 

[Jose Fly]

Still incapable or unwilling to answer the question, I see.

This thread is about the case in WA State. If you want to debate imaginary scenarios you can start your own thread.

 

[Jose Fly]

The difference is that Rosa paid for that seat and they took her money for it and then treated her unfairly. Plus, it was also a tax funded service.

You're missing the point of why she was brought up in the first place. Rusha was trying to make the argument that "harm" only exists when there is actual physical harm. I cited Rosa Parks being forced to sit in the back of the bus as an example of "harm" that didn't involve physical harm.

The flower place did not take the gay couple's money and then treat them unfairly, and they are a private business. They just refused business.

Which, as has been demonstrated, is illegal.