The Flowers and the Wedding -- Just the FACTS, please

[carpedm9587]

You really don't know much about weddings.

Well - I've planned several, including my own, and attended several more, and provided the music for several others. I have never once seen the florist stick around after they have delivered and arranged the flowers, unless they were friends of the bridge and/or groom and had been invited.

But I'm not sure why that has any relevance. No one is requiring them to stay. They can simply deliver the flowers and go. Delivering the flowers doesn't make them "participants" in the wedding or marriage any more than the people who built the church, rented the limousine, grew the food, etc.

[Cow Poke]

Well - I've planned several, including my own, and attended several more, and provided the music for several others. I have never once seen the florist stick around after they have delivered and arranged the flowers, unless they were friends of the bridge and/or groom and had been invited.

Some of them actually double as wedding planners. It's none of your business to tell them how to do their job, or how long to "stick around".

But I'm not sure why that has any relevance. No one is requiring them to stay. They can simply deliver the flowers and go.

Because you say so. How very kind of you! I'm really glad you're not actually in charge of any of this stuff.

[mossrose]

Well - I've planned several, including my own, and attended several more, and provided the music for several others. I have never once seen the florist stick around after they have delivered and arranged the flowers, unless they were friends of the bridge and/or groom and had been invited.

But I'm not sure why that has any relevance. No one is requiring them to stay. They can simply deliver the flowers and go. Delivering the flowers doesn't make them "participants" in the wedding or marriage any more than the people who built the church, rented the limousine, grew the food, etc.

CP asked you this, twice:

If you were a baker, and a client came in and demanded you create a KKK cake with "[F-bomb N-word]" on it, would you say, "absolutely, no problem, if you're a client willing to pay, I'll put anything on it you want?

Will you please answer him?

[Cow Poke]

Well - I've planned several, including my own...

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

That part shows you don't have the common sense God gave a coal hod!

[tabibito]

No one is forcing people to a contracted service. All that is being said is, "if you offer a contracted service, you must offer it without discrimination." It's as simple as that.

By no means so simple. There is the insignificant matter of having the freedom to associate with whom a person chooses. There is also the minor matter of people being permitted to discriminate in any number of areas. For example, women's only health clubs and even financial services - the right for similar discrimination by men being prohibited. Safe spaces in America are a similar condition.
The right to religious freedom I will agree should not be given priority in some circumstances, but the right to decide that I'm not going to work for someone when working for them will cause me distress is legitimate. The other party should not be given the right to subject me to duress so as to make me accept that contract - nor would I expect or require anyone to work for me if doing so would cause them distress.

[Sparko]

It's not bigotry - and they're not excuses. They're fairly simple arguments.



I would imagine, if society as a whole began to see pedophilia as a "moral good," then my position against it would be seen as "bigotry" and I would be in the same position you are in. Anyone who's moral framework is in the minority is going to have that experience. That's the nature of the beast. At that point I have a few choices:

1) re-evaluate my morality
2) re-evaluate how I conduct my business
3) try to persuade society to think differently
4) find a different line of work
5) find another place to live

I doubt I would do 1). I might do 2) I would definitely do 3). I might do 4). If push came to shove, I might even do 5).

ETA: Of course, there's always 6) practice civil disobedience and deal with the consequences.

Or if I have the constitution backing me up on my religious views then I can fight the unjust laws that way. Which is what the flowershop is doing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And since the states incorporated the bill of rights, "congress" includes any state government legislative bodies.

[Cow Poke]

By no means so simple. There is the insignificant matter of having the freedom to associate with whom a person chooses. There is also the minor matter of people being permitted to discriminate in any number of areas. For example, women's only health clubs and even financial services - the right for similar discrimination by men being prohibited. Safe spaces in America are a similar condition.
The right to religious freedom I will agree should not be given priority in some circumstances, but the right to decide that I'm not going to work for someone when working for them will cause me distress is legitimate. The other party should not be given the right to subject me to duress so as to make me accept that contract - nor would I expect or require anyone to work for me if doing so would cause them distress.

In order to attempt to make his case, Carpe has to severely minimize the role of the florist or baker. Then there's the cold-hearted "well, they can just go out of business" remedy.

[oxmixmudd]

And we "willfully imposed hardship" when diners were no longer permitted to have "white only" diners and when prohibiting women from certain places/roles was reversed. I don't see a problem here. When society finally gathers itself to reject an injustice, those perpetuating that injustice will feel "abused" and "willfully harmed" and "disadvantaged" because they are being told "no more."



What? Jim - you are reaching VERY badly. There is no equivalence between someone using their power over someone else to pressure them to have sex and society saying "the injustice is no longer tolerated." No one is being forced to do anything. They are actually being prohibited FROM doing something (exercising bigotry in the marketplace). They have many choices available to them to move forward by which they can avoid bigotry.

By your argument, telling the proprietor of the "white's only" diner that such bigotry is no longer acceptable and is cause for legal action is the equivalent of telling a woman "have sex with me or lose your job." The entire argument is absurd, IMO. But I will grant you that you're original. I've not heard anyone propose this line or argumentation before.



This is a false equivalence. Anyone can be divorced, so taking a position against divorce does not single out any particular class of people (except divorced ones). Gay or bisexual people same-sex partners. They are being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation and their specific genitals.

There is no difference between saying to two people "you cannot marry because you are not the same race" and "you cannot marry because you have the same genitals." Both assess the morality of the action on the basis of the genetics of the two people involved. That is bigotry - pure and simple.

Sexual orientation and sexual action are different things - even assuming sexual orientation is a non-malleable element of a person, like their race. Sexual action, customs surrounding sexual unions, customs around sexual relationships - these are all human decorations or social conventions or choices. I can't refuse you service for who you are, but I sure as heck can decide what kind of custom or service I participate in, or what sort of sexual ACTION I deem moral or immoral or am willing to condone or support. As we discussed previously in other threads, this business of gay weddings pits two normally disjoint, unconnected elements of life at odds with each other. Who I am does not normally define my morality. What my morality is doesn't normally define who I am. I can be black and moral, or white and immoral. The two are normally orthogonal elements.

But with the issue of the gay wedding, sexual MORALITY and WHO I AM become connected. It is a completely unique situation, and using misaligned analogues to drive discussion (e.g. the civil rights movement or artistic freedom) are putting square pegs in round holes. And we are all choosing arguments that let us have our way, and we ignore the rights and impacts of those other elements not addressed in our preferred analogue. I have a right not to be forced to do or participate in what I believe is immoral, especially as regards sexuality (a right guaranteed by my freedom to exercise my religious beliefs). And I also have a right to BE what I am ( a right guaranteed by the prohibition against discrimination). It is WRONG to dismiss EITHER right as we attempt to come to terms on this issue.

And we will never resolve this issue by appealing to inferior analogies. We are dealing with sexual morality vs human identity in a way that does not come up in any other situation. And any approach that dismisses the legitimate conflict of rights that arises uniquely here is simply unacceptable.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

In all of this, I can't help but think back to my days testifying in the Texas Senate on the Pastor Protection Bill.

There was a young gay man who was there to testify, also, and most of us were pretty surprised when he announced his intention to speak FOR the bill.

He went on to explain that some of his friends had been meeting to discuss ways to request weddings in Churches that had a "Christian Wedding" policy, so they could be rejected and sue the Church. Let's not pretend that there's some of that going on.

This whole notion that gays and lesbians can't POSSIBLY be inconvenienced in finding an alternate source for their flowers or cakes, so the Christian must be forced to give up his or her livelihood is just nuts.

[tabibito]

Sexual orientation and sexual action are different things - even assuming sexual orientation is a non-malleable element of a person, like their race.

According to the latest information from the scientific front, sexuality is not pre-determined, not genetically, not by in-vitro hormones. Childhood experiences can, apparently, have an influence.

[myth]

Bigotry is bigotry, Sparko. It's pretty easily identified. Religion is not a justifiable excuse. It wasn't for black people in the 1800s, the Jim Crow era, or the Civil Rights era. It wasn't for women in the suffragette era (and today), and it's not for the gay person or other members of the LGBTQ community today.

Indeed. And your anti-Christian bigotry is duly noted.

[carpedm9587]

That's not how it works. Many florists are also the wedding planner, and actually tell the bridal party when to enter, when the candles should be lit, etc. Two of the florists I regularly work with are involved in the actual proceedings of the wedding.



The hotel is a venue - it is not an individual that is required to go TO a venue to perform a service. Bad analogy.



The store is a venue - they don't go to the wedding to provide their service.



Just because you say so?



The hotel is open to anybody to use the facilities they have, as they should be.
The tuxedo shop is open to anybody to rent any tuxedo they have in stock, as they should be.
The flower shop is open for anybody to come in and buy anything they have in stock, as it should be.
The bakery is open for anybody to come in and buy anything they have in stock, as it should be.

If you were a baker, and a client came in and demanded you create a KKK cake with "[F-bomb N-word]" on it, would you say, "absolutely, no problem, if you're a client willing to pay, I'll put anything on it you want?

This has been answered in previous posts. If I don't make KKK cakes - I don't need to make KKK cakes for anyone. If I make wedding cakes, I need to make wedding cakes for anyone who asks (unless I have a business reason - like out-of-supplies or out of baking capacity). If I provide wedding flowers, I need to provide wedding flowers for everyone.

[carpedm9587]

CP asked you this, twice:

Will you please answer him?

I've actually answered that in various threads various times, but I just responded again in this one.

[carpedm9587]

By no means so simple. There is the insignificant matter of having the freedom to associate with whom a person chooses.

No one is being "forced" to associate with anyone.

There is also the minor matter of people being permitted to discriminate in any number of areas. For example, women's only health clubs and even financial services - the right for similar discrimination by men being prohibited. Safe spaces in America are a similar condition.

There are indeed "women's only" and "men's only" spaces. There are mixed beliefs about their appropriateness, but I have no problem with someone starting a business targeted at a particular group if the service is specific to that group. There are differences between men's fitness and women's fitness, so a health club that specializes in one or the other is perfectly appropriate. So is a business that specializes in African-American hairstyles, or in treating skin conditions unique to white people. There is no such distinction here.

The right to religious freedom I will agree should not be given priority in some circumstances, but the right to decide that I'm not going to work for someone when working for them will cause me distress is legitimate. The other party should not be given the right to subject me to duress so as to make me accept that contract - nor would I expect or require anyone to work for me if doing so would cause them distress.

Nor would I. But if someone claims "serving black people food will cause me distress, so my restaurant is for white's only" I'm going to tell them to get into a different line of business. If a florist tells me "making wedding cakes for gay couples causes me distress, I am similarly going to tell them to get into a different line of business.

[carpedm9587]

Or if I have the constitution backing me up on my religious views then I can fight the unjust laws that way. Which is what the flowershop is doing.

Everyone has the right to make their case in court. No question about it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Perfectly consistent with my position

And since the states incorporated the bill of rights, "congress" includes any state government legislative bodies.

Agreed.