No, it’s in no way a change. A law is either constitutional, or unconstitutional. That is all the courts can determine.
Well it certainly is defensible. It may lose in the 9th circuit and with a bare majority of the nine old lawyers from Yale (who never tried a case) but who sit on the Supreme Court, who consider it their mission to meddle in social relations and think their opinion on policy is better than mine. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have a case, same as the Muslim baker has a case if two gender confused engaged persons demand a cake with a porcelain figurine of two men kissing. Or if the KKK, whose association is protected by the first amendment, demand a cake from a black baker with little porcelain hooded rednecks on it. Or if two Nazis want a Jewish baker to ... But you get the idea, presumably. Both sides in each controversy have a defensible case.
Well, everyone has a right to make an "as applied" challenge to a statute that is not unconstitutional on its face. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/As-applied_challenge And yes, "I like." If she had a nice flower arrangement sitting in the shelf she would have sold it to them. But the state of Washington had to drive her out of business. "Because duh hatred." She's still open at the moment, yes, but flower shops don't have unlimited war chests for litigation as do Exxon and Samsung.
The only thing I want is for this lady to be left alone. The way these things work on the ground is that some commission of meddlesome do-gooder bureaucrats, who don't produce anything, fine you because they don't care about consciencentious objectors, their religion, or their culture. They love them some government.
You added “You're entitled to floral arrangements now?”, trying to imply that is the motive behind the law. That was a misrepresentation and you know it. As I said in the first place, it isn’t about entitlement to a specific product or service, it’s about us all having an entitlement to equal treatment regardless of our race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. I’m not convinced special rules exclusively for religious people is not defensible, either morally or as per the same US Constitution being referenced in the business owners defences. Again, they could make a case that any business owner should be free to refuse to serve any customer for any reason but they’re not doing that, They can’t make a case that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation should be illegal unless you’re religious. The religious beliefs of the business owner should be irrelevant. That is a very specifically defined image though, entirely different from the general requests these cases involve. The actual content of the product or service being requested would be exactly the same regardless of whether the couple being married are a man and women, two men or two women. Flower arrangements aren’t gender specific and I’m not aware of any of the cake cases involving figurines. A straight customer could order something with an image of two men kissing, just as a gay customer could order something with an image of a man and woman kissing. Objection to the specific content is different to objection to the content being used in a same-sex wedding rather than an opposite-sex one. Whether you like it or not, they are equivalent in law as applies in this jurisdiction.
I have been ambivalent about homosexuality for a long time now. This harassment of decent Christian businesses by gay thugs is turning my ambivalence to hostility. They aren't victims at this point, they are oppressors. I wish conservative could use this same technique to force social media to quit censoring conservative voices..... where there aren't 14 alternate social media platforms for them to go to.
I concede this is an important and interesting factual issue. If anyone can find the ruling out of the Washington civil rights unit or whatever it was that made the initial inquiry, there is possibly a factual background recitation that may shed light on this. I'd still prefer that we recognize her right to say "I object to what you guys are doing because of my religion, and I don't want to design anything to help celebrate it as such. I'll sell you a generic arrangement like I do for the Plumbers union annual convention."
The following establishes without question that she never "refused to sell flowers to homosexuals. " He would come at anniversaries, on Mother’s Days, birthdays, and for parties. He would thoughtfully select a vase, then hand it to her saying, “Do your thing.” She then poured out her heart for him into those vases. “He was particularly fond of unusual and creative arrangements,” she said. “His requests for arrangements always challenged me to do my best work.” For nearly ten years he was a regular customer, spending thousands of dollars on dozens of arrangements. Rob appreciated her self-expression and the passion that went into her creations. Barronelle was inspired by his discriminating taste and rose to the challenge. Their mutual love of flowers brought them together, but their love for each other grew out of their love of growing things. They talked about ordinary life, family, and friends. And they talked about flowers. It was a beautiful friendship: An artist and a patron. They were unsullied by the angry agendas of our world. They were, of course, aware of their vast differences in worldview. She knew he identified as a homosexual and of his partner, Curt. He discerned her Christian faith in the art and arrangements of her shop. But they were able to connect over flowers. Then the day came, as it comes in all friendships. It’s the day when worldviews collide. Maybe your fiancee asks you to go to a different church. Maybe your best friend wants you to help hide an affair. Maybe ... In the friendship of Barronelle and Rob, it was about a wedding. She learned ahead of time that he was going to ask her, and she agonized about it as any friend naturally would. As a business owner, another account was a no-brainer. As a friend, she was loathe to deny a heartfelt wish. As a Christian she sincerely believed that endorsing his same-sex marriage would actually hurt her Through tears and hand-holding, gentle words and sorrowful regrets, she explained that she could not grant this request. “Could not” is the language of a heart captive to something higher than yourself. It is the farthest thing from “will not.” Their conversation ended with a hug and hope.
That is the motive behind the Washington Civil Rights Commission's complaint, yes. I admit that I don't like legislation in general, as it is coercion -- always. Legislators are in the business of telling people what to do and punishing them if they don't comply. It is evil, if occasionally a necessary evil.
Just seeing this: "The couple also filed a private action against Stutzman and her store, which was consolidated with the state’s case." Some friend ....
It was quite clear. What type or service are you talking about, are you talking federal or state law and if state which state, laws vary. First the supremacy clause, a state could not ban the possession of guns for instance or ban news papers. Second in the first it was a motel which rents hotel rooms, comes under federal law in the second a store which sells but does not serve food stuff, does not. Depends. Yes, I believe it is, banks are federally chartered. Depends.
My afterwork drinking hole is on our causeway and because of that about 20 feet up on stilts, it's a geodesic dome to will little spare space inside. It was built before the ADA and according to the owner grandfathered in as long as she owns it. It has two sets of stairs to get up to the top. Believe me I have played there many times and it's NOT a favorite load in/load out place to play. But has it's many regular customers, our older afternoon/early evening group. When the owner retires the place would have to be torn down and rebuilt totally and that's not going to happen it would have to close, it is just not feasable to build a ADA accessible on that property and no way to retrofit the current building. So why should it have to close and be torn down because of the few handicapped people who might come?
Only “because of my religion”? What is was just “because of my personal opinion”? What if the “what you are doing” was a Christian christening? What if it was a mixed-race wedding? What if the product being refused was life-saving medicine, safety equipment or a water supply? The core point is that these business owners and those defending them are only thinking about their specific personal circumstances and not the wider context in which the laws in question have to apply. That’s a classic “one side of the story”. It’s perfectly possible the couple have a slightly different view of the situation. That’s one of the reason such disputes are addressed by formal court cases in the face of actual definitive evidence. No. The business case refuse to serve any given customer. What they can’t do is offer a product or service to one customer but refuse the same product or service to another on the sole basis of the customers (perceived) race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Whether you like it or not, a same-sex wedding is legally equivalent to a mixed-sex wedding in this jurisdiction and so business cannot treat weddings differently just because of the gender and/or sexual orientation of the people involved.
So many people getting so many things wrong about this case. Facts: Rob Ingersoll (gay customer) had been a customer of Arlene's Flowers for about 10 years. Arlene knew he was gay and never refused Rob service in those 10 years. Arlene and Rob were friends and were close enough to even hugged after she refused him service. Arlene did not refuse to sell Rob flowers for his wedding. Arlene did not refuse to arrange the flowers in a generic fashion. She refused to prepare arrangements with a gay themes (whatever that means) and set them up/maintain them at his wedding venue (participate in the wedding). The Washington State Supreme Courts (WSSC) had ruled against Arlene. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) vacated the WSSC ruling after the Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling and ordered WSSC to reconsider the case. The WSSC issued the same ruling as they did before...almost verbatim. During the reconsidering of the case, WSSC did not have any oral arguments. Not even oral argument that would have surrounded the Masterpiece ruling. The case was reconsidered based solely on previous trials prior to the Masterpiece ruling. Arlene has a history of selling flowers to straight and gay customers and has even hired numerous openly gay employees over the years. Rob Ingersoll did not initiate the lawsuit. The lawsuit was initiate by The State of Washington. This is not a case of refusing service. This is a case about the customer requesting the florist to participate in the gay wedding. I think it is completely reasonable to require that she sell him flowers, but I do not think it is right to require her to participate in the event. Arlene's response to WSSC - "I serve to all customers; I just can't celebrate all events".
You think conservative media and I are making up the details of their long established business relationship? Of her selling flowers, and arrangements, repeatedly, over a 10 year period, knowing he was gay? Believe what you will.
I actually wonder sometime whether that problem might have been better corrected by gradual social pressure. Not in the case if public school integration, but in the case of private lunch counters not located in interstate highways, I think the legislation only deepened the enmity between the races.
Well, she can't ignore her convictions, just as the Jewish or Muslim baker can't ignore theirs. I admire her for standing up to the mob.