Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding

[Draco]

A florist in Riverview, N.B., is refusing to provide wedding flowers to a same-sex couple, according to the event's planner.
After agreeing to provide the flowers for a wedding, Kim Evans of Petals and Promises Wedding Flowers sent an email last month to the couple, saying she didn't know it was a same-sex wedding and would have no part of the ceremony.
"I am choosing to decline your business. As a born-again Christian, I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter," the email said.
Evans has not returned calls from CBC News to explain her decision.
Mario Bourgeois Leduc, wedding planner for the couple, who didn't want their names released, said he was appalled by the florist's email, especially since "you're celebrating love and you're going against all of the odds to celebrate what is important in your life."
"This is going to stay with them for years, because they were again told that their lives are not OK."
Eldon Hay, a United Church minister in Sackville and a well-known gay rights advocate, said he still sympathizes with the florist.
"The shopkeeper has every right to her own convictions as long as she is a private citizen in her own house," Hay said.
"But if she opens her doors to sell flowers, then she must be prepared to meet and deal with the public."
According to the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, anyone doing business in the province cannot refuse customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

Source.

So what does everyone think: Should the florist be forced to decorate the wedding, or should she have the freedom to choose whom she wishes to do business with?

The article says that she agreed, but it seems that she wasn't informed that it would be a same-sex wedding. It also mentions that there's the usual anti-discrimination law in the province, so it will be interesting to see whether she'll be 'penalised' in the same way that the Christian hotel owners were in the UK.

[Illusions]

In an optimal society:

She would legally be allowed to choose who she does or does not do business with, regardless of her reasons.
Her shop would rapidly go out of business due to lack of customers, who had decided not to shop there because of her treatment of same-sex couples.
Hopefully she would have a change of heart before becoming destitute due to a lack of income because her shop closed down.

[GGT]

According to the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, anyone doing business in the province cannot refuse customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

Both the florist and wedding planner should have been aware of the law. Ignorance or disagreemnt of law is not a justification for breaking the law.

[oldmunchkin]

I see this as a business owner's rights question. I think a business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone. After all, it's their business.

Having said that, the fact that there is a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation makes this a bit tougher. As I said, the florist should be able to refuse, but should have kept her mouth shut about the why! Of course, I think she should be prosecuted for preaching to someone who didn't want to have Christianity, and it's so-called values, shoved down their throat. There is a place for preaching, it's called Church! No one should have another person's morality used against them.

[agamemnus]

You can't prosecute someone for "preaching", lulz...

[Nessus]

It's amusing that the latest Randroid poster-boy has decided to choose as his crusade the cause of those whose homophobia has landed them in hot water.

[Draco]

^^It's called respecting other peoples lives you imbecile. I wouldn't expect you to understand what that means, since you've made it more than clear that it's ok to interefere in the private lives of individuals, so long as the ends justify the means. And funny that you should use the term 'Randroid', so that then makes you a what, Marx-oid. I'd rather be branded by a name that stands for individual freedom, the only true freedom, than the pseudo-freedom bullsh!t the likes of you spread across the world.

Both the florist and wedding planner should have been aware of the law. Ignorance or disagreemnt of law is not a justification for breaking the law.

It's a law that shouldn't even exist. So the Jim Crow Laws that existed in the US at one period of time, people should have still followed the law right?

Having said that, the fact that there is a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation makes this a bit tougher. As I said, the florist should be able to refuse, but should have kept her mouth shut about the why!

It's her choice whether she wants to say why. We can't follow this line of thinking, where we should remain quiet, just in case we happen to offend anyone.

[Nessus]

^^It's called respecting other peoples lives you imbecile. I wouldn't expect you to understand what that means, since you've made it more than clear that it's ok to interefere in the private lives of individuals, so long as the ends justify the means. And funny that you should use the term 'Randroid', so that then makes you a what, Marx-oid. I'd rather be branded by a name that stands for individual freedom, the only true freedom, than the pseudo-freedom bullsh!t the likes of you spread across the world.

I'd be wary about brandying about "freedom" as a political term so freely, you wouldn't want to be associated with the likes of Joseph Goebbels now would you?

And I also find it amusing you think respect is accepting intolerance. And why is it that you get outraged when "morality is not upheld" vis a vis marriages, but business owners who hate faggots get a big a-okay from you? It is confusing to the average reader which aspects of "private lives" you find worthy of protecting. Is child abuse okay? Or do you draw the line between punitive beatings and sexual abuse? What about pets? Can I shove my cat in the microwave if I want?

[oldmunchkin]

You can't prosecute someone for "preaching", lulz...

Unfortunately, you are right. I have always wanted to file a harassment lawsuit against these "missionaries" that think they have the right to come to my door, or catch me on the sidewalk, and spout their religion at me. Or maybe a stalking charge, since some seem to always "conveniently" turn up where I am. Yes, I know it wouldn't work, but it's always fun to think about. Finally, a solution to the preachers who preach outside of church.

Yes, I know the US constitution gives us the right to free speech!

^^It's called respecting other peoples lives you imbecile. I wouldn't expect you to understand what that means, since you've made it more than clear that it's ok to interefere in the private lives of individuals, so long as the ends justify the means. And funny that you should use the term 'Randroid', so that then makes you a what, Marx-oid. I'd rather be branded by a name that stands for individual freedom, the only true freedom, than the pseudo-freedom bullsh!t the likes of you spread across the world.


It's a law that shouldn't even exist. So the Jim Crow Laws that existed in the US at one period of time, people should have still followed the law right?


It's her choice whether she wants to say why. We can't follow this line of thinking, where we should remain quiet, just in case we happen to offend anyone.

Don't you realize it already happens? Many people just refuse service, or whatever, to others who don't follow their doctrine du jour, but keep quiet about the real reason. Maybe they keep quiet to avoid getting slapped with lawsuits...hell I dunno! For instance, the person who is over 50 not getting a job. The real reason may actually have been his age, but the HR department will give another reason, or not give a reason at all. Same with firing older workers, less attractive sales clerks, etc. The companies will not admit the real reason was the person was too old, or too ugly to fit the "mold".

[Draco]

And I also find it amusing you think respect is accepting intolerance. And why is it that you get outraged when "morality is not upheld" vis a vis marriages, but business owners who hate faggots get a big a-okay from you?

I said respecting their lives, which means respecting their rights (and supporting their right to discriminate). And I find it hypocritical of any person or state that allows for same-sex marriage, but not for a person having the right to discriminate on their own property. You're allowing one right, yet denying another.

It is confusing to the average reader which aspects of "private lives" you find worthy of protecting. Is child abuse okay? Or do you draw the line between punitive beatings and sexual abuse? What about pets? Can I shove my cat in the microwave if I want?

No child abuse isn't okay. Discipline is another story though. And if the cat belongs to you, if it is your property, then I don't care what you do with it.

[Draco]

Don't you realize it already happens? Many people just refuse service, or whatever, to others who don't follow their doctrine du jour, but keep quiet about the real reason. Maybe they keep quiet to avoid getting slapped with lawsuits...hell I dunno! For instance, the person who is over 50 not getting a job. The real reason may actually have been his age, but the HR department will give another reason, or not give a reason at all. Same with firing older workers, less attractive sales clerks, etc. The companies will not admit the real reason was the person was too old, or too ugly to fit the "mold".

I know that these things still happen. Fact remains that the government shouldn't dictate whether you or I are allowed to discriminate or openly say it. And I'd say that almost everyone would keep quiet because they don't want to get into trouble with 'the law.' Or depending on the situationn, perhaps they fear for their lives (Danish cartoons).

[Nessus]

I said respecting their lives, which means respecting their rights. And I find it hypocritical of any person or state that allows for same-sex marriage, but not for a person having the right to discriminate on their own property. You're allowing one right, yet denying another.

*shrug* I don't have the right to build my own nuke, or kill my neighbours. Denied from me by the state. My neighbours' right to their bodies being protected from me are guaranteed by the state, not some intangible rights-carrying Rand-Hera amalgam. In general, either society guarantees rights, or people make them for themselves. The former is called civilization, the latter anarchy. You seem to favour anarchy. Or how is it that you would wish rights be defined? Mob rule? The holy books? What?

I find it absurd that you think it's a valid criticism of the state that they deny the possibility of doing some things while all the same allowing other things. That is the fucking definition of government. And I'm the imbecile?

No child abuse isn't okay. Discipline is another story though. And if the cat belongs to you, if it is your property, then I don't care what you do with it.

Why don't you explain to us the other story then.

So I can fry my cat if I want to. Great. Because the cat can't sue me, right? That's the important thing, that which separates my hypothetical cat from Tiina next door, I can do what I want to the cat but Tiina's parents can sue me for chopping her up and eating her liver, so I am prohibited from one but not the other. Fair enough.

What if I want to sell body parts of dead animals? Do I have to follow some hygiene regulations? Can I market my food as fresh, domestic and all around organic and awesome if I'm just importing aborted fetuses from Romania and making ground beef out of that? Or do I have to be sued by someone before my shenanigans become offensive?

[Draco]

*shrug* I don't have the right to build my own nuke, or kill my neighbours. Denied from me by the state. My neighbours' right to their bodies being protected from me are guaranteed by the state, not some intangible rights-carrying Rand-Hera amalgam. In general, either society guarantees rights, or people make them for themselves. The former is called civilization, the latter anarchy. You seem to favour anarchy. Or how is it that you would wish rights be defined? Mob rule? The holy books? What?

At the moment (but I have been reading into Anarcho-Capitalism, just that I have some issues with it), I'm of the view that the government should only exist to guarantee the rights of its citizens. As for how to define rights, it should be along the lines of "Every citizen has the right to their own life, to live as they choose, to make use of their own property as they choose, so long as they are not denying another persons rights." You get the idea.

I find it absurd that you think it's a valid criticism of the state that they deny the possibility of doing some things while all the same allowing other things. That is the fucking definition of government. And I'm the imbecile?

You're oversimplifying my comments here. The government (in such places as Canada, where this story originates from, and UK for the hotel owners) denies a persons right to discriminate, yet it would allow for same-sex marriage.

Why don't you explain to us the other story then.

I thought you were alluding to child discipline.

So I can fry my cat if I want to. Great. Because the cat can't sue me, right?

But animals don't have rights.

That's the important thing, that which separates my hypothetical cat from Tiina next door, I can do what I want to the cat but Tiina's parents can sue me for chopping her up and eating her liver, so I am prohibited from one but not the other. Fair enough.

Tiina is a human, a self-aware individual whose life belongs to her. Denying her the right to her life is grounds for prosecution.

What if I want to sell body parts of dead animals? Do I have to follow some hygiene regulations? Can I market my food as fresh, domestic and all around organic and awesome if I'm just importing aborted fetuses from Romania and making ground beef out of that? Or do I have to be sued by someone before my shenanigans become offensive?

You have some of the craziest (but funny) hypothetical situations..
I can see what you're getting at though. But if you're someone who operates such a business that involves the processing of human food, then I'd argue that it's your responsibility to get some sort of certification from a private institution/company, because I don't think any customer would want to purchase any of your products if you weren't certified by a credibly body. So it wouldn't be in your interest to import aborted fetuses from some country and market them off as beef or whatever.

[Khendraja'aro]

At the moment (but I have been reading into Anarcho-Capitalism, just that I have some issues with it), I'm of the view that the government should only exist to guarantee the rights of its citizens. As for how to define rights, it should be along the lines of "Every citizen has the right to their own life, to live as they choose, to make use of their own property as they choose, so long as they are not denying another persons rights." You get the idea.

So, you are allowed to build a nuke in your backyard in your strange world. Nice to know.

Idiotic concept.

Or, how do you think about schools?

[Hazir]

Source.

So what does everyone think: Should the florist be forced to decorate the wedding, or should she have the freedom to choose whom she wishes to do business with?

The article says that she agreed, but it seems that she wasn't informed that it would be a same-sex wedding. It also mentions that there's the usual anti-discrimination law in the province, so it will be interesting to see whether she'll be 'penalised' in the same way that the Christian hotel owners were in the UK.

Yes, just like any other type of illegal discriminatory behaviour, this bullcrap should strip you of the ability to legally do business.

[Hazir]

I know that these things still happen. Fact remains that the government shouldn't dictate whether you or I are allowed to discriminate or openly say it. And I'd say that almost everyone would keep quiet because they don't want to get into trouble with 'the law.' Or depending on the situationn, perhaps they fear for their lives (Danish cartoons).

Bullcrap, one of the tasks of government is protect minorities against repression of majorities. Your fantasy absolute freedom is not compatible with living in society.

[Ominous Gamer]

I know that these things still happen. Fact remains that the government shouldn't dictate whether you or I are allowed to discriminate or openly say it. And I'd say that almost everyone would keep quiet because they don't want to get into trouble with 'the law.' Or depending on the situationn, perhaps they fear for their lives (Danish cartoons).

I hope you never become disabled, or end up with disabled children.

[Illusions]

So Draco what about my post? I guess you're okay with it since she went out of business because of FREEEEDOMMMM!!! and not laws passed by the government.

[Enoch the Red]

So Draco what about my post? I guess you're okay with it since she went out of business because of FREEEEDOMMMM!!! and not laws passed by the government.

I'm sure he would be...

Is that somehow a surprise?

[RandBlade]

For the record, as the normal resident Randroid I object to being equated with this Anarchy.

At the moment (but I have been reading into Anarcho-Capitalism, just that I have some issues with it), I'm of the view that the government should only exist to guarantee the rights of its citizens. As for how to define rights, it should be along the lines of "Every citizen has the right to their own life, to live as they choose, to make use of their own property as they choose, so long as they are not denying another persons rights." You get the idea.

Denying trade solely based on discrimination is denying rights.

You're oversimplifying my comments here. The government (in such places as Canada, where this story originates from, and UK for the hotel owners) denies a persons right to discriminate, yet it would allow for same-sex marriage.

What do you mean "yet". That is being logically consistent. Denying discrimination and allowing marriage for all is not discriminating consistently.

But animals don't have rights.

Yes they do.

Tiina is a human, a self-aware individual whose life belongs to her. Denying her the right to her life is grounds for prosecution.

You don't think cats and dogs are self-aware?

I suspect many pets are more self-aware than chavs whose minds have been wasted and adled with crack, alcohol, cannabis and other drugs. Mean it's OK in your eyes to microwave druggies?

You have some of the craziest (but funny) hypothetical situations..
I can see what you're getting at though. But if you're someone who operates such a business that involves the processing of human food, then I'd argue that it's your responsibility to get some sort of certification from a private institution/company, because I don't think any customer would want to purchase any of your products if you weren't certified by a credibly body. So it wouldn't be in your interest to import aborted fetuses from some country and market them off as beef or whatever.

What a load of crap. When was the last tome you checked accreditation on a restaurants beef?

The government - rightly - does that. In the UK that is done by the EHO, Environmental Health Organisation. If you were to claim to sell beef and it was actually minced rat meat, you'd get shut down.

One role of government under a capitalist system is to ensure integrity. Not to run the restaurants or tell them how to do their jobs, but to ensure standards and honesty.

[Dreadnaught]

Generally, no I don't think the florist should be compelled to do anything.

Except that she did already agree to provide her services. One could make the case that her window to ask these questions of conscience closed when she agreed to take the job.

[Nessus]

For the record, as the normal resident Randroid I object to being equated with this Anarchy.
Denying trade solely based on discrimination is denying rights.
What do you mean "yet". That is being logically consistent. Denying discrimination and allowing marriage for all is not discriminating consistently.
Yes they do.
You don't think cats and dogs are self-aware?

I suspect many pets are more self-aware than chavs whose minds have been wasted and adled with crack, alcohol, cannabis and other drugs. Mean it's OK in your eyes to microwave druggies?
What a load of crap. When was the last tome you checked accreditation on a restaurants beef?

The government - rightly - does that. In the UK that is done by the EHO, Environmental Health Organisation. If you were to claim to sell beef and it was actually minced rat meat, you'd get shut down.

One role of government under a capitalist system is to ensure integrity. Not to run the restaurants or tell them how to do their jobs, but to ensure standards and honesty.

You have blown my mind. I'm glad I was sitting down when I read this.

[Aimless]

1. She agreed to providing flowers

2. She tried to back out just a month before the wedding??!

3. Gay marriages aren't illegal there. Discrimination clearly is frowned upon by the law.

4. Discrimination infringes on the rights of others, in this case gay couples. You have made it clear time and again Draco that even you draw a line at freedoms/rights that infringes on the rights of others. Well there you go, that's why gay marriages are allowed but discrimination against gay people is not.

I think the florist should at least compensate the couple for the extra hassle of having to find a new florist a month before the wedding. Anti-discrimination laws aside.

I have nfi why you keep bringing up Jim Crow laws.

[Draco]

So, you are allowed to build a nuke in your backyard in your strange world. Nice to know.

Idiotic concept.

Or, how do you think about schools?

Building a nuke isn't as easy as doing it in your backyard though.. or are you just referring to the whole idea of citizens having the right to bear arms?

As for schools, I think all schools should be privatised. I'm only being consistent with my claim for the government to have as little involvement as possible.

Bullcrap, one of the tasks of government is protect minorities against repression of majorities. Your fantasy absolute freedom is not compatible with living in society.

Yes, protect them if their right to life, or any other liberty is being denied.

I hope you never become disabled, or end up with disabled children.

I hope so too.

So Draco what about my post? I guess you're okay with it since she went out of business because of FREEEEDOMMMM!!! and not laws passed by the government.

Yes I am okay with the florist going out of business. Or should I not be? Actually I don't even care if she does.

For the record, as the normal resident Randroid I object to being equated with this Anarchy.
Denying trade solely based on discrimination is denying rights.

How so? How do I, you or anyone else automatically have the right to purchase a product from a persons business, when they don't want me to? What gives anyone the right to force that business owner into doing business with me?

What do you mean "yet". That is being logically consistent. Denying discrimination and allowing marriage for all is not discriminating consistently.

The fact that a government who would allow same-sex marriage, yet at the same time endorses anti-discrimination laws, thus denying a persons right to choose whom they wish to do business with, is not logically consistent with individual rights.

Yes they do.

So animals have the right to a life the same way that humans do? In that case, why are we allowing the genocide of millions of cows, lambs, chickens etc?? They have a life to live!

You don't think cats and dogs are self-aware?

I'd say that they're not in the same way that humans are.

I suspect many pets are more self-aware than chavs whose minds have been wasted and adled with crack, alcohol, cannabis and other drugs. Mean it's OK in your eyes to microwave druggies?

Every human being has the right to live their own life as they please, and nobody else has the right to deny them that.

What a load of crap. When was the last tome you checked accreditation on a restaurants beef?

The government - rightly - does that. In the UK that is done by the EHO, Environmental Health Organisation. If you were to claim to sell beef and it was actually minced rat meat, you'd get shut down.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying though..a private company could just as easily do this all, and if the restaurant is to expect customers, they'd make it known that they're safe to eat at or whatever.

Except that she did already agree to provide her services. One could make the case that her window to ask these questions of conscience closed when she agreed to take the job.

If she had committed to a contract, then she should hold up her end of the deal (but I'm not that familiar with the likes of contracts so I can't say for sure).

4. Discrimination infringes on the rights of others, in this case gay couples. You have made it clear time and again Draco that even you draw a line at freedoms/rights that infringes on the rights of others. Well there you go, that's why gay marriages are allowed but discrimination against gay people is not.

But what rights are being infringed on?! I said this before, but how in the world does the gay couple have the 'right' to make a purchase from the florist, if she doesn't want them to?

I have nfi why you keep bringing up Jim Crow laws.

I was responding to GGT who seemed to be saying that, because it's the law, it should be followed. I thought it was obvious why I gave the example of the Jim Crow Laws.

[Nessus]

I would have to seek far and wide for a world view more reprehensible and disgusting as yours. Never mind the hargle bargle about individual rights, but all schools should be privatized? Your views sicken me.

[Aimless]

Every human being has the right to live their own life as they please, and nobody else has the right to deny them that.

yes and you accept the enforcement of laws that serve to prevent the rights of some people from infringing on the rights of others so what's your problemt? this is at least partly about protecting the right of gay people to not be shafted by their own society. this florist enjoys the benefits of her society and then thinks she can get away with shafting that society? pah! let her do business elsewhere if she can't contribute more meaningfully to the functioning of her present society

[Khendraja'aro]

Building a nuke isn't as easy as doing it in your backyard though.. or are you just referring to the whole idea of citizens having the right to bear arms?

Answer the question. Are you allowed to build a nuke in your backyard or not? Yes or no?

No dodging the question.

Or, if you're astounded that someone would attempt to do that because it's so difficult - what about nerve gas? Are you allowed to produce nerve gas? Some of those are pretty easy to create.

[Ominous Gamer]

I hope so too.

I can't tell if you're afraid of being different, or afraid of having to suffer the discrimination you're supporting.

[littlelolligagged]

But what rights are being infringed on?! I said this before, but how in the world does the gay couple have the 'right' to make a purchase from the florist, if she doesn't want them to?
I was responding to GGT who seemed to be saying that, because it's the law, it should be followed. I thought it was obvious why I gave the example of the Jim Crow Laws.

I'm really curious about why you think the Jim Crow laws are a good example of why people should be able to break the law to discriminate. That seems more fucked up than anything else you've said, and I'm sure it's also why everyone has found your suddenly bringing them up puzzling.

[Aimless]

I think he just latched on to the "just because it's law doesn't mean it's right" aspect. I hope he doesn't want to argue that they were wrong BECAUSE they were laws rather than simply being laws that were wrong. you know, trying to pretend that severely restricting the rights of blacks is exactly the dame as limiting people's ability to severely restrict the rights of blacks. the right to be treated as a hunan being vs. the right to systematically dehumanise peopke. hmmm