Do People Have a Constitutional Right to Flowers?

Remove all ads!

OK, this piece really pissed me off. Basically, a born again florist refused to provide flowers to a pair of lesbians. Why the **** is this even news? Refusing to provide flowers or s floral services is not a hate crime. It's not like it's not a service that hundreds of other people couldn't (and in fact, they found another florist toute suite) and even if she were the only florist for a hundred miles around, it's not an essential service like medical care or even legal services like marriage (though my feelings on that one are laid out in other threads.) it's not anywhere close to a "hate crime" or even a hate act. Why can't homosexuals just get it through their heads that not everyone agrees with them and their behaviour / beliefs? Lots of other minority groups do it and move on without all this ridiculous whining.

I did the decent / logical thing. I put myself in their position. I imagined that my sweetie and I wanted wedding flowers from Edna's Floral Emporium. When we told her that we were Mormons, she said "I'm a Born Again Christian and I don't want my flowers near those Dens of Satan you call temples. I won't be selling any flowers to you. Good day to you, and I hope you burn in hell."

Now, what would I do? I'll tell you what I'd do, I'd FIND ANOTHER GODDAMN FLORIST and move the hell on. It's Edna's loss of business. I'd expect that Edna wouldn't show up at the wedding harassing me, of course, going on the logic that I expect her to respect my beliefs and practices, but I would also show that same respect to her and her beliefs, even if my feelings were hurt. I looked through the Canadian Constitution, the US one, and I'm willing to bet both of my testicles that there is no Constitution or other foundational document anywhere in the world that enshrines the right to not be offended.

Sorry, I know I'm ranting, but every time anyone does ANYTHING that a homosexual doesn't like, they get accused of being "full of hate", "bigotted", or whatever. It's just utter horsefeces. Denial of flowers is NOT placing a burning cross on someone's lawn. It's not the same ballpark, it's not the same game, it's not the same anything. The lady from Petals and Promises didn't approach them and harass them because they are different than she is. She just declined to do some luxury level business with them. It's other people exercising their rights to believe and act how they want to act. God knows we're suppposed to respect the homosexuals and what they think and do, why can't they do the same, rather than saying that "everyone who disagrees with me is EVIL and needs the government to punish them on my behalf to think the same way I do!"? Dammit, non-conformity regarding social issues is what's enshrined in Constitutions everywhere.

/end rant.

 

While I agree that this isn't a hate crime, the florist certainly is bigoted. I mean:

That kind of hits the nail right on the head, doesn't it?

 

LKD - I'm not really sure what is upsetting you about this issue, or the story. It seems to me that they got another florist, and there was some sort of minor, but peaceful protest. So what? It's not like they called the Tea Party to come and parade around with signs and pictures depicting her as Hitler, or anything, like telling her to move back to Kansas. I don't know what you're upset about.

Of course, you are right: Another "born again" supposed "Christian" being a pompous ass towards gays, or Muslims, or whatever? That's hardly news these days. But it's nothing to get upset about.

 

What pisses me off is that it even hit the news. Just because a person doesn't conform to a popular idea doesn't mean that they are horrible people. She chose not to do business with someone. It's a nothing deal, yet it made the news and they felt the need to "protest" about it.

 

That was probably the point that the couple was trying to make to the florist. I'm not sure if you are agreeing, or disagreeing with yourself on this one.

 

In the news this week: Some people are bigoted *******s.

More on that at 11.

 

You are asking the wrong question. The real question is does someone who works with the public have a right to refuse to service someone. In many locales the answer is no. I believe it is a condition of obtaining a "business license". The article mentions that a complaint is being filed with some government agency and the florist can expect a healthy fine. Recently, I read a similar case in the U.K. where a bed and breakfast in a person's home refused to rent to a gay couple and the end result was they got hit with a large fine.

I've always been torn about this issue. The reason I'm troubled is it appears that you only can't refuse to service members of "protected classes". At a former firm of mine the firm turned down the work of a strip club as they didn't want to be associated with that kind of business. In that situation the strip club just found someone else. However, since MA now has legalized homosexual marriage, I'm betting it would be illegal to refuse to take on a lesbian couple as a client. Personally, I'm more interested in the business and would take on almost anyone as a client.

 

Well, gays are not a protected class in the US. It's race, gender, religion and age. That just about makes sense to me that those are the protected classes. On the other hand, I believe gays should have full legal rights, just like anyone else. I don't believe they should be singled out by the poltical system, or the Due Process of Law and be denied their rights.

 

I'm saying the florist doesn't agree with gay marriage. That's her position and her conscience and she's sticking to it. Disagreeing with something is not a crime, and it shouldn't be made out that she's done something horrid. She just refused to be part of it. The gays in her community should just get the hell over it.

I say the same thing to the Westborough Baptist douches -- the people they are protesting don't agree with you. Get over it and move the hell on. I hate whiny protestors be they gays or religious folks. It's all about the whiny ***** factor. They all need to quit trying to paint their opponents in a ridiculous light, claiming injury when there's none, and generally acting like douches.

 

The florist is also protesting the marriage by refusing the same service she would offer to some others [I have no idea how far her bigotry extends, so I can't say towards everyone else]. The form of protest may be different, but it is still her disapproval and an expression of that disapproval.

I have no idea if it's a crime in Canada or not; that's for the people of Canada to decide.

Here's a Tea Party protest against people who are just Muslims. Why don't you take a gander at what a really ugly protest looks like? Sorry if I seem all out of sympathy for bigots, even when they try to cloak their hatred and bigotry in the Christian religion.

What they are doing should be illegal. The Supreme Court of Fools says it's OK for those bastards to go to a funeral of a fallen service person, someone who died fighting for them, and they show up to ridicule the family in their grief. According to the court it's offensive but it's still OK? But a woman can't show her breasts on TV because it's offensive to some? They are just plain stupid. Again you can thank "phony Christians' for the same crap. It's funny how playing the "Christian card" keeps nude women off TV, while it keeps pigs like Westboro in business at the same time. So spare me all the religious BS about not selling flowers to gays. That's how this foolishness gets started. If you want to make this a Constitutional issue, fine, but spare me the woman's self-serving bigotry.

 

Such discrimination would be illegal in Finland and yes the law protects religious minorities such as mormons in the same way that it does sexual minorities. Personally I'm completely fine with it and think it's a good think. I also think those who break the law should risk having their shop closed for a period or be heavily fined. When you engage in open business in Finland you agree to follow the rules and therefore you agree to keep your shop open to everyone. I know numerous bars that would be more than happy to impose "No immigrants" or "No people of Romani descent" policies, luckily the law prevents that.

An interesting case I read was about a electronic shop which had a policy of "no national costumes", since the Finnish natinal costumes is basically never used it pretty much meant only Romani women who frequently use their national costumes. The shop argued that the costume had frequently been used for stealing by hiding gadgets inside the costume. The district court found the explanation to be an insufficient excuse for discrimination and fined the shop accordingly.

 

You may be correct at a federal level. In MA we probably have a much broader list.

 

Followed by:

In a sure sign of the apocolypse, I agree with Snook on this one. There are many places - not just regions or states, but even businesses that include sexual orientation on their list.

 

Not specifically. But under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which is part of the Canadian Constitution), they have the right not to be discriminated against:

While sexual orientation isn't specifically listed above, the Supreme Court of Canada case Egan v. Canada determined that sexual orientation is, in fact, protected by S.15.

So the question becomes whether the refusal to sell flowers to lesbians constitutes discrimination. I suggest it does. What if someone decided not to sell flowers to someone who is black? That most certainly is discrimination, and if sexual orientation is as protected under S.15 as skin colour, then there is no difference IMO. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but that's my take on it.

 

Yes, I was speaking of the federal level, which would be the "law of the land" in that regard. But I agree with you, since I'm sure there are many local laws that protect gays, and there may be some businesses that do so by choice. Here's the thing about local laws though, many large companies disregard local laws when it suits them. They often claim that they operate under the laws where they have their headquarters. Walmart is an example of a company that has pulled this one in Texas. Last I heard it was still in the courts but that issue may be resolved by now, at least in Texas.

While I think it is great that some companies include gays, many companies don't and they certainly don't legislate policy for everyone else. Although, sometimes they like to think they do.

 

I wanted to buy a Bentley but the dealership was prejudiced! They said I was too poor to own a Bentley! Damn them ... my civil rights were violated! They can't discriminate against me just because I don't have money! It's my Constitutional right to have anything I damn well think I deserve!

 

The Romani women who wear such clothing do so nearly always afaik, it's more or less part of their culture. The court found the argument of higher theft rates simply unconvincing and that there were plenty of other types of clothing besides national costumes which could be used to hide gadgets in a similar way. Of course I've only read one article about the case and so I'm sure I don't know all details of the case, but I trust our judicial system enough to believe they probably got it right in this case.

 

Well, there are arguements that have no legal basis (such as T2's tongue-in-LKD's-cheek comment ), and there are those that do (such as the circumstances that this topic was originally about).