Do People Have a Constitutional Right to Flowers?

Remove all ads!

Exactly. I was wondering who this Bentley guy was anyway, that T2 was so interested in.

 

Have I mentioned before that you guys are sick and a really bad influence on me? Tongue in cheek ... What will you people think of next.

In a more serious vein, though, I think that equating flowers with a denial of medical care and such to be unfair. I think freedom of association should also include the freedom to NOT associate. I also think that people following their conscience in a non-violent manner should be free to do so without being painted as the equivalent of Klansmen. It should be possible for people to disagree without resorting to name calling -- to my knowledge she didn't call the community "bull dykes" or some such, so it would be nice if her opponents didn't call her names either. Disagreement is not bigotry.

 

Disagreement is not the same as refusing to offer a service you would for everyone except lesbians, that's not disagreement that's discrimination and there's a difference. It's similar to refusing to provide services for people who are older, of different race or of different religion. In an open society you are practically forced to associate with people you don't like or have heavy disagreements with.

You are also badly misinterpreting what freedom of association means. The entire concept is about having the right to form various groups to promote a common cause or on the other hand about not being forced to be part in one. It has nothing to do with your right to not associate with individuals.

 

I can agree with that - denial of flower arrangements certainly isn't a matter of life and death - it's an inconvenience.

I can agree with that as well - I certainly don't see anything that she did here as a hate crime, nor do I see what she did as even criminal. If it's a privately owned business - and the woman in question was the owner - she can pretty much decide who she wants to sell her flowers to.

You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means. It's true that disagreement isn't the same thing as bigotry, but this woman's actions seem to go beyond mere disagreement. She is most certainly a bigot. Going from the Meriam Webster definition above, she is obstinantly devoted to her own option (that gay marriage is unnatural/anti-Christian/evil/whatever), and therefore treats member of a certain group (gays wishing to marry) with intolerance (by refusing to provide them services.) If she merely disagreed with them, it's not bigotry - but how can you NOT consider her actions as bigoted? I mean - it meets the definition in every way.

 

If you are insinuating I look like Wallace Shawn, you and me are gonna have words!

I guess we are having one of those semantic games, and I don't want to . . . . oh, how do I say this, mimic the behaviour of long gone friends, let's say! So I'll concede to the denotative value of your dictionary definition, while adding that to me, the word also carries not only the connotation of hatred and a desire to cause harm, but one of stupidity and a lack of education on a matter. That's where I'm coming from. Lots of highly intelligent, educated, well informed people disagree with gay marriage.

 

Yes, but not to the point that gays can't go about their daily business without hindrance, or suffering intolerance. It is, in principle, like businesses that refused to serve blacks back in the 50s, or 60s. What's next, separate restrooms? Separate schools? Crafting a business world within a society that divides itself based on bigotry will eventually lead to a separate society -- as we have seen historically - for Muslims, gays, Jewish people, etc. This is hardly just a matter of simple "disagreement," as you keep trying to pass this off as. If enough people did "business" like your florist friend, it would drastically change the fabric of a free and open society.

 

I was insinuating that you may talk like him - I have no idea what you look like. For all I know, you may be Wally! (Although I think he's American so it's unlikely that he's living in Canada - although what a devious means of throwing us off your trail!)

Fair enough - I never considered the idea of bigoted to imply a lack of intelligence, although perhaps willful ignorance would be an appropriate description.

 

One didn't respect the matrimony as it was against her religion while the other didn't respect another's religion because of sexual discrimination. So stones are cast at everyone. Wonderful. Reading the news, it was never mentioned that the two women who got married hated the florist. I imagine the florist did her best to be as respectful as she can when she replied to the ladies. Otherwise, she could have simply not inform them at all. It was that Mario Bourgeois guy who blew things out of proportion. Personally, I think super Mario was an opportunist (probably a prick) who's trying to increase the client base of his wedding consultancy business.

 

What? No, stones were not cast at everyone. There is the simple fact that the florist apparently broke the law while the lesbian couple or the wedding consultant simply wanted to buy some flowers and therefore committed no wrong. The fact that they complain about someone who according to their perception was breaking the law is a basic citizen right and certainly not "throwing stones". The florist should be thankful they chose not to sue.

 

Huh? I agree with what Morgoth said above. I'd like to add that even if the two women did hate the florist (which I'm not convinced of), it was probably only after she decided she wouldn't sell them flowers for the wedding. If they didn't like her from the start, why would they even go to her for the services? It's not like she's the only person they could have picked.

As for the florist being respectful to the women... It's kind of hard to respectfully tell someone that you won't sell them flowers because you view their same-sex marriage as an abomination that will cause them both to burn in hell for all eternity...

 

Isn't that a stone? Why would you think that the florist need to be thankful they chose not to sue when she is in fact exercising her rights to practice her religious belief? Unfortunately for the couple, the florist's religion simply doesn't tolerate same sex marriage. There are no evidence that said she hated the couple and had been disrespectful to them. She was honest enough to tell them the reason why she could not provide them the service they wanted. I'm pretty sure that being able to practice your religion is a well established law in the USA.

I don't see why the wedding consultant should be complaining. Fact is, it's not even his business, he didn't even attend the wedding and is just making a big deal out of other people's affairs. The wedding consultant is crying discrimination when he is actually showing the lack of respect for the rights of other people to practice their religious belief. Again, there was no evidence that the lesbian couple were complaining. The news was simply they informed the wedding consultant and he took the initiative to put things into the open. As LKD was pointing out, why was this incident even in the news.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 30 seconds later... ----------

Agree with that but I did say I imagine she tried her best to be as respectful as she can... but we do know that Christians also strives to be honest. Besides, the news was actually based on the wedding consultant's information and not from the newly wed themselves. Some details are definitely left out.

 

The case we're talking about is actually in Canada not in the US. If we go by what the wedding consultant says, discriminating on the basis of sexuality is illegal for businesses and not therefore and acceptable way of conducting business or practicing your religion. Now, I'm no expert in Canadian law and the wedding consultant might have it wrong regarding the law but since Canada is in many regards even more liberal than Finland, I find it quite likely that she has it right.

If your religion requires you to discriminate people you probably should close the shop and choose a different business since you obviously can't do business by the rules. You can't choose to say pay a environment tax simply because you don't believe in global warming, no matter what your beliefs are the law requires to comply. If you don't, you break the law and face consequences.

 

Good point.

Better point.

LKD,
that said, I agree with the others that this is in-your-face bigotry. That it is religiously based here is one thing. If the owner was a white supremacist Nazi and refused to sell flowers to people of colour, or to Jews - following his conscience in a non-violent manner - does that mean he should be free to do so without being called what he is? No. In that case about everybody would agree that he is a bigot. But because our florist here is Christian that's supposedly off the table? No way.

One could even rationalise the owner haranguing (telling them that being gay is an abomination that will cause them both to burn in hell for all eternity) the women as witnessing (showing them the error of their ways, trying to help them to find Jesus Christ as their personal saviour) and thus as an exercise of his freedom of speech and freedom of religion. So what? Christians (real or self-professed) are not necessarily nice and friendly people. Some are bigots. There's no harm in spelling that out.

 

That said, at least in the US - I don't think the florist's actions would be considered illegal. Heck, the KKK isn't illegal in the US. They have public demonstrations. That's why in my first post I said it wasn't a hate crime - in order for a hate crime to occur, it has to be a crime in the first place. So while I have been very vocal about her being a bigot, I don't think her actions (if this happened in the US) would be illegal.

As an aside, this post should be NOG-bait - where has he been lately?

 

I understand that under Canadian law the florist could be accused of committing a crime. What I'm saying is that it's a stupid law. Regardless of what other people think of her, she should be able, as the owner of a business, to chose who she does business with. It'd be different if she were offering a government or vital service, but she's not. I'm saying that laws that force you to do business with people with whom you disagree (for whatev er reason, even if others don't think it's a valid one) are overly intrusive.

I feel the same about any group (like the ones Ragusa mentioned), even if I disagee with them. As I have said before, the invisible hand of the marketplace will eventually punish these people if they get too extreme. I just don't believe that letting people peacefully act according to their own consciences would "drastically change the fabric of a free and open society"

 

LKD,
the invisible hand of the market as a self-regulating miracle is invisible because it isn't there. All it is is a pricing mechanism. It regulates not, and it punishes not.

The only price I see for bigotry or an overt ideological point of view that doesn't resonate in the population at large is that it drives away customers or fails to attract customers. Faith based pharmacies come to mind.

Pro-life pharmacy in D.C. area closes due to financial difficulties

On the other hand, bigots in a bigoted place thrive.

 

I disagree here -- it's not just about prices, it's about business practices in general. In this case, if this florist refuses to provide her services to homosexuals, then she will obviously not get any money from homosexuals. Said homosexuals will then go to another florist, who by virtue of not restricting her client base, will make more money and thus be more successful. If allies of the homosexuals also boycott the first florist, then she loses even more money. Her business will wither, and in the worst case scenario, go belly up.

To me, that's punishment from the invisible hand.

 

I see your point.

IMO the flaw in it is that you assume that in our Western economic system misconduct is necessarily punished when it often isn't. If it was that easy, the greedy and/or reckless miscreants behind the last Wall Street meltdown wouldn't have gotten bonuses from the invisible hand but punishment.

That is what I meant with "bigots in a bigoted place thrive". If you were an overtly anti-Semitic bigot in 1930s Germany that misconduct vis a vis your potential Jewish customer base would have probably gotten you business from fellow anti-Semitic bigots, so much so that it made business sense to express such an attitude. It would have not driven customers away.

Markets are dependent on the attitudes, rational and irrational, of their participants. The invisible hand prices not in a vacuum but in a market where human beings with all their flaws and follies interact.

 

The South used the same excuse for slavery. Ben Franklin had great fun with the bigots who disguise and cloak their bigotry with religion:

http://founders-blog.blogspot.com/2010/03/benjamin-franklin-to-federal-gazette.html