Florists of Conscience
| Sat Mar. 7, 2009 10:19 AM PST
Via Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic conference on Friday came up with an anti-gay position that seems like something Saturday Night Live might have made up:
[Connecticut's] law does not require Catholic priests — or any other clergy member — to preside over same-sex weddings.
However, the church is seeking additional exemptions. For instance, it wants to ensure that a florist opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds not be forced to sell flowers to a same-sex couple.
I don't think a Catholic nurse should be required to assist at an abortion. I don't think a Catholic charity should be required to provide benefits to same-sex couples. But now they're suggesting, essentially, that anyone, anywhere, in any business, should be allowed to withhold their services from gay couples? Give me a break.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
The more serious part
Submitted by alan (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 10:30 AM PST.
The more serious part has to do with pharmacies and general practitioners who may be religious psychotics who imagine it's ethical to withhold medications or treatments from people they don't care for without telling them.
These people think they have a right to abuse and injure others, because God wants them to.
Well, I'm a vegan and I
Submitted by maggiecat (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 10:45 AM PST.
Well, I'm a vegan and I don't think I should have to should have to see meat, milk or cheese to you if I get a job in a grocery store.
What's that you say? Maybe I just shouldn't get a job in a non-vegan grocery store?
But, but, but...they're my beliefs! Quit trying to infringe on my right to force my beliefs on the free exercise of yours!
Vegan rights!
Submitted by maggiecat (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 10:57 AM PST.
Well, I'm a vegan and I don't think I should have to should have to sell meat, milk or cheese to you if I get a job in a grocery store.
What's that you say? Maybe I just shouldn't get a job in a non-vegan grocery store?
But, but, but...they're my beliefs! Quit trying to infringe on my right to force my beliefs on the free exercise of yours!
What about soldiers who
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 11:22 AM PST.
What about soldiers who don't believe in a war that is being fought? Or government lawyer who doesn't believe in a prosecution? Where does it end?
I do agree that doctors/nurses should not be forced to do abortions - however, they should be required to state that up front to patients and provide the with other practitioners who will provide these services. I also agree churches should not be forced to host/perform same-sex services for 1st amendment reasons.
However, that is where I would end it. A pharmacist should be required to provide contraception - sorry, it is part of the job. If you don't want the responsibility then change jobs. It is the same reason that I, as a government meteorologist, have toned down my response to global warming when speaking for the federal government. I completely disagreed with Bush's policy and worked with the Sierra Club to highlight global warming in my community. However, whether I liked it or not, I have to hue the official position, refuse to be interviewed, or quit my job. So I did the interviews and maintained a neutral position until 2006 when even Bush admitted global warming was human caused. Perhaps that makes me hypocritical but these are compromises many people have to make.
catholic church
Submitted by supersaurus (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 11:24 AM PST.
well my "deeply held" belief is that the catholic church is a business and it should pay taxes the same as any other business. we could trade?
And a vegetarian clerk in a
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 11:33 AM PST.
And a vegetarian clerk in a grocery store should be allowed to refuse to ring up groceries containing meat and related products, and atheists should be allowed to refuse to sell ANYTHING to religionists, etc., and religionists in hospital emergency rooms should be allowed to refuse to treat atheists, and Republicans who do not believe in paying taxes should be allowed to skip their debt to Uncle Sam even if their children attend public schools and even if they drive on the Interstate, and Democratic teachers should not have to teach the offspring of Republicans, and ... and ...
The other day on NPR during a discussion of the right to not only perform abortions but to deny contraceptives to rape victims, a representative of an anti-abortion group averred that this "right" also included withholding information on where such medical procedures, etc. could be obtained.
Such a stance could have tragic consequences for a young woman in the boonies in the middle of the night who has just been sexually assaulted but can't get help in a timely manner from somebody who has good sense.
Fair is fair
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 11:36 AM PST.
Kevin wrote: "But now they're suggesting, essentially, that anyone, anywhere, in any business, should be allowed to withhold their services from gay couples?"
Fine, as long as anyone, anywhere, in any business, should be allowed to withhold their services from Catholics as well.
Ouch!
Submitted by DMonteith (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 11:39 AM PST.
It's been a banner month for Catholicism, hasn't it? Holocaust denialism, excommunication for everyone associated with the 9 year old Brazilian girl's abortion except the molester/rapist who was responsible, and now this. Someone in that organization must be wishing for the good old days when all they had to worry about was pedophile priests!
straight florists? wow, the church really is out of touch
Submitted by Christopher1974 on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 11:59 AM PST.
as a gay man, i don't think i should have to serve, speak with, sell to, sit near anyone that has more federal rights than me or my partner.
i still advocate for a gay boycott of straight weddings. see what happens to Buffy when she can't find a florist, hairdresser, wedding planner, musical director or caterer who will do her bidding for her.
Monster Bride becomes Political Activist in 3-2-1.
christopher // inaudiblenonsense.com
How about this?
Submitted by Brian on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 12:12 PM PST.
The proprietor of a business should be allowed to decide to whom he will provide his goods/services. The employees can then decide whether or not they wish to do as their jobs require. If they don't don't want to do as the boss says, they can work elsewhere.
Some more details would be needed to flesh out this idea, but it like a very reasonable place to start.
Your idea is a common sense
Submitted by michael7843853 on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 5:34 PM PST.
Your idea is a common sense one that works only in a civil, reasonably tolerant society. Many on the right don't want to live in such a morally corrupt society.
If the nurse is working at
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 12:34 PM PST.
If the nurse is working at an emergency room, and there are no others available, then yes, she and the doctor and everyone else should be required to perform abortions.
If she doesn't like that she can
a) find a different nursing position, or
b) make it clear to the ER Administration that they cannot schedule her at anytime when they might reasonably expect she would be placed in that position.
Regarding Chris1974 up above, way to push the stereotypes, all florists are gay.
Re: your quote of Sullivan's quote, it's not quite clear if they are advocating withholding services at any time for a gay couple, or withholding services for a gay marriage only. I would imagine that Chris1974 would have no problem with that exemption, since as a gay man he states that all florists are gay.
I don't have a problem with florists boycotting gay marriage ceremonies. It seems pretty stupid, unlikely to occur, and I am not aware of such a monopoly in florism that the couple can't get flowers anywhere else. As long as the florist isn't somehow being subsidized with taxpayer dollars, then I'd say let a private businessperson to what that private businessperson wants to do.
Like a traitor
Submitted by alan (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 12:41 PM PST.
If a pharmacist is unable to in good conscience to perform the job of a pharmacist he is incapable of being a pharmacist.
He is infiltrating this profession under false pretenses.
If you feel the capitalist system is wrong and you work for the Defense Department and because of your personal belief you distribute secret intelligence to the Soviet Union, you have acquired your job under false pretenses.
It's the same with doctors, or pharmacists, or florists.
Civil rights are for everybody and if your personal imaginings bar you from respecting another's civil rights you directly undermine the foundation of society.
Like a traitor.
@ Brian: You might want to
Submitted by Lou Baye (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 12:42 PM PST.
@ Brian: You might want to think that one through a bit more.
Some publicly owned
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 12:43 PM PST.
Some publicly owned facilities maintain a list of certain private party vendors who are the only ones authorized to provide services to events held at that facility. Those "monopoly" vendors should not be allowed to boycott gay weddings. (But are there public facilities that only allow certain and specific florists to work the events there?)
RE: The Nurses...
Submitted by Riggsveda on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 12:58 PM PST.
In PA, where I help enforce the civil rights law known as the PA Human Relations Act, one has a right to freedom from discriminatory acts based on one's performance or assistance of, or refusal to perform or assist, an abortion. So that issue is effectively moot, not only here, but in many other states that provide the same protection at the state level. It's a straw man, but you'd never know it the way Bushco propagandized the "need" for protection at the federal level.
However, the really interesting part is when one person's rights cross another's, i.e., my right to not have to perform an abortion based on religious grounds, versus your belief that I am discriminating against you because your gender makes you uniquely vulnerable to the need for an abortion. But health and safety will trump protected class every time.
Compare and contrast
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 1:08 PM PST.
Compare and contrast alan
It's the same with doctors, or pharmacists, or florists.
Civil rights are for everybody and if your personal imaginings bar you from respecting another's civil rights you directly undermine the foundation of society.
Like a traitor.
with
www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/topic.aspx?topic=freedom_association
and
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/association.htm
As Riggsveda notes, it's a balance of interests, otherwise, I am forced to conclude that alan is a traitor since he advocates undermining our civil right to freedom of association.
No
Submitted by alan (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 1:18 PM PST.
Your freedom of association has nothing to do with my health or you ability to carry out your job lawfully.
If you think it does, then you should, in good conscience, find another job.
If you find your freedom of association undermining your ability to do a job you think you want either you must consider that one of them is wrong.
If, however, you persist in keeping your job and your vulgar association, you will inevitably undermine the very reason it exists because, at the least, you will have no respect for it.
No
Submitted by alan (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 1:20 PM PST.
And, though it, anyone who requires your services.
So it will be all about contempt. Your contempt for everyone else.
Your servers have a caching
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 1:25 PM PST.
Your servers have a caching problem or your databases have a synchronization issue or your moderators are insane.
alan, What on earth does a
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 1:31 PM PST.
alan,
What on earth does a florist boycotting a gay marriage have to do with your health?
And alan, it's about respect. My respect for everyone's rights, esp., their first amendment rights. The contempt shown here is by you, declaring others to be traitors, or vulgar, or contemptuous simply because they disagree with you, or because they, as private citizens, take actions you disagree with.
I don't see much of a right to get flowers from just any florist. To the extent that I do see how that would be more beneficial to society, I believe it is less so that respecting freedom of speech and association and balancing that with any state interest in reducing discrimination.
Right to rent? Right to obtain medical care, education, police protection, obtain memberships in various commercial societies, eat in public venues. Sure. Right to obtain flowers? Not so much.
Balance of interests, not force of disrespect, alan.
Public Accommodation
Submitted by Crissa (not verified) on Sun Mar. 8, 2009 3:59 PM PDT.
See a report in the volokh conspiracy.
Look, if you sell to all you sell to all. You don't get to pick and choose based upon religion, creed, skin color, block of the city, gender, and I guess we need to add in stupid things like gender identity, sexual preference, the color of your hair or who your parents were.
Your religion stops with my face. You can refuse to sell on Saturdays. But you can't refuse to sell to Catholics on Sunday and Protestants on Saturdays., our system doesn't work that way.
Seriously, your
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 1:46 PM PST.
Seriously, your servers/caches/database/moderators are sucking today.
RE: The Issue of Flowers...
Submitted by Riggsveda on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 2:00 PM PST.
Again let me come from my wonky compliance point of view. To sell anything to the general public makes one's business a place of public accommodation. Protected classes are protected from being denied public accommodation under specific civil rights laws. Now here's the key: if sexual orientation is not a protected class under the law, there is no illegality in refusing to serve gays. This is the reason that we have been trying to get sexual orientation included in an amendment to the PHRA in PA. Currently, the state cannot protect the rights of gays against discrimination.
But if a florist does business in a jurisdiction where it is illegal to discriminate against gays, refuses to sell to them, and raises a defense of sincere religious belief, I wouldn't be so sure that would hold up. There's a difference between an individual wishing to be excused from providing a service on religious grounds, and an entire business doing so. We know that when pharmacists refuse to provide birth control, they must ensure the customer can be served by someone else. I don't believe the law is so lenient with a company doing business with the beneral public.
And finally, to prove discrimination one must show that one has suffered an act of harm. To be denied service is an act of harm. But I don't see what act of harm a florist suffers in taking money from someone.
And finally, to prove
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 2:15 PM PST.
And finally, to prove discrimination one must show that one has suffered an act of harm. To be denied service is an act of harm. But I don't see what act of harm a florist suffers in taking money from someone.
Is being denied the service of flowers from one florist as great a harm as being denied the ability to rent, or to purchase a home? Or the right to eat?
The harm a florist suffers in taking money from someone falls along the lines of:
1) Freedom of speech
2) Freedom of religion
Must an Orthodox Jewish florist service weddings that occur on a Saturday?
It's a balance of interests and I am not thrilled with the idea of a judge thinks the issue is only that the florist suffers no harm in taking money.
For purposes of prima facie,
Submitted by Riggsveda on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 2:57 PM PST.
For purposes of prima facie, an act of harm is not a continuum where one picks and chooses what discrimination is more harmful and what is less. Only once the discrimination has been substantiated does the determination of remedy and liability come into play that weighs the amount of harm done.
Can a businessman use his religion as a reason to refuse to sell flowers to a person of another religion that he finds offensive? No, no matter how vehemently he believes that other religious adherent is evil or damned. There is a limit to religious exemption that has nothing to do with religious freedom (which is the right to worship as one pleases, not the right to force bigoted behavior on one's neighbors) or freedom of speech. A sincerely held belief is not carte blanche to demand the world subordinate itself to that belief.
Your given example is not comparable. An Orthodox Jew can refuse service on his Sabbath because it has nothing to do with discriminating against those whose Sabbath is on a different day. But he cannot offer his service on the Sabbath to some people, and deny it to others because of their protected classes. The florist in question does discriminate in offering his service.
You almost certainly no more
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 5:03 PM PST.
You almost certainly no more about the law than I, but this
For purposes of prima facie, an act of harm is not a continuum where one picks and chooses what discrimination is more harmful and what is less. Only once the discrimination has been substantiated does the determination of remedy and liability come into play that weighs the amount of harm done.
sounds more like a policy test than what judges examining balance of interests would find. Were the Jews harmed by the Nazi marching through Skokie? Were gays harmed by being excluded from a parade? Was a scout leader harmed by the Boy Scouts discrimination? Is Augusta Golf Club allowed to discriminate against women? Did the Phoenix Country Club recently lose their fight to discriminate against women?
Balance of interests. (And balance of harms) The courts have ruled many times that discrimination exist and legally continue.
If a court can allow a physician to withhold abortion, why wouldn't a court allow a florist to withhold flowers for one particular kind of ceremony?
If a court can force any random florist to serve flowers at a gay marriage, why do you think a court force an Orthodox Jewish Florist to serve flowers on Saturday? If courts can force a Muslim taxi driver into carrying passengers with alchohol, and force a particular florist to serve flowers at a gay wedding, what makes you think that court wouldn't force an Orthodox Jewish florist to serve flowers on a Saturday?
Note that I think the court can force the taxi driver into duty because taxi driving is an industry with a limited monopoly (taxi medallions). But by your reasoning, it's all the same. A florist needs to serve any ceremony without regard to how minimal the harm is to the party being denied service of finding an alternative florist.
What a florist boycotting a gay marriage has to do with my healt
Submitted by alan (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 3:35 PM PST.
What a florist boycotting a gay marriage has to do with my health.
It isn't about flowers, per se, it's about being a public person. Business is never private, it's always a public act.
The florist is saying he can invoke the same principal that pharmacists and doctors in other cases pretend to when they argue they are ethically able to avoid even mentioning alternatives or treatments that their religion has a problem with.
These people are, at best, in the wrong profession.
They are undermining a specific public trust represented by their license and in doing so express a self-righteous contempt for the trust in which the license was issued, as if they had the right of deciding life or death for the person before them.
And that is much like the trust violated by a spy.
why have special rights for religious maniacs?
Submitted by alan (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 3:48 PM PST.
Another element in this is why do religious maniacs think they have special rights that trump those of anyone else?
If you are going to argue that you have some public right to do this you are making the case that your rights are not religious but general, making them human or civil rights.
Trying to say it is a right based in religion is making it one step removed. You have to argue it as a civil right and when you do that and say it is your religious belief you are bringing your religious belief, as a religious belief, into secular society. Secular society cannot accommodate that except in a way that describes your religion as a political opinion. If we did that all religious organizations would immediately be understood, legally, as political parties and treated in law accordingly.
In fact I think this would be the right thing to do.
However, if you now think it's your political right to discriminate against someone, you've got another think coming.
never privileged but dis-established
Submitted by alan (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 4:18 PM PST.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are different things, they are separate clauses in the First Amendment. They are separated by semi-colons. As is the right of people peaceably to assemble.
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.
'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' means there may be no religion having legal precedence over another, in any way, presumptively, lawfully or as a matter of 'tradition'.
In this way, 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion', freedom of religion directly presupposes freedom from religion because if you are then going to be respecting someone's religious right as religious rights, you will establish the basis of a permanent antagonism and division.
What if someone else's religious ideas expressly countervail yours and they sue you? How could it be decided if both views are equal?
Religion here is never privileged, but dis-established.
So, florists won't be able
Submitted by Tilli (Mojave Desert) (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 5:45 PM PST.
So, florists won't be able to sell to florists?
Depends on if it's their own money
Submitted by anandine on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 6:05 PM PST.
If the catholics want their own charity, and they don't put any public money into it, only what fall out of the tithing basket, they can give it to whoever they want to give it to. If the are using public money, they follow public rules.
Florists?!! What next?!!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 6:48 PM PST.
Florists?!! What next?!! Caterers? Hairstylists? The make up guys at Glamour Shots? Realtors? Airline... people who used to be called stewards? Fashion designers? Wedding planners? Catholic Priests? Unitarian ministers?
If all those professions suddendly boycott teh gays, gay weddings will become entirely DIY. And somehow I don't think anyone will notice the difference.
And one more thing
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 6:55 PM PST.
I forgot the Baptist organ players and music directors. Wouldn't be a wedding without one of those.
I'm going anon on this
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 8:44 PM PST.
I'm going anon on this one.
In my city is a Catholic Central High School/Sport factory with a long-serving, well loved basketball coach who's taken her teams to numerous state championships. She's very discreet but everyone in sports and the school here knows who her partner is. The matter never comes up. No one cares. She's a good person.
There's a story like this in every city, and in some cities, nearly every parish. The pecksniffs like to call it cafeteria Catholicism. Very well; start enforcing the law. Drive out the gays. Start calling out parents of child-bearing age with only two or three children. You won't have enough Catholics left to light the candles for mass.
I've heard this one before...
Submitted by MaryContrary (not verified) on Sun Mar. 8, 2009 6:27 AM PST.
And I'm sure this Catholic High School is a wonderful place. But the test as to whether or not they are truly human beings is not whether they tolerate a discreet, gay person.
The real question is, would they accept two? Or five? Or 10?
Why do I think that liberals
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 9:44 PM PST.
Why do I think that liberals would not defend the Nazis marching in Skokie anymore (but would defend a parade for Hamas?)
Florists?
Submitted by fostert (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 10:46 PM PST.
They're worried about florists? Really? I've only met two kinds of florists, female and gay. And I certainly haven't met a florist who would have a problem with a gay wedding. As a side note, the last wedding I attended was as a member of the wedding party. The groom had a critical corsage failure, and needed immediate attention. So we brought the groom's brother's girlfriend, who was a florist. So I got to say "back off people, she's a florist." Few people ever get to say that line.
I'm all in favor of this idea
Submitted by MaryContrary (not verified) on Sun Mar. 8, 2009 6:35 AM PST.
I think everyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason.
One caveat: Every business must put a big sign on the front door listing the groups and classes of people they are not going to serve, and the reasons for them.
I would find this very helpful when determining where to spend my money.
Putting Up A Sign?
Submitted by steverino on Sun Mar. 8, 2009 7:57 AM PST.
Like this?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009014.php
steverino
If I own a resteraunt...
Submitted by JeffF (not verified) on Sun Mar. 8, 2009 10:59 AM PDT.
If I owned a restaurant should i be able to put up a sign in the window "no gay couples"?
How about if I just create a special seating section for them?
Yes to both. Bad business
Submitted by Brian on Sun Mar. 8, 2009 11:22 AM PDT.
Yes to both. Bad business practice should be lawful, even if dumb.
Back to the 'it should be
Submitted by Crissa (not verified) on Sun Mar. 8, 2009 3:35 PM PDT.
Back to the 'it should be lawful to seat black people at the back of the bus'.
Ugh.
If you don't want to do weddings for gay people, only do weddings with the church that doesn't do gay people... It's pretty simple.
If you don't want a gay person to walk up and buy your flowers, don't sell to just anyone. White-only clubs have been doing this for ages.
What does it prove?
Submitted by Varecia on Mon Mar. 9, 2009 7:29 AM PDT.
I haven't heard anyone actually examine what such a refusal in any circumstance actually accomplishes in terms of ethics or morality. If the employee wouldn't solicit such business of his or her own volition, then having to deal with it while working for someone else wouldn't be a moral lapse for the individual. By taking a job that includes such activity in its description, the employee signals his or her approval. I'm just not seeing how any of it puts an employee in a difficult moral position. They took a job that includes activity they claim to oppose, but accepting the job anyway demonstrates they don't actually oppose it. No more moral conflict.
Just a reminder, Catholics
Submitted by Catholic student (not verified) on Mon Apr. 13, 2009 1:21 PM PDT.
Just a reminder, Catholics oppose gay marriage / civil unions, not gay people.
The Catholic florist who follows Church teachings would not have a problem selling flowers to gays for non-marital occasions such as a birth or death in the family, a graduation, etc. Catholics believe that gay marriage undermines society.
Forcing a Catholic florist to participate in a gay wedding ceremony should be illegal. As it has been mentioned, it's that person's business loss.
It's not about freedom to discriminate against gay people, it's freedom to refuse to celebrate something one disagrees with.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
