Silly religious businesses opening legal issues due to faith

[grammafreddy]

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/cana ... ners190712

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/18 ... l-hearing/

http://christiangovernance.ca/news/*bleep* ... -bb-owners


... and there's lots more on the Net about them.

[grammafreddy]

Ok found it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/wildflower-inn-vermont-gay-marriage-lawsuit_n_1826218.html

That's a different one than the one I was talking about but also says that a business can't discriminate against gay folks.

[Nom_de_Plume]

Oh I'd forgotten about the B&B in Grandforks.
they definitely shut their doors after.

[sooperphreek]

Am thinking back to the people who had a B&B and refused to rent to a gay couple due to their religious beliefs. They lost.

i would have said it was booked and invited some friends over

[fluffy]

i would have said it was booked and invited some friends over

Of course you would have. And if anyone asked you straight out about your true motivations you likely would have lied about that too. And all the time thinking you were justified in your actions.

Standing up for your beliefs means just that, standing up.

[cliffy1]

i would have said it was booked and invited some friends over

What century are we in again? The Charter guarantees equal rights to everyone regardless of race creed, colour or sexual orientation. But we all know that the application of the Charter varies according to financial status so why not bigotry too?

[tincanjam]

I know this will probably initially confuse you; Why is it ok for the customer to discriminate against the shop owner but not ok for the shop owner to discriminate against the client. Either it all discrimination should be illegal or none of it should be illegal. Penalizing the shop owner for what he believes is a type of discrimination. In fact it is a much greater form of discrimination then the one faced by the client. In that case the person could merely go to a different store, this discrimination cannot be avoided so easily. In other words if the government wants to be so hyper controlling with its politically correct attitudes, the client should also be charged for discriminating against the shop owner, as should be the prosecutor and the judge if he imposes any discriminatory penalties.

[Nebula]

I know this will probably initially confuse you; Why is it ok for the customer to discriminate against the shop owner but not ok for the shop owner to discriminate against the client. Either it all discrimination should be illegal or none of it should be illegal. Penalizing the shop owner for what he believes is a type of discrimination. In fact it is a much greater form of discrimination then the one faced by the client. In that case the person could merely go to a different store, this discrimination cannot be avoided so easily. In other words if the government wants to be so hyper controlling with its politically correct attitudes, the client should also be charged for discriminating against the shop owner, as should be the prosecutor and the judge if he imposes any discriminatory penalties.

Would you say the same thing if the customer had been black? (As in, I won't sell you flowers for your wedding because you're black.)

[tincanjam]

That is missing my point, he could be discriminating against me because I am German. I am addressing the issue of fairness, why should it be that he is not allowed to discriminate against me, but I would be allowed to discriminate against him.

If I was the shop keeper I would sell the flowers.
If I was the one discriminated against, I would not use it as an excuse so I could engage in my own discrimination.

We need a better solution.

"Would you say the same thing if the customer had been black? (As in, I won't sell you flowers for your wedding because you're black.)"

[coffeeFreak]

It is all fine and dandy to stand by religious convictions, but if those convictions are only focused on gay people and not on all the others classed as sinners by the bible, I would suggest the business owner is a hypocrite, which is a sin too, right?

[sooperphreek]

whats wrong with discriminating against gays? its not like gays have a problem discriminating against people themselves. thats the hypocrisy.

[grammafreddy]

whats wrong with discriminating against gays? its not like gays have a problem discriminating against people themselves. thats the hypocrisy.

LOL

Now THAT'S logic for ya ... not.

[fluffy]

I know this will probably initially confuse you; Why is it ok for the customer to discriminate against the shop owner but not ok for the shop owner to discriminate against the client.

Was there discrimination on the part of the client in this case? The article linked to in the first post says the charges are being laid under the "Consumer Protection Act" which would be a particular set of rules applying to business owners. The flower shop could have a pretty good fight on their hands to claim exemption to the law on religious grounds.

[tincanjam]

"Was there discrimination on the part of the client in this case?"

I'm saying that the clients law suit against the shop owners is a type of discrimination. The "victims" were discriminated against and are returning that discrimination with a counter discrimination. I think turning the other cheek is the only noble way to deal with this kind of issue. Imho opinion the courts should consider this an issue for public discussion rather then legal action. To me it simply looks like the client wants to do the victimizing.

[fluffy]

I'm saying that the clients law suit against the shop owners is a type of discrimination. The "victims" were discriminated against and are returning that discrimination with a counter discrimination.

So you're saying the lawsuit itself is discriminatory in that it discriminates against the flower shop for discriminating? The initial refusal of service was illegal in that it was based on the sexual orientation of the customer, a discrimination clearly prohibited by the local statues. The lawsuit is based only upon that original refusal, and hardly fits the definition of discrimination.