After this incredibly petty story of blatant bigotry — florists in Cranston, RI, refuse to deliver flowers to an atheist girl’s house — the local journalists are so ethically compromised that they think they need to run a poll to determine whether discrimination is popular or not. Even if you disagree with Ahlquist, why would you think that open injustice is a commendable practice?
Which florist would you patronize?
Florists who refuse to deliver to Ahlquist: 30.1%
Florist who delivers to Ahlquist: 64.2%
Makes no difference: 5.7%
the local journalists are so ethically compromised that they think they need to run a poll to determine whether discrimination is popular or not
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The local journalists are so ethically compromised they go out of their way to attract bigots to their site. They intentionally design advertisements to get them to read the paper.
These sorts of polls have nothing to do with “determining” anything. They are ads. Traffic boosters.
I am especially amused (and appalled) by those commenters who call atheists “hypocrites” (often misspelled) for using American currency bearing the “In God We Trust” motto. When militant Christians decided to confuse god and mammon by inscribing their deity on the money, how did that impose an obligation on nonbelievers to refrain from using cash for its normal commercial purposes? But poor reasoning skills may be why they’re god-botherers in the first place.
I think it’s important to Pharyngulate polls like this if only to make a few xtian assholes think they are a minority that is being vilified by the majority. They’re mostly too stupid to understand that it’s unscientific and ridiculous so it will still send a message.
Cue the RI bashing in 3…2…1…Now, if we’re going to bash RI, may we avoid the arguments of “it’s ugly”? Or “there’s nothing to do”? I’m telling ya, go to town, but let’s keep the arguments on topic, eh? I am Rhode Island’s harshest critic, out of love, but let’s leave the weather and coastline out of it?
But seriously, it makes me sick what these Cranston florists are doing. All of this Cranston crap has inspired me to do something. What, I don’t know. I sure have galvanized a lot of people on facebook and I plan on attending Reason Rally. Any ideas? Help me bring awareness to Rhode Island! I’m you’re boots on the ground here.
mostly online polls just act as an attempt at affirmation… you see a lot of them on political pages because they need to be told they’re right.
Meanwhile,
“Contributions to prayer-banner challenger Ahlquist approach $40,000”
http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/01/contributions-t.html
America? Didn’t that place used to be important?
Xians are supposed to turn their other cheeks: but surely they’re not supposed to then fart from between them.
The reader comments there are breathtakingly demented.
I’m not sure I’d call it injustice. You have no right to be served by a florist. Sure, it’s a dick move by said florists…and as far as I can tell the entire town is chock full of horrible people; but justice was served in this case when the school was forced to remove the banner.
BTW, can someone tell me why my name seems to show up as a random string of characters?
I’m not sure I’d call it injustice. You have no right to be served by a florist.
Turn it around a bit. If the florist said “we don’t deliver flowers to black people”, would you call that an injustice?
If the florist said “we don’t take delivery orders from women”, would you call that an injustice?
Businesses are allowed to serve who they want on an individual level. They should not be allowed to discriminate against classes of people because of the group they belong to. And some classes are protected by law and discriminating against them can get you into serious trouble. Religion is, as far as I recall, one of those protected classes (along with race, gender and ethnicity).
Not probably the florists in question will say that they don’t like her personally and that’s why – they weren’t discriminating because she and the folks involved are atheists, but because they have a “no Jessica Ahlquist” policy. I am not a lawyer and I don’t know if that’s actually a valid defense against charges of discrimination. But highlighting their behavior and the fact that it might be running afoul of the law is certainly something that needs to be done, and I’m glad that the FFRF is going to file a complaint with the state about it, even if the state decides to ignore it. (And they probably will – the majority view is that hating atheists is okay after all, and it takes a brave politician or bureaucrat to go against popular hate).
Doesn’t look random to me. 32 hex characters? Looks like an MD5 signature of something (such as your email address).
But they’re not refusing to serve atheists. They’re refusing to serve the person that was responsible for upholding the separation of church and state.
I’m glad it’s getting publicity because it highlights how petty and hateful these florists are. However, they are not discriminating against a class of people. They are discriminating against her particularly.
“(And they probably will – the majority view is that hating atheists is okay after all, and it takes a brave politician or bureaucrat to go against popular hate)”
Luckily Governor Chafee supports Jessica, and has stated that the prayer banner was a clear violation of the First Amendment. Cranston doesn’t seem to care about his opinion, however. To my knowledge, he hasn’t made any statement about the Cranston florist controversy.
I’m writing to the governor today. It’s a start.
Hmm, maybe it’s because I logged in using my Facebook account. Ah well.
Because she’s an atheist.
Seriously, this is like saying a gay bashing isn’t a hate crime because the yokels killed the kid that they thought blew a kiss at them. It wasn’t GAY people they were attacking, but this one kid whose gayness was the root of their hate.
It’s not because she’s an atheist. If she were a Hindu who wanted the banner removed because it excluded polytheists, they’d refuse her just the same. It’s her actions that is the impetus for their refusal.
Not to say her actions were wrong. She was absolutely correct. However, it is not her lack of religion they are mad about. It’s the fact that she won’t be silent about her rights as an American to not be force-fed fairy stories.
It’s still because she’s not a christian.
This is stupid. Under your definition a town could run out on a rail every black person and just smugly say that they all didn’t like those people personally and it had nothing to do with race.
So refusing to deliver flowers is the same as “running out on a rail” and one atheist is “all black people”?
Hyperbole much?
Might I also remind you that there are florists who are being bullied into going the blackballing by groups that are very vocal about the religious aspect of it being their motivation.
You’re basically saying that a group can refuse business to an interracial couple and that doesn’t count as discriminatory because they’re against the ACTION of mixing races, not the races themselves.
Your obtuseness is either chronic or intentional.
Also helpful hint: intellectual dishonesty, especially where my quote is right above and can easily be checked, does not help your credibility.
Before I thought you were just mistaken or uninformed; now I suspect you are either malicious or actively protecting the majority’s privilege to torment.
Again, it’s not because she is not a christian. I used Hindu as an example, but if a Christian who supported the separation of church and state sued to have the banner removed….they’d take the same actions.
Either you can refuse service or you cannot. They think she is ruining their town (because they are ignorant assholes who refuse to be drug into the 21st century). It’s not because of what she is, but what she did.
By your definition, I couldn’t refuse service to a black convicted rapist without it having to be about his race.
But they’re not refusing to serve atheists.
You don’t know that, unless you know more about the story than what is being reported right now. What the story says is that they refused to take an order from the Freedom of Religion Foundation on behalf of Jessica Ahlquist. That’s it. You’re jumping to the assumption that it’s individual discrimination and not group discrimination.
And that’s why it’s good that it’s being reported and a case is being filed with the state. Because it may be that the florists hates non-Christians. It may be that the florists want to avoid negative publicity in the town. It may be all sorts of reasons, but unless it’s reported and investigated there is no way of knowing if it’s discrimination against a class, or if the Chamber of Commerce of the town has colluded to deny services to Jessica (which would be a different class of problem), or if it’s just some petty people who hate her personally. You don’t know. We don’t know. Nobody knows until someone looks.
I didn’t think the florists refused to send the flowers because they were bigoted.
I thought they were terrified of losing Christians’ business. Small business owners make a lot of compromises to stay afloat.
And you’re assuming it is. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty and all of that jazz.
I am glad it is being reported.
@Woof #9
I know that legal_eagle guy keeps repeating the same lies over and over again acting as if that it’s OK that christians get special rights because they are in the majority.
No. You’re an idiot.
This is the same as refusing service to a interracial couple that won a law suit that overturned anti-race mixing laws. Saying it’s not about the religion, when they’re angry because they won a case against the religion is obtuse.
False dilemma. There are many ways where you can establish protocols for appropriate refusals. In fact we have them. Despite the signs to the contrary places of public accommodation must by default accommodate. There are narrows ways in which they can legally refuse accommodation. Because I don’t like you, typically isn’t one. One can refuse service for disruption or other behavior or criminal acts but not because of ‘shits and giggles’
For example. When the Phelps had their tires cut the town mechanic refused to help them. He broke the fucking law. He could have been sued for that. He cannot deny the Phelps service simply because he doesn’t like their philosophy or their legal actions. It is discriminatory. Refusing a Poly couple from enrolling their kid in day care is discriminatory. Refusing a gay couple from a restaurant for kissing is discriminatory.
There is no way they can accurately argue that they are upset with the Jessica because of the law suit without it being religiously motivated.
One florist agreed to do it and backed down because of community pressure.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal protection, not a foundation of rational discussion.
Sure it is. You are assuming they are refusing strictly because she is an atheist. I am assuming they are refusing because of the law suit.
Do you have any evidence they are persuing the same actions with any other atheists in town? Do you have evidence of a pattern of behavior that shows them to be bigoted against non-christians? If so, share. Otherwise, you’re going off half-cocked.
Nameless you’re starting to show the signs of a concern troll
a) Hyper literalism: The Solomon
b) Hyper legalism: Rule Lawyer
c) Binary thinking: Hyperbodoid
d) Commenting while clearly ignorant of facts mentioned previous: Amnesiac
@jeannieinpa #27
I think the 3 in Cragston refused to do it out of bigotry, but the one in another town who agreed then refused was pressured into doing so by christians. As you noted, it was a financial decision. Do you drive away a few potential customers or many potential customers?
First, I’m not sure why I’m nameless. I signed in with my facebook account and that’s the name I was given. It won’t let me change it.
I’m not familiar with the terminology there. I’m only being as literal as I normally am. If I’m not welcome here, just say it.
What facts am I clearly ignorant of? They refused service to the girl they don’t like. I don’t see how that’s signs that they hate all atheists. They probably do, but I prefer evidence to suppositions.
I explained this. I’ll do it again slowly.
IF IT IS BECAUSE OF THE LAW SUIT IT IS RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED BIGOTRY
Law suit was over what: Christianity being present in secular institution. People who lost are mad because they want Christianity promoted. Ergo it is motivated by religion. You can’t do that. You can’t refuse a gay couple because you are a christian. In fact you pretty much can’t and SHOULDN’T refuse someone for reasons outside of the scope of your business.
Someone starting a fight at your bar==+
Someone known to start fights at bars==+
Someone who is known to refuse to pay their tab==+
Someone who isn’t of your philosophical thought == –
A) the response to her is people mad at her, and attacking her because of the atheism. Well documented tweet and e-mails from her peers and neighbors and politicians
B) A florist did agree but backed down due to community pressure.
C) You can’t be mad about the lawsuit without it being religiously motivated. In fact this a matter of law now because of the law suit.
That depends on Rhode Island state law. FFRF says they will “file a complaint with the state Commission for Human Rights.”
Now, this may just mean that they want to send a message even though they know it won’t be acted upon. Or it may mean that they’ve looked at state law and they have reason to think this type of business constitutes a public accommodation according to Rhode Island.
Law suit finding==Banner was religiously motivated
People upset over the banner being removed thus by a matter of law are upset because of religious motivations
Discriminating because of that thus is religious discrimination.
It is still an injustice even if the law doesn’t take it into account.
The law should allow people to go about their business and not be punished outside of the court for matters that were entirely litigious.
So the moron troll would say this, too, I suppose:
I’m not sure I’d call it injustice. You have no right to be served
by a floristat a lunch counter.Wow, it’s even one of those polls where you can
spam the crap out of itvote multiple times simply by refreshing the page. I didn’t realize such polls existed anymore; I figured people had wised up.This poll is practically BEGGING for pharyngulation!
Well if you’re going to come out with passive-aggressive crap like that, fuck off.
Even if their motivations were caused by their fairy tale religion does not mean they hate her because of her lack of said religion.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I’d stumbled into Reddit or /b/. I thought I was on the blog of a skeptic and science teacher. Instead of having a useful argument, the malice flows rapidly even amongst your allies; starting with name calling as soon as you disagree. Might as well call me a cunt and get it over with.
I wonder if Ms Ahlquist can get gelato.
So it doesn’t take a brave florist to go against popular hate?
If I were one of the florists in question and had no family or other employees to be concerned about, I hope I would have the courage to personally deliver flowers to Jessica.
Having a family and/or employees changes the rules of the game — they would become guilty by association and unfairly jeopardized by my personal act.
And here’s an FYI: “In God We Trust” has appeared on our currency (i.e., paper money) since 1957, but first appeared on our coins in 1864, and has been on all of our coins since 1938.
A lot of good that did us to avoid the financial crisis of the past three-plus years!
FFS it doesn’t matter. You can’t discriminate BASED on religion.
A baptist can’t legally discriminate against another baptist who doesn’t share his doctrine. What part of this do you not get? Or more likely now, just refuse to get.
Jackass, you got a 3 post rule of politeness from me, then you strawmanned me in an incredibly stupid way and I stopped giving you the benefit of doubt.
Do you think it’s RATIONAL to use shamming tactics and emotional manipulation?
I think this is a reasonable point.
@Rev
Which just makes me boggle that people can defend this as not unjust. It isn’t just attacking Jessica but it is attacking the florists too for daring to do what they’re in the business of doing.
Seriously what downside is there to having the law prevent business discrimination or marginalization like this
People bitch about how it infringes upon the freedom of businesses, but it also protects the freedom of businesses by allowing them to hide behind the law when principle and ethics will not protect them.
A bit of overkill. The bigots are so desperate for attention that they will do just about anything including kill people for it.
sc_537130c95ebd60f09422c20d99cdc3c7 says: nothing intelligent. Just a troll trolling.
I suppose being stupid works as well as anything. SC is a troll using passive aggressive tactics to derail a discussion. BTW, its style is very similar to forest spirit. Say something really stupid and hateful and then claim persecution when people attack it. I’d guess sc has a never ending supply of sockpuppets and roams from blog to blog being banned often.
Gee sc, didn’t your mother love you? No, doesn’t look like it. Can’t blame her. Trolls are boring.
@Raven
I don’t think SC is trolling persay. I think SC has a unexamined obtuse libertarian view of what marginalization and discrimination is. The type of view that’s easy to hold when you’ve never had to really hide yourself in fear that if people really knew you the community as a whole would destroy you or drive you away.
Not that it matters, but did the florists refuse to deliver to Ahlquist or did they refuse to take an order from the FFRF?
Totally. I actually have some sympathy for the florists. I personally don’t agree with not delivering flowers to her but I also understand that they have to look out for their livelihood and the livelihood of their employees should they become the next target of rage by the idiots who were attacking Ahlquist.
It’s easy to sit back and be critical of their lack of courage but there’s a little more involved. And not delivering to her isn’t necessarily a sign they hate atheists. They may just love their business and employees more. Of course it also isn’t evidence they don’t hate atheists but who’s to know without getting it from the horse’s, or rather florist’s, mouth.
Unfortunately it doesn’t protect them from loss of business.
Oh I totally support the florists as far as I know. I think it’s disgusting that the law won’t protect their freedom of enterprise.
True, but irrelevant.
And it works both ways. Fundie xians are right down in the basement of hate along with the atheists these days.
Atheists are one of the most hated minorities in the USA.
The other three are fundie xians, the Tea Party, and Moslems.
The fundies earned their place as a hated minority by lots and lots of hard work. The kooks in Cranston have just added to it. As their magic book they never read says, “As you sow, so shall you reap.”
Which was my point. If the law required them to do so they could shrug their shoulders and say “hey, would if I could, but the man won’t let me” and hide behind plausible deniability.
I’m an atheist in Kentucky. If I come out of the closet, I could lose my job and find no other. My wife and kids will have to subsist on food stamps…if I don’t get denied by a social worker that doesn’t like my lack of Baptist beliefs.
Don’t presume to know me.
Funny how some folks think they are the only ones who think skeptically. In this case, there is prima facie evidence that intimdation is being run by Xians in town against the young woman who brought a lawsuit that should have never even had a trial. Any competent lawyer would tell them to take down or change the banner. So my null hypothesis is that this intimidation is happening. I am skeptical of what you are trying to do? Are you saying there isn’t some semi-organized intimidation and backlash going on, or are you taking the morally bankrupt liberturd position that a business has control on how it operates, even in the face of anti-discrimination laws. The very same laws that protect atheists.
So show some fucking understanding then. This child is doing what you’re afraid to do and getting similar consequences to what you’re afraid of. At least have either the courage or empathy to give support in an anonymous environment.
There are brave, moral, and principled politicians, bureaucrats, flortists, and even xians.
There just don’t even seem to be very many.
So what is the point of this gibberish. That it is OK to be a coward, immoral, a hater, and an opportunistic sociopathic troll? Well, common doesn’t make it right or desirable.
Yeah we agree. The situation for lack of a better word sucks.
The same civil rights laws that bar discrimination based on race and religion also have provisions that bar punishment or reprisals against persons for seeking a redress of breaches to their civil rights.
IF (hypothetical) the florists (esp. the out-of-town one) are refusing to deliver to this young girl out of fear, then the life lesson is that “bullying works”. Hate is just fine as long as it is directed towards a minority. Maybe Cranston’s bookstores (if any) should start stocking up on Mein Kampf, The Protocols of Zion, and Thomas Dixon’s book, The Ku Klux Klan (1905).
Oh, we knew you well enough by about your third contribution. You’re not as special as you obviously think.
Naw. You are a lying green skinned warty troll living under the information superhighway.
I don’t believe a word of what you say or would say.
Who would want to. You seem stupid, mentally disturbed, obnoxious, and are wasting our time. Another internet troll with a mental age of 10.
You misunderstand.
The brave are rightfully denoted as brave because they are on one end of a bell curve.
Most merchants are not soldiers. Their main concern is sustaining themselves and their family. The politics around them take secondary if any, priority to ensuring survival. They want to be able to just go about their business without trouble. They can’t risk their own family for a stranger all the time.
The brave are praised because they allow the average to exist.
I think sc_537130c95ebd60f09422c20d99cdc3c7 is absolutely right that they’re most likely not discriminating against Jessica Ahlquist because she’s an atheist, but because she’s one o’ them uppity ones. Doesn’t know her place, etc. etc.
Why they say it’s not injustice is beyond me. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s just good ol’ fashioned American-style “We hate the freedom to nonconform” shaming.
So, is there a plan to extricate her from that podunk country? Maybe send her up here? The Harperland situation is a bit of a blip.
For purposes of discrimination SCOTUS has classified not believing in deities as a religious position, and it is protected under the same laws that protect all real religions.
Some of the arguments I’m hearing from the apologists sound just like the BS I heard back in the ’60s when integration was happening. And they show the same lack of backbone now as they did then. Deja vu all over again.
Those florists are either bigots or cowards, and if the latter they are essentially enabling the bullying and ostracism of a sixteen year old girl.
Are people seriously suggesting that every florist in the Cranston area is only worried about loss of business? That otherwise they just happen to be fine, upstanding citizens who wouldn’t dream of joining in with the majority of the rest of their town in condemning Jessica?
@We #58
So what would this law do? Require people to shop at businesses? If I don’t like what a business owner is doing, then I don’t have to patronize their business. It’s that simple. We have the freedom to be jerks. For example I stopped patronizing a restaurant because they put a flyer for a creationist lecture in their window. They lost business for supporting a position I don’t like. There’s nothing illegal about what the business did, but it’s still my right not to buy what they’re selling for any reason legal or otherwise.
If a business was reasonably sure that delivering flowers to one person would result in harm to him or his business, he shouldn’t be forced to take that risk. It should be voluntary. We should recognize that sometimes people are thrust into no-win situations and the only option is the one that sucks least.
DaveL@64 makes an excellent point. IANAL, and for that matter IANAA*, but I’d guess this would be the grounds on which FFRF think they have a case.
*I Am Not An American
No, there’s at least one that would if they could but can’t.
Look, it’s easy to demean people for doing something out of greed, but it’s a fucking florist. This isn’t some CEO liquefying jobs and benefits so he can get another yacht full of hookers. This is a business or branch manager trying to second guess whether they can stay afloat to next quarter. They can’t ethically risk the livelihoods of their employees or family like that if they think the threat is that great, especially if the law won’t back them up on it.
The same thing it does with the highly intelligent and educated people born here.
Pay them a fraction of what they could make as a roughneck in the oil patch.
as I said
by removing the ability to discriminate you also protect people from blow back from not discriminating. The big bad gov takes on the blame rather than the merchant. And they can’t just go else where because everyone is held to that standard. It defuses the situation.
The minorities are protected, shop owners get to save face, and everyone can go about their fucking lives without trying to get in someone’s grill.
Your way only protects bigots, my way protects everyone.
@Loud #71
I think most businesses would accept any customer they can get. It’s only a rare few that would refuse to take someone’s money.
It’s easy to sit in judgement of others when you have nothing to risk. How many of us can honestly say they’d sacrifice their livelyhood and the livelyhood of others on a principle? Unfortunately bullying does work and the only way for it to stop working is to make the choice ourselves. If we force that choice on others, we become the bully.
I saw at least two commentors claim to be “agnostic” before giving the usual diatribe about how “no-one was hurt so the banner is fine” (irony is lost on some people) and that it’s her own fault for starting trouble (spectacularly missing the point).
Is agnosticism the new accomodationism?
Bullshit. Taking the stick out of someone’s hand that they’re using to beat someone with is not fucking bullying.
That’s libertarian bullshit. Forcing someone to play nice so we can all avoid the headache isn’t bullying.
More importantly, I am not happy about the idea that my life or business must suffer so that YOU can hold onto a smug ideology of ‘fairness’.
@We Are Ing #75
I get that, Ing, I really do. But it’s just so fucking infuriating. Every apologist above is essentially saying that ‘yeah, it sucks, but what can they do?’
Is the take away message from all of this that with enough societal pressure a business can be forced into discrimination against a group, or an individual, via the spectre of, at best, loss of earnings, and at worst, violence?
FUCK THAT. I seriously hope if I was in the same position as one of those florists then I would make the ethically correct decision even in the face of that threat to my business.
Cthulhu, the idiots are out this morning. I guess alverant must have gone to school in Cranston, Rhode Island and missed most of what happened in the last 200 years.
It’s been illegal for public businesses to discrimate for almost all my entire life. It’s part of the civl rights acts of the 1960’s. That includes race, religion, gender, and so on.
Those laws were passed because a lot of businesses discriminated against nonwhites, mostly black people. They even had whites only drinking fountains and bathrooms in some places.
Guess what. The world didn’t end in the 1960’s. And things are a lot better for a whole lot of people since then. These laws are part of our societal survival package.
Societies with a lot of discrimination and intergroup conflicts have a history of collapsing. Just look at what happened in the Soviet Union, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, or South Africa.
@We #77
Sorry but I don’t see reality working that way. I don’t see the bigots saying, “Oh you had no choice. You had to or else the gubment would shut you down. OK we forgive you. I’d like a dozen roses please.” What I see is the bigots saying, “You should have stood up to the gubment! I’m never coming here again!”
I don’t see blame as something that’s always an unchanging quantity. What you describe would cause the business and the goverment to be blamed (unjustly but still blamed) in equal amounts. Blame can grow, as well as shrink, when you add more people.
Or to borrrow a Buddhist saying, “Love is like a candle, its life is not shortened when it is used to light other candles.” (the original is much more poetic). Blame is the same way.
Which is why a government and law should exist. To take the burden off them. The burden is too much for the individual to carry, so the society will do it for them.
We were NOT bullies for forcing the integration of schools.
Updated results on the poll:
4,930 votes
Florists who refuse to deliver to Ahlquist: 19.2% (949)
Florist who delivers to Ahlquist: 77.1% (3,803)
Makes no difference: 3.6% (178)
What would they do? Go to another business that would discriminate? One couldn’t because that business would be punished by the gov. It removes the issue from sight.
Musical Symphony for example had a long history of being biased towards white men. I’m sure there was moaning and bitching about “what do you expect us to do? Have quotas?” The actual solution was to blind auditions. No one can be discriminated against and no one can be accused of bias. Everyone saves face and is protected.
Yeah and I’m saying my solution is that no one gets a candle and the Gov turns on the light.
Even if my solution isn’t perfect, it is still better than allowing mob rule and intimidation.
I feel impelled to point out that in two of these cases (I’ll leave you and Arnold Toynbee to work out which two, raven), the result was not collapse, but a negotiated end to armed conflict, and a degree of reconciliation.
@KG
Wouldn’t that still support the point thought?
Either societies re-conciliate and find a way to defuse conflict or they collapse
@raven #82
So when a business does lose money because of public pressure, who repays them? Seriously, how do you plan to protect people from the economic consequences of doing the right thing? What you’re doing is blaming the victim and shifting the focus away from the root cause.
Unfortunately that is an economic reality. Unless you’re going to supplement the lost income and give protection to all involved, there’s not much you can do except try to get society to change. If enough people stop going to a bar because they serve a certain group or hired a janitor of a certain race, what should the bar do?
@Alverant
Yeah keep repeating the claim. That’ll make it true.
@We Are Ing #84
I 100% agree with you.
As an aside, I still don’t think that these florists were motivated purely by loss of earnings anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are motivated by hatred just like the majority of Cranston seems to be.
Well sure.
Sometimes countries stare into the abyss and decide not to commit suicide.
We’ve done it in the USA ourselves. In the current case, by passing civil right legislation in the 1960’s. Which aren’t perfect but do work.
Don’t forget that our current president is a guy named Obama who is half black. That wouldn’t have been believable or imaginable 50 years ago. He could still be riding in the back of the bus.
@Alverant #90
In your view, they should stop serving the certain group, or fire the janitor.
Again, FUCK THAT.
I don’t know what the answer is. I know that every fibre of my being wants to say they should do absolutely nothing. We can’t fight bigotry by giving in to such tactics.
But yeah, for the small business owner, I don’t know…
Hence Ing’s proposal.
Folks don’t usually take their business very far away for long. They may be miffed, and for a time business might drop off. But it will go back once a wedding occurs, somebody gets sick or dies, or the prom is coming up. Backbone is required to tell the bigots to back off, and that they are wrong. Having the government at your back helps. It did during integration.
Perhaps one could use the one to send “sorry you’re giving in to religious intolerance” bouquets to the other two, to patronize the former and be patronizing to the latter.
@loud #90
I agree, fuck that. The business shouldn’t have to fire anyone or stop serving anyone. But when doing so threatens the survival of the business it’s harder to make that decision. Sure it’s easy to sit back and say what a business SHOULD do, it’s different when you have something personal to lose. It’s not fair and it’s not right, but it’s reality. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and change it. It does mean we shouldn’t be too hard on those who have to make the tough choices.
Ing’s solution is nice, but I don’t see it working on a practical level. How do make someone change their mind about patronizing a business? His idea is to shift the anger towards the government. As if there’s not already too much anger unfairly directed at the government. The stick Ing described is the choices people make. Ing is talking about making choices for other people and I’m not comfortable with that even if I agree with the choice they are forced to make.
Yes, the right thing to do is to stand up to the bullies and for the bullies to stop taking out their petty anger on a business. They shouldn’t be angry at all since they were supporting something illegal. I just can’t see a federal mandate saying “Don’t blame businesses for doing business with Atheists.” fixing anything.
And you can guarantee this to the business owner and his employees? In other words, citation needed.
Baseball bat to the kneecaps? Works for the mob.
Awesome.
It strikes me that a Rhode Island religious leader could have set a wonderful example by going to Cranston, buying some flowers from one of the florists who refused to deliver and then delivering them in person.
@Alverant #90
I disagree. We need to judge, we need to be hard. Otherwise we are also apologists for bigotry.
I sincerely hope that if it was me, my business, and I was purely concerned about potential fallout (as opposed to tacitly agreeing with the ‘evil little thing’ epithet) then I would deliver the flowers, and, if necessary make the public statement that ‘we’re a florist, we deliver flowers to whoever wants them, irrespective of their beliefs or their unpopularity).
Pigs. My Ass. Flight.
My number #101 should refer to Alverant’s #97, sorry.
@Alverant
Your disbelief in effectiveness doesn’t change the fact that similar laws fucking worked for racial discrimination.
You are judged by what you, of your own free will, have chosen to write.
Or are you admitted that every word you’ve posted is actually a deliberate lie?
(HINT: That’s the definition of TROLL.)
And the significant practical difference between the two is what now?
And you know this how?
Whoever said up above that some of these arguments are the same ones that were used in the 1960’s to argue against civil rights laws is exactly right. The poor business owners will lose business, their families will suffer, blah, blah. It was a phony argument then and it’s just as phony today. If they’re going to profit by serving the public, they should be forced to follow the law. The law says they can’t refuse a customer on the basis of religion. That is exactly what they are doing.
I figured out how to change my name. My username is still a random string of characters…but I found the settings to set up a display name.
The comment I made was in reference to someone saying that I don’t know what it’s like to live in secret. I stated before your quote that I am an atheist living in Kentucky. This is my example of having to live in secret. I’m glad that you think I’m lying about where I live or what my thoughts on imaginary friends are. I’d like to know what evidence you have for these assumptions.
Perhaps I live in the Hamptons and am a snake-handler. Or I live in Utah as a scientologist. Oh, and my name’s not Keith, it’s Khan Noonien Singh, or something like that.
Or, maybe my name is Keith and I’ve been an atheist in secret for a couple of years now in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
“Glimpse of Gaia” of Putnam, Connecticut is the wonderful florist who DID deliver flowers to high-school atheist Jessica Ahlquist after four others refused to. They even included a second arrangement as their gift to her! I just ordered flowers from them and they couldn’t have been nicer! Please order something from them and/or show their Yelp page some love! http://www.yelp.com/biz/glimpse-of-gaia-putnam
But when doing so threatens the survival of the business
You keep asserting this bullshit, but how do you know their survival is at stake, or will be?
Is the USPS, UPS or FedEx refusing to deliver stuff to the Ahlquist house. Are the utilities refusing to send people to read meters?
No.
Have you heard fuck all about the letter carriers or delivery guys or meter readers being harassed for doing their fucking jobs?
Nope. Not a fucking word.
So who would have given a fuck if the florists had sent a fucking delivery to that house?
Why are other delivery people and people who need to go to that house able to do their fucking jobs, and these florists can’t?
I call bullshit on a threat to their businesses. It wasn’t a threat, and that’s just an excuse for being fucking anti-atheist bigots.
sc_537130c95ebd60f09422c20d99cdc3c7 :
And, based on what you’ve said here, you’d be fine with that because it’s not discrimination, it’s just you…
…right?
– – –
Alverant:
(Emphasis added)
Um, removing allowable institutionalized bigotry is one of the primary ways to get society to change. Yes, being moral often costs businesses possible profit. Following EPA regs costs businesses plenty, so does following basic labor law.
What preventing business discrimination does is to transfer some of that cost from the businesses who want to do the right thing (and are therefore already doing it) to the businesses who don’t (and therefore aren’t).
It levels the field, a bit, between the bigots and the non-bigots. But only to the the extent that it’s enforced. By making it easier to lose your buisness by refusing to serve blacks (by getting into legal trouble) than by doing so (which might cost you business), the government defends the businesses that are willing to do so.
Presuming institutionalized bigotry is fully tolerated by the government, how do you expect society to change, in any case? If legal scholars give the official nod to the idea that blacks (or atheists, or people who support the Constitution) are second-class citizens, why should the people disagree with them?
I don’t think convenience or fear of consequences is a valid reason for not providing your default service to a customer.
Those florists either agree with the community that is disrespecting JA, in the sense that they agree with that disrespectful attitude, or else they are cowardly or weasly.
I may be old school, but I think being corageous and upstanding should be the norm.
Two separate possibilities here. If I were fired from my job based strictly on my atheism I wouldn’t be OK. If I were fired from my job because I led a public campaign against, let’s say, my bosses church’s public christmas display; then he’d probably be within his rights. (Caveat, I grew up in a “right to work” state so I’m not positive about the employment laws here in Kentucky, I could be wrong about him being within his rights). I wouldn’t be happy, but I wouldn’t say I was treated with “injustice”. I would think he’s a horrible human for taking such a drastic measure to a simple disagreement…but I wouldn’t call it a breach of my civil liberties.
The subject of this thread is not her atheism…it’s the lawsuit. Someone else here mentioned that there are some protections for retaliations in civil rights cases. I was unaware of these laws…but this thread had devolved into name calling long before they informed me of such. Either way, I could be fired and refused employment based on my atheism. I don’t think it’s right, but righteous indignation don’t keep the lights on.
On the second one, the mentioned social worker; I wouldn’t be OK with either way because he/she is a representative of the state who is supposed to represent us all.
Because you are uninformed and/or an idiot.
You may be right but you were mean so I’m still right!
Fuck you.
the fact that you go out of your way to defend horrible practices as the status quo, and then praise yourself for being so above it all that you wouldn’t bitch about it is disgusting. You’re a quisling.
Side note: are you really that fucking stupid that you honestly think “They’re punishing me for winning a court case I made because they were imposing their religion on me” is not religious bigotry?
“They’re keeping us from imposing our religion! Punish them!”
It’s baffling. As I pointed out, since the courts have concluded the case was religiously motivated, protest against it is by the fucking default religiously motivated.
I don’t defend it. I just don’t fool myself into thinking it isn’t so. I choose to live in the real world.
When did I defend the florists denying to send flowers? Give me a quote. I simply questioned everyones assumptions about their motivation.
And when was I mean? Before or after being called an idiot?
The law states that people cannot be denied service based on their race, creed etc.etc.
That’s the race, creed etc.etc. of the customer, not the denier. It doesn’t matter whether or not the florists were religiously motivated or not. The question is, is she being singled out for her religion or for her actions? What she is, or what she did?
led a public campaign against, let’s say, my bosses church’s public christmas display; then he’d probably be within his rights.
Oh good grief. How do you even type when you’re this fucking stupid?
Churches can put up any fool thing they want about religion. That’s their right, and I can guarantee that every atheist here would stand with them if someone tried to tell them they couldn’t have up a banner that promotes their delusion. Only fucking morons would try to tell them that what they can do in their house of worship. That’s as stupid as coming to my house and telling me what movies I can have or watch.
You’d deserve to be fired for even trying to say or do something that fucking stupid to a religious person, and you’d get no sympathy from us.
But public schools aren’t churches! They cannot put up anything that remotely endorses religion.
Are you able to grasp the difference here between a church and a taxpayer-funded public school? Are you familiar with the First Amendment? Or the literally hundreds of Supreme Court and other federal cases that make it clear that schools forcing prayer on people is illegal?
The subject of this thread is not her atheism…it’s the lawsuit. Someone else here mentioned that there are some protections for retaliations in civil rights cases. I was unaware of these laws…but this thread had devolved into name calling long before they informed me of such.
And what was the lawsuit fucking about, moron? An atheist requested that a christard prayer be removed from a public school, and a lawsuit ensued when the scumbag christers running the public school refused for religious reasons, you clueless git.
For fuck’s sake, are you really so fucking stupid that you think her atheism has nothing to do with the insanely thuggish reaction from christslime to her? What fucking planet are you living on to think otherwise?
We’re not calling you names–we’re calling you what you obvious are; A fucking moron.
Fuck off.
Yes you’re saying it happens and won’t condemn it as injustice because it happens.
More of you ‘not’ defending them.
You apparently see your cowardice and assumed subservience as a mark of ethics.
You’re pathetic.
Why don’t you sit down, shut up, and let the big strong teenage girls do the heavy lifting for you.
No you idiot. You can also not single someone else out because of your religion. This was explained to you.
You can not single out gay people for kissing because your religion means you don’t like gay kissing.
The act itself is based on religious bias. You cannot single out others for not sharing your beliefs.
She is being singled out for not sharing beliefs.
keith said:
If I were fired from my job based strictly on my atheism I wouldn’t be OK.
Any employer dumb enough to do that would be breaking the law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Atheism falls under religion in this instance.
You wouldn’t be OK except that you could file a charge with the EEOC and probably collect a big, fat settlement. If you’re actually interested you can find all the details here.
This place is just chock full of angry 12 year olds.
That’s what I meant by not OK. I wouldn’t be OK with that situation.
If I were fired, however, for some action I took or statement I made, it would be a different circumstance. My opinions/actions are not protected by the CRA.
Thanks for the link.
You know who should make a statement in support? Ken Miller. He’s a Catholic, and he’s at Brown – it could help. In fact, I’m calling on Ken Miller to make a statement.
Keep repeating that, it’ll sound less and less stupid.
When did I defend the florists denying to send flowers? Give me a quote. I simply questioned everyones assumptions about their motivation.
So if the Postal Service and FedEx and all the rest will deliver to her house without repercussion or their delivery people being harassed, just why do you think the florists would be treated differently?
That’s what none of you defending these assholes never explain.
It’s not about their people or their businesses being hurt! Other businesses aren’t even being fucking noticed when they go about their normal fucking business in regards to the Ahlquist residence. Why the florists? Why are they suddenly the only ones in danger of their businesses? Why are they suddenly the only ones who could face harm?
Are you even fucking thinking this through, at all, that having some people being able to go about their business undisturbed is a huge honking sign that the florists wouldn’t have faced any repercussions themselves? So if they’re not facing repercussions what the fuck is their reason for denying the service?
When all other possibilities have been weeded out (their business survival isn’t being threatened), the only conclusion that has any evidence backing it up is the correct conclusion!
People are upset about the banner. Lots of them.
Why is it so fucking hard for you to accept that these florists are among those angry people, or that there are idiots out there with businesses who do idiotic things like refuse service to a class of people for petty reasons? Did everyone forget about Gelato Guy, already?
This place is just chock full of angry 12 year olds.
Says the guy with a brain a two-year-old would laugh at.
Again, you are claiming I’m defending them refusing service. I have yet to see an example where I did such a thing.
Calm down, have a beer.
Still amazed that Bandit Keith here apparently thinks that businesses should be able to fire people for legal actions or deny service because of legal actions because of religious or ideological motivation.
For example, you cannot deny someone service because they volunteered for a Democratic campaign and you’re a Republican. You can’t fire them for say having put a sexual harassment suit against a senator you favor. You fucking can’t. And if the law is such that it doesn’t protect these people as in right to work states that that is unjust.
Your repetition that “this is how it works so it’s not unjust herp a derp’ just goes to show how in your head the wheel is spinning but the hamster is dead.
Why do people think this is some sort of clever attack?
“I’m not sure I’d call it injustice. You have no right to be served by a florist. ”
DUUUUUUUUUUUUR!
Ah yes the “you’re emotional” accusation.
A tactic that is irrational and is making an ad hom, and emotional argument rather than a logical or reasonable one. How cute.
Oh btw if we’re playing that game. Why should we listen to you, a radical theocratic extremist working against civil rights.
*for the inevitable cluelessness; it’s a shockingly effective rhetorical trick to label someone as a radical and is shown to drastically alter a reader/viewer’s perception of said person as negative.
Prediction: we’ll soon see
*You’re all a group mind that shouts people down
*I thought this was a place for rationalism/skepticism
*Just as bad as the other side/ no one can express a dissenting opinion!
*You called me names
I simply said it wasn’t an injustice that people refused to sell something to people who wanted it delivered to this girl.
An injustice is the actual threats against this girl going uninvestigated. Not foolish shop owners turning down business.
This girl wasn’t fired from a job. She wasn’t given flowers. Injustice implies a violation of rights. She doesn’t have a right to get flowers for fucks sake.
It’s unfair, it’s not unjust.
I also didn’t say they should be able to. I said they are able to. In many states at-will employment means you can be fired for no good godamn reason at all as long as the reason doesn’t violate federal law (like the ERA).
If you want to play semantics…you’re still fucking wrong.
1.
the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity.
2.
violation of the rights of others; unjust or unfair action or treatment.
3.
an unjust or unfair act; wrong.
A theocratic atheist? Well, I’ve never been called that one before.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/injustice
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/injustice
Really…dictionary diving.
And I gave an explanation right after it too. This is special kinds of stupid.
Do you ever stop to even check to see if you’re at all consistent?
I mean, for Glob’s sake, if you’re going to make a pedantic argument that you’re right because it’s a not b make sure a and b are not fucking synonyms.
Keith, why do you keep ignoring the facts, and keep playing the uberskeptic like any creobot/godbot? It makes you look small. You have no logical basis for your conclusions, as has been fully explained by many people above.
I haven’t ignored facts, I’ve disagreed with conclusions.
I’ve been told I’m supporting these florists, or defending them when I haven’t.
I’m new here so I am not familiar with the terms creobot and godbot. So, I don’t get the comparison…but do get the gist.
–>”But when doing so threatens the survival of the business it’s harder to make that decision. ”
No, it’s not. Tell the complainer that it’s against the law to discriminate and there’s nothing you can do. It even has the advantage of being true. And every florist should have said that.
–>”Really…dictionary diving.”
When someone doesn’t know the meaning of a word or words, the dictionary is the place which to refer them. For instance, do you know the meaning of the words ‘thrombosed hemorrhoid’?
Keith,
Just a quick word… these “12 year olds” are some of the smartest, most forthright people you’re likely to meet in the comments section of a blog. If you don’t want to come over as a complete numbskull can I suggest that you lurk for a while on a blog before diving in with your ill-considered opinions.
I lurked here for years before commenting, and even now I hesitate to comment because I know that if there is the slightest chink in my reasoning, or if I am not carefully monitoring how my own privilege is effecting my views I will get well and truly stomped on.
But do hang around and read-only for a month or 12 and I guarantee you will learn loads and gain insights into how your circumstances affect your views, ideas and prejudices.
It can be painful, but it’s worth it.
Pity it hasn’t made what you’re saying any less stupid and craven.
I haven’t ignored facts, I’ve disagreed with conclusions.
you know, there is case law on this subject.
before continuing to flaunt your ignorance of the law, and how it has been applied, in favor of your personal wishful thinking on how it should be, you might spend an hour or so actually looking at some relevant legal cases.
the only what you are arguing works, is in the case of private businesses.
these florists are not private businesses, but cater to the public.
hence, the discrimination clause of the civil rights act applies, period.
this is why FFRF have filed action suits already against several of the florists.
it’s an open and shut case.
the only [way] what you are arguing works…
Thanks. For clarity, I was mostly making a comment at the anger/angst in the comments with the 12 year old comment. People seem to get hostile quick. Much like an early adolescent male. Or at least how I was at that stage, as was my son.
I’ve read this blog for a couple of years now…but never really spent any time in the comments section. I don’t read many comments on blogs in general, sticking mostly to BBS/message boards. However, I was bored at work this morning and my normal hangouts were slow so…
Anyway, it seems a bit to angry for my taste.
–>”Anyway, it seems a bit to angry for my taste.”
I can haz tone?
I can haz tone?
sure thing!
As I said “forthright”. But don’t mistake the use of language you find uncomfortable with anger.
Calling you a fucktard does not mean they’re angry, it just means they think you’re a fucktard.
Direct language is not anger. Religious societies thrive on promoting politeness, because religion does not fare well under questioning.
Here, everything is examined. The robust questioning is valuable, that you won’t get as much of in real life, unless you are a mathematician or scientist. In these fields, examining ideas is not personal, and arguments can get really heated. The reason it works is that resolution is objectively possible.
Keith:
So… you believe that if a person is discriminated against for – correctly and legally – attempting to have the Constitution actually enforced, there’s no injustice?
Because that’s exactly what’s going on in the real world.
Claiming that there was no injustice in this case is, in actuality, defending their actions against those that say there was injustice. It may or may not be agreeing with their actions (and you seem not to), but it is, pretty much by definition, defending them.
Also:
Sorry, but this gets little sympathy from me. You have the absolute option to ignore any poster or posters here. If you feel someone is not worth your time and effort, my suggestion is to stop spending time and effort on them.
I’ll warn you, remonstrations against rudeness do not go down well here. Feel free to do so, but the rough-and-tumble attitude around here is not so much tolerated as welcomed by the host. Agree or disagree, I’m just letting you know that topic’s not going to get any traction.
Huh, grumps, you ninjad me.
If I were fired from my job because I led a public campaign against, let’s say, my bosses church’s public christmas display; then he’d probably be within his rights.
probably?
you know, you COULD find out, and know the answer instead of just guessing at it.
I wonder if you will.
Retaliation against a civil rights complaint is illegal. Jessica most certainly does have a right to those flowers,
The rudeness bothers me less than attacking the speaker in lieu of the speech. I don’t give a shit what the language is, but attacking the person seems unheeded to me.
It’s more a matter of taste than anything. Just not my glass of scotch. I’m not saying it’s wrong, immoral or incorrect…just not something I enjoy.
They are a privately owned business in a small community. What they did was petty and stupid, but to me it doesn’t rate the status of injustice. If they were turning away all atheists (if there is any evidence of that I’d like to see it), it would be discrimination of a class of people based on that groups belief. Instead it’s childish bullshit that shows the world at large that regardless what they tell themselves Christ != Love. It’s sour grapes, nothing more.
Keith
From my reading “the speech” was pretty well attacked.
Keith,
Complaining about tone will not help you on this blog. We value substance, not flavor.
They are a privately owned business in a small community.
who owns the business is irrelevant.
the only thing relevant is what type of business it is, and who the customer base is.
if the business is open to the public, then civil rights statutes apply.
it’s as simple as that.
I’m beginning to think already that you simply don’t care to understand how this actually works, but instead want to whinge about your personal opinions being attacked.
If you really don’t care to know, then you won’t last long here, or in any blog devoted to information and reason, for that matter.
Keith said:
If they were turning away all atheists (if there is any evidence of that I’d like to see it), it would be discrimination of a class of people based on that groups belief.
This is not the way the law works. It is not required to show that they turn away “all atheists” – simply refusing to serve a single customer on the basis of religion is sufficient to show they are breaking the law. This is clearly what happened here. Whether anyone cares enough to pursue it in court, or whether they can show actual damages, is another matter. But there is no doubt that these florists broke the law.
And you’re shocked—shocked, I say!—at the style of commenting?
That’s like saying you’ve frequented KFC for years and are now just discovering to your dismay that they sell fried chicken.
You’ve mentioned it in several comments now. Is there some reason you need to point it out so frequently, only to reaffirm that it’s not that big a deal to you?
Ichthyic, ouch! That Hz!
Keith @ 134;
The important point here is that, while these are privately owned businesses, they serve the public, and as such by denying sevices to a potential customer on the basis of their religion or lack thereof they are breaking federal law in the US – the relative significance or importance of the service in question is irrelevant; it is the principle that matters.
If a business serving the public denies any service to a person based upon a personal attribute of that individual that is clearly not relevant to the transaction (such as their atheism) then they are engaging in illegal discriminatory behaviour. It really is that simple.
@ 158;
The personal motivation of the business owner is not important either:- whether it was done out of personal animus toward another party, political, ideological or religious conviction, or out of fear that local bigots might refuse to trade with the business if it served people that they were hostile toward – refusing service based upon such things as a potential cutomer’s ethnicity, creed, sexual orientation or politcal beliefs is still illegal.
This is a curious requirement you bring up here. These businesses have explicitly refused to deliver to Ahlquist because of her atheism; there is no other credible reason why they would refuse to serve this particular teenager rather than any other. This in and of itself clearly demonstrates discrimination based upon her lack of religious belief – it is, to use the popular phrase, and open and shut case – and yet you seem to feel that a pattern of such behaviour toward atheists as a group must be demonstrated before this can be called discriminatory.
I am curious as to how you would imagine that such a consistent pattern could be demonstrated. Atheists have no obvious identifying features (Ahlquist’s atheism is only known because of her stance against the school banner – it is not as though she has a Darwin Fish brand on her forehead), and in such a community most atheists would be unlikley to publicly announce their atheism for obvious reasons. As a result, it would be impossible to demonstrate a consistent pattern of denying services to atheists as a group, only isolated incidents of discrimination where an individual was known (or suspected to be) an atheist by the business owner with ambiguity aplenty that the owner could use to claim that the potential customer’s (real or imagined) atheism was not really at issue.
By requiring that a pattern of discrimination against an entire class be demonstrated before an act can be called discriminatory, you are effectively excluding this type of discrimination against groups with no identifying features from the definition of descrimination altogether. By this logic, it would be very difficult to class homophobia as discrimination, since it might prove difficult to demonstrate that a buisiness was discriminating against homosexuals as a group as opposed to ‘only’ discriminating against certain individuals who just so happen to be homosexual.
Ichthyic, ouch! That Hz!
1000 times!
A) Addressed your points. Your obtuseness frustrated me.
B) I’m sorry do you want to live in some magic bubble where you’re separated from what you say?
Fine.
Whoever wrote what Keith wrote is a fucking idiot and child.
Ichthyic, I laughed out loud. ‘k?
++++++++++++++
Gregory Greenwood, I would slightly modify your point:
If one Cracker Barrel discriminated against one black family, mebbe not a discrimination case. If more than one discriminated against them, oh yeah, and if this one CB discriminated more than one time, oh yeah.
Obviously every florist discriminated in this town and a neighboring town showed a pattern of religious discrimination.
They need to pay a price.
I’m reminded of Blazing Saddles when the town folk didn’t want to be seen as supporting the new sheriff. They just snuck around back.
There should be a fuckton of flowers on her door step.
The Sailor said:
If one Cracker Barrel discriminated against one black family, mebbe not a discrimination case.
Why not? What makes you think that there has to be a pattern, or multiple incidents before the law is broken? The lawyers from the Freedom From Religion Foundation don’t think so; “Annie Laurie Gaylor of the FFRF said the foundation will be filing a complaint that alleges one of the florists, Twins Florist, violated the civil rights act by denying service to Ahlquist based on her religion or lack thereof.”
One florist, one incident, that’s all it takes.
tomh, it depends on what the florist stated. e.g. ‘We don’t serve atheists here’ is grounds. (My reply would be “well I don’t want to eat atheists, I just want to order some flowers.”)
FFS read the rest of the thread
The Sailor said:
it depends on what the florist stated. e.g. ‘We don’t serve atheists here’ is grounds.
Believe me, the case won’t be decided on what the florist claims. The order receipt from Twin’s Florist has been released, which states, “I will not deliver to this person.” That will take some explaining.
tomh, it doesn’t matter what a single florist claims, it’s a pattern. It’s clearly a civil rights violation.
+++++++++++++
I guess we have differing views of what injustice is. I’m of the opinion that injustice occurs when justice is not done, such as when a public business refuses to serve someone based on something totally unrelated to the nature of the transaction.
You, apparently have some other definition I am unfamiliar with.
Candidly, since yours allows any and all business to refuse me service based on my being an atheist – so long as I am the first so mistreated – I’ll stick with mine, thanks.
The Sailor wrote:
it doesn’t matter what a single florist claims, it’s a pattern.
You sound confused. There is a complaint being filed against a single florist. There is no pattern alleged or required for it be a violation. I don’t know why you think a so-called pattern matters.
Yet another Cranston poll trying to justify use of the tyranny of the majority. The question is: Should Cranston appeal.
http://cranstononline.com/
That poll needs some more work.
But the first comment there is lovely
But from there on in it’s all ChrisYoung crazy:
Yikes!
*head desk*
My SO and I constantly go back and forth on what rudeness is allowed compared to civility. I don’t know how to respond to this other than snark.
Something needs to be set straight about these florists. I talked with a friend of one of them, and he said that when they were asked to send the flowers they were also told that they had to do it with police escort, cross angry picket lines, etc etc. This was a small, family business and they declined because they were afraid of getting hurt themselves.
I talked with a friend of one of them, and he said that when they were asked to send the flowers they were also told that they had to do it with police escort, cross angry picket lines, etc etc. This was a small, family business and they declined because they were afraid of getting hurt themselves.
strange then, that the written response from one of them clearly indicated it was Jessica they wouldn’t deliver to, and no mention made of any worries about their own safety.
You’d think they might have mentioned that.
well, unless this is just a post hoc fabrication concocted as a defense to the suits filed against them by FFRF.
which do you think makes more sense?
paleobarbie wrote:
I talked with a friend of one of them, and he said that when they were asked to send the flowers they were also told that they had to do it with police escort, cross angry picket lines, etc etc.
I don’t believe it. None of the news stories mention anything about a picket line, and this includes all the comments on the local news story, both pro and con. Besides, just who would have told them they need a police escort? Not the FFRF who ordered the flowers – which is when the shop wrote on the order receipt that they wouldn’t deliver to this person. Does the mailman have a police escort? This is, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit.
I hope Cranston does appeal based on the outcome of silly web polls, so they can get smacked down yet again in a higher court.
Wow…just, wow. Having read the full breadth of the comment posts, it’s amazing how utterly, totally full of fail most of you are. My condolences, sc_537130c95ebd60f09422c20d99cdc3c7, I can see how trying to speak logically in this crowd might equate to repeatedly running into a brick wall…face first.
See, I told you that moving your lips while reading was slowing you down, but did you listen?