I'm no lawyer but I would consider a lunch counter to bring an expectation of generally-available services on a walk-in basis. That implies, at most, discrimination only where the general public (or, I suppose, the proprietor's business) would be imminently endangered.

A wedding photographer, being so different in nearly every respect, does not in my opinion imply an expectation of a generally-available service. I have never been deluded that this sort of business was under any obligation to contract with me, and typical demographics would probably consider me the among the last to be excluded.

[In fairness, there are photography services that could fall in such a category (passport photos, etc.) but not this.]

More to the point, a restaurant that wants to serve the general public must comply with public standards of cleanliness and health, which IMO fortifies the expectation of non-exclusive service.

Apples and oranges. Only third-rate thinking could consider these comparable.

I'm a second-rate thinker...so glad I passed!

see, the problem is the florist rang the cowbell, by using religion. It's a double edged sword, but then, now that the state it trying to force the issue, she does have 1st amendment to fall back on...

2 things... I wonder in this climate how my turning down various wedding gigs because I could tell I had a bridezilla on my hands, would go... Would somebody FORCE me to take their pictures.

Is it possible to say: "I'm not discriminating base on your creed, I just don't like you."

At what point can The State force business commerce between two groups, if they don't agree with each other?

Think carefully, now. The problem isn't that we have useful anti-discrimination laws, the problem is, where is their logical end?

What kind of commerce can you FORCE people to have?

Also, instead of just going to another florist, and giving them your money, what kind of person wishes to FORCE a person to give them service?

Hell, if I was a florist, I'd make this a selling point: "we can make any wedding beautiful!"

That, my friends is entrepreneurship!

"Also, instead of just going to another florist, and giving them your money, what kind of person wishes to FORCE a person to give them service?"

Interesting question. I would suggest a couple for whom the political statement of the marriage is more important than the act as a show of committment to each other.

This is just the latest in the whole can of worms. If I may mix my metaphors, the worms have now carried us nearly to the bottom of the slippery slope.

As a private business, one should have the right to choose who one does business with. If I don't want you as a customer you are obnoxious, or barefoot, or black, or loud, or handicapped, or - it doesn't matter why - that should be my choice.

The government is not allowed to discriminate. Private people and their businesses have a fundamental right of free association. The government cannot dictate my friends, nor should the government dictate my customers.

To take a real example that has always annoyed me: take a little, out-of-the-way eatery on the second floor of an old building. Add the ADA, which demands equal access for handicapped. Result? Eatery must close, because there is no reasonable way to put an elevator into that building. Stupid. There are plenty of ground-floor restaurants. Why should that place have to close just because someone, somewhere might have their feelings hurt by feeling left out?

Yeah, so I tried to reply to your post about supermarket baggies, but for whatever reason I kept getting an error message...

(AMY NOTE: Comment has been reposted there. It didn't go through because you answered "pirates" -- five times -- to the comment challenge. Please read that carefully in the future. Do you really drive a pirate?)

Amy, your point is bogus. You don't believe in racial discrimination, either— But if a doctor refused to treat black children, we assume you have something to say about it.

I said that wrong, but you see what I mean, right? You LOVE telling other people who they must do business with.

Do you think the hospital should "do business" with these guys?

I daresay you think they should be compelled.

Slightly off topic; but, that florist does NOT have a "relationship with Jesus Christ."

Jesus was NOT so damn judgemental. For Pete's sake, Jesus let lepers and prostitutes hang out with him. He never said a word about gays (or straights for that matter) All the "anti" stuff was old testament crap.

(Whew, thanks for letting me rant, Amy, I feel better now.)

Geez, people when will you learn.

Discriminate all you want to. Just don't tell other people about it.

'No, I will not photograph your wedding.' End of discussion. You don't have to be all Jesus-y. If the doctor doesn't go around telling blacks that he won't treat them because they are black, how would the general population have any idea.

"Slightly off topic; but, that florist does NOT have a "relationship with Jesus Christ.""

Nobody has a relationship with anyone unless both parties are communicating (and not just inside your headbone).

Not to get too off topic but to go with Crid's link, my fiance's dad was able to have me kicked out of the hospital (that I also work for no less) because I technically am not immediate family/next of kin as we are not legally married. I don't see it as discriminating against the gay couple to have one partner kicked out. My fiance and I have a domestic partnership affidavit on file there and he's on my insurance. I also have medical power of attorney. I can legally make medical devisions for him, but I'm not legally granted the right to visit him if the immediate family/next of kin wants me out. That's a separate matter and I can make treatment decisions over the phone. The only way I got to be able to visit was when my fiance was deemed mentally competent and coherent enough to make the decisions himself, which he did and I was then able to visit.

> Also, there are standards for medical care
> that do -- and should -- vary as compared
> to other businesses.

Irrelevant. There are standards for food preparation that apply nowhere else. Mechanics aren't required to wear hairnets... So what? They're required to accept black customers and women who show up with broken cars and money.

"'No, I will not photograph your wedding.' End of discussion. You don't have to be all Jesus-y. If the doctor doesn't go around telling blacks that he won't treat them because they are black, how would the general population have any idea."

The day is not very far away when the government will collect data on this sort of thing. Some day, a report will spit out of a computer somewhere saying that "Florist XYX in Seattle has not served any gay weddings in the past three years." A regulator will go to XYZ Florist and tell them that they have been found guilty of discrimination. They will have to pay a large fine, and henceforth 10% of their business will be required to be gay weddings. And until they have met the quota each month, they must refuse all other business.

[Crid:] Irrelevant. There are standards for food preparation that apply nowhere else. Mechanics aren't required to wear hairnets... So what? They're required to accept black customers and women who show up with broken cars and money.

It is easy to feel strongly both ways on this.

On balance, though, I think anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary and inherently hostile to freedom.

In an economy where there are many competitors for just about any service or product, particularly where the zeiteist is already against discriminating against groups of people, turning away business is a self inflicted wound.

Moreover, anti-discrimination laws serve to compel labor. Should the state really be able to make me work when I don't want to? That is before considering whether such laws amount to the imposition of secular religion.

Oh, and one other thing. Such laws make some groups more equal than others.

But when you start talking about hospitals, or trying to get your car fixed at the only garage within 50 miles, then suddenly it doesn't seem quite so clear.

Well one of the ways to distinguish when you are dealing with a hospital is are they private or public? If you take government money, you have to abide by government rules. If you don't, you should not have to.

Obama care will split medical care into two parts. Those who have insurance or are in a government subsidized pool. Those people will wait, and wait, and wait.

Then there will be those who pay cash up front, and get treatment right away.

And it does amount to discrimination -- discrimination on the part of a person who is religious, and that should be permitted as part of living in a free country. You should likewise be able to refuse me service because I grew up Jewish, or because I'm an atheist, or because you don't like my writing or my red hair.

If anyone, like you, believes there shouldn't be any anti-discimination laws in the first place*, then of course they would be opposed to this lawsuit.

But, given that Washington state has an anti-discrimination law and that, under this law "it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation", then Ferguson has a basis for filing the claim.

*I'm curious what percent of Americans would prefer to not have any anti-discrimination laws. My guess is that it's a very small percent.

*I'm curious what percent of Americans would prefer to not have any anti-discrimination laws. My guess is that it's a very small percent. -- JD at April 12, 2013 5:54 PM

I would vote to lose a lot of the anti-discrimination laws. But I would also vote to lose a few other laws.

Like we need to get rid of Davis–Bacon Act and state level laws that are similar.

I'd like to see set asides (defense.about.com/od/contractopps/a/Federal-Government-Small-Business-Set-Aside-Programs.htm) gone.

I would also like to see the minority business allowance gone as well. (How to Get Certified as a Minority-Owned Business: www.inc.com/guides/2010/05/minority-owned-business-certification.html)

I know that there are pockets, black holes, and hells that are still racist. I have a former friend and his family that has lived in the same PA zip code all their lives. They still think the N word and all the rest is acceptable.

But the majority of the country has adapted enough to handle liberty now.

There are some things that will need regulation or an ethics standards such as health care. If you are the only hospital or doctor in 50 miles and you turn away an immediate care need on race, sex, etc. that is not ethical.

An essential need, such as car repair, but not life-threatening that wants to turn a <customer away for a <subjective reason>> should be able to be subjected to lawsuit.

So I pull into Podunk, AZ and have a heart attack. The local hospital should have an ethical requirement to treat me. But I pull into Podunk, AZ with a bad alternator and crappy battery. The only shop in town refuses to fix my vehicle because I'm <subjective reason>. So then I have to have my vehicle towed 75 miles, I should be able to sue the first shop for the added costs and maybe the repair costs.

The true problem is that most laws are currently written as a collective responsibility and a supposed fix, instead of allowing the bad actor being guilty.

@issab "If you take government money, you have to abide by government rules. If you don't, you should not have to."

Which is a part of the problem of extreme gov't growth, and takeover of areas it should not be in. What happens when all money is gov't money?
No it should only apply if you are a gov't agency.

Using the hospital example, what is taking gov't money? treating one person on medicaid? or one vetran? or is it if you got a tax break? or are a non-profit. what % of your income before you are considered gov't.

As we are seeing with universities and hospitals, many are trying to force their rules, by saying if you have ever accepted a student who paid using a gov't grant or loan. Thne you have to folloe gov't rules.

So if you don't want to perform abortions, yo would have to refuse to treat all elderly, all poor, all military family, all .....

I would vote to lose a lot of the anti-discrimination laws.

Jim, I would bet that a majority of people on this blog agree with you. However, I believe you'd be in a very small minority of Americans.