NJ Bridal Salon Refuses to Sell Gown to Lesbian Bride

[Nova]

SO basically it's ok to discriminate on size or beauty because it's not illegal to discriminate, but it's not ok to refuse service if one is opposed to same sex marriage. What if a pastor didn't want to officiate based on opposition to same sex marriage, is that discrimination as well?

There is a difference between refusing because of your prejudices to sell something you are offering for sale and not selling something you don't have.

There is also a difference between selling an object and presiding over an actual ceremony. I think most of us will agree a pastor has a right to discriminate based on religious principles. (I'll agree the issue gets trickier with, say, a wedding planner or a deejay. My gut feeling is that they should be allowed to decline work based on their religious principles, as well. The seller of a product, on the other hand, typically has no control over or involvement with the object after it is sold.)

 

[Donjeta]

You did say that, but you didn't note the psychological trauma that could be involve or any actionable complaints that could be made. (just my observation.)

Which actionable complaints would that be? I am not a lawyer and I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you aware of discrimination lawsuits on the basis that "they didn't have it in my size and it caused me psychological trauma"? Maybe you can direct me to an article and then we can discuss the merits of the case in a more informed manner.

It just really seems that there's inconsistency on what is or is not discrimination.

It seems to me that it's because your examples of analogous situations are nothing alike in my opinion and my examples of analogous situations are nothing alike in your opinion. I think refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation and skin color are comparable, you deny that and say refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation is comparable to the shop being out of the wanted item. There seems to be some discrepancy in the definitions of discrimination we use.

It's ok because it's legal in this instance,

Not really my opinion, I don't think. There are plenty of things that I don't consider ok even if they're legal or used to be at one time. Apartheid was legal in South Africa not too long ago but it was not ok, IMO.

it's horrifying in a retail instance,

It's illegal in a retail instance. Which is what we're talking about here.

and taking the fifth on pastor's having their own moral reasons for not wanting to officiate a same sex wedding.

Not wanting to get into a religious debate because I think it's frowned upon on WS.

 

[Charlie09]

There is a difference between refusing because of your prejudices to sell something you are offering for sale and not selling something you don't have.

There is also a difference between selling an object and presiding over an actual ceremony. I think most of us will agree a pastor has a right to discriminate based on religious principles. (I'll agree the issue gets trickier with, say, a wedding planner or a deejay. My gut feeling is that they should be allowed to decline work based on their religious principles, as well. The seller of a product, on the other hand, typically has no control over or involvement with the object after it is sold.)

But see we don't know if THIS seller has a faith based issue with it or not. I wasn't going to bring religion into - but the fact is, people are calling her a bigot and such and we don't know.

She may not be able to articulate it appropriately when a news reporter shows up.

If a pastor has the right to not provide a service because it's part of his faith. A store owner should have the same right. That doesn't mean she gets to be ugly about it - but she has that right to say I can't support same sex marriage but here are some options on where you can buy the gown you wanted. That should be fair to everyone involved.

 

[Charlie09]

Which actionable complaints would that be? I am not a lawyer and I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you aware of discrimination lawsuits on the basis that "they didn't have it in my size and it caused me psychological trauma"? Maybe you can direct me to an article and then we can discuss the merits of the case in a more informed manner.

My point is that this is a relatively new "discrimination" issue. We can go overboard on what is discrimination and it gets to an extreme point.

It seems to me that it's because your examples of analogous situations are nothing alike in my opinion and my examples of analogous situations are nothing alike in your opinion. I think refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation and skin color are comparable, you deny that and say refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation is comparable to the shop being out of the wanted item. There seems to be some discrepancy in the definitions of discrimination we use.
There's a difference between a store being "out" of something and not carrying something that goes to sizes that anyone can wear. But you've basically got the point. I purposely picked a huge (no pun intended) segment of the population that is it perfectly ok, legally anyway, to discriminate against.

Not really my opinion, I don't think. There are plenty of things that I don't consider ok even if they're legal or used to be at one time. Apartheid was legal in South Africa not too long ago but it was not ok, IMO.




It's illegal in a retail instance. Which is what we're talking about here. I think this issue goes beyond the retail experience though. Which is the point of the discussion.



Not wanting to get into a religious debate because I think it's frowned upon on WS.

My point again - while religious discussions are frowned upon faith is an active part of people's lives. So if there are exceptions for pastors, why wouldn't there be exceptions to store owners that don't wish to be associated with same sex marriages. I think there should be more known about the shop owner before she's judged so harshly.

 

[Charlie09]

BBM: So racism only matters if it is directed at darker skinned people. African-Americans and Latinos who can pass as Northern European should just do so and not be protected by law.

right - that's exactly my point Nova.

/sarcasm

 

[Kimster]

hdear:

I'm getting alerts again! We've gone from a gay issue to a religious issue in the blink of an eye?

Closing the thread to defuse the emotions.