Skip to main content

View Diary: Oregon marriage equality opponents shift gears, seek to protect bigoted florists and bakers (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That IS what they want (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Horace Boothroyd III

    they don't want to be forced to serve a particular population.  Not sure what your point is here.

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 09:28:15 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  However what they can't do now, but that section (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ebohlman, lostboyjim

      would allow them to do, is agree to provide service to a gay wedding and then just not show up or back out at the last second thus forcing them to either choose between a wedding without a photographer or wedding cake or postpone the wedding.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 10:29:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It just hit me; that's just like the (5+ / 0-)

        "crisis pregnancy center" trick where a woman who needs an abortion is strung along with the promise of one until it's too late.

        It also reminds me of the case of the lesbian who was denied in-vitro fertilization based on a doctor's religious beliefs, but only after she had gone through several months of expensive preparatory treatment (with serious side effects) administered by that same doctor.

        This is one of the big problems with creating legislation by citizen initiative; in a formal legislative process at least some staffer with a law degree would realize that the bill needs language to make it clear that it doesn't cover non-performance of obligations and doesn't bar relief for breach of contract or detrimental reliance.

        Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

        by ebohlman on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:47:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, that's not what it means. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster
        would allow them to do, is agree to provide service to a gay wedding and then just not show up or back out at the last second
        That's not what it's saying.  The dispute is about whether they can refuse to agree to provide the service in the first place.  Nobody's talking about something where they agree to provide the service, then just not show up.  

        If a Florist, for example, gives you a signed piece of paper and takes a deposit saying he will provide such and such on a particular date, that's a contract, and if he doesn't perform, that's a breach of contract.  

        What this is talking about is whether, BEFORE agreeing to perform a service, a florist can decline the job on religious grounds.  

        •  a marriage is a contract (0+ / 0-)

          with a gay exception in most of these United States; what makes you think Christians don't want the same gay exception in a florist's contract? whether before or after it's signed ...

          •  I have not seen anybody arguing for (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny wurster

            a florist or a photographer to be able to sign a contract and then refuse to perform that contract, without being subject (like anybody else) to being sued for breach of contract.    If you have an example of someone arguing that they should be able to voluntarily enter a contract and then refuse to perform it without being sued for breach of contract, please share that.  I would vehemently disagree with that argument.  

            What I've seen is an argument that a florist or a photographer should be able to turn down a contract for services in the first place on grounds that it violates their religion.

            •  that's nice (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              I'm glad you're passionate about signed contracts.

            •  Perhaps the law is not intended to allow that but (0+ / 0-)

              I think it could easily be argued that it does allow that based on the actual wording.  Repeat after me, "by returning the deposit I would be helping to facilitate or support their same sex marriage ceremony" or even "by refusing outright rather than accepting and not showing up I would be supporting their same sex marriage ceremony by not doing everything in my power to stop it".  No different than pharmacists using the "conscience clause" to confiscate and tear up a birth control prescription because to give it back would be helping the woman get the birth control pills thus returning the prescription violates their religious beliefs.

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:05:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site