Store refuses to sell wedding dress to lesbian bride

I'll be on everybody's shiet list for this one I figure, oh well.

Oh, I don't think so, Rat. I think the store owner is well within her rights to destroy her own business if she wants to. Unfortunately, she isn't within her rights to break state law. OOPS! Double whammy for that dumbass. LOL

I've got to pretty much agree with that.

Why not just leave it blank or write in "Not Applicable"?

Because after all the "groom's" name is NOT applicable.

Really? Why shouldn't she feel free to write down her partner's name? There was no space there for that, so she crossed off the word "groom" and added "partner". Big whoop. Why would any bride have to write her groom's name down anyway? How about either an all-inclusive form or a form that doesn't ask for that information? The store owner was an idiot, in my opinion.

How about either an all-inclusive form

Ah Yes, the wonderful "all inclusive" bit.

That goes back to the forcing of acceptance.

Why shouldn't she feel free to write down her partner's name?

If you fill out a form anywhere, do you modify that form to include information that is NOT asked for?

Why not just leave it blank? Why try to FORCE acceptance?

And now because of her trying to FORCE ACCEPTANCE of her choices, this business will more than likely be ruined(such a GOOD idea in this economy) and I'm sure the next step will be for her to sue the shop owner for "discrimination".

robyn,

As you probably know, I don't support gay marriage, but the "bride" can always just go somewhere else to buy her "wedding dress", probably a 100 other stores that will sell her that dress with no problem.

And now because of her trying to FORCE ACCEPTANCE of her choices, this business will more than likely be ruined(such a GOOD idea in this economy) and I'm sure the next step will be for her to sue the shop owner for "discrimination".

well, the law has spoken on the matter. It's the anti-discrimination law that FORCES ACCEPTANCE in the same way that jaywalking laws FORCE ACCEPTANCE of crosswalks.

the store owner being a jerk to a paying customer is what makes her deserve having her business ruined.

It's the anti-discrimination law that FORCES ACCEPTANCE in the same way that jaywalking laws FORCE ACCEPTANCE of crosswalks.

Apples and Oranges.

She DID NOT need to cross out "Groom" and write in "Partner" and her partner's name.

She COULD have left that blank and NO ONE would have been any the wiser.

To use your "jaywalking" example, that like the mother in Atlanta who everyone is crying should NOT be punished for taking her kids across where there was no crosswalk simply because a drunk hit and killed one of them.

Why not just leave it blank? P>

Why should she have to? Because you don't like it? Because the store owner doesn't like it? Tough @!$%#.

Why try to FORCE acceptance?

She wasn't trying to force anything. She didn't walk into the store all, "Hey I'm gay!" and start hitting on all the chicks in there. She just put her partner's name down on a damned form. So @!$%#ing what?

If the owner had just chosen not to sell the dress without all that drama, it wouldn't be an issue would it? No. But now because of her bigoted attitude there is a good chance that her business WILL take a hit. Again, tough @!$%#. Maybe she'll understand that customer service doesn't include morality lectures.

She DID NOT need to cross out "Groom" and write in "Partner" and her partner's name.

She COULD have left that blank and NO ONE would have been any the wiser.

if only those homos would just stay in the closet, huh? and if only those black people didn't have to act so "black" all the time... and those darned country people...what's with the belt buckles? do they HAVE to rub it in our faces??? why are they trying to force us to accept them?

You know I find it quite illuminating that folks wish for "acceptance" of everyone, except those that they happen to disagree with.

The snide remarks like those above are quite telling.

Yet let some "right-wing" politician get caught with their pants down with another male and THEN compare the remarks.

You all act like this is NOT attempting to force acceptance of lifestyle choices, when you know darned well that it is.

Instead of simply leaving the NON-APPLICABLE questions answer blank, this person takes it upon themselves to CHANGE the form and then gets to act like they are somehow being wronged.

The dishonesty is the truly disgusting part of all of this, by the customer AND those posting on here.

Instead of simply leaving the NON-APPLICABLE questions answer blank, this person takes it upon themselves to CHANGE the form and then gets to act like they are somehow being wronged.

I could totally support the store owner for refusing to do business with a patron for being an obnoxious jerk. Don't like my form? feel the need to deface it? fine, get your dress somewhere else.

I really could get behind such a defense.

but that's not why the owner said she refused the service. She did it because of a prejudice.

...yeah, I'm perfectly ok with forcing acceptance of gayness onto her. The natural world exists as it exists, this woman deserves no coddling for her unwillingess to accept reality.

Instead of simply leaving the NON-APPLICABLE questions answer blank, this person takes it upon themselves to CHANGE the form and then gets to act like they are somehow being wronged.

kaz, the whole question there is why should she have to leave it blank? why would she even stop to think "oh jeeze, i might offend someone if i put my partner's name down"? i'm sure she was proud and happy to be marrying her partner in a state that allows gay marriage and probably didn't think that "changing the form" (because there was no space for "partner") was a big deal. i know i wouldn't have thought so, but that's just me.

the wrong was not in the fact that the owner chose not to sell the dress. the wrong was in the morality lecture she gave the prospective customer as the reason not to sell the dress. hell, the owner is well within her rights to turn down business if she wants. but she is not within her rights to break state law.

You know what you all are right.

Go right ahead and shove your lifestyle choices down the throats of EVERYONE you come into contact with.

I know it is simply too thrilling to watch the freaks when they do their "Gay Pride" parade in my town. That is NOT a judgement of people's lifestyle choices, it is instead a comment on what these folks consider to be appropriate dress and behavior in a public setting in the middle of the day.

After all they are YOUR choices and folks MUST accept them.

Of course the reverse is NOT applicable, if YOU disagree with someones lifestyle choices you are free to hound them to the ends of the earth.

NO "tolerance" or "acceptance" of differences need be shown as long as YOU get your way.

This "debate" brings me back to something that I have always wondered about and no one has ever been able to answer in a satisfactory manner for me.

When do one persons "rights" stop and another persons "rights" kick in, in situations where there are opposing views?

Go right ahead and shove your lifestyle choices down the throats of EVERYONE you come into contact with.

I've been watching this back and forth with some interest. And you make a good point about forcing acceptance of the few over the rights of the many.

It kind of reminds me of the whole "peanut allergy" thing. When my daughter was in school, a kid a few grades ahead of her had a peanut allergy. The school banned all peanuts, including PB&J's from the entire school. And this kid wasn't one of the one's that has the type of allergy where his throat swells shut and he goes into anaphylactic shock if he so much as looks at a peanut. His allergies were mild and he'd get a case of hives if he ATE peanuts. But his parents made a big deal out of it and the rights of the many were set aside to accomodate one person. Even after the kid graduated, the peanut ban remained.

This is similar in the fact that both (the peanut allergy & the altered form) were petty. Mountains were made out of molehills because someone wanted to say: "Look at me! I'm different!"

I know it is simply too thrilling to watch the freaks when they do their "Gay Pride" parade in my town. That is NOT a judgement of people's lifestyle choices, it is instead a comment on what these folks consider to be appropriate dress and behavior on a public setting in the middle of the day.

I live in a state that has legalized gay marriage. Contrary to the people who opposed it, the state hasn't imploded yet. In fact, it's been a blessing to the state to have an influx of couples that contribute through taxes, to schools they don't use and prisons they don't occupy. You don't have to worry about one of these couples robbing you at gunpoint at an ATM machine, they keep their neighborhoods tidy and you are never going to see a chevy up on blocks or a sofa rotting on the porch at one of their houses. There are parts of town that you can drive through that have very low crime, the area and houses are pristine and there are happy gay couples walking with laptops and lapdogs.

That said, they completely blow that great image with Gay Pride Parades. You think things are going along great and everyone is living in harmony and then WHAM!! You get visually assaulted by a group of gays, marching along in assless chaps, dragging their partner along by a chain attached to nipple rings while you're taking your 5 year old to the grocery store.. And the "living in harmony" thing goes right out the window.

The gay community is just like every other community. They earn the reputation they have through their actions. And they will never get the respect they desire from society or be taken seriously...until they quit with the flamboyant sexual displays, regardless of how much they contribute to society.

When do one persons "rights" stop and another persons "rights" kick in, in situations where there are opposing views?

when one person stops having an equal shot at walking away from the relationship with no less access to freedom, services, rights, etc. than anyone else.

In this case, without the anti-descrimination law, the woman could (and if history is any teacher- would) be denied services in a systematic way without the ability to stand up for herself. The proprietor could deny her something that she uses the public infrastructure to profit from based on a prejudice.

PatN,

That said, they completely blow that great image with Gay Pride Parades. You think things are going along great and everyone is living in harmony and then WHAM!! You get visually assaulted by a group of gays, marching along in assless chaps, dragging their partner along by a chain attached to nipple rings while you're taking your 5 year old to the grocery store.. And the "living in harmony" thing goes right out the window.

but take, for example, a mardi gras parade in comparison. does that behavior impugn the entire straight community?

I think the double standard still exists. A straight woman in a brazillian thong, fine, doesn't mean anything about straight people in general, she doesn't speak for all straight women. A gay man in assless chaps ruins it for all the normal gay people.

when one person stops having an equal shot at walking away from the relationship with no less access to freedom, services, rights, etc. than anyone else.

In this case, without the anti-descrimination law, the woman could (and if history is any teacher- would) be denied services in a systematic way without the ability to stand up for herself.

Yet we ONCE AGAIN come back to the forcing acceptance point.

Had she NOT decided to change the form, and had instead simply written in "Not Applicable" in response to the "Groom" question(as I have done plenty of times when a medical form will ask when my last menstrual cycle was) this would NOT have happened at all.

So is there ANY responsibility upon the supposed "offended" party here for forcing the issue? SHE "infringed" upon the "rights" of the store owner by attempting to force her beliefs upon the store owner first.

Does the Klan bear ANY responsibility for the violence that breaks out when they PEACEFULLY march thru a "Black" part of a town?

Now before you answer the Klan question remember your stand on "rights" and the whole "tolerance and acceptance" thing.

Yet we ONCE AGAIN come back to the forcing acceptance point.

ok, define what you mean by acceptance.

legal acceptance? I'm fine with that. just like the klan has a right to have black people legally accept them and vice-versa.

So is there ANY responsibility upon the supposed "offended" party here for forcing the issue?

responsibility in terms of what? Like, should the shop owner have a viable legal defense? Or are we talking about if they ever go to group therapy together and feel the need to reconcile and hug?

SHE "infringed" upon the "rights" of the store owner by attempting to force her beliefs upon the store owner first.

no, she forced the facts onto the shop owner.
even if being a lesbian was a belief, the patron didn't force the owner to be a lesbian, change her religion or even believe lesbians exist. just to exchange goods for cash with someone who professes to be one. The owner could easily do that without accepting the belief. Same goes if the person put "martian" under ethnicity. I don't believe that the card really forces the store owner to do anything more than acknowledge passively that a person wrote something on a card.

Since when is what one writes on a card at a maternity shop universally true?

I notice you ducked the Klan question for the most part.

Let me rephrase it for you.

Does the Klan bear ANY responsibility if violence should break out during a march held by them, with all of the proper legal permits, thru a "Black" neighborhood?

I notice you ducked the Klan question for the most part.

because it's a stupid question, and a convoluted one intended to garner a "gotcha!"

you think you have a right to force me to accept your unnatrual perverted sin against nature question? Huh? HUH???

I notice, of course, you ducked my straight-up questions in your response and focused only on the fact that I didn't give you the satisfaction.

/sigh...

And the 'mericuns just keep making us proud...

Pat N wrote:

Argh. I'm torn on this one. I really believe that in a capitalistic society, a business should be able to refuse service to whoever they want

Like, say, Woolworths and their white-only lunch counters?

There are good reasons for public accommodation and civil rights statutes. Your belief is one of them.

There are good reasons for public accommodation and civil rights statutes. Your belief is one of them.

Aww. I've been bitchslapped by Dennis. I feel so sad.

Sorry hon. My post was reasonable. And I'm not going to take your chest-thumping, empty lip service about "civil rights" seriously until I see you out there stumping for every single business, whether public or private, being forced to install a wheelchair ramp and demand handrails in every roadside gas station.

A business refusing to sell a dress is hardly comparable to segregation. You must really be up in arms about fine dining restaurants that have restrictions on the age of children that are permitted.

Pat N wrote:

And I'm not going to take your chest-thumping, empty lip service about "civil rights" seriously until I see you out there stumping for every single business, whether public or private, being forced to install a wheelchair ramp and demand handrails in every roadside gas station.

Strawman.

A business refusing to sell a dress is hardly comparable to segregation.

In the case at hand, the refusal is based on the same bigotry that was used to justify Woolworths' policy.

Strawman.

I've seen this so often on the Vine from liberals, that I don't think they even know what a 'strawman' IS. It's simply translatable to: "@!$%#. I don't have a come back for that valid point"

In the case at hand, the refusal is based on the same bigotry that was used to justify Woolworths' policy.

Hardly. I kind of doubt you have the ability to look at someone and know whether or not their gay. Also, I already said this particular business owner should have known the law in her state. A part you conveniently overlooked because you have the sole goal of starting a pissing match for no reason.

Convenient avoidance regarding age restrictions at fine dining establishments. What do you think of that?

Pat N wrote:

Hardly. I kind of doubt you have the ability to look at someone and know whether or not their gay.

The article states that the business owner refused the sale because the patron is gay.

Convenient avoidance regarding age restrictions at fine dining establishments. What do you think of that?

It's an argument that's irrelevant to the issue at hand, i.e., a strawman.

It's an argument that's irrelevant to the issue at hand, i.e., a strawman.

As I suspected. You don't have a clue as to the definition of 'strawman', and you're using the word to avoid exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

'Strawman' has nothing to do with relevancy. It has everything to do with stength or weakness of an opposing argument. One that is set up for the sole purpose of being easily confuted.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man

Now. Since you keep claiming the argument is a "strawman"...and since you now know the correct definition of 'strawman'....refute it. it should be easy for you.

What is your opinion of fine dining establishments that restrict age?

What is your opinion of demanding every single business have a wheelchair ramp?

Or are you a hypocrite?

Surely, since you think it was somehow "wrong" of me to say that I believe in free markets, but also believe the shopkeeper should have known the laws in her state...you MUST have some opinion on the above two scenarios.

Pat N wrote:

What is your opinion of fine dining establishments that restrict age?

What is your opinion of demanding every single business have a wheelchair ramp?

I think that since you seem so passionate about those issues, you should write an article.

I also think you'd benefit from a debate class.

Pat N wrote:

Now. Since you keep claiming the argument is a "strawman"...and since you now know the correct definition of 'strawman'....refute it. it should be easy for you.

What is your opinion of fine dining establishments that restrict age?

What is your opinion of demanding every single business have a wheelchair ramp?

You know, on second thought, you're right.

Those arguments are better described as red herrings than strawmen.

I also think you'd benefit from a debate class.

(Liberal Translation): "I entered this article looking for a pissing match, completely ignored the fact that Pat stated the store owner was in the wrong and instead, implied Pat's *beliefs* were anti-civil rights, dispite the fact that she is a disabled female who is on record all over this site as being in favor of the repeal of DADT.

I fully expected her to not bite back after I essentially accused her of being a bigot. So I used a word I don't have a clue as to the definition. When I was called on that, I was reduced to my only out. Elitism"

Now. Tell me one more time...why you felt it was necessary to come in here and essentially call me a bigot because I said that I believe in free market capitalism but hold the shopkeeper responsible for knowing the laws in her state.

I just made some fabulous almond cookies, and you make a lot of assumptions.

No assumptions, Dennis. I'm not the only one who pointed out both sides of the coin in this article. I am, however..the only die hard conservative. Hence, the one you decided whose *beliefs* were anti-civil rights.

Dennis you are 100% correct that the shop owner refusing to sell the dress to the lesbian woman was bigotry. It is discrimination plain and simple.

I hope the woman reported the shop owner regarding her discriminatory practices.

I hope she sues the shopowner. I hope they boycott the store.

I hope she sues the shopowner.

Ah yes. More of the sue-happy mentality from the left. It's not enough that the legal process has already taken care of it.

The liberal mind wants to shut down yet another small business employer and put all of their staff on the unemployment rolls instead.

And they want to do this while they think companies like GE run by Obama's buddy Jeffrey Immelt, pay zero federal income taxes and are the number one outsourcer of jobs should be coddled.

Screw the little guy and protect the mega-corporations...right Tessy?

Seems to me as if this is such a small shop and such a small business that she would have happily taken the woman's money and kept her narrow minded bigoted mouth shut. This can only hurt her business.

The shop owner is a narrow minded bigot. If she wants to turn away business more power to her!

I hope the lady who was refused service based on this narrow minded bigoted shop owner spreads the word and I hope this shopowner loses lots of business! She did it to herself.

If she wants to turn away business more power to her!

Be careful. Dennis will accuse you of having *beliefs* that are anti-civil rights.

The shop owner can refuse service to anyone she wants for any reason. It's her right. But some rights do not come without consequences...

Was the reason because she is a bigot? Probably. That's not illegal, there are MILLIONS of 'em.

If I want to open up a restaurant and put up a sign that says "No Gays, Muslims, Blacks (or whoever) allowed", I sure can... this is America. Will I be in business very long after someone finds out about this service policy? Not likely, unless I live in an area with an awful lot of bigots...

Should she be punished for being such a bigot? Sure, but not by the government.

She'll be "punished" by all the bad press the shop is getting for being run by such a bigot and the "punishment" will be in her bank account...

Don't you people have jobs? wrote:

If I want to open up a restaurant and put up a sign that says "No Gays, Muslims, Blacks (or whoever) allowed", I sure can... this is America.

Actually, restaurants, unless they're private clubs, fall under public accommodation law.

And there are easy ways around any of those...

Almost every bar/restaurant I've been in lately has a "we refuse the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" sign. So a simple "I don't like the way you look" comment, and you ain't getting served...

But if it happens to enough people, enough times... The community will "punish" an offending establishment with their dollars.

On the other hand a store owner should have the right to refuse service if he wishes

Not if it breaks state law she doesn't. Not much of a coin-toss.

It is my Opinion and I stick to it.I Understand that this state has a law against it...I disagree with that Law. Again Just my opinion...that said,I personally would have taken the womens money and forgot about her as soon as she left the store.Business is Business.

1. The storeowner does have a right to her beliefs. She does not have the right to break the law.

2. I couldn't find any article anywhere that said a lawsuit was involved.