From here:
A florist in Riverview, N.B., is refusing to provide wedding flowers to a same-sex couple, according to the event’s planner.
After agreeing to provide the flowers for a wedding, Kim Evans of Petals and Promises Wedding Flowers sent an email last month to the couple, saying she didn’t know it was a same-sex wedding and would have no part of the ceremony.
“I am choosing to decline your business. As a born-again Christian, I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter,” the email said.
Evans has not returned calls from CBC News to explain her decision.
Mario Bourgeois Leduc, wedding planner for the couple, who didn’t want their names released, said he was appalled by the florist’s email, especially since “you’re celebrating love and you’re going against all of the odds to celebrate what is important in your life.”
“This is going to stay with them for years, because they were again told that their lives are not OK.”
Eldon Hay, a United Church minister in Sackville and a well-known gay rights advocate, said he still sympathizes with the florist.
“The shopkeeper has every right to her own convictions as long as she is a private citizen in her own house,” Hay said.
“But if she opens her doors to sell flowers, then she must be prepared to meet and deal with the public.”
According to the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, anyone doing business in the province cannot refuse customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation.
I suspect that this type of incident is likely to become more common as the decade grinds on.
While, like the United Church minister, I can feign sympathy for what I disagree with – the law in my case – I do wonder whether, in this situation, the law is being misapplied.
Making it illegal for a homosexual couple to walk into, say, a tobacconist and be refused cigarettes, is a little different from compelling a Christian florist to tacitly condone – almost take part in – a “marriage” ceremony which violates her beliefs.
The law usually acts as a blunderbuss, of course, and is indifferent to fine distinctions, so Christians beware: we appear to be entering a time where we have to pay a social and financial penalty for our beliefs.
“This is going to stay with them for years, because they were again told that their lives are not OK.”
Oh please!!!! Isn’t that a little over the top?
However, this kind of thing is going to happen as long as sexual orientation is placed on the same level as race. This florist will probably be hauled before the human rights commission, or bludgeoned with the full force of the law.
Frankly, if I were to face such a charge, I would defend myself on the basis that it was not their sexual orientation I objected to, it was their sexual activity. In other words, I would deny adamantly that their orientation had anything to do with my refusal of service. If they would promise not to engage in any immoral sexual behaviour (that is, sex with each other), I would be more than happy to serve them.
First of all i would like to start out by saying that the gay community has faced many hardships, discrimination, and hurles just to be left alone. when it comes to their sexual activity, A: none of your business B: Not your place to control it: and C: Not a choice, or a lifestyle. They were born the way they were born.
And as for the comment: “This is going to stay with them for years, because they were again told that their lives are not OK.”
I was not allowed by my late boyfriends family to attend his funeral, or wake, and after he passed away, the family came in my home and took all of OUR possessions (furniture, animals, electronics, food, and pictures). The police did nothing, when taken to small claims court, the judge would not do anything to help me.
So yes, this will stick with them for a very long time. Living in a world that wont accept you for who you are is hard enough, and then to top it all, there are people who want to control peoples personal lives (IE 18 states in USA have laws against sodomy, regardless of sex)
And who is anyone to dictate what two consenting adults do sexually? how would you like it if a man kissing his wife was ruled as illegal? How would you like it if you couldnt have sex with the person you married?
Refusing services to a gay couple because of ones beliefs is not only immoral, also illegal in this country. If you open your doors to the public to offer services, or goods, you are LEGALLY OBLIGED TO OFFER THIS TO ANYONE, AND EVERYONE.
And as for the florist and her opinions and beliefs? She is entitled to them, but not to discriminate against others.
If the tables were turned, wouldnt you stand up for your rights?
And at the end of the day, we all bleed the same, die the same, and pay the same taxes.
If i owned a business and refused all heterosexual clients dont you think thats not only stupid, but also poor business judgment?
the florist not only made enemies in the gay community, but also all those who support it.
I love the tag “Anti-Christian Laws”… the law in question would protect a Christian who was refused service at a store based on their faith just as much as it is protecting the gay couple. Persecution complex much ?
The difference is, of course, that Christians are not out to make a political point when they buy flowers.
If someone didn’t want to sell me flowers because I am a Christian, I wouldn’t want to do business with them, so I would go elsewhere.
Incidentally, “D”, please use a real email address, or your comments will be removed.
Judgement if for God and God alone. You insult Christianity and the Lord. Let Him be the judge, until then, turn the other cheek as Christ demands of us.
“This is going to stay with them for years, because they were again told that their lives are not OK.”
And what of the poor florist, who’s been told that her strongly held beliefs and opinions are not publicly acceptable and that she should shut up?
Guys, people will disagree with you. Build a bridge and get over it; the “other side” has been doing so for years.
(Or, “being thin-skinned is not a virtue”)
The “poor florist” is being told to provide her business service, not stop believing what she’s believing. The NB Human Rights act does not allow a business to decline service based on sexual orientation. The business she runs has to provide the service. If she doesn’t like that, shut down the business, hire a staffer to do this job, outsource to another florist to do the work… but in any case, the business must do it. She’s the boss at that company… up to her whether or not she personally does the work.
No one has told the florist that she is not entitled to her own point of view, what they are saying is that if she chooses to run a business then she is not entitled to discriminate. This is a purely secular matter which unfortunately demonstrates the problems that coexist between matters of state and religion.
I think it important to take a step back and remember that Jesus discriminated in one way only – positively. He embraced sinners while rejecting and absolving them of sin. For a christian there ought to be no conflict in a case such as this. The florist should be able to both hold her own belief that same-sex relationships are wrong, while also extending love and tolerance toward the ‘sinner’ and be grateful that such a marriage, regardless of its moral merits, brings just a little more love into this grim and judgmental world of ours.
Sorry David, now I have discovered your blog I am hooked. By supplying flowers to a ceremony the florist is providing a service, she is in no way taking part in the ceremony itself. Had she not realised they were a same-sex couple, and continued to offer them business, do you really think any harm would have been done? After all, the wedding will still go ahead and the couple will still share their lives together and the sun will still rise tomorrow morning…
Aren’t you forgetting about the “Go and sin no more” part?
In any event – if I were the florist, I would have served the couple. I wouldn’t attend their wedding, though.
Providing flowers is not an essential service. If the florist feels she cannot in good conscience provide the flowers for this wedding there are other florists. Why can she not be allowed her opinion.
LOL. Wow. I love how this is filed under “Anti-Christian laws”, when it is the same-sex couple who are being treated unfairly. This florist is (quite rightly) coming under fire for citing her “religious beliefs” as a reason for discriminating against fellow human beings. It never ceases to amaze me how so many alleged “Christians” somehow manage to ignore the most important parts of the religion- you know, loving others, judging not lest ye be judged, etc? She is not allowed to discriminate, end of story. No one is telling her to change her opinions, they are telling her to DO HER JOB. Which entails serving any non-violent, law-abiding person who comes in to her shop to buy flowers.
And yet it is ok to discriminate against her?
What I see in this story, and many others, is the death of freedom of conscience, and what I see in this thread is the acceptance and approval of it. Yes, the law is the law, and this florist will probably suffer the consequences of her actions, but is the law reasonable? Frankly, I think in many cases such laws go, or are at least enforced, overboard.
As has been pointed out, there are probably any number of other florists more than happy to take the business.
The problem is not that the couple in question were unable, then, to get flowers for their ceremony, but that their feelings were hurt. It has also been pointed out that refusing this business was a poor business decision. I agree, if purely business decisions were all that was involved, but as a business person myself, I feel I have the right to make such decisions on principle, even if I do suffer financially as a result. There are stores that refuse to carry pornographic magazines, for instance, and suffer lack of sales as a result, but they do so as a matter of conscience. There are indeed products that I refuse to carry in my store, and, to carry the argument to an extreme, it might be argued that I am discriminating against people who want to buy such products, or the peole who supply them.
DrewG, I am sorry for your pain, and please don’t judge my sincerity in saying this. I have a sense that your situation was motivated more by others’ anger, even vindictiveness, than by conscience. Their actions sound cold and heartless, but frankly, I don’t think that having to go elsewhere for flowers falls into the same category.
John, I had an interesting conversation with an American a few months ago who was not afraid to take tea party/libertarian ideals to their logical conclusion. His views were ideologically rather than religiously motivated, and it was clear that he was well read and verse in different politcal perspectives. He was quite open in saying that all businesses should have the right to do business with whomever they please – and that free market forces would ultimately sort things out. Out of curiousity, I asked him if he was okay with refusing to do business with someone based on race. He said that, while he would not make such a disctinction personally, he was strongly against any government intervention in such a case. More specifically, he would support a white-owned business’s right to refuse service to a black person – on principle. What’s your take on this perspective?
She was, as a business owner, discriminating against these people on the basis of their sexual orientation, which is prohibited by the Human Rights Act of New Brunswick. I find it incredible how some of the commenters here have managed to completely gloss over this pretty important detail.
Somewhat the same as you ignoring Muriel’s question, Rachel. Pot, meet kettle.
OK, I’ll answer her question. She is not being discriminated against. She is not being asked to change her beliefs. She is being asked to follow New Brunswick law, like ANY OTHER BUSINESS OWNER IN THIS PROVINCE. Any blowback that has resulted from her actions has been purely this shopkeeper’s own fault, because that’s not how society operates in North America in 2011. She can either get with the times or suffer the logical consequences, aka losing a lot of business from people who disagree with her policy of discrimination. What’s next, “Whites Only” signs in store windows?
Yupp, there goes the last remaning shred of relevancy that Christianity had in my life.