these business people need to listen to the mayor “Mayor Quimby: Then it’s settled. We shall legalize gay money. I mean gay marriage.
Well, I guess we’ll go render that which is Caesar’s unto somebody else, then…
Perhaps they shouldn’t have called their shop the W-W Bridal Boutique, then.
Asshats that are also completely within their rights to BE asshats, I suppose.
In the meantime, I hope these two women bought lovely dresses somewhere else and have a glorious wedding and a great marriage.
I’m torn on anti-discrimination laws. I would rather the store suffer the consequences of their intolerance, rather than being forced to (poorly) serve someone they don’t like. Hopefully social pressure would help them learn to be better people.
Then again, we’ve used anti-discrimination laws to protect minorities in the past. I don’t understand the best option for social change here.
One small edit, the town is called Bloomsburg. I know this because I, sigh, went to college there.
It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.
People have a right to be jackasses. They have the right, via freedom of association, to choose with whom they wish to engage in commerce.
Societal pressure is far more effective of a tool for changing hearts and minds than forcing people to do something they resent doing under color of law.
Yes, in places where society has progressed that far. Anti-discrimination laws are about protecting people who are caught in places where it hasn’t. I don’t see any reason to care less about what they are allowed than the shopkeepers.
The freedoms you enjoy as a person don’t all apply to businesses. You have freedom of speech that lets you lie about your abilities; when a company does that it’s false advertising. Historically, it’s pretty clear that requiring businesses not to discriminate can make for a lot more freedom than allowing them to do so.
And if the societal pressure simply isn’t there to change the business owner’s attitude, these women should be content to go somewhere else, right? That is, of course, assuming that there is another place nearby, so having to hunt for a place that’s willing to treat them like any other customer isn’t too much of an inconvenience.
On the other hand if businesses have to treat all customers equally that sends a strong signal to the community that all customers really are equal. Sometimes the “color of law” can be an instrument for effecting social change.
First, it’s “Bloomsburg” not “Bloomberg”…easy for me because I live there, spellcheck will change it for you if you’re not paying attention. Second, I’m not sure why you would even want someone to do work for you if they are seriously opposed to doing so, do you really feel that they will do as good of a job as someone who is supportive? Sure, you can compel them using the force of law to serve them but you cannot compel them to believe what you want unless you’re the sort of delusional jackass who wants to take this country down that dark alley. Believe me, the local economy is going to pay them back without any legal action and there are other plenty of other options for such services in the area.
Is this a town small enough that the bridal shop owner(s) would know the couple involved before they set foot in the store? If I owned such a shop and two women walked in, proclaimed they were getting married, but didn’t state “to each other,” I wouldn’t assume that’s what they meant unless I already knew them personally. I also don’t harbor such bigotries in my heart, so this is not even close to a condition under which I would refuse service.
Right, because the US has such a great track record of rejecting discrimination.
I, too, enjoy alternate history fantasies.
No one can be forced to believe something, and no one’s being forced to change their minds. You have to be a delusional jackass to think that’s what anti-discrimination laws do. However U.S. law has been going down the “dark alley” of compelling business owners to serve all customers equally for decades.
It’s great that in this particular circumstance the customers have other options, but that’s not always the case. As for whether the business will do a good job, if you were a business owner would you want to foster a reputation for providing an inferior product? A business that discriminates isn’t necessarily going to lose enough business to have to change. A business that’s known for providing inferior goods or services could see the effect on its bottom line.
Yes, they should go somewhere else. And if the place they live is so intolerant there exists no competitor who will serve them then they have to weigh “their desire to live in this place” against “the availability of services they desire in this place”, the same way I decide if I’m going to live in a place, and I weigh what my food, shopping, or educational options are in the area
Jerks. Just sell them the damn dress. Why do people have to be so mean…
It’s a complex issue, though I tend to lean towards freedom of association when it’s not about food or shelter or a limited commodity.
The fact that a gay bar for bears can be sued for discrimination when it asks a cross-dressing gay man to leave illustrates just how complex the issue is.
“Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between them.” James Carville
Bloomsburg is in the Alabama part.
So you believe it’s so important that businesses be allowed to discriminate that individuals who live in a community should be willing to leave any family and friends they have in an area, as well as their job and the home they’ve established, in order to move to a more tolerant community. Individuals should have to give up everything that makes living in a particular place worthwhile. And if they can’t afford to move, or are otherwise unable to move, well, I guess they have to suck it up.
My guess is that the brides in question had no idea the shop owners were asshats until they called to make an appointment.