The majority of people are aware, in whole or part, of the “decision” of Alexander C. Ekstrom back in February 2015 that claims a business owner no longer has the right to refuse to conduct business with a person or group based on their religious beliefs. So let’s ask some simple questions:
- Since when is a bakery or florist, or caterer a “service”?
- How are any of those being “helpful” or “aiding” anyone?
- How are they maintaining anything?
- In what way is doing something the customer cannot do a service when the request being made requires an agreement between both parties?
Also, let’s be clear: The colloquial term “serving” is not valid. There is a charge for the product. That obviates the concepts of supporting or assisting a person or group without recompense.
Moreover, each of those stores (bakeries, florists) or companies (caterers) are for-profit entities. They are established by a person or group to make money based on skills one or more people have. This is work. They are not servants to anyone. There is no debt previously established by the person owning the store with anyone, save for, perhaps, the bank from which they obtained loans to start the business.
The owner of the business makes a decision – a choice – to announce to the world their skills and how much they charge for that work to be completed. Who they make that profit from is their business. It is not some person aggrieved at being turned away. Certainly it is not the whim of some zombie in a black robe who is more interested in fulfilling short-term desires of “groups” by twisting and manipulating established case law instead of adhering to and maintaining the same.
The free market works far better in cleaning out what is unacceptable in culture and society. How? By letting buyers in the market determine what business in each segment they want to give their business to. If a business says “no” to completing a certain project… Hey, there are other businesses in that segment where you, the consumer – the person with the cash – can take your business. More importantly, businesses will decide how to conduct business based on market trends, not what some law states.
Those who actually wish to be honest in this discussion would do themselves a huge favor to actually read the chapter purpose and content of the Washington State Law used to make this asinine decision. Sure it is always fun to run for some soundbite from the ACLU or BuzzFeed, etc. to justify an opinion you hold. But you would do yourself a world of good to see just how tortured and opinionated this decision actually is if you read
For those too lazy to click, here is the first part:
This chapter shall be known as the “law against discrimination.” It is an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public welfare, health, and peace of the people of this state, and in fulfillment of the provisions of the Constitution of this state concerning civil rights. The legislature hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, creed, color, national origin, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability are a matter of state concern, that such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state. A state agency is herein created with powers with respect to elimination and prevention of discrimination in employment, in credit and insurance transactions, in places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement, and in real property transactions because of race, creed, color, national origin, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and the commission established hereunder is hereby given general jurisdiction and power for such purposes.
You will need to actually click the second link as the verbiage isn’t worth the hassle.
So what do all those words refer to? Simply put, the “law” being used to deny Arlene her right to decide how she wants to conduct business was established for “employment, in credit and insurance transactions, in places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement, and in real property transactions“. Yep. That’s right boys and girls. The AG and the judge colluded to use law for hiring practices to limit the decisions and interactions of a business owner with a consumer, a client. Nowhere is there any statement or mention of BUSINESS DECISIONS.
In the end, it becomes apparent this is the twisted effort of an AG and the opinion of some guy who was appointed and not elected back in 2014 to institute totalitarian mandates of acceptance of Sodomite actions upon people with differing religious, cultural, and moral values under the guise of “law.”