NJ Bridal Salon Refuses to Sell Gown to Lesbian Bride

[angelmom]

If gay marriage is not legal in New Jersey, and the store owner knew the dress was going to be used for an illegal act, wouldn't the store owner be guilty as an accessory?

Yes, of course. The same way that Haynes Pantyhose are being charged in bank robberies.

/sarcasm

 

[Charlie09]

Illegal discrimination.

what are the damages?

 

[Charlie09]

Justice because under New Jersey law, a shopkeeper or business owner cannot deny service based on sexual orientation.

I think an argument could be made that she's not denying based on sexual orientation but rather not agreeing with gay marriage. I realize it's a fine line, but I think it's one she's free to decide.

 

[Charlie09]

Yeah, I'm kinda over being tolerant of intolerance.

really? I haven't noticed that except in a few instances on this type of subject. I'll pay more attention going forward.

 

[Nova]

really? I haven't noticed that except in a few instances on this type of subject. I'll pay more attention going forward.

Charlie, I don't know what this post of yours means.

It's very easy to pose pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage views as simply two equally valid beliefs when your civil rights aren't at issue.

I think everyone has a right to believe gay marriage is wrong and to choose not to participate in such ceremonies. But, no, I don't believe anyone has a right to deny this basic civil right to others.

And no, I don't believe business people have a right to deny service to certain categories of people simply because they arbitrarily choose to dislike or disapprove of that group. Yes, we have different laws for religious organizations because we recognize freedom of religion as a competing right.

 

[Fairy1]

I think an argument could be made that she's not denying based on sexual orientation but rather not agreeing with gay marriage. I realize it's a fine line, but I think it's one she's free to decide.

I don't believe so.

The shop owner wasn't being asked to officiate over the ceremony. Her refusing to sell one of the partners a wedding gown was never actually going to stop the wedding. The only thing her small-minded bigotry was ever going to have an effect on is the progression of civil rights in the good old USA.

Oh, and her bottom line.

 

[Charlie09]

Charlie, I don't know what this post of yours means.

It's very easy to pose pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage views as simply two equally valid beliefs when your civil rights aren't at issue.

I think everyone has a right to believe gay marriage is wrong and to choose not to participate in such ceremonies. But, no, I don't believe anyone has a right to deny this basic civil right to others.

And no, I don't believe business people have a right to deny service to certain categories of people simply because they arbitrarily choose to dislike or disapprove of that group. Yes, we have different laws for religious organizations because we recognize freedom of religion as a competing right.

Your civil rights aren't at issue either. You are entitled to the same thing I am entitled to. If I want to marry someone of the opposite sex, I can. If I want to contract with someone of the same sex to be the guardian of my child, or to take care of my effects when I die, or leave my life insurance to whomever I choose, or make life decisions if I'm incapable, I sign a note with my doctor or give them power of attorney. I can, and so can you.

You are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean entitlement to redefine words to suit your personal needs, or to bully or name calling such as

one's white supremacist compound and raise goats.

when someone doesn't yield to your way of thinking.

Society in general, and laws in general still indicate that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yes there are a few states that see it differently, and we'll see if they stand as laws or not. Marriage is not a civil right - homosexuals and heterosexuals continue to enjoy political and social freedom with or without marriage.

I will continue to merely observe the tolerance that you preach on threads like this, because I don't see it on all threads in all subjects.

 

[Charlie09]

I don't believe so.

The shop owner wasn't being asked to officiate over the ceremony. Her refusing to sell one of the partners a wedding gown was never actually going to stop the wedding. The only thing her small-minded bigotry was ever going to have an effect on is the progression of civil rights in the good old USA.

It's not bigotry to have an opinion different than yours.
It's also not civil rights - you can say it is till your blue in the face, but not selling a wedding dress is much different than denying basic life necessities to someone.

 

[Nova]

Your civil rights aren't at issue either. You are entitled to the same thing I am entitled to. If I want to marry someone of the opposite sex, I can. If I want to contract with someone of the same sex to be the guardian of my child, or to take care of my effects when I die, or leave my life insurance to whomever I choose, or make life decisions if I'm incapable, I sign a note with my doctor or give them power of attorney. I can, and so can you.

You are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean entitlement to redefine words to suit your personal needs, or to bully or name calling such as when someone doesn't yield to your way of thinking.

Society in general, and laws in general still indicate that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yes there are a few states that see it differently, and we'll see if they stand as laws or not. Marriage is not a civil right - homosexuals and heterosexuals continue to enjoy political and social freedom with or without marriage.

I will continue to merely observe the tolerance that you preach on threads like this, because I don't see it on all threads in all subjects.

If marriage is not a civil right, then the government should neither sanction it legally nor provide legal benefits based on marital status. But the government does all that.

Telling me I am free to marry the person YOU choose is not anyone's definition of equality.

"Society in general" sanctioned slavery for four centuries, slaughtered Native Americans and disenfranchised women. I'm not impressed with the moral authority of "society in general".

I can't respond to your comments on my tolerance or lack thereof because you've yet to construct a straight-forward English sentence on the subject. I don't know what your point is.

 

[Donjeta]

I think an argument could be made that she's not denying based on sexual orientation but rather not agreeing with gay marriage. I realize it's a fine line, but I think it's one she's free to decide.

I don't see a fine line here. It's all the same to me. Sure she does not approve of gay marriage, and then she denied service because she found out her client was gay.

If this argument is acceptable we could just as well argue that the restaurants banning black people weren't denying service based on skin color, they were just not agreeing with black and white people dining together.

It doesn't fly with me.

 

[Donjeta]

It's not bigotry to have an opinion different than yours.
It's also not civil rights - you can say it is till your blue in the face, but not selling a wedding dress is much different than denying basic life necessities to someone.

Buying a wedding dress may not be necessary for anyone to survive but regardless, it is illegal in New Jersey businesses to refuse customers because they're gay.

You can shop because you're straight... you can't shop because you're gay. If we accept that kind of thinking it will very soon become a civil rights issue.

 

[Donjeta]

what are the damages?

I don't know, the article doesn't say. Psychological traumatization, the costs of making other arrangements, attorney fees, etc.

What do you think the damages from being illegally discriminated against may be in other cases? Does there have to be a lot of damages in order for illegal discrimination to be unacceptable? Would it be okay for a restaurant to refuse to serve black people because the owner argues they aren't damaged by it, they can go to some other restaurant?

 

[Charlie09]

If marriage is not a civil right, then the government should neither sanction it legally nor provide legal benefits based on marital status. But the government does all that.

Telling me I am free to marry the person YOU choose is not anyone's definition of equality.

"Society in general" sanctioned slavery for four centuries, slaughtered Native Americans and disenfranchised women. I'm not impressed with the moral authority of "society in general".

I can't respond to your comments on my tolerance or lack thereof because you've yet to construct a straight-forward English sentence on the subject. I don't know what your point is.

So in your opinion, anything sanctioned by the government is now a civil right?

I didn't tell you who I chose for you, I'm speaking as a single person. If I wanted to be married, I have to follow the current definitions. If I don't want to marry, I have legal options to preserve my rights.

I don't care if you're impressed with the moral authority of "society in general" that's how laws are legislation are decided. Except in California where legislators are on their own track.

I'll work on my straight forward English sentence on the subject of your tolerance next time I see a blatant intolerant post instead of going back through your posts now.

 

[Charlie09]

I don't know, the article doesn't say. Psychological traumatization, the costs of making other arrangements, attorney fees, etc.

What do you think the damages from being illegally discriminated against may be in other cases? Does there have to be a lot of damages in order for illegal discrimination to be unacceptable? Would it be okay for a restaurant to refuse to serve black people because the owner argues they aren't damaged by it, they can go to some other restaurant?

Many times people don't find the right dress at the first store. There is no psychological trauma here, onto the next store. There shouldn't be attorney fees either.

There is no similarity to the race issue - none.

You can shop because you're straight... you can't shop because you're gay. If we accept that kind of thinking it will very soon become a civil rights issue.

Would this be the same issue to you if the store wouldn't sell the dress to a male?
Glad to see you don't think it's a civil rights issue

 

[Kimster]

I'm getting alerts from this thread. Tone it down so others feel free to chime in if they want to. No one wants to post if they think their opinion is going to be attacked. :tyou:

 

[Charlie09]

I don't see a fine line here. It's all the same to me. Sure she does not approve of gay marriage, and then she denied service because she found out her client was gay.

If this argument is acceptable we could just as well argue that the restaurants banning black people weren't denying service based on skin color, they were just not agreeing with black and white people dining together.

It doesn't fly with me.

If it doesn't fly with you, then don't purchase from her.

 

[Donjeta]

Many times people don't find the right dress at the first store. There is no psychological trauma here, onto the next store.

I totally and completely disagree. In terms of psychological damage it is not the same at all to exit a shop after deciding out of one's free will that there is nothing here that I want to buy and exiting a store without buying the dress you wanted because a criminal discriminatory act has been committed against you.

I don't understand how you can compare a free choice and becoming a victim of crime.

There shouldn't be attorney fees either.

Well, I agree with you there. The owner should just have sold her the dress as the law states and there would be nothing to involve lawyers in.

There is no similarity to the race issue - none.

Yes there is. Discrimination on both grounds is morally and legally wrong.

Would this be the same issue to you if the store wouldn't sell the dress to a male?

On what grounds would they refuse? I don't think it should be legal for businesses to discriminate their clients on the basis of sex either. If a man wants to buy a wedding dress for whatever reason, just let him and be done with it, IMO. Maybe it's for a girlfriend or a theater play or he wants to wear it to his own wedding, I don't care. None of it is illegal.

Glad to see you don't think it's a civil rights issue

Well, that wasn't the impression I was trying to give. It is a civil right IMO not to be illegally discriminated against and if it's violated it's an issue.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I think psychological traumatization is a stretch.

I think what the store owner did was wrong, but no way it would cause psychological traumatization IMO.

 

[not_my_kids]

Here's the way I see it, gay marriages are not performed in New Jersey, however, same sex partnerships are a recognized type of civil union. You can have a ceremony for pretty much anything you like, so with the gay marriage laws the way they are, they would be having a ceremony in recognition of their feelings for each other. You can wear whatever you want, within reason, to any ceremony that you choose to attend, therefore her choosing to wear a wedding dress to a ceremony that was a celebration of her and her partner's love for each other is not illegal.
It's a grey area.

However, what is not a legal grey area is that it is 100%, no doubt about it, illegal to refuse service to a prospective client when the only basis for that refusal is the sexual orientation of said client. No gray area there.

 

[Donjeta]

I think psychological traumatization is a stretch.

I think what the store owner did was wrong, but no way it would cause psychological traumatization IMO.

We don't know if it did or if it didn't, IMO. Most people can cope with encountering hateful behavior once in a while and one encounter with it won't ruin the rest of their lives but people and situations are different. There are examples of people who have experienced discrimination as very distressing and traumatic, particularly if it's a repeating pattern and not just an isolated incident.

At the very least the joyful anticipation of a warm and affectionate event was somewhat spoiled.