NJ Bridal Salon Refuses to Sell Gown to Lesbian Bride

[Quiche]

It's illegal for a reason, trust that. mo

 

[Wise Old Owl]

****warning*****

*just a "weedle" voice of reason here*


All this talk about discrimination and refusing service to someone and psychological damages and stuff like that there

Would you all (or did you all) think about these issues when the restaurant owner decided not to serve members of FCA's jury? Or when all those letter writing, boycotting sponsers campaigns against FCA? Or all this talk about the A's and Dr. Phil - who's not paying them directly but making a donation to their foundation?

Or when OJ was refused service as well?

Both OJ and FCA were found "not guilty" - yet many people believe it ok to discriminate against them for one reason or another - whether it be to make money or just to have a meal at a restaurant.

***again, just some food for thought***

 

[i.b.nora]

According to Florida laws, it was not against the law for the restaurant owner to choose not to serve the Casey Anthony jurors because of their unpopular decision.

Even though it seems rather small minded to me that the restaurant owner did that, the law does not apply to his stated reasons. If I lived near that restaurant, I might choose not to eat there since if he is that small minded, it is likely the owner has other biases as well.

http://fchr.state.fl.us/complaints__1/public_accommodations

Public Accommodations

It is unlawful for an individual to be denied access or to receive poor service or lesser quality accommodations because of his or her race, color, national origin, sex, disability, familial status or religion.

 

[not_my_kids]

Actually Wise, I feel the same way when it comes to anyone. Even casey anthony. I certainly wasn't happy with that verdict (or OJ's), but the point remains that casey is now a functional member of society, and I will have to trust that justice will be done when she leaves this planet. That's the only way to look at it. A not guilty is a not guilty, and we may never accept some people happily as being members of our society, but it remains that they are granted the same protections under the law as those that we happily accept as "one of us."

I'm not saying that the woman in this case was psychologically traumatized, I think that might be reaching, but to say that she definitely faced hardship that she shouldn't have is a given. Most gays in our society have become used to discrimination, either in subtle ways or more overt forms of outright hatred, it is one of the things that our openly gay citizens have to face.

If casey anthony were to walk into a business where I worked, no I wouldn't be happy to serve her, I might not be able to hold my tongue, and there is a chance that I would be rude to her, but if the law said that I had to serve her, I would do it. Bad service is not a crime, no service is, in some cases. That is the entire sticking point for me, that the shop owner acted on her interpretation of the law, and was wrong in that interpretation, which led her to actively break the law by refusing service.

 

[gitana1]

While the actions of the store owner are a bit overboard, she does have the right to refuse service. If she feels that strongly, then I have to support her willingness to stand behind her beliefs, even with the potential of causing herself some loss of business.

It used to be illegal in most states to marry someone of a different "race". People used the same arguments then, against miscegenation, that they do now, against gay marriage. I'm wondering if you would support her willingness to stand behind her beliefs if she was a shop owner who refused to sell to a nice, Jewish gal' whose groom is a black man?

(Something similar to that happened not too long ago, BTW, when a justice of the peace refused to marry a white gal' and a black guy because he "worried for their children":

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/10/1...used-marriage-license-louisiana#ixzz1VgftpRcb )
​

And Wise Old Owl, you've given me some food for thought. When I heard about the restaurant in Pinellas saying the jurors were not welcome, I understood their anger. But is it right to deny people service because they performed their civic duty in a manner we abhor?

However, I would say there is a difference, because discrimination, in a legal sense, applies to "protected classes" of people, i.e., those who have been historically discriminated against due to their status. Unpopular jurors would not fit into one of those categories.

Nevertheless, you make an interesting and valid point. How we view tolerance, discrimination, etc., is often based in large part on our strong feelings one way or the other, and not necessarily on a sense of fairness or ethics. Your argument is one against hypocrisy.

 

[i.b.nora]

New Jersey amended its civil rights statutes in 1991 to include sexual orientation, and as the New Jersey Attorney General's website says:

http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/credit.html

It is unlawful for a person to refuse to buy from, sell to, contract or otherwise do business with an individual because of the individual's race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership or civil union status, liability for service in the Armed Forces of the United States, age, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability or because of race, creed, national origin or other protected characteristics of the person's spouse, partners, employees, business associates, suppliers or customers. It is also unlawful for any bank or financial institution to deny credit or particular terms of a credit transaction (such as loan rates) to an individual on any of these bases.

That is the law that applies and in my opinion, the woman broke the law of the State of New Jersey, and her reasons for denying the sale of a bridal gown to Ms Genter are on record. There is no spinning her reasons, no twisting them. She is a bigot.

 

[Donjeta]

I only watched the trial and haven't really followed the FCA saga after the acquittal and I never read much about what happened with OJ so I'm not familiar with the incidents Wise Old Owl mentioned but I do think people have the right not to watch Dr. Phil and to boycott businesses that support a cause or a person they do not want supported for one reason or another. But not serving the jury at a restaurant would be going too far IMO.

There is a difference IMO when it's about consumers choosing whether to be a customer of an enterprise or businesses choosing whether to accept certain kinds of customers.

At my place of employment, the ethical code demands that clients with a criminal past are treated with just as much respect as any other person. If FCA or OJ or someone who was actually found guilty were brought in we should try and help them just as professionally as anybody else, hard as it might be. Our personal feelings or moral judgments about them should be kept out of the encounters.

In any case, supposing FCA or OJ got away with murder, refusing to sell them food won't bring the victims back to life.

 

[Nova]

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.

And in fact that is EXACTLY the argument that was often made during the Civil Rights Era.

 

[Charlie09]

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.

It's not though - any more than not finding a particular size at a store. You go to the next one that meets your needs. There's no trauma, there's annoyance. So why would you want to purchase from someone you would find so hateful?

 

[Nova]

It's not though - any more than not finding a particular size at a store. You go to the next one that meets your needs. There's no trauma, there's annoyance. So why would you want to purchase from someone you would find so hateful?

Being denied service because of the business person's narrow mindedness is not the same as finding a store is out of something in your size. I don't think even you believe it is.

 

[Donjeta]

It's not though - any more than not finding a particular size at a store. You go to the next one that meets your needs. There's no trauma, there's annoyance. So why would you want to purchase from someone you would find so hateful?

I am quite certain I won't purchase anything from her if she insists on acting like that. But if a hateful person carried the dress of my dreams I might easily do business with them as long as they keep a civil face and leave their personal feelings out of it.

There doesn't have to be "trauma" in order for there to be injustice. Surely you wouldn't say that it is quite okay not to serve black customers at a restaurant because they have just met with an annoyance no worse than finding out that the restaurant is out of The Fish of the Day would be, and they can just go to the next restaurant, no harm done.

I'm not sure what "It's not" in your post refers to but if you're saying the mood wasn't spoiled I don't believe it. At least, I can only speak for myself, but when I was looking for a wedding dress I did find a lovely one they didn't have in my size and I wasn't distressed at all. But I can promise I would have been very upset if the store owner had been openly judgemental about whatever it was about me that she found she couldn't stand and threw me out of her shop. Most people are likely to be more upset about people and their behavior than dress sizes, I think.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

This is only my very humble opinion:

If any person has their own personal beliefs, I respect that completely. It is our right to have that privilage and, hopefully, hold respect for others that may not have the same opinion. I also believe, completely, that you should never, ever shut a door to your own mindset as you will miss what could very possibly be a healthy epiphany that you may never have considered. Ignorance hurts ourselves as well as others who are just trying to live a life that may not be the "map" we are comfortable with in our own safe world.

The shop owner was wrong to deny this woman a dress she would have bought for herself. It never should have been even a nano burp in this shop owners head as to the reason why. Period.

As far as the restaurant owner who refused to serve the jurors in the CA case, again, wrong. These people were doing their job as jurors. Thank goodness we have such a jury system. Do we (or the owner of restaurant) have to be pleased? No. But, they were judged and held accountable for only what they were given in court as public servants. They were tossed out like a baby and the bath water. Wrong. Period.

My little mini opinion...

 

[Charlie09]

I

I am quite certain I won't purchase anything from her if she insists on acting like that. But if a hateful person carried the dress of my dreams I might easily do business with them as long as they keep a civil face and leave their personal feelings out of it.

There doesn't have to be "trauma" in order for there to be injustice. Surely you wouldn't say that it is quite okay not to serve black customers at a restaurant because they have just met with an annoyance no worse than finding out that the restaurant is out of The Fish of the Day would be, and they can just go to the next restaurant, no harm done.

I'm not sure what "It's not" in your post refers to but if you're saying the mood wasn't spoiled I don't believe it. At least, I can only speak for myself, but when I was looking for a wedding dress I did find a lovely one they didn't have in my size and I wasn't distressed at all. But I can promise I would have been very upset if the store owner had been openly judgemental about whatever it was about me that she found she couldn't stand and threw me out of her shop. Most people are likely to be more upset about people and their behavior than dress sizes, I think.

I disagree it's similar to the race issue. No one has to be told someone is a different color. Do we even know how the topic came up? was she told before she found a dress no, or during purchase? We only know a little snippet of the story.

I don't think it's ok to not serve based on color - it's not the same thing - no matter how it's portrayed.

I think you're missing the point on the dress sizes, is it ok for stores to be rude to people who are outside of the size 0-10 range and don't want to serve them? Isn't that a type of discrimination? Isn't it up to the store to carry the sizes and to the clientele they want to? Should everyone that doesn't get their way in a particular store be able to sue?

 

[Charlie09]

Being denied service because of the business person's narrow mindedness is not the same as finding a store is out of something in your size. I don't think even you believe it is.

Why not? Some people are innately larger than others, there's nothing they can do to change that - why isn't it discrimination?

 

[Donjeta]

I
I disagree it's similar to the race issue. No one has to be told someone is a different color. Do we even know how the topic came up? was she told before she found a dress no, or during purchase? We only know a little snippet of the story.

I don't see the relevance of whether you have to be told someone is X to whether you can discriminate on the basis of that. You do sometimes have to be told to learn someone's color if you're not dealing with them face to face, doesn't make it OK to discriminate due to color.

I don't think it's ok to not serve based on color - it's not the same thing - no matter how it's portrayed.

We must agree to disagree, I don't see any significant difference.

I think you're missing the point on the dress sizes, is it ok for stores to be rude to people who are outside of the size 0-10 range and don't want to serve them? Isn't that a type of discrimination?

No, it's never okay to be rude to customers if you're in customer service, IMO. If I was a bridal store owner and my salesperson was rude to my clients I would be wanting to fire that person. However, not having every dress in every size ready on the rack is not the same as being rude and not wanting to serve someone, IMO. The bridal shops I have gone to have access to catalogs of dresses available in large sizes and if that fails they can order something sewn to fit anyone. Probably most bridal shops keep their shelves mostly filled with items that have the biggest turnover and something in rare sizes has to be ordered. It's just business, not discrimination IMO. Bridal gowns are so expensive the shops can't afford to have everything on the shelves. I had to order the dress I wanted because they didn't have it in my size and it had to be altered to fit my measurements and I never thought there was any discrimination involved with that.

Turning large women away because "we just do business with pretty thin ladies" would be wrong IMO.

Should everyone that doesn't get their way in a particular store be able to sue?

No, of course not. Only if their not getting their way is caused by something illegal that the store did.

 

[not_my_kids]

Since service was denied after she filled out the card asking for info, it makes sense that service was denied based on the information she put on it, such as that she was entering a "partnership" as opposed to a "marriage."

And let's not forget the shop owner's own statements, which make it perfectly clear why she denied service, IMO.

 

[Charlie09]

I don't see the relevance of whether you have to be told someone is X to whether you can discriminate on the basis of that. You do sometimes have to be told to learn someone's color if you're not dealing with them face to face, doesn't make it OK to discriminate due to color.



We must agree to disagree, I don't see any significant difference.



No, it's never okay to be rude to customers if you're in customer service, IMO. If I was a bridal store owner and my salesperson was rude to my clients I would be wanting to fire that person. However, not having every dress in every size ready on the rack is not the same as being rude and not wanting to serve someone, IMO. The bridal shops I have gone to have access to catalogs of dresses available in large sizes and if that fails they can order something sewn to fit anyone. Probably most bridal shops keep their shelves mostly filled with items that have the biggest turnover and something in rare sizes has to be ordered. It's just business, not discrimination IMO. Bridal gowns are so expensive the shops can't afford to have everything on the shelves. I had to order the dress I wanted because they didn't have it in my size and it had to be altered to fit my measurements and I never thought there was any discrimination involved with that.

Turning large women away because "we just do business with pretty thin ladies" would be wrong IMO.



No, of course not. Only if their not getting their way is caused by something illegal that the store did.

SO basically it's ok to discriminate on size or beauty because it's not illegal to discriminate, but it's not ok to refuse service if one is opposed to same sex marriage. What if a pastor didn't want to officiate based on opposition to same sex marriage, is that discrimination as well?

 

[Donjeta]

SO basically it's ok to discriminate on size or beauty because it's not illegal to discriminate, but it's not ok to refuse service if one is opposed to same sex marriage. What if a pastor didn't want to officiate based on opposition to same sex marriage, is that discrimination as well?

How odd. I thought I wrote that it's not okay to discriminate on size and beauty. It was my personal opinion. I don't know what, if anything, the law says about it in various states.

I don't want to make any assertions about what the pastors in various religious affiliations I may or may not know well should do.

 

[Charlie09]

How odd. I thought I wrote that it's not okay to discriminate on size and beauty. It was my personal opinion. I don't know what, if anything, the law says about it in various states.

I don't want to make any assertions about what the pastors in various religious affiliations I may or may not know well should do.

You did say that, but you didn't note the psychological trauma that could be involve or any actionable complaints that could be made. (just my observation.)

It just really seems that there's inconsistency on what is or is not discrimination. It's ok because it's legal in this instance, it's horrifying in a retail instance, and taking the fifth on pastor's having their own moral reasons for not wanting to officiate a same sex wedding.

 

[Nova]

I
I disagree it's similar to the race issue. No one has to be told someone is a different color. Do we even know how the topic came up? was she told before she found a dress no, or during purchase? We only know a little snippet of the story....

BBM: So racism only matters if it is directed at darker skinned people. African-Americans and Latinos who can pass as Northern European should just do so and not be protected by law.