Under Fire: Bridal Store Feels the Heat After Refusing to Sell Wedding Dress to Lesbian
- Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:33am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Alix Genter (Credit: Sarah J. Glover/Philadelphia Inquirer)
This one’s sure to have gay marriage proponents buzzing. Here Comes the Bride, a bridal store in Somers Point, New Jersey, is feeling the heat after allegedly refusing to sell a wedding dress to a lesbian.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Alix Genter visited the store with six of her closest family and friends. After the woman tried on a number of dresses, she purportedly chose the one she wanted and placed an order for it.
But, when she filled out the associated form, she crossed out the word groom and wrote “partner” instead. Then, she wrote the name of her future wife on the document and left the store. Later on, Genter was perplexed when the store’s owner, “Donna,” called her and said that Here Comes the Bride would not be providing her with a wedding dress. Consumerist has more:
“She said she wouldn‘t work with me because I’m gay…she also said that I came from a nice Jewish family, and that it was a shame I was gay. She said, ‘There’s right, and there’s wrong. And this is wrong.’ “
According to a Philadelphia Inquirer piece, written by Ronnie Polaneczky, Genter was extreme upset upon receiving this call. She said:
“I was devastated. I was crying. I called her a bigot; I told her, ‘I am a happy person and you are a miserable person.’ Then she hung up on me.”
Apparently, there‘s also a voicemail from the store’s owner claiming that the wedding was not legal and that the store does not “participate in any illegal actions.” The Inquirer piece essentially served as an apology letter to Genter.
In composing the article, Polaneczky called the store’s owner to get her side of the story. But, rather than hearing a contradictory account, Donna allegedly validated Genter’s story. Polaneczky writes:
You know what’s strange? When I called Donna yesterday to get her side of the story, she both confirmed your version of events and accused you of “stirring up drama.“ She said that your writing the word ”partner” was basically a provocation, evidence of a need “to show that she’s different.”
So, the store is sticking to its story — and its perspective — on serving homosexuals.
Public reaction to this incident has been noteworthy. On Yelp, the store’s rating has dropped to one star, as individuals have weighed in with their perspective on the matter. Also, people have been uploading images to the Yelp page that stand to support gays and lesbians. See a screen shot, below, which showcases the gay flag as well as the store’s current rating:
This story is intriguing on a number of levels. One wonders what the legal ramifications of refusing service are, if any. In June, we wrote about how the New York gay marriage law could impact opponents. What do you think? Should be it legal for businesses to refuse to serve individuals based on sexual orientation?
(h/t Consumerist)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 590 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (507)
angelcat
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:06amCustomers can express their pleasure or displeasure with a place of business with their feet. The store has the right to deny to serve customers, and the customers have the right to go to another place of business. It isn’t like a wedding dress is something necessary to sustain life and that the store owner is sentencing the customer to starvation or dying of thirst or something. People, even store owners, should be able to reflect their morals in their businesses as long as no one is physically hurt or verbally abused.
affinnity
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:55amI agree.
Report Post »Baron_Doom
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:16amAgreed. This is still a free country, and you can do what you want in your own place of business. That includes hiring whom you want to as well. You should not be forced to hire someone that would give your business a negative representation.
Report Post »vehoae
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:20amWell said, Angelcat.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:24amVery well put, AngelCat. This business has every right to choose not to sell to certain people, just as a lot more people will choose to no longer buy from this person. Since this business owner is so strong in this stance, she should make it clear to all persons wishing to shop there that gays are not welcome. A sign on the front door would be sufficient. Then let her customers decide.
Report Post »I’m just not sure what her stance does to further her cause. All she has done is refuse business in a time when that is not wise, and then alienated, not just other gay clients, but those sympathetic to them. It is her right to do, but is it an intelligent thing to do as a business owner?
Since I’m a conservative libertarian, should I start to refuse service to progressives and liberals because I don’t agree with their lifestyle and their opinions of how our government should run?
It is reasonable to asssume the business owner is Jewish, based on her statement. If so, will she refuse to sell to a Christian? Will she refuse to sell to a Jew who is not kosher? If it neither picks my pocket (or the pocket of another), nor breaks my leg (or the leg of another), why should I care how another lives her life?
Jaycen
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:49amFree markets!
Report Post »conservativeamericanmom
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:49amGood for the store owner!!!! I am thrilled to see people showing courage and standing up for what is right. It is rare in these days of political correctness. In regard to the owner’s action sparking loss in her business, I would bet that if the conservative locals know about this business taking a stand, more of them will choose this wedding shop specifically because of the owner’s bold actions than the ones that boycott the business because of it.
Report Post »Ari Ben TZion
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:51amGays are not very gay.
One-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay.
Gay teens are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth.
Report Post »captainaubrey
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:08pmI really am mystified by what you folks would say if you took out the word lesbian and replaced it with the words black/hispanic/latino/asian etc. Were you all not alive during the Civil Rights movement, or just sleeping?
Report Post »reality based lifeform
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:14pmperhaps this counld be a “Gold mine ” for anyone creating a “Gay oriented” Bridal store catering to lesbian brides flocking in to by dresses .
Report Post »Well maybe not since the demographics would suggest its not feasable
Edct
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:20pmAgreed and it is nice to see morality in this immoral God forsaken country….most Americans don’t want to see these pervs in public anyway.
Report Post »Conservative New Yorker
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:24pm@CaptAubrey-
I‘m a minority and I support this business owner’s right to conduct her business as she sees fit.
If a business refused my patronage, I will simply go where my business is welcome. Free market principles. Some will support this wedding shop and others won’t.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:44pmHere’s one of the comments on Yelp:
I have become aware that this store discriminates against same-sex couples. For intolerance, “Here Comes the Bride” earns one star.
Yelp administrators: I realize that many of the people reviewing this establishment might not be in strict adherence with your policy, which, if I am not mistaken, requires first-hand experience with the vendor in order to review. I urge you to take exception in this instance, as bigotry is something that affects EVERYONE and, because our concerns are based on real-life events, I believe the Yelp community should be allowed to participate in this form of boycott.
Jeff Behrens
Yes you read that correctly..Mr Behrens believes Yelp should drop it’s rules and criteria so that social statements intended to harm the business can be posted. The idiocy of leftist militancy.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:00pmI also agree, despite being gay myself. And I’m glad to know this business is doing so well that they can turn away customers.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:15pmHey Captain…if this woman was black, hispanic or white, and was turned down at this store than I could see civil rights being violated, but because of what she does in the bedroom, and some just don’t agree with homosexuality, that they don’t have the right to refuse service? We as God believing individuals DO NOT agree with homosexuality or homosexual “marriage”, and since this is America and this is her business, whats the problem? We don’t agree with pedophilia, does that mean we have to serve them when they come out of the closet. Sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with civil rights!
Report Post »robert
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:31pmWhy would a lesbian need a wedding dress?
I would think a pair of bib overalls and some heavy clod hoppers would be more appropriate.
Report Post »JG79504
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:59pmVery true.
Report Post »Progessives=Fail
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:02pmI just finshed writing a positive review on yelp, it took about 1 minute to create an account. C’mon blazers, lets step up and defend this store for standing up for what they believe, the liberals shouting for tolerance will not tolerate and view that differs from their own, I’m sick of the hypocracy. Let’s not let them steamroll this company, follow the yelp link in the article, take five minutes out of the day and write a positive review! WE can turn it around!
Report Post »GIDDIONKANE
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:03pmI agree also, ANY business can refuse ANY customer for ANY reason they dam well please. It’s thier business stop gitting into it you whiney progressive pantie wastes.
Report Post »Blackop
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:20pmWhat if she was straight and her partner was black? Or muslim?
It shouldn’t matter. Selling her a dress is not ‘engaging in something illegal’.
The store owner needs to grow up and stop living in the 1950′s** Her actions are shameful, and not very wise. Christ would have turned the other cheek.
**This is also true for most people who post on the blaze.
Report Post »RadioRob
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:38pmThat Is total nonsense if a business wants to stay in business then they should not discriminant based on Anything other than the ability to pay for the goods or services. That does not include Age requirements. Anything Else then you deserve anything that you get including the loss of your business. Bad choice in a worse economy.
Report Post »In The Right
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 5:18pmThe bridal shop should stick to their guns and post a sign that reads:
“We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY reason”
Report Post »sweetgold
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 5:44pmI agree also. I wish people would stop using their sexual persuasion as a basis to vent their anger toward someone who does not believe in that type of lifestyle. People can run their business as they seem fit sans discrimination in their workplace NOT with their customers. Use their feet indeed.
Report Post »Progessives=Fail
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 5:48pmImagine if the store owner was muslim and refused service based on her muslim faith…I wonder how the libtarded mind would handle that one…:)
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 6:51pmBlackop… the point is, if a store CHOOSES not to sell to someone, they should have that right, just like every single customer has the right to shop elsewhere.
Report Post »crackerone
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 7:03pmShe demanded a rainbow wedding dress for her wife and a extra pocket be sewen into her tux, to accomadate the honeymoon toys. Don’t think that was unreasonable!
Report Post »BruceyBanner
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:14pmGay is the new Black!
While I have no problem with a store refusing to sell ANYTHING to ANYONE, I think that this is ridiculous, especially if the owner actually brought up her rich, Semetic heritage. At that point, one could argue that they discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs. We have seen great leaps as far as acceptance goes in the world, including my favorite recent one, the ACLU defending the Tea Party: http://huff.to/lFR44R. Still, we have a ways to go, as can be evidenced by The Dorchester’s recent fracas: http://bo.st/mQ3yoi.While I hope there is a valid explanation for their denial of service, does there really need to be. I would personally boycott anyone with discriminatory policies, regardless of their reasoning. As a matter of fact, I have quit going to a number of places I used to frequent: after hearing complaints about a business (that I LOVED) not serving the homeless, I had a friend dress down nice and ratty and try to order a drink. Indeed, he was refused: I requested the manager after that and told him that he had lost a customer and all of my word of mouth advertising. Since I work with travelling businessmen, that was a hell of a lot of business. They closed their doors later that year. I suppose that it is the right of store owners to decide who they want as clientele, but it seems rather petty and dangerous when you consider the ramifications. As for me, I hope never to be kicked out of a soul food restaurant because I’m
Report Post »BruceyBanner
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:20pmwhite. Sorry about the DubPost. It sait I had the appropriate amout of characters. Also, this is the second time I posted this because I can’t find the original in the comments.
Report Post »lcovar
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:29pmI agree.
Report Post »avenger
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:31pmI want to marry my Doberman bitch…
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:19pmIt’s not like this dress shop is providing a life saving service. They don‘t have to sell to anyone if they don’t want to. As long as they stay away from acts of descrimination. And no thank you, sexual prefernce is NOT A PROTECTED CLASS so it would NOT be considered descrimination.
http://www.AllenWestforPresident.us
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:21pmAri Ben TZion
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:51am
Gays are not very gay.
One-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay.
Gay teens are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth.
======================================
You made a good argument for not wanting to be gay.
http://www.AllenWestforPresident.us
Report Post »YellowFin
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:18pmA customer can reject a business.
Report Post »Is there any reason why a business cannot reject a customer?
savarulz
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:25pm@B_Rad If I owned a business and someone I felt was pushing their agenda on me , HELL yeah I would refuse them service. I get so sick and tired of if I don’t belive in your way of thinking, then damned with me. I don’t believe in Gay marriage, because of what the bible says, but does that give you a right to protest and defame my business, no i don’t think so, if you don’t like it go somewhere else. If you don‘t believe in the liberal way of things now a days you’re f@#$%$#
Report Post »Seabee79
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 8:34amLike I have always said gay marriage having the same rights. they have the ame rights under the u.s constitution as you and I, and what bennies they don’t get that married people get the feds can ajust the laws to include them.
What this is all about if forcing their values on the rest of us, and changing the meaning of marriage to include the **** and lesbos and what ever other freaks come out of the wood work.
So I don’t buy into this crap about gay marriage, they think we are stupid. frankly I don’t care if two men or two women want to hook up, but do distort my values and once again change them to fit your preverted ideas.
Report Post »GABOB
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 9:14am@captainaubery
Skin color is not by choice…your lifestyle is.
Report Post »otto katz
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 9:43amSo, if the store were to deny her a dress because she was Jewish, or black, you’d be ok with that? They‘d be able to refuse to sell her a dress because they didn’t like her religion, or her color? Didn‘t we go through that already and decide it wasn’t a viable way for society to operate?
Report Post »Marci
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 4:18pmAgree with Angelcat. This woman can spend her money elsewhere, it hurts the shop owner, not her. But let’s stop forcing businesses to do things. Capitalism is such that if you cannot compete, you will fade away.
Report Post »TrainerMan
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 7:55pmI agree. It’s exactly how I feel about serving blacks or orientals. It’s a provocation. They should just buy from their own people.
Report Post »freekazoid
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 9:08pmI Agree with the store owner, but look what happen to eharmony.com. Because there wasn’t a section for gays, they eventually folded (caved in) and put it on this Christian Site. Nothing Christian about people going to hell for being gay. God says love the sinner not the sin and if your accept the sin and give-in to these groups, God looks at you as if you were commiting the sin itself. Just Saying. Prove me wrong here. I feel sorry for the founder of E-harmony for giving in. He will be accountable for that sin.
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on August 21, 2011 at 4:48amCompletely agree. However, all the holier than thou christian fairy tale believing fools on here need to either shut up, or kill themselves. It’s bad enough that you believe middle age nonsense, don’t try to impose it on others.
Report Post »PatriotWhit
Posted on August 21, 2011 at 9:02amWell said….I agree 100%…..If it is MY business, MY dresses, I can choose to not sell a dress to whomever I please. The operative word here being MY.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:05amGot to love it, the left has nothing but name calling and forcing their will on others, evil sob’s.
Report Post »ginsberg
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:07amSo she tried to force the store owner to sell her the store’s own product? Where does it end with you supposed lovers of the free market…will you be happy when corporations are free to make every customer behave the same? Would you like a return to the good old days when store owners proudly refused indians, blacks, and those from other countries?
Report Post »insaneserenity
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:18amhey moron, it is called free speech. The ability to choose who and what you associate with is part of the first amendment.
When you come down to it, all anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional,
Report Post »spirit of freedom
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:18amto ginsberg,
Report Post »yes i would like us to return to those days! lets get back to when people who came to MY country wanted to be AMERICANS not bring thier culture ie. country with them so they can turn it into the same ____hole they just came from. Good observation “ginsberg”.
Baron_Doom
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:21amIf the tables were turned on you, Tradition Dies Here, I doubt you would think of yourself as a bigot.
Report Post »Bullhorn Guy
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:30amTo the idiots above, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” If the store owner wants to forfeit a sale, then that‘s money she’s missing out on. If I my paraphrase the formerly great Bobbi Brown, it’s her prerogative. It doesn’t matter if the customer is gay, black, a midget, smells bad, has crossed eyes, no shoes, a bad attitude, or if the shop owner is just on her period. She can sell her wares (or not) to whomever she chooses. But don’t worry, I’m sure all the gay hate mail and bad reviews on the internet will put this lady out of business in no time. Gay Mafia, to the rescue!
Report Post »ginsberg
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:34am@ spiritoffreedom…well there you go, you just admitted you know nothing of freedom or america. America was literally built by people from around the world from many different cultures. You are a fool if you dont understand that america is great because we are a melting pot of different cultures…indian, german, french, irish, african, etc. your sentiments are just like other nuts like hitler.
Report Post »Ddrummer68
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:06pm@Ginsberg, the store’s owner is not forcing the client to do, or be, anything. If she objects to serving lesbians based on her religious or other convctions, it is her right to do so. I would think differently if prospective clients were required to pass an “are you a ****?” test. In this case, the bride made the point of crossing out “Groom” – an unnecessary affont? Maybe.
Those who are trying to bully her into submission, ought to be ashamed of themselves. It’s one thing to refuse to patronize a business; another entirely to abuse online review sites by essentially wardialing in bad reviews from people who have never been near the shop.
It ‘s not an easy issue, because I do not happen to think that the condition of being homesexual is a choice, just as I had no choice to be a hetero male – I just am. However, we do have a choice of whether to engage in certain behaviors. We may feel compelled to seek out those of the same gender, but why is everyone else expected (required, it seems) to condone, even embrace that behavior?
By the way, I wish everyone would please stop trying to equate my not wanting to embrace homosexual behavior with fill in the blank example of hatred, bigotry, violence, etc. I don’t think homosexuals should be treated any differently than anyone else, whether under the law, or in general society. This is nothing like slavery, segregation, or apartheid.
But to be clear, there is a biological imperative that is incompatible wit
Report Post »Kbob
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 4:07pmshouldn’t a resturant or bar be able to serve people that want to smoke while they drink/eat?
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 6:55pmKBOB… completely different issue and no… if what someone chooses to do affects the well being of another person (2nd hand smoke) then no, they should have to take it outside. They can still eat and drink in that restaurant, but hold the smoking for 30 minutes. Is it THAT bad of an addiction you can’t go 30 minutes without a drag?
Report Post »BubbaT
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:02amSucks to be gay! (no pun)
Report Post »Skippy Toes
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:47amOf course, no pun. :)
Report Post »krenshau
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 4:15pmShe is female, so it does not actually suck to be gay.
Report Post »GABOB
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 9:10amI guess then She got licked!
Report Post »Mustangrider
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:01amThe store owner is entitled to an opinion just as much as she is, she doesn’t have to like it and she can go somewhere else. Why is it always regular folks who have to make room for these crazies in our lives stay out of our lives and we wont bother you !!
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:07amBeing gay doesn’t make you a “crazie”, however being a Tea Party member DOES make you a “crazie”.
Report Post »JustNo
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:14am@simpletruths Yeah, those crazy tea party ideas like not wanting the government to spend more than it takes in! It’s pretty radical, I know.
Report Post »OhioRifleman
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:16am@ Mustang
American legal doctrine for the past 110 years has been dependent on the existence of double and triple standards. This is simply a continuing execution of those double standards – they are allowed to flaunt it and get away with it, when normal persons object they get hammered flat by the merciless legal system.
@ Simple Truths
Your moniker appears to be another double standard in practice. These truths are neither simple nor truths, yet you cannot grasp their true form.
Report Post »SidneyDave
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:56amIf you are open to public you should not be able to discriminate against anyone that can pay. Private clubs and organizations can.
Report Post »insaneserenity
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:20ambeing gay, just like being a liberal/democrat/communist/etc does prove one is mentally ill and really should seek psychiatric help.
Report Post »Pickupabook
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:00pmIt’s public accomadation. If the store owner does not selling dress to everyone, she should get out ooff the business
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:01pmactually SIMPLETRUTHS..yeah…being homosexual does come with a lot of psychological problems. High suicide rates a clue?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:12pmoh and SIMPLETRUTHS?
Report Post »Over seventy-five years of psychoanalytic knowledge underscoring homosexuality as a disorder was disregarded. Militant homosexual groups began disrupting numerous scientific programs and conferences in the early to mid seventies, including the APA (American Psychiatric Association) and it’s meetings. Gay political groups especially targeted and disrupted national and local meetings in which the psychopathology and treatment of homosexuality were being debated.
243 practitioners and members of the APA petitioned for a referendum to vote on a reversal of the ruling. That vote occurred in April 1974 in which 40% of the voters disagreed with the ruling, asserting that there were no legitimate scientific reasons for the APA’s change in fundamental psychiatric therapy.
In late 1977, 68% of American Medical Association psychiatrists responding to a poll still viewed homosexuality as a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, in the February 1989 issue of ‘The California Psychiatrist’, said, “Many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 APA ruling did not resolve the issue- it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation.”
Clearly SIMPLETRUTHS it was lobbying that pressured the psychiatric community to change it’s position on homosexuality, not the science of psychiatry.
JJ Coolay
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:53pmSimpletruths.. please tell us what about the Tea Party is crazy?
Is it the idea of smaller government?
Is it the idea of less spending by the government?
Is it the idea of less intrusion by the government in your life?
Yeah, those are some whacked out ideas, bro!
Report Post »Geez, it’s so crazy that people want to live the American dream without the government sticking their nose in every aspect of our lives. It’s crazy people actually want to have self-accountability and not be babysat and handed everything by Uncle Sam. It’s so absolutely insane people want to have less taxation and actually be able to keep a larger portion of the bloody damn paycheck they worked hard for.
TRILO
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:01amYes you should have the right to refuse service to whom ever you wish. However, it is ashame that we are still living in a time in history where people are still promoting intolerance. What if there was a sign on the door that said “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Christians” (or substitute any other religion, race, disability, etc). I am sure many would have a different opinion, especially if the action was directed at your personal belief, race, etc. To me, good business practices would welcome anyone so long as they are not presenting a health or safety risk.
Report Post »TRUTH
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:26amExactly the kind of rational answer I was looking for. While the business owner has every right to deny this woman a dress, there’s really no good reason not to give her one.
Report Post »meetsense
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:32am‘Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society’ – Aristotle
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:50amI believe that sexual orientation is not one of the legal status protected by federal law i.e. Sex, race, religion, ethnic backgroud, disability or veteran status.
Report Post »apbt55
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:50amIt is her store it is her right,
To those saying it is bad business practice, so she lost the business of the 2% of the population that are gay, the 10% that ardently support the homosexual agenda,
But just gained the support of a vast majority of Americans, who will now make it a point to purchse there.
Hardly seems like a bad business strategy to me.
Report Post »Cat Ballou
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:55amIf I saw a “no shirt, no shoes, no Christians”, sign on a business, you know what? I would shop somewhere else……..plain & simple. Either others would go with me, & they would go out of business, or their business wouldn’t suffer. Either way, it would be my choice & I wouldn’t be pushing my agenda on society……….!!
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:58am@Trilo
If a store had up a sign like you mentioned, then I won’t shop there; I don‘t go where I’m not welcome, and I’m secure and safe enough in my personhood to not run to therapists, lawyers, and the media. No biggie to me, really. There are always options.
@Truth
While you might say this store owner has no good reason to deny the sale, her personal morality and whatever else is a perfectly good reason for her. If that’s not somehow good enough for some, it’ll just have to do. She didn’t go off in a tirade of insults or anything but, rather, simply refused a sale and spoke her reasoning. No abusive language or anything, far as the story relates.
She took a risk. Bad press for her can be expected here, and for all anyone knows the story might go viral. This decision might cost her the business, in the end. But who knows? The store could just as easily find, after this episode, that sales increase.
Only time will tell.
Report Post »Baron_Doom
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:22amDismayed Veteran, it’s not an orientation…. it’s a choice.
Report Post »AlansTigg
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:23ambig difference between good business practice and what you have the right to do. The store owner has the right to refuse service to blondes if they so choose. Might not be good for business but they can. And I would not be making a national fuss over it I’d simply not shop there and inform my friends of my reasoning. I may not agree with not serving particular groups but I totally agree with the right to do so
Report Post »KPEdwards
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:43am@TRILO
Report Post »It brings up an interesting point. A purely capitalist, laissez-faire system allows for individual segregation (whether it be racial, religious, or even based on favorite Star Wars character – seriously, who likes C3P0?). It basically boils down to who has more rights: the consumer or the retailer. In my opinion, if the consumer meets the requirements for the transaction then there should be no restriction on who is able to engage in the transaction. Of course, this can be viewed as restricting the seller’s freedom to refuse services based on whatever it is they want to base it on, but I find it more important to prevent the ways in which a legitimate transaction can take place.
southerngal
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:25pmIf my store became the new “go to” store for homosexuals they would be getting a speal of Gods plan for their life. No more problem. Besides, this woman or whatever, was poking the store owner in the eye, and got it back. It was probably not the first time and was beginning to ruin her business anyway.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:30pmMEETSENSE..why do you think leftists like to censor/ignore/change/obsfucate/skew history? Because they have a record of failure that they want obscured and the young/uninformed are their best weapon to create a society conditioned to their thinking.
Report Post »momsense
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 4:28pmWe already have those ideas in practice in some of our court houses. ( no Christian Doctrine)
Report Post »Trenaway
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:57amWhy is that gay people always have to throw their sexuality in our face. If a heterosexual did this, it would be called sexual harassment. Why is it different when gays do it????
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:07amThey have a mental illness caused by physical or mental abuse earlier in life, they should be treated not told they are normal and what happened to them in the past was perfectly ok.
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:58am@Swampy Funny,none of the homosexual people I know claim to have been mentally or physically abused.
Report Post »ginsberg
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:13amIf a heterosexual wrote spouse on the form it would be harassment? What in the world are you thinking…what should she have done lie on the form? You nuts always say gays have or want special rights while you support denying them basic human rights.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:43pmNo Ginsberg..writing “spouse” on the form would be peurile. Something you’re intimately familiar with.
Report Post »GABOB
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 9:19am@ginsberg
What Civil Rights are GLTB people being denied? Marriage is not a civil right. You cannot win an arguement so you name call.
Being gay is a lifesytle choice.
Report Post »TXWildfire
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:56amIt’s their store. They can do whatever they want.
Report Post »Master Sergeant Malone
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:05amDamn right!
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:15amI agree, they can refuse service to whoever they want, however, a lesbian‘s money is just as green as a heterosexual’s money. I applaud them for standing up to their priciples, but I don’t think it was a good business decision.
Report Post »Truthbeliever2
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:38amThis store is not “under fire” b/c they didn’t want to sell a dress to a *****.
It’s a small portion of freaks in the society who care about this.
I bet they get more business from the publicity. Makes want to go buy a wedding dress from them just to make up fir the sale they lost with the ****.
I hope this stores’ business doubles!
Report Post »Gary Fishaholic
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:44amAgreed it‘s their store and for now still have the right not to serve who ever they chose don’t they?
Report Post »PaulAnn
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:28pmActually they cannot discriminate….re
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits an owner, manager, or employee of any place that offers goods, services and facilities to the general public, such as a restaurant, hotel, doctor’s office, camp, or theater, from directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual because of that individual’s race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership or civil union status, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability. Further, individuals accompanied by a guide or service dog are entitled to full and equal access to all places of public accommodation.
There are certain exceptions. Places of public accommodation which, by their nature, are reasonably restricted to individuals of one gender (such as dressing rooms or gymnasiums) may deny access to the accommodation to members of the other gender. Also, the provisions of the LAD that govern public accommodations do not apply to a place of public accommodation that is “in its nature distinctly private” or to schools operated by bona fide religious institutions. However, it is unlawful for a private club or association to discriminate against a member with respect to the advantages and privileges of membership on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership
Report Post »HUGGINGMYBABIES
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:56amWhat story did she give when trying on dresses? When trying on dresses there is a very close bond being made between the sales clerk and the bride. At that time did she lie or not make it clear that she was in fact gay? I would think that if a PRIVATE business which pays taxes, decides that based on the owner’s beliefs it can not participate in something which goes against its religious beliefs, they would be not only justified, but it would be a RIGHT defendable in court. We can not force churches to perform gay marriages can we?
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:02pmNurses and doctors cannot be forced to do abortions. If that limits their business, that is up to them. We all make choices, everyday. If we choose to not participate in something we belive is wrong, we can. It’s under freedom of religion. God hasn’t taken away our choice-only the government tries. I’m tired of the word “fair”. Nowhere in the world is everthing fair-learn to live with it, stop making a big deal out of personal choices gay community, we all do not have to like or live with your choices, find another shop. She told her privately. End of story.
Report Post »gmoneytx
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:56amIf you see the poll, at this point 86% said they think absolutely refuse the right to serve based on sexuality…ha,ha,ha…this is the USA.
I personally would not discriminate, but, again this is the USA.
Report Post »SnowKalBebes
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:43pmAnd your suprised by the results of the survey? Do you think the survey was taken by anybody but Glenn’s sheeple?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:53pmSpeaking of surveys:
Report Post »Sexuality is not unchangeable. There are countless cases of people who come out as homosexual then change their minds, just as there are people in heterosexual marriages who get divorced and “go gay.” There is nothing inevitable or necessary about being part of homosexual life; people enter such a life if it fits their personal beliefs and life goals.
Alfred Kinsey developed a scale for the American male in the late 1940s; he found that 10% of the population had varying levels of attraction to the same sex, which is where the “1 in 10” figure you may have heard comes from. But that 10% mostly consisted of bisexuals. People who are strictly, purely homosexual consistently manifest as less than 2% of the adult population in most sociological studies.
Bisexuality is the thorn in Gay, Inc.’s side because bisexuals can choose whether to date men or women. Even worse, they often end up choosing the opposite sex simply because it’s easier, for instance, for a bisexual man to find a partner from the 49% of adults who are women attracted to men than from the roughly 1.8% of adults who are men attracted to men.
As a practical matter, the bisexual man who sticks with women will likely avoid AIDS, while the bisexual man who has sex with men runs a high risk of seroconversion. Men who have sex with men make up less than 2% of the population but they constitute about 55% of people who get HIV every year.
JoeNCA
Posted on August 21, 2011 at 1:37amActually you’re confusing the percentage of people who identify as gay with the percentage of people who have sex with people of the same sex. Have you heard of Larry Craig? There’s no shortage of Republicans who have been found to have sex with people of the same sex who do not identify as gay. The actual percentage of men who have sex with members of the same sex is closer to 25%.
Likewise, there has never been an incident of women transmitting HIV via homosexual sex. And yet heterosexual sex makes up 87% of all HIV transmissions in women. Therefore a women is literally infinitely more likely to transmit HIV by heterosexual sex than homosexual sex. Likewise, 100% of all abortions are a result of heterosexual sex. Should we discriminate against heterosexual women when it is so clear that their behavior is the result of death and disease?
Report Post »Centralsville
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:56amLesbians tell everyone to mind their own business, let the store owner mind their own business. If they choose not to sell to known sexual perverts that is their business.
Report Post »Redscot
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:40amAbsolutely! Stores usually have a no shoes/no shirt rule. This is the same thing. Going to the media because you did not get a dress? Absolutely, completely, insane. The idiots trying to run the lady out of business need to think of it the other way. If they had a store, clearly catering to the homosexual crowd and some straight pulled this shtick, they would scream bloody murder.
Report Post »ZAP
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:55amThis government legalizes this perversion for votes.Allows illegal aliens in this country for votes.Creates union favoritism for votes.Just like a whore working a street corner.Then they want you to except it !!!
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:54amSell to whom you wish. Good job, wedding store.
Report Post »LiberalMarine
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:54amWhile I am supportive of Gay Marriage, it really is the right of the business owner to refuse service to anyone. Like someone else posted, they can just try and deal with the bad press and the Yelp backlash.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:54amDepends on the discrimination laws of NJ. I’m honestly not sure if they include sexual orientation, but if they do, yes, the store is liable. If not, well, sorry to the bride, and better luck elsewhere.
I think the store owner is undoubtedly in the wrong, but I don‘t know if there’s a legal basis for this.
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:08amI‘d ’fan‘ you if this website wasn’t built on Stone Age technology.
Report Post »PATRIOTMAMA
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:53amSome business close on Sundays and Saturdays according to their day of worship and everyone including businesses has the right in this country to believe what they will and most businesses reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. If homosexuality is against their religious beliefs then they should be able to refuse to serve anyone who practices. Not to mention that if you don’t like it you can do what has been done and fight back in a civilzed way to express your views as well. That is protected by the constitution that we fight for. Look if they’re willing to face the critisism that will def come from the gay and lesbian communitities for this action then they should be allowed to do so. It is SUPPOSED TO BE A FREE COUNTRY, REMEMBER???!!!
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:56amGood for this store. Wish more places would do the same.
Report Post »NJTMATO
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:52amIf I own a private business, I have a right to serve whomever I wish and not to serve whomever I wish. I would support this bridal store…in fact, my daughter who is recently engaged could probably use their services.
Report Post »MBA
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:49amA sale is a sale in these hard times. Although I’m disgusted that everyone thinks they have to put the s*x life in everyone else’s face. What you do in the bedroom is your business–just shut up about it.
Report Post »forenikegolf
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:49amNo private business should be forced to sell anything. If they don’t want to make money, that’s on the business owner. That’s the funny thing about Capitalism, the “bride” in this case can go buy a dress somewhere that will sell to lesbians – one more reason this is a great country……for now.
Report Post »mankind7375
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:45amA business owner has the right to serve who they chose to serve and does not have to provide their services to anyone they do not wish. The customer is not always right.
Report Post »insaneserenity
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:15amthe customer is almost never right. Usually the customer is a brainless moron who thinks they are better than everyone else.
Report Post »Mandolin1977
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:44amGod made us the way He made us for a reason….certain parts aren’t meant for certain parts. I applaud the store owner for having the gumption to stand up for what she felt was right/wrong.
Report Post »She may indeed get some bad press but she also may get some people there that truly respect her for having the courage to do what she did.
AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:19pmHence…the disproportionately high incidences of HIV and Gonorhea in the male homosexual community. “Certain parts aren’t meant for certain parts”. Clearly the “put on a condom” mantra of the homosexual lobby hasn’t worked. Every few years there are outbreaks of these and related diseases among homosexual men. This falls into line with psychiatric evidence -before it was suppressed by lobby groups- that homosexual men have a difficulty in seperating sexual activity from relationships. It’s not unsual for homosexual men to have had sexual partners numbering in the hundreds.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:20pmThat’s the way Locked…your mask fell off so all you’ve got left is semantics and smear. You’re a “Social Libertarian”? LOL…yes some social libertarian you are, awaiting on government mandate, courts and lobby groups to decide whether this store owner has the right to refuse service to anyone she chooses. No academy awards for you today champ. You’re done junior..pack up and head back to huffpo.
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:43amNo one should be required by law to participate in sin.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:55amDang, I totally missed the part of the Bible that said “Thou shalt not sell weddings dresses to a woman who crosses out ”groom” on thy form.”
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:35am“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and
Report Post »they shall become one flesh.”
Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:40amAnd the Lord did sayeth, do not sell ye wedding dresses to those not in My sight, lest thou incur My wrath.
Ah. Nope. Guess it wasn’t there.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:48amSorry, that was a snide remark, and thoughless of me.
My point is, selling a wedding dress is not “being required by law to participate in sin.” This shopkeeper will never go to the wedding, never see this woman again, and never meet her partner. Instead of wishing them the best, or giving her opinion, she purposefully went out of her way to disrupt the woman’s wedding preparations. It was not an act of faith, it was an act of hate, and I cannot imagine God condoning such a thing.
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:54am@Sregn “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” – 1 Cor 6:16
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:26amLocked – No problem, I have a tough skin and a sense of humor, too. I have a friend who owns and operates a paddle wheel dinner cruise ship. He stopped doing weddings because he felt that he would be unable to refuse gay wedding receptions. I think what the feeling among some committed Christians is that to run the cruise, or sell the wedding dress, or cater the reception, etc, would be facilitating something that offends God. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, maybe the exclusion itself is offensive to God, I don’t know. But these God-fearing people want to err on the side of caution. My position is that the government should not use the force of law to compel it. Just as I wouldn’t like to see gays compelled to provide service to non-gays. It should be up to the business owner who he serves, that’s all. It’s not being mean-spirited, most Christians I know have love toward gays as people, but care enough about them not to whitewash sin, whether it be lying, stealing, pre-marital sex, coveting, homosexuality, whatever. As Christians we are called to love one another. How can we tell sinners that their sin is okay to commit if we really love them, especially when unrepentent sin is a ticket to an eternity in Hell?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:26pmSREGN…you’re trying to reason with a leftist (Locked) who’s allies are anarchists and debstalizers of civilization. There stock-in-trade is to destroy societal norms and institutions so that they can ingratiate or force (whichever is most practical) their will on the population. This isn’t about civil rights where fellow human beings were denied the status of citizenship. This is about putting an “OK” stamp in an abberation of the human sexual psyche. It’s to create the delusion that homosexuality is “normal” but “different”. Heck..the “10%” idiocy was debunked decades ago but militant idiots like Locked still believe it.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:40pm@Avengerk
You make a lot of claims without any evidence. I’m a fiscal conservative and libertarian when it comes to social issues (let the people decide, that‘s what America’s about). I don’t know what your 10% crap is about, but I assume it’s as full of it as you.
If you think selling a wedding dress to the wrong person is a sin, you’ve usurped the Bible. I agree that making your opinion known is a God-given right: but purposely disrupting a person’s wedding just to cause pain is messed up. I can’t see hatred as moral. If you can, then I sure hope I never come to your church.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:56pmLOL..yes Locked…you’re a “fiscal conservative and social libertarian” and you’re very convincing in that role. Did Moveon say that would be a good disguise?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:59pmLocked…when did you begin equating clear-headedness with hatred? Typical leftist tactic…smear and ridicule.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:09pm“Locked…when did you begin equating clear-headedness with hatred? Typical leftist tactic…smear and ridicule.”
Says the guy(?) who came out of nowhere throwing out “militant, radical, anarchist, leftist, and idiot.” (Rolls eyes). Back to your cave, troll. There’s nothing clear-headed here. The shopkeeper‘s behavior isn’t based in logical reasoning, capitalism, nor Biblical verse. It’s based on her inherent dislike of homosexuals (which she admitted). There’s no debate about that: there‘s debate on whether the shopkeeper’s behavior is “allowed.”
My response remains the same: what does the law say?
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:54pmLocked – Some people, like our shopkeeper, feel the need to answer to a higher authority. I know all the snideyness on both sides here on the Blaze is all the the spirit of fun and I hope no innocent reader takes it seriously. We all have faith, some in spiritual matters, and some in science and the rule of law. And isn’t it great that we can meet here on the internet and engage in reasoned debate. Okay, and a little unreasonable debate too, but that just makes it more fun. If we all thought just alike this would be a pretty boring place. Have a good weekend, all my valued allies and adversaries. You are all warriors in the pursuit of truth.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:59pmLOL…Her behaviour is “allowed” Locked? I like the way you put allowed in quotation marks so as to cover yourself with “I meant the laws of New Jersey” after I call your bluff. So the self-purported “social libertarian” is for curtailing a store owners right to refuse service to anyone they choose? That in fact government, courts and lobby groups should decide who this store owner can or cannot serve rather than her own decision as to how to run her business? Your mask slipped again lefty…
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:11pm“LOL…Her behaviour is “allowed” Locked? I like the way you put allowed in quotation marks so as to cover yourself with “I meant the laws of New Jersey” after I call your bluff.”
Sigh. I said “allowed” because that is the exact wording on the poll, and hence the topic of discussion. It seems you forgot it. I wonder if it is allowed on the basis of law. Sregn argued Biblically, but then changed it to a higher power. You… well, don’t say anything really, which is why you’re trolling :-)
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:17pm@Avengerk
Also, what “bluff” did you call? Saying I’m from Moveon? Uh, boy, you sure cut me deep there?
It’s obvious the shopkeeper is discriminating. There are laws in some states against discrimination due to traits like race, religion, or sexual orientation. If NJ has them, then no, she is not allowed to do it. If NJ doesn’t, tough luck to the woman.
(Instead of continuing to wonder if these laws existed I ended up looking online. I could find only discrimination laws in NJ relating to employment not in general. I would thus conclude, yes, the shopkeeper was fully allowed to discriminate).
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:30pmThat’s it Locked…your mask fell off so all you’ve got left is semantics and smear. Your foppish “sighs” don’t help you either. You’re a “Social Libertarian” you say? LOL…yes a very convincing social libertarian you are, deferring to government mandate, courts and lobby groups to determine whether this store owner has the right to refuse service to anyone she chooses. No academy awards for you today champ your act stinks lefty.
Report Post »Tim Law
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 7:51pm@ VLADIA If your going to use a verse, it’s a good idea to give a little context. 1 Corinthians 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s
Report Post »The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. 1 Co 6:13-20
Mil-Dot
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:43amI agree, a private company can deny services to anyone they wish to. But, my opinion is geez, money is money. It won’t hurt them to give it a dress. Lesbians are not real women anyway. If they can’t handle or are attracted to a man, they are not normal. But they are still human beings. But I understand the vendor’s point of view.
Report Post »Bauervision
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:40amIt is they’re business, they have the right to refuse service to anyone they want. The cost will be bad press and bad word of mouth, but this country isn‘t about trampling over anyone’s rights, and a business is no different.
No where have I ever read that it is someone’s RIGHT to buy a wedding dress for a lesbian civil union.
Report Post »Seasoldier
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:57amLet’s stop using the “gay” euphemism to refer to homosexuals and their activities. It’s a perversion of the language and is meant to confuse the issue by implying that there might be something good about homosexual activity. When we fall into the trap of using these euphemisms as “gay”, “choice”, “death with dignity”, etc., we play right into the hands of the Socialist Culture of Death Elitists who seek to pervert the language as a tactic for undermining our country. As for this story, private shop owners should have the right to freely decide who they want to serve, just as customers have the right to decide which private businesses they wish to frequent.
Report Post »Rapunzel
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:35pm@Seasoldier – very well stated!
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:42pmEXACTLY Seasoldier..it’s time to start terming homosexuals but what they are..homosexual! “Gay” is part of the tactic of sanitizing homosexuality by using innocuous nomanclature to take away the abnormalcy of homosexuality. The latest tactic is simply reciting “LGBT” to include cross-dressers, hermaphrodites, post-operative cosmetic and hormonal procedure patients (ahh…but those pesky chromosomes can’t be changed), bisexuals etc.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:40amshe’ll sue the store, the state of NJ will sue the store…the gays want freedom from choice for those who dare disagree with them
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:47pm“Gay, Inc.” is a nickname for the hyper-professionalized gay lobby. Gay Inc. is the fashionable world of Kathy Griffin and Dan Savage: the invitees to galas with congressmen and are the people after whom WASPish narratives like Michael Cunningham’s The Hours are patterned. If there is one thing Gay Inc. depends on, it is an ironclad storyline. And that storyline goes like this:
Report Post »“Gay people are just like straight people, except that they were born with an unchangeable attraction to the same sex. They will be happy and prosperous as soon as they accept who they are, announce themselves as gay to the world with pride, and give up any hopes of being with the opposite sex. They can have children the way straight people do, by adoption or surrogacy, and they should never be judged. The best way for them to experience this happiness is for them to know as early in life as possible that they are gay so they waste no time getting entangled in dishonest, unfulfilling relationships with the opposite sex. Therefore children in school should know what homosexuality is and have a sensible way of recognizing it in themselves. They should be encouraged to embrace this as part of who they are and share it with pride.”
This narrative delights guilt-ridden liberals. Yet the story above is a fairy tale that falls apart once it comes into contact with a few uncomfortable facts.
Gonzo
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:36amThen go somewhere else. The world is not obliged to legitimize your perversion.
Report Post »T-2
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:46amI love how these people are always talking about freedom of choice, then turn around and sues a business for choosing.
Report Post »randy
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:47amAMEN Gonzo!
Apparently, there‘s also a voicemail from the store’s owner claiming that the wedding was not legal and that the store does not “participate in any illegal actions.”
Good for them!!!!
Report Post »Michael
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:48amAgreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:58am“Then go somewhere else. The world is not obliged to legitimize your perversion.”
No, but the state might have discrimination laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
If the woman was in a wheelchair and the store owner said “You can’t have children, I refuse to sell you a wedding dress,” that could be prosecuted under discrimination laws having to do with handicapped people. Assuming the law is on the books, this is no different.
Again though, it depends on the state of NJ; this is the truest form of a states’ rights issue.
Report Post »Ex_Masshole
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:24am@Locked: “If the woman was in a wheelchair…”
Interesting comparison. The woman in the wheelchair is handicapped. Are you saying that homosexuality is a disability?
Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:29am@Ex-Masshole
“Interesting comparison. The woman in the wheelchair is handicapped. Are you saying that homosexuality is a disability?”
No, I’m saying there are specific discrimination laws for specific groups, and handicapped is one of the more recent ones. If the store owner refused to sell to someone of a different race, sex, religion, or because she’s (likely) from New York, and there were appropriate laws on the book, she’d also be in the wrong. There’s no doubt the store owner is discriminating, but the question is whether it is legal or not. I frankly don’t know; I tend to avoid all things Jersey as much as possible.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:09amBeing confined to a wheelchair is NOT A CHOSEN LIFESTYLE.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:15am@Gonzo (and by proxy, ex_Masshole)
I think you’re both missing my point: it’s about discrimination law. If such a law exists, then this woman has judicial recourse. If it doesn’t, it’s tough luck.
Report Post »