Bridal shop refuses to sell dress to Lesbian woman, talks bad about gays

[draggar]

So if I live in a state with laws like NJ and an unethical (but not illegal) puppy mill comes up to me and asks me to make a website for them I have to?

If the local KKK chapter asks me to fix and/or upgrade their computer systems I have to?

Hell no. I'm also willing to put up with the backlash from those decisions, too.

Edit:

Also, which is better, either the owner being a bigot like this in the open and giving the bride plenty of time to find another dress shop

**OR**

The owner hides their feelings, goes along with the plans and works with the clint all along only to sabotage the dress at the last minute?

The client is lucky the owner acted the way they did - she has plenty of time to get a new dress with a new shop that supports her rights.

(Again, I don't agree with the shop's decision, just their right to make it)

[Andara Bledin]

I notice you didn't even attempt to answer my question.

^-.-^

[draggar]

As long as the business isn't anything critical (hospital, pharmacy, etc.) I think they should be allowed to do business with whoever they want and refuse business to whoever they want.

But - they also should be ready to deal with the repercussions.

If a business doesn't want to do business with me because of my eye or hair color, then fine. I'll go fine someplace else that will do business with me and do a good job and not a shitty one like the one that doesn't want me there.

I guess you're saying I should be taken to court for not taking the potential clients I mentioned?

Now, answer my question:

Also, which is better, either the owner being a bigot like this in the open and giving the bride plenty of time to find another dress shop

**OR**

The owner hides their feelings, goes along with the plans and works with the client all along only to sabotage the dress at the last minute?

[Rapscallion]

There's a third option - come up with a refusal that doesn't use discrimination as its main reasoning. It's one way to get around it, and if it's illegal to discriminate on those grounds then it's up to an aggrieved party to actually prove it.

It's not nice, but it happens.

Rapscallion

[Eisa]

If it's illegal in New Jersey to discriminate based on sexual orientation [and go NJ! Idaho still doesn't have that ], then no, she is not allowed to say "I will not sell to you because you are a lesbian."

[draggar]

There's a third option - come up with a refusal that doesn't use discrimination as its main reasoning. It's one way to get around it, and if it's illegal to discriminate on those grounds then it's up to an aggrieved party to actually prove it.

It's not nice, but it happens.

Rapscallion

Very true but this business owner chose not to go that route - there are many reasons she could have given (too busy, vacation that time, etc)

Instead she let her bigotry shine through - and now people have the choice to support her business or not support her business.

If it's illegal in New Jersey to discriminate based on sexual orientation [and go NJ! Idaho still doesn't have that ], then no, she is not allowed to say "I will not sell to you because you are a lesbian."

Here's the law:

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

About the NJ Law Against Discrimination (LAD)

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) makes it unlawful to subject people to differential treatment based on race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex (including pregnancy), familial status, marital status, domestic partnership or civil union status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for military service, and mental or physical disability, perceived disability, and AIDS and HIV status. The LAD prohibits unlawful discrimination in employment, housing, places of public accommodation, credit and business contracts. Not all of the foregoing prohibited bases for discrimination are protected in all of these areas of activity. For example, familial status is only protected with respect to housing. The Division has promulgated regulations that explain that a place of public accommodation must make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices or procedures to ensure that people with disabilities have access to public places. The regulations also explain that under the LAD, these reasonable accommodations may include actions such as providing auxilliary aides

Rather vague especially when they added in the bolded disclaimer.

[Hyena Dandy]

Really? I thought business owners were allowed to pick and choose. I remember it coming up when gay marriage was on the ballot in my state and it was a common question. "Will business owners be allowed to refuse to service gay weddings if they choose?" and the answer was that any business can refuse service to someone.

Yes, business owners are allowed to be homophobic bigots. And people are allowed to refuse to shop there, and be angry about it. They can choose not to service lesbians. That's fine. But people are allowed to discuss it, complain about it, and choose not to go there.

If the law enforces that she had to allow homosexuals to shop there, I disapprove. But we're not suggesting the law enforce that. We're just calling her a despicable human being, and trying to get people not to shop there.


Allowing someone to discriminate is not the same as approving of it.

[HYHYBT]

If I understand rightly, when anti-discrimination laws were a new thing (and far before they covered orientation) discrimination was so common that many groups couldn't *find* anyone to do business with. With that possibility in mind, is it still more important for the shopkeeper to be able to refuse business than it is for (potential) customers to have somewhere to go? How about if it's not dress shops, but hotels and restaurants?

And how is it, as someone or other in this thread claimed, putting her name on the event by selling a dress? Does she put the shop's name across the front of the dress in big letters or something? Does she have to attend the wedding? What?

[draggar]

And how is it, as someone or other in this thread claimed, putting her name on the event by selling a dress? Does she put the shop's name across the front of the dress in big letters or something? Does she have to attend the wedding? What?

"I like your dress - where did you get it?"

Dress makers often also have styles unique themselves.

[AdminAssistant]

Dress makers often also have styles unique themselves.

Actual dressmakers may, but the vast majority of bridal shops sell dresses from a handful of designers, virtually all of which are made in the same factories in China. I've looked at a lot of wedding dresses over the past year or so, and I've never noticed a significant difference between designers. Your average wedding guest won't know the difference between a Maggie Sotero, a Vera Wang, and an Alfred Angelo. There are also brands like Da Vinci that do near-exact replicates of other lines; Da Vinci does cheaper replicates of David's Bridal gowns. Besides, chances are people would ask who the designer was instead of the actual store.

I'm all for allowing a retail employee or store to deny service to customers who are rude or destructive. However, I don't think a store should be able to deny service to a customer just because she's a lesbian. That's wrong.

Frankly, reading horror stories about the wedding industry in general and the wedding dress biz in particular that I have....this doesn't surprise me at all. It also terrifies me because I'm going shopping for a dress soon. I know other plus-size brides have been shooed or shamed out of shops before, and I'm so scared that'll be me.

[smileyeagle1021]

So if I live in a state with laws like NJ and an unethical (but not illegal) puppy mill comes up to me and asks me to make a website for them I have to?

If the local KKK chapter asks me to fix and/or upgrade their computer systems I have to?

Hell no. I'm also willing to put up with the backlash from those decisions, too.

The difference, running an unethical business or having membership in the KKK is a choice, the things that are included in anti-discrimination laws (including sexual orientation) are not.

[Nyoibo]

Going by the law that was posted, it looks like it's only essential services and similar, private businesses still retain the right to refuse service, which is fine, part of having rights and freedoms is having to accept other people have them as well, even if you don't agree with them, the freedom to be a douchebag is one of them, however said douchebags will also have to accept the repurcussions of said douchebaggery, this woman and her dress shop are now having to deal with her douchebaggery having gone international.

ps: Every time I typed douchebag I heard it in George Takei's voice.

[Racket_Man]

my feeling here is this----

as some of you have pointed out a business should have the "PRIVILAGE" to not serve or sell someone an item or sell to whomever the owner wishes to sell to or not sell to.

OK by that logic I as a store owner could do the following
1. not sell to blacks or Asians, or Jews or NATIVE Indians or (the country of) Indians or any other group I choose just because.
2. I guess that all black, Aisian, Jew, etc. customers will be pushed aside cause I do not like them so I will not serve them
3. have seperate facilities (seperate but equal mind you) for whites and crappy stuff for everyone else
4. I guess we well just have to go back to where if you are not a WASP we WASPs can legally shit on you for any reason, treat you any way we want cause you are not human anyway), and just keep taking taking and more taking for all you "others"
5. we WASPs can use any interpetation (however faulity or misguided or misinterperted) of our "religion" to justifiy almost anything we want to do to non-WASPs.


anti-discrimination laws are there for a reason. just as there are laws agasinst stealing, or murder (remember Ape shall not kill Ape) it codifies and provides penilties for doing someing that society as a whole now feels is wrong. remember that at one time a LOT of things were "legal" to do either by omission or outright explicit laws or statues or the outright breeaking of existing laws or statues with little consiquence.

if one is screaming their head off at the top of the mountain you will get noticed. now is that screaming something good or bad is the question.

[Nyoibo]

I believe it's a right to refuse service, not a privelage, and go ahead and do that, but the chance you'll stay in business for more than a week is highly doubtful.

In this case there needs to be a clarification on what "places of public accommodation" covers, it'd pretty much hinge on that, if it doesn't cover bridal ware shops then what the woman did may be shitty, but not illegal.

*Edit

From what I can find, which was a pain in the ass, "places of public accommodation" would include the bridal shop, in which case she broke the law.

[draggar]

I'm all for allowing a retail employee or store to deny service to customers who are rude or destructive. However, I don't think a store should be able to deny service to a customer just because she's a lesbian. That's wrong.

So I'm wrong for refusing to make a website for that puppy mill?

The difference, running an unethical business or having membership in the KKK is a choice, the things that are included in anti-discrimination laws (including sexual orientation) are not.

Some would argue that - and that is also a seperate debate. Getting married, though, is a choice.

as some of you have pointed out a business should have the "PRIVILAGE" to not serve or sell someone an item or sell to whomever the owner wishes to sell to or not sell to.

OK by that logic I as a store owner could do the following
1. not sell to blacks or Asians, or Jews or NATIVE Indians or (the country of) Indians or any other group I choose just because.
2. I guess that all black, Aisian, Jew, etc. customers will be pushed aside cause I do not like them so I will not serve them
3. have seperate facilities (seperate but equal mind you) for whites and crappy stuff for everyone else
4. I guess we well just have to go back to where if you are not a WASP we WASPs can legally shit on you for any reason, treat you any way we want cause you are not human anyway), and just keep taking taking and more taking for all you "others"
5. we WASPs can use any interpetation (however faulity or misguided or misinterperted) of our "religion" to justifiy almost anything we want to do to non-WASPs.

And the people who are treated badly have every right to tell their friends, neighbord, relatives, etc.. about the unethical practices and not shop there. Also, as Nyoibo mentiond, a store like that most likely wouldn't last long. so who in the end is really being punished for the owner's actions?

I'm Pagan - if a (non accomidation / critical) store refuses to servce me because of a pentagram I wear - fine. I don't want to support them and I'll let my Pagan friends know about it and you sure as hell will see my review on a site like Yelp letting people know that I was refused because I am Pagan.