Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...

[eynon81]

[Spider]

[exploited]

Flower shops are places of public accommodation, but that is the standard of the ADA, not the consumer rights law in question.

The applicable law is not the Civil Rights Act, or the ADA, but rather the state consumer protection act.

Such an act is only in violation of the First Amendment when it undermines the explicit message of an expressive organization. A flower shop is not an expressive organization, and anti-homosexuality is not its explicit message.

I don't even know why you guys are arguing about it anymore. I've already shown definitively that the Supreme Court acknowledges the right of states to adopt anti-discrimination policies for the benefit of homosexuals. I've also shown that the standard for determining the applicability of the First Amendment has not been met in this case. This argument is over.

For the public accommodations citation, go here: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adaqa2.html

[lil bit]

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[exploited]

[Medius]

[eynon81]

[exploited]