Post a Comment On: Feminist Law Rant

It's time for my apparently annual post. This time the issue that prompts me away from my busy day is the Richland flower case, which has received all sorts of press:
Huffington Post Article
KVEW Announcement about ACLU involvement
MSNBC Piece
The Blaze article all about the AG Suit
KEPR News (local Richland News Station)
Advocate Article when it all began
NPR Story quoting a UW Law Professsor (To correct the NPR post, after this incident, the gay and bisexual employees have all quit because their employer is forcing them to engage in illegal activities, violating the law against discrimination.)

A little summary of the case. Gay male couple, using the same florist for years and years, spending thousands of dollars during their romance: anniversaries, Valentine's Day, housewarming, whenever they just felt like being mushy towards each other. Florist knows they're gay. Serves them. Helps them in their constant courtship of one another. Law changes and now the couple can get married. They go to this florist who has helped nurture their relationship and suddenly she says, nope not going to do a floral arrangement for you because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.

I call malarkey on that and so should you. All of us gays are familiar with what the fanatical religions have to say about us. It's things like "man shall not lie with another man the way he lies with a woman." And that we're "unnatural." Religion does not say that marriage between to people of the same-sex is wrong, it says any relationship between two people of the same sex is wrong. If Arlene's Flowers' refusal to serve were actually based in faith, she never would have sold flowers to the men in their relationship. Let us be very clear: this is about notoriety. It is about being able to be used as a pawn in a national debate against marriage. NOM is already using this incident as fodder against marriage equality in other states. Other states that may actually not have this issue, because even though it took more than 30 years to pass and the never ending work of Cal Anderson, Ed Murray, and Jamie Pederson (to name a few of the most well-known fighters), Washington is one of a few states that actually includes sexuality and gender identity in their nondiscrimination provisions (and it's only been included since 2006).

Arlene's Flowers' refusal to serve has absolutely nothing to do with religious practice or beliefs. Religious beliefs are anti-gay, not simply anti-gays getting married. Common sense makes it clear that because she participated for so long in nurturing this relationship through flowers, that this is not about any views on homosexuality. It is simply about getting her name out there with the big dogs in this national marriage debate (and based on the selection or articles I posted above, it's been successful).

I actually feel a bit sorry for Arlene's Flowers and the owners, because I suspect this is an incident where a national campaign came in and got them in over their heads. They have lost employees, they have severely damaged their reputation in a state that overall supports marriage equality. It's like they say, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation and only a moment to destroy the reputation. Their actions may for this moment have some religious bigots supporting them, but a year from now, five years from now, the legacy of this moment will haunt them. Because even though opponents of marriage equality want to claim that this is a divisive issue like abortion that we'll be fighting about 40 years later (which BTW is a misleading argument as abortion really is not that divisive issue as the majority of Americans support access to abortion, and that the number continues to rise. It's simply those with money and power have hijacked state legislatures to make it an issue.). But marriage equality isn't going to be like the abortion debate. Opponents of marriage equality are never going to have the ability to call marriages between two people of the same sex "murder." The ability to label abortion as "murder" and the personal beliefs people have about when life begins are the only reason any non-misogynist actually opposes abortion. That's just never going to happen in the case of gay marriage. The more homosexuality aligns itself with heteronormative values, the more archaic homophobia is going to seem. I predict that fewer people will be opposed to homophobia than continue to be opposed to interracial marriages for one simple fact: We're everywhere. We're you. We're you brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, children, favorite afternoon talk show host, favorite comedian, co-worker, etc. etc. you see unlike so many of our differences (race, national origin, religion) which we have an ability to segregate ourselves from, we cannot separate ourselves from the gays. In fact, arguably, no matter how straight a person is, they can't even separate themselves from the occasional homoerotic feelings. It happens. We're human. Some people are just insanely hot, regardless of your sexual orientation. Even I sometimes find sex with men a little erotic (seriously if you have never watched Queer as Folk yet, you should watch it, you'll understand). It doesn't make me actually want to have sex with a man, nor does it make me want to be a man so that I can have sex with other man. But it does help me understand why someone else would. We all have our own version of Queer As Folk.

Okay that tangent aside, what I'm saying is that as more time passes, homosexuality is going to be no big deal. As we get closer get closer to that place, what we will remember is Arlene's Flowers chose to take a hurtful action against their loyal customers for no reason other than to advance the opposition's efforts to scare people away from marriage equality. Because let's be very clear,  even if it has been a registered domestic partnership ceremony in Washington and Arlene's Flowers refused to serve the couple, she would be facing the same legal challenges under Washington law. In fact, had she refused to serve them for a Valentine's Day floral arrangement, she'd be facing the same legal challenge. In the same way religious bigotry is about hating gays and not about marriage; the Washington Law Against Discrimination is about not being allowed to use your hate for any protected class as a reason to not serve individuals when you hold yourself out as serving the public.

My point is this, don't be fooled: the situation around Arlene's Flowers has nothing to do with religion and the ability to exercise your own religion. Arlene's Flowers did not previously express any opposition to their same-sex relationship and it is incredibly disingenuous to claim that their religion prohibits providing flowers at wedding but not in the nurturing of the romantic relationship. Their opposition is simply about notoriety. It is about using religion as a tool for politics and for hate. There is nothing novel in this approach. There is a long long history of using religion to oppress others. But let's not forget that there is also a long and important history of religion being leaders in changing the world for greater justice. That is true for marriage equality as many churches (and other houses of worship of different religions) are strongly in support of marriage equality. Many people of faith are strong believers in the idea of nurturing more love in our world. Many gays are religious. In this moment, on this issue, make no mistake, love is winning. Arlene's Flowers and all of the people using faith for hate will be eating crow. They will probably find themselves needing to close their doors as the initial supporters distance themselves and a floral shop with a reputation for hate for the simple sake of notoriety, just isn't a place anyone is going to want to buy their flowers.