Re: "Judge rules against florist who refused gay couple" (TNT, 2-19).
While I understand law regarding equality, regardless if I feel it's used correctly, this article is either written to portray increased negativity toward the florist or the facts behind it aren't fully stated.
The fact that it is written as the couple had a smaller wedding with fewer guests in a home with a different florist than the larger event they had envisioned would lead one to believe that because one florist refused to provide them flowers that the wedding was somehow compromised.
Really? They had to invite fewer people? The new florist didn't have enough flowers? This smells like the couple was more interested in being compensated than just the law violation penalty.
The fact that the state will likely seek penalty fees against the florist personally as well as against her business is double dipping. Collect your fee once.
It isn't bad enough her name has to be dragged through the mud for standing up for what she believes, but now our fine state wants to penalize her twice just to line its pockets? Or is that extra money going to the couple because their wedding was less than they envisioned? Corrupt government!