Wedding industry sees boost from same-sex marriages
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- With same-sex marriage now legal in Washington state, local wedding-related businesses say they're already seeing a boost from the new group of clients.
From cake bakers to caterers, to planners, hundreds of new weddings means thousands of new dollars in the local economy.
"I expect a lot more business," said Remo Borracchini, owner of Borracchini's Bakery in Seattle.
Borracchini's Bakery has been making wedding cakes for same sex-couples for years. Though the bakers are in the midst of Christmas baking, the owner says the shop can still meet a Sunday deadline for a wedding cake.
"We may still get an order, because one thing about us: if you need a cake, we'll make it for you," he said.
Duos Catering is already seeing bookings for same-sex weddings. The money is a welcome boon for the owners who are getting ready to open a new restaurant. But with gay ownership, the boost from the passage of Referendum 74 is more than financial.
"It's history in the making," said co-owner Benjamin Jury, who is planning his own wedding. "It's pretty neat to be, to actually see it happen."
Executive chef Will Yee is just grateful for the opportunity.
"We never thought this would happen, honestly. I've been together with my partner almost 10 years - it'll be 10 years in January - there's nothing yet," he said.
Diane Ruff and Amanda Butzberger have been together nearly 10 years. In that time, they've officially become domestic partners, had a commitment ceremony, done everything they could to profess their love for one another.
Now, they're getting married.
"Thanks to Washington state voters, we finally get a chance to ... have a definition that everybody can understand, and we don't have to try to define it anymore," Butzberger said.
From cake bakers to caterers, to planners, hundreds of new weddings means thousands of new dollars in the local economy.
"I expect a lot more business," said Remo Borracchini, owner of Borracchini's Bakery in Seattle.
Borracchini's Bakery has been making wedding cakes for same sex-couples for years. Though the bakers are in the midst of Christmas baking, the owner says the shop can still meet a Sunday deadline for a wedding cake.
"We may still get an order, because one thing about us: if you need a cake, we'll make it for you," he said.
Duos Catering is already seeing bookings for same-sex weddings. The money is a welcome boon for the owners who are getting ready to open a new restaurant. But with gay ownership, the boost from the passage of Referendum 74 is more than financial.
"It's history in the making," said co-owner Benjamin Jury, who is planning his own wedding. "It's pretty neat to be, to actually see it happen."
Executive chef Will Yee is just grateful for the opportunity.
"We never thought this would happen, honestly. I've been together with my partner almost 10 years - it'll be 10 years in January - there's nothing yet," he said.
Diane Ruff and Amanda Butzberger have been together nearly 10 years. In that time, they've officially become domestic partners, had a commitment ceremony, done everything they could to profess their love for one another.
Now, they're getting married.
"Thanks to Washington state voters, we finally get a chance to ... have a definition that everybody can understand, and we don't have to try to define it anymore," Butzberger said.
I would love to give my opinion on this but if I let anyone know that I believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle and a sin or that I voted against this I will not be tolerated by those who think the opposite. I live in a free country where people are entitled to their own choices but if ANYONE disagrees with their choices, you will be mocked, intimidates and ridiculed for being intolerant. I long for the day when people can agree to disagree without stating whether or not they are less of person. NO--you must accept my choices and like it---you cannot think the opposite: that is how it comes across to me--oh wait, I gave my opinion.
@desslock250 - desslock......Â
Â
You will only be  mocked, intimidates and ridiculed for being intolerant if you ACTIVELY ARE BEING THAT WAY IN THE WAY YOU WRITE YOUR COMMENTS.Â
Â
At least that's for most of the folks who would disagree with your position. There are some extreme morons who will attack no matter what. And yes - there are just as many of them who take the right wing / religious / conservative / republican / pro-life / pro-gun side of things as there are those that are on the opposite side of the arguemnt (although in my only semi-qualified opinion, there seems to be far more of the ones from the right/conservative side rather than the left who go out of thier way to comment massively while being insulting, intimidating for most of these issues - but I'm sure that there are folks who will disagree with my opinion on that).
Â
If you blast others, treat them in a negative light, demand that 'the other side is wrong no matter what', demand that others blindly accept your religion as the only fact available while dismissing the constitutional right for people to have thier own religious beliefs,  use dismissive, angry, hate filled, bigoted, biased comments, use extreme blind rhetoric from the side you are on, use false statements, use fake science or otherwise are beligerent, of course people will call you on it - regardless of which side of an issue you are on.
Â
HOWEVER - if you don't do those things, and clearly state that it's merely your opinion or your beliefs AND that others are free to chose thier own beliefs and opinions, only the few most asinine extremists and trolls will attack what you write.
Â
Now pushing the 'deviant lifestyle' type phrases will tend to enrage others. IF you chose to use that kind of phrase, you have to expect a negative reaction to your comments.
Â
I consider myself a Christian - however, I don't believe that Jesus taught us to shove our religion in other people's faces - to decry them for 'deviant lifestyle'.  I believe he taught us that we are to treat others the way we want to be treated. To bring others to God by our deeds - not by shoving him into thier faces and saying 'believe in him the way I do or else'.  Â
Â
And then we all have to remember that the legality issues about religious choice.  The Constitution trumps a person's percieved religious 'right' to force others to follow a specific religious code or belief.  You can have whatever religious code or belief you want - and so can I, and so can that gay couple waiting to get married next week. Your religious code / beliefs do not trump mine or thiers - and mine do not trump yours.Â
Â
All that being said, I don't beleive that God gives me the right to force others to prevent others from having thier legally and Constitutionally guaranteed rights. What God gives me is a set of rules that I am to follow.Â
 @FormerMarineSgt Good advice, now sir, practice what you just preached.
 @FormerMarineSgt Well, the religious people on here have constitutional rights also, we're not robots just yet, diversity is what makes the world what it is, it doesn't matter who's wrong or who's right, everyone thinks differently, fact of life, it's been that way from the beginning of time and will continue long after we are gone, I think my gripe is with the posters who say cute little things like "The great spaghetti monster in the sky" or the "Bible is a fairy tale book" that is very rude, not to mention opinionated, and offensive to those who take their religion serious, so, maybe if some could control their remarks as to  mock religion, maybe they would be addressed in a nicer manner, as I said, it is a two-way street......do unto others......not just a saying for religious purposes..
 @FormerMarineSgt I will say one thing in your favor, you are more civil in your commenting than most on here  that are pro-gay, (for lack of a better word) however, you have to admit, there are some pretty nasty, down right argumentitive remarks to those who have a religious view on this, and weather anyone likes it, they have that "Right" I'm sorry, but I have not seen anyone trying to push religion down anyones throat, they are expressing their views as everyone on here is doing, and frankly, it is going around in circles and becoming a circus atmosphere, you know what the Bible says about false profits right? well I think it is up to each of us to make our own decisions, we can be civil or down right rude, and I have seen it from both sides, I personally don't care one way or the other, because it does not affect my life, I do not vote, never have, never will, but being human and not perfect, I sometimes have the need to voice my opinion, come hell or high water, just the nature of the beast, so, thank you for your patients, I'll probably join you in the beam-me-up-room....shortly....
@SJÂ - sorry to post a response twice, but I forgot to include one important comment in my response to you.
Â
While I am a Christian, I do support gay rights and gay marriage. Why? Because Jesus teaches us to love one another and to treat others as we wished to be treated.  That to me equals - if I want to be married to the person I love (yes, a hetero marriage), then I should allow others to marry those that they love.  Add the Constitutional fact that equal protection under the law is indeed the law and there's two strikes against me preventing gay marriage.
Â
Yes, I know what the Bible says about gay marriage. Therefore I won't go out and get 'gay married'.  We don't have the right to forcibly prevent others from having thier own beleifs or thier own 'lack of beliefs'.
@SJ - I do. Already.  Where in my comments do I tell others that they have to comply with my morals, religion, beliefs on an issue?    Where do I shove my religion or beliefs under other's noses in order to help force them to comply with my ways when that force requires that my ways be above the Constitution or the law?
Â
I tell them that if they're hell bent on telling others how they should live, that they are wrong. That these 'others' have the right to live thier lives within the law, the Constitution and thier own seperate beliefs, just like the person I am responding to. Hopefully I suceed in doing so in a rational, balanced way that avoids the pitfalls of putting my religion, my morals or my person beliefs above the law or the Constitution.
Â
 @desslock250 I thought your religion called you to render to Caesar what is Caesar's? It's a secular law by a non-religious government, you shouldn't be concerned about it. Why does it bother you at all?
 @desslock250 I believe myself to be tolerant and I don't care what you believe. I would never vote against a right you should have because my beliefs say it is wrong.  Anyone can think something is wrong but who is anyone to say the someone who doesn't think something is wrong should not do it.  Live and let live.  If the majority decided Jesus Christ and what he stands for wasn't acceptable by their beliefs and outlawed it would you be okay with that?
 @APenny4MyThoughts You wouldn't vote against someone who thought slavery was wrong?  I'm sure you would - so clearly there is a place for saying someone can't do something (please note everyone, I did not saying slavery and gay marriage are the same).
Â
And I'm sure desslock250 agrees we with you that we should never vote against a right someone "should have". Â The question here though is whether same-sex marriage this IS a right everyone should have. Â And really we are just talking about whether government puts a seal of approval on it and awards benefits. Â Because gays already were free to have weddings.
 @Vertex Slavery is taking something away from a person(the slave).  You are taking the slaves rights away.  Marriage does not take anything away or harm others.  Live and let live.  So you are okay with the government giving an advantage to some people but not others based solely on who they want to spend their lives with.  The main reason people are against gay marriage is their religion.  Our government is supposed to be agnostic so the seal should of our government should care about that.  The government is in place to protect our rights not to decide them for some and not others.
Don't shop here. The family is trying to exploit folks based on identity, yet their true colors show in how they treat their customers. This place sucks. Plus, they run business poorly.
This comment has been deleted
 @LongBeachBum Well, let's see...they co-opted "Gay" for their own special meaning, now "marriage" is going down the tubes. I guess from now on I will have to say I'm "heterosexually married" (46 years) so folks will get the correct dynamic.
@Glassman @LongBeachBum  -- " I guess from now on I will have to say I'm "heterosexually married" (46 years) so folks will get the correct dynamic."  You'll only have to say that if you are so biased and/or bigoted as to have to constantly differentiate your own clearly and obviosuly hetero marriage from those of the 'dreaded gays'.
Â
No one will care and no one will be able to NOT detect what kind of marriage you have when they see your wife, pictures of your family, your descriptions of 'hey, I had a great time out at the movies with my wife' and so on.....
Â
Â
 @LongBeachBum I do understand where you are coming from, when someone messes with 'tradition', it scares us. We aren't sure what will happen next, we don't know how it will affect us. I get that. What I don't appreciate is of course, you're opening sarcasm. Nor do I appreciate the fact you can't see that half of all marriages now between men and women, are a farce. Many had absolutely no intention of the  'til death do us part' expectation some of us still have for marriage. My partner and I have been together twelve years, and we made that committment thinking we would never get the license to say we are actually married. Many of the 480 some couples who got their licenses today have that very same committment--my bet is that the percentage of those who are still together when one dies will be larger than that the general man/woman marriages. If we can make it work without the safety of having a marriage license, why the heck can't straight people? So, let's keep the 'farce' out of the argument. You had something special we didn't, and you want to keep it that way--and I'm certain if you don't lie to yourself, you know that is the truth.
 @chickysgirl You just said it yourself..."If we can make it work without the safety of having a marriage license" why the heck can't straight people, Flash!!!
Straight people have and do make it work with or without one, so, if you can make it WITHOUT that "Safety Net" "Marriage License", why do you need one? sounds like you're doing ok without one, don't say for "Equal Rights" Â just because you now have that safety net, it does not guarantee you will get anymore rights than you already have, and don't tell me Gays are anymore true to the ones they love than straight people, that does nothing for your cause.
 @SJ Why does anyone get married? For whatever reasons heterosexuals give, the same goes for homosexuals. I don't NEED to have a license--but until now, I didn't have that option, if I wanted to be in a relationship with someone I love. Just because some straight folks choose not to get married doesn't mean I should be denied that very same priviledge. I just think it's rather silly to use the argument of 'they will destroy the sanctity of marriage' or 'because marriage must be only between a man and a woman, they are making a farce out of marriage'. When people stoop to using those kind of arguments, all that tells me is that they simply don't think we should have the same rights as straight couples, based upon something as silly as the 'ick factor'. And that isn't a very good reason to deny rights to anyone.
 @chickysgirl  @LongBeachBum Traditional marriage between a man and woman has something special that a same-sex relationship does not.  It is unique among human relationships in it's potential to provide the optimum environment for building a future society and thereby contributing to the public good.  While same-sex relationships have some similarities they are still not the same thing.  Government can call both relationships "marriages" but that doesn't make them the same thing.
@Vertex @chickysgirl while you are free to believe that children do best when raised by thier biological, married parents, the studies performed show that 'all other factors being equal', children of single parent families and children of gay families grow up just as normal and well adjusted as those from 'traditional' families. Â
Â
Yes, there are bad parents in ALL of those groups, but there is not more in one vs. the other.
Â
Â
 @Vertex  @chickysgirl Ha so lets outlaw single parent families.  Your belief isn't a science or a study with facts nice try.  I believe kids won't care what happens behind their parents doors as long as they are cared provided for and loved.  All the legitimate/unbiased studies show they aren't doing any more harm or good then straight families.  I have a deal you raise your kids how you see fit and let the others do as the will.  As long as no harm is coming to the children everyone should be okay with that.
 @chickysgirl All factors being equal I believe children do best when raised by their biological, married parents in an intact family.  How children are raised has serious implications for the health of society.  And please note I said "all factors being equal".  So it does not matter if you know of bad heterosexual parents -  I'm aware that those exist.
 @Vertex Do enlighten us as to what that unique quality is. If, in this 21st century, you think it is the ability to procreate, I would have to say, that uniqueness has been lost to science. If you don't agree with me, talk to the many families of same sex couples who have children. If you want to talk about the 'optimum' environment that children grow up in with a mom and dad, talk to the families with same sex parents who have adopted children of those heterosexual couples. Your argument may have had some validity three thousand years ago, even three hundred, but it does not hold true any more. Studies have been done which show that same sex couples can and do provide care for children which allows them to grow up no differently than children of heterosexual couples. To tell you the truth, just based upon my personal experience with friends and family, there are a number of kids who could benefit from being parented by two moms or two dads, rather than the ones who are their biological parents. I see way too many screwed up kids these days to tell me that a mom and a dad are the 'optimal' parents.Â
Why is this news? Of course wedding businesses are seeing more business when we legalize gay marriage. Duh!
 @lovinTruth After the dust is settled, marriages have been performed, honeymoons have ended, they will still be baking cakes for their gay customers like they have been doing for several years now, and this won't be BIG, IMPORTANT, HEADLINE GRABBING news anymore.
Bigots apparently hate small businesses.
 @Howard Beale Small businesses with an agenda, who need to get in on front page news.
This kinda gives a whole new meaning to "Don we now our gay apparel".
Waiting anxiously for what conservatives have to say about this.
@TehHawt ....like wolves who anxiously surround their prey and love the sense of fear before the kill. Got love the tolerance today: damned if you do, damned if you don't!
 @TehHawt Which kind of Conservative?. My faction of the Conservatism really doesn't have a problem with it.  I'm a Conservative and I voted for it. Of course, nothing will change the caricature that y'all have of what exactly is Conservative.
@Getov Mylon @TehHawt - many of us beleive that there are many flavors of conservative.  Some extreme, some not so much, some are in between the two ends of the spectrum of conservative.
Â
Same thing goes for liberals as well.  They exist at along all portions of the spectrum.  Unfortunately, the very same charicature of liberals exists among many conservatives - and that charicature is one where ALL who are not the most extreme conservatives are the worst kind of extremist liberal.
Â
Take me for instance - 20 or 30 years ago, I would have been considered a moderate republican.  Today, I'm of the vile extreme liberal - despised by most who claim 'conservative' status but who, back then would have been called extremist right (and most republicans would have pretty much ignored these extremists back then).
Â
It's terrible when the extremists take over the movement - be the movement liberal or conservative. Right now, the extremists own the republican party.  And that's sad because they dismiss anything and everything that doesn't match thier mantra - even when what they summarily dismiss might just be the right thing for the country.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 @TehHawt Well, since this issue lies squarely in the DMZ between the religious fanatics and the Ayn Rand devotees, I expect what you'll hear is:
Â
"............."
 @Sutekh  @TehHawt Well, if it gets too hard for them to grasp, hand them a bong...then let them read the latest from FOX:
"Smoking pot linked to testicular cancer risk
Smoking marijuana may increase young men's risk of testicular cancer, a new study suggests.
In the study, marijuana users were about twice as likely to be diagnosed with testicular cancer compared to those who had never used marijuana. The link was particularly strong for the types of testicular cancer that tend to have a worse prognosis, the researchers said."
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/10/smoking-pot-linked-to-testicular-cancer-risk/
@Getov Mylon @OrcasThunder @Sutekh @TehHawt -
Â
"....not Fox News (#1 in Cable News)'.
Â
Umm, no, not really. They are the #1 Cable News channel when compared to the ratings of other cable news channels. That doesn't mean that they are #1 in NEWS. To say they are #1 in NEWS is like saying McCarthy was #1 in welcoming Communists into this country.Â
Â
They broadcast very little news. The broadcast opinion and what since the last few months before the election, they got very, very close to broadcasting what would be called Republican / right wing propoganda if they strayed ever so slightly farther over in much of thier broadcast content.
Â
Want proof - go look at the top 3 to 5 stories at the top of thier homepage at any time of day. Check it multiple times. How many stories and headlines are worded/phrased showing Obama / Democrats / Liberals in a bad light vs. a neutral fact delivering way?
Â
I'm not saying that the other guys don't do it. I'm just saying that Fox takes it much, much farther AND has grown ever so close to becoming a propoganda source vs. a news source.
Â
And that's my opinion, so your mileage will vary.
Â
Â
 @Getov Mylon  @Sutekh  @TehHawt "Do you ever read your links?"
Yes.
And the headline made you look, didn't it?
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Sutekh  @TehHawt Do you ever read your links?
"The study only found an association, and does not show marijuana use causes testicular cancer."
Â
And the source is the journal "Cancer," not Fox News (#1 in Cable News)
@Sutekh @TehHawt - it would be more fun to see them go into the science fiction 'robot condundrum' - you know the logic bomb robot schtick: An unsolvable question ('what happens when an irressistable force meets and inmovable object' or in this case 'gay marriage is wrong, but cannot turn down making a profit....) causing the robot to wack out - fail to compute the uncomputable question and then have it's head blow up in a shower of sparks as it's dies from the 'illogical, does not compute' situation that it can't deal with....
Â
Granted, I would never wish anyone's head to explode from this logic bomb, but it would be fun to see these folks go through all that robot freaking out schtick from the old TV shows and movies....
Â
Â
 @FormerMarineSgt Yes, the sooner the better, have a nice trip, don't forget to post, and kiss the aliens....by by..
@SJ 'make it so'
 @FormerMarineSgt Time for you to get beamed back up..
 @FormerMarineSgt  @Sutekh Well done!
 @TehHawt Couldn't care less about what conservatives have to say. :)
@Crispinseattle @TehHawt - same here, but you gotta wonder how big a knot this will put in thier knickers...
Â