Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1


Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest

Thanks for quoting it again. I get tired of doing so. They ignore it, because they don't want to admit what it says.

Many court cases have been heard and ruled on establishing that the availability of other service and goods providers negates the government's "compelling interest."

But the liberals don't want to hear that. It upsets their agenda.

 

[MachZer0]

From the article:

Gifford said she told her, politely, that she would not book a same-sex wedding ceremony at the farm.

She didn’t know it at the time, but the woman’s then-fianceé, Jennifer McCarthy, recorded the conversation. The pair then filed a formal complaint with the state Division of Human Rights.

(emphasis mine)

I don't support discrimination against same-sex persons by businesses. It's unseemly, and, I think it's a bad business decision. But this sounds like a set-up.

Surreptitious recordings are illegal in many municipalities. The lesbians may have implicated themselves in a crime

 

[MachZer0]

Thanks for quoting it again. I get tired of doing so. They ignore it, because they don't want to admit what it says.

Many court cases have been heard and ruled on establishing that the availability of other service and goods providers negates the government's "compelling interest."

But the liberals don't want to hear that. It upsets their agenda.

Im try to figure out how much mental anguih one suffers if a particular wedding venue turns out to be unavailable. That mental anguish was suffered in this case suggests mental instability on the part of the two lesbians

 

[NightHawkeye]

Surreptitious recordings are illegal in many municipalities. The lesbians may have implicated themselves in a crime

Punishable by $12,000 plus court costs, attorney's fees and recompense for mental anguish suffered by the property owners.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

It's being referred to as "public property", but in terms of property, is it "public" as in taxpayer funded?, or public as in "they own the property, but offer a service to the public"?...big difference between the two things.

A "public accommodation" is a private business that offers services to the public at large.

If it's the latter of the two, then them refusing to do business with someone who's engaging in something they disapprove of is 100% their right...much like it's the right of McDonald's to tell me that they refuse to serve me if I'm barefooted (The no shoes no service sign)...if I walked into McDonald's tomorrow, barefooted, claiming that it's part of my religion called "Barefootism" (which religion is a protected class), and they refused to serve me, would people here support the idea of the state of Ohio fining the restaurant $10,000???

The civil rights act of 1964 instituted restrictions on discrimination by public accommodations. Subsequent court rulings upheld the constitutionality of such restrictions under the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The legal basis behind prohibitions on discrimination are well established after thorough legal review. The wisdom of enforcing such laws is also well accepted by all but a fringe of society.

People seem to have a double standard on this topic...there are certain things that our constitution protects, however, you give up certain things when you enter someone else's private property, for example...the 1st amendment protects my right to voice my opinions about people...even in a rude way if I so choose. However, if I'm in someone else's store or home and start yelling "Group XYZ is nothing but a bunch of scum!!!" (with some profanity peppered in) loudly, the property owner has a right to tell me to leave...I don't get to come back and sue them for violating my first amendment rights. If a store puts up a "no firearms" sign in the window, I don't get to sue them for violating my 2nd amendment rights...

I don't see the double standard. The constitution has nothing to do with it. Laws against discrimination aren't based on constitutional protections. The first amendment isn't why a business is prohibited from refusing to serve Catholics. Laws passed by the legislature are.

If a private club only allows men to be members but not women, they don't get to sue the club for violating their 14th amendment rights. etc... etc...

A private club that serves only its members is not a public accommodation, and is not subject to laws banning discrimination by public accommodations.

Like I said, it's all about private vs. public property and whether or not the company is privately held or has gone public.

It has, quite exactly, nothing to do with what you just said.

...but like another poster mentioned earlier in the thread...it does seem fishy...they already found another place to marry them so it does sound like maybe they got their honeymoon paid for by playing the system here.

The only way to enforce the laws against discrimination is to bring legal action against those who participate in it. There aren't many people anymore who wish to discriminate on racial grounds, but if a hotel refused accommodation to a black family, the fact that the hotel next door let them in isn't an argument against punishing the first hotel for its lawbreaking.

 

[bhsmte]

Surreptitious recordings are illegal in many municipalities. The lesbians may have implicated themselves in a crime

I believe New York is a "one party" consent state, which would mean it is legal to record conversations.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'd close the entire thing down and when people asked me why I'd give them the court ruling.

The couple is no longer doing wedding ceremonies on their property, but they will continue to have receptions. They've had to fire a wedding planner because of financial losses.

How long before Christians realize how stupid it is to own a business in these times?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I'd close the entire thing down and when people asked me why I'd give them the court ruling.

The couple is no longer doing wedding ceremonies on their property, but they will continue to have receptions. They've had to fire a wedding planner because of financial losses.

How long before Christians realize how stupid it is to own a business in these times?

Please don't assume that all Christians have the same desire for unlawful discrimination. You tar the image of the tens of millions of Christians who want nothing to do with this.

 

[bhsmte]

Please don't assume that all Christians have the same desire for unlawful discrimination. You tar the image of the tens of millions of Christians who want nothing to do with this.

Well stated.

 

[abysmul]

Please don't assume that all Christians have the same desire for unlawful discrimination. You tar the image of the tens of millions of Christians who want nothing to do with this.

Amen to that. There are also countless Christians that want nothing to do with turning their faith into a money making exercise/business.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Please don't assume that all Christians have the same desire for unlawful discrimination. You tar the image of the tens of millions of Christians who want nothing to do with this.

Well stated.

*eyeroll*

Tens of millions? Over-exaggerate much?

FINE. Conservative, bible-believing Christians should realize that owning a business in this secular world is no longer to their advantage.

Amen to that. There are also countless Christians that want nothing to do with turning their faith into a money making exercise/business.

My husband gets paid as a pastor. Not much, but he gets paid. Why do you feel there has to be a negative spin to it? People need to pay bills still.

 

[bhsmte]

*eyeroll*

Tens of millions? Over-exaggerate much?

FINE. Conservative, bible-believing Christians should realize that owning a business in this secular world is no longer to their advantage.



My husband gets paid as a pastor. Not much, but he gets paid. Why do you feel there has to be a negative spin to it? People need to pay bills still.

No longer to their advantage?

I would imagine, there are many Christians who own businesses, that own a business and want to provide the best service and products they can for their customers and they have no issue serving those who don't share their personal religious beliefs.

 

[abysmul]

I think it's not spin to say selling your faith for the almighty $$$ is negative... and selling it for a buck and then complaining when you have to participate on a level playing field with other "businesses" is just goofy.

 

[abysmul]

No longer to their advantage?

I would imagine, there are many Christians who own businesses, that own a business and want to provide the best service and products they can for their customers and they have no issue serving those who don't share their personal religious beliefs.

I've worked 18 years for just such a business.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

*eyeroll*

Tens of millions? Over-exaggerate much?

No, I do not exaggerate in the least. The most recent poll by gallup found that 55% of US adults favor legalizing gay marriage. 75% of the US is Christian. Even if ALL 25% of non-Christians favor marriage equality, that leaves 30% of the US comprised of people who are Christian and who support marriage equality. There are approximately 242 million US adults. 30% of that number is, our low end estimate, 72 million adult US Christians who support marriage equality. Now, this is not the exact question asked (opposing discrimination against gay couples in public accommodations), but given the tens of millions of Christians who support the right of gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, it is not a stretch to assert that, likewise, tens of millions want nothing to do with discriminating against gay couples.

FINE. Conservative, bible-believing Christians should realize that owning a business in this secular world is no longer to their advantage.

Arrogant, much, to assert that people who believe the way you do are "bible believing," whereas those people who don't want to discriminate are presumably something else that doesn't believe in the Bible.?

My husband gets paid as a pastor. Not much, but he gets paid. Why do you feel there has to be a negative spin to it? People need to pay bills still.

Nobody says pastors shouldn't get paid. If he turned his church into a public accommodation that let anybody rent it out, in a money making venture, then he'd have to comply with the rules laid out for businesses that accommodate the public.

 

[rambot]

I only briefly scanned this article yet I found this gem:

“We respect and care for everyone!’’ Cynthia Gifford told me. “We had an openly gay man working for us this past season,’’ she said.
“We’ve had a woman who’s transitioning to be a man. We don’t discriminate against anyone.’’

[my emphasis]
Good on 'em for hiring those individuals.
But...

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

I only briefly scanned this article yet I found this gem:
[my emphasis]
Good on 'em for hiring those individuals.
But...
[gratuitous Inigo Montoya quote on a photo]

On the contrary, I don't think you understand the rationale for their decision not to host gay marriages at the farm, nor do you understand that U.S. law supports them in so refusing.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

On the contrary, I don't think you understand the rationale for their decision not to host gay marriages at the farm, nor do you understand that U.S. law supports them in so refusing.

It appears to be you who is mistaken. There is no US law that supports them in refusing service to gay couples. New York State law explicitly condemns such discrimination.

 

[CaDan]

Are we really going to do this again?

42 US Code § 2000bb–1

Memorize it, liberals. It is the law of the land. Fines and legal maneuverings of this type are only manipulations to force Christians to accept what to them is unacceptable, and guess what? Federal law says we do not have to do so, whether you like it or not!

It doesn't apply to states--only to the federal government.

Stop spreading this lie.

 

[CaDan]

Surreptitious recordings are illegal in many municipalities. The lesbians may have implicated themselves in a crime

New York is a one-party state. See N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05.

Accusations of committing a felony is defamation per se. So who has implicated them self in a crime again?