Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[Aryeh Jay]

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?

Wh0? I c0uld n0t think 0f any0ne that w0uld st00p t0 that level.

 

[DaisyDay]

An awful lot of gay people ARE Christians, so that distinction is bogus.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope. Beyond the obvious situation where businesses choose not to cater to various demographics, there are legions of instances where businesses decline sales because they don't want to serve the prospective buyer. A hotel turning down a porn convention, a rental hall that doesn't want to host the NRA, a Jewish guy that refused to print Neo-Nazi flyers. Some people that do business have ethical boundaries they don't want to cross. Yet the world still goes on. We're all freer when the government cannot use violence to force us to interact against our will.

Is a porn convention a protected class? Is the NRA a protected class?

 

[RDKirk]

Why do you think these Christian business owners with such strong religious beliefs, choose to mix the sacred with the profane?

Not considering the consequences, either spiritual or secular.

 

[CaDan]

This post is full of misstatements of the law.

Nope. Beyond the obvious situation where businesses choose not to cater to various demographics, there are legions of instances where businesses decline sales because they don't want to serve the prospective buyer. A hotel turning down a porn convention,

Not a violation of the law

a rental hall that doesn't want to host the NRA,

Not a violation of the law

a Jewish guy that refused to print Neo-Nazi flyers.

Not a violation of the law

Some people that do business have ethical boundaries they don't want to cross. Yet the world still goes on. We're all freer when the government cannot use violence to force us to interact against our will.

If you quasi-libertarians want to get some traction for your claims, quit saying obviously incorrect things.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Is a porn convention a protected class? Is the NRA a protected class?

Anti-discrimination laws rely on federal commerce laws as an end run around the constitution, homosexuals are not a federally protected class. The state of New York has no grounds to violate first amendment rights. So if you're going to go about it like that it's still a failure.

End of the day, what is it with you people and wanting the government to force people that despise you to take your money?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Anti-discrimination laws rely on federal commerce laws as an end run around the constitution, homosexuals are not a federally protected class. The state of New York has no grounds to violate first amendment rights. So if you're going to go about it like that it's still a failure.

End of the day, what is it with you people and wanting the government to force people that despise you to take your money?

How exactly is the constitution an end run around the constitution?

Do you for some reason believe that states do not have the authority to regulate business? Because if the authority to regulate commerce is sufficient to allow the federal government to ban discrimination, then if a state has the authority to regulate commerce, they may then ban discrimination. Again, this is non controversial, settled case law. Some unfamiliar with the legal history of non-discrimination laws may whinge about how people prevented from discriminating are the real victims, but mostly those of us in the real world just roll our eyes at you.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Why would someone exclude anyone from anything as a Christian? I don't recall Jesus sitting with the righteous folks, but the despised folks.

 

[AztecSDSU]

How exactly is the constitution an end run around the constitution?

Do you for some reason believe that states do not have the authority to regulate business? Because if the authority to regulate commerce is sufficient to allow the federal government to ban discrimination, then if a state has the authority to regulate commerce, they may then ban discrimination. Again, this is non controversial, settled case law. Some unfamiliar with the legal history of non-discrimination laws may whinge about how people prevented from discriminating are the real victims, but mostly those of us in the real world just roll our eyes at you.

The constitution deals with how the government must interact with citizens. Anti-discrimination laws are, on face, a fundamental violation of freedom of association. They exist by the legal fiction that as businesses serviced by goods that come off federal highways, or are connected to public power grids, all businesses are essentially extensions of the federal government.

As I've said, there's never been a reason to enforce anti-discrimination laws. In fact, anti-discrimination laws have been typically very harmful to minority owned businesses. Harlem New York was a good example of thriving black owned businesses that were gutted by anti-discrimination laws that killed their market share. That's the funny thing about free enterprise: you don't have to use government violence to force people to sell each other stuff. We manged it just fine on our own, even when different people want to go after different market shares.

But hey, you're absolutely right, it is well settled that you can get the courts to help you force businesses that despise you to take your money in certain circumstances. Most of us in the sane camp would just rather do business with people that actually will at least pretend to like us in exchange for our money. But carry on comrade, at least until your on the receiving end of threats of state violence.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

The constitution deals with how the government must interact with citizens. Anti-discrimination laws are, on face, a fundamental violation of freedom of association. They exist by the legal fiction that as businesses serviced by goods that come off federal highways, or are connected to public power grids, all businesses are essentially extensions of the federal government.

As I've said, there's never been a reason to enforce anti-discrimination laws. In fact, anti-discrimination laws have been typically very harmful to minority owned businesses. Harlem New York was a good example of thriving black owned businesses that were gutted by anti-discrimination laws that killed their market share. That's the funny thing about free enterprise: you don't have to use government violence to force people to sell each other stuff. We manged it just fine on our own, even when different people want to go after different market shares.

But hey, you're absolutely right, it is well settled that you can get the courts to help you force businesses that despise you to take your money in certain circumstances. Most of us in the sane camp would just rather do business with people that actually will at least pretend to like us in exchange for our money. But carry on comrade, at least until your on the receiving end of threats of state violence.

Possessing the opinion that you do requires one of two things of you. A willful denial that, prior to the existence of non-discrimination laws, racial discrimination was used to systematically exclude and repress an entire class of people on arbitrary means, or a belief that should a race of people who possess wealth and power desire to systematically exclude and repress another entire class of people on arbitrary means, then they should be allowed to do so.

 

[GarfieldJL]

This post is full of misstatements of the law.

The way the law is being applied is blatently unconstitutional.

Not a violation of the law

So you're essentially saying that some people have more rights than other people...

Not a violation of the law

So you're essentially saying that some people have more rights than other people, again...

Not a violation of the law

There you go again.

If you quasi-libertarians want to get some traction for your claims, quit saying stupidly incorrect things.

1. I'm not a libertarian, however there are times when both libertarians and conservatives agree.
2. Isn't arguing that people that you agree with have more rights than people that have a stance you happen to not agree with, essentially saying that you believe that those that disagree with you are inferior to you...
3. If Anti-Discrimination laws are taken to an extreme, there comes a point where they become a weapon to discriminate against people, and we've reached that point.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

The constitution deals with how the government must interact with citizens. Anti-discrimination laws are, on face, a fundamental violation of freedom of association. They exist by the legal fiction that as businesses serviced by goods that come off federal highways, or are connected to public power grids, all businesses are essentially extensions of the federal government.

You need to do a lot of studying and reading about US law, the constitution, and the history of US jurisprudence before you start trying to speak as though you have any idea what you are talking about. The legal authority to regulate commerce has exactly nothing to do with such businesses being "an extension of the federal government." And even if such businesses were NOT in fact engaged in interstate commerce, they would still be subject to regulation from state governments. There is no court in the land that would agree with your stance that a "freedom of association" granted by the constitution would prohibit a state from regulating business by banning class-based discrimination.

 

[GarfieldJL]

You need to do a lot of studying and reading about US law, the constitution, and the history of US jurisprudence before you start trying to speak as though you have any idea what you are talking about. The legal authority to regulate commerce has exactly nothing to do with such businesses being "an extension of the federal government." And even if such businesses were NOT in fact engaged in interstate commerce, they would still be subject to regulation from state governments. There is no court in the land that would agree with your stance that a "freedom of association" granted by the constitution would prohibit a state from regulating business by banning class-based discrimination.

I could say the same to you. Maynard Keenan, I'm not going to argue that anti-discrimination laws in and of themselves are unconstitutional, however I am going to point out that when taken to the extreme, they end up being applied in a very blatently abusive and unconstitutional manner.

The question you should ask yourself is where is the line where the enforcement ends up crossing the line.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why would someone exclude anyone from anything as a Christian?

Sadly, too many Christians see Love as a finite resource -- if too many of the "wrong sort of people" are shown it, there might not be any left for themselves...

I don't recall Jesus sitting with the righteous folks, but the despised folks.

There are precious few people whom Jesus would sit with who claim to be on his side... Matthew 7:21, and all that.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Sadly, too many Christians see Love as a finite resource -- if too many of the "wrong sort of people" are shown it, there might not be any left for themselves...

No, many Christians actually have moral principles and to them principles actually mean something.

There are precious few people whom Jesus would sit with who claim to be on his side... Matthew 7:21, and all that.

Except Jesus was trying to save people, he wasn't trying to form an exclusive club. Just because Jesus would sit down with sinners, didn't mean he approved the sinful behavior in question... Nor does it mean he would go out of his way to legitimize said behavior.

 

[MachZer0]

No, many Christians actually have moral principles and to them principles actually mean something.



Except Jesus was trying to save people, he wasn't trying to form an exclusive club. Just because Jesus would sit down with sinners, didn't mean he approved the sinful behavior in question... Nor does it mean he would go out of his way to legitimize said behavior.

What some of our liberal friends forget is that Jesus sat with sinners because He said they were sick and needed a doctor

 

[AztecSDSU]

Possessing the opinion that you do requires one of two things of you. A willful denial that, prior to the existence of non-discrimination laws, racial discrimination was used to systematically exclude and repress an entire class of people on arbitrary means, or a belief that should a race of people who possess wealth and power desire to systematically exclude and repress another entire class of people on arbitrary means, then they should be allowed to do so.

Possessing the opinion you do requires you to believe nonsense like anti-discrimination laws are now, or ever have been, effective at forcing people to interact. They aren't, they've never been, and they never will be. The only thing that actually changes is social attitudes towards things like "no blacks" signs. Let me guess, you think affirmative action has been wildly effective too? LOL

People should be free to do what they want with their own private property and associate freely with whom they choose. The market adjusts now, the marketed adjusted in the past, and the market will adjust in the future.

You're still avoiding the basic question, what is so appealing about the idea you can force people to take your money?

 

[AztecSDSU]

You need to do a lot of studying and reading about US law, the constitution, and the history of US jurisprudence before you start trying to speak as though you have any idea what you are talking about. The legal authority to regulate commerce has exactly nothing to do with such businesses being "an extension of the federal government." And even if such businesses were NOT in fact engaged in interstate commerce, they would still be subject to regulation from state governments. There is no court in the land that would agree with your stance that a "freedom of association" granted by the constitution would prohibit a state from regulating business by banning class-based discrimination.

In other words you don't have a point to make so you resort to logical fallacy, got ya.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Possessing the opinion you do requires you to believe nonsense like anti-discrimination laws are now, or ever have been, effective at forcing people to interact. They aren't, they've never been, and they never will be. The only thing that actually changes is social attitudes towards things like "no blacks" signs. Let me guess, you think affirmative action has been wildly effective too? LOL

People should be free to do what they want with their own private property and associate freely with whom they choose. The market adjusts now, the marketed adjusted in the past, and the market will adjust in the future.

You're still avoiding the basic question, what is so appealing about the idea you can force people to take your money?

Your mistake is thinking the question, "what is so appealing about the idea you can force people to take your money?" has any relevance to this debate.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

In other words you don't have a point to make so you resort to logical fallacy, got ya.

Please, point out the logical fallacy contained in the argument: The authority to regulate business conveys the authority to ban discrimination by businesses. States have the authority to regulate businesses operating within their boundaries. Ergo, states have the authority to ban discrimination by businesses. The US court system, which is the arbiter of what the law does and does not permit, has ruled that this reasoning is correct, and that the law of land permits the banning of discrimination by businesses accommodating the public.