Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[variant]

Clearly our free society benefits greatly from government sponsored forced interactions. I know personally that I can't imagine living without the government forcing people that hate me to take my money under threat of violence.

So you've never been a black in the pre-civil rights south then?

 

[RDKirk]

God has taught me to call no person unclean or profane.

And yet, Christ tossed the money changers out of the temple.

If it's a place dedicated to business, it's a place dedicated to business; if it's a place reserved for religious activities, it's a place reserved for religious activities.

I have a friend who runs a small resort B&B specifically as a R&R for members of Christian clergy and only Christian clergy, ever. He has no legal problems with that mode of business.

 

[RDKirk]

Clearly our free society benefits greatly from government sponsored forced interactions. I know personally that I can't imagine living without the government forcing people that hate me to take my money under threat of violence.

I strongly suspect you were not black in the South in the 50s and 60s, as I was. Or Jewish or Catholic or Mexican.

Fortunately back then there were white youth your age who did not think like you, like the extraordinary courageous young white people who particpated in the Freedom Rides. Blacks and whites simply riding on the same buses into the same bus terminals.

 

[HorsieJuice]

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.

Even if it was a setup (and I wouldn't be surprised if it was), so what? What they did was illegal. The Woolworth lunch counter sit-in was a setup, too. Today, do we lament the plight of the poor put-upon entrepreneur whose business was disrupted or do we look at those college students as heroes who helped push the cause of civil rights?

For anyone who's curious, here's the company's web site:

http://libertyridgefarmny.com/

Nothing about this is marketed as being even remotely religious. Google can't find the word "christian" on the site. To paint this as just a couple on their farm is dishonest; it's a fairly good-sized business.



I now see that the rest of this people already beat me to, but I'm going to leave it anyways:

It's being referred to as "public property",

No, it isn't. It's being referred to as a "public accommodation," which is not the same thing. It's basically your definition #2.


Regarding your point #2:

The other means that it's a privately held business, that happens to offer services to the public, like a store, and thus should be able to refuse service to anyone they so choose, without even giving a reason quite frankly...

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...

No, it isn't their right, whether or not you think it ought to be. There are certain criteria which public accommodations (i.e. businesses which are open to the public) are not allowed to use when discrimination against customers. In NY State, sexual orientation is one of those protected classes:

Law | NYS Human Rights

§ 296. Unlawful discriminatory practices.

2. (a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, or disability or marital status of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof, including the extension of credit, or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, or disability or marital status, or that the patronage or custom thereat of any person of or purporting to be of any particular race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex or marital status, or having a disability is unwelcome, objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited.

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

You also give up some things when you incorporate a business and open it to the public.

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

You're misunderstand the definition of the word "public" in this context.

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

Fortunately for them, NY is a one-party consent state.

 

[AztecSDSU]

So you've never been a black in the pre-civil rights south then?

I've been to Japan a few times, where I was told in a number of establishments that gaijin were not welcome. So I went elsewhere because, strangely enough, there were quite a few more establishments in Japan that were quite willing to take money from a round eye and make me feel right at home. Funny how the desire to do business fixes these problems without the need for government.

 

[AztecSDSU]

I strongly suspect you were not black in the South in the 50s and 60s, as I was. Or Jewish or Catholic or Mexican.

Fortunately back then there were white youth your age who did not think like you, like the extraordinary courageous young white people who particpated in the Freedom Rides. Blacks and whites simply riding on the same buses into the same bus terminals.

That's the thing though, no law changed anything in the south or anywhere else. Frankly at the time places like Boston were just as radically opposed to integration. But social attitudes changed because brass taxes of it all, it's still pretty easy to discriminate against someone. Not being able to put up a No Jews allowed sign doesn't mean there are any less convert (and just as effective) methods to accomplish your aims. People stopped doing it because attitudes towards racism have changed substantially.

Wouldn't you rather just know up front if you were doing business with someone that spends his spare time at Klan rallies?

 

[variant]

I've been to Japan a few times, where I was told in a number of establishments that gaijin were not welcome. So I went elsewhere because, strangely enough, there were quite a few more establishments in Japan that were quite willing to take money from a round eye and make me feel right at home. Funny how the desire to do business fixes these problems without the need for government.

And yet I gave you an example where it did not.

Have you lived in a place where the majority of the opportunity for both commerce, jobs and housing were denied to you?

Then you might have some idea why we developed a legal tradition of public buisnesses being forced to cater to everyone within reason.

 

[CaDan]

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.

No. This post is failing to distinguish between state and federal laws. Some federal laws rely on commerce clause power; some rely upon the Civil War Amendments (as well as the Fifth Amendment). State laws have other bases.

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

Nice otherization there.

 

[xTx]

No threats this time, just FACT: Couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm | New York Post

The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21.

“This is scary,’’ Cynthia Gifford said. “It’s scary for all Americans.”​

What happened to the right to chose what you can or cannot do on your own private property?

So sad. It is not right.

 

[RDKirk]

I've been to Japan a few times, where I was told in a number of establishments that gaijin were not welcome. So I went elsewhere because, strangely enough, there were quite a few more establishments in Japan that were quite willing to take money from a round eye and make me feel right at home. Funny how the desire to do business fixes these problems without the need for government.

Yeah, I've been to Japan, too. In fact, I've spent 13 years in the Far East. I suspect, though, you did not live there, and apparently did not become acquainted with any Koreans or even Japanese Christians who had to live their entire lives in a society that shunned them--rather than a casual visit.

 

[bhsmte]

What happened to the right to chose what you can or cannot do on your own private property?

So sad. It is not right.

One problem, they opened up their private property by starting a business that caters to the public.

Every McDonald's is on private property too, they can't discriminate against protective classes either.

 

[CaDan]

The way the law is being applied is blatently unconstitutional.




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



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



There you go again.

I am correcting misstatement of the law made by quasi-libertarians. Y'all have an incorrect view of the coverage of various civil/human rights statutes.

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.

Note the use of the prefix "quasi-", which answers back your first.

"Stance" is not protected (except vaguely in the case of religion). It is a mutable characteristic. Discrimination based upon "stance" has not historically been a basis of a thoroughgoing system of oppression. This answers back your second.

Sure, but--as indicated above--anti-discrimination laws have a scope far smaller than believed by quasi-libertarian conservatives. Your premise is just wrong. This answers back your third.

I swear, y'all think we're living in some Mack Reynolds pulp novel. Such persecuted hegemons . . . ..

 

[xTx]

One problem, they opened up their private property by starting a business that caters to the public.

Every McDonald's is on private property too, they can't discriminate against protective classes either.

Well, good point. If one caters to the public one cannot say I will cater for your wedding but not theirs. It is discrimination. I guess the law is deterring discrimination. Is that good law?

 

[CaDan]

What happened to the right to chose what you can or cannot do on your own private property?

So sad. It is not right.

Once you start inviting people onto your property to make money, you undertake responsibilities. That is ancient and well-settled law going back more than a thousand years in the common law tradition.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, good point. If one caters to the public one cannot say I will cater for your wedding but not theirs. It is discrimination. I guess the law is deterring discrimination. Is that good law?

If you are one that is not for equal rights for all to be able to be served in a business that serves the public, the law is good. If you are one who is for business owners being able to discriminate when they choose to, it is a bad law.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No threats this time, just FACT

If instead of the word 'farm' the word 'church' were used, you might have some reason to be upset.

 

[MachZer0]

If instead of the word 'farm' the word 'church' were used, you might have some reason to be upset.

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise of church

 

[TLK Valentine]

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise of church

That'll be good news for some of our friends in the South -- the "Whites Only" religion will rise again!

 

[bhsmte]

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise of church

Correct, with limits.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Correct, with limits.

Good luck getting our friends on the Right to acknowledge that... I've tried for over a week to get any of them to say "Freedom of religion is not absolute" -- they just can't do it!