Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[cow451]

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

No.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

Wow...with statements like the one in bold...no wonder our legislative process is in shambles...

The constitution should be the first thing we look at when going through the legislative process.

People have a right to free speech and free expression, there's no such thing as "a right not to be offended".

It's another classic case of liberal-overreaching by government (and that's not just directed at democrats, republicans are pretty liberal in that aspect as well)

If I save up money to buy a business, I should be able to do whatever I like provided that I'm not violating anyone else's constitutional rights...and sorry, "the right to get married on the farm of your choosing" isn't an enumerated right.

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.

I don't see how you can't see a double standard in this matter...

This "we've gotta stick up for the guy who's getting picked on" treatment only seems to work in one direction. People on the left want to defend free speech when it's something they agree with, yet have no problem flipping the position when it's going the other way.

Look at how it plays out in the media...a TV personality could make all of the anti-Christian jokes they want, and life goes on and there are no ramifications...if they were to make one anti-gay joke, that'd be the end of their career.

Bill Maher (who I actually enjoy watching) has made a career out of making hostile remarks towards religious people of all faiths, he's still gainfully employed. Anthony Cumia (another edgy entertainer from the Opie and Anthony show) made an indirectly (slightly) racially charged comment after being assaulted, people called for his head on a platter and he was fired within 3 days.

People whine and cry until they make stores take down Merry Christmas signs when the topic is religion...yet, when the topic is homosexuality...people will sue if a store doesn't want to make them a cake.

Religion and Sexual orientation are both protected classes right???

However, anyone who's honestly looking at the legislation knows that "protecting freedoms and individual liberties for everyone" isn't what anti-discrimination laws are about, they're about trying to even the odds for "the little guy".

Here's how our anti-discrimination laws are perceived by the government...the words of an anti-discrimination lobbying group's executive directory paints a vivid picture.
when the FBI statistics were released that 20% of hate crimes were committed against whites, people were upset by that and made comments like "this is an abuse of what these laws were intended for, they're just doing it to over-penalize minorities when they commit crimes against whites"


The same attitude shines through when the topic is religion, sexuality, etc...

It's not about "equal protection for everyone", it's about "over-protection for those who we feel are weaker or less represented"...plain and simple.

Thus the reason why if 3 gay guys beat up a straight guy, discrimination charges wouldn't be filed, other way around? ...it'd be a different story. Same example would work for Muslim/Christian scenario as well.

 

[Marius27]

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.”​

As usual, you guys cherry pick these cases to prop up your fictional gay agenda monster.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

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

As we know, only certain groups get protected status. To hell with the rest of them, right?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Wow...with statements like the one in bold...no wonder our legislative process is in shambles...

The constitution should be the first thing we look at when going through the legislative process.

That's one of the most impressive instances of taking sometime out of context that I've ever encountered on this board, and that's saying something.

OK, obviously, the constitution is the ultimate law of the land and all laws passed under it must be in compliance with it. OK, we on the same page there?

My point in stating what I did, which I believe was abundantly obvious, is that discrimination isn't illegal because of anything in the constitution that protects your right to be served by a public accommodation. I had to point this out because your previous post was going off the rails talking about not having a constitutional right to be served by a store. Discrimination is illegal because congress passed a law banning discrimination. This law is allowable under the powers delegated to congress by the constitution, something which has been upheld by the US courts, the arbiters of what is and is not allowable under the constitution.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If I save up money to buy a business, I should be able to do whatever I like provided that I'm not violating anyone else's constitutional rights...and sorry, "the right to get married on the farm of your choosing" isn't an enumerated right.

So were all those "Whites Only" signs back in the good ol days of Jim Crow a violation of Constitutional rights, or not?

Look at how it plays out in the media...a TV personality could make all of the anti-Christian jokes they want, and life goes on and there are no ramifications...if they were to make one anti-gay joke, that'd be the end of their career.

Bill Maher (who I actually enjoy watching) has made a career out of making hostile remarks towards religious people of all faiths, he's still gainfully employed. Anthony Cumia (another edgy entertainer from the Opie and Anthony show) made an indirectly (slightly) racially charged comment after being assaulted, people called for his head on a platter and he was fired within 3 days.

I, for one, agree that Cumia shouldn't have have been fired -- I'm a big O&A fan -- but the bosses want what they want; whose fault is that?

People whine and cry until they make stores take down Merry Christmas signs when the topic is religion...yet, when the topic is homosexuality...people will sue if a store doesn't want to make them a cake.

So why don't the stores fight back? they have rights, too -- but only if they choose to defend them.

 

[Metal Minister]

So were all those "Whites Only" signs back in the good ol days of Jim Crow a violation of Constitutional rights, or not?

Was there a "straights only" sign at this privately owned farm? It drives me crazy when people try to equate skin color (immutable characteristic) with homosexuality (lifestyle). How many gays have been lynched and terrorized by hooded straights in the dead of night? How many gays have had dogs and fire hoses set on them for daring to eat lunch at a counter for "straights only"? None? Oh, I see.....

I, for one, agree that Cumia shouldn't have have been fired -- I'm a big O&A fan -- but the bosses want what they want; whose fault is that?

So why don't the stores fight back? they have rights, too -- but only if they choose to defend them.

PR, plain and simple. Most companies are terrified that if they do fight back, they will be eviscerated in the media. So instead, they buckle under the pressure in an effort to "not offend" anyone. It's called "tyranny of the minority".

 

[TLK Valentine]

As we know, only certain groups get protected status. To hell with the rest of them, right?

Nothing so melodramatic -- the rest of them can petition their congressmen to have them declared a protected class. best of luck to them, I say.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Was there a "straights only" sign at this privately owned farm?

Apparently there should've been -- I'm all for truth in advertising.

It drives me crazy when people try to equate skin color (immutable characteristic) with homosexuality (lifestyle).

Irrelevant -- bigotry is a lifestyle, regardless of who you are bigoted against.

OTOH, religion is also a lifestyle, so if you would prefer to discuss the "No Jews" signs of the good ol days, we can do that instead.

How many gays have been lynched and terrorized by hooded straights in the dead of night?

I can give you the stats on broad daylight beatings if you think it'll help.

How many gays have had dogs and fire hoses set on them for daring to eat lunch at a counter for "straights only"? None? Oh, I see.....

Does the word "Stonewall" mean anything to you? No? Oh, I see....

but at least now I get an idea of the required body count to make this a serious issue; thank you for that.

PR, plain and simple. Most companies are terrified that if they do fight back, they will be eviscerated in the media.

Fear is a lifestyle -- companies who have no principles have nobody to blame but themselves.

So instead, they buckle under the pressure in an effort to "not offend" anyone. It's called "tyranny of the minority".

Sounds more like "being spineless" to me...

 

[RileyG]

The left doesn't just want gay marriage legalized they want Christians to pretend that gay sex is not a sin.

Yup. They want to force their agenda-driven garbage down our throats forcing us to accept someone's sexually disordered lifestyle.

 

[RDKirk]

Look at how it plays out in the media...a TV personality could make all of the anti-Christian jokes they want, and life goes on and there are no ramifications...if they were to make one anti-gay joke, that'd be the end of their career.

Bill Maher (who I actually enjoy watching) has made a career out of making hostile remarks towards religious people of all faiths, he's still gainfully employed. Anthony Cumia (another edgy entertainer from the Opie and Anthony show) made an indirectly (slightly) racially charged comment after being assaulted, people called for his head on a platter and he was fired within 3 days.

That's not because of government or law. That's because media owners make pocketbook decisions of their own.

No double standard--they're always going for what will cost them the least and make them the most. "Most profit, least loss" is their constant standard.

People whine and cry until they make stores take down Merry Christmas signs when the topic is religion...yet, when the topic is homosexuality...people will sue if a store doesn't want to make them a cake.

There is no government action that requires any store to remove Merry Christmas signs. Hobby Lobby certainly has their Christmas decorations up...already. They also play religious music continually throughout their stores.

It's totally up to store ownership to do what they think will result in the most profit, or to be willing to bear the cost otherwise.

Religion and Sexual orientation are both protected classes right???

If I as a straight customer went to a homosexual interior decorator, he'd have to do business with me.

However, anyone who's honestly looking at the legislation knows that "protecting freedoms and individual liberties for everyone" isn't what anti-discrimination laws are about, they're about trying to even the odds for "the little guy".

American Ambassador: "Your mother wears Army shoes!"
Soviet Ambassador (looking puzzled): "What's wrong with that?"

Here's how our anti-discrimination laws are perceived by the government...the words of an anti-discrimination lobbying group's executive directory paints a vivid picture.
when the FBI statistics were released that 20% of hate crimes were committed against whites, people were upset by that and made comments like "this is an abuse of what these laws were intended for, they're just doing it to over-penalize minorities when they commit crimes against whites"

That quote says the opposite of what you said it says.

 

[cow451]

As we know, only certain groups get protected status. To hell with the rest of them, right?

That's the problem with freedom.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

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.

I'll chime in , seeing as how I actually live in the area where this business is located. The people who run this farm rent it out to the public for special occasions, like weddings and wedding receptions, or other ceremonies. Their objection is that it is a lesbian couple who wants to book the property for their wedding. If it was a hetero couple this would never be making the news.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

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

They didn't have an issue with hosting a Halloween Haunted Hayride on their property last month.

 

[super animator]

They didn't have an issue with hosting a Halloween Haunted Hayride on their property last month.

It doesn't matter, if the owner have problems with it or not, when open it for the public, people will expect certain things from it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'll chime in , seeing as how I actually live in the area where this business is located. The people who run this farm rent it out to the public for special occasions, like weddings and wedding receptions, or other ceremonies. Their objection is that it is a lesbian couple who wants to book the property for their wedding. If it was a hetero couple this would never be making the news.

Not even -- if it was an opposite-sex couple, regardless of sexual orientation, there would be no objection. A gay man marrying a lesbian would be welcomed; two heterosexuals of the same gender would be turned away.

Gender discrimination, plain and simple.

 

[Metal Minister]

Not even -- if it was an opposite-sex couple, regardless of sexual orientation, there would be no objection. A gay man marrying a lesbian would be welcomed; two heterosexuals of the same gender would be turned away.

Gender discrimination, plain and simple.

Thaaaat makes no sense. I'm quite sure if two gay men or two straight men wanted to get married the answer would've been the same. It has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with the free exercise of their religious rights protected by the 1st amendment. Is marriage a constitutionally protected right?

 

[FreeSpirit74]

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.

Like I said in another post (and really, since I am the only member of this board posting on this topic who actually LIVES in the area where this farm is located I am the best one to speak about it) - the couple that owns this farm rents it out to individuals and organizations who want to use it for various purposes like weddings, receptions, and the like. AFAIK it is not classified as a "religious" business.

Heck, they even hosted a Haunterd Hayride last month! One of my Facebook friends, who is a videographer, was catching flack for posting a video he shot to publicize the event, because of this lesbian wedding controversy. So... they are NOT OK with hosting a gay marriage/reception, yet they ARE OK with hosting a Halloween-themed event (Halloween being a holiday with clearly Pagan roots, and Samhain still being celebrated in Pagan circles to this day).

Is your friend's B&B classified as a religious business?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thaaaat makes no sense.

Funny, you seem to have gotten the point:

I'm quite sure if two gay men or two straight men wanted to get married the answer would've been the same.

And that's my point -- sexual orientation is irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with the free exercise of their religious rights protected by the 1st amendment.

The problem is that discrimination based on gender is illegal regardless of the religious excuses for it.

Is marriage a constitutionally protected right?

As a matter of fact, it is, according to the Supreme Court on no fewer than 14 separate occasions:

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
   [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
   [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
   [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
   [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
   

 

[Maynard Keenan]

As we know, only certain groups get protected status. To hell with the rest of them, right?

Laws that protect against racial discrimination don't only protect black people or other minorities: they also make it illegal to discriminate against someone for being white. Laws that protect against sexual orientation discrimination don't only protect those who are gay: they also make it illegal to discriminate against someone for being straight. It just so happens that those in power are most often white and straight, so white and straight people don't need those protections that the law provides for them. When something is made a protected class, it doesn't benefit only a subset of people - it protect everyone from discrimination based on that class. It's a misinterpretation to say that gay people, or black people are a protected class. Sexual orientation is the protected class. Race is the protected class.