Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[AztecSDSU]

Your opinion does not determine who should be a protected class.

Nope, but legally speaking the state of New York is pitting two protected classes against each other, so why on earth do you automatically win because weird sex?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nope, but legally speaking the state of New York is pitting two protected classes against each other, so why on earth do you automatically win because weird sex?

Well, there's your answer right there.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

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

Fall fun on the farm! - Saratoga Fall Family Fun, Pumpkin Picking, Cornfield Maze

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.

Their whole Harvest Haunted Attraction IMO marks them as being very hypocritical. Magic and Psychics and the supernatural/occult are all supposed to be verboten to Christians, yet they are front and center during this event. Yet..... they cannot extend themselves to allow a lesbian couple to hold a wedding on their property. Yep... OK.

 

[cow451]

Their whole Harvest Haunted Attraction IMO marks them as being very hypocritical. Magic and Psychics and the supernatural/occult are all supposed to be verboten to Christians, yet they are front and center during this event. Yet..... they cannot extend themselves to allow a lesbian couple to hold a wedding on their property. Yep... OK.

Maybe if the couple dressed up as Vampires or Zombies or something, it would be OK.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope, but legally speaking the state of New York is pitting two protected classes against each other, so why on earth do you automatically win because weird sex?

Same reason blacks needed protection against discrimination.

 

[Metal Minister]

Funny, you seem to have gotten the point:

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

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

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


[*]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.”
[*]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.
[*]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.”
[*]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.”
[*]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.”
[*]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.”
[*]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.”
[*]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.”
[*]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.”

Still missing the point. There was no gender discrimination. My point was that a homosexual 'marriage' would've been declined regardless of the gender of the 2 parties. Therefore no gender discrimination. They didn't decline based on the fact that a woman asked, but based on the fact that 2 people wanted them to break their 1st amendment protected religious freedom to accommodate their convenience.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Still missing the point. There was no gender discrimination.

man marries woman -- welcome aboard!

man marries man -- GET OUT!

Yeah, that's gender discrimination.

My point was that a homosexual 'marriage' would've been declined regardless of the gender of the 2 parties. Therefore no gender discrimination.

You're saying that two gay people would've been turned away? For example, a gay man marrying a lesbian would've been refused?

You're also saying that two heterosexuals who chose to marry one another, regardless of gender, would've been accepted? A straight man could've married another straight man and would've been welcomed?

You sure you want to say that?

They didn't decline based on the fact that a woman asked, but based on the fact that 2 people wanted them to break their 1st amendment protected religious freedom to accommodate their convenience.

Only if I believe your story that gender had nothing to do with it -- I don't.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

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.....

Never heard of Harvey Milk, have you?

 

[AztecSDSU]

Same reason blacks needed protection against discrimination.

Which of course ended when some laws were passed and nobody ever these days discriminates against anybody LOL.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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

No, look closely at what it says...

Hate Crimes : Criminal Law & Identity Politics: Criminal Law & Identity Politics - New York University Center for Research in Crime and Justice James B. Jacobs Director, Kimberly Potter Formerly Senior Research Fellow Center for Crime and Justice - G

here's the page the quote comes from...

When a member of the majority does something wrong toward a member of the minority, they get charged with a hate crime and nobody thinks twice about it...

However, when the member of the majority is the victim of a hate crime, then it's "Well, you're just using this hate crime legislation to over-penalize the person (who happens to be in the minority) that attacked you, that's "not what these laws were meant for"

In the eyes of many on the left, if you're white/Christian/male/non-Jewish...you can't possibly be the victim of discrimination, because you happen to be from a group that's historically had it better than other groups.

...and this has always baffled me...it's almost like saying that because Bill Gates is rich, he can't be the victim of a robbery.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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

Are we talking signs on publicly funded facilities? or Private businesses?

If we're talking about signs on publicly funded facilities, then that would be a violation since non-whites also paid taxes to help build those things. (for example, state sponsored school segregation...and the courts ruled accordingly on that ruling it unconstitutional)

If we're talking about a private business, then no...Horrible and ignorant...absolutely, but not a constitutional violation.

To my knowledge, no law has ever been passed that makes private discrimination illegal...(IE, there's no laws against being racist, sexist, etc for an individual).

The problem is, people get the state involved to blur the lines between public and private in order to trample over the free speech of others.

...and it's not just on this topic, it happens in other aspects as well. Look at what musicians were up against back in the day of Tipper Gore.

 

[cow451]

Are we talking signs on publicly funded facilities? or Private businesses?

Get the picture?

 

[David Brider]

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

It drives me crazy when people try to equate sexual orientation (who a person is attracted to, an immutable characteristic) with lifestyle (how a person chooses to live their life).

 

[David Brider]

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.

QFT, as the kids say nowadays.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

It would be less misunderstood to say "prohibited criteria."

 

[cow451]

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.

Unlike Race, Sexual orientation is not a protected class nationally, but in some states and jurisdictions. The case in the OP falls under one of those jurisdictions (New York state).

 

[Metal Minister]

It drives me crazy when people try to equate sexual orientation (who a person is attracted to, an immutable characteristic) with lifestyle (how a person chooses to live their life).

As soon as they find the homosexuality gene, you'll have a point!

 

[cow451]

As soon as they find the homosexuality gene, you'll have a point!

Did they find a Religion gene?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

As soon as they find the homosexuality gene, you'll have a point!

Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows | Science | The Guardian

 

[Metal Minister]

Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows | Science | The Guardian

Hmmm isn't this interesting: http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...ic-research-there-is-no-gay-gene#.VGK0Nsko7qA