Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[MachZer0]

And yet you confidently take a stand on a translation that has been called into question by someone who might know more than you about a particular language.

As I said, I've done my research. Follwing your logic, one can only support global warming if he is a climatologist. One can only make an opinion on the effects of slavery on black Americans if one is an actual historian.

 

[bhsmte]

The tags in this thread make me laugh. Homophobia? If I don't want to marry gay people all of a sudden I'm homophobic?

Anyways, people shouldn't be dragged into sin. If these pastors doesn't want to help people sin, all the power to them. I don't care if it's public or private business.

What pastors?

 

[rambot]

As I said, I've done my research. Following your logic, one can only support global warming if he is a climatologist. One can only make an opinion on the effects of slavery on black Americans if one is an actual historian.

Whoa. Hoooold on. I NEVER stated that "one can only support GW if he is a climatologist". I've implied (and stand behind the idea that) that study and reading of scientific literature would compel a rational, balanced person to support GW. You don't have to be a scientist; you do have to be willing to ACTUALLY LEARN INFORMATION though. Sidenote: Political implications and NWO talk is NOT scientific literature.

And again, the hubris of "I've done my research" is silly. Go on the internet, you can learn LITERALLY anything you want, call it research and feel empowered.

You don't have to be Jewish, but you should know Hebrew if you're going to make a pronouncement like "Yes, that translation of that word is appropriate". In addition, you should be able to support your pronouncement if you want to appear credible. If of course, you'd have a desire to appear credible and have an opinion that is deserving of some level of respect.

 

[cow451]

What pastors?

None that are being forced to marry anyone here.

 

[Billnew]

I would look into illegal wiretapping laws.

Also I would file suit against the state and counter sue the couple, who was looking to profit from peoples religious beliefs.
They could get married anywhere, but they were "anguished" because one place said no.

I hope this gets to the supreme court so LBGT will stop trying to bully people into endorsing their marriage.
The only time religion and homosexuality cross is during the wedding. No other area requires the religious to endorse homosexuality directly.

Also when they "opened" their farm to the public, homosexuality wasn't a protected group as it is today.

GLBT use to fight to get equal rights, now they want their rights to trump everyone elses.

 

[bhsmte]

I would look into illegal wiretapping laws.

Also I would file suit against the state and counter sue the couple, who was looking to profit from peoples religious beliefs.
They could get married anywhere, but they were "anguished" because one place said no.

I hope this gets to the supreme court so LBGT will stop trying to bully people into endorsing their marriage.
The only time religion and homosexuality cross is during the wedding. No other area requires the religious to endorse homosexuality directly.

Also when they "opened" their farm to the public, homosexuality wasn't a protected group as it is today.

GLBT use to fight to get equal rights, now they want their rights to trump everyone elses.

NY is a one party consent state with recording conversations, so that is a moot point.

I hope this gets to SCOTUS as well.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

You can keep throwing this "business that serves the public" line around like a mantra but the whole point is the existence of a business that serves those people the owner wants to serve. If you're keen on definitions, something between the guy who helps people he knows personally in exchange for money and the business open to absolutely everyone.

I don't personally have an issue with providing services to anyone who wants them and is able and willing to pay for them, but equally can't see why the law would need to get involved if I were to decide not to cater for any particular section of the community.

Because this is what NY State law stipulates, and NY State is where the business in question is located. If you want to comment intelligently on the topic, it may help if you familiarize yourself with the laws in this state:

http://www.dhr.ny.gov/sites/default/files/doc/hrl.pdf

I can't do a copy and paste for some reason, but if you read Section 292 (Definitions), Article 10 (place of public accommodation, resort or amusement), as well as Section 296 (Unlawful discriminatory practices), Article 2 ([public accommodations]) it will spell it all out for you.

ETA - I did manage to get the following to C&P from the above link:

291 - Equality of opportunity a civil right - 2. The opportunity to obtain education, the use of places of public accommodation and the ownership, use and occupancy of housing accommodations and commercial space without discrimination because of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, marital status, or disability, as specified in section two hundred ninety six of thisarticle, is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.

And IMO there really doesn't need to be any further discussion about the matter, because the above passage spells out where the operators of Liberty Farm screwed up.

If you don't want to accept that, than don't move to NY State and expect to be able to open and operate a business meant for public accommodation and be able to discriminate. First rule of running a business is that it's the customers who pay your bills and sign your paychecks, and only an idiot will seek to alienate segments of the population that may turn out to be their best customers.

 

[cow451]

My mistake, they aren't pastor, but the point still stands. What you follow a law that was telling you to kill babies? To make Islam our national religion? To declare Spanish our national language? Or to FORCE you to marry gays?

NO sir.

 

[cow451]

I would look into illegal wiretapping laws.

There was no "wiretap'.

Also I would file suit against the state and counter sue the couple, who was looking to profit from peoples religious beliefs.

No legal basis.

They could get married anywhere, but they were "anguished" because one place said no.

I hope this gets to the supreme court so LBGT will stop trying to bully people into endorsing their marriage.
The only time religion and homosexuality cross is during the wedding. No other area requires the religious to endorse homosexuality directly.

Marriage laws are secular. No minister is being required to participate.

Also when they "opened" their farm to the public, homosexuality wasn't a protected group as it is today.

The law has no "grandfather" clause

 

[Belk]

My mistake, they aren't pastor, but the point still stands. What you follow a law that was telling you to kill babies? To make Islam our national religion? To declare Spanish our national language? Or to FORCE you to marry gays?

NO sir.

Good thing no one was forced to marry anyone. What DID happen was a couple wished to refuse to do business with a segment of the population in contravention of the law.

 

[mafwons]

What do you mean by "the original". Do you mean the KJV? Or the old Manuscripts? Cause if you mean the latter, I had NO idea you spoke latin and hebrew! Cool!

What does Latin have to do with it?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

What does Latin have to do with it?

keep up man, we already took care of this one!

 

[rambot]

Oh man! Everyone is jumping on my back for that one.

Sorry folks!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Oh man! Everyone is jumping on my back for that one.

Sorry folks!

It happens. At least you didn't say pig latin!

 

[MachZer0]

Whoa. Hoooold on. I NEVER stated that "one can only support GW if he is a climatologist". I've implied (and stand behind the idea that) that study and reading of scientific literature would compel a rational, balanced person to support GW. You don't have to be a scientist; you do have to be willing to ACTUALLY LEARN INFORMATION though. Sidenote: Political implications and NWO talk is NOT scientific literature..

I was merely following your logic. The point I made about global warming is consistent with the point you tried to make about Bible translations

And again, the hubris of "I've done my research" is silly. Go on the internet, you can learn LITERALLY anything you want, call it research and feel empowered

You don't have to be Jewish, but you should know Hebrew if you're going to make a pronouncement like "Yes, that translation of that word is appropriate". In addition, you should be able to support your pronouncement if you want to appear credible. If of course, you'd have a desire to appear credible and have an opinion that is deserving of some level of respect.

My research on the subject was completed decades before the Internet became available

 

[TLK Valentine]

I would look into illegal wiretapping laws.

Also I would file suit against the state and counter sue the couple, who was looking to profit from peoples religious beliefs.
They could get married anywhere, but they were "anguished" because one place said no.

They could sit at a lot of lunch counters, but they were anguished because one place said no.

I hope this gets to the supreme court so LBGT will stop trying to bully people into endorsing their marriage.

And if the Supreme Court finds in the couple's favor? Somehow, I don't think even this makeup of SCOTUS is conservative enough to overturn the Civil Rights Act.

 

[DaisyDay]

The tags in this thread make me laugh. Homophobia? If I don't want to marry gay people all of a sudden I'm homophobic?

I doubt it is sudden.

Anyways, people shouldn't be dragged into sin. If these pastors doesn't want to help people sin, all the power to them. I don't care if it's public or private business.

If pastors want to only marry sinless people, no one will get married. What pastors? This thread is about renting a venue to the public.

 

[AztecSDSU]

This reply seems deflective. It is common knowledge that most northern European have more socialist systems. Is that phrase a "gross oversimplification". No. Your WHOLE POST was using vague undefined labels... why can't I?
So I honestly don't know how your post addresses my original comment.

Again though, did you have an example of a "rightist" system that didn't breakdown into totalitarian rule?

The state being responsible for the welfare of the people goes back to the monarchist nature of European states. That said, one will find all sorts of economy and social philosophies at work in various European countries. For instance, European politicians routinely say things about immigration that would get you strung up in the US. And they back it up with policy.

Like I said, two sides of the same coin.

Discrimination:

I know exactly what it means.


discrimination
[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuh n]


1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

You've merely been so engaged in politicizing a word that it is you who in fact does not know what it means. Prior to the 1980's when it became a boogyman word it was quite a positive thing to have "discriminating tastes." Look at American advertising prior to the 80's.

1) wait what? So in essence you are advocating for bigotry and hatred so LONG as it comes from the right person, is TOTALLY justifiable?

2) Rosa Parks was permitted to receive the service of a bus trip..she just had to sit where the white man demanded.

3) You will note that my comment was NOT about the perpetrators of the injustice, it was about the victims. Sorry, I don't care about the perps right now.
Take another run at it....
Should victims of prejudice just shut up about it.

1. People should be free to do and say what they want, whether I agree with it or not is immaterial. Including excluding people from their businesses based on plain old racial hatred if they want.

2. Again, the bus system is public. It's funded by tax payers and the public has no ability to legally refuse to pay taxes. Therefore government discrimination is unjustified. What PRIVATE CITIZENS choose to do with their own property is their own business.

3. You have no rights to other people's private property. So yes, when someone tells you they don't want you in their store you should shut up and leave. It's not yours and you have no right to be there.

 

[AztecSDSU]

And if the Supreme Court finds in the couple's favor? Somehow, I don't think even this makeup of SCOTUS is conservative enough to overturn the Civil Rights Act.

They don't have to do anything of the sort. All that is necessary is ruling that New York's state law, in classifying a behavior group protected, is a fundamental violation of the civil rights of religious people that do not support that behavior.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Is private property that the public can visit still private?

I ask because in the past there was a house on my block when I was a kid that allowed cars to drive through and get out take pictures, etc during the holidays. Every so often someone requested to have a wedding ceremony there.

What then are the legal responsibilities of the homeowner? They're not a business technically speaking.