Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[AztecSDSU]

But what they cannot do is operate a public accommodation business in a municipality with anti-discrimination laws all public accommodation businesses are required to comply with and be noncompliant with those laws with impunity.
SDSU and other public universities, as well as most private ones, have policies against discrimination as well, and that includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

SDSU is public, we're not talking about a public entity. As the Hobby Lobby case has demonstrated the federal courts have held that the state cannot compel people to act against their faith. As such it would appear that New York's statue is unconstitutional, and federal law supersedes state law in all matters.

 

[Belk]

I guess you would put the law above the God of Abraham. There is a true God in this world, and he isn't the lord of Muslims and Jews. Nor does he like gay people.

Sure, we have anti-discrimination laws, now ask yourself, are these laws greater than God? Nope.

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”


― Anne Lamott

 

[David Brider]

Christians just don't want to facilitate what they consider sinful behavior. I see nothing wrong with that

Nobody's asking us to.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

SDSU is public, we're not talking about a public entity. As the Hobby Lobby case has demonstrated the federal courts have held that the state cannot compel people to act against their faith. As such it would appear that New York's statue is unconstitutional, and federal law supersedes state law in all matters.

I correctly classified SDSU as a public university and never stated that it was the same as a public accommodation business. The point was that it and the majority of other universities, both public and private, have policies against discrimination that are similar to the ones for public accommodation businesses in most states. That is all. So, while you might have the right to discriminate against whomever you please in your personal life, if you're working for a public entity or a public accommodation business you must be in compliance with the policies and ordinances for them or face consequences.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn?t allow discrimination.

 

[DaisyDay]

Okay, they aren't pastors. Why should these people have to do business with gay people? Would they have to do business with people who aren't their religion as well?

That is part of the whole point - they do do business with people who aren't their religion because they do business with the general public - which includes other races, religions, nationalities.

What about ISIS, would they have to rent their venue to ISIS if they come a knocking?

Is ISIS getting married?

If I opened a store, I would never sell my things to people I don't approve of. I wouldn't sell to non-christians, or people with perversions that are going to be the end of us.

Would you have potential customers fill out a sin form? It sounds less like a business and more like a series of private transactions.

 

[David Brider]

The law is meant to faciliate sinful behavior...

No, it's not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Noting that love ≠ approval

Noting that discrimination ≠ love

 

[MachZer0]

Nobody's asking us to.

Exactly, they're forcing us

 

[TLK Valentine]

Exactly, they're forcing us

They forced you to let the coloreds sit at the lunch counters, too...

 

[David Brider]

Exactly, they're forcing us

No, we're neither being asked nor forced to facilitate sinful behaviour.

 

[MachZer0]

No, we're neither being asked nor forced to facilitate sinful behaviour.

See the OP

 

[David Brider]

See the OP

I'm well aware of the OP.

No sinful behaviour is being facilitated by allowing a same-sex couple to hold their wedding ceremony on the Giffords' farm.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm well aware of the OP.

No sinful behaviour is being facilitated by allowing a same-sex couple to hold their wedding ceremony on the Giffords' farm.

Certainly no more than allowing all the fornicators, adulterers, and blasphemers to hold their ceremonies on the farm all these years...

 

[bhsmte]

Certainly no more than allowing all the fornicators, adulterers, and blasphemers to hold their ceremonies on the farm all these years...

I know.

Can you imagine all the sinners the farm has hosted over the years; people who are and have committed adultery, people who covet other peoples wives and goods, and you could go on and on and on.

I don't know how these people can sleep at night, but they sure seem to be able to compartmentalize just one particular sin pretty well.

 

[MachZer0]

I'm well aware of the OP.

No sinful behaviour is being facilitated by allowing a same-sex couple to hold their wedding ceremony on the Giffords' farm.

According to the farm owners it was. It's their opinion that counts in this case

 

[AztecSDSU]

I correctly classified SDSU as a public university and never stated that it was the same as a public accommodation business. The point was that it and the majority of other universities, both public and private, have policies against discrimination that are similar to the ones for public accommodation businesses in most states. That is all. So, while you might have the right to discriminate against whomever you please in your personal life, if you're working for a public entity or a public accommodation business you must be in compliance with the policies and ordinances for them or face consequences.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn?t allow discrimination.

What does an Op Ed piece written by a gay guy have to do with anything?

 

[bhsmte]

According to the farm owners it was. It's their opinion that counts in this case

To them it sure counts, but it doesn't override the law and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[MachZer0]

To them it sure counts, but it doesn't override the law and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Again, the law guarantees the free exercise of religion which is all the farm owners ask

 

[David Brider]

According to the farm owners it was. It's their opinion that counts in this case

In this case, it's the law that counts.

In our discussion of this case...well, you (and they) are entitled to the opinion that some sin is "facilitated" by allowing the couple to marry on the farm, but...well, unless you can point to any specific sin(s) that would be facilitated by the wedding taking place on the farm, and explain how those sins would be facilitated, I'm still of the belief that no, no sin would have been facilitated.

 

[MachZer0]

In this case, it's the law that counts.

In our discussion of this case...well, you (and they) are entitled to the opinion that some sin is "facilitated" by allowing the couple to marry on the farm, but...well, unless you can point to any specific sin(s) that would be facilitated by the wedding taking place on the farm, and explain how those sins would be facilitated, I'm still of the belief that no, no sin would have been facilitated.

Again, the law guarantees the free exercise of religion. The farm owners are not obligated to accept your definition of what is or is not sinful. They make that determination for themselves