Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Quantum Windbag]

When did I claim that it wasn't their "home"?

As I said in my first post to you in this thread, the fact that they live on the premises doesn't change the application of public accommodation laws.

Sigh.

Since the new software will not let me do a search of this thread I am unwilling to go back and manually find all the posts were you argued I was wrong for saying that the issue was that the wedding was going to be held in their house. Feel free to deny those posts, as you would do so even if I found every single instance of you saying that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because that isn't true.

The Social Democracies are doing just fine.

The Run-away capitalist states aren't doing so well. You clowns haven't gotten us there yet, but I'm sure you are working on it.

That was funny.

Just curious, which social democracies do you think are doing fine?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And that's the problem with his "logic". It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Funny, I am not the one claiming that free markets need to be regulated, am I? Wouldn't the fact that someone else made that claim prove that you are the ones that are changing the definitions as you go along?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

>


Contrary to what some believe. New York "Executive Law" is simply a section designation for a portion of New York State Laws passed by the New York State Legislature. "Executive Law" does not mean laws passed by the "Executive" branch. It's section of the law just like banking laws, election law, labor law, workers compensation law.

New York State Legislature


>>>>

The executive branch of every single state, and the federal government, routinely writes laws that are not voted on by the legislative branch of the government, and even send people to jail behind those laws by fiat. They do this by writing regulations that carry civil and criminal penalties.

Someone a lot more knowledgeable than both of us combined even wrote a book about it.

Is Administrative Law Unlawful? (3) | Power Line

The fact that this case was heard before an administrative judge tells me that the executive branch circumnavigated New York law which guarantees a jury trial in both civil and criminal cases.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you...I was wondering if that might be the case....and was hoping QW would help clarify that for us. But...he seems to not want to have done that.

Clarify what? I pointed out that the law cited specifically said that it was executive, and challenged you to prove your assertion that I was wrong. All you had to do was go find the law and prove it was passed by the legislature, something you failed to do. Why is it my fault you cannot do basic research?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?

That was the "issue" according to the interview with the owner, not according to the complaint or judgement.

They were denied having their ceremony there at all, not just in the "house". The owners wouldn't allow them to have the ceremony outside, either.

Sigh.

Since the new software will not let me do a search of this thread I am unwilling to go back and manually find all the posts were you argued I was wrong for saying that the issue was that the wedding was going to be held in their house. Feel free to deny those post, as you would do so even if I found every single instance of you saying that.

I believe you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

I have repeatedly pointed out that you were wrong about many of the claims you've made in this thread - that the "home" was not advertised as a wedding venue, that the couple specifically demanded that they have the ceremony in the "house" as the basis for their lawsuit, and that the "Barn" and the "house" are separate buildings.

I have not, in any posts in this thread, denied that the owners live on the property, or in the "house/Barn" - both of which are entirely irrelevant to the case anyway.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, live and let live is not their motto...more gays who will not accept someone not accepting their lifestyle...and so those individuals will be punished...

Blog: NY Farm fined for refusing to host gay wedding

Well, until the law changes... if you agree to open yourself up to the public, as well as weddings, then Public Accommodation Laws apply. Since the wedding is being hosted in her home (I think that's pretty stupid anyhow) technically speaking that place is her home and she is by law allowed to do with her property as she pleases. I doubt any liberal on this thread seems to notice that. Please, I urge people to read the 5th Amendment carefully. This woman has her right to life, liberty; and more pertinently, property. Nobody, not even a pair of lesbians, nor the government can tell her what she can and cannot host in her own home.

What happens if your business happens to be your residence? Well then, if you own the home, you get to dictate who and what enters through the door. Sorry.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?

That was the "issue" according to the interview with the owner, not according to the complaint or judgement.

They were denied having their ceremony there at all, not just in the "house". The owners wouldn't allow them to have the ceremony outside, either.

Which is well within her rights to do. If it is anywhere on her property, she gets to dictate what persons can be there.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Thank you...I was wondering if that might be the case....and was hoping QW would help clarify that for us. But...he seems to not want to have done that.

Clarify what? I pointed out that the law cited specifically said that it was executive, and challenged you to prove your assertion that I was wrong. All you had to do was go find the law and prove it was passed by the legislature, something you failed to do. Why is it my fault you cannot do basic research?

The New York Human Rights Law was passed by the NYS Legislature and signed by Governor Dewey in 1945 as the Ives-Quinn Anti-Discrimination Bill. It was renamed in 1968, and has been updated fairly regularly since then by the NYS Leg.

Agency History | NYS Human Rights

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?

That was the "issue" according to the interview with the owner, not according to the complaint or judgement.

They were denied having their ceremony there at all, not just in the "house". The owners wouldn't allow them to have the ceremony outside, either.

Which is well within her rights to do. If it is anywhere on her property, she gets to dictate what persons can be there.

Well, no. The fact that they live on the premises doesn't invalidate public accommodations laws.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?

That was the "issue" according to the interview with the owner, not according to the complaint or judgement.

They were denied having their ceremony there at all, not just in the "house". The owners wouldn't allow them to have the ceremony outside, either.

Which is well within her rights to do. If it is anywhere on her property, she gets to dictate what persons can be there.

Well, no. The fact that they live on the premises doesn't invalidate public accommodations laws.

Uh yeah, it does. If it's their property, it's their home, and thusly, Public Accomodation laws don't apply to a home or a place of permanent residence. See where this is going, Doc? That fine line between discrimination and faith has been crossed. You now have a homeowner refusing to conduct activities that violate her faith on her own property. The lesbians wanted this wedding to happen on the property, the lady said no; being said owner of this property, as well as a resident of said property, means she gets has discretion over who and what sets foot in or on her property. Or does her Constitutional rights no longer apply here?

 

[AntiParty]

Yes, live and let live is not their motto...more gays who will not accept someone not accepting their lifestyle...and so those individuals will be punished...

Blog: NY Farm fined for refusing to host gay wedding

Curious why this thread has gone on so long.

You can't force anyone to marry gays. It could indirectly attack Freedom of Religion. No one can force a priest to marry gays, it's in the Constitution.

I know a gay girl couple and they could get someone ordained online if they wanted to get married and not stir up this mess.

The line here, as in many posts, is you don't have to accept all Americans. You just can't judge them. America was built on the Bible. The irony is deeeeeeeeep. Sorry Indians! We killed you so we wouldn't have to suffer the fate you went through again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Frankly, it's rather dumb to open up your own property to the Public anyhow, but as I see it, unless eminent domain were somehow to be invoked here, government cannot make you do something on your own property against your will. Am I the only one that sees individual freedom and property rights being swept aside here?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?

That was the "issue" according to the interview with the owner, not according to the complaint or judgement.

They were denied having their ceremony there at all, not just in the "house". The owners wouldn't allow them to have the ceremony outside, either.

Which is well within her rights to do. If it is anywhere on her property, she gets to dictate what persons can be there.

Well, no. The fact that they live on the premises doesn't invalidate public accommodations laws.

Uh yeah, it does. If it's their property, it's their home, and thusly, Public Accomodation laws don't apply to a home or a place of permanent residence. See where this is going, Doc? That fine line between discrimination and faith has been crossed. You now have a homeowner refusing to conduct activities that violate her faith on her own property. The lesbians wanted this wedding to happen on the property, the lady said no; being said owner of this property, as well as a resident of said property, means she gets has discretion over who and what sets foot in or on her property. Or does her Constitutional rights no longer apply here?

Of course they do. Just like public accommodation laws apply to a restaurant if, say, the owner lived in an apartment above it.

The "property" in question is a commercial operation. It's a public business that they happen to live on, not a house that they occasionally do business from.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Frankly, it's rather dumb to open up your own property to the Public anyhow, but as I see it, unless eminent domain were somehow to be invoked here, government cannot make you do something on your own property against your will. Am I the only one that sees individual freedom and property rights being swept aside here?

If I own a store, it's my "property". That doesn't allow me to refuse service to Black people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In law, there is a differentiation between 'residence' and 'domicile.' The former is permanent, the latter is temporary. If that farm, and the property contained therein were a 'domicile' instead of a 'residence' then legally speaking Doc would be right, it wouldn't negate PA laws, however, since it also is a place of permanent residence, PA laws do not apply. It would be like saying someone having a BBQ must allow everyone in the neighborhood to attend for fear of violating Federal Law. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Frankly, it's rather dumb to open up your own property to the Public anyhow, but as I see it, unless eminent domain were somehow to be invoked here, government cannot make you do something on your own property against your will. Am I the only one that sees individual freedom and property rights being swept aside here?

If I own a store, it's my "property". That doesn't allow me to refuse service to Black people.

Normally, most businesspeople don't live in their stores. That farm is her home. How can you not see that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Frankly, it's rather dumb to open up your own property to the Public anyhow, but as I see it, unless eminent domain were somehow to be invoked here, government cannot make you do something on your own property against your will. Am I the only one that sees individual freedom and property rights being swept aside here?

If I own a store, it's my "property". That doesn't allow me to refuse service to Black people.

Normally, most businesspeople don't live in their stores. That farm is her home. How can you not see that?

I know countless people who live in apartments over their stores.

The Gifford's don't live in the commercial space they rent out for weddings, they live in an apartment above it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?

That was the "issue" according to the interview with the owner, not according to the complaint or judgement.

They were denied having their ceremony there at all, not just in the "house". The owners wouldn't allow them to have the ceremony outside, either.

Which is well within her rights to do. If it is anywhere on her property, she gets to dictate what persons can be there.

Well, no. The fact that they live on the premises doesn't invalidate public accommodations laws.

Uh yeah, it does. If it's their property, it's their home, and thusly, Public Accommodation laws don't apply to a home or a place of permanent residence. See where this is going, Doc? That fine line between discrimination and faith has been crossed. You now have a homeowner refusing to conduct activities that violate her faith on her own property. The lesbians wanted this wedding to happen on the property, the lady said no; being said owner of this property, as well as a resident of said property, means she gets has discretion over who and what sets foot in or on her property. Or does her Constitutional rights no longer apply here?

Of course they do. Just like public accommodation laws apply to a restaurant if, say, the owner lived in an apartment above it.

The "property" in question is a commercial operation. It's a public business that they happen to live on, not a house that they occasionally do business from.

The property is in fact a home. It isn't as cut and dry as you would like it to be. Do her rights as a homeowner go out the window because she hosts a little shindig on in her own home? You are merely parroting what the judge in this case ruled. So, now, if a higher court makes the same determination, does that mean my home is now a place subject to Public Accomodation laws? Heaven help me if I decide to hold a barbecue in my own back yard Doc! This is ludicrous!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Frankly, it's rather dumb to open up your own property to the Public anyhow, but as I see it, unless eminent domain were somehow to be invoked here, government cannot make you do something on your own property against your will. Am I the only one that sees individual freedom and property rights being swept aside here?

If I own a store, it's my "property". That doesn't allow me to refuse service to Black people.

Normally, most businesspeople don't live in their stores. That farm is her home. How can you not see that?

I know countless people who live in apartments over their stores.

The Gifford's don't live in the commercial space they rent out for weddings, they live in an apartment above it.

May I implore you to read more closely the article?

New York City Administrative Law Judge Migdalia Pares ruled that the Giffords’ farm, which is also their home, is a place of public accommodation and is therefore subject to New York’s anti-discrimination laws, RNS reported.“The fact that the Giffords also reside at Gifford Barn,” the decision says, “does not render it private.”

Er, so now any space I don't use in my own home is now public domain? What?