bodecea
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #421
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!
Why do you think the Courts of that State didn't see it your way?