Ignorant Homophobes fined $13,000 for refusing to host wedding

[hazlnut]

Good!
We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.
There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.

You're happy they were fined for something they refused to to in their residence?
What a whacknut.

No.

Try again.

Read. Learn. Take an aspirin for the headache thinking causes you.

 

[BlackSand]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

So are you saying getting married at Woolworth's lunch counter is a civil right? Or are you suggesting that the "different religion" part of your statement doesn't really apply if that religion doesn't support your ideas?

.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

So your previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts has no bearing on the discussion ... Much like most of your arguments?

.

No...that still stands....but it stands separate from this particular case. Gays most certainly should be allowed equal access to our court system and to whine about them being "litigious" is silly. However, that has no bearing in this particular case because the couple did not sue........the state fined the business based on a law that's been on the books for several years.

 

[MrDVS1]

NY Farm That Refused To Host Lesbian Wedding Fined $13,000

Liberty Ridge Farm's owners, citing constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom, have appealed the August ruling by the Division of Human Rights that they violated state anti-discrimination law.

Their attorney said Robert and Cynthia Gifford paid the $10,000 state civil penalty and $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, whose 2013 wedding they declined to host. The Giffords testified last year that in their Christian beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman, and the ceremonies are held at their home, a private space where their own rights should be determinate.

Good!

We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.

There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.

why does the flaming fairy left hate the right of association (or non-association)

if they don't want to host two lesbians getting married so be it

Aren't there laws about being in business to serve the public....there used to be.

 

[hazlnut]

Wow, what a fascist country we've become. Why shouldn't someone be able to refuse someone???

Private property and all.

You mean, like a vagina.

 

[mudwhistle]

You said "the rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner"...did you not? What if the business owner (Woolworths) does not wish to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Doesn't Woolworth's rights to NOT serve blacks trump the rights of black customers to be served there? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting the same sex couple is black ... Or that being a same sex couple is the same as being black? Or are you suggesting eating lunch at Woolworth's is the same as getting married?

.

Civil rights for law-abiding fellow citizens are civil rights.....no matter if citizens are of a different race, a different gender, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, etc.

Or don't you agree with that?

Civil Rights doesn't mean forcing others to obey you regardless of your demands.

 

[martybegan]

NY Farm That Refused To Host Lesbian Wedding Fined $13,000

Liberty Ridge Farm's owners, citing constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom, have appealed the August ruling by the Division of Human Rights that they violated state anti-discrimination law.

Their attorney said Robert and Cynthia Gifford paid the $10,000 state civil penalty and $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, whose 2013 wedding they declined to host. The Giffords testified last year that in their Christian beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman, and the ceremonies are held at their home, a private space where their own rights should be determinate.

Good!

We hurt them in the pocketbook and we shame them in the media.

There is a dark and twisted version of Christianity being practiced in the U.S. They throw love and tolerance over for fear and ignorance, clinging to one archaic hebrew tribal law.

why does the flaming fairy left hate the right of association (or non-association)

if they don't want to host two lesbians getting married so be it

They run a business that caters to the public. (well, not any more)



Learn the law, ignorant homophobe.



They can associate with whomever they want.

But when hang up a sign saying open for business, they need to follow the LAW.

I'm sure you are jerking off over screwing people over, you cowardly sack of dog shit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're happy they were fined for something they refused to to in their residence?
What a whacknut.

No.
Try again.

OK...

Liberty Ridge Farm's owners, citing constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom, have appealed the August ruling by the Division of Human Rights that they violated state anti-discrimination law.

Their attorney said Robert and Cynthia Gifford paid the $10,000 state civil penalty and $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, whose 2013 wedding they declined to host. The Giffords testified last year that in their Christian beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman, and the ceremonies are held at their home, a private space where their own rights should be determinate.

Huh. Looks like I am right - you ARE happy they were fined for something they refused to to in their residence.
What a whacknut.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

So your previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts has no bearing on the discussion ... Much like most of your arguments?

.

No...that still stands....but it stands separate from this particular case. Gays most certainly should be allowed equal access to our court system and to whine about them being "litigious" is silly. However, that has no bearing in this particular case because the couple did not sue........the state fined the business based on a law that's been on the books for several years.

and again, you are splitting hairs. Fine, they are wasting government's time with this. Still, go fuck yourself.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

its just the state suing on their behalf. This a is a civil judgement, not a criminal one. Again, own up to wanting to ruin people, don't hide behind government like a fucking cowardly twat.

No it is not....it is the state fining a business based on a law on the books......just like a business might be fined for safety code violations. This doesn't even eliminate the couple's ability to sue on their own for discrimination if they wished to.........but I'm not hearing about this "overly litigious" gay couple doing so. Have you?

 

[mudwhistle]

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

No shit Sherlock.

Who's agenda rules that state?

Well, if you are asking me "Whose agenda rules that state?"....I would have to say the agenda of We the People.

Your agenda didn't seem to care about the will of the people where Prop 8 was concerned.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

its just the state suing on their behalf. This a is a civil judgement, not a criminal one. Again, own up to wanting to ruin people, don't hide behind government like a fucking cowardly twat.

No it is not....it is the state fining a business based on a law on the books......just like a business might be fined for safety code violations. This doesn't even eliminate the couple's ability to sue on their own for discrimination if they wished to.........but I'm not hearing about this "overly litigious" gay couple doing so. Have you?

They complain, the state goes to some judiciary authority to press "charges", and the people are punished. Its just like suing someone, except you get the executive branch of the government to do your dirty work for you.

They complained, they set the wheels in motion, they are the assholes.

 

[bodecea]

You're happy they were fined for something they refused to to in their residence?
What a whacknut.

No.
Try again.

OK...

Liberty Ridge Farm's owners, citing constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom, have appealed the August ruling by the Division of Human Rights that they violated state anti-discrimination law.

Their attorney said Robert and Cynthia Gifford paid the $10,000 state civil penalty and $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, whose 2013 wedding they declined to host. The Giffords testified last year that in their Christian beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman, and the ceremonies are held at their home, a private space where their own rights should be determinate.

Huh. Looks like I am right - you ARE happy they were fined for something they refused to to in their residence.
What a whacknut.

If they have a licensed business in the same place where they live, are they exempt from state business laws?

 

[dilloduck]

I imagine a liberal would sell his/her/its principles for about $3. These folks kept theirs for a mere $13,000. An amount that could be restored within seconds were a fund-raiser to magically spring up.

Amen---obviously these "homophobes" weren't afraid to tell the homos to take their wedding party and stick it up their ass.
Kudos to them for not caving to the whiny babies.

 

[bodecea]

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

No shit Sherlock.

Who's agenda rules that state?

Well, if you are asking me "Whose agenda rules that state?"....I would have to say the agenda of We the People.

Your agenda didn't seem to care about the will of the people where Prop 8 was concerned.

The will of the

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

No shit Sherlock.

Who's agenda rules that state?

Well, if you are asking me "Whose agenda rules that state?"....I would have to say the agenda of We the People.

Your agenda didn't seem to care about the will of the people where Prop 8 was concerned.

Does the will of the people include being able to pass unConstitutional laws? If any PA laws get declared unConstitutional....then you would have a valid comparison.

 

[bodecea]

So...Woolworth's had the right to refuse service to black customers at their lunch counters?

When it comes to the constitution, no.

But show me in the Bible where it says blacks can't be served.

It's probably in the same verse where it says gays can't be served.

Who said gays shouldn't be served? The reason for not serving is what falls under freedom of religion.

A gay walks into a bar, and the bar refuses service because it doesn't like gays, sue their asses off. A bar doesn't want to host a gay wedding on religious grounds is an entirely different can of worms.

Mark

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

And the gay couple can then sue.

Mark

Have they?

 

[BlackSand]

Does the will of the people include being able to pass unConstitutional laws?

Are you suggesting that laws discriminating against individuals due to their religion are Constitutional?

.

 

[hazlnut]

Does the will of the people include being able to pass unConstitutional laws?

Are you suggesting that laws discriminating against individuals due to their religion are Constitutional?

.

Segregationists claimed religious beliefs as did slave owners.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does the will of the people include being able to pass unConstitutional laws?

Are you suggesting that laws discriminating against individuals due to their religion are Constitutional?

Whacknut does not believe that anyone should have religious convictions, and so does not recognize the 1st amendment protection for same.
Fortunately, she's just a whacknut, here for us to laugh at.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually, I'd like to interrupt this right wing whine-fest by pointing out that the gay couples don't sue......the state fines the business. Now we return you back to your right wing religious martyrdom.

Are you suggesting that gay couples don't have to use the courts after all ... And that their cronies at the state level will do their bidding regardless?

.

I'm not "suggesting" anything....I am pointing out the fact of this case. The couple did not sue....the state of NY fined the business based on a law passed several years ago.

its just the state suing on their behalf. This a is a civil judgement, not a criminal one. Again, own up to wanting to ruin people, don't hide behind government like a fucking cowardly twat.

No it is not....it is the state fining a business based on a law on the books......just like a business might be fined for safety code violations. This doesn't even eliminate the couple's ability to sue on their own for discrimination if they wished to.........but I'm not hearing about this "overly litigious" gay couple doing so. Have you?

Who filed the complaint?