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

[Silhouette]

This is an interesting post. Where are "homosexuals dictating religious doctrine"?

Compelling religious followers or institutions to perform gay marriages through fines ... Is an attempt to dictate doctrine through forced compliance.

.

True, and the very seed of the reason so many dems/middle voters voted against the dems this Midterm. They remembered the pastors being threatened with jail if they didn't redact their sermons to be pro-gay in Texas by that lesbian Mayor. That's the type of threat that doesn't just disappear in the bone marrow after the next day's news cycle..

 

[martybegan]

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 are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

A law that is still up for review according to the article.

Bring this to enough people's attention and it goes up the line. Maybe an unnecessary fight over freedom of religion.

Yup, dem geys really want to win people over, don't they?

I believe it has been stated that PA laws such as this one in NY have been judicially reviewed and found to be Constitutional. If not yet, then let the process proceed. If that NY law is found to be unConstitutional, then by all means, the fine should be returned and all fines from that law be returned and the law stricken from the books as unenforcible.

The courts keep finding NYC's gun laws constitutional, even when they are clearly not.

 

[mudwhistle]

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 are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

A law that is still up for review according to the article.

Bring this to enough people's attention and it goes up the line. Maybe an unnecessary fight over freedom of religion.

Yup, dem geys really want to win people over, don't they?

I believe it has been stated that PA laws such as this one in NY have been judicially reviewed and found to be Constitutional. If not yet, then let the process proceed. If that NY law is found to be unConstitutional, then by all means, the fine should be returned and all fines from that law be returned and the law stricken from the books as unenforcible.

I wonder who brought up PA when this was in NY?
Can we say deflection?

 

[mudwhistle]

Just one more reason I won't live in these states.

 

[emilynghiem]

My previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts was in reply to the comment about gays being overly litigious.

Do you believe the state has the Constitutional right to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs? Do you believe there should not be a separation of church and state ... Thus allowing the state to dictate church doctrine or enforce their will against religious institutions and discriminate against the people who hold those beliefs?

.

"to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs"? No. But this is not what happened. You DO know that, right?

Go back and read the article because that is exactly what happened.

The proprietor of the establishment was fined by the state due to the fact his religious beliefs compelled him not to provide the service. The state discriminated against the proprietor due to his religious beliefs.

.

No...the business discriminated against a law-abiding, tax-paying couple by not providing them with the business service they had obtained a STATE business license for. They broke the PA law of the state....a law they should know is there since they obtained a business license from the STATE.

this shows WHY there is wisdom in 'separating church from state'

if the issue of marriage didn't already cross the line between private churches and public states
then we wouldn't HAVE this conflict would we?

Keep them separate and this won't keep coming up.

As for businesses that provide religious based services,
I recommend a network of referrals, so that such work can be "subcontracted out"
to associate vendors and not turn away customers.

Or just have all potential customers sign a Waiver
agreeing to mediate all conflicts by consensus to resolve disputes
without legal action, burden or expense on either party
if they are going to do business with that company.

Many services have clients sign WAIVERS to make arbitration binding
in place of any legal action, or they REFUSE business up front!
You sign BEFORE agreeing to use any services or it's no go!

Why not have WAIVERS to require conflict resolution and consensus
or agreement to dissolve any contracts amicably to the satisfaction of both parties.

If you are hostile, you won't sign such an agreement
and the business won't suffer from your "litigious" attitude looking to force them to pay them.

 

[bodecea]

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?

.

Ok, you seem to be confused. We were referring to civil rights and the "rights of business owners." If you want to limit the discussion to the right to civilly marry as opposed to generic "rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner" you should have specified as such......
So...is this just to be a discussion on the right to marry? or is it a discussion on the rights of business owners?

Again ... Do you think the state has the Constitutional right to levy fines and discriminate against individuals due to their religious beliefs?

If you cannot, or don't want to answer the question doesn't make me confused.

.

How many times do you require me to answer?

 

[bodecea]

My previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts was in reply to the comment about gays being overly litigious.

Do you believe the state has the Constitutional right to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs? Do you believe there should not be a separation of church and state ... Thus allowing the state to dictate church doctrine or enforce their will against religious institutions and discriminate against the people who hold those beliefs?

.

"to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs"? No. But this is not what happened. You DO know that, right?

Go back and read the article because that is exactly what happened.

The proprietor of the establishment was fined by the state due to the fact his religious beliefs compelled him not to provide the service. The state discriminated against the proprietor due to his religious beliefs.

.

Incorrect. The "individual" isn't being fined...the business is. If they had not taken out a business license with the STATE, they would not have had this issue, would they?

 

[bodecea]

This is an interesting post. Where are "homosexuals dictating religious doctrine"?

Compelling religious followers or institutions to perform gay marriages through fines ... Is an attempt to dictate doctrine through forced compliance.

.

They were forced to? When did this forced marriage take place?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Is there a reason why you have to be rude? Besides not having an argument to stand with, that is?

1. you deserve it you Nazi fuck.
2. People deciding their fake rights are more important than others real rights, especially when they get government involved piss me off and deserve no courtesy whatsoever.

Apparently you are upset about having no valid argument. Thus you resort to rude insults.

 

[bodecea]

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 are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

A law that is still up for review according to the article.

Bring this to enough people's attention and it goes up the line. Maybe an unnecessary fight over freedom of religion.

Yup, dem geys really want to win people over, don't they?

I believe it has been stated that PA laws such as this one in NY have been judicially reviewed and found to be Constitutional. If not yet, then let the process proceed. If that NY law is found to be unConstitutional, then by all means, the fine should be returned and all fines from that law be returned and the law stricken from the books as unenforcible.

I wonder who brought up PA when this was in NY?
Can we say deflection?

Um....you DO know that PA stands for Public Accommodation laws, right?

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

.

You keep saying "individuals" when you should know by now that this is a business we are talking about.

Yes and businesses are run by individuals. That doesn't go away just because of the group identity.

bodecea when we LOSE that sense of individual accountability to each other
that is where Corporations get abusive and oppressive,
and Governments and Religious groups abuse individuals.

We cannot lose sight of individual consent, and checks and balance on power.
When we do, that is why we have political and religious abuse of power
by church and state authority, by corporations and religious or even nonprofit organizations.

We have to start holding all people and groups equally accountable
just like we "check" the powers of govt by the Bill of Rights which protects individuals and due process
so nobody gets run over by a larger collective group with more resources and defenses.

This issue happens to be TWO SIDED
there is BOTH the right to believe in gay marriage
and the right to believe in traditional marriage

these are EQUAL under law
so we need to write and enforce laws so that
they protect BOTH SIDES EQUALLY

and where we fail, we run into these conflicts
and contradictions which tell us the law and how
it was written and enforced was biased and flawed

we need to do better than this so neither side
feels threatened or excluded by the other
or favored by govt, but all sides must be
equally protected, represented and not discriminated against.

both sides, equally, to be fully constitutional as required by laws
for the equal religious freedom of all and against discrimination by creed

this would require a consensus where all sides agree
they are included and not discriminated against

this is why we either need to keep religious issues OUT of govt
or have a consensus on policies so the govt isn't abused to take side

bodecea you seem a very fair minded person

certainly with deeper and openly objective examination
you can see both sides have their beliefs they have the right
to and no person can be deprived of such inalienable rights
so the laws are written poorly and need to be revised to
prevent from imposing on either side or these conflicts will keep happening

surely you see and know that govt cannot be used to
impose a religious settlement and expect to resolve the conflict

people have the right to CHOOSE their beliefs
not be imposed on by govt, so that is unconstitutional
regardless which side wins or loses and imposes on the other

surely you can see it is two sided!

 

[BlackSand]

Incorrect. The "individual" isn't being fined...the business is. If they had not taken out a business license with the STATE, they would not have had this issue, would they?

Are you going to put the business in jail if it doesn't pay the fine ...

.

 

[emilynghiem]

civil rights are about a person's interaction with the government, not about their interaction with other citizens.

This isn't an interaction between citizens...it is an interaction between citizens and a business. Should businesses not have to follow laws passed?

A law that is still up for review according to the article.

Bring this to enough people's attention and it goes up the line. Maybe an unnecessary fight over freedom of religion.

Yup, dem geys really want to win people over, don't they?

I believe it has been stated that PA laws such as this one in NY have been judicially reviewed and found to be Constitutional. If not yet, then let the process proceed. If that NY law is found to be unConstitutional, then by all means, the fine should be returned and all fines from that law be returned and the law stricken from the books as unenforcible.

I wonder who brought up PA when this was in NY?
Can we say deflection?

Um....you DO know that PA stands for Public Accommodation laws, right?

Right so where is the Public Accommodation for
people who believe in traditional marriage?

Why is that belief made illegal now, to be punished by law?

Like the right to believe in free choice and free market health care.
Punished by mandates requiring people to buy insurance under federal law
even if this is against your beliefs.

How is this equal freedom from discrimination by creed?

bodecea please use your most fair minded sense of justice
and see that both sides, whether we agree or disagree
are based on religiously held beliefs, and govt has no right to impose one over the other.

I trust you to be fairminded to see this,
even if you take one side over the other.
You are an individual and have the freedom to do that.

But the govt is to remain NEUTRAL and has no business imposing
one side of a religious dispute over another.

I pray you can see this, as you would be a most fair person
who still defends the views you hold, but would be fair about it.

We need more people like that, and I see you are one to
recognize the Constitutional equality at stake on both sides of this.

The people involved need to settle their own issues,
the govt cannot be abused to impose against the free choice of either side.

 

[hazlnut]

Incorrect. The "individual" isn't being fined...the business is. If they had not taken out a business license with the STATE, they would not have had this issue, would they?

Are you going to put the business in jail if it doesn't pay the fine ...

.

Put a lean on their property.

Freeze their bank accounts.

Much easier. Neater. Quicker.

 

[emilynghiem]

My previous comments about whether or not gays should be allowed access to the courts was in reply to the comment about gays being overly litigious.

Do you believe the state has the Constitutional right to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs? Do you believe there should not be a separation of church and state ... Thus allowing the state to dictate church doctrine or enforce their will against religious institutions and discriminate against the people who hold those beliefs?

.

"to levy fines against individuals due to their religious beliefs"? No. But this is not what happened. You DO know that, right?

Go back and read the article because that is exactly what happened.

The proprietor of the establishment was fined by the state due to the fact his religious beliefs compelled him not to provide the service. The state discriminated against the proprietor due to his religious beliefs.

.

Incorrect. The "individual" isn't being fined...the business is. If they had not taken out a business license with the STATE, they would not have had this issue, would they?

OK so make all this church business within their private practice
and get it out of the state altogether if that's where the conflict lies.

Don't force church and state into each other's business
and then complain afterwards you don't agree!

Like Duh, huh?

Thanks bodecea
I think you are a fair person,
and it is just this situation is not fair.
both sides are going to lose if they keep imposing
on each other, there is no way to win unless they separate.

 

[emilynghiem]

Incorrect. The "individual" isn't being fined...the business is. If they had not taken out a business license with the STATE, they would not have had this issue, would they?

Are you going to put the business in jail if it doesn't pay the fine ...

.

Put a lean on their property.

Freeze their bank accounts.

Much easier. Neater. Quicker.

Or practice the liberal mantra of
separating church from state.

 

[BlackSand]

Incorrect. The "individual" isn't being fined...the business is. If they had not taken out a business license with the STATE, they would not have had this issue, would they?

Are you going to put the business in jail if it doesn't pay the fine ...

.

Put a lean on their property.

Freeze their bank accounts.

Much easier. Neater. Quicker.

So in any case .. You will discriminate against the individual ... Punish them for their religious beliefs.

.

 

[paulitician]

This is wrong, no matter how you feel personally about the issue. It's an egregious unjust Communist/Progressive act. It should be reversed immediately.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Incorrect. The "individual" isn't being fined...the business is. If they had not taken out a business license with the STATE, they would not have had this issue, would they?

Are you going to put the business in jail if it doesn't pay the fine ...

Put a lean on their property.

Lean?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Hazelnut
To be fair, let's also credit the Good Practice of Christianity
that has healed people of UNWANTED sexual desires, attraction and abuse
caused by unnatural problems that were resolved by spiritual therapy.

So if you want to point to the BAD practices of judging and rejecting
it is only fair to point to the GOOD practices of forgiving and healing.

Do you AGREE?

If not, I will take you into the BULLRING on this.

I will argue that the GOOD practice of Christianity
heals the BAD, but punishing the BAD practice makes the problem worse.

The problems are better fixed by practicing the
GOOD teachings of Christianity that can demonstrate,
even medically and scientifically, that forgiveness open
the mind and relationships to receive healing from abuse.

I challenge you to acknowledge both the good and the bad,
and acknowledge that the good corrects the bad.

And stop badmouthing the badmouthing which doubles
the trouble and makes it worse.

I challenge you, Hazelnut:

That the correct teaching and practice
of Christian Spiritual Healing solves the problems and causes of
religious abuse, but complaining and rejecting Christianity
because of abuse doesn't solve the problems but makes them even worse.