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

[bodecea]

Public accommodation laws, which have been around since the 60s, disagree.

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

I guess only a moron would force an establishment to provide a 'service'. You'll get what you pay for. But I get it, everyone want to be the next Rosa Parks and all, but why not take your business somewhere else? Why force someone to take your money? I don't get it

-Geaux

And I'm sure you've been railing against Public Accommodations since people were "forced" to serve blacks since the 1960s, right?

I never heard too much about the "injustice" and "tyranny" of PA laws...until about five to ten years ago when they began to ALSO protect gays in some places on equal footing with race, religion, etc. Funny that.

OK- But what about my question? What is your educated 'guess' as to why someone would just simply not take their business elsewhere? My guess is they are paid shills to bring their 'plight' to the forefront.

If they really wanted what they protest, they would of succeeded already elsewhere

-Geaux

Ask the Civil Rights Act that protects race, religion, country of origin, etc. You're asking why we have PA laws. I'm sure you can find the answer if you try really, really hard.

If the Civil Rights Act protects religion, then forcing someone to act in defiance of their religion is breaking the law, is it not?

Mark

Yes...if someone of a certain religion seeks to be served in a business and that business refuses them, that business can be fined. You need to brush up on the DIFFERENCE between the rights of a business vs. the rights of a customer.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I guess this isn't a free country anymore.

Now you know why you Democrats lost in the election, and it will only keep getting worse for you. I understand and accept those who practice the gay lifestyle. I figure it's none of my business, but now you want to literally cram it down our throats, and there is where you have gone off the rails.

I'm trying to see where the dark and twisted comment comes from. In fact, you're turning what is moral into something dark and twisted, essentially criminalizing religion. Why do you even bother with marriage in the first place, because if it's based on religious vows according to you it's dark and twisted.

To be honest, any church that conducts gay-marriages is practically throwing their doctrine out the window and encouraging sinful lifestyles. Being forced to do so is strictly against the Constitution. Congress cannot make any laws against the free expression of religion, so you folks do it at the local level. These rights are guaranteed under the Constitution and as long as this country follows the constitution, no oppressive local government can withstand any challenge to these abuses. It's just a matter of taking it to the Supreme Court to rectify this travesty. Unfortunately it will take time.

My solution to this is for you to take your marriage requests to someone who supports your lifestyle and stop stepping all over everyone else in the process.

Why does this imagery seem to be the fav of those so-called "against gay marriage" people?

Well, in this case it is literally what is going on. There is always going to be some asshole who dislikes someone else for one reason or another. I dare you to come up with a law that prevents that.

 

[80zephyr]

I would say the logical thing to understand is one right should not trump another. A gays "right to marriage" does not trump a persons "freedom of religion".

In such a conflict, they should go their separate ways, no harm, no foul.

Mark

Public accommodation laws, which have been around since the 60s, disagree.

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

This time its different. Homosexuality is a sin, according to the bible. Being "black" wasn't.

Mark

Um...interracial marriage was certainly considered a sin and people used the bible to justify both slavery and bans on interracial marriage.

I wonder if the business in the OP also tries to keep divorced people or fat people from having weddings. Aren't those "sins"?

I don't know of any reference to interracial marriage in the bible, do you? I do know that homosexual sex is in it.

Is it a sin to be divorced? Yes. There is a difference, however. Gay marriage is celebrating the sin of homosexuality. It is not contrition or regret, it is acknowledging the fact that you are a sinner, and intend to stay that way.

Mark

'
You don't get that the people that used the bible believed it was there, it doesn't matter if YOU believe it's there. They were as certain of their justification as you are. Did you know that plenty of people don't believe the bible to be as homophobic as you believe it to be?

I have never read anywhere that a condition unchangeable(like race) to be a sin. Ever. I have indeed read that homosexuality is a sin. And "people" rationalize everything. Of course they interpert the bible in a manner to make them feel better about themselves. They even assert that Jesus was gay.

Is it a sin to be divorced? Are you fucking kidding?

About what?

Mark

 

[mudwhistle]

I guess only a moron would force an establishment to provide a 'service'. You'll get what you pay for. But I get it, everyone want to be the next Rosa Parks and all, but why not take your business somewhere else? Why force someone to take your money? I don't get it

-Geaux

And I'm sure you've been railing against Public Accommodations since people were "forced" to serve blacks since the 1960s, right?

I never heard too much about the "injustice" and "tyranny" of PA laws...until about five to ten years ago when they began to ALSO protect gays in some places on equal footing with race, religion, etc. Funny that.

OK- But what about my question? What is your educated 'guess' as to why someone would just simply not take their business elsewhere? My guess is they are paid shills to bring their 'plight' to the forefront.

If they really wanted what they protest, they would of succeeded already elsewhere

-Geaux

Ask the Civil Rights Act that protects race, religion, country of origin, etc. You're asking why we have PA laws. I'm sure you can find the answer if you try really, really hard.

If the Civil Rights Act protects religion, then forcing someone to act in defiance of their religion is breaking the law, is it not?

Mark

Yes...if someone of a certain religion seeks to be served in a business and that business refuses them, that business can be fined. You need to brush up on the DIFFERENCE between the rights of a business vs. the rights of a customer.

In most cases except Obamacare the customer has the right to not patronize that type of business.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

Right legal decision, but wrong decision overall. Isn't a dark version of Christianity at all, it's regular scriptural Christianity. We need to recognize Christianity as the evil cult it is and quit pretending there's this version, and some warm n fuzzy version that's ok with homosexuality. Only way to be okay with homosexuality is to ignore parts of every Bible.

 

[mdk]

New York added sexual orientation to their state's public accommodation law in 2002. This law has nothing to do with Obama, Bush, or any other President for that matter.

And this has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. If a gay wants to buy a cake, fine. But, if a gay wants to buy a wedding cake, that's different.

Sexual orientation now becomes a possible religious belief infringement.

Mark

Of course it does. A business that sells wedding cakes to the public in a state that covers gays in their PA laws can't refuse to do business with them as a result. Whether you agree with those laws or not seems to be the debate. Muslim cabbies in Minnesota didn't want to violate their religious beliefs by carting around fares that carried booze, drunks, or dogs. When they were ordered to do so regardless of their beliefs it was cheered as a fight against creeping Sharia. When another religion tries the same approach they get cheered as standing up for their religious beliefs. Why is that? Seems a dash hypocritical.

Either way, I think these laws should go away almost entirely. Let the free market decide if the practices of these businesses should be rewarded or not.

 

[80zephyr]

I guess only a moron would force an establishment to provide a 'service'. You'll get what you pay for. But I get it, everyone want to be the next Rosa Parks and all, but why not take your business somewhere else? Why force someone to take your money? I don't get it

-Geaux

And I'm sure you've been railing against Public Accommodations since people were "forced" to serve blacks since the 1960s, right?

I never heard too much about the "injustice" and "tyranny" of PA laws...until about five to ten years ago when they began to ALSO protect gays in some places on equal footing with race, religion, etc. Funny that.

OK- But what about my question? What is your educated 'guess' as to why someone would just simply not take their business elsewhere? My guess is they are paid shills to bring their 'plight' to the forefront.

If they really wanted what they protest, they would of succeeded already elsewhere

-Geaux

Ask the Civil Rights Act that protects race, religion, country of origin, etc. You're asking why we have PA laws. I'm sure you can find the answer if you try really, really hard.

If the Civil Rights Act protects religion, then forcing someone to act in defiance of their religion is breaking the law, is it not?

Mark

Yes...if someone of a certain religion seeks to be served in a business and that business refuses them, that business can be fined. You need to brush up on the DIFFERENCE between the rights of a business vs. the rights of a customer.

The right to freedom or religion recognizes that all people have the same right to it. The rights of a customer does not trump the rights of the business owner, nor should they.

Mark

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I guess this isn't a free country anymore.

Now you know why you Democrats lost in the election, and it will only keep getting worse for you. I understand and accept those who practice the gay lifestyle. I figure it's none of my business, but now you want to literally cram it down our throats, and there is where you have gone off the rails.

I'm trying to see where the dark and twisted comment comes from. In fact, you're turning what is moral into something dark and twisted, essentially criminalizing religion. Why do you even bother with marriage in the first place, because if it's based on religious vows according to you it's dark and twisted.

To be honest, any church that conducts gay-marriages is practically throwing their doctrine out the window and encouraging sinful lifestyles. Being forced to do so is strictly against the Constitution. Congress cannot make any laws against the free expression of religion, so you folks do it at the local level. These rights are guaranteed under the Constitution and as long as this country follows the constitution, no oppressive local government can withstand any challenge to these abuses. It's just a matter of taking it to the Supreme Court to rectify this travesty. Unfortunately it will take time.

My solution to this is for you to take your marriage requests to someone who supports your lifestyle and stop stepping all over everyone else in the process.

Apparently, to Progressive Liberals the separation of church and state only applies to prayer or religious display when it suits their nefarious agenda.

.

They want apply the Constitution to whatever benefits them and ignore the same when it doesn't. Selective application of the law. Something they learned from Obama.

 

[bodecea]

Awe, isn't this special. Two queers playing house. In my eyes, there is no gay marriage, never no matter what happens. They are just playing house.

That's the same way I look at your "marriage".

 

[bodecea]

Awe, isn't this special. Two queers playing house. In my eyes, there is no gay marriage, never no matter what happens. They are just playing house.

Me thinks that people have forgotten, or pretend to have forgotten the real purpose of marriage.

Which is......?

 

[martybegan]

New York added sexual orientation to their state's public accommodation law in 2002. This law has nothing to do with Obama, Bush, or any other President for that matter.

And this has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. If a gay wants to buy a cake, fine. But, if a gay wants to buy a wedding cake, that's different.

Sexual orientation now becomes a possible religious belief infringement.

Mark

Of course it does. A business that sells wedding cakes to the public in a state that covers gays in their PA laws can't refuse to do business with them as a result. Whether you agree with those laws or not seems to be the debate. Muslim cabbies in Minnesota didn't want to violate their religious beliefs by carting around fares that carried booze, drunks, or dogs. When they were ordered to do so regardless of their beliefs it was cheered as a fight against creeping Sharia. When another religion tries the same approach they get cheered as standing up for their religious beliefs. Why is that? Seems a dash hypocritical.

Either way, I think these laws should go away almost entirely. Let the free market decide if the practices of these businesses should be rewarded or not.

With a cab that is a spot transaction in the furtherance of travel. At an airport it can likely be interstate travel. Also one could reasonably expect the cab to have to list who it would not transport in clear print on said cab.

It still doesn't equate to forcing someone to either host or do something for your wedding.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Right legal decision, but wrong decision overall. Isn't a dark version of Christianity at all, it's regular scriptural Christianity. We need to recognize Christianity as the evil cult it is and quit pretending there's this version, and some warm n fuzzy version that's ok with homosexuality. Only way to be okay with homosexuality is to ignore parts of every Bible.

You're last sentence was correct but Christianity in its original state is the antithesis of evil. Every sin we commit on Earth leaves a mark, and we pay a price for our sins through that.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

Right legal decision, but wrong decision overall. Isn't a dark version of Christianity at all, it's regular scriptural Christianity. We need to recognize Christianity as the evil cult it is and quit pretending there's this version, and some warm n fuzzy version that's ok with homosexuality. Only way to be okay with homosexuality is to ignore parts of every Bible.

You're last sentence was correct but Christianity in its original state is the antithesis of evil. Every sin we commit on Earth leaves a mark, and we pay a price for our sins through that.

Could refute that, but it'd be going off topic and into a religious discussion.

 

[mdk]

New York added sexual orientation to their state's public accommodation law in 2002. This law has nothing to do with Obama, Bush, or any other President for that matter.

And this has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. If a gay wants to buy a cake, fine. But, if a gay wants to buy a wedding cake, that's different.

Sexual orientation now becomes a possible religious belief infringement.

Mark

Of course it does. A business that sells wedding cakes to the public in a state that covers gays in their PA laws can't refuse to do business with them as a result. Whether you agree with those laws or not seems to be the debate. Muslim cabbies in Minnesota didn't want to violate their religious beliefs by carting around fares that carried booze, drunks, or dogs. When they were ordered to do so regardless of their beliefs it was cheered as a fight against creeping Sharia. When another religion tries the same approach they get cheered as standing up for their religious beliefs. Why is that? Seems a dash hypocritical.

Either way, I think these laws should go away almost entirely. Let the free market decide if the practices of these businesses should be rewarded or not.

With a cab that is a spot transaction in the furtherance of travel. At an airport it can likely be interstate travel. Also one could reasonably expect the cab to have to list who it would not transport in clear print on said cab.

It still doesn't equate to forcing someone to either host or do something for your wedding.

The PA laws in their current form do not make that distinction though. If you provide a public service then you have to provide that service to all those that covered under their state's respective PA laws. I think these laws have outlived their usefulness and should repealed with the exemptions of those services I mentioned and you mentioned above.

 

[martybegan]

New York added sexual orientation to their state's public accommodation law in 2002. This law has nothing to do with Obama, Bush, or any other President for that matter.

And this has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. If a gay wants to buy a cake, fine. But, if a gay wants to buy a wedding cake, that's different.

Sexual orientation now becomes a possible religious belief infringement.

Mark

Of course it does. A business that sells wedding cakes to the public in a state that covers gays in their PA laws can't refuse to do business with them as a result. Whether you agree with those laws or not seems to be the debate. Muslim cabbies in Minnesota didn't want to violate their religious beliefs by carting around fares that carried booze, drunks, or dogs. When they were ordered to do so regardless of their beliefs it was cheered as a fight against creeping Sharia. When another religion tries the same approach they get cheered as standing up for their religious beliefs. Why is that? Seems a dash hypocritical.

Either way, I think these laws should go away almost entirely. Let the free market decide if the practices of these businesses should be rewarded or not.

With a cab that is a spot transaction in the furtherance of travel. At an airport it can likely be interstate travel. Also one could reasonably expect the cab to have to list who it would not transport in clear print on said cab.

It still doesn't equate to forcing someone to either host or do something for your wedding.

The PA laws in their current form do not make that distinction though. If you provide a public service then you have to provide that service to all those that covered under their state's respective PA laws. I think these laws have outlived their usefulness and should repealed with the exemptions of those services I mentioned and you mentioned above.

Or you just limit them to actual "public accommodations" and not every business out there that advertises.

A public accomodation is a restaurant, or a hotel, or a grocery store, not a chapel, or a contract baker, or a photographer that goes to your event.

 

[mudwhistle]

New York added sexual orientation to their state's public accommodation law in 2002. This law has nothing to do with Obama, Bush, or any other President for that matter.

And this has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. If a gay wants to buy a cake, fine. But, if a gay wants to buy a wedding cake, that's different.

Sexual orientation now becomes a possible religious belief infringement.

Mark

Of course it does. A business that sells wedding cakes to the public in a state that covers gays in their PA laws can't refuse to do business with them as a result. Whether you agree with those laws or not seems to be the debate. Muslim cabbies in Minnesota didn't want to violate their religious beliefs by carting around fares that carried booze, drunks, or dogs. When they were ordered to do so regardless of their beliefs it was cheered as a fight against creeping Sharia. When another religion tries the same approach they get cheered as standing up for their religious beliefs. Why is that? Seems a dash hypocritical.

Either way, I think these laws should go away almost entirely. Let the free market decide if the practices of these businesses should be rewarded or not.

You can pass any law you choose. This is why liberals like stacking the courts, so they can uphold laws that are unconstitutional.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Right legal decision, but wrong decision overall. Isn't a dark version of Christianity at all, it's regular scriptural Christianity. We need to recognize Christianity as the evil cult it is and quit pretending there's this version, and some warm n fuzzy version that's ok with homosexuality. Only way to be okay with homosexuality is to ignore parts of every Bible.

You're last sentence was correct but Christianity in its original state is the antithesis of evil. Every sin we commit on Earth leaves a mark, and we pay a price for our sins through that.

Could refute that, but it'd be going off topic and into a religious discussion.

You could argue, but not refute. Besides, this is already a discussion about religion.

 

[mdk]

New York added sexual orientation to their state's public accommodation law in 2002. This law has nothing to do with Obama, Bush, or any other President for that matter.

And this has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. If a gay wants to buy a cake, fine. But, if a gay wants to buy a wedding cake, that's different.

Sexual orientation now becomes a possible religious belief infringement.

Mark

Of course it does. A business that sells wedding cakes to the public in a state that covers gays in their PA laws can't refuse to do business with them as a result. Whether you agree with those laws or not seems to be the debate. Muslim cabbies in Minnesota didn't want to violate their religious beliefs by carting around fares that carried booze, drunks, or dogs. When they were ordered to do so regardless of their beliefs it was cheered as a fight against creeping Sharia. When another religion tries the same approach they get cheered as standing up for their religious beliefs. Why is that? Seems a dash hypocritical.

Either way, I think these laws should go away almost entirely. Let the free market decide if the practices of these businesses should be rewarded or not.

You can pass any law you choose. This is why liberals like stacking the courts, so they can uphold laws that are unconstitutional.

The courts have been upholding PA laws for many decades now. I believe PA laws to be unconstitutional as well but I am not seeing a large push to scrap these laws. Admittedly, it is not a very popular stance to hold.

 

[mudwhistle]

Awe, isn't this special. Two queers playing house. In my eyes, there is no gay marriage, never no matter what happens. They are just playing house.

That's the same way I look at your "marriage".

Don't stoop to his level

 

[martybegan]

New York added sexual orientation to their state's public accommodation law in 2002. This law has nothing to do with Obama, Bush, or any other President for that matter.

And this has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. If a gay wants to buy a cake, fine. But, if a gay wants to buy a wedding cake, that's different.

Sexual orientation now becomes a possible religious belief infringement.

Mark

Of course it does. A business that sells wedding cakes to the public in a state that covers gays in their PA laws can't refuse to do business with them as a result. Whether you agree with those laws or not seems to be the debate. Muslim cabbies in Minnesota didn't want to violate their religious beliefs by carting around fares that carried booze, drunks, or dogs. When they were ordered to do so regardless of their beliefs it was cheered as a fight against creeping Sharia. When another religion tries the same approach they get cheered as standing up for their religious beliefs. Why is that? Seems a dash hypocritical.

Either way, I think these laws should go away almost entirely. Let the free market decide if the practices of these businesses should be rewarded or not.

You can pass any law you choose. This is why liberals like stacking the courts, so they can uphold laws that are unconstitutional.

The courts have been upholding PA laws for many decades now. I believe PA laws to be unconstitutional as well but I am not seeing a large push to scrap these laws. Admittedly, it is not a very popular stance to hold.

They don't need to be scrapped, they just need to be clarified to limit them to the proper transactions.