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

[AntiParty]

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?

You are wrong......The Government today has just as much of a right to take your land as they did the Indians..........It's why they took it for "peace and freedom"

The irony is the people who hate Big Government always stand on the side of bigotry and future big gov.

 

[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.

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?

I would suggest that you read through this thread, it'll fill in a lot of blanks for you.

This is their "home": Fall fun on the farm! | Saratoga Fall Family Fun, Pumpkin Picking, Cornfield Maze

It's a commercial party venue, tourist destination, and wedding venue. They even have an on-site staff of wedding planners. It's not a private home.

They live in an apartment in the "Barn" facility, above the commercial wedding and party venue.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here are some pictures and a description of their "home", from the website: Gifford Barn | Saratoga Fall Family Fun, Pumpkin Picking, Cornfield Maze

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?

What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[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?

You are wrong......The Government today has just as much of a right to take your land as they did the Indians..........It's why they took it for "peace and freedom"

The irony is the people who hate Big Government always stand on the side of bigotry and future big gov.

(Rolls eyes)

What?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?

What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

You're not understanding this at all.

Their farm is a public business. It's not "in the public domain", but it's subject to all other laws that govern public businesses. The fact that they live on the premises of their commercial business does not stop it from being a public business, and subject to all the laws applying to that sort of business.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you doubt that the Giffords claim that "barn" as commercial space on their taxes?

 

[Clementine]

Businesses are still private and the owner should call the shots. Would a minority-owned business be forced to cater a KKK event? Of course, you will say that the KKK would never walk into a business owned by a minority and want to do business with them. Why then would a gay couple want to force religious people into dealing with them, knowing that they are against gays due to religion?

I wouldn't want to force anyone to deal with me. And I wouldn't go crying to a lawyer if someone didn't want my business. I'd speak out and let people know what the issue is and the business would suffer if enough people disagreed with their stance on any given issue.

I'd choke on the cake someone was forced to bake for me against their will. I wouldn't set foot in a place that objected to my lifestyle.

There are many businesses and if you don't like how one operates, head over to their competition.

I don't think it's right to force business owners to go against their conscience.

Businesses used to have the right to refuse service to anyone. Having lawyers file suits to force them to cater to people is creepy. Neither the business owners or the customers should feel comfortable with that. I don't think it's so much that the people filing these suits really want the particular cakes a baker has or the accommodations for their wedding. In some cases, I think they are just messing with people whose religious beliefs don't include gays.

I could care less about the sexual orientation of a person. But I understand that some do and I wouldn't disrespect that by forcing them to do anything they find objectionable. Force doesn't change people's hearts and minds. If the intent is to be accepted by people, then the last thing you should do is offend them by suing them and saying that their religion doesn't matter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?

What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

You're not understanding this at all.

Their farm is a public business. It's not "in the public domain", but it's subject to all other laws that govern public businesses. The fact that they live on the premises of their commercial business does not stop it from being a public business, and subject to all the laws applying to that sort of business.

Oh I understand completely.

The farm is also a place of permanent residence. The land--the venues, the corn mazes, the first floor of her home-- are all on the same property. This woman OWNS ALL OF IT. Just because the place is a tourist attraction does not mean she can be forced to host something against her will on her own property. It does not mean she surrenders her rights as a homeowner. Yes doc, she owns the place as her home. Once again, you have no legal precedent to back up your claim. I do for mine. She has a right to property via the 5th Amendment, all effects and people therein are subject to her purview. It isn't rocket science.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you doubt that the Giffords claim that "barn" as commercial space on their taxes?

Can you provide me with the tax returns to back up such a claim? Are you insinuating she has no say so over what happens on her own property? There's a big difference between owning a home and owning a business. But when that business you own happens to be your home, then what? Is the place no longer your home because it is a place of interest?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm going to bed. I'll pick this up later.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Read the court decision, it's very interesting.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf

Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?

What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

You're not understanding this at all.

Their farm is a public business. It's not "in the public domain", but it's subject to all other laws that govern public businesses. The fact that they live on the premises of their commercial business does not stop it from being a public business, and subject to all the laws applying to that sort of business.

Oh I understand completely.

The farm is also a place of permanent residence. The land--the venues, the corn mazes, the first floor of her home-- are all on the same property. This woman OWNS ALL OF IT. Just because the place is a tourist attraction does not mean she can be forced to host something against her will on her own property. It does not mean she surrenders her rights as a homeowner. Yes doc, she owns the place as her home. Once again, you have no legal precedent to back up your claim. I do for mine. She has a right to property via the 5th Amendment, all effects and people therein are subject to her purview. It isn't rocket science.

No, you really, really don't seem to understand at all.

All property is owned by someone. Every single business in the world exists on someone's property. Whether the owner lives on the premises or not.

That doesn't change the application of public accommodation laws - and if you want precedent, feel free to read the court's decision on this case.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you doubt that the Giffords claim that "barn" as commercial space on their taxes?

Can you provide me with the tax returns to back up such a claim? Are you insinuating she has no say so over what happens on her own property? There's a big difference between owning a home and owning a business. But when that business you own happens to be your home, then what? Is the place no longer your home because it is a place of interest?

It's still your home, but the business part doesn't get to break the law. It's called "mixed use" - residential and commercial space on the same piece of property.

I can provide you with the court's decision in this case, which shows that the property itself is leased to a company called Liberty Ridge Farm LLC (owned by the Giffords) - by the Giffords. In other words, they own the property, but lease it to a corporation they control for tax and liability purposes, since it is a public business. The farm itself, including it's wedding facilities are run by that corporation.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Read the court decision, it's very interesting.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf

Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?

What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

You're not understanding this at all.

Their farm is a public business. It's not "in the public domain", but it's subject to all other laws that govern public businesses. The fact that they live on the premises of their commercial business does not stop it from being a public business, and subject to all the laws applying to that sort of business.

Oh I understand completely.

The farm is also a place of permanent residence. The land--the venues, the corn mazes, the first floor of her home-- are all on the same property. This woman OWNS ALL OF IT. Just because the place is a tourist attraction does not mean she can be forced to host something against her will on her own property. It does not mean she surrenders her rights as a homeowner. Yes doc, she owns the place as her home. Once again, you have no legal precedent to back up your claim. I do for mine. She has a right to property via the 5th Amendment, all effects and people therein are subject to her purview. It isn't rocket science.

No, you really, really don't seem to understand at all.

All property is owned by someone. Every single business in the world exists on someone's property. Whether the owner lives on the premises or not.

That doesn't change the application of public accommodation laws - and if you want precedent, feel free to read the court's decision on this case.

"All property is owned by someone."

That's plainly obvious. And a non sequitur.

"Every single business in the world exists on someone's property"

Yeah, but when you own said property lock, stock, and barrel, it doesn't matter who owns it, now does it? That is a dodge, doc.

And actually, I cited precedent in the legal definition of a residence. Feel free to read the cases listed there. The fact this incident took place on the first floor of her actual home muddies the waters. Do PA laws suddenly apply to the inside of someone's home just because you let other people use it? No. It's still her home. My grandmother could just as easily kick me out of her house right this instant, simply because this home is hers and not mine.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Read the court decision, it's very interesting.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf

Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?

What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

You're not understanding this at all.

Their farm is a public business. It's not "in the public domain", but it's subject to all other laws that govern public businesses. The fact that they live on the premises of their commercial business does not stop it from being a public business, and subject to all the laws applying to that sort of business.

Oh I understand completely.

The farm is also a place of permanent residence. The land--the venues, the corn mazes, the first floor of her home-- are all on the same property. This woman OWNS ALL OF IT. Just because the place is a tourist attraction does not mean she can be forced to host something against her will on her own property. It does not mean she surrenders her rights as a homeowner. Yes doc, she owns the place as her home. Once again, you have no legal precedent to back up your claim. I do for mine. She has a right to property via the 5th Amendment, all effects and people therein are subject to her purview. It isn't rocket science.

No, you really, really don't seem to understand at all.

All property is owned by someone. Every single business in the world exists on someone's property. Whether the owner lives on the premises or not.

That doesn't change the application of public accommodation laws - and if you want precedent, feel free to read the court's decision on this case.

"All property is owned by someone."

That's plainly obvious. And a non sequitur.

"Every single business in the world exists on someone's property"

Yeah, but when you own said property lock, stock, and barrel, it doesn't matter who owns it, now does it? That is a dodge, doc.

And actually, I cited precedent in the legal definition of a residence. Feel free to read the cases listed there. The fact this incident took place on the first floor of her actual home muddies the waters. Do PA laws suddenly apply to the inside of someone's home just because you let other people use it? No. It's still her home.

The legal definition of "residence" has no applicability here.

Find me the law that states public accommodation laws are inapplicable if the owner's "residence" is on-site.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

Neither is claiming that I'm "parroting" the ruling...

How does the Fifth Amendment apply, exactly?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.