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

[80zephyr]

And I still have to ask, how stupid and childish are faggots that they want to FORCE people to take their money?

I go into a business and they don't treat me like I'm the most important person in the world, I carry my debit card on out of there and find somewhere that does.

I don't financially reward people who don't like me.

Stupid fags.

You guys have created such an interesting narrative in your heads.

Nothing about this story includes any gay people trying to "force" this woman to host their weddings.

A lesbian couple tried to hire the place, and were refused - so they complained to the state, and had their wedding somewhere else.

I'm not posting about just this ONE case.

But as for this ONE case, why would they complain to the state at all? Just take your gay ass somewhere else.

Because they were disrespectfully refused a service because of their sexual orientation, the action of which violated state law.

You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.

The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.

Mark

That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?

If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?

The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

You guys have created such an interesting narrative in your heads.

Nothing about this story includes any gay people trying to "force" this woman to host their weddings.

A lesbian couple tried to hire the place, and were refused - so they complained to the state, and had their wedding somewhere else.

I'm not posting about just this ONE case.

But as for this ONE case, why would they complain to the state at all? Just take your gay ass somewhere else.

Because they were disrespectfully refused a service because of their sexual orientation, the action of which violated state law.

You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.

The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.

Mark

That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?

If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?

The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.

Mark

There are lots of sins....what has been their stand on OTHER sins of their potential customers?

 

[bodecea]

The 14th Amendment. Everyone is treated equally under the law.

Also, when the business owner applies and receives a business license they agree to comply with all state and federal laws that govern business.

Then there's our equal rights and civil rights laws that say that if you do business with the public you must do it with ALL the public. A business owner can't pick and choose who they sell to.

Then there's also our discrimination laws. Specifically discrimination against a person's sex. That business owner denied those people their services because one of them is of the wrong sex according to the business owner. Which is very illegal according to our sexual discrimination laws.

Just suppose you live in a small town and there's only one place in town that performs wedding ceremonies. There isn't another place to get married within at least 100 miles. When you go there the owner of the establishment denies you that ceremony just because of our sex. Will you allow them to break the law and discriminate against you? Or will you do what real Americans do and stand up for your rights?

If the 14th states everyone has to be treated equally under the law, then forcing a conscientious person with religious convictions to serve for a gay wedding is NOT BEING TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW.

Do you understand that?

Also, when applying for a business license, it is illegal to take away a persons rights as a condition of doing business. So that argument is a non sequitur.

Mark

Making a business adhere to the business laws of the locality in which he opened a business is not treating him differently.

The bible justified slavery and anti miscegenation. Should there have been a religious exemption?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

But it is a choice, is it not? Just like the Muslim taxi drivers who said it was against their religion to accept passengers who had pets or alcohol. It is a choice...to do the job your business license says to...or find something more compatable with your religious restrictions.

Realistically, it is NOT a choice. Telling someone he has to abide or go broke is...wrong. Especially since the Constitution guarantees him a right to religious freedom. Nowhere does it say "except if you run a business".

Mark

So...you supported those Muslim taxi drivers who didn't want to pick up people with pet dogs and/or alcohol because it was against their religion.

 

[80zephyr]

If the 14th states everyone has to be treated equally under the law, then forcing a conscientious person with religious convictions to serve for a gay wedding is NOT BEING TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW.

Do you understand that?

Also, when applying for a business license, it is illegal to take away a persons rights as a condition of doing business. So that argument is a non sequitur.

Mark

Making a business adhere to the business laws of the locality in which he opened a business is not treating him differently.

The bible justified slavery and anti miscegenation. Should there have been a religious exemption?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

Your religion does not give you the right to violate the laws of the locality, period.

These assholes couldn't do it and new assholes can't either.

How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism

This is a new situation. It is absolutely clear that religions have viewed homosexuality as a sin for a long time. Different situations require different solutions.

If the left really wants to piss off the American people, force religions to cater to homosexuals.

Mark

However, that was a BUSINESS, not a religion. A very clear distinction.

Again, nowhere in our Constitution does it state that the government has a right to restrict religious freedom as a requirement to do business in America.

I think you should be careful what you wish for.

Mark

 

[BlackSand]

The Public Accomidation laws are controlled at the state level and not all states identify LBGT's as a protected class. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's being a protected class.

I am not arguing for or against the laws ... You just need to re-examine your blanket statements that are incorrect or don't apply.

.

No shit Sherlock...If You've been reading the thread AT ALL, I've said that over and over again...that some states have expanded the list of those protected. To suddenly call PA laws "tyranny" because they ALSO protect gays in some places (I even provided a link to those places in an early post) is stupid.

You stated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over and over again ... And it did not apply to sexual orientation. You also stated Public Accommodation Laws are "on the books" at the Federal level and they aren't.

Keep trying to crawfish ... And I will start the crab boil.

.

Yes, I did, I cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title II to be exact. That's the part that talks about Public Accommodations. They have been in effect since 1964.

So, have PA laws always been "tyranny" (despite withstanding a SCOTUS ruling) or is it just recently since "the gheys" have been added to them in some places?

Title II doesn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's ...

Title II

"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]"

.

They didn't want the Civil Rights Act to count for women either when it came out. :/

Sexual orientation was added to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1978. It still refers to employment opportunities and not public accommodations ... Which is just an example of how the argument is distorted to include protections not identified by the law.

Edit:
However, protections for sexual orientation are simply assumed to be included in the law under Title VIi and not directly identified in the text. As far as legislation identifying sexual orientation or gender identity ... That would be the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 passed by the Senate and still waiting for approval in the House.

.

 

[80zephyr]

I'm not posting about just this ONE case.

But as for this ONE case, why would they complain to the state at all? Just take your gay ass somewhere else.

Because they were disrespectfully refused a service because of their sexual orientation, the action of which violated state law.

You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.

The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.

Mark

That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?

If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?

The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.

Mark

There are lots of sins....what has been their stand on OTHER sins of their potential customers?

There is a difference. A huge difference. Since no one can know what another is thinking, we have to assume that most people at least try to live a moral life. By getting married, a gay couple is not only admitting to a sin, but celebrating it.

I would assume that a religious person would refuse to bake a "divorce" cake as well.

Mark

 

[BlackSand]

I'm not posting about just this ONE case.

But as for this ONE case, why would they complain to the state at all? Just take your gay ass somewhere else.

Because they were disrespectfully refused a service because of their sexual orientation, the action of which violated state law.

You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.

The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.

Mark

That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?

If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?

The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.

Mark

There are lots of sins....what has been their stand on OTHER sins of their potential customers?

You have a point there ... Since most theologists believe that all sins are equal in the eyes of God. At the same, every sinner is encourage to hate the sin and not the sinner ... But I am not a devout Christian and certainly don't speak for the masses.

.

 

[80zephyr]

If the 14th states everyone has to be treated equally under the law, then forcing a conscientious person with religious convictions to serve for a gay wedding is NOT BEING TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW.

Do you understand that?

Also, when applying for a business license, it is illegal to take away a persons rights as a condition of doing business. So that argument is a non sequitur.

Mark

Making a business adhere to the business laws of the locality in which he opened a business is not treating him differently.

The bible justified slavery and anti miscegenation. Should there have been a religious exemption?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

But it is a choice, is it not? Just like the Muslim taxi drivers who said it was against their religion to accept passengers who had pets or alcohol. It is a choice...to do the job your business license says to...or find something more compatable with your religious restrictions.

Realistically, it is NOT a choice. Telling someone he has to abide or go broke is...wrong. Especially since the Constitution guarantees him a right to religious freedom. Nowhere does it say "except if you run a business".

Mark

So...you supported those Muslim taxi drivers who didn't want to pick up people with pet dogs and/or alcohol because it was against their religion.

Whether I support it or not is not the question. The question is, do they have a right to deny services because of religious objections?

I would say they do, if our rights mean anything.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

But he does that all the time.

There are a whole lot of crazy laws in the bible that most businesses don't follow.

How many businesses are open on Sunday? That's actually breaking a Commandment!!!! But they happily make an exception for that.

Exactly. How many non-christians has that place hosted wedding for? How many previously divorced people has that business hosted weddings for? How many obese (sin of gluttony) people has that business hosted weddings for? How many pagan weddings has that business hosted weddings for?

I don't know, nor does it matter. Each individual views his beliefs in the way he see's fit. If we have to have uniformity, it will still result in someones religious rights being trampled upon.

Does a religious person also have a right to interpret his religion as he see's fit? Absolutely. Many Christians would host a gay wedding, and still make it to church on Sunday as well.

What it comes down to is this:

If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

If the 14th states everyone has to be treated equally under the law, then forcing a conscientious person with religious convictions to serve for a gay wedding is NOT BEING TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW.

Do you understand that?

Also, when applying for a business license, it is illegal to take away a persons rights as a condition of doing business. So that argument is a non sequitur.

Mark

Making a business adhere to the business laws of the locality in which he opened a business is not treating him differently.

The bible justified slavery and anti miscegenation. Should there have been a religious exemption?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

But it is a choice, is it not? Just like the Muslim taxi drivers who said it was against their religion to accept passengers who had pets or alcohol. It is a choice...to do the job your business license says to...or find something more compatable with your religious restrictions.

Realistically, it is NOT a choice. Telling someone he has to abide or go broke is...wrong. Especially since the Constitution guarantees him a right to religious freedom. Nowhere does it say "except if you run a business".

Mark

So...you supported those Muslim taxi drivers who didn't want to pick up people with pet dogs and/or alcohol because it was against their religion.

Nope. I supported them because it was their RIGHT to do so.

Mark

 

[turtledude]

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

Then they shouldn't be selling their home as a reception hall unless they want to get sued.

Simple enough.

what is simple is that the federal government was never given any proper power in this area.

 

[bodecea]

Making a business adhere to the business laws of the locality in which he opened a business is not treating him differently.

The bible justified slavery and anti miscegenation. Should there have been a religious exemption?

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

Mark

Your religion does not give you the right to violate the laws of the locality, period.

These assholes couldn't do it and new assholes can't either.

How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism

This is a new situation. It is absolutely clear that religions have viewed homosexuality as a sin for a long time. Different situations require different solutions.

If the left really wants to piss off the American people, force religions to cater to homosexuals.

Mark

However, that was a BUSINESS, not a religion. A very clear distinction.

Again, nowhere in our Constitution does it state that the government has a right to restrict religious freedom as a requirement to do business in America.

I think you should be careful what you wish for.

Mark

There are no restrictions on religious freedom in the Constitution, you are correct. However, people are not required to have a certain business.....it is all choice. And their choice to have such a business, being fine and all, if they want a business license, they cannot discriminate against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens because of who those people are.

 

[bodecea]

By forcing him to choose between his religion and his living, you bet it is.

But he does that all the time.

There are a whole lot of crazy laws in the bible that most businesses don't follow.

How many businesses are open on Sunday? That's actually breaking a Commandment!!!! But they happily make an exception for that.

Exactly. How many non-christians has that place hosted wedding for? How many previously divorced people has that business hosted weddings for? How many obese (sin of gluttony) people has that business hosted weddings for? How many pagan weddings has that business hosted weddings for?

I don't know, nor does it matter. Each individual views his beliefs in the way he see's fit. If we have to have uniformity, it will still result in someones religious rights being trampled upon.

Does a religious person also have a right to interpret his religion as he see's fit? Absolutely. Many Christians would host a gay wedding, and still make it to church on Sunday as well.

What it comes down to is this:

If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.

Mark

That's very convenient, isn't it?

 

[Seawytch]

You guys have created such an interesting narrative in your heads.

Nothing about this story includes any gay people trying to "force" this woman to host their weddings.

A lesbian couple tried to hire the place, and were refused - so they complained to the state, and had their wedding somewhere else.

I'm not posting about just this ONE case.

But as for this ONE case, why would they complain to the state at all? Just take your gay ass somewhere else.

Because they were disrespectfully refused a service because of their sexual orientation, the action of which violated state law.

You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.

The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.

Mark

That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?

If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?

The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.

Mark

Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?

 

[bodecea]

Some religious beliefs are more equal than others?

 

[Seawytch]

Yup...just like the stupid Kikes and N words, huh bigot?

Public Accommodation laws have been "on the books" at a Federal Level since 1964, bigot.

The Public Accomidation laws are controlled at the state level and not all states identify LBGT's as a protected class. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's being a protected class.

I am not arguing for or against the laws ... You just need to re-examine your blanket statements that are incorrect or don't apply.

.

No shit Sherlock...If You've been reading the thread AT ALL, I've said that over and over again...that some states have expanded the list of those protected. To suddenly call PA laws "tyranny" because they ALSO protect gays in some places (I even provided a link to those places in an early post) is stupid.

You stated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over and over again ... And it did not apply to sexual orientation. You also stated Public Accommodation Laws are "on the books" at the Federal level and they aren't.

Keep trying to crawfish ... And I will start the crab boil.

.

Yes, I did, I cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title II to be exact. That's the part that talks about Public Accommodations. They have been in effect since 1964.

So, have PA laws always been "tyranny" (despite withstanding a SCOTUS ruling) or is it just recently since "the gheys" have been added to them in some places?

Title II doesn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's ...

Title II

"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]"

.

Yes, I realize that, that does not change my question. Have PA laws always been "tyranny" or just since SOME (look at the word SOME...it does not mean all 50 states) states have added gays?

 

[TheIceMan]

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.

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. It's in the First Amendment. Fining people to "get in line" with your aberrant beliefs is Nazi sh*t.

 

[Seawytch]

No shit Sherlock...If You've been reading the thread AT ALL, I've said that over and over again...that some states have expanded the list of those protected. To suddenly call PA laws "tyranny" because they ALSO protect gays in some places (I even provided a link to those places in an early post) is stupid.

You stated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over and over again ... And it did not apply to sexual orientation. You also stated Public Accommodation Laws are "on the books" at the Federal level and they aren't.

Keep trying to crawfish ... And I will start the crab boil.

.

Yes, I did, I cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title II to be exact. That's the part that talks about Public Accommodations. They have been in effect since 1964.

So, have PA laws always been "tyranny" (despite withstanding a SCOTUS ruling) or is it just recently since "the gheys" have been added to them in some places?

Title II doesn't say a damn thing about sexual orientation or LBGT's ...

Title II

"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]"

.

They didn't want the Civil Rights Act to count for women either when it came out. :/

Sexual orientation was added to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1978. It still refers to employment opportunities and not public accommodations ... Which is just an example of how the argument is distorted to include protections not identified by the law.

.

No it wasn't. There are no Federal employment protections for gays and lesbians. You can fire people for being gay in more states than ban them from marrying.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not posting about just this ONE case.

But as for this ONE case, why would they complain to the state at all? Just take your gay ass somewhere else.

Because they were disrespectfully refused a service because of their sexual orientation, the action of which violated state law.

You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.

The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.

Mark

That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?

If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?

The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.

Mark

Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?

That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.

 

[Seawytch]

Because they were disrespectfully refused a service because of their sexual orientation, the action of which violated state law.

You are incorrect. They WERE NOT refused service because of their orientation. They were refused service because a religious business did not want to be part of their "marriage" ceremony.

The distinction is crucial when regarding which right trumps the other.

Mark

That business puts on weddings of all kinds or does that business restrict itself to religious ceremonies? If they do, what particular denomination of religion do they provide religious wedding ceremonies in?

If that business as opened itself in the past to weddings of all kind, secular and various religious ceremonies.....well then, they have not made any distinctions in the past.............why now?

The distinction is crucial because they believe it to be a sin. I cannot make it more plain than that.

Mark

Interracial marriage is still thought of as a sin for some people and back in 1967 it REALLY, REALLY was...and still we have protections in FEDERAL Public Accommodation laws that says you can't discriminate against THAT couple. Should racist bigots get your "religious exemption" from anti discrimination laws as well or just gays? It's a sin for women to speak in public...does that mean a business can discriminate against women unless they are silent?

That sin was based on poor interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being sinful.

Your opinion on how they interpret the bible is irrelevant. They believed it just as you believe that being gay is sinful...and yet there are plenty of people that disagree with YOUR interpretation.