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

[TakeAStepBack]

It doesn't really matter if they don't like the color of your shirt. Forcing someone to accommodate another via penalty by government is the stuff true fascists are made of. We have a lot of them here on this board.

 

[Seawytch]

It's valid even though it makes you uncomfortable. They have just as much biblical justification as you do.

They have none, and have been repeatedly beaten down by decades of theological debate. They have as much of a right to say a blue book is orange as they do to say the bible condones racism, but it does not give them a valid argument.

Society changed that's all...and it's changing regarding gays. They are as certain of their position as you are of yours and they have bible verses that support their position just like you do.

You just believe your position is valid and theirs is not. I think you're both wrong.

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

And yet there are still people that believe the bible supports their position on race and those bible verses haven't changed, they are just mostly ignored now...because society changed.

It was societal pressure that changed their views just like it will be for gays. Give it 20 years and the "theological debate" will have removed gay from your "sin" category.

Wishful thinking. In no part of the texts is racism defined the same way homosexuality is defined. You are comparing apples and typewriters.

This is totally classic. You don't think it's there, but they are sure it is. The bible verses about race are just as clear to the racist bigots as "gay is a sin" is clear to anti gay bigots. You don't have to believe it, they do. Why do your "rights" trump theirs? Oh, right...because YOU disagree with their assessment.

 

[martybegan]

They have none, and have been repeatedly beaten down by decades of theological debate. They have as much of a right to say a blue book is orange as they do to say the bible condones racism, but it does not give them a valid argument.

Society changed that's all...and it's changing regarding gays. They are as certain of their position as you are of yours and they have bible verses that support their position just like you do.

You just believe your position is valid and theirs is not. I think you're both wrong.

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

And yet there are still people that believe the bible supports their position on race and those bible verses haven't changed, they are just mostly ignored now...because society changed.

It was societal pressure that changed their views just like it will be for gays. Give it 20 years and the "theological debate" will have removed gay from your "sin" category.

Wishful thinking. In no part of the texts is racism defined the same way homosexuality is defined. You are comparing apples and typewriters.

This is totally classic. You don't think it's there, but they are sure it is. The bible verses about race are just as clear to the racist bigots as "gay is a sin" is clear to anti gay bigots. You don't have to believe it, they do. Why do your "rights" trump theirs? Oh, right...because YOU disagree with their assessment.

It's not what I agree or disagree with, its what individual people agree to believe in. And again, a person can claim a red house is blue all they want, and have charts and documents to back them up, it still doesn't give any validity to their arguments.

As for any of this mattering when it comes to PA laws, the issue is yes, the racists should be able to deny service to anyone they want as long as their service does not involve government, or involve necessary commerce. My point is simply to counter those pointing out racism in the bible as being comparable to homosexuality in the bible, which is clearly not the case to 99.99% of the faithful out there.

 

[Seawytch]

Society changed that's all...and it's changing regarding gays. They are as certain of their position as you are of yours and they have bible verses that support their position just like you do.

You just believe your position is valid and theirs is not. I think you're both wrong.

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

And yet there are still people that believe the bible supports their position on race and those bible verses haven't changed, they are just mostly ignored now...because society changed.

It was societal pressure that changed their views just like it will be for gays. Give it 20 years and the "theological debate" will have removed gay from your "sin" category.

Wishful thinking. In no part of the texts is racism defined the same way homosexuality is defined. You are comparing apples and typewriters.

This is totally classic. You don't think it's there, but they are sure it is. The bible verses about race are just as clear to the racist bigots as "gay is a sin" is clear to anti gay bigots. You don't have to believe it, they do. Why do your "rights" trump theirs? Oh, right...because YOU disagree with their assessment.

It's not what I agree or disagree with, its what individual people agree to believe in. And again, a person can claim a red house is blue all they want, and have charts and documents to back them up, it still doesn't give any validity to their arguments.

As for any of this mattering when it comes to PA laws, the issue is yes, the racists should be able to deny service to anyone they want as long as their service does not involve government, or involve necessary commerce. My point is simply to counter those pointing out racism in the bible as being comparable to homosexuality in the bible, which is clearly not the case to 99.99% of the faithful out there.

What is defined as "necessary commerce" is left up to who exactly? Why should bakers and florists get this special "religious liberty" of yours and grocery stores and gas stations don't?

 

[martybegan]

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

And yet there are still people that believe the bible supports their position on race and those bible verses haven't changed, they are just mostly ignored now...because society changed.

It was societal pressure that changed their views just like it will be for gays. Give it 20 years and the "theological debate" will have removed gay from your "sin" category.

Wishful thinking. In no part of the texts is racism defined the same way homosexuality is defined. You are comparing apples and typewriters.

This is totally classic. You don't think it's there, but they are sure it is. The bible verses about race are just as clear to the racist bigots as "gay is a sin" is clear to anti gay bigots. You don't have to believe it, they do. Why do your "rights" trump theirs? Oh, right...because YOU disagree with their assessment.

It's not what I agree or disagree with, its what individual people agree to believe in. And again, a person can claim a red house is blue all they want, and have charts and documents to back them up, it still doesn't give any validity to their arguments.

As for any of this mattering when it comes to PA laws, the issue is yes, the racists should be able to deny service to anyone they want as long as their service does not involve government, or involve necessary commerce. My point is simply to counter those pointing out racism in the bible as being comparable to homosexuality in the bible, which is clearly not the case to 99.99% of the faithful out there.

What is defined as "necessary commerce" is left up to who exactly? Why should bakers and florists get this special "religious liberty" of yours and grocery stores and gas stations don't?

Because of the compelling interest of the government when it comes to certain forms of commerce, and of course travel, which is a protected right. Being denied a hotel room, the ability to travel, or to buy the necessities of life are true detriments to be people. Furthermore none of those transactions require the people providing the good or service to attend or participate in any acts that the providers may see as sinful or distasteful. The hurt feelings of anyone, in my opinion, is not worth government intervention in the private dealings of citizens.

 

[Redfish]

again, their position had been debunked by decades of theological debate, and a preponderance of the evidence in scripture. Homosexuality as sin is established doctrine, the only debate being what that means for the faithful when it comes to their interactions with them.

And yet there are still people that believe the bible supports their position on race and those bible verses haven't changed, they are just mostly ignored now...because society changed.

It was societal pressure that changed their views just like it will be for gays. Give it 20 years and the "theological debate" will have removed gay from your "sin" category.

Wishful thinking. In no part of the texts is racism defined the same way homosexuality is defined. You are comparing apples and typewriters.

This is totally classic. You don't think it's there, but they are sure it is. The bible verses about race are just as clear to the racist bigots as "gay is a sin" is clear to anti gay bigots. You don't have to believe it, they do. Why do your "rights" trump theirs? Oh, right...because YOU disagree with their assessment.

It's not what I agree or disagree with, its what individual people agree to believe in. And again, a person can claim a red house is blue all they want, and have charts and documents to back them up, it still doesn't give any validity to their arguments.

As for any of this mattering when it comes to PA laws, the issue is yes, the racists should be able to deny service to anyone they want as long as their service does not involve government, or involve necessary commerce. My point is simply to counter those pointing out racism in the bible as being comparable to homosexuality in the bible, which is clearly not the case to 99.99% of the faithful out there.

What is defined as "necessary commerce" is left up to who exactly? Why should bakers and florists get this special "religious liberty" of yours and grocery stores and gas stations don't?

you really don't understand the customer interface difference between a self service gas station and a baker or florist?

amazing, but not surprising

 

[Redfish]

question for wytch or one of you libs.

Why would a gay couple want to do business with a baker who does not approve of the gay lifestyle?

 

[martybegan]

question for wytch or one of you libs.

Why would a gay couple want to do business with a baker who does not approve of the gay lifestyle?

Pure spite probably.

 

[deltex1]

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.

If you keep your eye on hazel's asshole you will forget about Gruber and the moron president.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do warped and unfortunately stupid interpretations of scripture provide cover for discrimination even as discrimination is illegal?

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

If I had a business that is open to the public, I'd shelve any animosity toward people who offend me, I would not discriminate. As for my private associations, I have friends whose politics run along the greed inspired, to-hell-with-the -environment, hate and fear people I don't understand, Conservative vein. But we do not discuss politics.

That's the difference between public accommodation and personal associations.

That's good for you. It still doesn't mean the government should be able to punish thought and actions that are 1) not criminal and 2) do not disparately impact a person beyond hurt feelings.

And businesses are not permitted to discriminate if no one has committed a crime and the business does not specifically hurt someone.

Discriminating against homosexuals isn't just for the amusement of the homophobe anymore. It's just plain wrong.

Then every religion is wrong by your logic, and Churches should be forced to accommodate the same thing. If you are going to ignore people's rights and force them to accept something you want them to accept, why stop there?

Just because something is "wrong", then the power of the State must be used to punish these people? That's statism, fascism, and THAT is whats wrong.

The worst thing is its basically bullying, and because you agree with it, you cheer it on. You make me sick.

Going to church, even if that church preaches false doctrine including hatred and fear, is something folks do as a choice for their spiritual well being.

Going to a public business and encountering hatred, fear, bigotry and utter ignorance should NOT be tolerated in a free society.

Businesses open to the public must accommodate that public, unless that individual patron is committing a crime.

Bigoted business owners were a dime a dozen in the Jim Crow south. That was despicable and unjustifiable. Such businesses created, in effect, a group of second class citizens.

Public business means public accommodations. If the bigot behind the counter fails to understand that, then their business license should be revoked.

 

[Nosmo King]

question for wytch or one of you libs.

Why would a gay couple want to do business with a baker who does not approve of the gay lifestyle?

Why does that business owner have to express his disapproval? Is a wedding only a legitimate wedding if it has the empremator of a wedding vendor?

 

[Redfish]

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

If I had a business that is open to the public, I'd shelve any animosity toward people who offend me, I would not discriminate. As for my private associations, I have friends whose politics run along the greed inspired, to-hell-with-the -environment, hate and fear people I don't understand, Conservative vein. But we do not discuss politics.

That's the difference between public accommodation and personal associations.

That's good for you. It still doesn't mean the government should be able to punish thought and actions that are 1) not criminal and 2) do not disparately impact a person beyond hurt feelings.

And businesses are not permitted to discriminate if no one has committed a crime and the business does not specifically hurt someone.

Discriminating against homosexuals isn't just for the amusement of the homophobe anymore. It's just plain wrong.

Then every religion is wrong by your logic, and Churches should be forced to accommodate the same thing. If you are going to ignore people's rights and force them to accept something you want them to accept, why stop there?

Just because something is "wrong", then the power of the State must be used to punish these people? That's statism, fascism, and THAT is whats wrong.

The worst thing is its basically bullying, and because you agree with it, you cheer it on. You make me sick.

Going to church, even if that church preaches false doctrine including hatred and fear, is something folks do as a choice for their spiritual well being.

Going to a public business and encountering hatred, fear, bigotry and utter ignorance should NOT be tolerated in a free society.

Businesses open to the public must accommodate that public, unless that individual patron is committing a crime.

Bigoted business owners were a dime a dozen in the Jim Crow south. That was despicable and unjustifiable. Such businesses created, in effect, a group of second class citizens.

Public business means public accommodations. If the bigot behind the counter fails to understand that, then their business license should be revoked.

ok, since wytchey ran away, you tell us why a gay couple would want to do business with a business that does not agree with the gay lifestyle?

Why not buy your cake from a baker that is gay or approves of gay weddings? why would you want to patronize the guy who does not approve of gay weddings?

 

[martybegan]

If you believe in the 1st amendment, discrimination based on religious beliefs cannot be illegal. What should be illegal is discrimination by governments, or companies that work for governments, as equality in the law applies to governments.

I have to assume you don't like hanging out with people who disagree with you politically. Isn't your shunning of them discrimination? Should the government force you to hang out with them?

If I had a business that is open to the public, I'd shelve any animosity toward people who offend me, I would not discriminate. As for my private associations, I have friends whose politics run along the greed inspired, to-hell-with-the -environment, hate and fear people I don't understand, Conservative vein. But we do not discuss politics.

That's the difference between public accommodation and personal associations.

That's good for you. It still doesn't mean the government should be able to punish thought and actions that are 1) not criminal and 2) do not disparately impact a person beyond hurt feelings.

And businesses are not permitted to discriminate if no one has committed a crime and the business does not specifically hurt someone.

Discriminating against homosexuals isn't just for the amusement of the homophobe anymore. It's just plain wrong.

Then every religion is wrong by your logic, and Churches should be forced to accommodate the same thing. If you are going to ignore people's rights and force them to accept something you want them to accept, why stop there?

Just because something is "wrong", then the power of the State must be used to punish these people? That's statism, fascism, and THAT is whats wrong.

The worst thing is its basically bullying, and because you agree with it, you cheer it on. You make me sick.

Going to church, even if that church preaches false doctrine including hatred and fear, is something folks do as a choice for their spiritual well being.

Going to a public business and encountering hatred, fear, bigotry and utter ignorance should NOT be tolerated in a free society.

Businesses open to the public must accommodate that public, unless that individual patron is committing a crime.

Bigoted business owners were a dime a dozen in the Jim Crow south. That was despicable and unjustifiable. Such businesses created, in effect, a group of second class citizens.

Public business means public accommodations. If the bigot behind the counter fails to understand that, then their business license should be revoked.

Jim Crow was government enforced, most businesses did not have a choice. It was government creating the 2nd class citizens, just like you are trying to do now with religious people who do not share your sense of morality.

So the choice for these people is either follow YOUR moral compass or starve?

How compassionate.

 

[Redfish]

question for wytch or one of you libs.

Why would a gay couple want to do business with a baker who does not approve of the gay lifestyle?

Why does that business owner have to express his disapproval? Is a wedding only a legitimate wedding if it has the empremator of a wedding vendor?

Is he the only baker in town? why would you want him to bake your gay cake?

come on, be truthful------------this is all about forcing societal acceptance of gay marriage by taking away freedom of thought and belief.

 

[Redfish]

If I had a business that is open to the public, I'd shelve any animosity toward people who offend me, I would not discriminate. As for my private associations, I have friends whose politics run along the greed inspired, to-hell-with-the -environment, hate and fear people I don't understand, Conservative vein. But we do not discuss politics.

That's the difference between public accommodation and personal associations.

That's good for you. It still doesn't mean the government should be able to punish thought and actions that are 1) not criminal and 2) do not disparately impact a person beyond hurt feelings.

And businesses are not permitted to discriminate if no one has committed a crime and the business does not specifically hurt someone.

Discriminating against homosexuals isn't just for the amusement of the homophobe anymore. It's just plain wrong.

Then every religion is wrong by your logic, and Churches should be forced to accommodate the same thing. If you are going to ignore people's rights and force them to accept something you want them to accept, why stop there?

Just because something is "wrong", then the power of the State must be used to punish these people? That's statism, fascism, and THAT is whats wrong.

The worst thing is its basically bullying, and because you agree with it, you cheer it on. You make me sick.

Going to church, even if that church preaches false doctrine including hatred and fear, is something folks do as a choice for their spiritual well being.

Going to a public business and encountering hatred, fear, bigotry and utter ignorance should NOT be tolerated in a free society.

Businesses open to the public must accommodate that public, unless that individual patron is committing a crime.

Bigoted business owners were a dime a dozen in the Jim Crow south. That was despicable and unjustifiable. Such businesses created, in effect, a group of second class citizens.

Public business means public accommodations. If the bigot behind the counter fails to understand that, then their business license should be revoked.

Jim Crow was government enforced, most businesses did not have a choice. It was government creating the 2nd class citizens, just like you are trying to do now with religious people who do not share your sense of morality.

So the choice for these people is either follow YOUR moral compass or starve?

How compassionate.

government mandated societal acceptance-----------orwell and rand saw it coming.

you must be punished if you do not believe what the government tells you to believe.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why does that business owner have to express his disapproval? Is a wedding only a legitimate wedding if it has the empremator of a wedding vendor?

You have overplayed your hand. Not content with equal rights, you sought instead to impose your beliefs on others through force - you expected public support and are now surprised that the public reviles you.

I support your right to do whatever you please, insofar that you do not infringe the rights of others. Because you have violated the second precept. you lose the support of those who advocate for civil rights.

 

[Seawytch]

And yet there are still people that believe the bible supports their position on race and those bible verses haven't changed, they are just mostly ignored now...because society changed.

It was societal pressure that changed their views just like it will be for gays. Give it 20 years and the "theological debate" will have removed gay from your "sin" category.

Wishful thinking. In no part of the texts is racism defined the same way homosexuality is defined. You are comparing apples and typewriters.

This is totally classic. You don't think it's there, but they are sure it is. The bible verses about race are just as clear to the racist bigots as "gay is a sin" is clear to anti gay bigots. You don't have to believe it, they do. Why do your "rights" trump theirs? Oh, right...because YOU disagree with their assessment.

It's not what I agree or disagree with, its what individual people agree to believe in. And again, a person can claim a red house is blue all they want, and have charts and documents to back them up, it still doesn't give any validity to their arguments.

As for any of this mattering when it comes to PA laws, the issue is yes, the racists should be able to deny service to anyone they want as long as their service does not involve government, or involve necessary commerce. My point is simply to counter those pointing out racism in the bible as being comparable to homosexuality in the bible, which is clearly not the case to 99.99% of the faithful out there.

What is defined as "necessary commerce" is left up to who exactly? Why should bakers and florists get this special "religious liberty" of yours and grocery stores and gas stations don't?

Because of the compelling interest of the government when it comes to certain forms of commerce, and of course travel, which is a protected right. Being denied a hotel room, the ability to travel, or to buy the necessities of life are true detriments to be people. Furthermore none of those transactions require the people providing the good or service to attend or participate in any acts that the providers may see as sinful or distasteful. The hurt feelings of anyone, in my opinion, is not worth government intervention in the private dealings of citizens.

Baking a cake or renting out a facility doesn't require participation in the event either.

 

[Seawytch]

If I had a business that is open to the public, I'd shelve any animosity toward people who offend me, I would not discriminate. As for my private associations, I have friends whose politics run along the greed inspired, to-hell-with-the -environment, hate and fear people I don't understand, Conservative vein. But we do not discuss politics.

That's the difference between public accommodation and personal associations.

That's good for you. It still doesn't mean the government should be able to punish thought and actions that are 1) not criminal and 2) do not disparately impact a person beyond hurt feelings.

And businesses are not permitted to discriminate if no one has committed a crime and the business does not specifically hurt someone.

Discriminating against homosexuals isn't just for the amusement of the homophobe anymore. It's just plain wrong.

Then every religion is wrong by your logic, and Churches should be forced to accommodate the same thing. If you are going to ignore people's rights and force them to accept something you want them to accept, why stop there?

Just because something is "wrong", then the power of the State must be used to punish these people? That's statism, fascism, and THAT is whats wrong.

The worst thing is its basically bullying, and because you agree with it, you cheer it on. You make me sick.

Going to church, even if that church preaches false doctrine including hatred and fear, is something folks do as a choice for their spiritual well being.

Going to a public business and encountering hatred, fear, bigotry and utter ignorance should NOT be tolerated in a free society.

Businesses open to the public must accommodate that public, unless that individual patron is committing a crime.

Bigoted business owners were a dime a dozen in the Jim Crow south. That was despicable and unjustifiable. Such businesses created, in effect, a group of second class citizens.

Public business means public accommodations. If the bigot behind the counter fails to understand that, then their business license should be revoked.

ok, since wytchey ran away, you tell us why a gay couple would want to do business with a business that does not agree with the gay lifestyle?

Why not buy your cake from a baker that is gay or approves of gay weddings? why would you want to patronize the guy who does not approve of gay weddings?

Some people work Fishy.

Explain Title II of the CRA.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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.

And the religion you constantly defend welcomes gay marriage ?

 

[martybegan]

Wishful thinking. In no part of the texts is racism defined the same way homosexuality is defined. You are comparing apples and typewriters.

This is totally classic. You don't think it's there, but they are sure it is. The bible verses about race are just as clear to the racist bigots as "gay is a sin" is clear to anti gay bigots. You don't have to believe it, they do. Why do your "rights" trump theirs? Oh, right...because YOU disagree with their assessment.

It's not what I agree or disagree with, its what individual people agree to believe in. And again, a person can claim a red house is blue all they want, and have charts and documents to back them up, it still doesn't give any validity to their arguments.

As for any of this mattering when it comes to PA laws, the issue is yes, the racists should be able to deny service to anyone they want as long as their service does not involve government, or involve necessary commerce. My point is simply to counter those pointing out racism in the bible as being comparable to homosexuality in the bible, which is clearly not the case to 99.99% of the faithful out there.

What is defined as "necessary commerce" is left up to who exactly? Why should bakers and florists get this special "religious liberty" of yours and grocery stores and gas stations don't?

Because of the compelling interest of the government when it comes to certain forms of commerce, and of course travel, which is a protected right. Being denied a hotel room, the ability to travel, or to buy the necessities of life are true detriments to be people. Furthermore none of those transactions require the people providing the good or service to attend or participate in any acts that the providers may see as sinful or distasteful. The hurt feelings of anyone, in my opinion, is not worth government intervention in the private dealings of citizens.

Baking a cake or renting out a facility doesn't require participation in the event either.

in a way it does. Selling someone a cup of coffee at a counter does not require the level of interaction hosting a wedding or providing a custom cake for a wedding does. Usually the providers will attend the event, and are part of it even in a limited way.