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

[Mac1958]

Gays could not have their weddings at the family's home on their farm before this lawsuit. They STILL can't have them at this home even after the fine. What did they "win"?

No "home" was invaded. The farm is owned by Liberty Ridge Farms, LLC - the Giffords rent the barn which has 3-stories. The 2nd and 3rd are used as part of their private residence and the 1st floor is a 2400 square foot banquet hall which hey rent out for commerce.

Their "home" was no more in question then a pizza parlor owner who ran a shop out of the first floor and lived in an apartment on the 2nd floor of a business building.

>>>>

Since gays still cannot have their weddings at this location what did they win?

They were able to punish someone for their beliefs and intimidate many others.

That's all that matters here.

.

 

[Redfish]

I wonder if any of the gay/libs in this thread support forcing muslim butchers to sell pork chops and bacon.

Do muslims butchers sell pork chops to ....anyone?

No, but their refusal to sell them is based on religion and it offends pork eaters everywhere.

The analogy is valid. A butcher sells meat, a cake maker sells cakes.

 

[Redfish]

I am still waiting for one of you gay/libs to explain why you would want an anti-gay baker to make your wedding cake. I am sure you could find a baker who has no problem with gay marriage. Why would you want to give your business to someone who does not approve of your lifestyle? Why would you want to increase his profit?

I know the answer, I just wish that one of you would be honest enough to answer it truthfully.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No business has been asked or required to sell a product they do not carry. Yours is a strawman.

Wedding cake #3 is wedding cake #3.

You have demanded that people be forced by law to perform homosexual weddings, against their religious beliefs. You argue that since the perform normal weddings, they are your slave and you have the right to force them to do your bidding.

This is no different at all than claiming that since a Halal butcher sells other meats, I can force them to my will to sell me pork.

Instead of accepting equal rights, you decided to infringe the rights of others.

You have overplayed your hand- you have lost the support of many civil libertarians.

 

[martybegan]

You defend them only to the point where they can practice their religion in hiding, and can be forced to go against their beliefs when it comes to providing a product or service, that makes you the bigot.

Bigots embrace hatred. I, on the other hand, embrace liberty and equality.

Bigots have used the thin veneer of 'religion' to foment hate. Meanwhile, my understanding of religion is that of egalitarianism, love and peace.

Religion as an aegis for bigotry, is a perversion of religion.

Not wanting to attend something you find sinful is not "hatred." Not wanting to participate in a ceremony that celebrates something you find sinful is not hatred. You only embrace liberty and equality as long as those trying to experience it believe exactly in what you believe.

You have moved the goalposts on hatred to the point where all it means is disagreeing with someone on a social issue.

Wedding vendors are not invited guests? All a wedding vendor has to do is provide the services they are contracted to supply. Refusing to provide said services on the grounds that your 'religion' prohibits business dealings with homosexuals is the topic, not participating in or attending the wedding. No florist is expected to do anything beyond providing floral arrangements. They don't bring a food processor wrapped in silver paper as a gift. Those florists aren't called upon to light a candle in the church or make a toast at the reception. They are expected to provide the same services at any other wedding they have been contracted for.

You have moved the goalposts and now claim wedding vendors as honored guests and participants.

They attend, their products are services are provided for a celebration of something they find sinful. Why you people hang up on it being a business vs. a private person is beyond me. You are forcing someone to do something they do not want to do by government fiat.

Lets use an argumentum ad absurdum example. Would a religious store be forced to sell a statue a Jesus to a Satanist who has stated his intent to defecate on the statue and smash it into bits afterwards?

Yes they should sell the statue. Once the price is paid, it's entirely up to the customer what they should do with their purchase. It is, after all, a statue, not a relic.

What about a DJ who plays for a bar party on Friday night where homosexuals are dancing to a lively three song set by the Indigo Girls, and then the DJ packs up his gear for a Saturday afternoon same sex wedding. He may hate the idea of playing at a same sex wedding. But he played last night for a crowd including homosexuals.

Is a wedding any different? Are marriages only legitimate if the vendors who service that wedding approve?

So he should be forced to sell the statue, one he knows will be desecrated? YOUR morality doesn't care about the statue, THEIRS just might. Who are you to judge them, and more importantly, what right does government have to rule on them?

And yes, a wedding is different. Most people who think homosexuality is sinful do not care if people are all gay and stuff, what they care about is being forced to participate in something that they find sinful, or yes, even repulsive. A DJ at a party that is not all about gayness (which a gay wedding is) may not even notice the frolicing around, and besides the point, being gay is not the crux of the celebration. a gay wedding is all about that.

 

[martybegan]

Gays could not have their weddings at the family's home on their farm before this lawsuit. They STILL can't have them at this home even after the fine. What did they "win"?

No "home" was invaded. The farm is owned by Liberty Ridge Farms, LLC - the Giffords rent the barn which has 3-stories. The 2nd and 3rd are used as part of their private residence and the 1st floor is a 2400 square foot banquet hall which hey rent out for commerce.

Their "home" was no more in question then a pizza parlor owner who ran a shop out of the first floor and lived in an apartment on the 2nd floor of a business building.



>>>>

Since gays still cannot have their weddings at this location what did they win?

The business now accurately advertizes their business model as Liberty Ridge Farms doesn't put forth to the pubic that they hold wedding ceremonies on property. LRF though still provides for wedding receptions - irregardless of the gender of the married couple.



>>>>

They won the right to be called assholes, that's about it.

 

[martybegan]

The only thing I hate is people using government to force others to do things they don't want to do when it comes to non essential chickenshit like this.

A person providing a wedding cake is providing a direct service, not just baking 20 cakes and putting them on a display. In that case the person's sexuality would never even come up.

If we're talking about one's personal life, you and I are on the same page. But business is public and well within the authority of the State to regulate. And its completely reasonable to require those doing business in your State to subscribe to basic rules of conduct and fairness when dealing with their customers. Denying a customer service because they are a Catholic or a Jew or gay or black is simply unacceptable behavior in the public venue of commerce. As these are by their very nature public encounters.

If we're talking about religion in a church, or one's personal life, you should have the right to discriminate to your heart's content

Though for once, I'd like to see a conservative expression of 'freedom' that doesn't involve treating others like pieces of shit.

The government should only get involved in necessary commerce. Who you get to give you your wedding cake does not rise the to the level of necessary commerce. You are for forcing people to either choose to swallow their morals, or go out of buisiness, and that is quite frankly, bullshit. Only government should be forced to be neutral, and I can see certain point services, like fuel, hotels, staples and medical treatment.

These people do not want to treat "others like shit" they want to be left alone to provide the service of their choosing. YOU are advocating treating people like shit, and whats worse, using government to do it.

And who makes that call? You?

Its pretty simple to figure out, and THAT is why we have courts, to interpret law, not create law.

Marty, New York's anti-discrimination law that covers age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, marital status, or disability was created by the Legislature and not the courts.



>>>>

and when they interpret everything under the sun to be a public accommodation, that's where they can be blamed.

and since creed is included how is this not all discriminating against people based on religion? Oh yes, the whole "if you own a business you lose your rights" clause of the constitution, i forgot about that one.

 

[kaz]

NY Farm That Refused To Host Lesbian Wedding Fined $13,000.

You are an advertisement that maybe discriminating against fags isn't entirely a bad idea. It's not like they were Jews, that discrimination would have been OK, wouldn't it gay boy?

 

[bodecea]

Gays could not have their weddings at the family's home on their farm before this lawsuit. They STILL can't have them at this home even after the fine. What did they "win"?

You know it was not a case of "winning" anything, right?

 

[bodecea]

NY Farm That Refused To Host Lesbian Wedding Fined $13,000.

You are an advertisement that maybe discriminating against fags isn't entirely a bad idea. It's not like they were Jews, that discrimination would have been OK, wouldn't it gay boy?

Ironically, Kaz, if that couple had done the same thing to a Jewish couple, the state of NY would have fined them just the same.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If we're talking about one's personal life, you and I are on the same page. But business is public and well within the authority of the State to regulate. And its completely reasonable to require those doing business in your State to subscribe to basic rules of conduct and fairness when dealing with their customers. Denying a customer service because they are a Catholic or a Jew or gay or black is simply unacceptable behavior in the public venue of commerce. As these are by their very nature public encounters.

If we're talking about religion in a church, or one's personal life, you should have the right to discriminate to your heart's content

Though for once, I'd like to see a conservative expression of 'freedom' that doesn't involve treating others like pieces of shit.

The government should only get involved in necessary commerce. Who you get to give you your wedding cake does not rise the to the level of necessary commerce. You are for forcing people to either choose to swallow their morals, or go out of buisiness, and that is quite frankly, bullshit. Only government should be forced to be neutral, and I can see certain point services, like fuel, hotels, staples and medical treatment.

These people do not want to treat "others like shit" they want to be left alone to provide the service of their choosing. YOU are advocating treating people like shit, and whats worse, using government to do it.

And who makes that call? You?

Its pretty simple to figure out, and THAT is why we have courts, to interpret law, not create law.

Marty, New York's anti-discrimination law that covers age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, marital status, or disability was created by the Legislature and not the courts.



>>>>

and when they interpret everything under the sun to be a public accommodation, that's where they can be blamed.

The LEGISLATURE, not the court, included the language in New York's Pubic Accommodation Law defining a place of Public Accommodation to be "wholesale and retail stores and establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind" - NOT the court.

The court is not to blame for applying the law that the legislature wrote, which is what you claimed.

and since creed is included how is this not all discriminating against people based on religion? Oh yes, the whole "if you own a business you lose your rights" clause of the constitution, i forgot about that one.

Are there certain religions that are exempt and yet other are not? That would be unconstitutional, however the law is applied equally for all businesses.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

The government should only get involved in necessary commerce. Who you get to give you your wedding cake does not rise the to the level of necessary commerce. You are for forcing people to either choose to swallow their morals, or go out of buisiness, and that is quite frankly, bullshit. Only government should be forced to be neutral, and I can see certain point services, like fuel, hotels, staples and medical treatment.

These people do not want to treat "others like shit" they want to be left alone to provide the service of their choosing. YOU are advocating treating people like shit, and whats worse, using government to do it.

And who makes that call? You?

Its pretty simple to figure out, and THAT is why we have courts, to interpret law, not create law.

Marty, New York's anti-discrimination law that covers age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, marital status, or disability was created by the Legislature and not the courts.



>>>>

and when they interpret everything under the sun to be a public accommodation, that's where they can be blamed.

The LEGISLATURE, not the court, included the language in New York's Pubic Accommodation Law defining a place of Public Accommodation to be "wholesale and retail stores and establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind" - NOT the court.

The court is not to blame for applying the law that the legislature wrote, which is what you claimed.

and since creed is included how is this not all discriminating against people based on religion? Oh yes, the whole "if you own a business you lose your rights" clause of the constitution, i forgot about that one.

Are there certain religions that are exempt and yet other are not? That would be unconstitutional, however the law is applied equally for all businesses.


>>>>

The law is stupid, but hey, this is NY so stupidity is expected.

I just can't wait for a Christian Identity person to go to a black baker and ask for a "I hate *******" cake.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You know it was not a case of "winning" anything, right?

You seek to crush civil rights.

You are at war to end 1st Amendment protections of those rights - you certainly seek to win that war.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And who makes that call? You?

Its pretty simple to figure out, and THAT is why we have courts, to interpret law, not create law.

Marty, New York's anti-discrimination law that covers age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, marital status, or disability was created by the Legislature and not the courts.



>>>>

and when they interpret everything under the sun to be a public accommodation, that's where they can be blamed.

The LEGISLATURE, not the court, included the language in New York's Pubic Accommodation Law defining a place of Public Accommodation to be "wholesale and retail stores and establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind" - NOT the court.

The court is not to blame for applying the law that the legislature wrote, which is what you claimed.

and since creed is included how is this not all discriminating against people based on religion? Oh yes, the whole "if you own a business you lose your rights" clause of the constitution, i forgot about that one.

Are there certain religions that are exempt and yet other are not? That would be unconstitutional, however the law is applied equally for all businesses.


>>>>

The law is stupid, but hey, this is NY so stupidity is expected.

As you know we both agree that Public Accommodation laws should be repealed. That wasn't the point.

You made incorrect claims about the court actions and what the law said, that is what I was correcting you on. Public Accommodation laws are constitutional they have been upheld at all levels of the court system up to and including the SCOTUS. To stomp your feet and say they aren't isn't a recognition of reality. The only why to remove the laws is to make a well reasoned argument in the debate that they are no longer needed and should be repealed.

Not "special rights" for one group to discriminate only against the gays, but the laws in general - as applied to private businesses - should be repealed and rights of property and association of ALL merchants be respected.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

No business has been asked or required to sell a product they do not carry. Yours is a strawman.

Wedding cake #3 is wedding cake #3.

You have demanded that people be forced by law to perform homosexual weddings, against their religious beliefs. You argue that since the perform normal weddings, they are your slave and you have the right to force them to do your bidding.

This is no different at all than claiming that since a Halal butcher sells other meats, I can force them to my will to sell me pork.

Instead of accepting equal rights, you decided to infringe the rights of others.

You have overplayed your hand- you have lost the support of many civil libertarians.

Nobody has been asked or required to provide a service they do not. A cake is a cake. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. Same flour, eggs and sugar.

Race, color, nation of origin and religion all have the protection of Public Accommodation laws. It is not suddenly "tyranny" if gays are ALSO protected in SOME places.

 

[bodecea]

I wonder if any of the gay/libs in this thread support forcing muslim butchers to sell pork chops and bacon.

Do muslims butchers sell pork chops to ....anyone?

No, but their refusal to sell them is based on religion and it offends pork eaters everywhere.

The analogy is valid. A butcher sells meat, a cake maker sells cakes.

Wrong.....the analogy isn't valid and I worry about your comprehension skills that you cannot see the difference between a business that usually offers a set product and refuses to sell that set product to a particular group......vs. a business that never sells a set product to anyone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nobody has been asked or required to provide a service they do not. A cake is a cake. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. Same flour, eggs and sugar.

First off, read the OP - this is not about a cake, it is about forcing unwilling people to violate their religious beliefs and perform a wedding for lesbians.

Now meat is meat - but yet you hesitate to offend your allies by demanding that Muslims be forced to sell pork.

Race, color, nation of origin and religion all have the protection of Public Accommodation laws. It is not suddenly "tyranny" if gays are ALSO protected in SOME places.

There are plenty of places happy to cater to homosexuals - this couple deliberately targeted this farm for the purpose of infringing their rights - to make the point that others have no rights. This isn't the first time, but in fact a pattern.

You've overplayed your hand, and are just now beginning to see the backlash to your war on civil rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays could not have their weddings at the family's home on their farm before this lawsuit. They STILL can't have them at this home even after the fine. What did they "win"?

No "home" was invaded. The farm is owned by Liberty Ridge Farms, LLC - the Giffords rent the barn which has 3-stories. The 2nd and 3rd are used as part of their private residence and the 1st floor is a 2400 square foot banquet hall which hey rent out for commerce.

Their "home" was no more in question then a pizza parlor owner who ran a shop out of the first floor and lived in an apartment on the 2nd floor of a business building.



>>>>

Since gays still cannot have their weddings at this location what did they win?

The business now accurately advertizes their business model as Liberty Ridge Farms doesn't put forth to the pubic that they hold wedding ceremonies on property. LRF though still provides for wedding receptions - irregardless of the gender of the married couple.



>>>>

Gays could not have a wedding at this location prior to the complaint. They cannot have their wedding at this location now. What was gained? What changed? How is it better or even different?

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays have done nothing except have businesses change some business practices. They still can't get unwilling bakers make their wedding cakes or unwilling photographers make them albums.

 

[Nosmo King]

Bigots embrace hatred. I, on the other hand, embrace liberty and equality.

Bigots have used the thin veneer of 'religion' to foment hate. Meanwhile, my understanding of religion is that of egalitarianism, love and peace.

Religion as an aegis for bigotry, is a perversion of religion.

Not wanting to attend something you find sinful is not "hatred." Not wanting to participate in a ceremony that celebrates something you find sinful is not hatred. You only embrace liberty and equality as long as those trying to experience it believe exactly in what you believe.

You have moved the goalposts on hatred to the point where all it means is disagreeing with someone on a social issue.

Wedding vendors are not invited guests? All a wedding vendor has to do is provide the services they are contracted to supply. Refusing to provide said services on the grounds that your 'religion' prohibits business dealings with homosexuals is the topic, not participating in or attending the wedding. No florist is expected to do anything beyond providing floral arrangements. They don't bring a food processor wrapped in silver paper as a gift. Those florists aren't called upon to light a candle in the church or make a toast at the reception. They are expected to provide the same services at any other wedding they have been contracted for.

You have moved the goalposts and now claim wedding vendors as honored guests and participants.

They attend, their products are services are provided for a celebration of something they find sinful. Why you people hang up on it being a business vs. a private person is beyond me. You are forcing someone to do something they do not want to do by government fiat.

Lets use an argumentum ad absurdum example. Would a religious store be forced to sell a statue a Jesus to a Satanist who has stated his intent to defecate on the statue and smash it into bits afterwards?

Yes they should sell the statue. Once the price is paid, it's entirely up to the customer what they should do with their purchase. It is, after all, a statue, not a relic.

What about a DJ who plays for a bar party on Friday night where homosexuals are dancing to a lively three song set by the Indigo Girls, and then the DJ packs up his gear for a Saturday afternoon same sex wedding. He may hate the idea of playing at a same sex wedding. But he played last night for a crowd including homosexuals.

Is a wedding any different? Are marriages only legitimate if the vendors who service that wedding approve?

So he should be forced to sell the statue, one he knows will be desecrated? YOUR morality doesn't care about the statue, THEIRS just might. Who are you to judge them, and more importantly, what right does government have to rule on them?

And yes, a wedding is different. Most people who think homosexuality is sinful do not care if people are all gay and stuff, what they care about is being forced to participate in something that they find sinful, or yes, even repulsive. A DJ at a party that is not all about gayness (which a gay wedding is) may not even notice the frolicing around, and besides the point, being gay is not the crux of the celebration. a gay wedding is all about that.

Do 'Christian' merchants post a "No Desecration" policy in their stores? Once the purchase is made, the business owner does no bear any responsibility for how or where their merchandise is used. Does the Satanist have the right to express his religious freedom? Should the store owner monitor how the artifacts he is selling are used? Is there any business with such a burden?

And what fears motivate the bigots you defend? Are they afraid that, by supplying their services for a same sex wedding, that some of that Gay might rub off either actually or by reputation? Must these ignorant, uttedrly stupid homophobic merchants approve of each and every wedding they service?