E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTwo New York state women who were denied their dream wedding site because they are gay have filed a discrimination complaint that could set a precedent for whether businesses can choose their clientele.
The complaint with the state Division of Human Rights appears to be a first involving a wedding venue since same-sex marriage became legal in New York in July 2011, according to advocates on both sides of the issue. One prominent gay marriage opponent said the case could test the breadth of the law's religious freedom language.
Melisa Erwin and Jennie McCarthy, both 29 and of Albany, filed the complaint on Oct. 11 after Liberty Ridge Farm said they would not host their wedding next summer. The two women have been together for three years, according to WNYT-TV.
When the owners, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, found out they were gay, they refused to book their wedding.
Erwin told WNYT-TV's Abigail Bleck that Cynthia Gifford said that when she found out, “Well, now we have a problem.”
“When we asked why,” Erwin said, Cynthia Gifford replied, “My husband and I have been married a really long time and it’s great that you’re getting married, but you can’t do it here.”
Robert Gifford told WNYT-TV: “I think it’s our right to choose who we market to, like any business.”
The farm has refused to allow two gay couples to get married at their venue, WNYT-TV reported.
“We are a family business and we feel we ought to stay down the family path,” Gifford said.
The couple is no longer considering the farm as a wedding venue, but McCarthy said, "we just want to know that the policy is being changed to fit the laws so this doesn't happen to anyone else."
People took to Liberty Ridge Farm’s Facebook page to post messages of disgust or support.
Wrote one commenter beneath images of a family harvest event: “Stay on the family path. These are individuals who have no respect for Christian beliefs or moral beliefs. You done the right thing. They are the ones that are in the wrong.”
New York law exempts some religious-oriented institutions from having to accommodate same-sex weddings.
But Attorney David Fallon told WNYT-TV the law does not allow a “place of public accommodation” to discriminate but that judges haven’t interpreted the law.
“It seems like the women would have a strong argument that it is a place of public accommodation,” Fallon said.
If state officials determine there is a case of discrimination, they can order Liberty Ridge to take appropriate action and can set monetary damages. The division's administrative determination can be appealed to state courts.
There is at least one similar court case in New York. In September, a gay couple in Manhattan filed a lawsuit against a restaurant they allege canceled their rehearsal dinner and refused to cater their wedding after a manager said he did not want any "gay parties." The restaurant disputes the claim.
In August, a Vermont inn agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to that state's Human Rights Commission and to place $20,000 in a charitable trust to settle a lawsuit that accused the business of refusing to host a wedding reception for two women.
Back in New York, Erwin emphasized on WNYT-TV’s Facebook page that she and McCarthy are not suing.
“We are not seeking compensation,” she said. “We are seeking a change in policy.”
NBC's Isolde Raftery contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Wisconsin salon shooter's estranged wife among dead
- Russell Means, Indian activist and actor, dies at 72
- Wrongful death lawsuit filed against Anaheim police
- Police search for missing 12-year-old girl in New Jersey
- Chunk of meteorite falls onto San Francisco home
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
The law is the law. If your business can't deny services to black people or the handicapped, then you can't deny service to gays. This place isn't a church anyway.
A private business may do whatever it likes. If Curves fitness centers deny access to all men, is Curves breaking the law ?
If battered women's shelters denies access to batted men, are the women's shelters violating federal funding guidelines ?
If hospitals offer routine genital surgery for boy infants but not girl infants, are any federal laws broken ?
Homosexuals want to walk all over everyone else's rights to get their way. This couple should be able to pice and choose their clients and they should be able to do it based on their personal values - it is their land. Color of skin has nothing to do with behavior, so, comparing blacks to homosexuals is not the same. In fact comparing blacks to homosexuals should be considered discrimination to blacks. You don't choose your skin color but you can control your actions and behavior. Murderers are expected to behave as well as retarded people, or they don't have freedom. Homosexuals don't want to be treated for their abnormal behavior, so, they should not be given the same freedoms. See how homosexuals have attacked children by teaching them that homosexuality is normal and for tolerance so homosexuals can advance their perversion?
If this business is owned privately, the owners are allowed to make the rules of their business. If they want a family styled business they should be able to do this. I understand that equal rights, but if someone chooses to run a family styled business an alternate life style should not be forced upon that business.
Almost any court will side with this couple. Under interpretations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act service cannot be denied unless a legitimate business reasons being achieved. Denying a couple a service offered opposite sex couples has no such legitimate purpose.
I'm for equal rights but that also means if the owner(s) of a business is against gay marriage as it goes against their religion or even just personal beliefs, then find a new place to get married. All people have the right to their personal or religious beliefs, if a place refused to marry straight people, same thing, go elsewhere. I wouldn't want to horn in where I wasn't wanted. They would just lose out on all of my business.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964:
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this
section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The Marriage Equality Act is a 2011 New York State law that allows gender-neutral marriages for both same- and opposite-sex couples, while prohibiting state and local courts and governments from penalizing religious and religious-supervised institutions, their employees, or clergy for refusing to sanctify or recognize marriages in contradiction with their religious doctrines, or for refusing to provide services and accommodations for such weddings.
[[It seems to me that their refusal is not a violation of either law. They cannot be forced to participate.]]
Very well said, F Walsh. Too many people think they have the right to not be offended. That isn't the case. If something offends you, move along. I'm so sick of how this county has gone from a country of courageous heroes to a country of self-perceived "victims" that try to force others to like them through lawyers. Love, tolerance, and acceptance are all two-way streets. The only thing that will come out of this type of force is more resentment.
To AConcernedReader ... you don't like the comparison between sexual orientation and race because the former is a behavior. How about religion? This is clearly a learned behavior and not a physical characteristic that you are born with. So should this business owner be allowed to deny a Jew or Muslim access to their services because of their beliefs? If you want to do business in this country you shouldn't get to pick and choose who your customers are based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.
And all evidence shows you can't chose your attraction either. Or did it totally skip your mind that homosexuality is an attraction, more than it is the acts?
Mario 69, this is where you're argument falls apart. This business does not fall under these protections. It is not a religious institution, nor a religious-supervised institution. See below:
Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA), passed in 2003.
I agree with you F Walsh and Mommyof3, however, does that really apply here? To me, if you spill hot coffee on yourself that you reasonably know is going to be hot, you should not be able to sue. That is a victim.
According to the article, they are not looking for monetary compensation. I can't vouch for that or against it. I can only tell you that if I was treated the same way---no matter why---I'd be sure to let others know about the shoddy business practices. Does that in turn make me a "victim"? I would say no. Just like the farm is entitled to believe as they want, so can anyone else...including someone who was denied rental. What is rather ironic is the poor farm owners were honest when many others would not be.
PS...homosexuality is not an action or behavior that can be controlled. In the wild, many species have shown homosexual tendencies, even though there is no logical reason for them.
In this country, private businesses still have a chose. These people (owners) should be allowed to practice their religious freedom, even if we do not agree with them.
Its very simple, if you choose to open yourself to the public, you have to let ALL of the public into your establishment.
If you don't want to follow the law, then you can just be a private club. Worked for years for Augusta.
Nothing is preventing them from practicing their religious freedom. They opened themselves up as a private business providing a public accommodation, they have to abide by the rules for doing so.
Once again, your religious practice does not give you a free pass from the law, people.
Mr. Allswell -
Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act, 2002.
Section 11 amends section 296(5) of the Executive Law to prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to private
housing accommodations and commercial space. The bill does not alter,
however, the Executive Law's current exemption for rentals of small,
owner-occupied housing accommodations.
However, the bill also includes:
“The provisions of this paragraph (a) shall not apply (1) to the rental of a housing accommodation in a building which contains housing accommodations for not more than two families living independently of each other, if the owner resides in one of such housing accommodations, (2) to the restriction of the
rental of all rooms in a housing accommodation to individuals of the same sex or (3) to the rental of a room or rooms in a housing accommodation, if such rental is by the occupant of the housing accommodation, or by the owner of the housing accommodation and the owner resides in such housing accommodation or . . .”
[[The Giffords lived at the farm, thus the provisions of section 11 do not apply to their situation.]]
Sigh.
Missed the edit time.
In addition, under NY legal definition of "place of public accommodation":
The NY Courts will have to put their thinking caps on tight for this one. The legislations conflict.
Mario 69, the statute you posted is about renting a domicile, such as an apartment. It is not about renting space for an event.
@JJ #1.8- "To AConcernedReader ... you don't like the comparison between sexual orientation and race because the former is a behavior. How about religion? This is clearly a learned behavior and not a physical characteristic that you are born with. So should this business owner be allowed to deny a Jew or Muslim access to their services because of their beliefs? If you want to do business in this country you shouldn't get to pick and choose who your customers are based on race, religion, or sexual orientation."
religion is NOT a behavior, it is a belief; big difference there pal, learn it!
Neither is sexual orientation; it is an orientation, not a behavior; big difference THERE, pal, learn it!
I come down firmly on the side of the lesbian couple in this case, as does the law. The farm cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, etc., or any other protected category, regardless of their personal beliefs. If they want to practice their personal beliefs on the farm, then give up the business license and stop advertising and accepting paid clientele. Barring that, they have no leg to stand on. I suppose they could reorganize as some sort of qualifying "religious" organization but that would bring a whole new level of scrutiny to their business practices and I doubt they would be successful.
You can't have it both ways. If you are inviting the public in to pay you to enjoy your farm, you lose the right to practice private discrimination on it. Period.
Wrong. The gay community is once again pushing their lifestyle down everyon'e throats. We don't all believe in same sex marriage. Go somewhere that welcomes you. I'm sure there are plenty of places.
It amazes me how the gays are going to force theirselves on straight people regardless whether we want to be involved or not. They do this just because they think they can and for no other reason but to say "look at me" I'm gay and you're going to like it! And all this because they like the same genitalia, as their own, in their face. How pathetic.
I come down firmly against any homosexual couple that walks in into a private establishment and expects to be catered to as the norm. Sorry, but they are simply imposing their learned behavior on a business that has certain moral values and who refuses to compromise them for the sake of the "new morality." The answer is to go somewhere else where that pertinent behavior is acceptable. My opinion is and will always be the same. Don't try to impose your perversion on us. Go where they cater to your learned behavior.
I do not see the point of the complaint..... Who would want to have their wedding in a place that does not want or value your business? You cannot force people to accept you, which is what they seem to be looking for.
As for the laws, small businesses like this should be exempt, and able to accept or reject business for any reason they want. They are, after all, only hurting themselves by turning business away.
I am sure there are many different places that would love to host their wedding.....
Bravo for the owners. Stand up for your beliefs and don't be bullied into accepting a perverted lifestyle. They can go elsewhere and have their reception. Voting is coming up in my state about this very issue.
I'm with Blondness. Why would you want to be somewhere that finds your lifestyle abhorrent or a perversion? Seriously? The world is full of people who believe we are all one people and should not judge . Let God sort it out. So why choose a venue where your beliefs would be put down and your friends and family could be made to feel uncompfortable. There is no law that says the Farm couldn't post religious scripture spelling out the story of Soddom is there? Just more who shot John and look at me I'm special. If I were to plan a wedding I would want a place that suited me. Crazy.
any and all commercial services must be in accordance with the law. Civil rights must be applied. Although, i disagree with same sex marriage, this one is a pickle. If i am a christian priest , do i perform muslim ceremonies.. no. yet i am not discrimination the religion, I am simply not in a position to cater this service.. If i am a hairdresser, who specialises in straightening womans black hair, can i cater to a white woman who has curls, assuring myself i wont burn her scalp.. maybe its a risk i cannot will not take. So here this apple farm caters to heterosexuals ONLY because ..... (and this where this couple will have to fill in the blanks).. and they can now advertise this policy for futur references. per instance if the owner happens to be a minister, he may be, due to his own religion, unable to go against HIS god's wish to perform what he thinks HIS god disapproves.. hahahahaha
As a business owner I'd say that this business has made a bad move.Not legally a bad move but a customer service bad move.What dummies to turn away a paying customer especially in a downturn economy.Everybody's money is green and that is the reason people are in business.
And the bigots come out in force!
You must've hated it when blacks/women got equal rights.
Nobody gives a @!$%# what you believe. You get to follow the law and the Constitution, or you get to get out of the country.
It amazes me how equal rights is "forcing themselves". It must shatter your precious worldview terribly...or is it making you reevaluate your closet? I mean, studies show the most ardent homophobes are more likely to have homosexual desires...
They don't anymore. They just want the owners to abide by the law.
No business gets to be exempt unless they can prove excluding service is necessary to continue their business (serving drinks to drunks, ejecting harassers, etc).
See above, and learn to read the whole article next time.
There is no point in winning a right and then not using it. In this case, the lesbian couple doesn't want to get married there anymore, and is not seeking financial gain. They simply want to have existing law enforced. That's how it works. Nothing changes if you don't force the issue. There are still a lot of racist bigots in the south, and the law was changed 50 years ago. Someone needs to stand up and demand their rights before anything really changes. That's what this story is about and the parallels between this issue and standard, run-of-the-mill racial bigotry are striking. Just look at some of the comments above. The homophobes are convinced their views are righteous. Check back in 50 years...
Um, allswell - Why don't you convey your logic to the gays:
"You get to follow the law and the Constitution, or you get to get out of the country."
That's what people have been trying to tell the gays for some time, including the residents of 34 - that's THIRTY FOUR - states who have voted AGAINST legalizing marriage for gays. They've voted, and they've spoken with a united voice that gays are free to go to the states who HAVE legalized same sex marriage.
Yet, the gays don't give a crap WHAT the sentiments are of the vast majority. This IS a democratic process, right? THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.
Yes, I realize in THIS CASE the 2 lesbians are living in a state whose laws accommodate their MARRIAGE wishes. But WHY must they INSIST that EVERY OTHER person SUPPORT THEM in their efforts when it comes to personal morals and beliefs being involved? THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THOSE WHO OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES WILL NOOOOTTTTT LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT OF: "Why is it any of your business who someone chooses to lover or marry - that's alllllll we want, really, the same recognition as a couple" etc ad nauseum"...
WHAT A BUNCH OF LYING CRAP!
THAT IS N-O-T alllll THE GAYS WANT! - and they PROVE IT EVERYTIME SOMEONE DOESN'T SUPPORT THEIR IMMORAL DESIRES.
IT is NOT all about you GAYS! GET IT??? We dont WANT you invading schools, churches and businesses INSISTING your perverseness must BE PRESENTED AS "NORMAL". If you want to LIVE THAT WAY - go ahead, that is your RIGHT! Buuttttttt STOP YOUR INCESSANT FORCING OF SUCH VILE PUTRID CHOICES ON EVERYONE WHO DOES N-0-T AGREE WITH IT!
Get it? These are TWO OPPOSING MORAL BELIEFS. They will NEVER be harmonious. So enjoy YOUR LIFE and Live and Let Live. Is THAT too much to ask???
Then I suppose it won't be long before pedophiles start demanding their rights to work as grade-school teachers and babysitters.
Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Let me spell it out in your language...
CIVIL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO A MAJORITY VOTE.
I will laugh when SCOTUS makes this clear and all your precious little laws go swirling down the drain.
By the way, you sound like a child throwing a tantrum cause he doesn't get dessert.
Once again, try and educate yourself before speaking, hm?
Pedophilia, like bestiality and necrophilia, are Paraphilias, not a Sexualities. Sexualities are defined by gender attraction within a species. Paraphilias are also not shown to have any genetic/pre-natal cause, unlike sexuality.
Your 21st century psycho-babble is just that---babble. Modern psychology is fashionably pro-gay, therefore their findings are pc hogwash. What's good today is bad tomorrow, and what's bad today is good tomorrow. There are no absolutes, only the riding of society's tides. God said it is wrong, and He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. All you idiots are doing is fueling more resentment and hatred.
Tired, it's too bad for you christo-bigots that it doesn't matter what "God" or any other imaginary friend says; we are a secular nation, not a theocracy.
Yet, you can't do the slightest bit to debunk them. How's that taste?
Now, who told you what this god said? Oh, was it some man who wants you to follow his interpretation of the words of this god? To join some church where you're supposed to happily drink the coolaide and bind your eyes from logic and reason?
Prove your god exists and you might have a foot in the door.
HAH! Coming from a follower of one of the most hatefilled religions in the world, this is almost a blessing!
I don't see a clear and fair way to calculate damages. None of the old algorithms seem to apply in this case.
To be honest, it doesn't matter what God says when we're speaking of a legal issue here. God and religion are to be kept seperate from our laws, are none of you actually aware of our consitution?
I believe in God and I have complete faith in him, but I also believe in equality and at least I understand that the religious babble doesn't matter considering it needs to be kept seperate from our laws...
Here we go again. Once again, a small number of people are forcing everyone else to submit to their agendas. Is this not a privately owned busines? Just as a shopper can choose which business to patronize, can't a place of business do the same?
At this rate, they will own everything and it's play by their rules or else. Does anyone honestly believe that we'll be allowed to protest when encountering the same issue?
Doubt it.
As an aside I heard on the news that the business has been forbidden from doing anymore weddings, so we can once and for all dump the nonsense af " seperation of church and state".
We are being dragged one step closer to fascism every day.
Businesses cannot discriminate; they cannot pick and choose who they will serve. The owners were not forced to make the farm a business, open to the public, and if they want to continue to do business, they cannot discriminate.
I doubt they'll do actual damages, simply an injunction which forces them to adjust their policy and provides legal punishments if they do it again.
Legally...nope!
This statement makes no sense. They aren't performing weddings, they're hosting them.
What's more, this simply enforces separation of church and state.
They're not asking for any damages (if you had read the article, you would know that). They just want the farm to obey the laws.
The farm is in the right - businesses have always had "the right to refuse service to anyone"...if they do not wish to allow people who choose to be gay on their property then they can...it is not like your skin color which is dictated at birth.
WRONG, happy -- about every thing. The farm can refuse service, as long as it does not break the law -- and in NY, one cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Furthermore, sexual orientation is as inborn as race is, unless you can tell us when you chose your race or sexual orientation.
Patently false under NY law.
All scientific evidence points to genetic/pre-natal determination of sexuality.
An injunction is just an order to not do what they did. It doesn't change anything.
They still do not want to participate in a gay marriage ceremony where they live in their home.
Good for them! It's a private business who can refuse service as they choose! It's not like they took these ladies money THEN backed out! They told them up front and were honest with their beliefs!
Kudos for not caving to the ridiculous DEMANDS of "be tolerant or else"! Go somewhere else! Easy solution!
not sure how a private business is a "public place of accommodation." someone needs to go back to bottomfeeding liar school.
Mario, bologna & kim, the owners MADE it a place of public accommodation by conducting a business, which is open to the public, on the premises. They allow people to pick pumpkins, and they have various other forms of entertainment available on the property -- all for a fee. They also rent out the use of their facilities for entertainment, including weddings. While it is a private-owned business, it is still considered a place of public accommodation because they allow the public to come on the property.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2011/11/have-you-reserved-your-right-to-refuse-service.html
BTW, kim, looks like the only "bottomfeeder" here is you.
I am a lesbian. I also faced this same thing--denied a wedding at a private venue (offered to the public for a fee) due to it being a same-sex marriage. Although disappointed, I feel that a private business should be able to serve whomever it wants to. I see signs all the time that say "we reserve the right to refuse service for any reason."
Yes, that includes Jewish, or Christian or Muslims, or Asian or black or white . . . This is a private entity. I don't believe that they should be forced to do anything they don't believe in.
HOWEVER, if this were a public place rented out as a venue, like a community park, a city or state convention center, etc., I agree absolutely that any discrimination of protected classes should not be allowed.
Someone needs to go actually bother to study the @!$%#ing law before commenting again.
NY Human Rights Article 15. Look it up, kids. Any business that provides a service for receptions and charges a fee for the use of their property for this falls under "providing a public accommodations".
They should be able to say, "Not where I live."
Mr. Allswell - Please minimize "F words". Thanks.
Mario -- if you don't like the "f word," don't go to public discussion forums.
Thanks.
Mr. NJ -
Please be polite and fair in your discussions. You may not ban me. Please read the Newsvine code.
I have not banned you, Mario, nor have I tried to. You can't tell others what they can and cannot post. If you don't like the language you're seeing, you can go to another forum.
According to the law, they cannot exclude any group of people because of race, creed, sexual orientation, or religion. So, they cannot exclude gays any more than they can exclude blacks, Russians or Muslims should they want to use the services. If they do, they can be subject to fines (it's a civil law rather than a criminal one), and they can lose their license to be able to host parties there. That is why places that did not want to become desegragated became "private clubs" because that was the only way they could get around the law. Same for clubs that refused to allow women, and certain religious groups. Vincent Denali: if a man wanted to take curves to court because they refused to accomodate them, they could - until now, no man has wanted to.
Ella and the others who seem to think because it's a business, that it can dictate who they can sell to: First off, the law says they have to stay within the anti-discrimination law when doing their business - at this point they are - as far as the sales at the farm go. The venue part is the part that is being discriminatory. They could very well lose their license. Mommyof3Activekids: If a venue said you weren't allowed to bring your kids in, and you wanted to book it for an occasion, how would you feel? Or if you were African American and they said no, or if you were denied renting it because they didn't like your religion? You'd probably do the same thing. SRScott: Yes, they have the right to deny services - all they have to do is shut down their business, because on their license, it says that they agree to follow the laws of New York. It's not religious freedom when it comes to a lawfully run business. CWater: As I stated before, the CAN CHOOSE. They can choose to comply with the law or shut their doors. It's not about whether you believe in same sex marriage or not - no one's forcing you to marry someone of your gender. What the law does is protect the rights of individuals who do believe in same sex marriages. To ensure that they get the same rights as you do. GLCSR: They aren't forcing themselves on anyone; they just want their rights just like you have and they are entitled to them. The rest of your comment is just plain homophobic.
it looked ugly there anyway
even if they let them get married there, some people will boycot their business.you just cant win.
It's hard to boycott every wedding area in the state. I mean, you could go to Jersey...but who wants to get married in Jersey?
Discrimination includes sexual orientations. Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you look at it!! There is no room to pick and choose!!
Wait a minute, you can discriminate against a Buffarillo! That would be a cross between a buffalo and gorilla. And judging from the photograph, I think two escaped from the local zoo!
Discrimination is discrimination unless it's against men. I don't see women or LGBT groups picketing "Curves", a fitness chain which denies men membership only because they are men.
Vincent, under current law, discrimination is only allowed if it achieves a legitimate business objective. Since curves has a business model that patrons can work out without being ogled by men, they are allowed to restrict their clientele.
If curves instead only performed personal training on a one-to-one basis, they could not exclude men since the objective wouldn't be rational/legitimate.
Vincent, men had it their way for thousands of years. Too bad if you aren't allowed to gawk and drool in one place. Women weren't allowed in the freemasons for centuries, and all of the other countless "gentlemen clubs." Women weren't even allowed to vote for a very long time. So can your nonsense and grow up.
F Walsh,
Sorry, but were you alive for those thousand years? Who cares how it was in the past. None of us are responsible for our ancestors, so saying haha its your turn is a very dumb way of looking at the world.
So does that mean that since they orient their business to "family values" type people, code for the traditional Protestant crowd, that they can bar the couple based on that? If it would give them a bad reputation according to their core customer, the interpretation you reference means they have the right to do so, if they go at it from the right angle.
Can't prove "family values", as it has no legal definition. Same-sex couples can be considered to hold family values as well.
Not traditional family values-man/woman.
well this can be turned around with the simple turn of words that we at the apple farm only cater to heterosexuals. and this discrimination that the lesbians heard , might be really more of a cast out, which can be legal. ex; if i am xtian priest, do i perform muslem ceremonies.no. not because i discriminate i am not equipped to cater that clientele.
venus-Nice try twice now but their reasoning doesn't fly.However,you should consider going into law as you do seem to look at this from a unique angle.These business owners should have told them that they had inadvertently double booked the venue,apologized and gave them a small monetary gift towards another venue.That would be smart business 101.
Only exists in the minds of homophobes.
Uh, no, its not legal. I think you need to review civil rights laws and discrimination.
You really like to cut and paste, don't you?
When it proves you wrong?
Yes!
So I guess Curves can legally discriminate against Lesbians so that their members don't have to worry about being ogled? And I guess if a gay man wanted to join, he should be allowed? As a moderate leaning to the right, I have always supported gay marriage. The arguments against are based on religion, and are discriminatory.
HOWEVER, while I believe in the "separation of church and state” or more precisely the Constitutional assurance that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I do not support some people's interpretation of this country should be free FROM religion. Some are trying to force the farm owners to allow what is essentially a RELIGIOUS CERIMONY which they do not agree with to take place on their property. That sounds like a discrimination against their religious freedom. Should I be allowed to enter any place of worship or any religious ceremony because I live in the US? Again, this isn’t about serving a homosexual couple in a restaurant. This is about having to allow basically a religious rite in your business that you don’t agree with, one that contradicts your religious beliefs.
I have long planned to vote for “gay marriage” in MD upcoming election. I now have to go back and thoroughly read the bill to see if there are sufficient safeguards to protect private businesses. My decision is not as cut and dry as it was.
VTBobb, you can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion -- or it's not truly freedom at all.
Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years, and in this secular nation, legal marriage is strictly a civil contract. What your cult or any other chooses to do regarding marriage is not the government's business.
NO business can discriminate. Period.
Erin, the attitude in your first line is pretty terrifying and is exactly why so many people believe the left is trying to destroy religion. That is like saying you can't have freedom OF speech without freedom FROM speech. Pretty asinine argument you made. If you have freedom FROM religion you have NO RELIGION.
Again, the Constitution just states that the government cannot promote one religion over another and cannot prohibit the exercise of religion, which you seem to be esposing. So I guess the couple shouldn't be allowed to have a cross on their farm because they rent it out for weddings?
While Civil marriages may predate organized religion (although predating written history does NOT mean it predates organized religion, but I digress), the owners can discriminate with a good reason. If not, why can I not join Curves? Their promotion of a family friendly wedding venue just needs to be tweaked a little to include only weddings that adhere to an Abrahamic religious tradition as defined by the owners.
EXACTLY.
Per the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, we are free to have no religion, and therefore, in our free exercise of such, you cannot force your religion on us.
They don't have one that fits the requirements under NY law for discriminating someone based on a protected status.
Already debunked awhile ago.
Would probably still fail; you can't have a business model that says you'll only have weddings for white people, you can't claim you'll only hold weddings for straight people.
Bubblegum.
alwell, neither the founding fathers nor the Constitution gaurantee freedom FROM religion. No one is forcing religion on anyone, besides the people wanting NO religion. Again, freedom OF religion (which isn't even what is written in the Constitution does not mean freedom FROM religion, in the same way that freedom OF speech does not mean freedom FROM speech. VERY SCARY if that is your argument! And the more people try to convince me of that, the more I am leaning towards voting against gay marriage here in MD if this is what it truly means.
As for the Curves comment, I was pointing out that ErinNJ's comment "NO business can discriminate. Period." is in fact false. NY Law also protects people on religious grounds, which was my point of tweaking their business model to be more in line with the law. You also didn't answer my question, should a private business not be allowed to hang a cross because it may offend an atheist?
Freedom of speech lends itself to freedom from speech, just as freedom of religion lends itself to freedom from religion. You have the right to say whatever you want, but I have the right not to listen and ignore you. You can not force your speech on me, just as you can not force your religion on me.
Misscreant, me talking does not force my speech upon you. Just as me practicing my religious beliefs does not force them upon you. You have every right to walk away, or not patronize my establishment. But that does not lead to less speech or less religion. If that were true, Hitler, Stalin and any other totalitarian regime would embrace free speech and freedom of religion. Trying to prevent me from speaking or exercising my religion because you do not like it leads quickly down the road to fascism. Check history.
I cannot believe so many people seem to believe they have the right to force their atheism on me by preventing me from exercising my religious beliefs in the thinly veiled name of Freedom.
Gays receiving equal rights under the law does not diminsh your religious beliefs, nor does it stop you from practicing them. No one is forcing atheism on you by giving others their rights under the law. No where did I say that freedom from speech or religion leads to less of either.
We are a secular nation and religion does not make or influence our laws. What you personally believe and what the law says can be two different things.
VTBobb, there is no true freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. That means that we are free to worship whatever religion we choose -- IF WE CHOOSE. We are not forced to worship any religion at all -- and many people do not worship. The government cannot force us to worship, and YOU certainly can't force ME to worship.
Who is forcing atheism on you? Your religious rights are not being taken away at all. However, the US is a secular nation, so whether you worship, and how, is none of the government's business.
And a private business owner not allowing someone to perform a ceremony that goes against their religion is NOT forcing their religion on someone. However, forcing them to allow a ceremony that they do not agree with is tantamount to preventing them from exercising their religious beliefs. Should they also be forced to allow satanic marriages (and no, I don't mean to imply a gay marriage is equivalent to satanism), or how about a Santaria wedding with animal sacrifices, or a voodoo wedding.
Again, your argument makes no sense. It is the same as saying there is no freedom OF speech without freedom FROM speech. Ludicrous.
I'm afraid SCOTUS and other judicial opinions disagree. If you at any point try and insert religion into a discussion of marriage, you are forcing religion on people. In case you forgot, marriage is a secular civil institute, IE you can't get married if the state doesn't sign off on it, whether you get a religion to bless it or not.
Slander, libel...and you can't be forced to talk if you don't want to. Freedom from speech, boom!
Doesn't fall under any discrimination laws. However, if said cross was on fire, it could be considered intimidation (racial); same as having a sign that talks about damning homosexuals to hell.
Removing your ability to force your religion on others does not equate "less religion". It equates "secular nation", which is what we were from the beginning according to the Founding Fathers.
Doesn't matter. Its discrimination and fails under NY law, as they are providing a place of public accommodation. If they want to discriminate, they have to form a club, charge membership, and restrict access to members. That's the only way under the law to be a "private" business.
Yep!
By your reasoning, I shoud be able to walk into any religious venue, a place of public accomodation, and demand they stop having religious ceremonies that I don't agree with or that offend me. And freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to tell me to stop talking if you don't like what I hae to say. In fact it is the exact opposite, just like freedom of religion.
You really are doing a good job of convincing me not to vote for gay marriage in MD if it will be used to force people in a private business who disagree with it to participate in it.
VTBobb, you are purposely being obtuse. In all the states that have same sex marriage, religious houses are not considered places of "public accomodation," and are not subject to the discrimination laws. In other words, the law is NOT making churches go against their beliefs and perform same sex marriages.
Wow, that's a pretty huge failure there. Religious venues aren't places of public accommodation. They're "houses of worship".
Seriously, go read the law before you talk again.
Actually, religious venues ARE places of public accommodation, they are just exempt from the requirements associated with other public venues. That is exactly why I wrote they probably need to tweak their business model slightly to be in compliance with the law.
They would need to give their business over to the full control of the Church to qualify under the law. It must be "religious organizations and religious entities controlled by religious organizations".
"Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Jefferson
1st 16 wors of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
The instant an individual is FORCED by the government to use or allow his PRIVATE property to be used for something that violates his religious beliefs, he has lost the right to "the free exercise" of his religous beliefs.
Understand, this is the goal of the communists, socialist and Marxists that are backing the GBLT movement in their attempts to crush religious freedom. As long as the individual has religious freedom, the state will not have complete control of the individual.
Also understand that the christacrats demands to use government to deny GBLT's the right to "marry" is equally as heinous and unconstitutional.
Turn in a blank ballot. Tell both parties you want government to follow the 1st Amendment.
blankballot.us
Um RTFA! NOT private propterty. It's a business. Not just some random family farm.
Guess what, ALL businesses have to abide by the law. ***SHOCK!!***
It isn't private. It is a business open to the public. You just proved their point for them. Good job.
why cant a man join curves or some other women only gym? there are many things like that that seem ok.just asking.
Actually it IS private property.
It is privately owned property that the owners regularly open up to the public for events for a rental fee. That makes then a place of "public accomodation."
They regularly open it up as a private party to other private parties. It is, in fact, private property.
Sure, Ringo, they "regularly" open it up -- like on a daily basis; it is a business, open to the public, and they allow the public to rent their facilities, which makes it a place of public accommodation.
Because the GOVERNMENT has decided it is, not because they have decided it is
So if a business puts up a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone (a very common thing). They are breaking the law?
Reserving the right to refuse service does not include the right to discriminate based on protected rights. For instance, your local coffee shop can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but the moment they refuse service to anyone who is black, they have gone beyond that freedom to discriminate.
WRONG AGAIN, Ringo; they decided to turn their farm into a business -- look at their website; they run it completely as a business, not as a private property. THAT means that they are now a "place of public accommodation," and as such, they cannot discriminate.
The law is that restriction of service can only de done to achieve a legitimate business objective. Curves has such an objective. This farm business does not.
lol. Ringo, you cannot twist the law and relative common sense with reading comprehension to suit your needs. This "family" opened their property to the public as a business. Yes, they own it and if they closed the business as they run it now, it would be private property once again. You can't operate a pizza shop to serve the public and if someone comes in you refuse to serve, then call it a private business. Besides, the farm's motto is "keeping things on the family path". I know many a straight couples who have miserably failed raising their families...so what does being gay have anything to do with it? Next, you'll say the government is taking your money to pay the "lazy liberal" down the street---you know he is a liberal how? And gosh forbid, what if his a conservative? You can be lazy and be a conservative...
And yeah, I'm straight and happily so. Like many here, I just happen to use my brain for myself---humanity is suffering because of ignorance like yours. I hope you see that someday.
So next you are going to tell me that I can't refuse service to someone who is disturbing my other customers? If everyone has a right to be there, where do you draw the line? And why can't 'the family path' be a business objective?
A disturbance is not defined as a someone renting your property that you do not want renting it. The family path can be a business objective, but how do you say, "You're straight and you are a family," and "you're gay...so you can't be a family." Newsflash. A "family" is not defined as dad, mom, and kids. That is completely subjective to whoever is making the statement. The bottom line is no matter what you believe, you cannot discriminate because you dislike what someone may stand for. If I owned a business and I intend to, I'd love to keep out all the bigoted tard balls who disrespect other human beings---specifically the elderly(parking in a handicap zone when you are not handicapped but in a hurry is bogus when people need those spots and your lazy butt is in the way), children(need I really explain this one?), minorities(many who say this country sucks because of all the immigrants should recall how their ancestors arrived here---only a select few originated from here and most of those were murdered to make way for the white man---I'm white), and those with disabilities(again, do I have to explain?). When I do open my business, I will have to serve every one though, even the wife beaters and the husband cheaters...because if not, I'd be shut down for discrimination.
Right to quiet enjoyment, disturbing the peace, etc. Your example does not apply, as that touches misdemeanor activities.
Probably because you can't prove same-sex marriage does any damage to "family", considering they form loving families (on the same % as heterosexuals do), have children, etc etc.
@Blankballot- You can't turn in a blank ballot b/c it is counted as voting against the amendment.
It is unfortunate that it has come to this but it has and we are forced to make to a choice. I don't want my children being taught in school that homosexuality is a natural lifestyle. It isn't. It is a choice. We choose to follow our inclinations. Our inclinations aren't always good. People can live as they choose but don't force your lifestyle on others.
So when did you choose to be heterosexual, Dulcita?
Sorry bud, 1500+ species in nature disagree. They didn't chose. And continuous research shows an increased likelihood of genetic/pre-natal influence establishing sexuality as a non-choice.
This current pro-gay argument using animal homosexual activity is absurd. I have been an amimal lover for 60+ years, have lived on a farm and raised numerous species of animals and have never seen full-fledged homosexual behavior (copulation) in all that time. There are domination behaviors which on the surface might appear sexual but the sexual organs are not involved. Then there are the plain old "horny" behaviors such as one bitch mounting another but there is certainly no sexual copulation involved. But I have never seen any animal prefer its own sex when in heat. They always breed with the opposite sex. This idiotic argument is a pathetic attempt to justify homosexual behavior by twisting the truth.
Your ignorance is what is pathetic. Apparently you learned nothing while you lived on a farm.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
And yet, breeding isn't a requirement of sex in even the animal kingdom.
So if, because you haven't seen it happen, it must not exist...how the hell do you believe in a god that hasn't the smallest shred of evidence as to its existence? Must be one hell of a hypocrite.
allswel.
No, I can't. Can I prove to you that a man cannot ever procreate with another man, likewise a woman with another woman.
Absolutely.
It's an unsustainable model.
What does procreation have to do with marriage?
Irrelevant. Procreation is not a requirement for having a family, nor is natural born children a requirement either. Adoption and surrogacy both provide valid children for a family...or are you saying that all of those families that only have adopted children aren't families under your narrow-minded view?
Are you saying that single parents aren't families with their children, since they don't have the other partner (and the children can be adopted/surrogate)?
Do you even see what you're saying anymore?
Absolutely.
I'll give you that about procreation not a requirement for a family. However............
Families without heirs will eventually die off and with no offspring to carry on the families line.
And becomes an irrelevant argument.
dartatak, homosexuals CAN and DO procreate.
Furthermore, homosexuality has existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed, and our species is thriving -- in fact, the world is overpopulated.
So your "argument" is still irrelevant, as well as unsustainable.
Still not a requirement. As Erin points out (and I know I already pointed out), being homosexual does not mean you cannot procreate, it just means your attraction is to someone of the same sex.
This makes your "unsustainable model" argument completely invalid.
Erin, please go back to #5.23. I am referring to human beings, not animals. I thought that was clearly stated.
You and I are not animals; we are wonderfully and fearfully made by God. Yup, I am one of those "bigoted, hateful, right winger, wacko, homophobe bashing" Christians.
But, I digress. So, please explain to me HOW same sex couples can procreate? I'm curious as to how much they have contributed to the world's population.
BTW, I'd like to commend you on your civility. It speaks well of you and you too, allswell.
Humans are animals, we are part of the animal kingdom.
Do we seriously have to explain the birds and the bees to you as well?
Sex does not require attraction. Sexuality is the definition of an attraction, not an act.
About as much as the heterosexual population does (since you have to remember that not every heterosexual person procreates).
Correct and sometimes it results in a child being conceived.
Yes, I got the birds and bees thing down pretty well. Sorry, I must have missed the part of my high school biology and sex ed classes that explained how a pair of guys or girls could have sex and a pregnancy would result. Well, there is artificial insemination for the girls but the guys lose out there.
Wrong. God Himself created us a little lower than the angels and He gave us dominion over all creation, animals included. Look it up for yourself in the book of Genesis. Everything God creates is good, it's us people ( myself included ) that come along and F things up.
Yeah I know, you don't believe in God. Read Genesis anyway, ya'll might enjoy it.
dartatak, not everyone follows your religion or any religion at all.
I don't follow religion, either Misscreant. I follow Jesus Christ and if you and others don't, that's ok with me.
A good day to all!
Where did I say that same-sex couples could procreate?
#5.27
Same sex couples are homosexual couples, unless you were referring to animals or plants, of which you are neither. To thnk otherwise would only lower the great value and worth you have as a person.
You are a very articulate and intelligent person and I look forward to seing you on the 'vine again.
Have a blessed evening, Erin.
*sigh*
A HOMOSEXUAL MALE AND A LESBIAN CAN HAVE SEX AND PRODUCE A CHILD, WITHOUT EVER CHANGING THEIR SEXUALITY FROM HOMOSEXUAL. ONLY AN IDIOT THINKS SEXUALITY HAS ANY PLACE IN PROCREATION.
Prove your god exists without simultaneously proving every other deity, and without self-actualization.
And where did I say that homosexual couples can procreate?
SHAME on the Giffords!!! :( My husband and I will celebrate our 33rd anniversary on the 25th of this month and I only wish we had a beautiful venue to open to this happy couple. Good-Luck and Best-Wishes on a long & happy life together Melisa and Jennie! ;D Liberty Ridge...get over your selves!!!!
i know i'm going to get a earful on this one, but you have to give the owners credit for standing up in what they believe to be right. either way the owners are screwed.
The owners of a private business may do whatever they like.
WRONG, Vincent; as a place of public accommodation, they cannot discriminate.
Quite possibly, the term 'public accomodation' is being misunderstood and used in error. I believe that term applies to open, public areas (such as parks and town squares, etc), not someone's private land that is being used for the occasional private party/gathering.
Just because someone WANTS something to be seen in a certain way (to support their own agenda/belief), does not mean thats the way it is.
They have the right to refuse business to anyone!!!
"A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations. " (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adaqa2.html)
False. They can only refuse service if it serves an appropriate business purpose. They can claim "family oriented" all they want, as homosexuals have families, get married, and have children as well.
Their argument is null and void.
allswell, you do realize you just proved Jet-1092441's point right??
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html
Liberty Ridge Farm is most definitely a place of public accommodation, and cannot discriminate.
So let's say they refuse business to black people. Or Jews? ect. Is that ok then?
If it's private property, they have a right to refuse service to anyone.
It is a business, Dulcita; they cannot discriminate.
Can you answer my question in post 7.8 then?
Man, you fail 3rd grade reading, kid?
Private property is irrelevant. They opened it up as a business providing public accommodation, they must abide by the law.
And, let's not forget, the LAW was changed, I assume, well AFTER this place of business was established. They did not establish their business UNDER the current law.
Also, when it comes to marriage/weddings, there are religious beliefs involved as well for many people. If so, this isn't a clear cut situation based only on "public vs private" UNLESS someone expects that ONLY the gay couples rights are to be considered. I know that's what all the GAYs want, but that's a real double standard now isn't it?? Hmmmmmm....And THAT is precisely what is wrong with this whole Gay agenda start to finish - double standards. By THEM. For THEM. It's all ABOUT THEM? Right?
Uh, dude, there's no grandfathering clause.
I'm afraid your religious beliefs only matter to you, not to anybody else. Welcome to Freedom of and FROM Religion!
But current law applies!
Who cares? Marriage is a civil institution under the perview of the law. The religious aspect is merely ceremonial. Besides, some religions do perform same sex marriage ceremonies.
What exactly is the "gay agenda?"
Actually, yes, sooommmeee licensed ministers do perform marriage ceremonies for gays, that is true. BUT, those ministers who reject and oppose homosexuality (the majority) are NOT obligated to perform the ceremonies for homosexuals. THAT freedom to decline based on religious beliefs is PART of the law. So yes, religious beliefs figure in significantly and will not simply be dismissed by a court. And since these laws have been little tested, it would be a viable argument in court by a believer who provides RELATED wedding services, who ALSO believes, based on their religion, that gay marriage is wrong.
Insearch, the fact that the law was changed after the owners started the business is irrelevant; they still have to obey the law.
As far as ministers and religions are concerned, there are many mainstream religions -- and ministers -- who welcome homosexuals and will perform their ceremonies. However, this farm cannot use any religious-based arguments, since they are not a church-related entity in any way, shape, or form. Simply stating that same-sex marriage goes against their religious beliefs does not exempt them from obeying the law; no one forced them to operate a business, and if they choose to do so, they must do it in accordance with existing laws.
Only for persons performing duties within a religious organization or business owned by a religious organization. This couple is not.
They don't apply in this case at all.
They don't provide wedding services, they provide a place of public accommodation that happens to be used for weddings. Their religion is irrelevant to the law.
It comes down to an issue of liberty. Either we have it, and they can choose their own clientele, or we don't, and the government can dictate who and what is allowed on your property.
Did you actually read the article, word for word?
Bet you have a big ole piece loaded and wait'in under yer piller to protect yer property...right??? Hope the silly kids nearby don't play any typical halloween pranks or dress up like skunks in your "TERRITORY" :O
I most certainly did. Did YOU?
So what you're saying is that you are A) unable to come up with anything to actually contribute that is in any way related to either the topic or my post, B) your spelling is much worse than my wife (and she only learned English a few years ago), and C) you like to guess, but suck at it.
Ringo, once they offered their farm for rent, it became a place of public accommodation, NOT private property -- which means they cannot discriminate.
At no point in time did it ever cease to be private property
WRONG AGAIN, Ringo. Once they started renting it out, it ceased being private property.
Ringo - It is private property and there is nothing in the law that says you have to book two panda bears for a wedding.
That is NOT an accurate statement. It does not magically cease to be private property
Yes, it does cease to be private property -- as soon as the owners start accepting money from others who wish to hold events on the property. Furthermore, it falls under a different set of rules once the owners start doing that. They are using the property as a business, open to the public, as evidenced by their website.
No, it quite clearly does not. At no point in time did they transfer it to the government or nation
We rent our farm out for others to grow wheat on it, but it is still private property. At no time have we made it public. Other people do come to it because they rent it. It is still private. Sometimes the people that rent it have a harvest party. Its still private. No different than this place. Even if it is a business you have the right to refuse service. At a store I use to own I kicked several people out of it. If you own it its yours. Others should not be able to tell you what to do. Just because you as a consumer has rights does not take away my rights as a owner. Let the couple get married somewhere else. Dont understand what the big deal is.
People are born black, they aren't born gay or bi. Transgender people are born a certain gender, but change it, so that's okay? Sexual deviants, no better than baby rapers or animal humpers. It's all paraphilia. Look it up.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html
They don't have to "transfer it to the government or nation" -- once they chose to operate their farm as a business, and they accepted money for use of the facilities and entertainment on their farm, it became, according to the law, a "place of public accommodation," and they cannot discriminate.
No one forces anyone to operate their private home or property as a business; it is the owners' decision to do so -- so when people DO decide to operate such a business, they must obey the laws covering such businesses (including you, lambob).
Erin, it still is private property. However, as a business open to the public, Erin's finding of discrimination is accurate.
Almost all businesses are on private property; but this doesn't somehow eliminate their requirments to behave according to the laws which govern businesses.
@John Doedy "they aren't born gay or bi" Wrong. This is 2012 please try to keep up.
I think it's utterly ridiculous that as a "private" business owner, I can't determine who I want to do business with! It should be MY choice who I do business with. If I want to limit my clientele and possibly limit the amount of money I make, it should be my choice. Granted, If I'm fully or partially funded by the State or Federal government I should not be allowed to discriminate. But if I'm a 100% private business there should be no reason why I can't choose to limit who I do business with. I see businesses all the time refusing to do business with someone that has bad credit.
If you provide a service to the public as they do, you can't discriminate unless it serves a valid business purpose.
I figure it is like this. It is their business and they have the RIGHT to REFUSE service to anyone. We may not like it but it is what it is. Besides I bet there are far more stellar settings that can be used. Also we have to understand when it is a business they may or may not like our personal "politics". Since it is their business they can make those decisions. I'd just pick another venue, if they don't hold my personal views whatever it does not hurt my feelings. It's life, don't get offended just go on about your life.
That's the sticking point Neni, they can't go about their life. Everyone has to accept them at the point of a legal sword if needs be. They absolutely must have the power to push themselves into your life any way they choose and if you gripe about it they cry crocodile tears and start bringing in all the organizations set up to pat them on the head and start taking you to court. They scream for acceptance but are not willing to accept anyone that does not like them, and only end up showing the same intollerance they claim to fight. And for all those yelling its not private property, but a business the owner, by LAW, still as the authority to deny service to anyone he or she so chooses. There is no law written anywhere that says I have to "accept" gays or anything they do. And if they want to have a gathering on my property I have full right to say no. Under the Law.
AMEN Richard! I am with the family who owns the farm. Where does it say in the constitution that the government has the right to force me to go against my beliefs? It doesn't In fact it says that Congress CANNOT make any law that infringes my freedom to express my faith/religion. You guys are so right. This case should never come to trial.
WRONG. They do not have the right to discriminate, as a place of public accommodation:
http://civilrights.uslegal.com/discrimination-in-places-of-public-accommodation/
You are confusing rights with laws. They have every right to do so (it IS their property), it is the legality that is being questioned
Ringo, did you read about the owners of the inn in Vermont who refused to allow a gay wedding at their inn? This is the same type of case, and these people will lose.
I am not confusing rights with laws -- the law says that they do not have the right to discriminate.
You are confusing rights and laws. They have the right (it IS their property). You're arguing that they don't have the legally recognized authority to do it, which is something else entirely.
They have the right to use their private property as a business enterprise -- but once they accept money for the use of their facilities, it ceases to be private property and becomes a place of public accommodation, and as such, it falls under a different set of laws, which means that they cannot discriminate regarding who they will rent to.
At no point did it ever cease to be private property.
Yes, it did, Ringo: when the owners decided to operate the farm as a business.
Just so everyone knows....ErinNJ is not wrong, she will be the judge of who is right and who is wrong - she really knows how to post those links to support HER agenda. She is unable and unwilling to accept that other people have opinions and beliefs that are different from hers. She will never admit that its perfectly ok for everyone to have an opinion, as long as it coincides and agrees with hers.
So, save yourself from attempting to get any kind of accomodation from ErinNJ - even something as simple as 'I have the right to believe however I believe'. She will tell you that you are wrong, and your beliefs are wrong, and you must change them.
Its like God died and made her boss.
Jet has a hardon for Erin, given his entire post is about her and completely unable to provide objective facts to dispute her statements.
Yet, it became a place of public accommodation and subject to the laws regarding such, which include discrimination laws.
Jet...your condescending post could be said about Ringo and anyone else from the other side of the argument as well. I see Erin telling the truth. She happens to be doing just that---once a business is made public, you can no longer consider the property private and choose who you rent to/serve. You can, however, close your business and choose not to make anymore money from it...there by making your property private again. It is the world of public service, which the farm owners decided to enter. Of course you are welcome to your beliefs---I didn't see Erin tell anyone their beliefs were wrong---she told them the law as it is. Big difference. Sorry you somehow missed that.
Case in point. I live in a historic town full of tourists at least 6 months, more if fall starts late or spring comes early, out of the year. You may know the place---honest Abe gave an address here. I grew up working in a pizza shop. One day, the KKK had a demonstration nearby, I believe the same weekend as a very large soccer tournament. Now, the people I worked for---I wouldn't consider them racists but they were not exactly Gandhi either. They made backwards comments, even if just off color jokes. However, when a few KKK demonstrators came in the owners wanted to kick them out---again, despite possibly sharing a few misguided ideas---because other customers were being affected by their presence. You could sense it. 100 or more people and one giant elephant in the place. But they could not refuse them service or ask them to leave, short of the KKK members creating a disturbance. Why not? By that logic, they would have to refuse every single kid who has ever walked through the place, gotten a soda and a few slices of pizza---be it groups of kids from field trips(oh, there were lots---all at once), your every day tourist family with a few children(where brothers and sisters get the whole family together for a road trip and complain when you pizza is not what they are use to), or even the deaf volleyball players that visited once a year(rather ironic on this one because many of those girls did not speak so the restaurant was whisper quiet)...because those would be no different than the KKK demonstrators. Large groups accompanied by a lot of chaos, confusion, and noise. That is precisely why you cannot decide who you provide services to when you have a business---and again, believe whatever you want. But Erin was only sharing the truth. Not her beliefs, although they may be one in the same because she seems to be an intelligent person who thinks for herself just like you. Beliefs and the truth are two different discussions though.
America's view of Obama..I know he's like totally ARROGANT,completely INCOMPETENT, has RUINED my REPUTATION, LIES to me,APOLOGIZES to everyone for being with me,THINKS he's a celebrity, SPENDS all of my money, , hasn't FOUND a JOB in 43 months, ALIENATED all my friends,BLAMES everyone else for his irresponsible behavior ...BUT HE'S like so-o-o-o COOL and so-o-o LIKEABLE AND he gives me FREE STUFF.
Thats dead on. No Joke, sad isn't it.
When does your freedom of choice have the right to interfere with my freedom of choice. I am so sick of hearing how the gay people's rights are being violated. What about my rights not to have to hear about the gay marches and gay pride and gay this and gay that. I think I'll start a "Stay Straight" organization and have public marches and such. I don't shove my way of life down your throat, don't shove yours down mine. Lastly I will say, not give me any crap about how I don't understand and how I'm a homophobic, I have a gay daughter.
A big AMEN K.
OH PLEASE, stop spewing the BS already!!!!!
(EXAMPLE) I'm a restaurant owner & your happy little family shows up for dinner. Being a god fearing family you begin to say a blessing before partaking of food and drink. NO BIGGIE, BUT...
I the restaurant owner am an athiest and forbid you to pray in my establishment.
TELL ME THAT YOUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE?
Just saying :)
I have a feeling it would be headline news (local at very least) in most cases.
Freedom of choice only matters when it's yours. :(
In that case, they are perfectly within their rights to go somewhere else. I've been refused service based on my race.....and then walked across the street and spent my money elsewhere.
Do you think that non-discrimination laws should be applied equally to both sides of a transaction?
I was thinking "Freedom from Faggotry".
JACF wrote "I the restaurant owner am an athiest and forbid you to pray in my establishment."
You're the owner of a Curves fitness center franchise. You allow any and all women membership, but not a single man. That's sex-positive discrimination, right ?
The thing with Curves is that it's considered a private business that sells memberships to it's clubs and as we know, there's a difference between a place with memberships and a place that is considered as providing public accommodations.
People are allowed to have points of view I find terribly offensive, but I must tolerate their existence in public discourse because this is a FREE COUNTRY.... unless it has become a theocracy and I missed the memo.
Good post K. And I have gay family members but they don't shove it down my throat nor I theirs.
Whatever happened to the right to refuse service?
Doesn't exist like you think it does. You can't refuse service to a protected status member unless you can prove a whole slew of requirements.
John Doedy, you're suspended for a week for violating #5 - and #1 -of the Code of Honor.
It's a farm not a wedding chapel, are we not in the USA, are we not Free
K-2340175 - I pity your daughter, then. You don't have a right to stifle someone else's free speech, just because YOU don't like the message. You're free not to read it or listen to it, but you are not free to just make it go away. Tere is no such "right". As for having it "shoved down your throat", what do you think is happening all day, every day for a homosexual minority in a heterosexual majority? There is far more heterosexual life portrayed in media than any homosexual life.
As for the article, I went to the website and Weddings are a tab within the services offered of this registered and licensed business that is open to the public. If we were tlking about a black couple being refused access or mixed race couple, there wouldn't be much of an argument about "liberty" or "big brother" except from die-hard racists and bigots. The anti-discrimination laws are there to provide a level playing field for ALL of society, not just the ones you happen to like. If this were a private farm and they weren't in the business of hosting weddings, they would have every right to determine who could and couldn't be married there. But if you're taking money for the wedding, you are subject to the anti-discrimination laws of the State of NY and in fact, you have to agree to abide by those laws to be licensed to do much of what they do on that farm.
Your freedom of choice is maintained until you want to operate a business that falls under a different set of requirements than individuals. It's the same with cooking. You can cook however you want when you're cooking for yourself - but if you start a restaurant, you have to abide by health codes and cannot choose to ignore them without sanction.
An yes, I am ALSO the father of a gay daughter. You don't immediately get absolved for bigotted attitudes just because you have a gay relation.
K did not say anything about stifling anybody's freedom of speech. This is not a freedom of speech issue. This may well be a freedom of choice issue, and the owners have that freedom of choice to determine who can utilize their services. We cannot and must not let a small minority trample on our rights, just because they don't agree with us. This is called the tyranny of the minority, and must be stopped.
WRONG, Jean. Once they started renting out their farm, they became a place of public accommodation, and as such, they cannot discriminate.
You are a stupid @!$%#. just saying.
Takes one to know one john...I have read your posts...
You must be one of those from the study of homophobes sexual arousal to gay porn....so I guess you must know a lot about @!$%#s..you like looking at them and dream of F....ing...them.
Erin is bringing forth information and laws...what have you offered other than crude comments?
Umm...Did you read your very own post, Ms. Kettle?
Perhaps, heterosexual relationships are portrayed in the media much more than gay because...omg! straight is "normal"... what a concept! And, pardon me, but I do not consider any sexual relationship that causes physical damage all of the time to be "normal" and "healthy".... if they were, gay men would not have problems such as "rectal tearing" and "anal leakage".... oh, that just sounds like fun, doesn't it? They would also NOT be at risk for A.I.D.S.. you wamt that kind of crap...go for it... but don't expect me to call it "normal"
Anal sex does not cause physical damage "all of the time". Furthermore, more heterosexuals engage in it than homosexuals do -- do you consider them to be "normal" and "healthy" (not that what you think matters).
AIDS is not restricted to gays, Lisa.
Your ignorance is underwhelming.
OMG, "normal" is subjective!
What, you mean like 100% of the population is?
Seriously, what rock do you people crawl out from under?
OK, allswell, define "normal" as you please. You want rhetoric. We want Reasoning.
HOMOSEXUALS have NEVER populated any part of this earth that they have occupied. Nope, not gonna happen. Nature ITSELF, shows that gay relationships are UNnatural. ABnormal. NOT part of the earth's plan for perpetuating mankind. Simple enough, right? (and don't grasp for extremes here, it will serve no purpose. Besides, even LAW embraces the idea that basing law on EXTREME or EXCEPTIONS is BAD Law.)
Moving right along: have you ever perused the STATISTICS on the CDC website, specifically regarding AIDS? Check out the last 5-10 years or so. The numbers ARE HEAVILY LOPSIDED on the side of GAY MEN who have perpetuated not mankind - but the scourge of AIDS in this country. I had guy friends in h.s. who were gay - they're dead. Aids. My spouse's cousin: Gay. Dead. Aids. And yeah, THAT is how about 99.9% of men engage in anal sex which yes - does carry a HIGH risk of damage - and ultimately even death. And where do you get your statistic on Hetero and Homo anal sex? Don't know that there is one, I don't think THAT is something anyone tracks. But it might be logical to think that since there are 100x as many Heteros than Homos, yeah, possible that more Heteros engage. But PERCENTAGE-wise? Nowhere close to the numbers for gay men, which is pretty much 100%.
We might be crawling out from under the rock that apparently hit you smack square in the head - and did some real damage it seems. It is illogical and unreasonable to simply dismiss entirely reasoning that has legitimate, statistical strength to it, just because you can dig up an exception here or there. The facts are the facts. Deal with it. The truth, that is.
And when I say gays have never populated any part of the earth they have occupied - I mean by procreating.
Seriously, you need to think before you speak sometime kid.
Please prove homosexuality prevents procreation.
Or did you forget...PEOPLE HAVE SEX WITHOUT ATTRACTION ALL THE DAMNED TIME.
Irrelevant, as its not homosexuality itself that is the cause for AIDS. It spreads by any unprotected sex between an infected member and the other. Transmission is easier via anal sex, but can be prevented with proper education, something homophobes have been fighting for decades cause they're afraid it "legitimizes" homosexuality. What dumbasses!
Wow, you're REALLY bad at reading, aren't you? Did I say both sexualities were doing anal sex (hint, no, even though both do)?
I said both sides can catch the disease. Is that really such a hard concept for you to grasp, kid?
Couldn't've said it better myself. Read 'em and weep, bucko.
What does procreation have to do with marriage? However, homosexuals CAN and DO procreate.
WRONG. Homosexuality has been documented in approximately 1,500 animal species (besides humans) -- doesn't get any more "natural" than that.
Only in the US; worldwide, approximately 85% of all new HIV/AIDS cases are among heterosexual men.
WRONG AGAIN. Nearly one-third of homosexuals do not engage in anal sex, and the majority of all homosexuals in long-term relationships engage in oral sex and/or mutual masturbation instead of anal sex.
But how is that any of your business, and why are you so fascinated with gay sex?
It seems to have left quite a big dent in yours.
And you have presented none.
Allswell, I was responding to you AND your partner, Erin. So READ what Erin said before asking ME if I read what YOU said. You obviously agree with whatever E says, so same difference. And E, I think I SPECIFIED the U.S., since we ARRRREEEE talking about U.S. laws and AIDS statistics, we're not talking undeveloped countries here. The statistics STAND as STATED.
And Wow, if you two REALLY want to look ignorant - I SAID homosexuals have never POPULATED ANY PART OF THE EARTH THEY HAVE OCCUPIED! You're going to REFUTE THAT???? SERIOUSLY? I think you're watching too many movies. I don't care if THEORETICALLY gay women could all get pregnant, and gay men could all get a woman pregnant - it has NOT HAPPENED TO THE EXTENT THAT GAYS HAVE DONE THAT, AND THERE'S A ZERO PROBABILITY THAT IT EVER WILL. Regardless, I am obviously referring to couples who stick to themselves - which, oh by the way, those are ALSO small in number, especially among Gay males. As for animals in gay relationships - you saying THEY procreate when they do that? And in case you haven't noticed, we are slightly different than animal that can be killed, squashed, eaten, owned, etc etc. In other words, humans are NOT animals who survive by brute instinct. However,if you want to claim that for yourselves - be my guest. I won't argue.
And again, don't know where you get your numbers on anal sex and gays, you must be pulling them out of your backside - but yea, the MAJORITY DO engage in anal sex statistically - and you said as much yourself. Even if "1/3 doesn't". That still leaves 2/3's. As for AIDS, how ignorant are you willing to be with your arguments. THE MAJORITY OF THAT "UNPROTECTED SEX THAT SPREADS AIDS" WHICH YOU REFER TO, HAPPENS BETWEEN GAY MEN. Best I can tell you is check the CDC website - and btw, "MSM" on their site stands for "Men having Sex with Men". Get it?
The reason I'm "interested" in that issue, Erin, is because you made that topic part of YOUR other arguments and justifications.
For both of you, your arguments are those of a blatherskite - I've provided plenty of reason, you simply reply with retorts. The facts are the facts.
One last thought: Dead people don't procreate, either. And AIDS kills. The health community can barely manage to get even a small minority of these idiots tested for HIV, and, if test is positive, even fewer are willing to get treatment that is provided for them at great expense to the public. I have to wonder: what is the utilitarian equation for all of this foolishness, which is almost entirely preventable? There's a dollars and sense side of the issue, too, in case you haven't thought about THAT part.
Yes, because it's a stupid thing to say. Homosexuals CAN and DO have children, whether via alternate means, or using the "natural method".
When and where did I ever say such a thing? YOU said: "Nature ITSELF, shows that gay relationships are UNnatural." I proved you wrong. Deal with it.
We ARE animals, whether you like it or not. The fact that we have evolved so that we can rise above our instincts and make conscious decisions does not change the fact that we are animals. I would also argue that humans most certainly ARE animals who "survive by brute instinct," that is another argument for another thread. Since you are so obtuse that you have to every last thing explained to you, the point was made to demonstrate that homosexuality -- like any other sexual orientation -- is a naturally-occurring, normal variant of the known sexual orientations.
And YOUR point is...? Far more heterosexuals engage in anal sex than homosexuals do, so again I ask: your point is...?
Actually, I made it part of my post because YOU decided to post your misinformation, and I corrected your numerous errors. And there has never been any attempt on my part to "justify" homosexuality or same-sex marriage, because neither needs to be justified -- especially to morons.
Your pathetic attempts to move the goal posts because you've lost the argument is nothing short of underwhelming. If you would stop pulling "facts" from the encyclopedia of your ass, you might look a little more intelligent, but it's doubtful at this point.
And in the US, lesbians have the lowest transmission rates. Obviously we must outlaw all sex but lesbian sex then.
You're going to prove that, really? You can't, nor have you actually laid claim to what "populated" means. Nor is it even relevant; you're doing nothing more than clinging to a revisionist history.
Zero probability, really? So you've precognition now? Seriously, quit while you're behind.
Nope, but procreation is still not the subject at hand; its not a requirement for sex or sexuality.
Everything you've listed there has been done to humans by other humans. Fail.
No, we're worse, since our ignoring our instincts has led to the far more rapid decline of the world's ecosystem. Again, irrelevant because the contention you made was that it was unnatural, and we proved it is completely natural.
Homosexuality can mean: oral sex, toy use, celibate...not just anal sex. Cause in case you forget...its more than just men.
Only in the US.
Well @!$%#ing DUH.
Do you not grasp the concept of stigmatization? Do you not grasp that your ilk have managed to stigmatize everything associated with AIDS/HIV to the point that nobody wants to admit it, test for it, and get treatment for it?
Your own ignorant ilk still condemn heterosexuals who contract it by claiming they must've done something sinful or homosexual!
I support the owners on this. It's their business. They have a right not to support or promote anything they find offensive.
And if they find a person's color offensive, is that okay?
Is it "OK"? No. But should the *government* intervene and force them to serve customers they don't want to serve? That's the question here. According to the laws in place now, yes, the government can force them to serve customers they don't want to serve, if the reason for their reluctance falls under certain arbitrary criteria.
Personally, I'd rather get rid of those laws and let the free market decide which businesses are worth keeping in business.
muttmom - yes to your question if they are Panda Bears!
So if they say they won't allow inter racial couples, is that okay? How about no asian couples? No black couples?
How about you go to a Dennys and they won't serve you because you are White? Black? Yellow? Does that sound okay to you people?
If they were church affiliated- and that was an actual chapel, they can do that based on religious grounds. They are not. They are for profit, and public.
Discrimination hurts everyone. It damages our country.
I voted early today. Had to stand in line for 20 minutes in a howling wind. Totally worth it.
Whatever your views- Go Vote.
Thank you PB MAX for the one "TRULY" intelligent and meaningful post. ;D
What is discrimination, everyone seems to have different ideas but why is it that more and more groups claim discrimination, is it because it gives them power over others, get attention? Noticed that fat people are making noises about discrimination, is this going to be another group that is going to force us to grant them special rights?
Exactly, square dude. When does it end? Fat People? Ugly People? Polygamists? Why is it government's job to force businesses to take customers they don't want to take?
I have a friend who is a high-end, very expensive wedding photographer. He doesn't do gay weddings - not because of any moral objections, but because artistically, he just can't do them justice. He doesn't want to deliver a subpar product to paying customers.
But with more cases like these, he may someday be forced to do subpar work because some gay couple is going to be offended that he didn't think he was the right photographer for the job. I think that's an overreach of government authority.
(by the way, he tells me that some wedding photographers refuse to shoot the weddings of ugly people for similar reasons. Maybe they'll be the next group to get government to end discrimination.)
It bothers me that so many people want to be victims, why is that groups are always yelling their being discriminated against, that the big bad person was mean to them. Ive noticed over the years that Americans seem to love victim hood and love people telling them how brave they are. The bullies in this case are the couple bringing suit against people who have reservations against their lifestyle.
its easy to be a victim in america.except straight white men. their on their own.
In the past these bad people would have had a sign in the window - "whites only. Protect the sanctity of the white race."
Sorry your not a church. If you want to be one, and run non - profit, you can but you must discriminate against people of other faiths etc. Cannot be open to all
If there was a sign that read "whites only," would you eat there? No!! If there was a sign that read, "we do weddings, no homos." Would a homo go their?
Joey, if any business put either of those signs in a window, they could be sued -- that is discrimination.
They could be if they denied service, however would you allow yourself to be served by those people?
I would, only because I'm a dick to people who deserve it. I would sit there and watch them squirm as they were forced to serve me.
The business should have let the lesbian couple have their wedding at the farm. But the business should then purposely provide the lesbian couple with lousy service and sub-par accommodations. There is no law that says a business must provide exemplary service and top-notch accommodations to every customer of the business. Even though they would still be welcomed, the word would quickly get around that this farm isn't the best place for gay and lesbian couples to hold their weddings at.
This company should have the right to refuse business to anyone no matter who they are .... gay or not. There are many many places to have a wedding. So go pick someplace else. If our country starts forcing business to serve people whom they do not wish to serve that seems rather communistic!!!
Would it be okay to deny someone access to that business because they are black, brown, red or yellow? Is it alright to deny access because a person is in a wheelchair? New York has chosen to say that sexual orientation is as protected as gender, race, disability, and all other protected classes. Once upon a time, it was peachy keen hunky dorry to deny women access to the vote, to employment, to the right to contract, an so on. No longer. Say thank you to the courts you rail against for that.
There is a BIG different between race and homosexuality. Apples to oranges.
Incorrect. Both are unchangeable according to modern science (religious science bull@!$%# is just that, bull@!$%#).
In addition, nearly all peer-reviewed research shows a clear linkage to genetic/biologically static states for homosexuality.
Allswell, please show me where science proves being homo is unchangable or that one is born homo. There is no such proof... stop spreading accept me propaganda.
I can show you 100 new born baby's, can you tell me which one is going to be a homo.... No! Howabout at age 2, 3, or 5. No you can't. Not until you get to an age of reason, where they decide for themselves the things they have been taught to accept and taught as normal. Homoism is not normal and should be as such. Teaching children is what is making them DECIDE what they want to do, moral or immoral.
http://www.livescience.com/7056-mom-genetics-produce-gay-sons.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm
Those are just two of many research study findings that have been published. In addition, the fact that homosexuality has been documented in approximately 1,500 animal species (besides humans) is further proof that orientation is not a choice.
Who are YOU to decide what is "moral" or "immoral"? Clearly you cannot tell the difference between the two.
Take a look at Erin's post and you'll see just two of dozens of studies pointing towards genetic links.
False. Brain scans have shown a distinct difference that is readily visible in most homosexuals.
Normal is a subjective qualifier and once again utterly irrelevant.
Teaching children that some people are homosexual makes them decide to be homosexual? Did you hit your head again? How do you explain the fact that homosexuals have made up roughly the exact same percentage of the population since such statistics started being collected, regardless of whether they were taught it was acceptable or not?
Why not use the same study to find murders, rapist and pedaphiles? So the studies were done on the mother, maybe its a reading of disappointment or .... There is no proof of the actual homo being born. As for brain waves, they also show what we do now or perhaps what we preceive, think or believe but not at those young ages. Those study literaly prove nothing. And normal is relevant as that is the norm. Can you honestly tell me that homo is normal? Let me ask one simple question to clear that up. Can a society full of homos exist? No!! Why, becuase they cannot reproduce. Life will cease. And why, because it is unnatural and not normal.
And now you're saying that there are just as many homos as there was 100 years ago!! I will admit, homo's have been around a long time but only because those people chose to live or perform in that type of lifestyle. However, I disagree -Since this life style has been popularized as ok or normal the number of gays have grown because that is what is taught in school and in homes. And to make things worse, society is giving these unnatural people children to raise. Which recent study's have proven more damaging the a child of divorced parents.
article by Mark Regnerus about his study of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. According to Regnerus, the study shows different (and generally worse) outcomes for children whose parents engaged in such relationships, compared to adults who lived with their married, biological parents throughout childhood.
Yes, because it is a normal variant of our naturally-occurring sexual orientations. The word I think you want to use is that it is not "common," since homosexuals are not the majority.
What does reproduction have to do with marriage?
BTW, homosexuals have existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed -- and we have managed to survive as a species; in fact, the earth is overpopulated already.
ROFLMAO! Do you really think that people in ancient times actually chose to be homosexual? Do you really think that people in modern times choose to be homosexual, with all of the attendant harassment and abuse that they regularly suffer? The fact that homosexuality occurs in so many animal species is further proof that it is not chosen, since animals lack the capacity to make such choices.
I notice you quote Mark Regnerus as your "source". His study has been thoroughly debunked, since his methodology was, at best, laughable.
Here is some real information for you:
American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006
Ok, seriously, you didn't read the study at all, did you?
The study was performed with women who had children that already identified as homosexual or heterosexual (97 homosexual, 103 heterosexual).
Certain patterns persist throughout our life barring massive changes (like traumatic brain injury).
Normal is a worthless subjective qualifier that deals with majorities only.
Ok, seriously, try and think before you speak. Being homosexual does not prevent procreation because it deals with attraction only, and does not prevent the activity of sex! Christ you people are thick.
Already killed normal, but as to natural...1500+ species in nature have homosexuality without human influence. That makes it perfectly natural.
Dude...that study has been completely and utterly torn apart by the scientific community as being one of the most disingenuous pieces of lying @!$%# in the history of science.
Tell Erin to come up with something different besides: WRONG!!
It has gotten very old - and besides, when she says WRONG! as a rule Erin IS the one who is WRONG! What an EGO TRIP you two are on strutting around on this website making up statistics and whatever else you can come up with in your rhetoric.
Kind of sickening after awhile....
And oh yeah, once again Erin, animals aren't quite in the same category. But if you want to insist on the same sex copulation statistic you keep throwing out - got any numbers on how many of those animals have "procreated" among those same sex encounters?? I'm sure you can come up with a statistic for that, statistics and offbeat "studies" seem to be your specialty of information sources.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
BTW, what does procreation have to do with marriage?
Except all our statistics are easily provable. None of yours are.
Procreation is not a requirement for sex. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
What does PERVERSION have to do with a persons race or color? NOTHING! They need to find a company that caters to their ...... um ..... orientation, wouldn't they be more comfortable with that?
What does perversion have to do with sexuality? Oh wait, you answered that:
Perversion is a personal opinion and nothing more. Homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation.
"Blacks need to find a company that caters to their, um, race, wouldn't they be more comfortable with that?"
Love the hypocrisy.
gays and lesbians need to leave the moral majority of people alone and stop trying to impose your disgusting immoral behavior on good people.
I heard this arguement before back in the sixties, of course, back then it was over skin color. Same arguement, same excuses for discrimination, same outcome will result. Learn to accept other people.
I aree with the owners, it's their property, they have the right to say yes or no. Now this doesn't mean I'm against gay marriage. I'm in full support of gay marriage.
Owners of property, business owners, Churches..on and on..have the RIGHT to make decisions according to their personal, religious and moral beliefs..I would not cater to gays/lesbians...they are only making all of this fuss because they THINK they can do anything they want and everyone should bow down to them,,,,,NO, go somewhere else and have your little pretend wedding..I am sure there are plenty of other venues that will embrace your life style....quit making trouble for people who don't embrace yours....."I agree with the owners of the property...
WRONG. Churches can discriminate, but other businesses cannot -- unless they can demonstrate that it serves a legitimate business purpose to do so. This does not meet that criteria; it is discrimination, plain and simple. No one forced these people to open up their farm to the public for profit, so they must obey the laws if they want to continue to operate the business.
Erin, I personnally do not agree with Homoism. However, I will agee that discrimination is wrong but can homosexuality be discriminated as it is more of a moral issue. It's that moral issue that this falls under. Morally or religiously, it is wrong and cannot be accepted. That is different that a black, hispanic or asian person, not being served because of who they are not what life style they have chosen to live.
I would like to clear up, churches don't discriminate.... Homos are welcome to go to church however, should the topic arise, they will be told that it is wrong, immoral and unnatural. That is not discrimination.
In the first place, the word is "homosexuality," not "homoism;" it's not a religion.
Second, It is not a "moral issue;" it is a normal variant of our naturally-occurring sexual orientations. Morality is subjective, and homosexuality has no more to do with morality than heterosexuality does.
No, what you're saying is WRONG and cannot be accepted. As I have said, morality is subjective; your so-called "morality" is immoral to me. Furthermore, there are many religions that accept homosexuality. However, homosexuals don't give two @!$%#s about the acceptance of immoral bigots like you; it's all about equal treatment under the law -- which the owners of the farm failed to do (making them just as immoral as you are).
Read my previous paragraph. FYI, approximately 70% of all homosexuals are Christians.
You've been schooled.
False. You cannot discriminate the protected classes for any reason. NY Human Rights law stipulates sexuality as a protected class. If you did that, you would be sued, and your business could be shut down.
No, it can't. Morality is not universal. What's more, morality is personal, it has no legal standing. If someone found it moral to murder all the homosexuals in the US, they would still go to jail and probably be executed, cause their morality does not trump the law.
Actually, it is. Do you equally condemn all other sins listed in Leviticus? Do you wear blended fabrics? Let women wear pants? Eat shellfish? Let a woman on her period anywhere near you?
Hypocrites.
HaHa - fire and brimstone never fell on anyone for wearing the wrong piece of clothing - except maybe in the current day Middle East suicide bombings or something hmmmm.
At any rate, where do you think the word SODOMY came from? Ever hear of Sodom - and Gomorrah? Ever read in the New Testament about unclean spirits (and people have been set free from such, and found themselves instantly HETEROSEXUAL, and GLADDDDDD to be straight - pun completely intended).
Time for you to go read specifically on the topic of Homosexuality in the Bible if you're going to now start referencing the Bible. Run the topic through a concordance, they simply didn't use words like gay,and pedophile and pornography back then to refer to different sexual sins. But the Bible DOES refer to woman lusting after women and men after men etc etc. You'll see it.
I think Erin, you should contact Chris Kluwe and ask to join him in his rants. Between the two of you, all the answers are just waiting for the rest of the world. Do you know there are GAYS - famous, well known - who have publicly spoken out AGAINS gay couples raising children, saying they can't think of a worse situation for a child? Just google it. British star. He got totally lambasted by his "community" for voicing his view. Tsk tsk. Time and time again the gay community shows its INTOLERANCE for any and all who do not support what they want -even one of their own. Pathetic. No character.
WRONG. Approximately 90% of those who undergo so-called "reparative" or "conversion" therapies revert to their true nature (i.e., homosexuality); the rest either live the rest of their lives in denial, or remain celibate.
Both of which describe you to a T.
And fire and brimstone never fell on anyone for homosexuality either...or did you forget that Ezekiel states explicitly what Sodom fell for? It was pride, lack of care for the poor, sex worship, idolatry, mistreatment of guests, and attempted rape. No mention of homosexuality in its actual fall.
A concordance? Don't make me laugh. Try using actual language scholarship rather than a self-actualizing POS like that. Doing so shows that the Bible as its translated today is completely wrong, especially on the subject of homosexuality.
This is not a difficult question for me. This is a specialized business that has chosen to provide a service that offers a location for a man and woman to get married. It isn't a gay disco or fruit stand and no one should be forced to accommodate such abhorrent behavior.
Hey Katethebratt,
You don't underatand the matters involved at all! Liberty Ridge farm is a "PRIVATE" business! Just because it is "open to the public" does in no way make it a public institution. Aside from all this, I sense that the pendelum of public opinion is starting to swing the other way. People are starting to get pretty fed-up with the gay agenda. I don't know about everyone else, but I"ve had quite enough of these "freaks" attempting through the courts to forcibly make me "accept" their lifestyle choice. I DON"T, and no amount of legislation will make me do so. They"ve stompted on the rights of to many people all in the cause of "being accepted." The day that any court in the U.S.A. compel's a private business to cater to everyone regardless of how they wish to do business, this country is lost!
When a "private" business holds itself out to the public as a place of public accomodation, it is subject to anti-discrimination laws to their full extent in that area. That means if that farm holds itself out for marriages to all other people, and it chooses to exclude gays, protected under that area's anti-discrimination laws, it is in violation of the law. Those facts will be determined by the state. Your religious views are your own, but a person conducting a business that touches on public accomodation is bound to be non-discriminatory, or not do that business. And how are you being forced by the courts to accept anyone? You can be as bigoted as you wish, so long as you don't engage in a business that requires you to serve all regardless of their orientation.
its not public if they RENT it out for a fee
That is exactly right! If there is a fee, it ain't free.
Irrelevant. It is a place of public accommodation per NY law (hotels and reception halls also fall under this).
WRONG!
WRONG!
Yes, you are, Insearch.
Indeed he is. Considering he hasn't once provided a shred of supporting evidence, and the law is extremely clear on the matter.