You obviously know very little about private property rights
You obviously know very little about public accommodation. But please, splash about those Hitler references, they really make a convincing case.
If a potential client comes in and you suspect they have been fighting dogs, they have been breaking the law. That is, I think a perfectly legitimate reason to not do business with them, lest you become part of a criminal enterprise.
Nope, the word homosexuality is still not there. However, if your interpretation is/was true, I say fuck the bible. Itâs a soiled rag of lies, even without any references to or condemnation of homosexuality, IMHO. As a disclaimer, I am straight.
The Christian Bible does say that working on the Sabbath is a sin, punishable by death⌠Yet, their business is open from 10 to 7 on Sundays.
I suppose they are too Christian to host a same sex wedding⌠but, not Christian enough to be closed on the Sabbath.
2 Likes
itâs definitely a case of religious freedom if your religion defines worship as praying that supply side jesus rains dollar signs on farm fresh attractions such as âforest of fearâ and âcorn holeâ while keeping the gays at bay
http://libertyridgefarmny.com/activity-age-gauge/
âThe judge just ignored all our constitutional and religious arguments.â
that would be because their arguments have no merit. if you put yourself out to the public as being in business, you are obliged to provide goods and/or services to anyone who wants them, and is prepared to pay for them. thatâs pretty much basic business law.
2 Likes
Itâs clear these two have a devotion to sugary treats , donuts and fried food and worship them daily. Donât judge.
I donât even know what to say about this. It kind of pisses me off a little. They movement for âtolerance and acceptanceâ employs methods of intolerance itself through intimidation and litigation. You may sue to get what you want âlegally,â but you are going to piss off and alienate people in the process. If what you truly want is understanding and equality, you are not going to achieve it by forcing and bending people to your will. Like I said before, I support gay marriage. However, I donât support trampling on other peopleâs rights to achieve it. There are many places that will marry gay couples in New York. I get the feeling this couple specifically chose this business because they knew about the ownersâ religious beliefs. What do you think is going to happen if this makes it to the Supreme Court? The 1st amendment versus gay marriage⌠If any of the recent rulings are an indication, Iâm inclined to think the Supreme Court would rule in favor of religious rights.
This is not an ambiguous legal area; itâs long-settled law. If you open a business, you are creating whatâs called a âpublic accommodation.â In your business which is a public accommodation, you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. It was exactly this legal principle that those forcing the desegregation of lunch counters relied on during civil rights days. The same bad arguments were used against them as are being seen here: that they could find another lunch counter to patronize; that they were alienating the locals; that forcing a deli owner to serve people he didnât wish to was trampling on his property rights and his personal liberty. You could probably even find people raising religious objections (âGod never intended the races to mingle.â) It was all BS, and the overall question was decided in favor of those requiring the business owner not to discriminate.
If conservative Christians want to keep their religiously-based bigotry, they can do it all they like within their own homes and churches. But the moment they open businesses serving the public, they must comply with public accommodation law, and not discriminate. The public space is a secular space, and they are not allowed to force their superstitions on everyone else.
3 Likes
Who is marching in the Million Donut March for these two? Call me.
The so-called religious belief about homosexuality is founded in hatred and so is an invalid excuse for discrimination. The things in the Bible are not actually Godâs word, but the writings of men from thousands of years ago. They have no devine worth.
The Bible may condone slavery, but it does not require it. I am a Christian who does not believe in this fundamentalist interpretation of scripture but many Christians do. If these farmers are willing to host same sex receptions, that shows me they are motivated by religious concerns and not by hate.
Just to be mischievous, let me point out that the Bible says nothing about the interactions of two women.
1 Like
Yeah, I find it hard to get worked up too much over them refusing to hold it in their own home. It sucks, but on the outrage meter itâs fairly low. Now, if this was the wedding of anti-vaxxer Jenny McCarthy, then thatâd be an exciting story.
This, above.
Anyone who argues otherwise
is on the wrong side of history-- and the law.
The God and Christian tenets I have faith in
were not fashioned nor meantâ
to allow me to act as an intolerant assh^le.
jw1
IANAL, but you seem to be confusing what you think is right with what is legal. Iâm gonna go out on a limb and say that the New York judge knows private property rights in New York State a little better than you. As proof of that, hereâs 296-13 of New York state law:
It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to boycott or blacklist, or to refuse to buy from, sell to or trade with, or otherwise discriminate against any person, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, or disability of such person
You may think this is wrong, or âtotalitarianâ or reeks of Germany in 1936. You may think the law should carve out exceptions for nice people who arenât bigots. Iâd disagree with you, but youâre free to your own opinion. Unfortunately for you, you arenât free to your own facts.
As much as I detest this kind of bigotry, I disagree with this outcome. Small, family owned businesses should have the right to offer or refuse their services to anyone they choose.
Why? Because if you take their right away, you take MY right away to refuse service to people like members of the KKK, NAZIâs, and Christian bigots. Itâs now worth me losing my right to punish the truly bad.
Yeah, itâs their business. If they want it to die on this particular hill, thatâs their call.
But thatâs what itâs going to do, and no mistake.
NB:
- Most wedding services come from small businesses that work on slim margins while competing fiercely with many other businesses in their region that offer near-identical services. Couples can usually choose from a wide selection of providers for everythingâflowers, dresses, caterers, locations, etc; and
- The overwhelming majority of Americans under the age of 40 (i.e., the age demographic that has the most big weddings) support SSM, and support is even higher among women (i.e., the side of the aisle that makes most of the wedding arrangements).
- Consequently, straight couples will tend to avoid suppliers who are known to act like jackasses about their customersâ sex lives and take their trade elsewhere.
Firms that go under after well-publicized refusals of SS wedding trade do so because business dries up. Not from fines and legal fees, not from some conspiracy by The International LGBT Cartel [1], not because they lost gay customers (who werenât buying from them to start with).
Rather, because het couplesâtheir bread-and-butter clientsâstop coming around.
These people think âWell, Iâm just refusing this one coupleâwonât make much of a dent in my incomeâand on the off-chance anyone hears about it, theyâll know me for a Bible-Believing Supporter of Traditional Marriage.â
But of course, what happens is everyone hears about it and the only people who think of them as BBSs-of-TM already got marriedâback when the Berlin Wall was still up. People who might actually buy their services in the next few years are just as likely to think of them as sex-obsessed pervs, hiding behind claims of religious entitlement. [2]
To use your Jewish caterer analogy: what do you think would happen to a caterer in Israel whoâbecause his sincere, strongly held belief that the kashruth laws were bunkâinsisted that all his dinners had to feature pork chops? Or (for another example) a bridal salon that refused to sell white dresses to women who (in the proprietorâs opinion) didnât âdeserveâ to wear white?
Ans: Once word got around, the same thing that would happen to American wedding businesses that refuse SS trade.
[1] Despite what our wingnut friends seem to believe.
[2] You can say religious objections are legitimateâbut they always claim itâs about their religion, because what else would you expect them to say? âI donât want a lesbian wedding here because I canât stop thinking about how the two brides get it onâ ?
How so? As long as youâre not choosing to deny your services to those people because of their gender, race, sexual orientation or religion, you should be in pretty good shape. Itâs weird that the law says you can refuse to serve someone because you donât like their face, but you canât do it because theyâre methodists. (Although if someone noticed that you only ever didnât like the faces of methodists you might be in trouble)
Thatâs another thing for this case and all the others like it. You have to be angling really hard for martyrdom to declare that your small public accommodation isnât serving someone because of your disdain for who they are. Scheduling conflicts, personality conflicts, just canât make that particular set of requirements â there are zillions of ways to get out of serving people you donât want to serve (and in other areas where everyone is agreed discrimination is bad, such as housing discrimination by race, youâll find people using those techniques, and complicated, expensive countermeasures being deployed to detect them. But in wedding venues, hardly.)
In this case the âcommand from Godâ is bigoted. Of course, we donât know its His command because He didnât write the Bible and we donât actually know He exists for sure anyway, so yes, these people are bigoted against gays.
That said, I kind of support their right to refuse service, for whatever reason. That opens a giant can of worms, but I have to admit Iâm conflicted on the issue. A private business has a right to refuse service for any reason.