New York court rules farm owners broke law when they refused to host lesbian wedding


#1

The owners of an upstate New York wedding venue broke the law after refusing to host a lesbian wedding, a court decided Thursday.

Robert and Cynthia Gifford cited their conservative Christian beliefs in refusing to hose the 2013 wedding of Melisa and Jennie McCarthy at Liberty Ridge Farm, north of Albany. They appealed a ruling from the state’s Division of Human Rights, asserting their rights to free speech and religious exerices, but the appealed failed and they were fined $13,000.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court said the Giffords are free to express their religious beliefs but rejected their rights were being violated. The court ruled against the business owners 5-0.

foxnews.com/us/2016/01/15/new-york-court-rules-farm-owners-broke-law-when-refused-to-host-lesbian-wedding.html


#2

So, the exercise of religious liberty guaranteed in the first amendment now costs $13,000?


#3

It likely costs a lot more. They will either have to stop allowing any weddings (lost income) or face increasing fines.


#4

This case is a perfect example to show how the left will never allow actual freedom. You can believe anything you want in the privacy of your home or church, but you better toe the line and do anything we command, or we’ll fine and sue you into oblivion.

Remember this example the next time someone on the left tries to tell you they are compassionate.


#5

This is why Indiana and 20 other states have enacted state laws based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1994, signed into law by Bill Clinton. New York is not one of those states. People who believe in freedom of religion are called homophobic or worse with little pushback. We seem to be losing because opponents of religion have successfully changed the meaning of words in order to score points they could not win honestly.

ijreview.com/2015/03/283057-21-problems-national-outcry-indianas-religious-freedom-law-one-map/


#6

didn’t the company that refused to bake the wedding cake have to pay $130, 000?! so it is expensive this religious liberty guaranteed to us in the first amendment.


#7

Sounds like New York values !


#8

This isn’t a religious liberty issue.


#9

why not?


#10

Because you have to accept the lie that marriage has zero to do with religious convictions. If liberals say a pig and a horse can marry then it is discriminatory to say other wise and they will sue you until you don’t know your name.

Remember that LGBTQXYZVFS want normalization, not marriage, and they will sue at every opportunity to prove that the 2% define normal.


#11

Disgusting. Is NY one of the states targeted by the supreme court decision? Or were they trampling religious rights (and common sense) long before?


#12

Because they are not a church. They are a business that rents its space out to the public. If they were a church that used their space for their church’s services, there would be no issue. But businesses that hold themselves out as public accommodations have to comply with the applicable laws.


#13

Apparently you lose your freedoms and first amendment rights when you open a business.


#14

For now, anyway. Sooner or later, it is likely to become one.

After all, the Obama government tried to dictate to the Lutheran Church what it might regard as religious activities and what it can’t. Fortunately the Supreme Court turned that claim down. But it tells you how the left thinks about religion. I could easily see some leftist government someday asserting that since priests and ministers are licensed by the state to perform the “secular” function of marrying people, that they can’t limit the service to heterosexual couples.

That’s the direction in which we’re headed.


#15

So if they had refused to host the wedding of a black man to a white woman because they held a religious belief against miscegenation, would you support them?

If it was a Christian/Jewish mixed marriage and they held a belief that forbade this, would you support them?

Please note that I do not condone homosexual activity, nor do I believe there is such a thing as “gay marriage”. That is not the point I wish to address.


#16

For me:

Yes and yes


#17

For me, I would allow those businesses to have their relgious beliefs and take my patronage elsewhere.


#18

You’d have to prove that your religion is against it and you aren’t just injecting your personal feelings into your work. If your religion were against a lot of things like that, you might be denied a position as, say, a judge, because you can’t provide all the services you’re told. However, you’re perfectly fine if you’re a religious leader because the people coming to you (hopefully) know what you can and cannot do.


#19

I would disagree with those judgments, but I would still support the freedom to make choices according to religious beliefs. Not every slight or hurt feeling should require government intervention. Couples who want to purchase commercial services are free to take their business elsewhere. In a world with instant communications they are free to share their opinions and experiences and perhaps change the mind of people. That is preferable to using political power to force compliance with your opinions.

Interference with religious beliefs by government requires a compelling interest. If you want to practice human sacrifice, kill or enslave people who disagree with you, or invade the privacy of people in their homes, you have crossed the line.

Businesses also have to live with the consequences of their decisions. If your restaurant serves only kosher food in an area with very few observant Jews, you may not make a profit. If the community thinks your ideas on inter-racial marriage are offensive, you may not be able to stay in business.


#20

Serving Kosher food isn’t the same because you aren’t denying anyone.

Setting up a business to serve the public and turning a select few undesirables away is a special kind of entitled. Anti discrimination laws exist because as a society, we’ve decided that it’s in everyone’s best interests to collectively support trade and enterprise. When public money goes into your business, that money is coming from everyone, gays, blacks, and Jews included. Taking their money in the form of tax breaks, public accommodations, etc and turning them away is nothing short of exploitation. And that’s the word I want to hear a judge use. This isn’t just discrimination, it’s exploitation and people need to hear that.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.