Posted on 08/26/2014 12:17:40 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Two New York farmers who hold weddings on their property have been fined after disinviting a gay couple who hoped to tie the knot there. Is this a win for gay rights, or an encroachment on religious liberty? As is only to be expected, a fresh wave of controversy is swirling around a court’s imposition of massive fines on two New York farmers who don’t want a gay couple to get married on their property.
In today’s news cycle, where outrage is instinctively deployed as a weapon against our memory, the story of the Giffords (who owned the farm) versus the McCarthys (who wanted to get married there) may become little more than a fleeting blip on our frantic radar. But it is worth more than an ounce of attention, because it offers a glimpse at an inhuman future where celebration is enforced by law and punished with arbitrary takings.
It takes an effort to think beyond the clear culture-war confines of the case. Some of us will be outraged that the Giffords rescinded their implicit invitation to the McCarthys because, as court papers document, they said their “specific religious belief regarding marriage” created “a little bit of a problem.”
Others among us will freak at the fact that the Giffords were dragged to court—wherein administrative judge Migdalia Pares decided that the McCarthys suffered “mental anguish” worth exactly $3,000 of the Giffords’ money.
Perhaps more than a few of us will flip their lids on account of Judge Pares’ further judgment that the Giffords were so awful that only 10,000 more of their dollars could rebalance the scales of justice.
Now that we have gotten over these multifarious horribles, we are obliged to ponder the bigger picture.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
If the heterosexual trio of Dave, Doug, and Dan go to the farmers who provide a place for wedding ceremonies, and demand that the farmers bake the trio a cake decorated with a swastika, will a court rule that heterosexuals Dave, Doug, and Dan have had their rights violated?
Is the issue homosexuality?
Is the issue polygamy?
Is the issue product sales?
Is the issue marriage?
Is the issue that a seller is compelled to provide whatever product the customer desires? Is the company that sells oil changes obliged to sell gay pride wedding cakes to homosexual couples? To heterosexual couples? Trios? Mixes?
Not only that but you have probably broken several
regulations just by displaying a copy of it...
Not here-neither are the ones that say “no shoes, no shirt, no service”. And you can bet your ass that business owners will tell you to leave if you are causing a problem for them and other paying customers-which is how it should be...
If it is left up to the business owner to do as he damn well pleases, and not the government it is a moot point-see, all fixed...
RE: So this sign is unconstitutional?
Yes apparently, especially when the “anyone” is black or gay or some “protected” class.
Not unconstitutional, but it doesn’t give you any legal protection if some judge decides you violated federal law.
RE: if some judge decides you violated federal law.
What if the federal law violates the constitution?
The issue is that, if your business is considered a “public accommodation”, you may be prohibited by law from discriminating based on “protected classes”. Sexual orientation is not one of those classes under federal law, but it is under many state laws.
Then good luck getting a judge to rule on that and have it stick.
Would a private buyers club be a “public accommodation”?
Thank you for referencing that article SeekAndFind. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
So-called gay “rights” aren’t the main problem in this issue. The real problem is as follows imo.
As a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught why the Founding States enumerated certain rights into the Constitution, citizens are unable to argue the following simple points when their constitutional rights are violated.
Regarding gay agenda “rights” for example, not only have the states never amended the Constitution to expressly protect such “rights,” but Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from making policies which unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
But as a consequence of citizens not knowing the Constitution’s relatively simple rules, they are unnecessarily helpless to stop misguided gay activists, in cahoots with activist judges, from using constitutionally unprotected, vote-winning gay rights to trump constitutionally enumerated rights.
The sign is a fond memory, an obsolete relic of common sense from the past. Communists and progressives have used the destruction of the right to free association to further insinuate government into corners of our lives.
Can a member of the public join it?
If marriage had no limits it wouldn’t mean anything. Fairness to every individual can never be the only question society asks in establishing social policy otherwise we would have dwarfs in the NBA and blind airline pilots. Anytime you have limits and standards you have people who are left out. Beyond this, although it is correct that all ‘people’ should be treated equally, it is incorrect to assert all ‘behaviors’ must be treated equally. Violence, theft, or drug use (including the legal consumption of alcohol or tobacco) could also be ‘behaviors’ a business does not tolerate. Should a business be required to have an event for swingers or nudists? Should a muslim business be forced to host a bacon eating contest?
“Is this a win for gay rights, or an encroachment on religious liberty?”
The first presupposes the second - every time.
“gay rights” = Homofascism
private clubs can’t have members then?
lol
What about the taking of private property without just compensation?
No, private clubs are not public accommodations, so you can get around a lot of laws that way. For example, public smoking bans don’t usually apply to private social clubs.
However, you would need to be careful using that loophole, because if they caught you advertising, the jig would be up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.