Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Shuts Down Venue

Daily Caller ^ | 08/29/2014 | Rachel Stoltzfoos

[Rusty0604]

A Christian couple fined $13,000 for refusing to host a lesbian wedding on their New York farm has decided to close the venue rather than violate their religious beliefs.

Cynthia and Robert Gifford decided not to host ceremonies anymore, other than those already scheduled, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Trainor told The Blaze. ”Since the order essentially compelled them to do all ceremonies or none at all, they have chosen the latter in order to stay true to their religious convictions, even though it will likely hurt their business in the short run,” he said

[JRandomFreeper]

This ladies and gemmen, is how you build an underground economy.

Yup. Classic in old Soviet Russia.

/johnny

[Mark17]

Where are the conservative counterparts to the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, etc.?

The American Center for Law and Justice is one. There are others too.

[utford]

Perfect - I think this is a great response, what would the gaynazis do about that?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

You've got too many negatives in that sentence. Want to try a rephrase without double negatives? The Constitution doesn't grant rights.

Kinda funny, you criticizing your own words....since that sentence is a direct copy/paste from your previous post.(#39 to be exact)

Your drivers license and registration issue is a STATE police power, unaffected by the Constitution.

So is a marriage license.

Feds don't get a say in it.

I don't think I brought up any Constitutional Rights or federal powers...you did.

[Amendment10]

New York is in violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, imo, for enforcing policy which unreasonably abridges constitutionally enumerated protections, the 1st Amendment-protected freedom of religious expression in this case.

And I'm not trying to make the victims the criminals, but please consider the following. With all due respect to the Giffords and their parents, their parents evidently did not make sure that their children were taught about constitutionally enumerated rights versus 10th Amendment protected state powers so that their children could defend themselves in such a situation.

Ironically, and undoubtedly as a consequence of institutional indoctrination, pro-gay activist state policymakers are unthinkingly using the PC interpretation of 14A's Equal Protections Clause (EPC) to justify their hate crime against Christians imo. But the problem with hiding behind the EPC to push the gay agenda is the following.

Both John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14A, and also the Supreme Court, had clarified that 14A did not add any new personal protections to the Constitution. it just strengthens enumerated protections as evidenced by the following excerpts.

• “Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

• “3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay rights, there are no enumerated protections to make 14A work in favor of the gay agenda.

Again, partisan state policymakers are likely unthinkingly expressing hatred for Christians, imo, by wrongly reading gay rights into the EPC.

[stevio]

Good job homos. Your work is done here. Biotches.

[JRandomFreeper]

Then all this time I’ve been wasting my time and money getting a drivers license and registering my car.

You did say that, though.

And yes, you are correct. I need to lay off the double negative coffee.

You are also correct that a marriage license is a state police power, and the feds don't get a say in that, under the Constitution.

The right to marry is a long understood right under common law, and all states recognize the right of a man and woman to marry.

Fight it from the right end, though.

/johnny

[ROCKLOBSTER]

It is both sad and amazing to see how many freepers have so little knowledge of the Constitution

Yeah, it is, except I was quoting him and referring to his remarks. Go back and read it yourself, starts at #34.

[madprof98]

move to a state where the Bill of Rights means something

So long as there are federal judges, there is no such place.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

If you have to get a license, it’s NOT a right.

Marriage is a tenet of virtually ALL religions.

[Springfield Reformer]

Yep, I like that idea. I have one of my own. Bring out the full weaponry of the First Amendment by making your wedding business a Heterosexual Marriage Advocacy Organization, in which each heterosexual marriage is a deliberate protest against the decay of traditional values and an intentional affirmation marriage as God designed it to be, between one man and one woman for life, just as Jesus said.

The legal angle? Right here:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_749

In HURLEY v. IRISH AMERICAN GLIB ASSOCIATION, a Saint Patrick’s Day parade was allowed to exclude gays despite the typical public accommodation ploy because it would be impossible to convey the message of the group if they were compelled to accept participants clearly at odds with that message.

So rather than go hide under a rock somewhere, Christian wedding businesses need to go all in on free speech, make that an explicit part of the business charter and model, that the main purpose of the business is to advocate for heterosexual marriage, for profit. The Hurly vote was 9-0. Just sayin ...

[SoFloFreeper]

The First Amendment should not die.

Can’t some legal entity help these folks fight?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Fight it from the right end, though.

I think I am.

REAL Christian preachers should REFUSE to marry anyone with a state marriage license, as well as any anyone else he deems unsuitable.

And then he should do so solely "In the eyes of God".

[boop]

Don't forget that Governor Cuomo said to conservatives: "You're kind isn't welcome here".

Apparently he meant it.

I'd explain irony to the Guv, but he wouldn't understand it.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “The right to marry is a long understood right under common law” <<

.
It was a right given by God for over 5000 years before common law existed.

State sanctioned marriage is a violation of Jeremiah 17:5-8

We are not to put our trust in man over God.
.

[JRandomFreeper]

You don't have to have a license, last I heard.

To claim state benefits, you may have to prove that you were married, but to be married, you don't have to have a license.

Marriage is a right, given by God, administered by His Church, and sometimes, recognized by the State.

/johnny

[Gay State Conservative]

Just what the perverts want.Cultural and economic terrorism under the color of law.

[JRandomFreeper]

No-one is talking about state sanction. Perhaps state recognition. But that ain't the same.

And Jeremiah talks about complete reliance on man, not anything about marriage.

Context is everything.

Yes, the right to marry is old, much older than common law. But our government is partially founded on common law. So I spoke to that.

Context, anyone?

/johnny

[Lurker]

I already have. And I did it before I posted my comment.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I rest my case.

NOW!

Back to the topic at hand:

This couple, and others like them, should INVITE certain religious couples to have the ceremony at their farm, and invite all their guests to a PRIVATE wedding.

The word would get out, preachers would recommend them, and life could continue. (donations would be accepted of course.)

Enough of this “public places” crap. Private property is private property.