i still say you don't say no, you simply make it the worst day you can... spread fresh liquid manure, laugh at the guests, what ever you can to just generally make it as unpleasant as possible and no laws are broken by turning them down
Posted on 11/10/2014 3:23:31 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Cynthia and Robert Gifford, the Christian couple who refused to hold a same-sex wedding on their property, have been ordered to pay a $13,000 fine – $10,000 to the state of New York and $1,500 to each member of the lesbian couple to compensate their “mental anguish.”
The Giffords opened up their Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York to the public 15 years ago. They host weddings, receptions, parties, and corporate events, and put on an annual fall festival.
In 2012, Cynthia received a call from a woman, Melisa Erwin, who was looking for a venue for her wedding to then-fiancee, Jennifer McCarthy. Cynthia explained to Erwin that they would not host a same-sex wedding on their property because it violated their religious beliefs, but that they would be happy to host the reception. Erwin refused.
Unbeknownst to Cynthia, McCarthy recorded the conversation. She and Erwin filed a formal complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights.
The Giffords argued that their farm is their home, not a place of public accommodation, and should therefore not be subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of New York’s Human Rights Law. However, Administrative Law Judge Migdalia Pares of the Bronx rejected their argument, saying that, since they regularly collect fees for the space, facilities, services, and meals, Liberty Ridge cannot be considered “distinctly private.”
The Giffords insist they do not discriminate against people – they have employed gay and transexual people and have hosted events for same-sex couples. Their objection was to hosting the wedding ceremony itself, because it would violate their sincerely held belief that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman only.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...
OMG What happened to Jenny McCarthy? Looks like too many Bon Bons =]
No wonder. What guy would want THAT?
i still say you don't say no, you simply make it the worst day you can... spread fresh liquid manure, laugh at the guests, what ever you can to just generally make it as unpleasant as possible and no laws are broken by turning them down
I don’t understand their claiming a split here with refusing to hold the ceremony but being just fine with hosting the reception?
And of the $13K, poor, injured NYS gets $10K ???
“Probably why they are not under Gods protection. “
—
Who on earth are you to say they are not under God’s protection?
Astonishing arrogance.
.
like
Support Homos and find out. I advise you do not do so according to God's word.
So NY is okay with taping someone without their knowledge?
How many places did they call FIRST before they found one they can sue?
We lost all our rights to freedom of association in 64’ because no one objected when private businesses were treated the same as utilities and governments as “Public Accommodations.” The precedent is set for the government to force businesses to serve protected classes of people and once that was accepted it was only a matter of time before well funded homosexuals became “protected.” We may recieve some protection for “religious objection” but without a radical shift in the zeitgiest I don’t see businesses escaping this.
People the law is on the side of the nasties now, the fags and dykes. Just tell the fags and dykes you are BOOKED UP, or your going to get trashed like these two did.
The problem with filing under 14th Amendment (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC) is the following. The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay “rights,” gay marriage in this example. So misguided, constitutionally clueless NY state officials are actually in blatant violation of Section 1 of 14A for trying to use vote winning, but constitutionally unprotected pro-gay state policies to trump constitutionally enumerated rights which 14A expressly prohibits the states from doing.
Regarding how constitutional lawmakers had intended for 14A to be understood, consider that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A did not add new rights to the Constitution as “blind leading the blind" NY officials are evidently trying to suggest by trumpeting the EPC like constitutionaly clueless, special-interest bureaucrats in other states are.
“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.
In fact, the Supreme Court’s clarification of 14A reasonably reflects John Bingham’s official clarification of that amendment in the congressional record, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found.
“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.)
Again, misguided, pro-gay NY state officials are foolishly following in the misdirected, 14A-violating footsteps of pro-gay activist officials in other states.
We need to stop responding to these evil people with common decency, that is speaking truthfully as if they deserved an honest and polite response (and a polite refusal is a whole lot nicer than what they should get under this precedent). We do not answer openly when speaking to a robber or a rapist, and these people are on the same moral level.
When witches like this demand service (and any request that can be enforced by activist courts should be treated as a demand), the response should be a polite “yes”, followed by a contract that clearly states no penalty for non-performance, and a last-minute cancellation due to an unforeseen issue.
It’s a shame that we can’t politely agree to tolerate each other when the abnormal side seeks out those who are most revolted by their perversion and then tries to compel active participation, but those are the rules they have chosen to impose on decent people.
Given the rules they have chosen, we should comply with the letter of the law. Perverts don’t want their “special” day ruined, and they will seek out those who actually want to profit from their pretend “wedding” rather than seeking those who most want to be left alone.
New York allows a person who is a party to the conversation to tape a call. Recording a conversation that you are not a party to is a crime in NYS. Here there appears to be some question whether the lesbian having the conversation was the one who taped it. The article makes it appear that the other Lesbian, who was not on the phone, did the recording of the conversation.
In a true Constitutional Republic, here can be no conflict: Rights require no 2nd/3rd party to utilize. A nation of Laws (consequences of actions).
Course, that means the 16th/SS/welfare can’t negate the 4th/5th/6th/13th/etc., nor would there exist SS, Welfare....IE: The issue would be moot; as States would tell the Fed to F* off and worry/do their job as delegated.
Yeah, an antiquated notion these days
This is about money to the state. Notice their “mental anguish” share is $10,000, while the lesbians take is only $1,500 each. New York is not free anymore, if it ever was. When the state can dictate to a business who they are forced to do business with, tyranny is already here. Freedom and liberties of America are no longer available for those who reside and conduct commerce in New York. Get out while the gettins good.
Let’s start a Gifford Defense Fund...we need to pitch in a help the Giffords. When a business is forced to do something... it means we aren’t free. Will FR have to have DU members on here?
“The Lesbians will file under 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.”
That only applies to state action, not private.
There is no such thing as a lesbian wedding.
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.
