Posted on 11/23/2015 8:49:16 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
Albany, N.Y. - The owners of an upstate New York wedding venue who were fined $13,000 after refusing to host a lesbian wedding are appealing the ruling.
The owners of Liberty Ridge Farm north of Albany refused to host the 2013 wedding of Melisa and Jennie McCarthy, citing their Christian beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. The state's Division of Human Rights ruled that business owned by Robert and Cynthia Gifford violated New York's anti-discrimination law.
"The policy to not allow same-sex marriage ceremonies on Liberty Ridge Farm is a denial of access to a place of public accommodation," Judge Migdalia Pares wrote in her decision in August 2014.
Pares fined Liberty Ridge Farm $10,000 for violating the state's non-discrimination law, and ordered Gifford to pay an additional $3,000 to the couple for "mental anguish each suffered as a result of respondents' unlawfully discriminatory conduct."
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Couldn’t they find a nice closet somewhere?
The Hasan and Bergdahl rules indicate
that if they were Moslems or Obama’s sons,
they could have raped and beheaded their
customers, and then have been continuously
protected by the totally corrupt DO”J”.
The Department of Just-Us
Par for the course. The left is doing all it can to eliminate Christianity, to promote actions that are contrary to our human nature, and to install a totalitarian theocracy that will eliminate Christianity and Judaism.
What I would do is tell New York to go F itself, and move to another state. I hope they DO NOT pay that fine because this IS a clear cut case of Christian bias by the liberal cesspool known as New york. Does anyone in their right mind believe that if this involved a Muslim business this same kind of fine would have been handed down? HELL no!
BAKE THE CAKE. You will go to the Gulag, and the officers are bad.
We know a couple with a wedding barn that have solved this problem. You are required to use Facebook to contact them as it’s their only first contact option. Then, when you try to contact yhem, they view your profile and other information, if they determine you are at high risk for a queer marriage, they simply don’t respond. The worst they can be accused of is incompetence - which is perfectly legal.
” The state’s Division of Human Rights ruled that business owned by Robert and Cynthia Gifford violated New York’s anti-discrimination law. “
Not true. Certain people made the decision. And then hid themselves behind a generality. This is always true. These people have names and addresses.
Were the actually denied access? (The court ruling) I doubt it. They were denied getting married there. Two totally different things. It is right the should appeal.
That seems like a clever workaround.
I feel it's even more significant that the rule of law is under attack. This was a judgement by an administrative officer. Thus, as in the Oregon case, there was not actual legal process, no ability to demand a jury trial, no review by appellate courts, etc.
Who could not be brought down by such a regime?
As far as the public accommodation of lesbians, well that fight was lost with the 1965 Civil Rights act, and assuming that the act (or state equivalents) is extended to cover sexual orientation then public accommodations will have to accommodate them. But were it a law there would be many more safeguards for the accused, the same one that any criminal defendant gets. Those are sorely lacking in these administrative judgement cases.
Wait ...
Ignoring a Facebook request will soon be “Intentional, Racist Incompetence”
The first amendment’s freedom of association does NOT have any carve outs for “public accommodation”.
Sounds like a good place to make a stand for freedom of association.
The chances of getting enough judges who are not liberal communists are slim.
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.