Posted on 01/18/2016 8:43:43 AM PST by wagglebee
ALBANY, New York, January 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Farmers who host weddings in their backyard cannot refuse ceremonies where two people of the same sex are trying to get married, a New York court has ruled.
The court's decision affirmed the state's Division of Human Rights (DHR) ruling against Robert and Cynthia Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farms, after they declined to host a "wedding" for a same-sex couple. The Giffords said they would host the reception for a lesbian couple, but the ceremony itself would have to be hosted elsewhere because of their religious beliefs about marriage.
DHR found that the couple violated New York's "places of public accommodation" anti-discrimination law. If the court's decision stands, the Giffords must pay $10,000 in state fines and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin, for "mental pain and suffering."
Additionally, the Giffords – who say they have hosted a birthday party for a lesbian couple's adopted child, and employed people with same-sex attractions – will have to provide sensitivity training to their staff and prominently display a poster highlighting state anti-discrimination laws.
The suit goes back to a 2012 phone call that Cynthia answered. Erwin and McCarthy wanted to have their wedding on site, something Cynthia said couldn't happen.
In a statement issued by the New York arm of the ACLU, which took on their case, the lesbian women said, "Having your relationship judged as somehow unworthy is incredibly hurtful and disheartening and we want to ensure that other couples do not have to undergo the same treatment."
Erwin and McCarthy say it took them months to find another site to host their "wedding."
"All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards," said Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Caleb Dalton in a statement after Thursday's decision. Dalton, who defended the couple, added, "The government went after both this couple's freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property. The court should have rejected this unwarranted and unconstitutional government intrusion, so we will consult with our client regarding appeal."
In 2014, another attorney for the Giffords told LifeSiteNews, "The entire interaction between the complainants and the Giffords transpired during a two- to three-minute telephone conversation, which, unknown to Mrs. Gifford, was being tape-recorded," Trainor said.
"After communicating the fact that they chose not to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies at the farm because to do so would violate the Giffords' sincerely held beliefs (that God intended marriage to be between a man a woman only), Mrs. Gifford invited the couple to visit the farm to discuss handling their wedding reception, which the couple refused."
Trainor also says the state's law doesn't apply to the Giffords because their wedding and reception business is on their home property. However, Slate's Mark Stern noted in 2014 that DHR found that "[Liberty Ridge Farms] is a for profit business and directs its publicity to the general public. … LRF engages in widespread marketing to the general public through advertising at a bridal show and on the internet[.] … LRF is encouraging members of the public to lease the use of its facilities and purchase its services. Thus, there is no exclusivity and LRF is not 'distinctly private.'"
What ever happened to:
The landowner said, "Having your religious and property rights taken away is incredibly hurtful and disheartening and we want to ensure that other couples do not have to undergo the same treatment."
As well as “... prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”.
The case against them is stronger than the case against cake artists, and photographers.
Leasing your place is not a request for artistic expression.
[[I have never understood how the power of law could be used to interfere with a private business’s decision on who to serve]]
Wel it goes to the fact that it’s illegal for a white business to refuse to serve a black person-
Somehow gay people have turned their CHOICE of a sinful lifestyle into an ‘inheritable trait’ (ie: You can not discriminate against black folks because of their genetic traits- but homosexuality is NOT a genetic trait- but they have deceived the world into thinking that homosexuality is due the same protections that being black or indian or Mexican etc are)
The Supreme court dictated NEW law when it deemed gay marriage a right, and this elevated this willful sinful lifestyle CHOICE to the pedestal of inheritable trait, and it’s against the law to discriminate against someone who has an inheritable trait
THIS is what Cruz is talking about. Cruz’s campaign should MILK this one for all it’s worth.
I’d love to see some homo couple request to be married in a Mosque. Anyone think the imans would allow it?
the lawsuits are not about artistic expression, it’s about private owners losing their right to hold religious values - it is now against the law to hold a religious value if you run a business - for now it only affects public businesses, but it WILL evolve to affect private businesses aS well
We are well on our way towards immoral decadence where everyone does what is right in their own eyes (except of course Christians who are banned by law from doing what is actually right)
The left denies it, but we are just around the corner from churches being forced to do the sodomites' bidding. They're already suing religious schools to force them to hire in-your-face fags. They're slowly working their way into churches, to tell US what comprises a "minister" in order to tell us what we can and can't do.
It's a moving target, and what's true today will be discarded as "outdated bigotry" tomorrow.
No citizen should be denied their religious rights in America.
You give up that right if you want to put food on the table. /s
You are absolutely correct. Every other protected class evolved into a recognized protected class. There was a judicial and a legislative process. This is because hasty laws make bad law. Arbitrarily adding a new protected class without making it adhere to the proper process to ensure it is correct to do so is always a terrible idea.
The real problem behind that is that sexual orientation could never clear the established tests to rise to the level of a protected class. The gay lobby does not lack for talented attorneys and money. Had they been able to make it work the proper way (the same way all the other protected classes had to,) they would have. Instead, they lobbied and manipulated and outright subverted the rule of law to get the result they wanted. Always remember that when people say that it is just about equal rights. Its not and never has been. It is about special rights.
Sneaky trick: market through Facebook and web site. State policy that requires some information on the couple, requested date, etc. before seeing or talking to them. If they are queer, you simply never respond. It’s not illegal to run your business inefficiently. :-)
Well, as unpopular as this may sound, I can’t find where the Civil Rights Act (the basis of anti-discrimination laws)is constitutional (at least not as interpreted to enforce these laws).
IOW, if a business owner wanted to refuse service to an ethnic group, constitutionally that should be his prerogative. Now this person may become a pariah in his community, and he should expect no state assistance in enforcing his discrimination...but if its not state sponsored discrimination, I don’t understand what business the state has in it.
To me its like a kindergarten teacher telling Billie he has to play with Suzy, even though he doesn’t like her....and really that silly. The government can’t legislate us all into getting along with each other.
And the slippery slope with these types of rulings is huge. I could see muslim prayer rooms being required at restaurants, as an example.
No problem, invite a bunch of mooseSlimes and watch the fun begin.
America is now being asked to accept gay marriage as normal and healthy. No one - not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible, Torah, Koran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment -- ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex. Beyond this, to now say homosexual marriage is right is to say all secular and religious icons in our past were wrong. We are saying in a time of Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, and hotdog-stuffed-crust-pizza that we have reached an enlightenment no other culture before us ever attained - and that we can now proclaim that all the great thinkers throughout history were intolerant bigots due to the decision of 5 activist judges.
I want to see a queer wedding in one.
In all the other cases that have been publicized with the florist and bakers out in Oregon, and the bakers and photographers in Colorado, no one can show they were denied services for anything other than the same-sex wedding. Birthday cakes and cookies have been made by the Christians for these very sad, mentally ill narcissists.
Plenty of alternative businesses are out there, but this was always about shutting it all down for the Bible-believing Christians if they do not 100% comply and celebrate! The gays and lesbians have no intention of eating the cake or using the flowers or standing on the land of Christian “haters.” Out in Oregon, the State actually cleaned out the Christian “haters” bank account to the tune of more $120,000 to pay the fine imposed on hurting some lesbians’ feelings.
If these Christians do not get thee to the re-education camp, which was also State ordered in Colorado and New York, then prison next? Execution? How can such Haters have a right to even draw a breath of air?
Whole passel of judges should be placed in stocks in their town squares to be pummeled by folks with rotten fruit and dog poop.
$13,000?
if the average person makes about $26,000... then this sentence is the same as 6 months in jail
6 months in jail.
for not letting someone perform a ritual you find offensive to your beliefs, on your own property.
will the courts support my pig roast on the grounds of the local mosque?
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.