Couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm

What minority group is being disadvantaged? Liberty Ridge Farms doesn't do wedding parties for free.. They are compensated..

 

The B&B owners whose lives they destroyed? And the bakery which refused to decorate the 'wedding' cake'?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

I didn't mention that because I'm not aware of it.

 

Yes, its their business. Liberty Farms advertise themselves as a venue for wedding parties. I have a friend here who's family farm is doing the same thing.. They provide a venue for weddings, reunions, scouting events etc... Its a business.

As such they can't discriminate.. Can you imagine if they refused to accommodate Black people. If the owners have religious objections, they should get out of the business.

 

The restaurant, like the Giffords farm, cannot discriminate when it comes to providing the services they offer. They must provide them to everyone irrespective of race, creed, gender and orientation.

There is no "freedom of religion to be a bigot" in the Constitution.

 

Its been explained over and over again on this thread.. I don't think they can understand it.

 

Yup, like trying to get across the concept that there can be no freedom OF religion WITHOUT freedom FROM religion.

They just don't understand that their own rights end where the rights of others begin.

 

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue.. I just can't imagine any American being opposed to civil rights for all of us.

 

Therein lies the rub!

Civil rights means respecting the rights of others even when you don't agree with them.

Unfortunately there is a segment of American society that doesn't understand that when you deprive others of their rights you lose your own rights.

We Americans have a duty to uphold the rights of others because otherwise the system fails. We the People are the only safeguard we have for our own rights and yes, the constitutional government OF the People and FOR the People is the means by which we uphold these rights.

The OP is only focused upon the rights of the bigots in this instance while ignoring the rights of the gay couple. It is sad that so few understand the principles involved.

 

The Christ haters continue to relentlessly push to destroy the constitution's first amendment. And as always, their wedge issue, their battering ram are the homosexuals with their pretend marriages.

The goal here for the progressive Christ haters is to rid the country of the freedom of religious expression by Christians which gives Christians the right to discriminate against what they consider an abomination of their faith being queer marriage. The Christ haters are completely aligned with the queer gangster lobby which along with them practices 0 tolerance against anyone who disagrees with their definition of marriage regardless of how perverted or how totalitarian their methods are.

Like everything else in PC society today, there is no compromise concerning these people, there is only fascist obedience to the state.

 

There is NO threat to your religious beliefs or practices, but if you are in business, you can't discriminate against Gays, Blacks, Jews etc.

Liberty Ridge Farms should get out of the wedding party business and stand by their religious convictions.

 

Being in a gay relationship doesn't turn a person black.

 

The irony being that it is apparently fair game for the OP to call Americans who uphold the rights of others "Christ hating fascists" and gays "queer gangsters" but if the same terminology was used to describe the extremist evangelicals who hate gays that would be a rule violation here at PF.

Putting that aside you are right that anyone whose business puts them in conflict with their religion should find another line of work. Alternatively they could donate all of the income from gay weddings to the charity of their choice and take a tax deduction. There are any number of ways to reach an accommodation that would not be onerous.

It almost begs the question that what would they have done if these two women had turned up at their church to attend services and use the restroom while they were there? Would that have desecrated the church and made them uncomfortable to have shared a bathroom?

The reality that so many reasonable and sane Christians are coming to is that gays are not going anywhere. We all have family members who are gay and we have them around at Thanksgiving and Christmas. We work with them and probably even go out to sports events with them and work out at the gym next to them. Gays are just like everyone else and it is way past time that the evangelicals grew up and accepted that if they want to be bigots they have to do that in private from here on in.

 

There is indeed this feeling among Christians that they got this right to oppress others with their sharia like laws. Except, there is no such thing as the right to discriminate.

 

100% wrong. The right to practice religion and freedom of speech is stronger than ever. Most of us are disgusted by the actions of the Westboro Baptist church, but agree with their right to do it. Do we allow a business to have the same rights as an individual? You have the right to be appalled, but not the right to use your business to push your religious beliefs on others.

They did not strike. It would be a response to a strike against equality.

Well said.

 

Or else, what?

 

Christians consider queer marriage a violation of their faith and a violation of their first amendment free speech and free religious practice rights.

And I told you this was all about hating Christians and nothing else for the progressive left.

 

There is no private property rights? Now we enter the second amendment. Who says they must provide them .. who's they?

 

I can understand one thing. According to the second amendment of the constitution, there are private property rights and with them, the right to discriminate against anyone regardless of the reason as to why. And according to the first amendment, there are free religious expression rights and the right to practice your faith accordingly and discriminate according to that faith in order to uphold it without being forced to violate your faith by governmental force.

Everything else after that is totalitarianism.

 

No, we don't. There's not a single homosexual person in my family, nor my 'in law' family. That's right out to second cousins on both sides. That's alot of people. And no, there are no closet cases .... it's 2016, not 1956. Many people can get through entire lives without ever actually knowingly being in the presence of a gay person. I know some elderly people who believe they've never encountered gay people. It matters not that they almost certainly will have, only that as far as they're concerned, they never have. That perception has a big influence on how they view the matter. They don't need to be religious, or prejudiced, they only need to feel that it's so rare that it's not worth thinking about.

 

Its not private property.. Its a business open to the public.

- - - Updated - - -

Would you say that a bank, a grocery store, a restaurant, a barbershop were private property?

 

100% wrong. This is nothing more than a push back on the old "We don't serve your kind here!" There is no violation whatsoever your right to free speech or your right to believe whatever you want. It is not about hating Christians; it is about fair business practices. Nothing more. Christians enjoy legal protection from discrimination from businesses. It is not legal to deny employment or services because of religious beliefs. Allowing them to use that to unfairly discriminate against others for their beliefs is not justice.

Religious people are not in a position to throw the first stone on this issue. (Just ask an altar boy!)

 

They could just refuse right away without mentioning any sensitivities,
they only give the state and the third sex personalities to pick their pockets,
I hope lessons were learned whether they like it or not it's already a law and they are bound to follow it.

 

If open to the public then clearly no business could ever tell anyone to leave and if the person refused it could not be trespassing, since it is "public property." It is not possible to trespass on public property, is it? They also could never lock the doors as only the government can set hours for "public property." Also no bar could have a sign stating no one under age 21 may enter because the bar is "public property."

But without a doubt if a person argued in defense "but it was public property and they couldn't make me leave because I didn't have shoes on" - the court would tell the person that the property is NOT public property, but private property of the business owner.

- - - Updated - - -

But, being "public property" as a matter of free speech people could come onto the farm and shout protests and raid the wedding with anti-gay signs. A person has a free speech right to protest at "public places."

 

You don't understand the law at all.

The owner of a business sets the hours and the dress code.. 21 is the legal drinking age by law.

The issue here is discrimination or civil rights.

Has anyone ever mentioned "critical thinking" to you? Your reasoning wouldn't get a pass in most 9th grade classrooms.

 

Renting out your property for weddings means that it is no longer "private property"!

The 2nd amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic.