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

We are talking about business owners using their businesses for religious purposes. That needs to be kept separate. There is more at stake than a gay couple having to buy their wedding cake from another bakery.

Well, their home is surrounded by the general public, which includes gay people. Open to the public means just that.

This is a good place to draw the line. If the business owners allows the client to pick their own decorations, every client gets to pick their own. If they have a set menu, then they can refuse outside decorations. Its the same for everyone.

If you have ever had a BJ, you have engaged in sodomy. It is likely that you plan on receiving more BJs in the future, so you will never be able to compare yourself to the thief that stops stealing. Even though it is an act of love, your lifestyle is still rejected by "true Christians". (Most of which are also getting or giving Bjs)

No Christian, (Or any other religious group) is in a position to reject anyone's lifestyle.

- - - Updated - - -

We are talking about business owners using their businesses for religious purposes. That needs to be kept separate. There is more at stake than a gay couple having to buy their wedding cake from another bakery.

Well, their home is surrounded by the general public, which includes gay people. Open to the public means just that.

This is a good place to draw the line. If the business owners allows the client to pick their own decorations, every client gets to pick their own. If they have a set menu, then they can refuse outside decorations. Its the same for everyone.

If you have ever had a BJ, you have engaged in sodomy. It is likely that you plan on receiving more BJs in the future, so you will never be able to compare yourself to the thief that stops stealing. Even though it is an act of love, your lifestyle is still rejected by "true Christians". (Most of which are also getting or giving Bjs)

No Christian, (Or any other religious group) is in a position to reject anyone's lifestyle.

 

I guess it's how and where you were brought up. I spend a lot of time on a kink website so two people of the same gender being romantic together frankly seems very vanilla to me. I don't care what two people in love do together.

 

Once again try reading the thread messages and not just your own. Others are claiming the farm became “public property” when offered for hire.

The question is not about “selling tickets” to a theater, but whether a theater can be forced to do a production they do not want to produce – and can actors be required to perform an act they do not want to perform. A marriage ceremony has NO legal effect or consequence in law. It is merely a theatrical production.

Accordingly, Lady GaGa could be required to sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" and a Broadway theater could be required to allow the KKK "Birth of a Nation" to be performed - and their staff and actors required to accept the employment or it would be religious discrimination - right?

 

Marriage is a contract, jake... Domestic law 101.

Liberty Farm did NOT become public property. ... however they advertised to host weddings, reunions, bar mitzvahs for a fee.

 

It seems like there will always be a grey area though. Where exactly is the line drawn in various situations? There are seemingly infinite permutations. For example, a business that sells cakes can refuse service if the customer requests a presentation that is deemed by the business owner to be derogatory or offensive even if it is a verse from the Bible condemning homesexuality (source). But, if the situation were reversed somewhat would a Christian book store have to engrave a pro-gay message on a Bible if they allowed custom engraving on their products? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a court that would label pro-gay messages as derogatory or offensive. I wonder which way a court would lean under current law? Which way should it lean?

 

This country is not the better for forcing them to obey government.

Supposedly it of the people, for them and by them. Now it is for the government.

 

We ALL have to obey the law.

 

Well, you and I can make the law that everybody else must obey I suppose.

 

So you are opposed to civil rights??????

 

Wrong, so very wrong that it is astounding. A persons innate morality cannot be separated from that person, you are essentially demanding that a person operate in life without a fundamental political or religious belief. "Property" includes the person, your physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual self.

If its your property, you can use it in any manner you choose so long as you do not infringe upon another persons property rights. If a person wants to use their private property for religious purposes, then they can do so. If a person believes a gay wedding is a sin and refuses to participate in any way, then that is their right. It is an infringement for the gay couple to force that person to participate in their gay wedding.

The gays property is not being infringed upon. The business owners is being infringed upon.

This obsession with isolating religion from all aspects of life has become absurd.

 

One place lines are often drawn is between whether your refusal is based on the service or the person being served. You can refuse to sell cakes, you can refuse to decorate cakes. That is not the same as refusing to sell cakes to gay or black people.

If you want to make a public offer to a community, that community has a right to say how their public is defined. They have a right to say your offer cannot be extended to children, must be modified for those legally blind or cannot leave out other segments of that community.

The community gets to decide what defines the community. If you choose to except their terms, get licensed to conduct that business, but then try to divide them along your lines instead of theirs... that community has a right to protect itself from your chopping it up. They can withdraw permission to do your business in their community and they can impose penalties for your failure to live up to the terms you agreed to.



​

 

I proved my point. But to show I am for civil rights, we in CA put on our ballot a civil union that was designed for homosexuals.

I voted in favor and it passed.

Big mistake by me.

They said, no way. Marriage only. And they sued. Lost entirely in CA courts.

Then the effen court in DC overturned we the people.

We spoke, they did not listen.

So when one says they must obey the law, I say, only when they want to.

Take Obama and his talk to the troops. Told them when Trump takes over, resist Trump. Try to keep disobeying the Feds. Sure, that is what Obama told them.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ion-trumps-authority-criticize-our-president/

 

You have every right to be astounded. A person’s morality can absolutely be separated from a business, job, public office, etc. There are those who believe that homosexuals should be put to death and consider their religious/moral duty to do so. If you live in the US, you have to separate that belief from your actions. Saying “We don’t serve your kind here” is not nearly as severe, but still unacceptable here in the US. (Thus the lawsuits against those who try it)
You are right about a person using their own property for religious purposes. It’s their property. The moment they make their services available to the public in exchange for money, they become a business and can no longer expect the same protection as a person.
People have rights.
Businesses are not people.
If that isn’t good enough, let me just tell you that I believe it is immoral to teach children to believe that Jonah survived being swallowed by a large fish and lived 3 days, or that god would tell Abraham to kill his own son. That is just sick. No sane person would believe such garbage. In your opinion, does that give me the right to assert my morals on Christians and refuse to hire them, sell them a home, rent them an apartment, sell them a cake, etc?

 

No, not a bit.

 

Non sequitur!

 

Your inane semantic quibbling has no bearing upon the FACTS that they used their private property for public accommodations and illegally discriminated against a gay couple.

 

So you can't find anything in the statute that excludes their farm as a public accommodation?

 

Which part of the constitution was NOT invented?

 

No, not at all

 

Hyperbolic twaddle with no basis in reality whatsoever!

Offering services to the public means that they can either accept your services at the negotiated rate or not.

As a service provider you cannot refuse to provide the service based upon your own personal religious prejudices.

The inane scenarios you posted above are ludicrous fearmongering nonsense!

 

By definition it's a guest house, and only those who are welcome are entitled to enter it. Would you entertain anyone in your house if you disapproved of them for whatever reason? No of course you wouldn't so why the hypocrisy. As if we didn't know!

 

We the People decide the Law of the Land and the government OF the People enforces it FOR the People who are being illegally discriminated against.

 

Hah! How many threads do we have on sanctuary cities and the illegal invasion? Scores at the least.

 

As one persons civil right is another's abuse of HIS civil rights, I feel we are better when we limit those rights under the law to those actually in the Constitution.

 

the bits that are actually in it....then we have legal penumbras which are always simply bad political law.