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

The sheer ignorance is mind boggling!

The 2nd amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with private property rights.

Freedom of religion does not give anyone the right to engage in a commercial enterprise that discriminates.

 

Try reading a thread sometime before trying to debate on it. If the owner controls the property in any way it is no longer solely "public property." But by your messages that is too complex a concept maybe for you. The claim "a business is "public property" is false. The correct legal terminology is "open to the public for commerce" or "offering a commercial public service" as anti-discrimination laws actually are not about physical property, but services offered for hire or goods offered for sale.

The debate over LGTBQ rights usually is just throwing slogans back and forth, and many are on false premises. For example, a marriage ceremony has NOTHING do do with becoming married in virtually all states and accordingly also nothing to do with the federal government in terms of marriage. Rather, a "marriage ceremony" is just an ideological or religious ritual and nothing else - and the entire production by any professionals hired is no more than a theatrical stage production of no legal significance whatsoever.

YET nearly all will claim that an actor can refuse a role in a movie or play they don't want to do, including for ideological or ethical reasons, even if "discriminatory" because they are actors. In the topic of this thread, the farm is no different than a commercial theater the same as any other. It has to be evaluated from reality, not slogans.

 

bull(*)(*)(*)(*) LGBT's inviolating normal people's latitude....

 

You are wrong, it still is "private property." If it became public property the owner or manager could set NO restrictions or rules whatsoever of any kind, no lock it or prohibit anyone. Only the government that controls public property can set rules about public property.

 

I am surprised no law firm has undertaken offering to advice those in business who do not want to particular in homosexual religious or ideological rituals how to avoid doing so in a what that meets current legalisms. It would be fairly easy to do actual.

For example, that farm could make part of the contract a specifically worded ceremony that ANYONE can hire - but the wording is specific - and wording defining marriage as between a man and woman, citing Bible verses that says so. A same sex couple could hire that location with that ceremony, but it would be that ceremony. The farm also could clarify that the ceremony is a theatrical production and that under their state's law a marriage ceremony does not create a marriage to either state or federal law. Only the signing of the marriage license by a qualified person to do so constitutes a marriage. In short, the farm would specify the theatrical production it offers.

 

Look up the term "public accommodation"!

When someone uses their private property in order to do commercial business with the public their property falls under public accommodations laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

 

One thing i'm curious about is the recording itself, why?

I've done business with a lot of different people and organizations in my 48 years and I've never secretly recorded a single transaction or phone call in anticipation of some kind of violation of my rights.

From a devils advocate POV, Is it out of line to think that this couple called multiple wedding organizers and recorded every single conversation in search of the one that would say "no thanks" ?

My entrepreneurial mind starts thinking.. is this a good way to make some extra bucks? Troll for anti X establishments in order to secure some form of financial compensation when they refuse or at the very least score some points?

 

So you are FINALLY figuring it out. "Public property" does NOT mean the same thing as "public accommodation," does it? It is still "private property."

 

In Florida secretly recording someone is a criminal offense and anything recorded is not admissible in civil or criminal court. There is an exception in regards to police recording people and to people recording police while action in their official capacity.

No, trying to make money for yourself with these particularly anti-discrimination state laws would not work because those anti-discrimination laws are designed to give all power to the government to decide who may and may not discriminate and who to target and not target. In most states with such laws YOU can not sue, only the government can - meaning imposing fines. In addition, there is no due process in the legal procedures as they use "administrative law" - which means the Bill Of Rights is declared void and the government is the judge, jury and prosecutor.

That is why Muslims bakers can get away with refusing to provide a cake to a gay couple but a Christian baker can not. The government will not pursue Muslims, but does viciously pursue Christians with massive fines deliberately to destroy the Christian's business. But, then, the government, not you, gets the money. They probably will add a little bit of the money for you for acting as their agent for their agenda and to get money for themselves/their agency. It is an exorbitantly corrupt and discriminatory process - but then government can discriminate against anyone they want to - or target anyone they want to.

 

but they did get $1,500 each in compensation right ?

< duly noted: I only did a cursory read of the the story, its not a big deal to me personally, so maybe i've overlooked something.

 

Utterly irrelevant to the fact that they were using it for commercial gain and therefore it falls under PUBLIC accomodation laws.

 

Okay, what if it was blacks and their religion said that proper Christians can't have blacks around them? And don't say that would never happen, as plenty of Christian faiths saw strict segregation of the races as God's command up until 1964 and beyond

And why, btw, does the fact that homosexuality may or may not be voluntary have anything to do with it? OK, what if these people were converts to Judaism and these owners religious faith said that Jews were Christ Killers and no Christian was allowed to have anything to do with them. You can't say that some Christian religions haven't said that and you can't say that being a Jewish convert isn't any person's normal right, just like being homosexual. Are you all right with withholding services to Jews just because they are Jews then?

 

We're in the age of propitiating every bloody minority group irrespective of the disadvantages to wider society? The following is for Margot, who suggests the B&B owners should have shut down their business: When they started it they probably couldn't believe there would be bookings for homosexuals, never mind the 'extremists' setting out on a contrived sting for self-serving purposes, eg monetary, and 'spreading the good word'. Let's be honest about it - those B&B owners et al were cynically sacrificed at the altar of political correctness, and what they'd worked hard for, probably for many years, collapsed about their ears, but YOU, in your right-on arrogance, think they should simply accept it and diversify, even though the B&B was their life investment into old age, and the only thing they knew to earn their living . . . why the (*)(*)(*)(*) should they give it all up for holding to their principles or beliefs? Would you like to deal with the ramifications of an overnight stay of those 'guests'? No you wouldn't, and you're a mealy-mouthed hypocrite to expect someone else to.

 

You are the only person who thinks a business is public property with hours of operation set by the government. A theater is also a business.. They can't refuse to sell tickets to blacks, Jews, gays etc.

 

Something I don't understand about situations like this. Why do gay couples want their weddings held in a place where the people don't want them? Why do they want their wedding cakes baked by people who don't accept their lifestyle?

I have no issues with the LGBT community and if I owned a bakery I'd happily bake them any kind of cake they wanted. I just don't get why they'd visit a business that doesn't want them? I'd be afraid to go to a business that doesn't want me because I'd worry that the business would do a terrible job and ruin my wedding.

I understand the law and I'm not disagreeing with it. I just don't understand the people involved. It's not as if there's only "straight" bakeries. There's plenty of competition. Trying to run people out of business by having them fined and running up their court cost is just mean. Okay, so they don't accept your lifestyle. Well then give your business and your money to those who do. They'll appreciate your business!

 

A bakery owned by a gay couple cannot refuse a Christian couple either.

 

I would not mind a gay bakery making my wedding cake UNLESS they said it would make them uncomfortable then in that case I'd go somewhere else. I wouldn't want my day of happiness to bring displeasure to others.

 

I understand your feelings, but this isn't about feelings, its about civil rights.

 

Most gays would think exactly that. It's the grandstanding bigotted extremists who cause the problems.

 

It seems like it's about people trying to hurt other people.

 

Its not.. .. There was a time when Blacks couldn't sit down at a Woolworth's lunch counter .. and they wanted the same rights as others. Were they troublemakers? Were they trying to hurt other people?

 

It's all part of the PC insanity which is sweeping the western world.

 

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

One big difference is unlike way back then not everyone is discriminating against the LGBT community in the way people were discriminating against black people. If you're gay and you want a wedding cake there's probably going to be plenty of businesses that will welcome you.

Anyway, I'm not arguing about the law nor world I try to change it.

What I was saying is that I don't understand why someone would want to do business with someone who doesn't want their business. It's no big deal if all you're doing in going in and buying some cookies. But why would a person want their wedding catered by a group of people that don't accept their lifestyle? Yea the law is on the side of the gay couple but it's not the law that's going to bake the cake.

What will the gay couple do if the caterers do a lousy job? The law can't force excellent service, only fair service.

 

I'm for sure not for any sort of discrimination, but honestly:

Has a shop owner, a restaurant owner, a taxi driver etc. the right to decide whom he wants to give his business service and whom not?
Is it their private business in all circumstances and decisions? Yes, so why are they not allowed to chose whom they want to have as customer?

 

But if they patronise a business that does want it, they wouldn't then be able to publicise their cause celebre.