What a great country we live in! Couple fined for not hosting same-sex marriage

[Denny Crane]

How does that quote contradict anything I posted?

barfo

The law isn't litigated yet. The farm paid a $13,000 fine and is appealing it. They are going to win.

In the meantime, the farm stopped hosting wedding ceremonies altogether, which is costing them business (let them eat cake!). They still offer their farm for use for receptions. For ANYONE. So they're simply not discriminating.

Huff and puff all you want, but you ain't right. Again.

 

[blue32]

Religious freedom is enshrined in the 1st amendment. Should a synagogue be forced to marry christians in a christian ceremony?

The issue here is not refusing service, it's refusing to take part in a religious ceremony that is in conflict with their own religion. And it's in their HOME.

It is a very different thing than a store among a city block of stores refusing service. The city has zoned that block as commercial, the business is open to the general public. But the business is not forced to be open at 4AM, or the parking lot free to use for people wanting to park and go to the beach all day.

I get what you are saying, but their farm isn't a church, it is a space that is rented out; it's a business. They use their space to make money.

Whether it's your home or not, if you are performing business there are laws against discrimination. Allowing people to bend laws because it violates religious beliefs is bullshit. Anyone could then come up with whatever the fuck religion they wanted to get around any law, and I believe the idea to allow that is B.S.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I get what you are saying, but their farm isn't a church, it is a space that is rented out; it's a business. They use their space to make money.

Whether it's your home or not, if you are performing business there are laws against discrimination. Allowing people to bend laws because it violates religious beliefs is bullshit. Anyone could then come up with whatever the fuck religion they wanted to get around any law, and I believe the idea to allow that is B.S.

Kind of like how someone can say "I'm not Christian/Muslim/Jewish, I'm whatever-the-fuck/atheist, so help me get around these pesky laws around marriage so I can marry according to my (non)-faith?" Bending laws like that? Some people agree with you that that is BS

 

[riverman]

But wouldn't your religious views trump the state law in discrimination? So now churches must allow gay people in, even if their religious views forbid it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm in full support for gay marriages and even having gay people in church, but I'm not in support for a government to fine people for not going against what their religious views are.

Not in the case of polygamist religious beliefs or marrying children by arrangement to old men. There are a lot of religious beliefs to address when it comes to legalities. In the case of gay marriage, I think it's not such an issue but for example, if a gay person wanted multiple husbands, wives, etc. or to marry a 16 year old, it would be a factor

 

[Denny Crane]

I get what you are saying, but their farm isn't a church, it is a space that is rented out; it's a business. They use their space to make money.

Whether it's your home or not, if you are performing business there are laws against discrimination. Allowing people to bend laws because it violates religious beliefs is bullshit. Anyone could then come up with whatever the fuck religion they wanted to get around any law, and I believe the idea to allow that is B.S.

The distinction is the people are being forced to participate in a religious ceremony in their home.

If they refused to allow LGBT people on the property at all or refused them non-religious functions, then it would be discrimination.

I don't agree that they should have refused the wedding, it's just that they have rights to do so.

 

[magnifier661]

Not in the case of polygamist religious beliefs or marrying children by arrangement to old men. There are a lot of religious beliefs to address when it comes to legalities. In the case of gay marriage, I think it's not such an issue but for example, if a gay person wanted multiple husbands, wives, etc. or to marry a 16 year old, it would be a factor

Yes, but stating that religions cannot be free from laws isn't the case all the time. That's the start of the argument.

And let's be real here. Being able to marry an 8 year old as oppose to refusing service is quite the difference don't you think?

 

[blue32]

The distinction is the people are being forced to participate in a religious ceremony in their home.

If they refused to allow LGBT people on the property at all or refused them non-religious functions, then it would be discrimination.

I don't agree that they should have refused the wedding, it's just that they have rights to do so.

Dude, that is not true read the OP. It said they refused to hold the ceremony on their land which is being used as a business for other ceremonies. Which was recorded.

There is nothing in the OP about the owners being forced to participate. They refused to host the damn thing. Hosting doesn't mean they have to participate. They could have allowed the ceremony to happen, while having employees handle all the planning/direction. They could have kept to themselves in their home, while their farm was being used in the ceremony.

 

[blue32]

Kind of like how someone can say "I'm not Christian/Muslim/Jewish, I'm whatever-the-fuck/atheist, so help me get around these pesky laws around marriage so I can marry according to my (non)-faith?" Bending laws like that? Some people agree with you that that is BS

Yeah... I believe that two people should be able to join together and have the same tax/benefit/etc treatment as regular married people. When we made discrimination laws in USA, we opened ourselves up to removing/changing special benefits for some people but not the other, as an example, like you posted, the word/idea of marriage.

So in other words, we either adjust/change the definition of marriage, or we create a new word and attach the same legal benefits/etc to it for others.

 

[Denny Crane]

Dude, that is not true read the OP. It said they refused to hold the ceremony on their land which is being used as a business for other ceremonies. Which was recorded.

There is nothing in the OP about the owners being forced to participate. They refused to host the damn thing. Hosting doesn't mean they have to participate. They could have allowed the ceremony to happen, while having employees handle all the planning/direction. They could have kept to themselves in their home, while their farm was being used in the ceremony.

So reverse discrimination is your suggestion? It's their home and property. They're not the ones who should have to cave on their legit principles.

Go look at the farm's WWW site. They do receptions, always did, and for anyone LGBT or whatever. The ceremony is the difference.

 

[blue32]

So reverse discrimination is your suggestion? It's their home and property. They're not the ones who should have to cave on their legit principles.

Go look at the farm's WWW site. They do receptions, always did, and for anyone LGBT or whatever. The ceremony is the difference.

The difference is, they open themselves up to the laws of the land when they start running a business out of their home.


What you're saying is that it's okay that I open a computer repair shop out of my house but I tell every white person that they can't get their computer serviced here because I only serve minorities, since that is what my religion says I must do. It's okay right because its my house and my religious view? "I'm sorry, I dont agree with you being white, so no service" .... BS.

 

[Denny Crane]

What 1st amendment right are you basing refusal of service?

Constitution is a problem for the law in the case of the farm, doesn't apply to your analogy. I

 

[Natebishop3]

This is such a sticky topic.

Normally I am 100% against any kind of discrimination, but this is a religious ceremony. They aren't calling it a civil union or a domestic partnership. It's a marriage, which is a religious ceremony. Would you force these people to allow pagans to perform a ceremony on their property? If someone wanted to sacrifice a live calf to Zeus, would you force the owners to allow it? They said they don't have anything against gay people specifically. It's the ceremony they don't want to perform.

So while I am against discrimination, I can see their argument. I honestly don't know what my opinion is, one way or the other.

 

[barfo]

This is such a sticky topic.

Normally I am 100% against any kind of discrimination, but this is a religious ceremony. They aren't calling it a civil union or a domestic partnership. It's a marriage, which is a religious ceremony.

Not correct. I'm married, and it sure as hell wasn't a religious ceremony in any sense of the word. Marriage CAN be a religious ceremony, but it can also not be.

Would you force these people to allow pagans to perform a ceremony on their property? If someone wanted to sacrifice a live calf to Zeus, would you force the owners to allow it? They said they don't have anything against gay people specifically. It's the ceremony they don't want to perform.

"I don't have anything against black people specifically, I just don't want them eating at my lunch counter."

barfo

 

[barfo]

Kind of like how someone can say "I'm not Christian/Muslim/Jewish, I'm whatever-the-fuck/atheist, so help me get around these pesky laws around marriage so I can marry according to my (non)-faith?" Bending laws like that? Some people agree with you that that is BS

Since when have the laws ever said that marriage is only for religious people?

barfo

 

[barfo]

The law isn't litigated yet. The farm paid a $13,000 fine and is appealing it. They are going to win.

So? Plenty of laws haven't been 'litigated yet'. Doesn't make them invalid.

In the meantime, the farm stopped hosting wedding ceremonies altogether, which is costing them business (let them eat cake!). They still offer their farm for use for receptions. For ANYONE. So they're simply not discriminating.

Good, glad to hear they are now in compliance with the law.

Huff and puff all you want, but you ain't right. Again.

Huff and puff all you want, but all you are doing is offering your opinion about what you think the rules should be. The business needs to follow the rules as they are, not as Denny thinks they should be.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Not correct. I'm married, and it sure as hell wasn't a religious ceremony in any sense of the word. Marriage CAN be a religious ceremony, but it can also not be.



"I don't have anything against black people specifically, I just don't want them eating at my lunch counter."

barfo

To these people, marriage IS a religious ceremony. How is allowing black people to eat the same as performing a ceremony that binds two people together?

 

[julius]

Wait, hold the phone...barfo is married?!?

 

[barfo]

To these people, marriage IS a religious ceremony. How is allowing black people to eat the same as performing a ceremony that binds two people together?

To these people, marriage is a business. If they don't want to be in the marriage business, and follow the rules of the marriage business, they should get out of the business. They don't have to change their beliefs. They also don't have to be in the marriage business.

The same? No, it's not the same. But it's not clear why the differences should allow discrimination in one case and not the other.

barfo

 

[blue32]

To these people, marriage IS a religious ceremony. How is allowing black people to eat the same as performing a ceremony that binds two people together?

I took it as, the "Barfo Religion" dictates such that black people can't eat at his lunch counters. Business owners should not be allowed to discriminate against people based on their religious views.

 

[Natebishop3]

To these people, marriage is a business. If they don't want to be in the marriage business, and follow the rules of the marriage business, they should get out of the business. They don't have to change their beliefs. They also don't have to be in the marriage business.

The same? No, it's not the same. But it's not clear why the differences should allow discrimination in one case and not the other.

barfo

So if I run a business that performs Christian weddings and only Christian weddings, and I clearly define on my website what I view as a Christian wedding, should I be forced to perform a Muslim wedding or a Hindu wedding or a Pagan wedding? I'm just curious, because I want to know what the brightline is.

 

[Denny Crane]

So? Plenty of laws haven't been 'litigated yet'. Doesn't make them invalid.



Good, glad to hear they are now in compliance with the law.



Huff and puff all you want, but all you are doing is offering your opinion about what you think the rules should be. The business needs to follow the rules as they are, not as Denny thinks they should be.

barfo

They didn't follow the bullshit unconstitutional laws. Huff and puff away. Or just puff away.

The 1st amendment states that government shall establish no religion. Mandating that a religious ceremony of any kind occur on anyone's private property is establishment of religion (any religion but the property owner's).

You want separation of church and state? When it comes to schools? Well, you got it. You're stuck with it.

 

[barfo]

So if I run a business that performs Christian weddings and only Christian weddings, and I clearly define on my website what I view as a Christian wedding, should I be forced to perform a Muslim wedding or a Hindu wedding or a Pagan wedding? I'm just curious, because I want to know what the brightline is.

I think there's a big difference here between performing weddings and renting space out where weddings are held.
This case involves the latter, not the former. Of course someone who performs Christian weddings cannot be forced to perform a Muslim wedding, just as a welder can't be forced to make a quilt. Those are different jobs, requiring different skills.

barfo

 

[blue32]

"While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them. "

Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but when you operate a business or run a publicly funded social service agency open to the public, those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate.

https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate

 

[Denny Crane]

https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate

ACLU isn't always right.

What they say may be true in some cases, but when the farm sells services (just not religious ceremonies) to LGBT people and hires them, it's hard to find any cause whatsoever for discrimination.

 

[barfo]

They didn't follow the bullshit unconstitutional laws. Huff and puff away. Or just puff away.

The 1st amendment states that government shall establish no religion. Mandating that a religious ceremony of any kind occur on anyone's private property is establishment of religion (any religion but the property owner's).

You want separation of church and state? When it comes to schools? Well, you got it. You're stuck with it.

Ah, 'bullshit unconstitutional laws". Good luck with that.

Also, who says the ceremony the lesbians wanted to have was a religious ceremony? The lesbians might be non-religious, for all you know.

barfo

 

[barfo]

ACLU isn't always right.

What they say may be true in some cases, but when the farm sells services (just not religious ceremonies) to LGBT people and hires them, it's hard to find any cause whatsoever for discrimination.

"The restaurant hires black people as dishwashers, and let's them get take-out from the back door (they just can't sit at the lunch counter), so it's hard to find any cause whatsoever for discrimination."

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Ah, 'bullshit unconstitutional laws". Good luck with that.

Also, who says the ceremony the lesbians wanted to have was a religious ceremony? The lesbians might be non-religious, for all you know.

barfo

Your kind thought the gun laws in Illinois and DC were legit. You lose on this one, too.

It doesn't matter what flavor of or non religion the lesbians are. The government effectively establishes every other religion but the farm OWNERS.

 

[Denny Crane]

"The restaurant hires black people as dishwashers, and let's them get take-out from the back door (they just can't sit at the lunch counter), so it's hard to find any cause whatsoever for discrimination."

barfo

Strawman. I agree the law prohibits discrimination based upon race and not religion.

What strawman are you going to stand up next?

 

[Natebishop3]

I think there's a big difference here between performing weddings and renting space out where weddings are held.
This case involves the latter, not the former. Of course someone who performs Christian weddings cannot be forced to perform a Muslim wedding, just as a welder can't be forced to make a quilt. Those are different jobs, requiring different skills.

barfo

You don't know that. Many venues have strict policies about who can perform the wedding. I'm getting married in about a year and the venues we chose have strict requirements for what caterers we can use, what ministers we can use, etc. There are some venues that require that you use a sustainable caterer. You can either choose to abide by those requirements, or not and go somewhere else.

The crux of the matter is whether you believe that being gay is a choice or something that you are born with. Some people believe it's something you are born with, others believe it's a choice. The problem seems to lie with the people who think it's a choice. Personally I have known a lot of gay people and had gay friends. I think it's something you are born with, which would make it no different than being black or white or blind or deaf.

But, I still think marriage is historically a religious ceremony. Doesn't matter which religion, but it has been a religious deal between people who whichever god they recognize. So if one venue is owned by people of one religion, I think it's not unreasonable to respect that religion.

 

[BlazerWookee]

I'm going to send her $13,000 for her mental anguish

I'm mentally anguished...