Would Rather Close The Doors

[GBFAN]

A Christian couple fined $13,000 for refusing to host a lesbian wedding on their New York farm has decided to close the venue rather than violate their religious beliefs.

Cynthia and Robert Gifford decided not to host ceremonies anymore, other than those already scheduled, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Trainor told The Blaze. ”Since the order essentially compelled them to do all ceremonies or none at all, they have chosen the latter in order to stay true to their religious convictions, even though it will likely hurt their business in the short run,” he said.

New Jersey couple Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin took the Giffords to court when they refused to host their 2012 wedding at Liberty Ridge Farm, where the Giffords host about a dozen weddings a year.

The Giffords were willing to host the reception, but not the actual ceremony.

Read more: Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Close Venue | The Daily Caller

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Whether you like it or not, we have public accomodation laws. When a company opens themselves up to the public for business, they have to open themselves up to the public. Sexual orientation, like race, religion, gender, and about 10 other categories fall under this protection.

If Bob's religion says black people are evil, should he be able to hang a sign outside his business stating "No blacks allowed"? We're not violating Bob's religion any more than this couple's religion was violated. Don't like it? Don't open a public business, then you can refuse to deal with ANYONE for ANY reason.

I can't even imagine the magnitude of hissy fit that would ensue if the situation was reversed and a homosexual couple refused to serve christians in their business.

 

[Henrin]

It's the nature of business in this country. If you don't want to be a slave to the population at large it's best to not open a business at all. It's well past time we repeal public accommodation laws, but I wouldn't expect that any time soon. People like having slaves after all.

 

[Henrin]

Whether you like it or not, we have public accomodation laws. When a company opens themselves up to the public for business, they have to open themselves up to the public. Sexual orientation, like race, religion, gender, and about 10 other categories fall under this protection.

If Bob's religion says black people are evil, should he be able to hang a sign outside his business stating "No blacks allowed"? We're not violating Bob's religion any more than this couple's religion was violated. Don't like it? Don't open a public business, then you can refuse to deal with ANYONE for ANY reason.

I can't even imagine the magnitude of hissy fit that would ensue if the situation was reversed and a homosexual couple refused to serve christians in their business.

You do realize libertarians reject the entire premise of a "public" business, right? If the business is owned and operated by private individuals on private property(not like there is any other kind of property) it's not a public business.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You do realize libertarians reject the entire premise of a "public" business, right? If the business is owned and operated by private individuals on private property(not like there is any other kind of property) it's not a public business.

You do realize that stereotyping all libertarians to be your definition is a little lame, right? I am not an absolutist right libertarian, I'm a middle libertarian that realizes the world is a shade of grey, and frankly, the net gain for our society of having public accommodation laws is well worth the minor inconvenience.

This however isn't really about public accommodation laws, it's about christians throwing hissy fits because they don't like tolerating gays. Christians as a whole seem to have no problem whatsoever with public accommodation laws when it comes to accommodating christians.

 

[Henrin]

You do realize that stereotyping all libertarians to be your definition is a little lame, right? I am not an absolutist right libertarian, I'm a middle libertarian that realizes the world is a shade of grey, and frankly, the net gain for our society of having public accommodation laws is well worth the minor inconvenience.

This however isn't really about public accommodation laws, it's about christians throwing hissy fits because they don't like tolerating gays. Christians as a whole seem to have no problem whatsoever with public accommodation laws when it comes to accommodating christians.

Libertarians believe in the freedom of association. They believe that everyone is free to choose who they will interact with, which includes the right to refuse to interact with people. Libertarians also believe you can do with your property whatever it is you want, which includes the right to refuse certain people access to your property.

This whole grey hogwash you speak is an excuse you're throwing out there in the hopes that your complete abandonment of property and association rights has some sort of standing, but the excuse is transparent, and thus rejected.

 

[CLAX1911]

You do realize that stereotyping all libertarians to be your definition is a little lame, right? I am not an absolutist right libertarian, I'm a middle libertarian that realizes the world is a shade of grey, and frankly, the net gain for our society of having public accommodation laws is well worth the minor inconvenience.

This however isn't really about public accommodation laws, it's about christians throwing hissy fits because they don't like tolerating gays. Christians as a whole seem to have no problem whatsoever with public accommodation laws when it comes to accommodating christians.

that is the way it is, you disagree with one libertarian you aren't libertarian. It's why that party has no hope of ever having a legitimate politician.

 

[Henrin]

that is the way it is, you disagree with one libertarian you aren't libertarian. It's why that party has no hope of ever having a legitimate politician.

I'm fine when a libertarian disagrees with me, but not when they start violating the very foundation of libertarianism.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm fine when a libertarian disagrees with me, but not when they start violating the very foundation of libertarianism.

Your foundation you mean.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Libertarians believe in the freedom of association. They believe that everyone is free to choose who they will interact with, which includes the right to refuse to interact with people. Libertarians also believe you can do with your property whatever it is you want, which includes the right to refuse certain people access to your property.

This whole grey hogwash you speak is an excuse you're throwing out there in the hopes that your complete abandonment of property and association rights has some sort of standing, but the excuse is transparent, and thus rejected.

Public accommodation laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are so non-controversial they're not even mentioned on the libertarian party website or platform. You're free to take an absolutist position on everything, like you always do, but turning on your fellow libertarians for not holding the same hardline position as you is detrimental to our efforts. Libertarianism can't thrive as long as we're engaged in intra-party bickering and "No True Scottsman" fallacies.

Your right to free contract and personal property are still 100% in tact. In order to participate in business with our society however, you must voluntarily make some concessions, and one of those is public accommodation. If you're not running a public business you can be as racist or homophobic as you please.

 

[Henrin]

Public accommodation laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are so non-controversial they're not even mentioned on the libertarian party website or platform. You're free to take an absolutist position on everything, like you always do, but turning on your fellow libertarians for not holding the same hardline position as you is detrimental to our efforts. Libertarianism can't thrive as long as we're engaged in intra-party bickering and "No True Scottsman" fallacies.

I have a good amount of evidence that you're a faux libertarian and this thread is a wonderful example of it. Not only do you agree with licensing, but you apparently think being forced to obtain a license to use your property as a business is protecting your right to property. Oh and no, a club is not a business, nor does it save you from supporting licensing since you still need a license to open a club. You should also check Mises. org to read about the libertarian view on discrimination laws.

Your right to free contract and personal property are still 100% in tact. In order to participate in business with our society however, you must voluntarily make some concessions, and one of those is public accommodation. If you're not running a public business you can be as racist or homophobic as you please.

The contract is first off all imposed on the people that want to use their property as as business as I have already stated. Second of all, the terms of the contract restrict the rights of those that sign it and do not in any sort of way act to protect their rights. A libertarian does not find merit in a government contract that restricts the rights of those that sign it as it is the duty of the government to always protect the peoples rights.

 

[CriticalThought]

I have a good amount of evidence that you're a faux libertarian and this thread is a wonderful example of it. Not only do you agree with licensing, but you apparently think being forced to obtain a license to use your property as a business is protecting your right to property. Oh and no, a club is not a business, nor does it save you from supporting licensing since you still need a license to open a club. You should also check Mises. org to read about the libertarian view on discrimination laws.



The contract is first off all imposed on the people that want to use their property as as business as I have already stated. Second of all, the terms of the contract restrict the rights of those that sign it and do not in any sort of way act to protect their rights. A libertarian does not find merit in a government contract that restricts the rights of those that sign it as it is the duty of the government to always protect the peoples rights.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Libertarianism ranges from anarcho to communistic.

 

[iguanaman]

I'm fine when a libertarian disagrees with me, but not when they start violating the very foundation of libertarianism.

That "foundation" puts you in an alliance with the Aryan brotherhood and other racist groups and about 2% of the popular vote. That where libertarianism will stay with that as its "foundation".

 

[shrubnose]

It's the nature of business in this country. If you don't want to be a slave to the population at large it's best to not open a business at all. It's well past time we repeal public accommodation laws,

but I wouldn't expect that any time soon.

People like having slaves after all.

That's good because it's not going to happen today, tomorrow, next week or ever.

Don't take my word for this, just wait and see.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

 

[Henrin]

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Libertarianism ranges from anarcho to communistic.

We are talking about American right-libertarianism, not left-libertariaism that founds it's origins in anarcho-communism.

 

[Henrin]

That "foundation" puts you in an alliance with the Aryan brotherhood and other racist groups and about 2% of the popular vote. That where libertarianism will stay with that as its "foundation".

Actually, it doesn't. The Aryan brotherhood is a gang that promotes white supremacy, while libertarians promote the rights of property and association, and the idea that people should condemn discrimination by not doing business with those that discriminate. An Aryan brotherhood member would promote the idea that blacks should never get anything from anyone else and would condemn those that do business with them.

 

[iguanaman]

Actually, it doesn't. The Aryan brotherhood is a gang that promotes white supremacy, while libertarians promote the rights of property and association, and the idea that people should condemn discrimination by not doing business with those that discriminate. An Aryan brotherhood member would promote the idea that blacks should never get anything from anyone else and would condemn those that do business with them.

Stop fooling yourself. Both the Aryans and you want the right to deny service to anyone based on prejudices. You are 2 peas in a pod.

 

[Henrin]

Stop fooling yourself. Both the Aryans and you want the right to deny service to anyone based on prejudices. You are 2 peas in a pod.

What the government did with anti-discrimination laws was switch their laws from forcing businesses to not associate with blacks to forcing them to associate with blacks. In neither case did the government protect the rights of property owners or the rights of anyone else for that matter. What libertarians do is break from the flip floppy nonsense of two positions that are wrong and violent and stand for the rights of people to associate with who they want and to control their property as they see fit. What we stand for is the people having the right to do business with those that consent to do with them. We do not stand by any position of hatred or superiority like the Aryan Brotherhood does. We don't promote discrimination, but simply recognize that forcing people to associate with others or not to associate with others is wrong.

 

[clownboy]

Whether you like it or not, we have public accomodation laws. When a company opens themselves up to the public for business, they have to open themselves up to the public. Sexual orientation, like race, religion, gender, and about 10 other categories fall under this protection.

If Bob's religion says black people are evil, should he be able to hang a sign outside his business stating "No blacks allowed"? We're not violating Bob's religion any more than this couple's religion was violated. Don't like it? Don't open a public business, then you can refuse to deal with ANYONE for ANY reason.

I can't even imagine the magnitude of hissy fit that would ensue if the situation was reversed and a homosexual couple refused to serve christians in their business.

On that last, I disagree and doubt it very much. The Christians would just go somewhere else. But your take on this I think is too all encompassing. Should synagogues be required by law to host Christian or Muslim marriage ceremonies?

 

[TobyOne]

Libertarian isn't really a party its more of a often dysfunctional, internet magnified, social club. Kind of like internet atheists.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

On that last, I disagree and doubt it very much. The Christians would just go somewhere else. But your take on this I think is too all encompassing. Should synagogues be required by law to host Christian or Muslim marriage ceremonies?

A synagogue is a religious institution, and it files itself as a non-profit organization with the government. It isn't officially a business (though I would say it technically is), so it is not subject to public accommodation laws. You guys are just going to have to get over it, because it's not going back to the way it was.

 

[Deuce]

On that last, I disagree and doubt it very much. The Christians would just go somewhere else. But your take on this I think is too all encompassing. Should synagogues be required by law to host Christian or Muslim marriage ceremonies?

If they are for-profit synagogues that operate as businesses holding out to the public? Sure.

 

[Cardinal]

A Christian couple fined $13,000 for refusing to host a lesbian wedding on their New York farm has decided to close the venue rather than violate their religious beliefs.

Cynthia and Robert Gifford decided not to host ceremonies anymore, other than those already scheduled, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Trainor told The Blaze. ”Since the order essentially compelled them to do all ceremonies or none at all, they have chosen the latter in order to stay true to their religious convictions, even though it will likely hurt their business in the short run,” he said.

New Jersey couple Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin took the Giffords to court when they refused to host their 2012 wedding at Liberty Ridge Farm, where the Giffords host about a dozen weddings a year.

The Giffords were willing to host the reception, but not the actual ceremony.

Read more: Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Close Venue | The Daily Caller

Well that showed 'em.

 

[ludin]

Well that showed 'em.

the funny thing is they didn't deny them service. they said they could have the reception. i guess the marriage cermonies take place in their home.
they offered them a service for their wedding.

a business has the right to not take every event that comes their way or only do a partial of an event.

that is like that baker in CO.

he didn't deny them service he offered to make the cupcakes. he didn't have to do their wedding. just because you walk into a place of business you cannot demand that the business do what you want.

what is ironic is that CO made that baker violate a state law.
CO gay marriage is not legal. they also have a clause that says a business can be penalized for providing services for gay weddings.

 

[Lursa]

Is there a link to the law that specifies why they can be fined?

In WA St. gays are a protected class and cannot be discriminated against.