• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Marriage venue sued for denying homosexual couple

AvalonXQ said:
Exactly right. But no one is really surprised; when gay marriage was debated it was pointed out that this sort of thing would be the next step. Gay marriage proponents protested fiercely, of course, but here we are.
Click to expand...
Cite?
 
StankApe said:
edited cuz i see no point in debating my idea anymore.... it always turns into accusations of discrimination by somebody... the rest of you enjoy
Click to expand...

Typical when there is no argument except that discrimination is acceptable.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Exactly right. But no one is really surprised; when gay marriage was debated it was pointed out that this sort of thing would be the next step. Gay marriage proponents protested fiercely, of course, but here we are.
Click to expand...


I may be wrong, friend AvalonXQ, but I remember the debate being that churches would be forced to marry LGBT folks - in contravention of that religions beliefs. It didn't really touch on for-profit venues. At least, none of the groups supporting gay marriage that I knew argued such.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Exactly right. But no one is really surprised; when gay marriage was debated it was pointed out that this sort of thing would be the next step. Gay marriage proponents protested fiercely, of course, but here we are.
Click to expand...

Who did? As far as I know everyone figured that this would happen with homosexual being included as a protected class. It really has nothing to do with legalizing gay marriage.
 
StankApe said:
Morally? no, it's horrible , awful behavior by anyone. However, I would say they should have the right to decide who uses their services/facilities/wtvr.

I'm just not big on legislating morality at all be it banning abortions, banning gay marraige or banning the rights of citizens to run their businesses how they see fit....


my post is in response to squealpiggy btw, avalon posted before I was finished.
Click to expand...

At the time those kinds of "No coloreds" signs were deemed illegal, "the market" would have decided in favour of discrimination against black people. "The market" is poor at regulation. That's why government imposes regulation.
 
I am going to end this thread right here, right now.

Liberty Ridge Farm is an LLC, which means they are a public-accommodations business engaged in interstate commerce. It is illegal for such a business to deny a customer equal treatment and services. Period.

This goes back to the 1950s with all those sit-ins at lunch counters, and Freedom Rides on buses. Far too many people worked far too hard, for far too long, and were hurt far too often for us to slip back into 1950s backasswards mentality.

If Liberty Ridge Farm were a place of worship where a certain religious congregation meets and is not an LLC, then yes. It would be a violation of their right to worship how they wish. But that isn't the scenario here.

End of discussion.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Exactly right. But no one is really surprised; when gay marriage was debated it was pointed out that this sort of thing would be the next step. Gay marriage proponents protested fiercely, of course, but here we are.
Click to expand...

I believe that is either you misunderstanding many folks arguments or is a straw man. Of course there are extremists in any 'movement's but on the whole the argument was that no one would be forced to marry same-sex couples in a religious ceremony.
 
commandlinegamer said:
There's a case in the news at the moment in the UK where a couple sounding out a possible wedding venue were sent an email (in error apparently - the old CC to the wrong recipient) to the effect that they weren't really the sort of people who the hotel wanted. The women was a model or featured in adult-movies IIRC. Whatever the actual facts of the case, bad PR for the hotel in question.
Click to expand...

Though at least in the us that would be legal.
 
Nihilianth said:
I am going to end this thread right here, right now.

Liberty Ridge Farm is an LLC, which means they are a public-accommodations business engaged in interstate commerce. It is illegal for such a business to deny a customer equal treatment and services. Period.

This goes back to the 1950s with all those sit-ins at lunch counters, and Freedom Rides on buses. Far too many people worked far too hard, for far too long, and were hurt far too often for us to slip back into 1950s backasswards mentality.

If Liberty Ridge Farm were a place of worship where a certain religious congregation meets and is not an LLC, then yes. It would be a violation of their right to worship how they wish. But that isn't the scenario here.

End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is only illegal for them to do so if they if they discriminate based on certain things called protected classes. Sexuality is not a federally protected class.

If say it was a kinky couple and they were having an orgy at the wedding that would be perfectly legal to say no.
 
Darat said:
I believe that is either you misunderstanding many folks arguments or is a straw man. Of course there are extremists in any 'movement's but on the whole the argument was that no one would be forced to marry same-sex couples in a religious ceremony.
Click to expand...

And people specifically said here that secular venues could be forced.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Wrong. It is only illegal for them to do so if they if they discriminate based on certain things called protected classes. Sexuality is not a federally protected class.
Click to expand...

"Federally" has nothing to do with it, that I can tell. They're New Yorkers facing a complaint from other New Yorkers, being handled by a New York state agency, under a New York law, and it appears that sexual orientation is a protected class under the relevant New York law.

What has me confused about Nihilianth's post is the significance of Liberty Ridge's status as an LLC. I don't think if I moved to New York and started a business like Liberty Ridge without forming an LLC that I would be allowed to discriminate. Alternatively, if a bona fide church organized as an LLC (and I don't know if such a thing is possible), they wouldn't lose their right to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples.

In other words, it's not the form of the business organization that is relevant--it's what business they're in. If you run a restaurant, a hotel, store, or other public accomodation, it doesn't matter if you're an LLC, a corporation, a partnership, a sole proprietorship, or what-- you can't discriminate on certain bases.

(I haven't read the New York antidiscrimination law, so I could be wrong about this, but I'd be very surprised!)

Also the interstate commerce hook - necessary for a discrimination claim under the federal law, I suppose, but not under the New York law, I'm sure. And again, unrelated to the LLC status of Liberty Ridge.
 
linusrichard said:
"Federally" has nothing to do with it, that I can tell. They're New Yorkers facing a complaint from other New Yorkers, being handled by a New York state agency, under a New York law, and it appears that sexual orientation is a protected class under the relevant New York law.

What has me confused about Nihilianth's post is the significance of Liberty Ridge's status as an LLC. I don't think if I moved to New York and started a business like Liberty Ridge without forming an LLC that I would be allowed to discriminate. Alternatively, if a bona fide church organized as an LLC (and I don't know if such a thing is possible), they wouldn't lose their right to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

Actually the latter one has happened in new jersey. Specifically the church owned a gazebo but it was classes as something other than pure church property for tax purposes. This meant it was open to the public and as such they lost a similar case.

I made no claims about being an llc mattered. The only thing I have cited was their business licience.
 
commandlinegamer said:
Not necessarily a legal problem in the UK either, but certainly a dumb move on the part of the wedding planner involved. I'm sure there are organisations over here which look down on plebs, but there's an easy way to deny them access - price them out.
Click to expand...

I am not sure it would be unpopular in much of the us. Certainly to many americans anyone in any kind of sex industry deserves what they get in social disdain.

A guidance counselor was recently fired in my for 15 year old underwear modeling.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I am not sure it would be unpopular in much of the us. Certainly to many americans anyone in any kind of sex industry deserves what they get in social disdain.

A guidance counselor was recently fired in my for 15 year old underwear modeling.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised, if the underwear's that old the elastic's probably perished.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Gay people don't make a conscious behavioural choice to be gay either.

Unless you're saying you made a choice to be straight?
Click to expand...


It seems if someone has to make a conscious choice to be straight, that would mean they're actually gay. :D
 
commandlinegamer said:
Not necessarily a legal problem in the UK either, but certainly a dumb move on the part of the wedding planner involved. I'm sure there are organisations over here which look down on plebs, but there's an easy way to deny them access - price them out.
Click to expand...

But some plebs do have money! However being a pleb is not a legally "protected" class of person so you can legally discriminate based on them being a pleb, e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19929777 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1202024/Can-stop-polo-run-chavs.html
 
Darat said:
But some plebs do have money! However being a pleb is not a legally "protected" class of person so you can legally discriminate based on them being a pleb, e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19929777 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1202024/Can-stop-polo-run-chavs.html
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone objects to plebs (certain cabinet members excepting) so much as chavs. The couple who were "not the right kind of people" were chavs. They had plenty of wonga the rent for the place was 10 grand + extras
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom