• 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

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...

Wrong. This is not a federal case, this is a state case in New York where same-sex marriage is legal.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
I made no claims about being an llc mattered. The only thing I have cited was their business licience.
Click to expand...

Which is why I mentioned that it was something that confused me about Nihilianth's post, not yours.

(Although I'm not really sure the business license matters, either)
 
GeeMack said:
It seems if someone has to make a conscious choice to be straight, that would mean they're actually gay. :D
Click to expand...
Or bi.

I usually suspect bi because let's face it, it would be fairly easy to choose to act on attraction to one gender if you like both.
 
Here's what seems like a simple question. If it's all right, and legal, for a business like this to refuse gay couples, then it ought to be all right, legal, and a great timesaver as well, for them to advertise this fact. "No gay couples, please" in their ads would solve everything, right? Or do you think, just maybe, that they knew there was a law.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Or bi.

I usually suspect bi because let's face it, it would be fairly easy to choose to act on attraction to one gender if you like both.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure the evangelist types have really thought through the whole thing about "your sexuality is just a choice". It doesn't seem to occur to them that they are essentially saying that everybody is bisexual by nature.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It doesn't. They can hate gays all they want. It is acting on that is the issue. Here they denied the use of their facility for them because of that.

Kind of like thinking all jews should be put to death is legal but acting on it isn't. It is all part of having a business license.

They are being sued for their acts not thoughts.
Click to expand...
Bad analogy. Believing Jews should be put to death and acting on it puts Jews at risk of being murdered. Being refused a wedding venue doesn't put your life in danger.

I must say I agree with StankApe. Any business person should have the right to decide who can and can't come onto their private property, whether its a publican not wanting bikers drinking in his pub or a private wedding venue not wanting blacks or gays. If the business owner's prejudiced views are out of step with his community he'll soon go out of business.
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
Bad analogy. Believing Jews should be put to death and acting on it puts Jews at risk of being murdered. Being refused a wedding venue doesn't put your life in danger.

I must say I agree with StankApe. Any business person should have the right to decide who can and can't come onto their private property, whether its a publican not wanting bikers drinking in his pub or a private wedding venue not wanting blacks or gays. If the business owner's prejudiced views are out of step with his community he'll soon go out of business.
Click to expand...

And who works for them, if they don't want to hire blacks or pay women the same as men that is their right, correct?

That will be great at keeping people in their appointed place.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And who works for them, if they don't want to hire blacks or pay women the same as men that is their right, correct?

That will be great at keeping people in their appointed place.
Click to expand...
Goodness me, what a strawman that it, PonderingTurtle. I didn't say anything about equal pay. Employment law is an entirely different issue.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I have misstated it. This is what I said:

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.
Click to expand...

What I meant was that Liberty Ridge is a public-accommodations business operating as an LLC, and it does engage in interstate commerce. You're right: The fact that it is an LLC doesn't REALLY matter. It was just simply a fact that I have stated, in order to show that it is a business, not to be considered or confused as a religious congregation. As an LLC licensed in the state of NY, sexuality is a "protected class" under NY law. Therefore, any debate is moot.

But for argument's sake, let's say that sexuality is NOT a "protected class." Does this give such a business a right to deny services to someone based on their sexuality? What if a restaurant were to refuse service to someone because they were gay?

I would imagine a lawsuit against the business would be legitimate anyway, would it not?
 
Last edited:
I just think these services are in a different class, such that the principles behind requiring places of public accomodation to serve anyone really don't apply.

To give a couple of examples, let's say that members of the KKK want to come in and have lunch in my restaurant, then go next door and buy clothes in my retail store. These are pretty standard, arms-length transactions. I think the government, for purposes of a smooth-running economy, can reasonably say, "look, regardless of how you feel about these people, they're just getting a bite to eat. If you want to welcome in anyone to have a bite to eat, you need to accept anyone." One of the big justifications for public accomodations requirements in the Civil Rights Act was for individuals to be able to travel around and stop at the first place they saw to eat and to sleep without suffering the significant hassles associated with being turned away.

In contrast, say I have a banquet hall available for rental, and the local KKK chapter contacts me about renting my hall out for one of their rallies. This is a different sort of a transaction -- it's not arms-length, it's planned well in advance, and the event itself involves things I don't agree with. I think it's very reasonable for the government to allow venues to have discretion about what sorts of events they host. If a straight-laced venue wants to say no to a hardcore biker rally, if a liberal venue wants to tell the RNC to find somewhere else to go, or if a venue owned by Christians doesn't want ceremonies that violate their religious convictions, I think they should have the right to discriminate as to what customers they accept. Despite being publically advertised, the venue hosts groups of customers on a case-by-case basis, and the compelling reasons for actual public accomodations like hotels and restaurants just doesn't seem to apply here.

I feel the same way about newspapers carrying advertisements, about catering services, and a variety of other situations where it's very reasonable for a business to say "I don't want to support this sort of thing" or "I don't want to be in business with these sorts of people."
 
23_Tauri said:
Goodness me, what a strawman that it, PonderingTurtle. I didn't say anything about equal pay. Employment law is an entirely different issue.
Click to expand...

Why? Their business, their property, they should be able to make the decisions. Do you support clauses in Home Owners Association contracts that prevent sale to inappropriate minorities?
 
AvalonXQ said:
I just think these services are in a different class, such that the principles behind requiring places of public accomodation to serve anyone really don't apply.

To give a couple of examples, let's say that members of the KKK want to come in and have lunch in my restaurant, then go next door and buy clothes in my retail store. These are pretty standard, arms-length transactions. I think the government, for purposes of a smooth-running economy, can reasonably say, "look, regardless of how you feel about these people, they're just getting a bite to eat. If you want to welcome in anyone to have a bite to eat, you need to accept anyone." One of the big justifications for public accomodations requirements in the Civil Rights Act was for individuals to be able to travel around and stop at the first place they saw to eat and to sleep without suffering the significant hassles associated with being turned away.

In contrast, say I have a banquet hall available for rental, and the local KKK chapter contacts me about renting my hall out for one of their rallies. This is a different sort of a transaction -- it's not arms-length, it's planned well in advance, and the event itself involves things I don't agree with. I think it's very reasonable for the government to allow venues to have discretion about what sorts of events they host. If a straight-laced venue wants to say no to a hardcore biker rally, if a liberal venue wants to tell the RNC to find somewhere else to go, or if a venue owned by Christians doesn't want ceremonies that violate their religious convictions, I think they should have the right to discriminate as to what customers they accept. Despite being publically advertised, the venue hosts groups of customers on a case-by-case basis, and the compelling reasons for actual public accomodations like hotels and restaurants just doesn't seem to apply here.

I feel the same way about newspapers carrying advertisements, about catering services, and a variety of other situations where it's very reasonable for a business to say "I don't want to support this sort of thing" or "I don't want to be in business with these sorts of people."
Click to expand...

Those are all kinds of different situations though. Venues can discriminate based on all kinds of reasons, I mean you might want them to be able to discriminate against jews or gays, but that doesn't mean they can.

OF course there is no law about being prevented from any kind of discrimination with regards to advertisements.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I just think these services are in a different class, such that the principles behind requiring places of public accomodation to serve anyone really don't apply.

To give a couple of examples, let's say that members of the KKK want to come in and have lunch in my restaurant, then go next door and buy clothes in my retail store. These are pretty standard, arms-length transactions. I think the government, for purposes of a smooth-running economy, can reasonably say, "look, regardless of how you feel about these people, they're just getting a bite to eat. If you want to welcome in anyone to have a bite to eat, you need to accept anyone." One of the big justifications for public accomodations requirements in the Civil Rights Act was for individuals to be able to travel around and stop at the first place they saw to eat and to sleep without suffering the significant hassles associated with being turned away.

In contrast, say I have a banquet hall available for rental, and the local KKK chapter contacts me about renting my hall out for one of their rallies. This is a different sort of a transaction -- it's not arms-length, it's planned well in advance, and the event itself involves things I don't agree with. I think it's very reasonable for the government to allow venues to have discretion about what sorts of events they host. If a straight-laced venue wants to say no to a hardcore biker rally, if a liberal venue wants to tell the RNC to find somewhere else to go, or if a venue owned by Christians doesn't want ceremonies that violate their religious convictions, I think they should have the right to discriminate as to what customers they accept. Despite being publically advertised, the venue hosts groups of customers on a case-by-case basis, and the compelling reasons for actual public accomodations like hotels and restaurants just doesn't seem to apply here.

I feel the same way about newspapers carrying advertisements, about catering services, and a variety of other situations where it's very reasonable for a business to say "I don't want to support this sort of thing" or "I don't want to be in business with these sorts of people."
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure a business can determine the type of activity that takes place there. A hardcore bike rally, for example. But what if the clients are hard core bikers planning a discreet dinner or wedding? On what grounds can a business withdraw its public invitation without prior public notice? At what point does service constitute support? Political affiliation? A questionnaire on abortion policy? Here we're dealing with a wedding site. Assume for the moment that the only known difference between this and any other wedding is the sex of the couple. I repeat my previous question: if this kind of discrimination is all right, then why don't they advertise that fact openly. I suspect it's because they know perfectly well it is not.
 
23_Tauri said:
I must say I agree with StankApe. Any business person should have the right to decide who can and can't come onto their private property
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who you agree with or what you think businesses should have the right to do. This business had no right to discriminate against these people and they did. They broke the law.
 
As someone mentioned above (I apologize I forget who), this really does raise kind of a grey area question...

I happen to agree with the idea that its BS for the people who run Liberty Ridge to hide behind the claim that having a wedding reception for a same sex couple somehow violates their rights to worship as they please.

The reality is, that the only people who will be there attending said reception are all well aware that its a same sex couple celebrating their nuptials.

What role do their children (the folks who run Liberty Ridge) play? Having a wedding reception there doesnt force values down anyone's throat, it just asks that they provide the same services that they'd normally provide for a more traditional opposite sex marriage reception.

On the other hand, some business's are able to legally exclude some people from being able to purchase goods or services, or to enter the business itself.

Who hasnt seen a sign on a store that reads "no shoes/shirt, no service" ?
Or a better example would be a classy four star restaurant that requires a dress code such as men having to wear a jacket and tie in order to be seated.

Why isnt that discrimination ? So if a family that has a lower level of financial resources, saves up their money for a couple of months, and wants to have dinner at a swanky restaurant, it's not discriminating against them to deny them service, if the man doesnt own a sport jacket and tie ?
Makes me wonder why it is apparently acceptable to look down upon and discriminate against people for one set of circumstances, but when its another, it's not.


The bottom line to me, is that in the case of Liberty Ridge, the simple, easy, and right thing to do, would have been for them to just to treat the couple planning the reception as they would with any other.

I find it especially surprising that in tough economic times, that anyone would turn away business, based on something so silly.
If it were my business, upon same sex marriage being made legal, I would have likely run full page adds in local papers, and adjusted my advertising to attempt to capture that business. It's just asinine to say that adapting your business to accomodate another aspect or segment of the market, necessarily means that you have to disregard your belief system. Furthermore, I havent seen anyone yet that's been able to effectively provide evidence of how same sex marriage hurts society, sets a bad example for children, or changes how those who feel so strongly against it, to change anything in their day to day life. The argument that it's somehow offensive based on religious beliefs, or that its an afront to God, is both ridiculous, and irrelevant. The ceremonies are typically civil (non religious) in nature, and no part of the law requires churches or those associated with them to perform the ceremonies, unless they so choose to do so.

I agree that if it were a reception hall that typically only catered to Jewish, Christian, or other specialized religious wedding receptions, that they'd have a somewhat legitimate basis for denying service. But under the circumstances, it appears that they were in fact denying someone service for unacceptable, unfair, and petty reasons.

I dont know if any of you have seen this viral video that's been going around, its of a pastor addressing the topic of gay marriage at a town hall meeting in Missouri....
It's sum's up pretty well what the issue comes down to. Make sure you watch it to the end, as it's kind of a surprise ending !



~TS~
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom