Marriage venue sued for denying homosexual couple

[AvalonXQ]

Oh, and Avalon, could you please explain exactly why it is that same sex marriage is immoral ?
Without dragging religious belief into it... I cannot accept that as an answer.

Bible-based belief is my answer. My point is that people who agree with me should have the right to choose business associations accordingly.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My point is that venues and other places that aren't really "places of public accommodation" in my view should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they so choose, whether good or bad.

How are they not? You reserve them just like a hotel or restaurant. What difference matters so much?

There are plenty of reasons they could refuse them that are perfectly legal, they chose on to do so on illegal means.

 

[Alt+F4]

My point is that venues and other places that aren't really "places of public accommodation" in my view should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they so choose, whether good or bad.

A venue, by definition is a place of public of accommodation.

 

[Alt+F4]

Bible-based belief is my answer.

Bible-based belief is not a legal reason for discrimination in the U.S.

 

[AvalonXQ]

How are they not? You reserve them just like a hotel or restaurant. What difference matters so much?

In my mind, a hotel or a restaurant are providing staple services -- that is, the sort of thing that somebody can get off a train (trains being another good example of a staple service) and walk into the first one he sees and expect to be served. There's nothing remotely ideological about room and board, or retail goods. Somebody walks in, pays money, receives the good, and leaves. No real entanglement involved.

Now, anything that pretty much requires planning and individual attention, like an event venue or catering or printing - anything that a man would not expect to receive on demand stepping off a train - is different from the above. And again, the very arguments used to uphold the constitutionality of the civil rights act in the first place don't really apply here.

I guess it comes down to how much a person is particularly inconvenienced by being denied food or shelter or goods on the spot vs being denied a party venue a season from now - combined with how much of an association is really formed by serving someone a meal vs hosting someone's event.

 

[AvalonXQ]

A venue, by definition is a place of public of accommodation.

Not true. The venue for my wedding reception was a Mooseheart Lodge; my sister's was at an Officers' Club; my cousin's was a church fellowship hall. Three examples of venues that are explicitly restricted and not open to the public, so whatever definitions you're using are inadequate.

But this is beside the point. I'm arguing that hired event venues are the sort of businesses that should generally not be considered places of public accommodation, even if they currently are.

 

[Dessi]

Marriage is a choice, and same-sex marriage is immoral.

I have to call BS on that. There's no credible moral distinction between same-gender marriages and opposite-gender marriage, none whatsoever. I've been in this debate for years now, and no rational, coherent explanation exists to explain why homosexuality is immoral.

Even people who fall back on the religious argument can't identify why their god, who presumably has an informed opinion on moral issues, objects to homosexuality. Such a purposeless, pointless, irrationally naive moral command does not come from god, but mirrors the cultural norms and values of the time and place when it was written. This is nothing new, people have been projecting their own personal prejudices as the will of god for the whole of human existence.

What you have isn't a moral argument, just an irrational prejudice that causes real, tangible harm to a whole class of people for no damn good reason.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In my mind, a hotel or a restaurant are providing staple services -- that is, the sort of thing that somebody can get off a train (trains being another good example of a staple service) and walk into the first one he sees and expect to be served. There's nothing remotely ideological about room and board, or retail goods. Somebody walks in, pays money, receives the good, and leaves. No real entanglement involved.

But they also cater to families and you have to keep the gays and jews away from children. Perfectly good reasons to allow discrimination, it is exactly the reason the owners are citing

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not true. The venue for my wedding reception was a Mooseheart Lodge; my sister's was at an Officers' Club; my cousin's was a church fellowship hall. Three examples of venues that are explicitly restricted and not open to the public, so whatever definitions you're using are inadequate.

But this is beside the point. I'm arguing that hired event venues are the sort of businesses that should generally not be considered places of public accommodation, even if they currently are.

Weddings are held in churches and private clubs that are not businesses and hence not subject to this law. But so what? My brother got married in the back yard of my parents house. They don't have to let anyone else get married there as they are not a business.

And restaurants clearly don't count either people get married in them to. So they can not be forced to serve the anti christian gays and jews right?

Here is the thing people get married everywhere. So everywhere needs to be able to discriminate.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Here is the thing people get married everywhere. So everywhere needs to be able to discriminate.

I have no problem with everywhere (other than public-owned venues like parks) being allowed to discriminate in hosting events such as weddings.

It's the nature of the business arrangement that should dictate rather it should be covered under the public accommodations laws.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have no problem with everywhere (other than public-owned venues like parks) being allowed to discriminate in hosting events such as weddings.

It's the nature of the business arrangement that should dictate rather it should be covered under the public accommodations laws.

So you support the broad reduction in anti discrimination laws but just for weddings?

 

[AvalonXQ]

So you support the broad reduction in anti discrimination laws but just for weddings?

No, I think public accommodations laws should be limited to actual public accommodations transactions, like restaurants, hotels, and retail shops - basically anything where you expect to be able to walk in off the street and receive and pay for goods or services on the spot. That's really what public accommodations laws were originally about, and I don't think they need to be extended beyond that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, I think public accommodations laws should be limited to actual public accommodations transactions, like restaurants, hotels, and retail shops - basically anything where you expect to be able to walk in off the street and receive and pay for goods or services on the spot. That's really what public accommodations laws were originally about, and I don't think they need to be extended beyond that.

So it for any event that requires registration?

 

[sarge]

I am down with the "business owners should be free to deny....." line of reasoning*





* I am also down with denying discriminatory businesses (and religious institutions) the authority to provide essential services. If you will not rent to Blacks, you are not authorized to rent to anyone. If you will not perform marriage services for all legal couplings, then you may not perform legally recognized marriage ceremonies for any coupling.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

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 ?

Because laws determine what classes of people are protected.

I linked the relevant parts of the Civil Rights Act and NY Human Rights Law earlier in the thread. Federal Law doesn't list sexuality as a protected class, however NY state law does. People who don't own ties are not a protected class in either Federal or NY state law therefore it's perfectly legal to exclude them from your restaurant.

In some states it is perfectly legal to refuse business to homosexuals. In NY it is not (according to my interpretation, and of course IANAL).

 

[Vic Vega]

I am down with the "business owners should be free to deny....." line of reasoning*





* I am also down with denying discriminatory businesses (and religious institutions) the authority to provide essential services. If you will not rent to Blacks, you are not authorized to rent to anyone. If you will not perform marriage services for all legal couplings, then you may not perform legally recognized marriage ceremonies for any coupling.

Based on what you are also "down with" they don't really have that freedom, do they? The business being discussed in this thread could have closed their doors. That isn't REALLY a choice, is it? Not in the way you imply in your first sentence, anyway.

 

[Puppycow]

link


Seems like a basic case of anti-discrimination laws.

While I think they have a point, it also seems to give opponents of same sex marriage a slipperly-slope argument.

The marriage equality people had said that they wouldn't force people with religious objections to perform the ceremony. For example, if the Catholic Church doesn't want to perform same sex marriages, they wouldn't have to do that. Now it seems that maybe they will have to after all.

 

[Nihilianth]

But if it's not a rally, just a Klan couple wanting to have a Klan Wedding, that would be OK, and the venue could not refuse?

It is my understanding that most Klansmen do not even let themselves be known publicly like that. I doubt we would even know if the couple to be married are even associated with the Klan.

But for argument's sake, if we DID know they were Klansmen, I am about split 50-50 on this. Part of me says that it wouldn't be right to turn them away based on their....eerrmm....."political?" POV.

But the other part of me has a bunch of red flags raised. The Klan preaches violence and racial discrimination. They are disgusting excuses for human beings. I think there would be a HUGE problem between the Klan and my family. You see, we are Italian. And we LOOK Italian. We also have two black bartenders. It would probably be legitimate to turn them away, for fear of a potentially violent clash.

That, and KKK affiliation is not a "protected class."

 

[Nihilianth]

It may be a bad analogy, but I never said that what people wear (their attire) is a protected class.

I asked why it isnt discrimination, to deny someone service based on their financial status, or their appearance as in how they are dressed...?
Just wanted to clarify that.

Nihilianth said this....



Sorry, but that sounds kind of discriminatory to me..... elitist in fact.


Oh, and Avalon, could you please explain exactly why it is that same sex marriage is immoral ?
Without dragging religious belief into it... I cannot accept that as an answer.

Thanks

-TS-

I agree. It sounded elitist. Because it WAS elitist. But that's the business model that particular type of restaurant successfully operates under. It is really no different than how Hooter's gets away with only hiring female servers of a certain.....variety.

Is it discriminatory? Not really. As someone else pointed out, you can easily purchase a tie for a buck, and a suit jacket for 5 at a second-hand thrift store.

The problem isn't the type of clothes that keeps the lower classes away. The problem is the pricing of the menu. A business cannot (or should not) be forced to lose money by providing a service. Which is exactly what would happen if we were to lower the menu prices to something a little more "affordable."

Thing is, the place has certain rules in place. Those rules do not discriminate against anyone. If you are poor and homeless, but happen to own a nice suit and tie that you somehow keep in good shape, and if you have the means to pay for your dinner that night somehow, you would not be turned away. But the trick is: Paying for the meal! Not an easy feat for most. I couldn't even afford to eat at the place, and pay full price there myself more than once or twice a year. And even then, it's pushing it.

 

[Nihilianth]

I have no problem with everywhere (other than public-owned venues like parks) being allowed to discriminate in hosting events such as weddings.

It's the nature of the business arrangement that should dictate rather it should be covered under the public accommodations laws.

In my previous posts, I've talked twice now about "business models."

Ridge Farm's "business model"....the whole reason they are IN business....is to hold such events. They are registered with the state of NY, and derive their profits from such events.

One of my family's resturants....DiSalvo's....has an entire floor dedicated to wedding receptions. Or any type of private event in which we profit from as a registered business in the state of PA.

The churches I attend most frequently, Annunciation and St. Boniface, do not HAVE a "business model" in which they "derive profits" from conducting wedding ceremonies. They are not registered in the state of PA as a for-profit business. Therefore, they can reject weddings from other religions, or, if they so desire, reject weddings between same-sex couples.

Say I was in NY. Now, once in a great while our three-star (really should be 4-star) restaurant...33 East...will host a wedding reception or some other private event for profit. We also use the place for our own family's benefit on occasion as well. Even though we do not derive very much profits from such events because they are so rare, the fact that the defined property of 33 East IS the place of a NY-registered business, again, we couldn't turn a couple away because of their sexual orientation.

In the last scenario, it wouldn't be too hard to find some other excuse to not host an event for them. We could say that we don't want to host an event, and leave it at that. We could say we are booked. We could say that we would rather remain open for business as a restaurant to the wider public, and would rather not host a private event. What we WOULDN'T be allowed to say is that: "We do not hold wedding receptions for gay couples."