• 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

Their children might catch "the gay" if they witness a gay wedding.

They still have children at home and they feel that their rights are being violated and they’re being discriminated against because of their position on the issue of gay marriage.
Click to expand...
 
I can at least understand why gay couples would demand equal recognition from the government.

But I always thought everybody agreed that private citizens should be allowed to recognize or not as they pleased.

This lawsuit is far more douchey than the refusal of the venue to host their wedding.
 
theprestige said:
I can at least understand why gay couples would demand equal recognition from the government.

But I always thought everybody agreed that private citizens should be allowed to recognize or not as they pleased.

This lawsuit is far more douchey than the refusal of the venue to host their wedding.
Click to expand...

So businesses should be free to discriminate on how ever they want, and you are a major douche if you disagree, on par with those black kids doing sit ins at woolworths!
 
theprestige said:
I can at least understand why gay couples would demand equal recognition from the government.

But I always thought everybody agreed that private citizens should be allowed to recognize or not as they pleased.

This lawsuit is far more douchey than the refusal of the venue to host their wedding.
Click to expand...

Private citizens running a business catering to the public. I presume its the business being sued and not the citizens.

'Douchey'? Don't think so.

'More douchey than bigotry'? Definitely not.
 
theprestige said:
I always thought everybody agreed that private citizens should be allowed to recognize or not as they pleased.
Click to expand...

Would you think differently if it was a black couple wanting to be married and the proprietors not believing that it was appropriate that black people actually be allowed to marry?

Of course, private people have the right to think/believe whatever they want to. They don't have that right when running a non-religious business.
 
theprestige said:
But I always thought everybody agreed that private citizens should be allowed to recognize or not as they pleased.
Click to expand...
The for-profit LLC, Liberty Ridge Farms, is not a private citizen.

The Giffords have learned a very expensive lesson that, when they operate a business, one's religious convictions do not provide immunity from state anti-discrimination laws.
 
theprestige said:
This lawsuit is far more douchey than the refusal of the venue to host their wedding.
Click to expand...
This issue has already been raised in other posts, but just to clarify your thoughts on this:

1) If it were a black couple, or mixed-race couple, who were being denied because of racist attitudes, would you also consider that it was "douchey" for them to protest, and seek legal action against the people doing it?

2) If the answer to the first question is "no", then explain how taking legal action for discrimination based on race is not "douchey", but taking legal action for discrimination based on sexual orientation is.
 
Wolfman said:
2) If the answer to the first question is "no", then explain how taking legal action for discrimination based on race is not "douchey", but taking legal action for discrimination based on sexual orientation is.
Click to expand...

Gay sex is icky.
 
I think that everybody should have the right to be a racist/sexist/discriminatory douchebag without the Govt telling them they can't.

Let the market decide on the consequences. It's too thought police to allow people to sue a business because the owners are racist swine. Just let the word get around and before you know it they will either go out of business or they won't.

why should one citizens right to think what they want be overidden by another citizens rights? If this place got Govt funding or something,I would agree that they should be liable for violating the rights of citizens. But it seems like a private business should be able to be as racist and terrible as it wants.
 
I get that, but I could agree with a citizen suing a business that received govt funding as being in violation of their rights . I disagree that private business proprietors should be subject to these laws as I would think that it's their rights as citizens to be racist ,sexist...etc (as it would be the right of the offended to then protest the establishment and/or spread the word of said racism/sexism...etc so as to negatively affect their business future)

I don't think that having unpopular opinions should be govt controlled, nor should open up a business for civil liability.
 
StankApe said:
I get that, but I could agree with a citizen suing a business that received govt funding as being in violation of their rights . I disagree that private business proprietors should be subject to these laws as I would think that it's their rights as citizens to be racist ,sexist...etc (as it would be the right of the offended to then protest the establishment and/or spread the word of said racism/sexism...etc so as to negatively affect their business future)

I don't think that having unpopular opinions should be govt controlled, nor should open up a business for civil liability.
Click to expand...

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.
 
A quick look at their website says to me that this is a business not a state-recognised place of worship. They don't get to choose on the basis of sexuality.
 
Dessi said:
The for-profit LLC, Liberty Ridge Farms, is not a private citizen.

The Giffords have learned a very expensive lesson that, when they operate a business, one's religious convictions do not provide immunity from state anti-discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

Seems like a gray area to me.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964WP.

But it is under the New York Human Rights Law.WP However, that law doesn't apply to discrimination in business transactions, only "employment, housing, education, credit, and access to public accommodations".

Does opening a business on private property make that property become a "public accommodation"?
eta: I think it does. Title II of the Civil Rights Act states:
"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private.""
 
Last edited:
StankApe said:
I think that everybody should have the right to be a racist/sexist/discriminatory douchebag without the Govt telling them they can't.

Let the market decide on the consequences.
Click to expand...

Yes, that always works so well.

StankApe said:
why should one citizens right to think what they want be overidden by another citizens rights?
Click to expand...

Nobody's right to think anything is being endangered here.
 
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...

but it's their venue right? why shouldn't they be able to lease it to whoever they want?

I dunno, I just think people should be able to do whatever they like with their bidness is all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom