BLOG Not At Liberty: Court Rules that Farmers Should Have Violated Their Religious Beliefs

[bonnie]

BLOGNot At Liberty: Court Rules that Farmers Should Have Violated Their Religious Beliefs

 

 

 

• Email

By Emily Conley Posted on: | January 15, 2016

It’s sadly ironic that two days before “Religious Freedom Day,” a New York appellate court would rule that Robert and Cynthia Gifford ofLiberty Ridge Farm are not at liberty to abide by their faith in their own backyard.

The backstory: on Sept. 25, 2012, Melisa McCarthy called Cynthia Gifford, inquiring about the use of the farm for her upcoming same-sex ceremony. The Giffords live in a barn they built on their farm and have occasionally hosted weddings on the first floor and the surrounding backyard area. Cynthia serves as a wedding coordinator for those events. Because of her Christian faith’s teachings on marriage, Cynthia politely told Melisa that she could not host the ceremony, but left open an invitation to consider the farm as a potential reception site. Instead, McCarthy and her partner filed a complaint with the Division of Human Rights, who ruled against the Giffords. Since then, Cynthia has had to stop coordinating all weddings on her property.

The court upheld the Division’s ruling and the $10,000 fine and $3,000 in damages that the Division ordered the Giffords to pay Ms. McCarthy and her same-sex spouse.

 

 

ADF attorneys argued that, just as the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing an individual to salute the flag in school, it also prohibits the government from forcing a wedding coordinator like Cynthia to plan and participate in a ceremony that violates her faith.

And, as ADF attorneys explained in their brief, the “law does not require the Giffords to coordinate or host every event that a person . . . requests. For example, if the infamous Westboro Baptist group asked the Giffords to host an event that would express their false message that God hates people in same-sex relationships, the Giffords would not be discriminating based on religion if they declined the event because they did not want to host expression that violates their belief that God loves everyone …. The statute does not require that they treat all messagesequal.”

“We had hoped that the court would recognize that the government has clearly gone too far,” said co-counsel James Trainor, one of more than 3,000 private attorneys allied with ADF. “The Constitution prohibits the government from forcing anyone to communicate messages that conflict with their core beliefs about marriage. The Giffords welcome all people to the farm, but not all messages or events.”

Unfortunately, the court rejected ADF’s arguments. Our attorneys are considering the next steps in this case.

[Gregory Matthews]

The Court stated that the Giffords widely advertised to the general public that their farm was open to serve as a site for weddings--both religious and secular.   Further the Court stated that the Giffords provided food services, both direct and indirect, at those weddings.  For reasons that included the above, the Court ruled that the Giffords weddings were subject to the provisions of the Public Accomodation laws, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The fact that the Giffords offered [NOTE: That may be subject to question as to when/if the offer was made.] to host a reception simply indicates that the Giffords only partially discriminated, which is still illegal. Their "free speech" rights did not come into play here as they were not restricted. They were only required to treat all protected classes of persons equally with respect to the services that they offered to the public. The Giffords had registered with the State as a business, neither a religious organization nor as a non-profit organization. The bottom line: The Court decided as it should have decided. Now the Giffords must decide how to implement the ruling that they, in the conduct of their purlic business, treat all protected people equally. NOTE; Nothing was said about the Westboro Baptist Church in the ruling of the Court. The reference to it was likely a "red herring' to divert the conversation from the issues. However, there are enough differences between such a request from the WBC and the actual situation that I will suggest that it would have been legal for the Giffords to refuse such a request.

[bonnie]

 NOTE; Nothing was said about the Westboro Baptist Church in the ruling of the Court. The reference to it was likely a "red herring' to divert the conversation from the issues. However, there are enough differences between such a request from the WBC and the actual situation that I will suggest that it would have been legal for the Giffords to refuse such a request.

So you can discriminate against those that offend your religious values? There wasn't any reference made that claimed the Westboro church was mentioned. It was a question as to religious liberty 

If I am opposed to what they represent,I can say no,being opposed to gay marriage and what it represents I must say yes.

If this were a homosexual couple would they be forced to host,plan and serve a anti-gay marriage event?

Would a black couple be forced to host,plan and serve a KKK event? It is legal to belong to this offensive group.

Would a muslim couple be forced to host,plan and serve a event for those that need service dogs and would bring them to the event?

Would a muslim couple be forced to host,plan and serve a gay wedding?

Would a muslim be required to host,plan and serve the pork assc?

Muslim complaints recently forced a take out cafe to remove an extractor fan because they found the odor offensive. The business has operated in exactly the same way for eight years.The same people now complaining were there during the previous years. They have muslims that are regular customers coming in to order take out.

Muslims also complained concerning one business advertising bacon and it was successful in getting them to remove the advertisement.

 Environmental services had been out to inspect their property after their neighbour complained about a foul odor last year, but they ruled that the smell was not causing a problem.

We have a MacDonald's two blocks from us. Getting within a half block to the MacDonald's I can smell it. Should I be able to force them to have a completely odorless business?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Like this

•