Couple Fined $13,000 for Declining to Host ‘Gay Wedding’ at Farm Choose Not to Appeal

lr farmALBANY, N.Y. — A New York couple who declined to host a same-sex “wedding” at their farm because of their religious convictions not to facilitate the sins of others has decided not to appeal a ruling ordering that they pay $13,000 in fines over the matter.

As previously reported, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who are Roman Catholics, own Liberty Ridge Farms in Schaghticoke, a 50-acre facility that hosts a number of family-friendly attractions.

In 2012, Jennie McCarthy and Melisa Erwin of Albany contacted the facility to schedule their “wedding” ceremony, as the venue regularly hosts weddings and other outings, but when the Giffords realized that the two were lesbians, they informed the women that they could not be of assistance.

“That’s when [Cynthia] said, ‘Now we have a problem,’” Erwin explained. “This is a decision that my husband and I have made. …. [Y]ou can’t do it here.”

McCarthy and Erwin then filed a complaint with the New York Division of Human Rights, alleging discrimination. Others began to write angry messages on the farm’s Facebook page, such as “Gay dollars are just as green as straight dollars.”

In August 2014, Administrative Law Judge Migdalia Peres ruled in favor of the two women, despite the Gifford’s notation that hosting the ceremony would violate their religious beliefs.

“The policy to not allow same-sex marriage ceremonies on Liberty Ridge Farm is a denial of access to a place of public accommodation,” she wrote in her decision.

  • Connect with Christian News

Peres fined Liberty Ridge Farms $13,000, citing “the goal of deterrence” for other businesses who might adhere to their convictions and decline to personally accommodate same-sex celebrations. $1,500 of that amount was be paid to each the lesbians who were turned down by the facility, which also serves as the Gifford’s home.

Liberty Ridge Farms was also ordered to provide proof that they have trained their employees not to refuse requests from homosexuals. A poster noting that the business is subject to human rights law was additionally to be displayed prominently at the business.

The Giffords soon decided to close the wedding venue altogether, while keeping other parts of their farm operational, in order to avoid violating their religious beliefs. The couple also filed an appeal against the ruling with the The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division.

But last month, the court unanimously upheld Peres’ ruling, stating that the Giffords are welcome to hold to their personal opinions about marriage, but cannot live out their religious convictions in running their business—reducing religion to a mental viewpoint as opposed to an inviolable whole-life practice.

“The Giffords are free to adhere to and profess their religious beliefs that same-sex couples should not marry, but they must permit same-sex couples to marry on the premises if they choose to allow opposite-sex couples to do so,” Judge Karen Peters’ wrote.

Now, according to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which had represented the Giffords in court, the couple has decided “not to appeal the ruling and are evaluating how to best run Liberty Ridge Farm under a legal regime that disregards their convictions.”

“Americans should be free to live and work peacefully according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards. The government went after this couple’s constitutionally protected freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property,” said legal counsel Caleb Dalton in a statement. “This kind of governmental coercion should disturb every freedom-loving American no matter where you stand on marriage.”

“[T]hey still feel very strongly about their religious convictions and their right to be able to exercise their religious liberties through their work,” added attorney James Trainor to the Daily Signal. “It’s just unfortunate that the climate is such that our state and the federal government don’t allow us to do that.”

In an article lamenting that businesses are being forced to accept orders for events that violate their conscience, John Carpenter of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Providence, North Carolina also noted, “It is people who have civil rights, not events.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • gizmo23

    Sounds like everybody got what they wanted

    • Thisoldspouse

      Does it really?

      • gizmo23

        yes

  • Michael C

    In an article lamenting that businesses are being forced to accept orders for events that violate their conscience, John Carpenter of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Providence, North Carolina also noted, “It is people who have civil rights, not events.”

    By this same rationale, a business would be permitted to refuse to sell their products and/or services to a customer on the basis of their opposition to interracial marriage despite laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race.

    Does that sound legal to anyone?

  • mikeg

    These episodes do not have to take place. Since the goal is to get Christians in legal trouble, not to obtain any goods or services, the Christian business owner should be willing to accommodate gay customers, knowing that they will walk out and never come back again. Post a notice at the place of business and on the website, “We donate 10 percent of our profits to Family Research Council” or some other high-profile Christian group.

    • RWH

      I have yet to meet an individual who asks a clerk or a business owner anything about his background or beliefs before he decides to buy goods or services. I have shopped all of my life, and I have never interrogated anyone before I bought a product. What makes you think that others would deliberately target an individual? It doesn’t make any sense to me, and I don’t think that it would make any sense to others.

      • Guest

        There is a Seattle WA homosexual group that intentionally targets Christians. They were crowing about going after Baronnelle Stutzman.

        • Brad F

          These characters are just playing naive. It’s not some big secret that Christian businesses have been targeted.

          • gizmo23

            Shhh Don’t tell anybody that pro life groups target Planned Parenthood.

          • Spectrum

            Yes, and for good reason. Do you think the videos they produced were faked ? Do you not find it the least bit disturbing that new born babies, even UNBORN babies are systematically dissected and their body parts sold for profit ? Is there anything more evil… apart perhaps… from the normalising of homosexual perversion ?

          • gizmo23

            Edited yes very disturbing video. Illegal not yet, no evidence. No problem with gay people or what they do

          • Hastur

            prove it.

          • acontraryview

            Given that over 90% of the population identifies as Christian, the probability that a business is owned by someone who identifies as Christian is very high. To suggest that business owned by Christians are specifically targeted is without proof or reason.

        • Hastur

          no there isn’t , lying is a sin you know

          • Guest

            The person who upvoted you is one of its members. 🙂

          • Hastur

            prove it, loser

          • Guest

            You’re kidding, right? Everyone knows who Oshtur the purple Guest is.

          • Hastur

            prove it, loser

          • Guest

            Their site was linked on Charisma where they were bragging about targeting Baronelle. Ask Robbie all about it.

          • Hastur

            prove it, loser

          • Carlos

            Oshtur, the comic book addict? She has about 50 names.
            When you click on these clowns’ comment histories, you’ll usually see that, aside from their gay blogs, their interests are things like comic books and video games. They are not even adults, so their opinions on social issues is worthless.

          • Guest

            This one is a senior citizen.

        • RWH

          Well, considering that Christians comprise about 90% of the American population, that doesn’t seem like a very lofty objective. And exactly what did Stutzman do to single herself out?

          • Guest

            True Christians are very small in number. Baronelle did nothing but befriend a man for whom she often made bouquets of flowers. She was a test case to see what the gaystapo could get away with.

          • Spectrum

            They know what they can get away with already. And they want to push it much further. That’s why we now have gay “marriage”, and such a large percentage of the population that have been duped into supporting it.

        • acontraryview

          What group is that?

        • Spectrum

          There are many homosexual organisations that target Christians. RWH needs to enlighten himself when he naively asks ; “…What makes you think that others would deliberately target an individual…” ?

      • The Last Trump

        What part of $1500 dollars EACH did not make sense to you exactly?

      • shepherd

        Because they already know!!

    • Michael C

      Yes. In areas that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, businesses cannot simply refuse to sell a regularly offered product to a gay person. The business owner can, however, make their personal beliefs plainly known. The business owner is free to call the customer a sinner. They are free to express their distaste for the customer. They are free to tell the customer that their dollars will be donated to organizations that work to prevent the equal treatment of gay people in civil society.

      They aren’t, however, permitted to refuse to sell them their regularly offered products.

      Nobody wants to support a business that hates them. For example, a St. Johns woman ordered a pair of custom wedding rings from Today’s Jewellers in Mount Pearl. After the order was placed, the business displayed a sign in opposition of gay people. The woman returned to the store and the store willingly cancelled the order and refunded her money.

      These businesses that have run afoul of the law have done so by choice.

    • acontraryview

      “Since the goal is to get Christians in legal trouble, not to obtain any goods or services”

      What is your basis for that statement?

      “Post a notice at the place of business and on the website, “We donate 10 percent of our profits to Family Research Council” or some other high-profile Christian group.”

      They are certainly free to do that. They can also put up a big sign in the wedding venue that says “Gay Marriage is Wrong!” or “homosexuals will spend eternity in hell”. There are many ways in which they could make their venue an unattractive choice to homosexuals.

  • Knox

    Business isn’t the main issue. Honoring and Keeping God’s Commands and not giving affirmation to those rebelling, which would be willfully sinning with them. God has made it clear. Do not go with others to sin.

    • Peter Leh

      true. so why did the owners not take appropriate action to their business policy to comply with their conscious AND the state requirement for public accommodating according to their corp?

      The result was poor business policy not religious persecution or martyrdom. 🙂

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      Romans 3:31 — Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
      It is against the law where they are in New York to deny a regularly offered service to someone because of their sexual orientation. And before you go on to type that they can offer them a heterosexual wedding — they are offering a venue, not a wedding.

      • Knox

        Am I reading it right that your equating the Law of God and Civil law?

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          You’re*. And you’re reading a verse from the Bible where the Bible admonishes people to follow civil law.
          Also Tidus 3:1
          Romans 13:1
          1 Peter 2:13
          Luke 20:25
          The list keeps going — In fact I think the Bible references that you should follow civil law, more than it references homosexuality.

          • Diaris

            Since when do homosexuals pose as experts on the Bible? A book none of them have ever read?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Christian school from kindergarten to 12th grade followed by a 4 year Christian college that requires survey of the Old and New Testament as well as frequent ethics papers. I’m willing to bet I’ve read the Bible more than you have.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Too bad I can only upvote this once.

          • gogo0

            do you actually believe that no gay person has ever read or studied the bible??

          • David & Jonathan

            It seems to me that you are the one that has never read the bible. Don’t you know that it is one of the most pro -gay books on the planet?
            We have Jesus confirming that homosexuals are born gay, we have same sex love stories like David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and …., the Roman soldier and his toy boy, Jesus and his “beloved disciple” who ran away naked at Jesus his arrest. Do you know in whom’s house the last supper was held?
            We have Isaiah were it is stated that homosexuals will receive a monument in heaven greater than having children.

            We have the two constitutional commandments, on which all other commandments rest. You can not deduce from these two foundational commandments (Love God and Love your Neighbor) that homosexuality is a sin. There is not a single reference in the bible saying that homosexuality is a sin, unless you are looking for sex acts in an idolatrous context.

            Read your bible. And don’t forget the one that made it to the famous ten: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

            Go, and sin no more…

          • Spectrum

            The bible you got that load of utter garbage from could only have been the gays’ own, sanitised and revisionist edition known as the “Queen James Bible”, with all the references to sodomite acts altered and twisted to mean whatever they want it to mean. But then we should not be surprised when you turn to that in frustration, when the REAL bible contradicts all of your above nonsense.

            Carry on wallowing in your sins…..you’re too far gone to be helped.

    • Hastur

      your god isn’t above the law of this nation. you want to live here you have to obey.

      • lee metzger

        Why do people have to obey the laws of this nation? Obama not only allows illegal immigrants to commit a federal crime every time they come here, he actually encourages it. If it’s got to be good for one (Christians) than it’s got to be good for all, but you side doesn’t want to hear about that….

        • Hastur

          blah blah blah.

          • Spectrum

            Surely you have something constructive to say in reply to lee metzger’s excellent point ?

            More double standards and selective application of the law.

          • Hastur

            blah blah blah.

      • Oboehner

        Sexual perversion isn’t above the First Amendment.

        • Hastur

          no just your sad interpretation of it, freedom of religion does not mean that you get to ignore laws you feel conflict with your cult

          • Spectrum

            Christians are held to a higher standard than man’s law. Perverts and their supporters have little respect for the law, other than when it serves their interests, as in the same-sex “marriage” decision farce.

          • Hastur

            no you aren’t, Christians must follow thew law same as everyone else regardless of what your little cult says

          • Spectrum

            Acts 5;29 – “We must obey God rather than men.”

            This was Peter and the apostles in response to the Sanhedrin ( temple priests ) who were attempting to silence their evangelising of God’s teachings. I think there are some parallels here.

          • Hastur

            so? your little book doesn’t exempt you from the laws of this nation

          • Spectrum

            You’ve not been paying attention have you ? One does not have to obey immoral unjust man made laws that go against God’s teachings. Whether the person involved has the considerable courage required to do so, and risk going to jail ( or worse ), is another matter. Kim Davis’s strong faith enabled her to, as did that of the early Christian martyrs, and those since. Inspirations all of them.

          • Hastur

            you do have to obey the law even if you believe them to be wrong,

          • David & Jonathan

            So why are you following a human made construct. Don’t you know it was the Roman Catholic Church that made homosexuality a “sin”?
            You must obey God. God is perfectly fine with homosexuals. That is why he gave us the bible, one of the most pro gay books on this planet.

          • Spectrum

            Your ignorance is astounding. The catholic church didn’t make homosexuality a sin. It was that long before even Jesus’s time on earth, and certainly long before the catholic church was even formed in the first place ! I won’t bother attempting a discussion with you as you are either grossly stupid or trolling. Or both.

            Are you “husband” and “husband” yet ? And when is your child due ? Oh that’s right – you can’t have kids can you ? Not through normal means. Because you’re not normal yourselves.

          • David & Jonathan

            It was never a sin before the Catholic Church. And it is you who is grossly ignorant.

            Lets have a close look at the Old Testament. I assume you already know that S&G was never about homosexuality. There is a same story in Judges 19 and 20 with same story line and same outcome – city destroyed, but this case the rape is of a woman. If S&G would condemn homosexuality, Judges 19 & 20 would condemn heterosexuality, obviously ridiculous. There are plenty of references to S&G in the bible, none of them naming homosexuality the sin of S&G. They all say that S&G was about greed, inhospitality and grave injustice. Or ask Judaism, the copyright holders of the story. They share my opinion (S&G being about greed, inhospitality and grave injustice). References are available if you don’t know this already.

            Lets have a close look at all the other so called “clobber passages” in the bible:

            In good old leviticus 18 and 20 you find that having sex with a woman during her period is a grave sin resulting in expulsion from the people of Israel. The same “sin” is also mentioned in Leviticus 15:24 but now it is not a sin at all. It is only resulting in 7 days of uncleanliness (the same as the woman herself during her period, with or without sex). Quite a difference don’t you think? Please explain why…

            The reason for the difference is CONTEXT. What is the context of both Leviticus 18 and 20? Molek worshipping. The first verses of Leviticus 20 start with a whole story about Molek worshipping, and the verse about perceived homosexuality in Leviticus 18 is followed by one about Molek worshipping. Another clear indication about context is the use of the word Toevah in the hebrew text (semi translated to abomination in your bible). Toevah is only used in an idolatrous context. A bit of explanation on Molek worshipping: it was all about fertility rites. Temple prostitution and sex orgies where men and women had sex with everything on 2 and 4 legs. Molek worshipping -> Idolatry.

            I hope you agree with me that a current day same sex relationship has nothing to do with Molek worshipping.

            And just as having sex with a woman during her period outside the context of Lev 18 and 20 is not a sin, is sex between two man outside the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 not a sin. Simply because it is not a violation of the two constitutional commandments: Love God and Love your Neighbor. Obviously is Molek worshipping against the commandment Love God. Other sexual sins in Leviticus 18 and 20 are also outside the context of Lev 18 and 20 sinful as they are a violation of the Love your Neighbor commandment. But again, homosexuality is not one of them.

            Conclusion, Leviticus 18 and 20 does not condemn homosexuality as we know it today.

            With both S&G and Leviticus 18 and 20 out, It means that homosexuality according to the OT has never been a sin. Why would it be then according to the NT?

            Lets have a close look at Romans 1 as well:

            First of all, Romans 1 is only an introduction to Romans 2. Paul is nicely sweeping up his public to make his point in Romans 2:

            2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

            And why don’t you read the preceding verses?

            Lets start with verse 23:

            23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

            Only then we come to your favorite part…

            26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did EXCHANGE THEIR natural use into that which is against THEIR nature:

            27 And likewise also the men, leaving THEIR natural use of the woman, BURNED in their lust one toward another;

            Within the context of idolatry we are talking here about straight people, who as part of their pagan sex/fertility rituals had sex with everything on two and four legs. What needs to happen for you yourself as a straight man to burn in lust for another man? That is quite something don’t you think?

            Romans 1 has nothing to do with homosexuality as in a loving and caring relationship. It is about Idolatry.

            Not applicable…

            And regarding Corinthians and Timothy:

            These two verses again do not include homosexuality. That is a current day translation that only proves the prejudice of the translator.

            First of all, Paul didn’t write the letter in English. He wrote the letter in Greek. And the word you are referring to is the word Arsenokoites, which literally translated “man bed”, with the word bed in a sexual connotation. As this word was never used before, there is no clear understanding of what it actually means. Current day greek dictionaries explain it as meaning masturbators.

            It was the translators of the KJV that translated it for you into english. It is clear that they also didn’t understand what the word Arsenokoites means. If they thought it would mean homosexuals (current day word) they would have used the word Sodomite, as this word was already in use to describe homosexuals since 390 After Christ. Just as Paul would have used the word “paiderasste” if he wanted to refer to homosexuals. Instead the translators came with the vague translation “Abusers of themselves with mankind”.

            As you are probably more familiar with the english version, lets have a look at what it says…

            First of all, why do you assume that the people that are the “abusers of themselves” are male? That can not be deduced from the text. Secondly, the word “Mankind” is used to refer to the human species, which includes male and female.

            And third of all, there is the word abuse, which points to something sexual without consent.

            Basically, your english version can mean anything.

            So there is not a single point of evidence that Paul was referring to homosexuality.

            Your interpretation, Is just the flavor of the day, with no more substantiation than past interpretations such as masturbators, male prostitutes (for women), rapists, etc.

            On the other hand we have the love story of David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and …., the Roman Soldier and his boy toy, Jesus and his “beloved disciple” that ran away naked at Jesus his arrest, we have Jesus confirming that homosexuals are born gay from the mothers womb, we have Isaiah saying that there is a bigger monument for gay people in heaven than having children, etc.

            We have Jesus explaining that Loving God and Loving your neighbor are the two commandments where all other laws and commandments rest upon, meaning, if something doesn’t violate these two commandments, it can not be a sin. Homosexuality is not in contravention to these two commandments, therefore not a sin.

            Jesus also explained to us that we can expect to be judged righteously. He even explained how: Because no good tree brings bad fruit, and no bad tree brings good fruit. If a relationship brings good to the participants and the people in their environment (good fruit), than the relationship (the tree) can not be bad.

            However, the old testament is very clear about bearing false witness against your neighbor. that one made it to the famous ten AND is in contravention of the two foundational commandments.

            Homosexuality has never been a sin.

        • David & Jonathan

          There is no sexual perversion in this discussion. We only see a perversion of scripture, which started in 390 after christ.
          The bible itself is the most pro gay book on this planet.

          • Oboehner

            Couldn’t be more wrong on both counts.

        • Peter Leh

          “Sexual perversion isn’t above the First Amendment.”

          sexual perversion is in the 4th.

          neither is above the other

          • Oboehner

            Read it, don’t see it. I do see practicing one’s religion however, which includes declining to serve sexual perverts.

    • acontraryview

      “Business isn’t the main issue.”

      From a legal standpoint, it is the only issue.

    • [email protected]

      providing a business service is not giving affirmation. If a Muslim couple asks for the business service then providing it does not mean that the business owner is affirming Islam, rather just that the business owner is providing the business service that they say they offer. so the problem here is wrongly conflating providing a business service with giving affirmation, the two are not the same thing and the business owner could easily express their disapproval while still providing the business service.

      • Spectrum

        But the point is that this is no ordinary business service. It involves cherished religious beliefs that demand violating the person’s moral integrity. No other business transaction requires this of any shop owner.

        And why does this skewed rationale of yours not apply equally to muslims too ? Why aren’t you outraged as much by their refusal ? Because Christians are an easy target for victimisation.

        • [email protected]

          So your going to say that a wedding is not an ordinary business service and thus deserves special consideration. okay fine so then lets only talk about weddings. so do you think we should let a business deny service to a Jewish wedding or an inter-racial wedding if the business owner had a religious objection to those weddings? as you said providing a business service to a wedding involves cherished religious beliefs so shouldn’t that exception apply to any wedding and not just same-sex weddings?

          Secondly yes, I would be just as opposed to a Muslim owned business denying service and would say the exact same thing as I am saying here. But for this to happen a Muslim owned business in a state that protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would need to deny a business service to a same sex wedding and as I explained in another response this would be a very rare occurrence indeed.

  • Peter Leh

    “The government went after this couple’s constitutionally protected
    freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their
    faith on their own property,” said legal counsel Caleb Dalton in a
    statement.”

    Dalton knows betters… moreover note Dalton got paid for his services in the execution a failed defense….. one he knew would fail. I am sure he is disappointed the couple did not appeal keeping his gravy train going.

  • Peter Leh

    “Peres fined Liberty Ridge Farms $13,000, citing “the goal of
    deterrence” for other businesses who might adhere to their convictions
    and decline to personally accommodate same-sex celebrations. $1,500 of
    that amount was be paid to each the lesbians who were turned down by the
    facility, which also serves as the Gifford’s home.

    Liberty Ridge Farms was also ordered to provide proof that they have
    trained their employees not to refuse requests from homosexuals. A
    poster noting that the business is subject to human rights law was
    additionally to be displayed prominently at the business.”

    note there is no where the couple was “forced” to perform anything. They are paying the fine and moving on…

    • Spectrum

      They’re paying the fine ( reluctantly ) but they’re not moving on. Do you think they’ve changed their rightfully held views, despite having to have their employees sent to re-education camp as part of this injustice ?

      • Peter Leh

        “Do you think they’ve changed their rightfully held views”

        no.. nor do they have to.

        “despite having to have their employees sent to re-education camp as part of this injustice”

        LOL… PLease. the injustice is not following the law, as so so readily available to all. This citation was so unnecessary for ethical business owners (christian or not)

      • [email protected]

        they are not required to change their views at all, rather they are required to provide the business service that they say they offer. this is not about what they believe or what they say but rather following laws that are designed to protect consumers.

        • Spectrum

          What about the law that protects ALL citizens, not just the consumer class ? What’s that ? You haven’t heard of the First Amendment ? That’s because it’s being buried.

          • [email protected]

            The first amendment does not provide the right to deny service based on religious belief. If it did then we would also need to let a business deny service to a Jewish wedding or an inter-racial wedding if the business owner had a religious objection to those weddings.

          • Spectrum

            No you can’t use those examples as a comparison. They do not involve violating one’s moral conscience and thereby implying the endorsement of sin. You are bringing racial matters into the discussion when they are not relevant. You are muddying the waters ( perhaps deliberately ? ).

            How is a ( normal ) Jewish wedding sinful in God’s eyes ? It isn’t of course. Implied support of a morally illegitimate “wedding” like these two deviants expect, is a different matter altogether. And you must see that ?

            In general terms, the First Amendment doesn’t provide the right to deny service based on religion. But what these two are doing goes further than that. I believe there is an inherent exemption for special circumstances as pertains to cases like these, in the interpretation of the amendment. And I’m quite sure the bakery owners legal team see it too, that’s why they took up the case. But in the current climate of hostility to Christians and the increasing promotion of evil, the courts are easily influenced.

  • Per Pedersen

    Order a ‘gay’cake from a muslim bakery – then see what happens. You will be rejected AND that seems to be allowed.

    • gizmo23

      Where has this happened?

    • Peter Leh

      “Where has this happened?” AND compare apples to apples.

    • Hastur

      if it’s in a state where sexual orientation is a protected status then they’ll make it or be sued

      • Brad F

        You gals are so vindictive.
        You must not be very happy.

        • Hastur

          the law is the law loser and even you pigs need to follow it regardless of what your little cult says, no faith is above the laws of this nation

          • The Last Trump

            Ahh, and the true colours come out. Attractive as always.

          • Brad F

            For being called “gay,” they seem awful mean and peevish.

          • Hastur

            follow the laws and you won’t have that problem

          • Hastur

            what are you talking about

          • Brad F

            We’re not pigs.
            You kill each other with AIDS. You’re the pigs.
            Christians are the least of your problems, you filthy pedophile.

          • Hastur

            yes you are, you are trying to deny LGBT people their rights, you want to make life harder for them.

          • DanH

            Your paranoia is amusing.

        • Hastur

          the law is the law loser and even you pigs need to follow it regardless
          of what your little cult says, no faith is above the laws of this
          nation

    • Michael C

      There was already a guy who tried that. He told journalist Christopher Agee that no one told him “no, we won’t do it.”

      …and this was in a state that allows businesses to refuse service to gay customers.

      • lee metzger

        You’re dead wrong. There was a man who went undercover at a muslim bakery in Michigan, and wanted a cake for his “gay” wedding. The muslim man refused. It’s all on tape. Naturally, the media wasn’t interested, and totally ignored the story.

        • Michael C

          I was referring to Steven Crowder. He’s the guy who in an interview with Christopher Agee for Western Journalism is quoted as saying “no one said ‘No, we won’t do it.’”

          Who were you referring to?

        • Hastur

          Michigan doesn’t include sexual orientation as protected status you idiot.

          • lee metzger

            Ya know, that’s not the point IDIOT. A muslim discriminated against a “gay” person, protected by religious freedom laws or not. THIS muslim did what almost all muslims would certainly do, whether or not in states with religious freedom laws, yet the gay fascists want nothing to do with targeting THEM. Because of what? Are muslims protected space, no matter what they do? Apparently so in hypocritical liberal land.

          • Hastur

            it is the point, if sexual orientation isn’t a protected statues in that state then Muslims and Christians can refuse service to someone because they’re gay . you idiots are so desperate to make this about you and pint out an imaginary double standard , it’s pathetic

          • lee metzger

            No, MORON. The point is that gay fascists refuse to target muslims in states where they are NOT protected by religious freedom laws. And let’s get real. Gays aren’t interested in marriage. They’re only interested in spreading their poisonous a-moral standards of living on a populace that clearly has had enough of them. They only want to destroy the traditional definition of marriage, inserting in its place throuples, polyamoral, and God only knows what they have in mind next. Sorry, but I’ve been around them too much in my life, and they’re not fooling me one bit with crap. Gay men especially refuse to control their tool, and can’t get enough of it with multiple tens of hundreds of partners in some cases. Hardly the stuff of marriage and/or equality I’d say. More like sexual deviants who need serious counseling to deliver them from their denial of the normative use of the body.

          • Hastur

            there is no targeting you paranoid loser, now shut up and follow the law like the rest of us

          • lee metzger

            I will follow no law that gives affirmation to anyone’s psychosis of the mind. I’d server anyone at a restaurant, but demand I cater your wedding, and i’ll cater it all right, but it will be the worst tasting food you ever had. THAT’S how it is when you shove your IMMORALITY down MY throat, LOSER

          • Hastur

            be prepared to be sued

        • Guest

          It was that story that Michael C was referring to. Don’t confuse an edited video with all that happened. The author admitted that no one refused him.

          • lee metzger

            Wrong, I remember that video. The one guy was really clear that he would NOT bake the cake. There was nothing edited about that scene. He told him to go across the street and get the cake.

          • Spectrum

            You’re correct. It’s in the video. And not only ONE muslim bakery refused, several did.

          • Bish Chan

            He actually admitted on his blog that none refused although he later took it down. But the interview with western journalism where he admits it is still available.

            One bakery called Golden something refused as they didn’t do custom cakes but the other two did not. The third one actually demanded an apology and said they did them before and one gay couple even came back for their anniversary cake there. They had a rally outside their shop.

            He’s paid by anti gay lobby groups and his goal is to stoke outrage, professionalism is not a great concern of his as he has been caught out before for stuff like this. Him admitting none refused him actually made him look better as he could then just claim he was gauging reactions from the public.

          • Guest

            The guy who made the video disagrees with you and I figure he knows more about it than you do.

          • lee metzger

            The video speaks for itself.

          • Guest

            Yeah, YouTube proves that 😉

          • lee metzger

            And you’d insist it was raining when the sky was cloudless. Thanks for playing…..

          • Guest

            Wow! A red herring made out of straw! Thanks, I’ll keep it with all your other ‘prizes’ for playing 😉

      • Brad F

        Oh you poor dear, you better avoid that state.

        • Michael C

          The majority of states allow businesses to refuse service to gay customers.

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      A few doors down from my place there is a kebab place, I think they are from Marocco. Have been eating there several times with my homosexual friends, they never turned us down.

    • [email protected]

      no it is not allowed. if a Muslim owned business violated the law then they would face the exact same penalty. there is no religious exemption for any religious group, Muslim or christian to this law.

      • Spectrum

        THAT is the double standard the dimwit Hastur fails to see. Or more to the point – he sees it, but conveniently ignores it, as have the authorities due to political correctness. That’s how absurd this PC has become – to the point where the law is only selectively applied. SO selectively, that of ALL the pertinent religious communities in the U.S. ONLY Christianity is affected. ( all pure coincidence of course ).

        • [email protected]

          no Christianity is not the only group that is affected. Lets think about this for a moment, If there were an equal number of christian and Muslim business that catered to weddings and if they were equally likely to deny service then sure, it would be suspect if only christian business were affected by these laws with Muslim business never impacted. But the fact of the matter is that this is not the case at all. there are far, far more christian owned business then Muslim owned business in the US and that certainly applies to those that serve the wedding industry. furthermore while there are multiple conservative christian legal groups that are encouraging christian businesses to deny service to same-sex weddings and offering pro-bono legal services if the business does so there is no comparable offer being made to Muslim businesses. thus the fact that these few christian business that have denied service know that they have free legal service for their case makes them more likely to do this. finally these cases are already a rare event, there have been tens of thousands of same sex weddings and yet only a small handful of businesses that have denied service to gay couples. so to find a Muslim business doing so would be a rare event inside a rare event.

          with all these facts in mind it is then not at all surprising that the few cases that do exist involve christian owned businesses, it is by far what we would expect just from the natural state of things.

          • Spectrum

            I don’t agree with that reasoning. It’s proportionate. Sure there are more Christian businesses than muslim ones, and fewer in the wedding industry. But that doesn’t change the fact that NO muslim bakeries have been sued by gays, or if there have been – there’d be very few – and we never hear about them. The reasons we don’t hear about them is 1) the gays won’t approach muslim bakery owners, because their hatred is not towards muslims but towards Christians ( which is ironic seeing that muslims would kill homos if they had the chance. Christians want them SAVED – from their sin ).

            2) the media are controlled by a few powerful corporations which, apart from providing the funding for the gay activist groups, direct them ( the media ) to promote the gay agenda, and ignore or denigrate Christians and pro family advocates. This is evident in the totally one sided coverage in the news and talk shows. How often do you see the other side of the argument being presented ? And on the rare occasions when they do, it invariably involves mockery and belittling.

            So it’s no wonder we don’t hear of this happening to muslim businesses. But ( as a proportion of the total ) there are MANY cases of various Christian businesses being attacked in this way. Just go to the World Net Daily website, for one example, and there’s a long list of links to similar incidents that you can check out. You need to realise that there is more to all this than “equality” and “rights”. They’re pretexts for a much larger assault on our freedoms.

  • lee metzger

    Donate all proceeds from any catered event to pro-traditional family and marriage institutions. I have to wonder how many gay couples with then want to use your place of business. If they do, at least you can have some consolation that a “tithe” of what they paid you will go to awesome and indeed, biblical causes. There is more than one way to skin this cat.

    • Michael C

      That would be a much better way for businesses to handle this.

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      I’m gay, and I agree. The way this is going down isn’t working for Christian business owners because businesses are not protected under the First Amendment (except the odd case of Hobby Lobby). If you want to deter homosexuals from using your services, this would be the smart way to do it.

    • acontraryview

      That’s a very good suggestion for people who share the Gifford’s views. There are many ways that a business could make itself an unattractive choice for homosexuals. Those who want to discriminate in the provision of their services need to start doing so in a way that will accomplish their goals without violating the law. Simply saying: “i don’t want to because of my religious beliefs” is never going work from a legal standpoint.

      • Spectrum

        Making themselves an unattractive choice to the deviants would not work. In fact, it would only encourage them to try MORE entrapments like this. Many of these types of incidents involve targeting Christian business owners to provoke this very situation. The aim being to punish the owners, and thus to intimidate others. All part of the gay activists’ overall goal of undermining the traditional family and destroying Christianity.

        • [email protected]

          the goal is not to destroy the “traditional family” or Christianity, that is just flat out wrong and absurd. nor is the goal to “entrap” business owners but rather just couples seeking the business service that the business says it provides. the business is free to state that they disprove of homosexuality and that they will donate part of the proceeds to anti-gay groups. if the gay couple still wants to do business there then the business must provide the business service that they have offered to the public. but Lee is right in saying that in most cases the customer would probably seek to do business elsewhere at that point.

          • Spectrum

            “….but Lee is right in saying that in most cases the customer would probably seek to do business elsewhere at that point….”.

            Agreed. So why didn’t they then ? Because of what I stated above. Don’t be naive. The gay activists of the radical left fully back these entrapments. They hate Christianity because it stands in the way of their godless “progressive” goals.

          • [email protected]

            well becasue the business did not tell the gay customers that they were going to donate a percentage of the proceeds to an anti-gay group. instead they denied service which was a violation of the law which is why the couple then turned to the law for corrective action. what people are saying here is that instead of denying service, which is a violation of the law, the business owners could instead express their disapproval of homosexuality, or say that they will donate a percentage of the proceeds to a group opposed to gay rights and that these could be ways to let the gay couple know that the business owner does not approve and that doing so will likely end the business interaction right there.

        • acontraryview

          “Many of these types of incidents involve targeting Christian business owners to provoke this very situation. The aim being to punish the owners, and thus to intimidate others.”

          Basis?

          “All part of the gay activists’ overall goal of undermining the traditional family and destroying Christianity.”

          How does holding people accountable to the law undermine the traditional family and destroy Christianity?

    • Peter Leh

      “There is more than one way to skin this cat.”

      indeed which is my this is in no way persecution. Martyrs dont have choices. Business people do. They made poor business choices.

      • Spectrum

        “….They made poor business choices….”

        But excellent moral choices. And their First Amendment rights in a normal world, should have underwritten that. But of course we no longer live in a normal world anymore.

        • Peter Leh

          “But excellent moral choices.”

          Why not both?

          “And their First Amendment rights in a normal world, should have underwritten that”

          it did.. they were not cited for violating the 1st amendment:

          “The Giffords are free to adhere to and profess their religious beliefs that same-sex couples should not marry”

          so according to the judge what were they cited for?

          “But of course we no longer live in a normal world anymore.”

          I do. They do. You do.

  • Don D Lasater

    It makes no sense to me that 3% of the p opulation, homos would want to be around normal people. They need to get their own people to marry each other. The King James bible is very clear. Those that blatantly break God’s law will pay. The wages of sin is death, read the Bible.

    • Hastur

      segregationist used the same arguments.

      • Don D Lasater

        Read Levedicus, Verse 17 I think. It states, man shall not lay with man the same as with a woman.

        • Hastur

          so what? regardless of what your little books says the law still trumps it.

    • acontraryview

      “The King James bible is very clear.”

      Really? Where in the King James Bible does is say that it is a sin for two people of the same gender to enter into civil marriage?

      • Don D Lasater

        Levedicus

        • Hastur

          is irrelevant.

        • Guest

          And if the people aren’t Jewish?

          • Don D Lasater

            Christian. The article is about refusing service to homo’s.

          • Guest

            Leviticus is for those under the Old Covenant. I am a Christian with no Jewish heritage – I am not under the Old Covenant now (as all Christians aren’t) and my lineage never has been.

        • acontraryview

          Who’s Levedicus?

    • [email protected]

      gay people are normal people and yes they are going to interact with heterosexual people. they were not asking these business owners to marry them but rather to provide the venue which is a business service that they offer. the business owners can believe that homosexuality is a sin and they can state that to the customer if they wish but they can not offer a service to the public and then deny that to someone based on race, religious, sexual orientation, ect.

      • Spectrum

        Gay people are people with very abnormal proclivities.

        And they are not refusing to make and serve a cake or any other product for any other purpose OTHER than for this particular occasion. The gays refuse to recognise this or respect their conscientious objection to do so. If they wanted a cake SPECIFICALLY for their so-called “wedding”, they could have gone to any number of other ( non Christian ) bakeries that would have done so. The fact that they knew this yet still insisted on causing an avoidable controversy, makes it obvious that this incident was maliciously motivated. And they want us to believe that they are the “injured” victims in all this ? This is a blatant put up job.

        • [email protected]

          so did the business have a sign out front saying that they would not serve a same-sex wedding? did they say it on their website? how was the same-sex couple to know that they would not provide the business service to them? this was not maliciously motivated, rather this was a couple seeking out a business service that they needed for their wedding. we need (cake, venue, flowers, ect)…I know that business over these and they offer a good (venue, cake, flowers, ect) lets go to them.

          • Spectrum

            Oh come on. You’re not serious ? The gays KNEW FULL WELL the business was owned by Christians. And they know equally well what the possible if not LIKELY, response would be to their mischievous request. They didn’t need to look for a sign outside telling them that, or any other warning.

            That’s why I describe these episodes as entrapments. They wanted to elicit that response. It was a contrived set up. Designed to provoke just this reaction, so that they then had justification to sue and punish them. It’s a form of intimidation. THEY HATE CHRISTIANS – got it yet ? You’re either living a very sheltered life, or you’re wilfully ignorant.

          • Bish Chan

            How would they know if there is no sign?

          • Spectrum

            They’d know via their network of friends, word of mouth, and on some occasions by encouragement from the pro gay activist organisations. If not this particular “couple”, then certainly many of the other provocateurs that are trying the same entrapment stunts elsewhere around the country.

  • MattFCharlestonSC

    Regardless of the motivation these ladies had in choosing their venue, the owners of Liberty Ridge Farm broke the law. Where they live, sexual orientation is a protected class. I believe there are multiple Bible verses that expressly state that rulers/authorities/the law should be followed.

    • Diaris

      LOL, “ladies”?
      That’s funny.

      • MattFCharlestonSC

        Women, chicks, girls, people — whatever floats your boat. The point is still valid.

      • Straight Shooter

        “Vicious harpies”

        • Hastur

          law abiding citizens, unlike the farm owners

          • Nidalap

            Slave owners were law abiding citizens. Escaped slaves, law breakers…

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Something being legal doesn’t make it ethical, and something being ethical doesn’t mean it’s legal. This is about the law.

          • Nidalap

            What?!? Did you just suggest that this ruling was unethical? You, you BIGOT!!! 🙂

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            So dramatic. Are you sure you aren’t gay? I’m saying that the law has nothing to do with Christian ethics (no matter how much you think it was based on them). Our law is heavily predicated on ancient Roman law (predating Christianity).

          • Nidalap

            ::Shakes head mournfully:: Standard bigot response. First complain about the ethics. Then ,when you call them on it, come back with the gay stereotypes… (^_^)

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Whatever makes you happy. Do I wish stories like this would quit popping up? Yes — I think the entire country is too litigious and I feel like it reflects poorly on the community. But the law is the law. If you break it and you get caught then you get punished. Businesses are not churches, and are not people, and shouldn’t be protected under the First Amendment. The moral of this story, which seems to be missed by most of these business owners, is that they should be aware of the law in their area and find lawful ways to counter being targeted.

          • Nidalap

            Businesses are made up of (bom-bom-bom) people, which should indeed be protected. Pretty big of you to admit they were targeted, by the way. Most who take your view deny it to the hilt! 🙂

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            And people are protected– in their homes, in church, in the streets… wherever they are on their own time, doing their own thing. Businesses aren’t. Especially where sexual orientation is a protected class. Just like people can’t deny someone service for their religion, regardless of how much you disagree with it.

          • Nidalap

            The terms “protected class” and “equal protection” are mutually exclusive of each other. Where the one exists, the other does not…

          • Spectrum

            He can’t help it. He’s a moralphobe.

          • Spectrum

            This is about freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. And about the protection for these that the First Amendment GUARANTEES, being usurped and trashed.

          • Hastur

            your point?

          • Nidalap

            Well, according to MattFCharlestonSC, “Something being legal doesn’t make it ethical, and something being ethical doesn’t mean it’s legal.” 🙂

          • Hastur

            the law is the law, your opinion on the ethics of it are irrelevant

          • Nidalap

            You might even have a point if you argued in favor of DOMA for the same reasons. I’m doubting it though. Watch me doubt! ::Strikes doubting pose:: (^_^)

          • Hastur

            doma was ruled unconstitutional by a court of law, people didn’t just ignore it because they disagreed with it

          • Nidalap

            And, before it was struck down (Because the federal government had no business in this state rights matter), were you for it? 🙂

          • Hastur

            no but I didn’t ignore it

          • Nidalap

            I see! So you told all your homosexual pals that they should give up their dreams of “marriage”, go home, and “follow the law” then? 🙂

          • Hastur

            I told them to follow the law until the law was removed , which it was

          • Nidalap

            You’re going to make me do the doubting pose again! 🙂

          • Hastur

            piss off, troll.

          • Nidalap

            Your spelling improved! 🙂

          • Hastur

            piss off, troll.

          • Nidalap

            And you’ve got the comma in the right place and everything! Aside from failing to capitalize the first letter of the sentence, it’s perfect! 🙂

          • Hastur

            piss off, troll.

          • Hastur

            F UCK off, troll

          • Nidalap

            Expletives? Come now, you can be better than that. 🙂

          • Hastur

            FUCK off, F UCK off , F UCK off,

          • Nidalap

            I’ve obviously upset you now. I shouldn’t have goaded you so. I apologize.

          • Hastur

            no, I’m just sick of your obvious trolling so say something intelligent or piss off

          • Spectrum

            You’ve committed a micro aggression against him. He needs to seek a safe space. Or perhaps he’s “transitioning” ? Into what, one can only guess these days…..

          • Hastur

            F UCK off, troll

          • Peter Leh

            no need. Conversation yes.. otherwise move along

          • Spectrum

            So unethical laws don’t faze you, nor should they, because they’re “irrelevant” to the voters, after all.

            Boy, you’d have been at home in pre-war nazi Germany.

            ( Or for that matter, present day America ).

          • Hastur

            the law is the law, your opinion on the ethics of it are irrelevant

          • Spectrum

            So you’d obey any law, no matter how unfair or unjust or plain BAD it would be ? Even if it affected your family adversely ? At what point would you stand up for yourself and resist ? Would you resist at all ?

          • Hastur

            the law is the law, your opinion on the ethics of it are irrelevant

          • Spectrum

            I thought so. You wouldn’t resist. As the firing squad takes aim at you, you shout to your despairing wife – oops! sorry – “husband” ;
            ” The law is the law, your opinion on the ethics of it are irrelevant.”

            Must say I admire your steadfast principles, if not your lack of plain common sense.

          • Hastur

            the law is the law, your opinion on the ethics of it are irrelevant

          • Guest

            And since it is very hard in the United States of America to consider religious discrimination like these business owners ‘ethical’ the fact that it is also illegal means the customers are on the right side of this issue.

          • Peter Leh

            “Slave owners were law abiding citizens. Escaped slaves, law breakers…”

            yes and was Biblical as well. 🙂

    • Nidalap

      They didn’t mean laws which required violating Christian principles. You’ll note that, when the rulers/authorities/the law of the day forbade them to preach the Gospel, they disobeyed.

      • Cady555

        Those instructions were written during the very pagan Roman empire and include the word “all”. Yes, the Bible orders obedience with secular authority.

        • Nidalap

          You’ll note that, when the rulers/authorities/the law of the day forbade them to preach the Gospel, they disobeyed. Not really going to be able to get past that part! 🙂

          • DanH

            These people never read Acts. They don’t read the Bible at all, they pick up some talking points from some homosexual website. hand them a Bible, tell them to look up a chapter and verse, they’d never be able to do it.

    • Spectrum

      The verse that overrides obeying civil authorities is this ; “We must obey God rather than men.” ( Acts 5;29 ). Civil / secular laws are to obeyed ONLY if they do not conflict with God’s higher law. These kinds of deliberately provocative cases affirm that.

      They should not have paid the fine. If it were me, I’d have gone to jail out of principle. Kim Davis did – and her moral courage set the example for all decent minded people to follow.

  • jason17

    Jesus is GOD!!! Jesus died on the cross as atonement for OUR sins then lived again. Simply BELIEVE ON HIM while you live and you will be saved from hell. No longer condemned to hell as punishment for our sins, we are FORGIVEN! Believe on Jesus Christ now!

  • Straight Shooter

    They must want something more than equality, when they get their little feelings hurt, they are very expensive feelings. Apparently their feelings are much higher priced than the feelings of heterosexuals. When we get our feelings hurt, we just shrug it off and move on. Hurt a lesbian’s feelings and you will pay, big time.

    • gizmo23

      Kind of like black people should have shrugged off discrimination ?

    • Hastur

      you’re the type of person would would of called MLK a “race baiter”

      • Spectrum

        MLK thought homosexuality to be “a problem”. And “probably culturally acquired.” He even advised a boy with such feelings to see a psychiatrist to assist in overcoming them. You may want to look it up, because I’m not allowed to post the link.

        • Hastur

          but his wife still said he would of supported gay rights.

          • Spectrum

            But not his daughter. She backs her father on the issue.

          • Hastur

            so she doesn’t, her mother did and she spits on there legacy

          • Spectrum

            MLK would NOT have supported gay rights. He was a devout Baptist, ( even though he had personal indiscretions – sins that we all struggle with because we are mere flesh and blood ).

            The article addresses whether he would have ; ( quote )

            No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the
            homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired”
            “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

            Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that,
            after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some
            level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.

            Indeed, it strains credulity to suggest that MLK would have thrown
            his weight behind a political movement hell-bent on justifying sexual
            appetites and behaviors that he properly identified as “a problem”
            demanding a “a solution” – a “type of feeling” that requires “careful
            attention” – up to and including “see(ing) a good psychiatrist…..”. ( end quote )

          • Hastur

            his wife says you’re wrong has she know him better than any of you pathetic bigoted losers

          • http://www.broiledtoad.com/ DavidPHart

            Yeah, he’s dead. His wife can lie all she wants. She’s cozying up to white liberals. Duh.

          • Guest

            “Would of”????? HA HA. Figures someone like you doesn’t have basic grammar skills.

    • [email protected]

      under the same law if a heterosexual couple was refused service, or an inter-racial couple, or a Jewish couple, ect, then they could also bring a case and the business would face the same fine. so this is not just something that applies to gay people and these protections are there to prevent discrimination in general, not just against gay people.

    • Thisoldspouse

      “Equality” is a nice buzz-word for imposition on other’s rights.

      • Hastur

        just because you spent your life believing an incorrect definition of your right doesn’t mean they are being violated

      • DanH

        Just like they use “tolerance” to mean “I speak, you shut up.”

      • Peter Leh

        “”Equality” is a nice buzz-word for imposition on other’s rights.”

        Says the american slave owner

  • lorac odraned

    Good for the owners. Their treasures will be stored in Heaven. As for the lesbians, what does it profit them to gain money but lose their souls? A place in hell, that’s what!

  • Chip01

    Not even half of the Commandments translate into law, and those that do have a suspicious background.

    The owners broke the law – why shouldn’t they pay?

  • Cady555

    Businesses benefit from the infrastructure of the community – roads, utilities, police and fire protection all benefit business owners. In exchange, communities set standards of conduct. We learned from Jim Crow. Segregation and discrimination harm the community and anti discrimination laws are necessary to combat it. A business owner can select his products not his customer. He must sell his products to any customer, at least those specified by anti discrimination laws. All money is green.

    Racial segregation and discrimination was also biblically based. Those wanting to discriminate against blacks claimed their religious freedom was being violated. They had bible verses to support their beliefs. Now most of us are astounded that anyone could be so wrong or so ignorant.

  • acontraryview

    “because of their religious convictions not to facilitate the sins of others”

    I’m not sure where they came up with the religious conviction. The Bible mentions nothing about two people of the same gender entering into civil marriage.

    I wonder if they also turned away couples who had been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery. It is most certainly a Biblical sin for them to remarry. How about couples who took their vows before a god other than the Christian god? That is certainly a Biblical sin.

    ““Americans should be free to live and work peacefully according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards.”

    Then the ADF should be working to repeal the Civil Rights Act as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation.

    “The government went after this couple’s constitutionally protected freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property,”

    There is no constitutionally protected freedom to operate a business in a manner which violates the law.

    “under a legal regime that disregards their convictions.”

    Their religious convictions weren’t “disregarding” – they just don’t override the law.

    ““[T]hey still feel very strongly about their religious convictions and their right to be able to exercise their religious liberties through their work,””

    Well then they should be putting time and effort into repealing all civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation.

    “It’s just unfortunate that the climate is such that our state and the federal government don’t allow us to do that.”

    That this individual believes that civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation is “unfortunate’ is very telling.

    • Spectrum

      The constitution is the SUPREME law of the land ; “The First Amendment (Amendment I) to
      the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law
      respecting an establishment of religion, IMPEDING the free exercise of
      religion, ABRIDGING the freedom of speech”….e.t.c.

      “Free exercise of religion” would include the freedom to follow one’s religious teachings associated WITH that religion. Refusing their right to object IMPEDES that freedom, and should be considered unconstitutional. And not “abridging” the freedom of speech certainly allows them that right.

      Just because the constitution is largely ignored and abused by much of the leftist legal fraternity and by those in this morally corrupt government, doesn’t invalidate them. Though I’m sure that with Justice Scalia’s suspicious death* ( *no autopsy ! ), Obama will appoint a judge that will further expedite the destruction of the constitution.

      • [email protected]

        so going by that reasoning if a business owner has a religious objection to serving a Jewish couple or to serving an inter-racial couple should they be allowed to deny service? free exercise of religion was not intended to be used as a get out of jail free card to allow people to disregard the law citing religious belief for doing so. but if you open that door then It applies to more then just gay couples.

        • Spectrum

          That is misleading and not relevant, because the examples you gave involve discriminating against persons for no good reason, and should ( correctly ) be condemned.

          The bakery owners however, were NOT discriminating against persons, they were DISCERNING that the EVENT itself ( the “wedding” ceremony – represented symbolically by the cake ) conflicted with their God given beliefs.

          Even despite this, they would still have sold any other product that did NOT conflict – such as a birthday, homecoming celebration e.t.c. They were therefore willing to accommodate the gay “couple”, but NOT at the expense of their religious convictions.

          Governments should not be intruding into those deeply and solemnly held personal convictions. That’s why the First Amendment was inserted into the constitution in the first place. See the offence here ?

          • [email protected]

            so who determines if it is a good reason or not? If someone believes that serving a Jewish wedding or an inter-racial wedding conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs and their deeply and solemnly held personal convictions then using your argument they must be allowed to decline to serve those weddings right? you don’t get to declare that those religious beliefs are not valid while a religious belief against a same sex wedding is valid.

      • Guest

        Hmmm, it is the first amendment that protects the customers. Every single member of the public has a constitutional right to not share the beliefs of any business owner making offers to the public and still buy that protect regardless. Congress couldn’t even make a law that abridged that right.

        What’s interesting is that the recently passed Justice Scalia agreed with that throughout his career, whether it be someone thinking their beliefs gave them a right to break the law as in this case, the trying to say that discriminating because of their wedding isn’t about their beliefs, and that the government can’t even make a law that is biased towards one religious tenet over another. Sorry, claiming religion doesn’t mean they can do anything they want, their chosen religious beliefs are limitations on themselves, not the people who have a right to their own beliefs.

        If the business owner can’t offer something to the public AND respect their right to have different beliefs than the owners they shouldn’t be offering it to the public at all. Things that can only be sold in a religiously discriminating manner should be done as a private club or as a non-profit. Its the business owner with the need to religiously discriminate, its up to them to figure out how to do it legally.

        This court decision was correct and the ADF must have realized they don’t have a chance to win their case considering both the federal and NY state constitutions and the laws of the state. They are already before the Washington state Supreme court which has the same constitutional religious freedom paragraph as NY state does.

        Maybe they’ve realized they will lose in Washington and so probably will in New York too and are just keeping the one iron in the fire?

        • Guest

          The gaystapo does not get to have extra rights over every other citizen. They do not get to redefine the age-held institution of marriage.

          • Guest

            this is a country with religious freedom for all. If your religion doesn’t marry same sex couples I’m sorry for you but that doesn’t change that some do and a business can’t religiously discriminate against customers. P

          • Guest

            Hey Robbie, freedom of religion doesn’t mean the gaystapo get to redefine marriage for the rest of the nation. That’s ANTI-freedom of religion.

          • Guest

            Are you trying to talk about the civil contract of marriage? This case has nothing to do about that.

            Most certainly a business doesn’t get to ‘define’ marriage for a customer.

          • Guest

            Marriage is an institution. The gaystapo already had “civil rights” but they’re not going for that. They’re going after Christians, like you and your buddies bragged about on The Stranger.

          • Guest

            Yeah marriage is a religious rite and a civil contract but still now I’m fascinated, you’ve switched your story to the Stranger weekly now.

            Well great for your battered reputation – all its issues for the time in question are online. Should be child’s play for you to find the organization you say exists. After that you only have to show that the group actually took any action and you might get a shred of credibility.

          • Guest

            I have no battered reputation, unlike you, Robbie, who have so many alts because you’ve been banned so many times. People here can read your comments under the name “Oshtur Vishanti” to see what you and the gaystapo say on The Stranger.

          • Guest

            Yes they can, only one comment about the case at all absolutely nothing supporting your gossip.

            And the Alta are what you do when going into the serpent’s lair. The block those they can’t refute, not because they’ve done anything actually wrong.

          • Guest

            Yeah, those mean Charisma mods banned you for no reason, Robbie. /eyeroll

          • Guest

            Please it’s a fringe site who’s primary authors routinely say things that aren’t true, try to sell books on how witchcraft causes the symptoms of Seasonal Affective Disorder, and how saying someone should slowdown is a verbal ‘curse’.

            Being banned from there is a badge of honor for a Christian.

          • Guest

            That’s why you’ve come back over 15 x’s, right?

          • Guest

            Yes, the crazy and deceit have become more obvious recently, that’s why I don’t bother with it any more.

            A confused brethren you can educate but ones that know what they’re saying isn’t true? Different situation and not worth trying to correct.

          • Guest

            You’re lying – again.

      • acontraryview

        “IMPEDING the free exercise of religion”

        Please show me where the word “impeding” appears in the 1st Amendment.

        “Refusing their right to object IMPEDES that freedom, and should be considered unconstitutional.”

        Since the 1st Amendment does not include the word “impede”, your statement is not true.

        “And not “abridging” the freedom of speech certainly allows them that right.”

        They are free to say what they want. Freedom of speech is not relevant to anti-discrimination laws.

        “Just because the constitution is largely ignored and abused”

        You abuse the Constitution by stating that it contains words it does not.

        “Obama will gleefully appoint a judge that will further expedite the destruction of the constitution.”

        How has the Constitution been destroyed? The President doesn’t appoint justices to the SCOTUS. Congress appoints judges to the SCOTUS. The President nominates candidates..

        • Spectrum

          The word “impeding” was taken from a description of that Amendment., not the actual wording itself. But now that you’re nitpicking, the actual term used is “prohibiting” which is even more definitive. So thankyou for allowing me that more potent clarification.

          ( Here is the actual passage ) ; “…..Congress shall make no law respecting
          an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
          or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
          people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
          redress of grievances….” e.t.c.

          “…They are free to say what they want….”

          In theory we still are. But in PRACTICE you know as well as I do that if anyone opposes or speaks out against homosexuality in any way shape or form, even mildly, they are instantly condemned and labelled “haters”, “bigots” “homophobes” and worse. This oppressive form of censorship has now resulted in legal assaults. firings, e.t.c. The gay mafia attempt to shame opponents into conforming with the politically correct group-think that has now become the norm. There are many examples of this. I could provide many links to show this, but the commentary guidelines for this site prevent me from doing so.

          On appointing judges to the Supreme Court – I’m not American, and so I’m not all that familiar with the political processes in your country, but I believe it’s the senate, not the congress that “confirms” the appointment through a vetting type process. And I would speculate that though the senate might make the final decision, they are strongly influenced and guided by the recommendation of the incumbent president, are they not ? How many Supreme Court appointments that have been recommended by presidents have been refused ? Very few, I’d wager.

          If you really want to see how the constitution’s protections are being steadily eroded, AND how corrupt the U.S. government has become, check out Alex Jones’s “Info Wars” alternative news website. A great source of information about many controversial subjects. And he backs up his stories with official documents and media reports. Most of what he warned about has already come true, and is continuing to come true.

  • acontraryview

    When you choose to operate a business you accept that there are laws which govern the operation of the business. If you don’t want to operate business in accordance with the law, then don’t open a business. Simple as that.

  • acontraryview

    “stating that the Giffords are welcome to hold to their personal opinions about marriage, but cannot live out their religious convictions in running their business—reducing religion to a mental viewpoint as opposed to an inviolable whole-life practice.”

    No, the court opinion did not state that.

    • Spectrum

      “…..reducing religion to a mental viewpoint as opposed to an inviolable whole-life practice.”

      No, the court opinion did not state that…..”.

      But that is the practical consequence of it. And that suits the gay agenda’s purpose well. The aim is to silence opposition and dissent. This is another example of it. There are many others.

      • [email protected]

        the business owners can still cite their opposition and dissent all they want. they are free to tell gay customers that they think homosexuality is a sin and that their union is wrong. So no, telling someone that they can not discriminate in their business is not the same as silencing them. They are free to hold and state their belief, what they can not do is violate protections for consumers by denying service in their business.

        • Thisoldspouse

          No, they are NOT going to be allowed to state their opposition, and we will learn that soon enough. The sodomite agenda is the progression to one rampart at a time, until there are none left.

          • [email protected]

            and that is what is known as unfounded fear mongering. there is nothing to back that up at all nor any reason to expect that it will happen.

          • Spectrum

            “UNFOUNDED fear mongering” ? You do know there’s a gay agenda that is being implemented don’t you ? If not, you need to educate yourself.

            ( quote ) “…..The term “Gay Agenda” apparently was coined by evangelical Christians to refer to the ideology, goals, strategies and methods of the radical homosexual activists who are primarily responsible for the progress of the homosexual movement in America. The homosexuality advocates themselves vehemently deny that they have any such agenda, presumably because they do not want the heterosexual majority in America to know that they have an agenda. Why? Because knowledge of their agenda, or even that they have one, could cast the homosexual movement in a bad light, thereby diminishing support of their goals within the heterosexual majority….” ( end quote )

            For an insightful background and expose’ of this agenda, Google ; The Gay Agenda ; What in the world is going on ?

          • [email protected]

            here is the gay agenda: equal treatment and protection under the law. that’s it. so it is the same “agenda” as racial minorities, or women, or any other group that was denied equal treatment and protection under the law.

        • Spectrum

          “….So no, telling someone that they can not discriminate in their business is not the same as silencing them…”.

          I repeat ; ” But that is THE PRACTICAL consequence of it.”

          What about future cases like this ? These sort of decisions will only further discourage other Christian business owners from exercising their constitutionally GUARANTEED right to freedom of speech and religion. And that’s the gaystapo’s intention. It’s why these kind of entrapments keep occurring.

          Freedom of religion also includes the inherent right to FREELY PRACTICE that religion. Which in turn, involves the right to conscientious objection. Exactly what these bakery owners are now being denied.

          • [email protected]

            silencing is not the practical consequence of it. If they can still tell the customers that they think homosexuality is a sin then no, they have not been silenced. They still have the freedom of speech and religion. But now let me ask you under freedom of religion if someone has a religious objection to serving an inter-racial couple or a Jewish couple must we allow them to deny that service in the name of allowing them to freely practice their religion? given how broadly you are defining free practice of ones religion we would need to allow them to turn the Jewish couple or the inter-racial couple away right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    What’s most ironic about this case is that the Giffords were perfectly happy to host wedding RECEPTIONS for Gay couples, just not the ceremony itself.

    Think on this for a moment: Which is going to make a LOT MORE MONEY for the Giffords, the ceremony or the reception?

    Money does indeed talk.

  • [email protected]

    Religious beliefs are not a get out of jail free card when it comes to the law. The business owners are free to hold their religious beliefs and they are free to express those beliefs to potential customers, however they can not engage in discrimination in their business. If we are to say that religious beliefs do get to trump non-discrimination law then we would also need to say that someone who has a religious objection to serving a Jewish couple or an inter-racial couple would get to discriminate against them as well.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

      Exactly. If you run a business, you don’t get to deny goods and services to customers just because you have theological disagreements with them. That’s not freedom, that’s COERCION.

      • Spectrum

        What about the conscript in a wartime scenario ? If he has a theological disagreement, he can refuse to serve in the armed forces. It’s called conscientious objection. And it’s perfectly legal. Has been for decades. Are you saying we should force that conscript to fight, against his conscience, and be fined or imprisoned if he refuses ? The First Amendment protects him against that.

  • http://biblicalsalvation.info/ railhead

    If the goal of the homosexuals is to close down small family businesses and further the Walmart fast food culture of America, they’re succeeding brilliantly.

    • Guest

      Hmmm, this business isn’t closed down, neither is the florist shop in Washington state which has the same legal representation and a similar case before the court.

      Again, if the business owner feels the need to religiously discriminate there are ways to do so legally. One way to not do it is offering something to the general public and then illegally require the responding customers to pass a religious test to actually be able to buy the offered service.

      • Guest

        Hey Robbie, how’s your gaystapo group doing shutting down the businesses of little old ladies?

        • Guest

          Haha! Yeah the group that exists only in your head about which you can’t show a shred of evidence.

          You’ve been asked to show any direct or indirect proof of such a group and failed miserably.

          • Guest

            It was already shared on Charisma which is why you got banned – at least one of your alts.

          • Guest

            haha! So the ‘proof’ somehow exists only there on a particular site and not in the real world?

            So what you’re really saying is it’s just gossip with you it’s only source?

          • Guest

            The Charisma mods didn’t deem it gossip when they banned you. Anyone can check out what you say as “Oshtur Vishanti” on The Stranger, Rob.

          • Guest

            Haha! Thank you! I didn’t realize I could find everything so easily!

            Here is the only comment I made on the subject:

            “May 19, 2013 Oshtur Vishanti commented on Bigot Florist Files Countersuit.
            She can no more refuse to do business because their beliefs differ from her own than she could refuse to provide flowers for a Catholic wedding, bar mitzvah, or Mormon baptism. Religious discrimination by a business is federally illegal.”

            No conspiracy, no group plotting her demise. You have, through your own efforts, shown your true nature.

            Thanks for vindicating me.

          • Guest

            Uh no. Keep searching. It’s not the only site where you guys were asking other gays to target Christian shop owners, and then telling each other to act overly polite. You were gloating over “getting” Baronelle. By the way, you had way more comments on The Stranger than that one.

          • Guest

            Ha! First you say the proof is there now you say it’s somewhere else.

            Please go spread your off-topic gossip where someone will fall for it.

            This business broke the law and realized they didn’t have a chance of winning before the state Supreme Court. Part of that is their poor legal representation but they’ve still lost as will the other cases.

          • Guest

            Re-read my posts carefully. Everything I’ve said is true. You and your gaystapo friends aren’t too bright and don’t realize how much of what you do is visible to the public, Robbie.

          • Guest

            Haha “it’s all true but I can’t prove a single word of it”.

          • Guest

            It’s already been proven, Rob, and you prove it every day with your obsessive posting under multiple alts on every thread about Christians and the gaystapo.

          • Guest

            Again proof? Cite? Anything?

            But that’s right you just proved yourself wrong – oh well.

          • Guest

            You can’t link here, Robbie. Didn’t any of the voices in your head tell you that?

          • Guest

            You posted about how to find it on the Stranger. But that didn’t work out too well for you considering it disproved your claims. I can see why you wouldn’t want to try and back up pure gossip as does anyone else.

          • Guest

            Actually, it’s still up at the Stranger. I still recommend people to Google it. It isn’t ALL at the Stranger there. You and the gaystapo are quite prolific – and foolish.

          • Guest

            With so much gossip passing your lips it must be hard for you to keep track of it. You said I was part of some ‘Gaystapo’:

            …how’s your gaystapo group doing shutting down the businesses of little old ladies?

            No such group mentioned by me at the site you said it existed, no such goal stated or implied.

            Again, thank you for proving that you’re nothing but a gossip or worse.

          • Guest

            Rob, all anyone has to do it follow the Google instructions I gave them, and read all the other comments on the threads you commented on. It will all fit in. You most certainly are part of a militant group seeking to harass Christians.

          • Guest

            Haha so you still can’t cut and paste a single solitary example? “The proof is over here! No, it’s over here! The proof of my gossip is easy to find but I can’t show you a single example of what I claim”

            Your failure is complete.

          • Guest

            There are too many comments to cut-and-paste, plus people need to read the articles. Don’t worry, I know you’re too dumb to remember what you’ve posted. Someone will be sure to remind you, Robbie.

          • Guest

            “Too many comments to cut and paste” but you can’t show any that show there is a group or that this supposed group is trying to drive old ladies out of business.

            Gossip is all you’ve got, that’s been made clear to anyone reading now.

    • Diaris

      Liberalism is essentially destructive, not creative.
      They only like sex that doesn’t lead to pregnancy. They promote a lifestyle that has taken the lives of millions of gay men. They love to shut businesses down. Liberalism is a death cult. They create nothing, they only destroy.

      • Peter Leh

        “Liberalism is essentially destructive, not creative”

        if we could only go back to the god ole days when white was right and man could own man.

        people back then would call you a liberal today and voice the same concerns with all theses blacks walking in the same path as white? America will never make it. 🙂

      • Hastur

        liberalism is responsible for all major social changes in the last hundred years, what have conservatives built?

        • Guest

          Liberals? You mean the liberals who started the KKK as a reaction to Republican party’s policies to grant political and economic equality for blacks? Those liberals? The liberals who are responsible for more wars in this century than Republicans? Those liberals?

    • Hastur

      if they couldn’t afford to pay the fine then they shouldn’t of broken the law

  • BarkingDawg

    If you’re in buisness, you have to follow the laws pertaining to that buisness.

    How hard is that to understand?

    • Thisoldspouse

      Learn to spell “business” and then you’ll begin to start making some sense.

      • BarkingDawg

        Fat thumbs.

        The point is valid, in spite of your ad hominem attack.

        The law is the law. Follow it or pay the fine.

  • SSGT_Randolph

    Fundamentalist Christians find new strength and a new sense of self-worth in promoting themselves as anti-gay bigots.

  • Austin Rocks

    Decent people have always been persecuted by degenerates. The world never changes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

      They’re in the business to make money, not preach the gospel.

      • Spectrum

        “…..just because they make someone a cake doesn’t mean they’re participating in the ceremony…..”.

        Yes it does. That’s the moral equivalent of it. It implies endorsement of a union that is offensive to God. It’s the crux of what this debate over free speech / religion is all about !

        • Bish Chan

          God doesn’t recognize marital status based on state marriage licences, he has his own criteria. So what is the controversy?

          The cake is served at the reception. Does he say do not provide cake for gay parties?

      • Spectrum

        They weren’t preaching the gospel. They were upholding and honouring its principles and intent. As was Kim Davis when she correctly refused to issue licences in her name for the queer “couple’s” “wedding”. That case was also a conscience issue that was being violated. And another clear entrapment.

        And for the hundredth time – making the cake is implying an ENDORSEMENT of the sin of homosexuality. Something Christians cannot and should not be part of. Two men or two women getting “married” goes against God’s purpose for us – the spiritual bonding of a man and a woman ONLY. The way He intended. Any other variation is fraudulent and void as it does not fit that description.

        And God doesn’t alter his opinion on this, unlike the whimsical trends of today’s society – “…For I am the lord, I change not….”. ( Malachi 3;6 )

    • Peter Leh

      that is what the white southern man said about those northern “agitators”

      • Spectrum

        Southern individuals who fought to defend the despicable institution of civil war slavery are regarded as “decent” by you ?

        • Peter Leh

          No. by the southern baptist, southern presbyterian…

          you know any southern white male christian.

          it is in any history book. (except in the south of course)

          • DanH

            Homosexuals know nothing of history. They don’t read books.

          • Peter Leh

            i know both who dont.

  • Becky

    What?? The two lesbians only earned $1500 each?? I’m surprised they didn’t go for at least $135,000 in damages like the other two lesbians that assaulted a Christian-owned bakery. I guess the two lesbians didn’t suffer from “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “distrust of men,” “distrust of former friends,” “excessive sleep,” “discomfort,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “loss of pride,” “mental rape,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

    • [email protected]

      Christians do have rights and indeed are protected under the exact same law that this couple was able to turn to. if a christian couple had been turned away from using this wedding venue the owner would case the same fee under the same law. when you have an interaction like this between a business owner and the customer there is a choice to make. will the law allow the business owner to deny service to anyone they wish for whatever reason or will the law protect the customers and protect them from discrimination. general the law has trended to protecting the customers and so again a christian couple looking to use that wedding venue would have had the exact same protections.

    • Guest

      The plantiffs in either case don’t set the damages or even ask for a particular amount.

      And everyone has the same rights – to run a business making public offers that must comply with civil rights laws. It’s these owners that wanted to make public offers and then apply religious tests the customer must pass to buy the advertised product.

      Sorry, there is no right to religious discrimination of the public in a country where all members of the public have religious liberty.

    • acontraryview

      “Christians have no rights! ”

      Christians have the same rights as every other citizen, Becky. Please spare us your false persecution complex.

      “That’s what these ridiculous, frivolous lawsuits are telling America. ”

      Why is it “ridiculous” and “frivolous” to hold people accountable to the law? Would it be ridiculous and frivolous for an interracial couple to hold a business accountable for turning them away because the business owner holds a religious belief that the races shouldn’t mix?

      • Spectrum

        Irrelevant.

        • acontraryview

          How so?

          • Spectrum

            I covered how so in my other post(s). Read them and you’ll see. I am not going to repeat myself for the benefit of someone who doesn’t absorb what I’ve already said.

          • acontraryview

            I am not going to review all your posts to see if you have actually provided an answer to my question. If you are too lazy to cut and paste an answer, then so be it. Back up your statement, or don’t.

    • Bish Chan

      To be fair the lesbian couple requested $150k but the judge scaled it back some. The baker couple actually countersued for $200k plus court costs and attorney fees so they wanted even more.

      The award is high to me but it is in accordance with similar awards in Oregon.

  • Psychdude1

    Since we now live in a pagan nation no one should be shocked by this case.

  • SSGT_Randolph

    Fundamentalist Christians find new strength and a new sense of self-worth in promoting themselves as anti-gay bigots.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    In Gifford v. McCarthy, 23 N.Y.S. 3d 422 (N.Y. App. 3d Dept. Jan. 14, 2016), the court upheld a $10,000 civil fine and $1,500 in compensatory damages for each member of a same-sex couple who complained of public accommodation discrimination when farm owners declined to rent their facilities to them for a same-sex wedding. Liberty Ridge Farm LLC sells crops to the public and rents portions of the farm for wedding ceremonies and receptions. The court ruled that the farm constitutes a place of public accommodation under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The court also rejected the petitioners’ argument that they did not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, but merely exercised their religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. As evidence, they testified that they were willing to host a same-sex wedding reception. The court rejected this argument as well, finding that the NYSHRL does not permit a business to offer a “limited menu” of services to customers. The court also rejected the defendants’ state and federal free exercise claim on the grounds that the NYSHRL is a neutral, generally applicable law, their free speech claim on the grounds that they had not engaged in expressive speech and the NYSHRL does not compel endorsement of same-sex marriage, and their free expressive association claim because their wedding business was not organized for expressive purposes.