Quantcast

Comments about ‘Farm owners fined for refusing to host a wedding — for a lesbian couple’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 20 2014 11:10 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Br. Jones
East Coast, MD

Before everyone hyperventilates: New York, like New Mexico, has a state law forbidding discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Google "SONDA New York" for information about it. Businesses in states without such laws (including Utah) are still welcome to refuse patrons based on their orientation.

Whether or not you agree with such laws, if you are a business owner and your business is open to the public, it's your duty to know the laws of your state and municipality and abide by them.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

How can a gay marriage harm you if you are not gay?

Why, by fining you and threatening your livelihood, getting you fired if you don't have the "correct beliefs" (See: Brenden Eich) and in general you lose your rights if a gay person thinks they don't like you. After all, their right to "not be offended" quite clearly trumps any rights the rest of us have.
Freedom of speech? Nope. Freedom of the press? Just try to find a newspaper in the USA that doesn't cower from the threats of a gay lawsuit. Freedom to assemble? Well, this case and story shows you get fined for disagreeing with the gay agenda. Freedom of religion? How much longer before it's all "Hate speech" and you can't even worship in peace anymore--two years, max?

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

freedom doesn't mean free anymore in America. Get used to it folks because the PC police is watching you....

water rocket
Magna, UT

It is obvious who's rights are being violated here. The farm family didn't deny any body anything except to use their property for the use of someone else's purposes. What ever happened to property rights? This is a horrible miscarriage of justice and should be appealed to a higher court.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Now wait a minute. The LGBTQ community claimed that all they wanted was the right to marry. It was NOT going to interfere with religious beliefs at all.

But it does. They lied.

conservative scientist
Lindon, UT

So much for the argument that "what I do in my bedroom is my business and doesn't affect anyone else". I personally feel anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation affecting the businesses owned by people of faith infringe on first amendment protections of religious freedom and conscience...and I am not alone..There are many very smart people who agree - or who at least agree that there is a legitimate debate - including chief justice Sotomayor. While some are certain to disagree with me, I find it difficult for a reasonable person to argue that this militant cause of gay rights is not having significant effects on many people who, for religious reasons, feel deeply and differently and feel that accommodating a same gender wedding violates their religious standards.

It amazes me how the "tolerant", (supposedly) liberal, and (supposedly) progressive crowd is so intolerant of anyone with a different opinion. It is far easier to scoff at and dismiss anyone with concerns about the homosexual movement as a bigot, intolerant, and whatever else subsequent posters label me.

taatmk
West Jordan, UT

Was this the only reception center in New York? If a private business has specific requirements to rent their facilities, what is wrong with the would-be users simply crossing that one off the list and moving on to select another one?

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

water rocket "What ever happened to property rights?"
The farm family wasn't offering their land for free. They offer their land to weddings as a business, at which point property rights go out the window.

Business is a privilege, not a right.

Brave Sir Robin
San Diego, CA

Who gets married in a barn?

Vanceone
Provo, UT

Plain and simple: These guys were fined for not being slaves. They simply did not want to participate in a wedding ceremony. They offered to have the reception, but they did not want to participate in the wedding itself.

And the state says you have to participate in a ceremony; you don't get a choice. What happened to the 13th Amendment? If I decide to open a business, suddenly I am enslaved to the gays? Because it sure sounds like it.

It sounds to me like we need a law to protect the rest of us from predatory gays who want to enslave you if you dare to earn money. Remember, you can't hold a job and have the "wrong beliefs" --Brendan Eich, and several more show that. You can't own a business; because you are required to submit to the gays. In short, if you want to make money, no matter how, the gays own you and you cannot do or speak against them--you must jump to their every whim, else you are either fired or fined.

13th amendment?

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The first time someone gets denied service specifically because they're straight, attitudes will change.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@conservative scientist
Religious freedom does not cover allowing businesses to practice Jim Crow equivalents for gay people.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

re:Hutterite

"gets denied service specially because they are straight"? Never happened to my knowledge and why would it? I guess if they didn't have the money to rent the hall for the night that might be a reason. Maybe if the hall was owned by a homosexual who refused to rent to non-homosexuals ...which by the way would be his right!! America used to be a place where freedom really meant freedom but no more. Today we have those who have decided they will decide what is right and what is wrong and FORCE it upon the rest of us. America or the old USSR? Sounds more like the latter.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Vanceone
"If I decide to open a business, suddenly I am enslaved to the gays? Because it sure sounds like it. "

Only in the sense that you'd also be enslaved to whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, straights... since anti-discrimination laws apply to all that too.

one old man
Ogden, UT

I'm about as liberal as you can get, but this is going much too far.

Dragline
Orem, UT

Just for a mental exercise, how about we take out same sex marriage as the issue, and replace it with race, gender, nationality, class, or religion.

Would we be complaining if the law protected discrimination based on gender? Would we put up with the rights-of-private-business argument if denied services based on race or religion?
Maybe the answer is that you would find another business who wants your money and punish the offending business as best you can--a free market solution.

But now replace wedding hall with hospital, day care, restaurants, and theme parks. See the problem?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Who owns the farm, a family, or the government? Those who demand that we turn over our private property for their political statement on same-sex sex will tell us that government owns everything. The Constitution disagrees.

It's time that real Americans who believe in America tell the liberals to found their own country where they can all wear flowers and hold hands; meanwhile millions of soldiers and civilians died to protect private property from government control. Your relatives and my relatives died to protect our right to control our own property without liberals telling a us that we would be jailed if we didn't rent out our farms to those whose religious beliefs differed from our own.

Either the people are in charge or else we're all pawns of Obama. We can't have it both ways.

Abeille
West Point, UT

I wonder... Hypothetically, let's say a 'Ma and Pa' store considers themselves a 'Private Business' and have the right to refuse business to anyone at anytime: if they have a sign up that says 'No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service' and then refuses to serve someone that comes in barefoot, can they be successfully sued for discriminatory practices against the shoeless? If yes, one has to ask themselves if private property rights exist anymore. If one answers no, are we applying discrimination laws only to those who have religious viewpoints, as this article intimates? Wouldn't that make the courts discriminatory toward the religious?

If so, in the end, everyone will lose. Makes you wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes...

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Bottom line – if you want to be in business that serves the public you are not free to practice all your own personal prejudices, even if those prejudices are sanctified by your religion.

And by the way if you’re going to play the “religious freedom” card I hope you are consistent in following the teachings of your tradition – which for the Christian Right means you better also be discriminating against… anyone wearing polyester, eating shellfish, witches, Hindus (the graven image thing), really anyone worshipping a god other than Yahweh, sorcerers, children who talk back, adulterers, slaveholders… oh wait, according to your book slaveholders are fine.

Oh, and if you open your business on the Sabbath I am within my god given right (actually, I’m commanded to do so) to stone you.

Diligent Dave
Logan, UT

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
…Unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

Genesis 19:4 - 11

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments