Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: Couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm
Source:
NY Post
URL Source: http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple ... ame-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/
Published: Nov 10, 2014
Author: Andrea Peyser
Post Date: 2014-11-10 15:16:03 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* Subscribe to *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin*
Keywords: None
Views: 11965
Comments: 28
Cynthia and Robert Gifford are caught in a same-sex nightmare. They’ve been forced to defend themselves against claims that they’re lesbian-hating homophobes. “We respect and care for everyone!’’ Cynthia Gifford told me. “We had an openly gay man working for us this past season,’’ she said. “We’ve had a woman who’s transitioning to be a man. We don’t discriminate against anyone.’’ But the government of the state of New York sees things differently. The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21. “This is scary,’’ Cynthia Gifford said. “It’s scary for all Americans.” Fifteen years ago, Cynthia, 54, and Robert Gifford, 55, opened to the public their farm in upstate Schaghticoke, near Albany, where they’ve lived for 25 years. They host an annual, family-friendly fall festival, which ends Tuesday, offering such countrified fare as a corn maze and pig-racing shows. In summer, wedding ceremonies and receptions also are held on the farm. But once already-booked nuptials take place, the Giffords will no longer schedule new ceremonies. Only receptions — including same-sex ones — will go on. What happened? Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa ErwinPhoto: AP Cynthia Gifford took a life-changing two- to three-minute phone call in 2012 from a woman she’d never met, Melisa Erwin, who was looking for a place to hold her wedding. A wedding — to another woman. Gifford said she told her, politely, that she would not book a same-sex wedding ceremony at the farm. She didn’t know it at the time, but the woman’s then-fianceé, Jennifer McCarthy, recorded the conversation. The pair then filed a formal complaint with the state Division of Human Rights. And this past August, an administrative law judge from The Bronx, Migdalia Pares, decreed that the farm was a “public accommodation’’ and ordered the penalties, after ruling that the Giffords had violated state law by discriminating against the two women. Incredible. The women, now both 31, currently live in upstate New York. They found another venue at which to get married, and each woman now uses the surname McCarthy. They declined my request for an interview. “They were devastated when they heard that Liberty Ridge Farm would not take their business because of who they are,’’ the ladies’ lawyer, Mariko Hirose of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told me. “NYCLU supports religious freedom,’’ she said. “That still doesn’t make it OK for businesses to break existing law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, race, sex, disability, religion or other protected categories.’’ “We’ve gone from tolerance to compulsion,’’ the Giffords’ lawyer, James Trainor, told me. “State government should not be forcing people to violate their own religious beliefs, nor should they be forced to make a choice between making a living and violating their own faith.’’ Financial losses have forced the Giffords to let go a full-time event planner. “I think there is an effort under way to change the social order,’’ said Trainor. “One way is by redefining marriage.’’ Trainor is allied with Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that seeks justice for people of faith. Last month, he filed an appeal with the state Appellate Division on behalf of the Giffords, seeking to get their money returned — and setting the stage for New York state’s first legal battle pitting one couple’s constitutional right to religious freedom against another couple’s right to get married wherever they please. Readers know that I’ve come to support same-sex marriage. But I can’t understand why clergymen and -women are free in New York to opt out of joining in marriage homosexual couples, but the law gives not a lick of respect to non-ordained people of faith. In 2011, days before New York state’s Marriage Equality Act legalized same-sex marriage statewide, I wrote about two New York state Refuseniks — town clerks who refused to unite Jills and Janes and Adams and Steves. One woman quit her job, another quit performing all weddings, due to their religiously held beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Since then: Robert and Cynthia Gifford are decent people being punished for acting on their faith. This kind of government bigotry should appeal to no one, whether he or she (or one of no gender) identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, androgynous . . . or even straight.
Poster Comment: The homo mafia strikes again.
Cynthia and Robert Gifford
Photo: Shannon DeCelle 
Subscribe to *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#14. To: hondo68, Jameson (#0)
No they didn't. They're not married. I wouldn't let them use my place either. If they insisted on it I wold booby trap the place and they wouldn't be leaving.
Freedom of association is a God given natural right. It's not listed individually in the BOR, but is covered by the catch-all 9th amendment, AKA an unenumerated (not listed) right. They can't force people to do stuff for and associate with people that you don't want anything to do with.
Considered under the 1st Amendment, and 5th and 14th. Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Constitutional Law, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, pg. 272: While freedom of association and belief is not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, it has been held that such a right is implicit in the First Amendment speech, press, assembly, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process "liberty," guarantees. http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html Right of Association ''It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' 194 It would appear from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, 195 although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment. 196 The doctrine is a fairly recent construction, the problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in the context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party membership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise to any separate theory of association. 197 [snip - long annotation] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958),[226][227] that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom.[228] The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."[229] In Roberts the Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression, such as gender.[230] However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995),[231] the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view.[232] Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000),[233] the Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.[234]
#17. To: nolu chan, Jameson (#16)
How can anyone argue with that?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThey found another venue at which to get married, and each woman now uses the surname McCarthy.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
(Edited)
#16. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#15)
Freedom of association is a God given natural right. It's not listed individually in the BOR, but is covered by the catch-all 9th amendment, AKA an unenumerated (not listed) right.
B. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND BELIEF
Annotation 12 - First Amendment
Freedom of association
Replies to Comment # 16. ''It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' 194 It would appear from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, 195 although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment. 196 The doctrine is a fairly recent construction, the problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in the context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party membership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise to any separate theory of association. 197
End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]