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: 11262
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 # 22.
#1. To: hondo68, liberator (#0)
A very slippery slope. They opened their farm land to public parties and weddings. They should have consulted a lawyer on these matters. Then again nice folk like the owners probably thought only good intentions from customers. But yet they should have the freedom to exercise their freedom of religion and not be forced to compromise their faith.
But yet they should have the freedom to exercise their freedom of religion and not be forced to compromise their faith. This is why Christians need to make the explicit effort to identify one another, and to quietly engage in commerce preferentially with one another. Christians are brothers and sisters. Brothers and sisters favor each other over people outside of the family.
Now you have something there. There are some efforts I do know of. One is called Medishare. You can Google it. Basically those of more means pay (donate) into medishare, middle income pays what they can afford and those who cannot pay high premiums or medical care, pay what they can without going into debt and the rest is picked up by Medishare. The more it grows the more people of lesser means can join. The program is private and Christian run. Another Christian initiative (forget the name) basically has a credit card scanner (swiper) which helps Christian owned companies avoid suppliers and distributors who support abortion and other morally objectionable investments. Yet another American Family Radio (AFR) initiative is a radio program with a Wall Street investor named Dan Cilia. He personally researchers corporations and their investments. He posts on his website companies who do not engage in morally objectionable investments or agreements. He also advertises a Christian pension program, where a Christian decides how much they really need to live out their lives without leaving a mountain of cash for children to fight over. You set up what your "George Bailey" amount is and the rest goes to help Christians of lesser means avoid poverty and have a better life. So those ideas are out there. We just need to advertise and contribute. We Christians can do this. We don't need Caesar to take care of our own. Those who trust in Caesar go to Caesar. Those who trust in Christ go to the brethren.
Sort of more than "christian run" ELIGIBILITY Medi-Share is built on a foundation of like ideals agreed upon by the Members. These biblical principles of health and lifestyle are important requirements for membership in Medi-Share. Each adult member must attest to a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and profess the Statement of Faith to join. Members also agree to live by biblical standards, bear one another's burdens, and regularly attend and actively support a fellowship of believers. SO... I guess if one were of another faith, or didn't regularly attend "services" or choose not to write a check every week.....what then? Sounds like the "like ideals of the members" are fairly narrow.... On the other hand - the concept is quite progressive, the wealthy pay the most, the middle class pay what they can, and the poor may pay little or nothing... - so that ALL may benefit. Sounds like a grand idea! As a concept, what would this be called?
Liberty. You can participate or not as you choose. It's entirely voluntary. Government JBT death panels aren't trying to kill you, if you're not a pagan, minority, homo, or illegal alien.
You side-stepped the question....or you don't understand the concept.... I'll clarify - this concept is called Universal Healthcare, funded by progressive taxation....
No, the Christian plan above is privately funded and voluntary. But YES, the Marxist Hillary/Romney/Obama ACA. What do Hillary Care/Romney Care/Obama Care all have in common? They're forced socialized medicine. Death panels at the point of government guns. Your Obamacare health consultants are eager to serve you... Now that you're gone, we can increase teachers union benefits.
The concept is identical..... - Of course, medishare can exclude anyone at will, I'm guessing... In any event, I hope it's successful......... "...Death panels at the point of government guns..." Please cite your source for this bit of disinfo.
Please cite your source for this bit of disinfo. Public Law 111-148 124 Stat. 489 et seq and Codified at 42 U.S.C. 1395kkk. 42 U.S.C. § 1395kkk is apparently the current basis for the allegation of "death panels." Perhaps it was a death panel for Democrat senatorial careers. After five years, just shy of half the 60 senators who voted for the PPACA will no longer be in the Senate after the new electees are seated on January 3, 2015. The original assertion of "death panels" referred to a provision of a House bill, H.R. 3200, Section 123 (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009). Due to the ruckus that followed, the language used therein does not appear in what was enacted into law -- H.R. 3590. The assertions of death panels and pointing guns may be hyperbole. If not rising to the level of "death panels," the content of the provision is troublesome. It could provide the authority for the IPAB to mandate the creation of veritable death panels. 42 U.S.C. § 1395kkk requires that the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) submit an annual "proposal containing recommendations to reduce the Medicare per capita growth rate to the extent required by this section...." The section requires that the proposal "shall be designed in such a manner that implementation of the recommendations contained in the proposal would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation." The section requires "the Secretary to implement such proposals unless Congress enacts legislation pursuant to this section...." The section also provides, (1) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall, except as provided in paragraph (3), implement the recommendations contained in a proposal submitted by the Board or the President to Congress pursuant to this section on August 15 of the year in which the proposal is so submitted. So, the IPAB proposes recommendations. However, the Secretary must implement the proposed "recommendations" regardless of any contrary existing law, unless the Congress acts to override the "recommendations." The IPAB "recommendations" have the force of law, repeal any contrary existing law, and can be overridden only by an act of Congress. The cited paragraph 3 provides, (A) In general The Secretary shall not implement the recommendations contained in a proposal submitted in a proposal year by the Board or the President to Congress pursuant to this section if— (i) prior to August 15 of the proposal year, Federal legislation is enacted that includes the following provision: ‘‘This Act supercedes the recommendations of the Board contained in the proposal submitted, in the year which includes the date of enactment of this Act, to Congress under section 1899A of the Social Security Act.’’; and (ii) in the case of implementation year 2020 and subsequent implementation years, a joint resolution described in subsection (f)(1) is enacted not later than August 15, 2017. The section provides, However, another provision illustrates the misleading emptiness of all that apparent protection: The clinic where I go now includes a notice that it does not accept Medicare Advantage (among other insurers). The IPAB need not modify eligibility criteria to make eligibility worthless. The IPAB could certainly write new law which would supercede any existing law and be mandatorily implemented notwithstanding any other law but the cited paragraph 3 exceptions quoted above. Any attempted Congressional override could be frustrated by Presidential veto and 34 Senators or 146 Representatives. Such action would appear to be exempt from statutory legal challenge due to the provision that it shall be implemented notwithstanding any other law but the cited paragraph 3.
Please cite your source for this bit of disinfo. The assertions of death panels and pointing guns may be hyperbole. Thanks for posting the truth. There are no death panels and no guns pressed to the heads of Americans seeking healthcare. I appreciate your honesty. There are many who chose lies and propaganda over honesty and truth.
Government is force. They're not in power because people love them. Disobey and people with guns come. If you're subservient you only end up in getting robbed (taxed/fined) or thrown in jail, and not shot. But no, it' s not just hyperbole. If your medication and treatments cost "too much" under Obamacare, you're gonna die sucka!
#23. To: hondo68, Jameson (#22)
Perhaps people come with guns, and perhaps some death can ultimately be attributed to some effect of the PPACA. However, nowhere in the PPACA is there any provision for anything meeting the description of a death panel, nor is there any provision to point guns an anyone. If I am mistaken, please cite the section or paragraph of the bill, or codified statute, that contains such content and I will extract it and post it for discussion. The argument here is not whether the government uses force. The argument is about a characterization that the PPACA text provides for death panels. In any literal sense, it does not.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
A very slippery slope. They opened their farm land to public parties and weddings. They should have consulted a lawyer on these matters. Then again nice folk like the owners probably thought only good intentions from customers.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
This is why Christians need to make the explicit effort to identify one another, and to quietly engage in commerce preferentially with one another.
#4. To: redleghunter (#3)
One is called Medishare. You can Google it. Basically those of more means pay (donate) into medishare, middle income pays what they can afford and those who cannot pay high premiums or medical care, pay what they can without going into debt and the rest is picked up by Medishare. The more it grows the more people of lesser means can join. The program is private and Christian run.
#5. To: Jameson, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#4)
(Edited)
As a concept, what would this be called?
#6. To: hondo68 (#5)
Liberty. You can participate or not as you choose. It's entirely voluntary.
#7. To: Jameson, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#6)
(Edited)
funded by progressive taxation....
#8. To: hondo68 (#7)
No, the Christian plan above is privately funded and voluntary.
#19. To: Jameson, hondo68, A K A Stone (#8)
"...Death panels at the point of government guns..."
124 Stat. 952 (e) Implementation of proposal
(3) Exceptions
The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1395i–2, 1395i–2a, or 1395r of this title, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.
As appropriate, the proposal shall include recommendations to reduce Medicare payments under parts C and D, such as reductions in direct subsidy payments to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans specified under paragraph 1 (1) and (2) of section 1395w–115(a) of this title that are related to administrative expenses (including profits) for basic coverage....
#21. To: nolu chan (#19)
"...Death panels at the point of government guns..."
#22. To: Jameson, nolu chan, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#21)
(Edited)
The assertions of death panels and pointing guns may be hyperbole.
Replies to Comment # 22. Disobey and people with guns come.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]