New York Government Tries To Force Christian Farmers To House Same-Sex Marriage

Liberty Ridge FarmWe have covered this issue before on Political Realities. Our government seems insistent on forcing the homosexual agenda down our throats at a rapid pace. We have seen this happen, time after time. Homosexual couples want to get married. They then proceed to accost Christian business owners, attempting to force them to participate in their perverted version of marriage, providing services to a wedding they can not agree with, in good conscience. We are told that this is not really happening, but OK Politechs has a list of several times this has happened. We can now add one more instance of Christian business owners being sued, fined, and otherwise punished for acting on their beliefs. It comes to us from New York.

The Daily Signal – Here’s the back story. In 2012, Melissa Erwin and Jennie McCarthy contacted the Giffords to rent the family’s barn for their same-sex wedding ceremony and reception. Cynthia Gifford responded that she and her husband would have to decline their request as they felt they could not in good conscience host a same-sex wedding ceremony at their home. The Giffords live on the second and third floor of the barn and, when they host weddings on the first floor, they open part of the second floor as a bridal suite.

The Giffords have owned and operated Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, New York for over 25 years. Like many small farm families, they often open the farm to the public for events like berry picking, fall festivals, and pig racing.

They also open their home for weddings and receptions. When the Giffords host weddings, they are involved in every aspect of the wedding planning and celebration: they greet and drive guests in their farm trolley, decorate the barn, set up floral arrangements, arrange fireworks displays, and provide catering. As the Human Rights Commission ruling even points out, “the only wedding-related service Liberty Ridge Farm does not offer is providing the official for the wedding ceremony.”

As many brides know, planning a wedding requires hours of careful work to organize in order to pull off the celebration—hours during which family businesses operating venues like the Giffords’ actively participate in the weddings they host. The Giffords believe that as free citizens running a business, they should have the right to decline to participate in an event that does not reflect their values.

Unfortunately, New York’s Human Right’s law (Executive Law, art. 15) creates special privileges based on sexual orientation that trump the rights of business owners. Because the Giffords’ family farm is open to the public for business, New York classifies it as a “public accommodation” and then mandates that it not “discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation.

Of course the Giffords were not engaging in any insidious discrimination—they were acting on their belief about the nature of marriage. They do not object to gay or lesbian customers attending the fall festivals, or going berry picking, or doing any of the other activities that the farm facilitates. The Giffords’ only objection is to being forced to abide by the government’s views on sexuality and host a same-sex wedding. The Human Rights Commission has now declared this historic belief about marriage to be “discrimination.”

The Giffords must pay a $1,500 mental anguish fine to each of the women and pay $10,000 in civil damages penalty to New York State. If they can’t pay in 60 days, a nine percent interest rate will be added to that total. Like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Giffords must also institute anti-discrimination re-education classes and procedures for their staff.

Now, I know perfectly well what the response will be from the supporters of same-sex marriage. They will say a business owner has no right to insert their religious beliefs into their public life as a business owner. We have heard that line of illogical thinking before. It is how they always justify trying to force a business owner to go against their beliefs. Isn’t it funny how those business owners always seem to be Christians?

Anyone who says Christian business owners have no right to express their religious beliefs in how they conduct their business is far off the mark. Christianity is not something we wear, only when at home or at church. It is part of who we are. To be expected to cast that off, just because we own a business, is ludicrous. To claim it is discrimination to refuse to host or participate in a same-sex marriage because of our religious beliefs is even more ludicrous.

How much longer must our Christian beliefs be assaulted, before we realize Christianity really is under attack in America? They are seeking to marginalize Christians in every way possible. In lawsuits and rulings such as the one evidenced in New York, they are trying to criminalize the way we act on our religious beliefs. Maybe we should remove our heads from the sand and realize just how serious this assault on our religious freedom really is.

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2029 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

9 comments to New York Government Tries To Force Christian Farmers To House Same-Sex Marriage

  • Things like this are popping up all over the country now. Wedding ceremonies, florists, cake makers… and I’m sure we are just seeing the beginning. I would strongly advise Christians to not go into the wedding business these days or be prepared to be fined for your Christian beliefs. Eventually they will move on to other things as well and the day may come when we will be arrested for what they will deem to be anti-homosexual posts on our blogs.

  • EstablishmentByProxy

    Wholly concur with you LD. I’ve responded in past posts on this topic and won’t repeat myself here.

    Our critics are not really listening. They don’t care if this same logic can be used against them down the road to gore their goat. They intend to remain in positions of power to prevent that reciprocate effect. Strange as it may seem to you and I, this sort of ruling makes them feel better about themselves and their society. From what I can tell, they are not at all afraid of shouting down dissent to the point of forced day to day behavior.

    In my view, what we are witnessing is the emergence of marriage 3.0. Marriage 2.0 really took flight with the systemic misandry that is otherwise called feminism and its multitude of ill effects upon the doctrinal form of marriage. If she can’t agree to submit/obey to a godly/loving husband during her vows as conducted by a Christian church, what you get is a competitive or inverted 2.0 marriage. In actual practice, she won’t be ‘happy’ for very long and what follows that self inflicted disappointment is the ‘no fault’ divorce jackpot farce, now showing at your local family courthouse. Leaves me to wonder what marriage 4.0 will reveal – poly, minors, animals, bots, all of those? Ultimately, no low is too low when there is no objective standard of measure.

    To this end, the forming marriage ‘strike’ is a growing concern, and to which I say “bring it on” to the extent that it is a strike against state involvement in private relationships as a general principle. Let marriage return to the churches where it is between a man, a woman and God.

    Let’s stop substituting the state for God, and things may actually improve. Of course that would mean reducing state power/money derived from their endless ‘solutions’/’perks’ and they sure can’t abide that! You see the common theme here? State = God. Look around at the social, political, economic and spiritual distress that is our devolving society and you’ll see this theme running throughout. Perhaps those that have not found God, are blind to this revelation…but they did fill their unmet need with something, have they not?

    • Very well stated, my friend. Indeed, a great number of people have been conditioned to equate the state with God. It would be laughable, were it not so serious. That conditioning is apparent in all walks of our society.

      As for letting marriage return to the churches, a man, a woman, and God, I agree. If the homosexuals insist on their own perverted version of unholy matrimony, they should be granted civil unions and leave the churches out of it. Of course, that’s not acceptable to them because it would mean they could not force the rest of us to accept their perversion as normal. That’s really what this is all about.

  • Hugh Petersen

    This it total BS. Business owners have the right to make their own decisions and the homo couples can just go somewhere else to get what they want. This makes about as much sense as a bar not being able to refuse serving liquor to a drunk.

  • Michael

    ” forcing the homosexual agenda down our throats ”

    You keep using this phrase in post after post on this topic, LD. Is this a glimpse of your sense of humor, or are you using it unironically?

  • Mustang

    It appears to me as though when the new century arrived, this country passed through a black hole of a kind … we seem dumber than ever before. Our new national motto should be “Sit Sensus Praevalebunt.”

  • guest

    Maybe set your wedding business up like a Club, that requires membership.You are able to then decide who can come into your club and get married at your place of business. Seems to me we got prayer out of the schools and have replaced prayer for guns. When will the crazyness end.


  • Trackbacks:

Add Comment Register

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>