The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Homosexual rights

Spoiler:

New York State Executive Law Article 15 ss 292 wrote:

9. The term "place of public accommodation, resort or amusement" shall include, except as
hereinafter specified, all places included in the meaning of such terms as: inns, taverns, road
houses, hotels, motels, whether conducted for the entertainment of transient guests or for the
accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, or restaurants, or eating houses, or
any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises; buffets, saloons, barrooms, or any
store, park or enclosure where spirituous or malt liquors are sold; ice cream parlors,
confectionaries, soda fountains, and all stores where ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their
derivatives, or where beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises;
wholesale and retail stores and establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind,
dispensaries, clinics, hospitals, bath-houses, swimming pools, laundries and all other cleaning
establishments, barber shops, beauty parlors, theatres, motion picture houses, airdromes, roof
gardens, music halls, race courses, skating rinks, amusement and recreation parks, trailer camps,
resort camps, fairs, bowling alleys, golf courses, gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and
pool parlors; garages, all public conveyances operated on land or water or in the air, as well as
the stations and terminals thereof; travel or tour advisory services, agencies or bureaus; public
halls and public elevators of buildings and structures occupied by two or more tenants, or by the
owner and one or more tenants. Such term shall not include public libraries, kindergartens,
primary and secondary schools, high schools, academies, colleges and universities, extension
courses, and all educational institutions under the supervision of the regents of the state of New
York; any such public library, kindergarten, primary and secondary school, academy, college,
university, professional school, extension course or other education facility, supported in whole
or in part by public funds or by contributions solicited from the general public; or any institution,
club or place of accommodation which proves that it is in its nature distinctly private. In no event
shall an institution, club or place of accommodation be considered in its nature distinctly private
if it has more than one hundred members, provides regular meal service and regularly receives
payment for dues, fees, use of space, facilities, services, meals or beverages directly or indirectly
from or on behalf of a nonmember for the furtherance of trade or business. An institution, club,
or place of accommodation which is not deemed distinctly private pursuant to this subdivision
may nevertheless apply such selective criteria as it chooses in the use of its facilities, in
evaluating applicants for membership and in the conduct of its activities, so long as such
selective criteria do not constitute discriminatory practices under this article or any other
provision of law. For the purposes of this section, a corporation incorporated under the
benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law
of this state or a religious corporation incorporated under the education law or the religious
corporations law shall be deemed to be in its nature distinctly private. No institution, club,
organization or place of accommodation which sponsors or conducts any amateur athletic contest
or sparring exhibition and advertises or bills such contest or exhibition as a New York state
championship contest or uses the words "New York state" in its announcements shall be deemed
a private exhibition within the meaning of this section.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Homosexual rights > property rights
http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/26/farme ... ul-people/ Couple hosts fall festival on their farmland Lesbian couple wants to book sight for wedding Couple politely refuses. Legality ensues, couple forced to pay 13,000. Where does it end folks?

Author:	Müs [ Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Because Liberty Ridge Farm is open to the public for seasonal activities such as an annual fall festival, the state of New York classifies it as a public accommodation that cannot discriminate on the basis of certain personal characteristics, including sexual orientation. Eeehhh... I dunno where I come down on this. I'm probably a bit more on the side of the Farmers I would think.

Author:	Lenas [ Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Pretty clear-cut. If you're a public institution, which this farm is apparently classified as, you don't get to discriminate.

Author:	shuyung [ Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Spoiler: New York State Executive Law Article 15 ss 292 wrote: 9. The term "place of public accommodation, resort or amusement" shall include, except as hereinafter specified, all places included in the meaning of such terms as: inns, taverns, road houses, hotels, motels, whether conducted for the entertainment of transient guests or for the accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, or restaurants, or eating houses, or any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises; buffets, saloons, barrooms, or any store, park or enclosure where spirituous or malt liquors are sold; ice cream parlors, confectionaries, soda fountains, and all stores where ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, or where beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises; wholesale and retail stores and establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind, dispensaries, clinics, hospitals, bath-houses, swimming pools, laundries and all other cleaning establishments, barber shops, beauty parlors, theatres, motion picture houses, airdromes, roof gardens, music halls, race courses, skating rinks, amusement and recreation parks, trailer camps, resort camps, fairs, bowling alleys, golf courses, gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool parlors; garages, all public conveyances operated on land or water or in the air, as well as the stations and terminals thereof; travel or tour advisory services, agencies or bureaus; public halls and public elevators of buildings and structures occupied by two or more tenants, or by the owner and one or more tenants. Such term shall not include public libraries, kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, high schools, academies, colleges and universities, extension courses, and all educational institutions under the supervision of the regents of the state of New York; any such public library, kindergarten, primary and secondary school, academy, college, university, professional school, extension course or other education facility, supported in whole or in part by public funds or by contributions solicited from the general public; or any institution, club or place of accommodation which proves that it is in its nature distinctly private. In no event shall an institution, club or place of accommodation be considered in its nature distinctly private if it has more than one hundred members, provides regular meal service and regularly receives payment for dues, fees, use of space, facilities, services, meals or beverages directly or indirectly from or on behalf of a nonmember for the furtherance of trade or business. An institution, club, or place of accommodation which is not deemed distinctly private pursuant to this subdivision may nevertheless apply such selective criteria as it chooses in the use of its facilities, in evaluating applicants for membership and in the conduct of its activities, so long as such selective criteria do not constitute discriminatory practices under this article or any other provision of law. For the purposes of this section, a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state or a religious corporation incorporated under the education law or the religious corporations law shall be deemed to be in its nature distinctly private. No institution, club, organization or place of accommodation which sponsors or conducts any amateur athletic contest or sparring exhibition and advertises or bills such contest or exhibition as a New York state championship contest or uses the words "New York state" in its announcements shall be deemed a private exhibition within the meaning of this section. So, from what I can determine, this is a location that provides hosting services for different events. Until this incident, "weddings" was one of the event types hosted. Under NY state law, that's an all or nothing proposition. You can certainly do what these people did, and take that service off the menu. I think the $13000 fine was excessive, especially considering that $3000 of that went to the offended party, who it would seem went to some effort to become offended. It is unfortunate that New York is a 'one party consent' state when it comes to recording phone conversations.

Author:	Sam [ Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Rorinthas wrote: [URL] http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/26/farme ... ium=social[ /URL] Couple hosts fall festival on their farmland Lesbian couple wants to book sight for wedding Couple politely refuses. Legality ensues, couple forced to pay 13,000. Where does it end folks? You left out, couple hosts weddings at their farmland, which is also their home, which is also their business open to the public. Couple discriminates same-sex couple wanting to book wedding at their farmland/home/business, which by state of NY law was illegal. Couple is fined by law, as they should. Couple pays fine and then decides to not do business of weddings at their farmland/home/business anymore. That's where it ends.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Homosexual rights > property rights https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11108	Page 1 of 5

Author:	Lenas [ Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Should edit the title to say Laws > Opinions and just leave it at that.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Where is the precious tolerance in this? I was told at the outset, don't worry Rori, no one is going to force you to participate. Homosexuals just want to be left in peace. I was crazy for worrying remember? I am seriously considering finding a homosexual landowner who has put on gay pride events and forcing them to hold a wbc rally. That'd make me a religious bigot though.

Author:	Khross [ Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Rori: You're wrong, and you're acting like a bigot, right now. I'm telling you that. You're wrong, and you're acting like a bigot, right now. Now, I know you're not a bigot. I know you're just angry. I know you're frustrated. I know you feel assaulted in your faith. The State of New York has the right to regulate how business is carried out within its borders. That right is protected by the Constitution of the United States in Article IV, Amendment IX, and Amendment X. The landowners agreed to do business pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and then attempted to break those laws. It's shitty they got baited. It's shitty the penalty was as steep as it was. It's shitty that some people wanted to make it an issue and get their token social justice court case. Nothing in this paragraph matters except for the first sentence: the landowners agreed to do business pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and then attempted to break those laws. There's no tolerance. Tolerance is not necessary. Get the State of New York to change its laws, which would require you becoming a citizen of that state; or get off the pot on this one. Think with your head, not with your faith. Your faith is YOUR FAITH. There's a singularity in that tautology you would do well to take to heart. My faith is MY FAITH. Their faith is THEIR FAITH. The emphasis should hopefully drill this in ... Faith is inherently and absolutely personal. The law is not. We abide by the law, not faith in this country. Amendment I makes that very clear. The landowners agreed to do business pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and then attempted to break those laws. You want to discuss contingencies, possibilities, probabilities, and the like ... go for it. But don't get bent about an entire demographic just because two idiots in New York hired a good lawyer and baited a no win situation for people who thought their faith came before the law. The faithful landowners have learned from their mistake. Of course, if they learned well enough, they will hire the appropriate attorneys, start a legally recognized church, use their land to endow said church with a living trust, and then resume doing business as usual. But, they'll have to pay their dues and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Khross wrote: Rori: You're wrong, and you're acting like a bigot, right now. I'm telling you that. You're wrong, and you're acting like a bigot, right now. Now, I know you're not a bigot. I know you're just angry. I know you're frustrated. I know you feel assaulted in your faith. He may very well be wrong, but he is certainly not acting like a bigot at all. Rori was, understandably, not aware of the laws in the State of New York regarding the obligation of hotels not to discriminate, and his frustration is aimed at Quote: no one is going to force you to participate. Of course, when people said this they meant churches not businesses, but he evidently missed that. That does not mean he sounds like a bigot. In all this, it's far more disturbing that the couple was awarded $3000 for this. I fail to see how the hotel inflicted harm on them that requires $3000 in restitution.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Diamondeye wrote: I fail to see how the hotel inflicted harm on them that requires $3000 in restitution. But.. the emotional anguish!

Author:	Corolinth [ Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:28 am ]
Post subject:
Lost time and expenses can easily hit the $3000 mark.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
I was very sleep Deprived last night and I am sorry If I came across as overly harsh. This does show why I cannot support gay marriage laws. Wherever they go in stuff like this happens. I want to live and let live Khross. If these two women want to live their lives peaceably in this manner, the consequences are their's to reap. If this is what this lesbian couple really wanted, then they would have simply found another farm. I'm tired of being the bad guy for having to point this out.

Author:	Sam [ Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Rorinthas wrote: I was very sleep Deprived last night and I am sorry If I came across as overly harsh. This does show why I cannot support gay marriage laws. Wherever they go in stuff like this happens. I want to live and let live Khross. If these two women want to live their lives peaceably in this manner, the consequences are their's to reap. If this is what this lesbian couple really wanted, then they would have simply found another farm. I'm tired of being the bad guy for having to point this out. Appears you would love to enforce your religious views onto others in the form of law. It also appears you are homophobic and bigoted. At least that is how this post reads.

Author:	FarSky [ Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:57 pm ]
Post subject:
This couldn't be more straightforward. This isn't a "gay vs. straight" thing, and the bigoted action is trying to make it so. This is simply a "you weren't running your business in accordance with the law and you got caught" thing. At that point, you have two options: adhere to the law or shutter your business.

Author:	Jasmy [ Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
1) The proprieters should not be allowing weddings if they are not willing to perform marriages to everyone. 2) The two lesbians should have had the common sense and respect to ask up front if same sex marriages were allowed. 3) Taping the phone call is entrapment IMHO! I believe the women wanted a reason to sue. I have a lesbian cousin and a nephew who recently underwent surgery to become my niece. I love both of them the same way I always have. Their life choices are none of my concern...nor are they anyone else's concern!

Author:	SuiNeko [ Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Funny. I get the legal argument. And agree. But that's kind of uninteresting; The ethical argument Rori raises is more interesting. I have to say, my gut is it should clearly be illegal to discriminate in monopoly situations, or critical life services, but... ... If someone wants to run a goth bar should they have to let me in if Im not a goth? A gay bar if Im not gay? a church if Im a satanist? I dont know. I think freedom to be what and who you are cuts both ways - enforcing a kind of cultural homogeneity seems like nicely cloaked biogtry. Act the way I would, or else.... (bigger meta issue, yes - Im not trying to conflate law with it) Our lives are characterised by the struggle to survive, our work, our income. Are we really saying once you take money for a service you really should have no discretion in who you take it from? Or are y'all just saying 'like it or not that's the law'? If it's the latter, do you think it /should/ be?

Author:	Corolinth [ Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:18 am ]
Post subject:
All of those organizations are businesses. One of them has just fooled society into believing otherwise.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
that's awful deep Khross. thank you for sharing. I realized at communion last night (before I even read your post that little old disciple in process me probably did come down too hard on these ladies on this issue, and failed to realize who the true enemy is (eph 6). I don't back down from my stance that Jesus makes it clear in the Gospels that any sex or sexual desire outside the one man one woman committed for life model is wrong. I'm as guilty of falling short of that standard as anyone else. Sam, I want a government that makes laws that allows both the homosexual and the christian who holds to the stance above to both live out the moral standards they feel are right without stepping on each other's toes. However yes, as a Christian who with the freedom (and I believe divine responsibility) to vote, I'm going to use that vote in a way that reflects my morality and faith. So yeah as a citizen I'm going to express my opinion that in the current push, we're not getting that. I do admit I need to do a better job of expressing that properly though. I hope you'll forgive me and be able to respect my convictions.

Author:	NephyrS [ Sun Sep 28, 2014 1:00 am ]
Post subject:
Yeah, saying you can't support legalizing gay marriage because someone, somewhere used it to be treated just like anyone else.... Is pretty bigoted. It's kinda like saying "I support black people having rights, as long as they stay on their side of town. I don't want them coming over into my restaurants, that's just going too far". And then arguing you're not racist.

Author:	shuyung [ Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
SuiNeko wrote: ... If someone wants to run a goth bar should they have to let me in if Im not a goth? A gay bar if Im not gay? a church if Im a satanist? It depends. Opening a business is a contract between the business and the society in which it resides, where the business agrees to abide by the regulations society imposes, in exchange for the opportunity to earn money from that society. If you open a business and the rule is "you have to take money from anybody", then that's the rule you've agreed to. If society changes the rules you've agreed to, you then have to re-evaluate your desire to take money from society and either agree, reject, or dispute. If agree, continue; if reject, cease; if dispute, make your argument. Now, in your example, one of those organizations is not, technically, a business, and you're being disingenuous in lumping it in.

Author:	Khross [ Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Rorinthas wrote: I was very sleep Deprived last night and I am sorry If I came across as overly harsh. This does show why I cannot support gay marriage laws. Wherever they go in stuff like this happens. I want to live and let live Khross. If these two women want to live their lives peaceably in this manner, the consequences are their's to reap. If this is what this lesbian couple really wanted, then they would have simply found another farm. I'm tired of being the bad guy for having to point this out. I don't think you're a bad guy, Rori. I'm sorry if my post was a bit sharper than intended, but I think you are treading in dark waters on this subject. You are angry and torn and frustrated and confused. You are a man of faith; and consistently enough a man of faith that almost no one here has any problems respecting your faith or you. You certainly don't draw the same kind of ire or vitriol as Beryllin was capable of sparking. So, think about that and chew on it. There are always going to be people who want to use the law as a weapon. There are people who do not believe in "live and let live." This particular pair of lesbians seems to be of that ilk. I do believe this was their token contribution to the glut of social justice court actions sweeping the nation. I also believe it's a crying shame that social justice has become an epithet in some respect. I am a heterodox Christian. If people haven't figured that out by now, I'll just say it. I'm a heterodox Christian. That said, you and I won't ever agree on dogma. We won't agree on doctrine for the most part either. Talya and I talk about religion a lot; she's either suspected this was the case for a long time, or I think I actually just told her once. I'm also a pantheist, which takes a really long time to explain in light of what I just admitted above. I read more religious texts than anyone I know who isn't a Jesuit or working in the Vatican Archives. I don't think sexual orientation, preference, or disposition is anything to get worked up about. I also don't think what the Bible has to say on the matter should be taken any further than the sociologically obvious. Faith is absolutely and inherently personal. And God is either forgiving or not, I'm more inclined to believe the latter, and there's more written evidence to suggest that God is a capricious, vindictive ** in human terms than not. Yes, I said it that bluntly. Christ, on the other hand, is the encapsulated manifestation of Mercy and forgiveness. God is a capricious, vindictive , like any other autocrat. He doesn't care who you **. He cares who you love and how you love. Homosexuality isn't a sin. Homosexuality was a sociologically problematic behavior: it did not necessarily contribute to social evolution and social sustainability at the time. We've moved past the need for restricting non-reproductive behavior. We don't need those social mores. We don't have to talk about disease or illness or other hygiene issues that were exacerbated by ignorance at the time, but that's another sociological problem. And that particular sociological problem affects most sexual orientations (Ace's -- you're probably free to go here). Today, there are different sociological issues for the church to address, and the dogma and doctrine should reflect those needs. If the church is really about bringing humanity into closer contact with god, then it should be focusing on knowledge and science and understanding. It should focus on the inclusiveness project that most of humanity wants, not further segregation, separation, and denomination. I call myself a heterodox Christian because I've read enough to know you (and by you I mean every denomination, every branch, every division) has it wrong at one point or another; and some to greater degree than others. We don't need to nail anyone to a tree this time (thank you, Douglas Adams). And, no, I'm not some prophet or saying I have all the answers. But knowledge is never evil, and the churches of the world as hell bent on controlling knowledge instead of protecting free access to it. God is knowledge. God is absolute knowledge. No matter how we define it; no matter what books we use to reach him; god is knowledge, and religion should never be about controlling knowledge. The issue here is one of business and laws; it's not about god and faith and tolerance. If you want to keep homosexuality a sin, that's your prerogative, but there was never a spiritual reason to call it sin. If there was, the Jews wouldn't have omitted lesbianism from Leviticus. If there was, Sodom and Gomorrah wouldn't have been the only two cities burnt with hell fire and brimstone. We know where the Isle of Lesbos is -- we'd be able to see the evidence there. Faith should be a tool to bring people closer together and closer to knowledge and truth and understanding. When faith is used to separate, divide, and dissuade people from asking questions, it's lost sight of its purpose.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Khross wrote: Rori: You're wrong, and you're acting like a bigot, right now. I'm telling you that. You're wrong, and you're acting like a bigot, right now. Now, I know you're not a bigot. I know you're just angry. I know you're frustrated. I know you feel assaulted in your faith. The State of New York has the right to regulate how business is carried out within its borders. That right is protected by the Constitution of the United States in Article IV, Amendment IX, and Amendment X. The landowners agreed to do business pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and then attempted to break those laws. It's shitty they got baited. It's shitty the penalty was as steep as it was. It's shitty that some people wanted to make it an issue and get their token social justice court case. Nothing in this paragraph matters except for the first sentence: the landowners agreed to do business pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and then attempted to break those laws. There's no tolerance. Tolerance is not necessary. Get the State of New York to change its laws, which would require you becoming a citizen of that state; or get off the pot on this one. Think with your head, not with your faith. Your faith is YOUR FAITH. There's a singularity in that tautology you would do well to take to heart. My faith is MY FAITH. Their faith is THEIR FAITH. The emphasis should hopefully drill this in ... Faith is inherently and absolutely personal. The law is not. We abide by the law, not faith in this country. Amendment I makes that very clear. The landowners agreed to do business pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and then attempted to break those laws. You want to discuss contingencies, possibilities, probabilities, and the like ... go for it. But don't get bent about an entire demographic just because two idiots in New York hired a good lawyer and baited a no win situation for people who thought their faith came before the law. The faithful landowners have learned from their mistake. Of course, if they learned well enough, they will hire the appropriate attorneys, start a legally recognized church, use their land to endow said church with a living trust, and then resume doing business as usual. But, they'll have to pay their dues and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. States have no rights, individuals have rights. The state is violating the couple's rights to property, association, and contract. That's the complete end of it. As for the Biblical quote: all of creation is God's Caesar has nothing - feel free to give him all of it.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Sam wrote: Rorinthas wrote: I was very sleep Deprived last night and I am sorry If I came across as overly harsh. This does show why I cannot support gay marriage laws. Wherever they go in stuff like this happens. I want to live and let live Khross. If these two women want to live their lives peaceably in this manner, the consequences are their's to reap. If this is what this lesbian couple really wanted, then they would have simply found another farm. I'm tired of being the bad guy for having to point this out. Appears you would love to enforce your religious views onto others in the form of law. It also appears you are homophobic and bigoted. At least that is how this post reads. No it doesn't appear that way at all. And BTW you cannot be bigoted against gays unless being gay is a choice, which it is not. I see no sign he is afraid of gays. Being against legal gay marriage is an immoral position and wishes to enforce one's own individual comfort above the rights of others and as such is a barbaric, small-minded, and completely selfish position that does not loving they neighbor as theyself but it isn't anything you claim it is.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Homosexual rights > property rights
Jasmy wrote: 1) The proprieters should not be allowing weddings if they are not willing to perform marriages to everyone. 2) The two lesbians should have had the common sense and respect to ask up front if same sex marriages were allowed. 3) Taping the phone call is entrapment IMHO! I believe the women wanted a reason to sue. I have a lesbian cousin and a nephew who recently underwent surgery to become my niece. I love both of them the same way I always have. Their life choices are none of my concern...nor are they anyone else's concern! They are the concern of others when they begin to try to force an association or contractual agreement on them.

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/