Amerika, zemlja velika

[Prospero]

paranoja konzervativaca je da ce verujuci hriscani biti prisiljeni da postupaju u suprotnosti sa religioznim shvatanjima. tj. da ce mnogi hriscani biti primorani da pruze podrsku za gresni cin. cvecari, pekari, fotografi, religiozne organizacije... ce biti primorani ili da zatvaraju radnje ili da postupaju u suprotnosti sa svojim religioznim ubedjenjima. a ljudi koji ne podrzavaju gej brakove (aka hriscani) ce biti otpustani.

Niko ga nije zvao u svatove, for fuck's sake. Odem u pekaru, kupim leba - sta se tebe tice za sta cu ga koristiti? Ako hocu, mogu da ga umacem u proliv, kako je to bilo ciji problem osim mog i sta iko ima s tim?

 

Dođu svatovi sami :D

 

Christian farm family penalized in gay wedding refusal decries ‘orchestrated set-up’

 

 

When Melisa Erwin called the Giffords about using their upstate New York property for a same-sex wedding ceremony, she apparently knew in advance that they would refuse. For one thing, she and her fiancee recorded the conversation.

Even so, an administrative judge with the New York State Division of Human Rights ordered the Giffords to pay $3,000 to Ms. Erwin and Jennifer McCarthy for “mental pain and suffering,” in addition to $10,000 for violating the state’s human rights ordinance.

In a brief filed Thursday, attorneys for Cynthia and Robert Gifford argue that the state’s ruling violates the First Amendment, but they also criticize the same-sex couple for what they describe as an “orchestrated set-up.”

“The evidence, however, indicates that Respondents were aware of the Giffords’ beliefs and chose specifically to call and record Mrs. Gifford for the purposes of documenting the Giffords’ policy,” said the brief filed by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom.

“Such an orchestrated set-up can hardly form the basis for ‘mental anguish’ and suffering,” said the brief, which was submitted to the New York Supreme Court.

The argument illustrates a common complaint among Christian business owners: They are deliberately sought out by gay couples even though most photographers, bakers and florists would be happy to provide services for same-sex weddings.

 

“The gay community is constantly attacking the church as if the church were singling them out. However, it is the other way around; the gay community is singling out the church,” Patricia L. Dickson said in a Nov. 2 article in American Thinker. “How else do you explain gay couples running straight to Christian business owners as soon as their state lifts the ban on same-sex marriage?”

Gay couples differ on the matter. Some say they would avoid such businesses, and others appear to seek them out in an effort to combat discrimination.

An attorney for the Giffords said it’s clear that some cases are “driven by activism.”

“I think in many of these cases, they know or at least suspect that these are folks with religious objections,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Byron Babione. “We think that’s the case here, and we think that’s an uncontested fact.”

He argued that the decision of Ms. McCarthy and Ms. Erwin, who took the McCarthy name when they married, to contact and record the Giffords knowing they would object to hosting the ceremony is relevant because “it’s important for the court to understand the context.”

Attorneys with the New York Civil Liberties Union representing the McCarthys did not immediately return a call for comment, but Melisa McCarthy said during last year’s administrative hearing that she felt “shell-shocked” and “horrible” after speaking with Mrs. Gifford, according to the judge’s ruling.

Jennifer McCarthy said the rejection was “heartbreaking” and made her “very upset.” The ruling also said the women “were so upset that they stopped looking for wedding venues for several months.”

The order said that it took the women two to three months before they began looking for farm venues again. They married in August 2013 at the Olde Tater Barn in Central Bridge, New York.

“No one should have the happiest time of their life marred by discrimination,” Jennifer McCarthy said in an Aug. 14 statement after the judge’s order. “We hope this decision will protect all New Yorkers from having to go through the hurt that we experienced.”

 

The Giffords were found guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination” in July after they declined to “host and coordinate a same-sex ceremony” in 2012 on their Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, New York, the brief said.

The administrative judge ruled that their property was a “public accommodation,” noting that the Giffords operate a farmer’s market, a fall festival, berry-picking and a fall corn maze in addition to a wedding venue.

The brief counters that the weddings take place in a fenced-off area adjacent to or on the first floor of their private home, and that “the wedding area is accessible only when the Giffords enter into a contract with someone who wants to hold their wedding ceremony there.”

Although the Giffords object to hosting a same-sex ceremony based on their Christian beliefs, gay couples are welcome to reserve the farm for post-vow receptions, birthday parties and any other events.

“The Giffords serve everyone, including individuals who identify as gay and lesbian,” the brief says. “In fact, the Giffords will gladly host myriad events, including wedding receptions, for same-sex couples. It is only same-sex wedding ceremonies that the Giffords cannot host or participate in. The State thus acts unreasonably in punishing the Giffords for declining to participate in this narrow category of events.”

In 2011, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a law declaring same-sex couples eligible to marry.

 

 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/28/christian-farm-family-penalized-in-gay-wedding-ref/

 

 

 

Mislim da je ovo dobar case in point, mada mi ostaje nejasan taj deo sa dozvolama i javnom funkcijom, tj. ima li tu rupa.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Prospero

[Lezilebovich]

...

Edited June 29, 2015 by Lezilebovich

[Gandalf]

...

i time si na korak od ukidanja slobode veroispovesti, obzirom da si efektivno ukinuo hriscanima pristup mnogim poslovima.

[Аврам Гојић]

dobro a gde bi ti postavio granicu posle koje vise nije moguce odbiti uslugu zbog verskih uverenja?

ja sam uveren da su mnogi beli hriscani odbijali uslugu crncima u Misisipiju pozivajuci se na tumacenja nekih delova Biblije u kojima se navodno poziva na segregaciju.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Грешни Василије

[Gandalf]

Niko ga nije zvao u svatove, for fuck's sake. Odem u pekaru, kupim leba - sta se tebe tice za sta cu ga koristiti? Ako hocu, mogu da ga umacem u proliv, kako je to bilo ciji problem osim mog i sta iko ima s tim?

pekar (ili neki cvecar) je tek jedan primer. mozda bolji primer je npr. fotograf koji treba i da prisustvuje vencanju, ili pak vlasnik restorana kome svatovi iznajme lokal (kao u ovom primeru koji je dao Prospero). 

 

dobro a gde bi ti postavio granicu posle koje vise nije moguce odbiti uslugu zbog verskih uverenja?

ja sam uveren da su mnogi beli hriscani odbijali uslugu crncima u Misisipiju pozivajuci se na tumacenja nekih delova Biblije u kojima se navodno poziva na segregaciju.

odbiti pruziti uslugu nekoj osobi po bilo kom osnovu vs. odbiti pruziti uslugu svima za neki cin. ja bih insistirao na toj razlici.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Gandalf

[Weenie Pooh]

Kakav crni čin, ko je tebe ili pekara učinio kompetentnim da procenjuješ činove koji su košer™ a koji nisu? Kao, ako je mušterija gej po tom osnovu se ne sme odbiti usluga, ali ako bi taj gej da se ženi, e pa polako, čekaj da vidimo šta kažu knjige starostavne...

 

Dakle, veze to nema sa slobodom veroispovesti. Ako ja kao diskordijanac imam verski propis koji mi najstrožije zabranjuje da vozim kola otvorenih očiju, ne mogu da se žalim državi što neće da mi izda vozačku dozvolu. Ili ako mi je već izdala dozvolu a ja se onda zakucam u najbližu banderu, ne mogu da tvrdim da mi ugrožavaju verske slobode ako mi tu dozvolu ukinu.

[Meazza]

pekar (ili neki cvecar) je tek jedan primer. mozda bolji primer je npr. fotograf koji treba i da prisustvuje vencanju, ili pak vlasnik restorana kome svatovi iznajme lokal (kao u ovom primeru koji je dao Prospero). 

 

odbiti pruziti uslugu nekoj osobi po bilo kom osnovu vs. odbiti pruziti uslugu svima za neki cin. ja bih insistirao na toj razlici.

 

Niko nema prava da bude osetljiv/gadljiv na prava propisana zakonom. Stvar je vrlo prosta. Dura lex, sed lex.

 

Ja bih na tvoje teze odgovorio gomilom zakona i stavki iz svetih knjiga koje se uopste ne postuju kod ogromne vecine vernika, a takodje skrenuo paznju na smrtne grehove koje prave svakodnevno. Svi su particular i silje patku bas na gejevima. Nije nego.

Edited June 29, 2015 by IndridCold

[Gandalf]

Kakav crni čin, ko je tebe ili pekara učinio kompetentnim da procenjuješ činove koji su košer™ a koji nisu?

mene niko, nisam ni pravnik ni aktivista, niti imam neku zelju da procenjujem sta jeste ili nije kosher.

 

prigovor savesti je licna stvar. hirurg koji odbije da vrsi genitalna sakacenja jevrejske i muslimanske dece, ginekolog koji odbije da ubija nerodjenu decu...

Edited June 29, 2015 by Gandalf

[Meazza]

hirurg koji odbije da vrsi genitalna sakacenja jevrejske i muslimanske dece.

 

Ovaj primer je suprotan od tvog. Sakacenje dece nije zakonska obaveza koju doktor mora da vrsi ako zeli da nastavi da bude doktor.

 

 

 

 

ginekolog koji odbije da ubija nerodjenu decu...

 

Ovde religioznost ne igra nikakvu ulogu. Dovoljno je doktor smatra da se radi o ubistvu.

 

Pored toga, nijedan primer nije dobar jer kod vencanja osoba istog pola ne postoji ostecena strana. Nimalo me se ne ticu homofobni licemeri koji bi prodali viski coveku koji umire od alkoholizma, a ovamo ne bi izdali lokal za gej vencanje. Fuck them.

[radisa]

A jel' katolici u USA drže prodvnice oružija? Kako ih ne brine da bi neko mogao da prekrši onu zajebanu zapovest o ubijanju, ako mu prodaju oružije?

[Meazza]

A jel' katoici u USA drže prodvnice oružija? Kako ih ne brine da bi neko mogao da prekrši onu zajebanu zapovest o ubijanju, ako mu prodaju oružije?

 

Upravo.

 

Na kraju krajeva, ne postoji pravo na diskriminaciju i tacka. Zakon definise sta je diskriminacija, a drzava je svetovna. Bad luck.

 

Protest se moze iskazati napustanjem potencijalno gresne delatnosti kao sto je izdavanje restorana ili prodavanje hleba.

[Tribun_Populi]

Dura lex, sed lex.

 

Erm, nije lex nego verdict, u tome je i problem, bar kako ga ja vidim.

[djili]

#2

 

ova tvrdnja o "zatvaranju oba oka" bi imala smisla ako bismo imali neki primer za to. recimo, udje ozenjen covek u pekaru i trazi tortu koju bi poneo udatoj komsinici koju namerava da naguzi. ili neki dzeparos trazi tortu koju bi koristio u kradji. sto se ne desava - jedini slucajevi (za koje ja znam) u kojima se otvoreno traze torte koje bi se koristile u "grehu" su gej vencanja. (pre nego neko krene da ucitava: ne poredim gej brakove sa navedenim gresima.)

 

naglasavam: direktna i nedvosmislena podrska za gresni cin. prodaja torti gresnicima je nesto sasvim drugo.

 

Kada osiguranje placa viagru za neozenjene muskarce? Ili kada religiozni apotekar nema problema da im proda viagru? Tu vazi boys will be boys.

[Gandalf]

@Indrid: dati primeri su prigovor savesti. da sam zeleo paralelu, primer bi bio fotograf koji odbije da slika genitalno sakacenje.

 

@radisa: kljuc je "neko mogao", sto znaci da prodavac ne moze sa sigurnoscu da zna da ce utoka biti koristena za smrtni greh ubistva.

[Gandalf]

btw, necete daleko stici sa tim whataboutism-om. katolicke doktrine i praksa nisu od juce, vec su razradjivani i bruseni dobrih 2K godina.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Gandalf