Gene Frenkle

We is real stupid. It true. I agrees!

Oops! I guess I did. As a fair-minded individual, I dislike all religions equally. They're all !@#$ed up and utterly ridiculous in their own special way. Christianity is just happens to be the one I was indoctrinated into, so it holds a truly special place in my heart.

I didn't bring it up! Hey, don't oppress them! Do you know what happens you assume? Interesting read, wrong thread. Sports is my religion. I go to church 8 Sundays per year, and though I'd like to attend more, I haven't been able to do so since 1996.

Lol, please identify what makes a religion "legitimate". I'll hang up and listen.

They definitely provide lodging, but I agree that the farm may not meet the criteria in section b of Title II if they don't rent at least 5 rooms. However, the way I'm reading subsection e: 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b). It sounds like the fact that the facility is open to the public may include them as an establishment affected by the act. I'm not exactly sure. Either way, the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act still flies in the face of the argument most are making here - that any person or business has a Constitutional right to discriminate against whomever they please. It's not any stretch from there to deem the NYS law, which seems to very clearly apply to the farm, Constitutional. No?

I'm not going to get carpal tunnel by attempting to respond to all of your Constitutuon rants. Again, I understand where you're coming from. That said, I'm curious to hear your explanations, given how unconstitutional you seem to think the anti discrimination laws are, as to how the Civil Rights Act has been allowed to stand since 1964. I see no significant difference between the interpretation of this ruling and the spirit of that act. At the very least you've described every poster in this thread. If you think it doesn't apply to you, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. That's exactly what I'm saying. We've all talked about our philosophies and we're all pretty set in our opinions and beliefs. Unlikely to change any of that, what's the point in re-hashing tired opinion-based arguments. Time to move on. I've never known you to be any more logical than you have been in this thread.

Coming from the king of belittlement and insult? You're the best man. I think the law trumps their Constitutional right in this case because they are a private company who serves the public. There are obviously different rules when one decides to form such an entity and receive the benefits of such an act. The farmers are free to act like complete !@#$s outside of the context of their private company which serves the public. Legally, this all seems very clear. These types of cases have had very consistent outcomes, especially lately with the whole gay marriage thing. Philosophically, you disagree - not because you're a bigot I think, but because of your general views on Constitutional rights and freedoms. To me, that's at least far more respectable. I just think it's schitty to limit peoples' options (where they can shop, eat, congregate, get married in this case) based on things they can't control. I find the thought of allowing business owners who benefit from the public to treat citizens like that distasteful. You disagree. As far as moving on, well, I'm trying to.

Everyone has opinions and beliefs on any given topic. Facts are interesting to me. Generally, opinions and beliefs are not, mostly because I've found that people rarely seem to change their opinions or beliefs based on argument. These types of discussions tend to be circular and I don't see the point. I understand where you all are coming from and I'm generally in favor of law staying out of peoples' private lives. My opinion on that idea stops, in this case, when it has impact on others, as I believe it does in this case. You're not going to change my opinion and I'm not going to change yours. Therefore, since the facts have all been discussed at length, I have nothing left to really say. I couldn't agree more!

Well, that's slightly off topic...and none of your concern. Why does anyone do anything?

lol Out of logical arguments, so just start spitting out insults. Ad hominem attacks are for the weak of mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity Yes, that's true. I can only say the exact same thing and hear the exact same tired arguments for so long. It's been played out. Sorry if you're still looking for a fight. Maybe if somebody comes up with something new it might get interesting again, but this particular intellectual coward just can't see any new angle that hasn't been argued over and over and over again.

Opinions are like... This thread has run it's course for me. Cheers!

Unbelievable. The free market solves everything, right? Typical Libertarian pie-in-the-sky idealism. And you think Liberals are Utopian idiots... Thankfully for all the blacks and gays, the law is quite decidedly not on your side.

WTF are you talking about? Restaurants are not allowed to refuse blacks based on their race. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case before 1964. If it was, that whole thing wouldn't have been necessary. What kind of a fantasy land are you living in? Your view DIRECTLY contradicts a major component of the Civil RIghts Act.

So the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing in your opinion. Duly noted, thanks. The empathy is strong with this board.

So I should be allowed to deny service at my restaurant to a black man because of his race? Same question as above. Also, that's an opinion, not what the law says.

I don't understand the difference? I think you have that backwards. The ruling specifically states that they are running a public business, mainly because they advertise publicly. You may disagree, but the law is not on your side. Their lawyer also specifically states their objection to allowing the ceremony is based in on their religious beliefs. So you're just plain wrong. I wouldn't give a crap because I believe that people should be allowed to do pretty much whatever the hell they like as long as they're not hurting anyone else (physically or otherwise). Personally, I'd happily take their money and privately laugh my arse off right through the ceremony and all the way to the bank. Of course, I don't have an eternal soul to worry about. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice.

Now if I were 3rdnlng, I'd come back with the same tired argument with a slightly different phrasing. Or maybe I'd ask you to look up the nonexistent law for me because Google is hard. Thankfully I'm not. Thanks for the clarification.

By special request...answered several times in several ways... They are running a public business. They selectively denied services they offer to the public based on sexual orientation. How is this so difficult to understand? How many different ways do you all need to be told the same thing before it sinks in? Seriously. I am no longer taking requests from page 1.

Maybe, maybe not. What does it matter? I'm just having fun watching these guys twist and turn trying to justify their bigotry. What seems to be confusing you are the legal rights of the patron vs. the legal rights of the proprietor.

In this case it's more like 'utilize all of the services your business provides' because you're doing business in NYS. You may discriminate all you like if you're not running a public business of course. It makes you kind of a huge a-hole, but that's merely subjective and it's well within your rights.

My fat fingers + smartphone = PPP hilarity!

I'll make it simple for you: 1. Christian farmers own a place of public accommodation. 2. Christian farmers allow customers to hold wedding ceremonies at said place of public accommodation. 3. Christian farmers allow customers to sleep in their bed at said place of public accommodation. 4. Christian farmers wish to discriminate against some customers by preventing them from holding wedding ceremonies or sleeping in their bed at said place of public accommodation because of said customers' sexual orientation. 5. Christian farmers have violated N.Y. EXC. LAW 296.2(a), are found guilty and are made to pay $13,000. 6. Christian righties at PPP get their panties in a wad because they don't like the law.

I'm no lawyer, but this was pretty easy to find...specifically N.Y. EXC. LAW 296.2(a) http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/EXC/15/296 Timely post about non-existent laws, dumbass! Friggin morons...next time do your own research. I should be charging for the education you mouth-breathers are receiving here. lol All in good fun of course!

Jewish delis are not forced to serve bacon because that's not what they do. Wedding ceremonies are on the menu at the farm, which is why the only part of your post that might be considered an argument is completely illogical and retarded. The rest is just another tired rant with a lot of pretty buzzwords. I'd say nice try, but it really wasn't. This is getting boring now. The farmers broke the law, plain and simple.