Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › NY is #1
- This topic has 10 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by akuperma.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 23, 2012 5:03 pm at 5:03 pm #605461HealthParticipant
That right – NY is the first State to have a lawsuit against religious people because they refuse to have a Toeiva wedding on their farm. Thank you Cuomo the H–O and all those that voted for the leftist libs in the NY State Gov.
October 23, 2012 11:21 pm at 11:21 pm #900717chassidishY.U.typeMemberYou sound surprised. Welcome to N.Y.
October 24, 2012 12:12 am at 12:12 am #900718WIYMemberWho made it illegal to refuse someone to get married on your farm because their marriage/lifestyle doesn’t fit with your religious beliefs?
October 24, 2012 1:17 am at 1:17 am #900719HealthParticipantchassidishY.U.type – “Welcome to N.Y.”
Sorry, I live in Jersey. But we aren’t far behind when it comes to Prustkeit. And I’m not the least bit surprised.
October 24, 2012 2:22 am at 2:22 am #900720yehudayonaParticipantWrong. There was another case in Vermont. The Wildflower Inn had to pay a hefty fine. They no longer host weddings of any persuasion.
October 24, 2012 5:52 am at 5:52 am #900721HealthParticipantyehudayona – I’m not wrong. I doubt the case in Vermont was a case of religious freedom. In other words, why didn’t they allow the wedding? Because they didn’t want to expose their kids to it, like the farm or because they were personally against it. While I wish the law let anybody against it discriminate, but then that law wouldn’t be much of a law. So I understand the law and the lawsuit in Vermont, but I don’t understand a law that stops religious freedom like by the farm in NY. And how could anybody “Frum” vote for any politician who supported this law? What did they think – that religious people wouldn’t be persecuted once this law was enacted?
October 24, 2012 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm #900722yehudayonaParticipantHealth, instead of assuming, you could look it up. There’s an interesting twist in the Wildflower Inn case. The owners are Catholic, and they are personally against gay marriage because of their religious convictions. Their lawyer says their policy was to reveal their religious beliefs to potential customers, but to agree to host all kinds of weddings anyway so as to be in compliance with the law (and in fact, in a 2005 case, they did this, and the state said it was OK). However, one of their (now former) employees told the couple in question that they would not allow the wedding because of the owners’ beliefs. Presumably, the reason they settled the case is that it would have been too costly to fight it in the courts.
October 24, 2012 2:49 pm at 2:49 pm #900723akupermaParticipant1. If they have a commercial “wedding venue” that isn’t tied to a single religion, I could imagine how that would violate the discrimnation law.
2. Maryland is both super-blue, but much less hostile towards religion. I suspect it is because the the Maryland Democratic party is heavily dependent on the state’s socially conservative African American community, whereas New York’s Democrats are dominated by “frei” Jews and a much more ethnically diverse crowd, none of which are especially known for their religious piety.
October 25, 2012 3:10 pm at 3:10 pm #900724crisisoftheweekMemberDont forget the holy people who will vote for whomever as long as the $$$ keep rolling in.
October 25, 2012 3:50 pm at 3:50 pm #900725nishtdayngesheftParticipant@ Crisis,
What does your comment have to do with the topic at hand? Was it just an opportunity to make a thinly veiled hateful remark?
October 25, 2012 4:26 pm at 4:26 pm #900726akupermaParticipantcrisisoftheweek:
I tend to believe that in many places outside New York, the Democrats are afraid that if they alienate the “holy people” they might not be able to permanently buy their support. In fact, that may be true in New York as well (considering two recent wins for Republicans in super-blue Brooklyn – you do know that Dodgers/Met “blue” is the official borough color).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.