Mennonite couple files counter-lawsuit against Iowa to avoid gay marriage hosting

[Brannigans Law]

Sorry for clunky title.

http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./gortz-haus-gallery.JPG

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/14/mennonite-couple-files-counter-lawsuit-in-fear-having-to-host-same-sex-weddings/A Mennonite couple in Iowa who declined to host a same-sex wedding at their business has filed a counter-lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission, fearing that the agency will make them pay financial damages and host the events.

In August, Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, declined a request from Lee Stafford and his partner, Jared, to host a same-sex wedding.

"They did so because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman," the counter-lawsuit says.intcmp=latestnews

Isn't this a simple case of you're free to religious freedom so long as it's not denying others their rights?

[PIMking]

well it's their right to decline business if it's against their religious beliefs.

[4X4]

While it's sad that people still think this way, it's also BS that other people are forced to change the way they think. In a democracy, it is your right to believe whatever you want. Declining the wedding isn't infringing on the rights of the couple. Just give it another generation, and homophobia and racism will hopefully be history. Not entirely, of course, but for the vast majority.

The thing is that a lot of people that are still alive today were raised being told that being gay is evil. I guess that's still happening, but as kids grow up and get to make their own decisions, they tend to agree with the majority. It's mostly the old people that still think this way. Let them die off. Taking away their rights is no better than refusing the rights of gay people.

It's not like they're protesting a gay wedding. They're simply refusing to host it at their establishment.

[TorqueDog]

well it's their right to decline business if it's against their religious beliefs.But it isn't. Businesses do not have religious beliefs, and the business being referred to is not a religious organization that would meet the requirements for an exemption (such as organizations wanting to reject paying for any sort of contraception under the new US laws on religious grounds).

[Resolute 14]

Isn't this a simple case of you're free to religious freedom so long as it's not denying others their rights?

This, honestly, is one of those cases where you are going to infringe on someone's rights either way, so it becomes a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Freedom of association is also a right, and one that this couple is likely to be denied because this case relates to their business rather than their person. And that is very likely the right way to read it in this case.

I have no idea how precedents work from one state court to another, but there have been very similar cases in other jurisdictions, and based on that, I expect this couple is going to lose.

e.g.: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557098/New-Mexico-photographer-loses-third-round-of-gay-discrimination-case-but-attorneys-vow-fight-isnt.html

[photon]

well it's their right to decline business if it's against their religious beliefs.

Can they deny serving black people because if they say it's against their religious beliefs?

[PIMking]

Can they deny serving black people because if they say it's against their religious beliefs?

Oh boy, lets get the racism, redneck crap out of the way

[Traditional_Ale]

Can they deny serving black people because if they say it's against their religious beliefs?

I find is appalling that in 2013, after everything the homosexual community has gone through to be accepted for who they are, that two members of that community decided to get their panties in a bunch and go the legal rather than simply find another venue. The only thing here sadder than the bigotry of the owners is the pettiness of the couple.

[photon]

Oh boy, lets get the racism, redneck crap out of the way

I don't understand what you mean. It's a serious question, you said that they have a right to decline business based on their religious belief, I asked about a specific scenario that is well understood to find out if there's either a) something incorrect about your statement about rights or b) something different about this scenario than declining business to a black person.

[photon]

that two members of that community decided to get their panties in a bunch and go the legal rather than simply find another venue. The only thing here sadder than the bigotry of the owners is the pettiness of the couple.

They DID find another venue after they met with the owners, they aren't suing to force them to host it. The legal thing is because that's the way (as far as I understand) the legal system in the US works isn't it? There's no "crown" to prosecute the owners for breaking the law is there?

[Traditional_Ale]

They DID find another venue after they met with the owners, they aren't suing to force them to host it. The legal thing is because that's the way (as far as I understand) the legal system in the US works isn't it? There's no "crown" to prosecute the owners for breaking the law is there?

They way I read it, the couple didn't have to tip-off the state about what happened but chose to do so. It's petty, and sadly comes off in a worse light that a business owner turning down work based on religion. It's also sad that there is a state law for this. It isn't as though there was absolutely nowhere for them to get married. Suppose I want to get married in a Mosque, dressed as characters from the Teletubbies, coming down the isle to ACDC's "Highway To Hell" to marry a gay Hindu? Is it my right to force that? Or really even bitch about it?

[RougeUnderoos]

I find is appalling that in 2013, after everything the homosexual community has gone through to be accepted for who they are, that two members of that community decided to get their panties in a bunch and go the legal rather than simply find another venue. The only thing here sadder than the bigotry of the owners is the pettiness of the couple.

Appalling for sure. I'm appalled that these gays would insist on equality.

How do these people got the right to marry in the first place? They got it by shutting up accepting discrimination, that's how!

[photon]

They way I read it, the couple didn't have to tip-off the state about what happened but chose to do so.

If I see someone crossing against the light, that's probably something I'm not going to tip-off. I think expecting equal treatment at a public business crosses the line into significant enough to do something about. Otherwise they'll just keep doing it. Black people sitting in the whites only section of a restaurant thought so.

It's petty, and sadly comes off in a worse light that a business owner turning down work based on religion.

I don't think equality is petty at all. I wouldn't make the decision to pursue a legal option based on a relative public perception contest with the owners, maybe the couple didn't either.

It's also sad that there is a state law for this. It isn't as though there was absolutely nowhere for them to get married.

Back to the same question, would it be ok for them to deny the marriage to a black couple because there are other places for the black couple to get married?

Yes ideally a law requiring equality would be federal.

Suppose I want to get married in a Mosque, dressed as characters from the Teletubbies, coming down the isle to ACDC's "Highway To Hell" to marry a gay Hindu? Is it my right to force that? Or really even bitch about it?

Your example isn't relevant. This isn't a church, it's a public business.

This is like denying gay people to eat in a restaurant, or selling them a can of coke at the convenience store.

[Traditional_Ale]

My bad.

I thought this was a church.

I fail at the internet. :bag:

[photon]

Lol! I blame the picture, Fox clearly framed it that way because it looks like a church.

[MarchHare]

"They did so because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman," the counter-lawsuit says.

I'd like them to cite which Biblical verse forbids this.

[jayswin]

My bad.

I thought this was a church.

I fail at the internet. :bag:

Ok sweet, so now we just need PIMking to explain his position and then we're all cleared up all up in here.

[GGG]

Are womens only gyms legal? Because they discriminate based on gender.

I think it comes down to whether or not a business can choose who its customers are and should theybe allowed to. In my opinion you shouldnt be allowed to in any circumstance.

However, Doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions out of conscience even when in small centers this necessitates people traveling large distances to get a government funded service which is delivered privately.

If the percieved harm to a person who is being asked offer a service which is against his belief is high enough then they should be allowed to refuse the service.

So female only gyms and straight wedding venues do not meet this standard but a doctor refusing to perform an abortion does. I think it is a little less black and white then I would like it to be.

[moon]

Can they deny serving black people because if they say it's against their religious beliefs?

If they are a private business that does not receive subsidies from the government they should be able to deny anyone for whatever reason they want religious or not.

[photon]

If they are a private business that does not receive subsidies from the government they should be able to deny anyone for whatever reason they want religious or not.

Not according to the law, since 1964 in the US.

Why do you think allowing whites only restaurants is a good idea?

[WilderPegasus]

Can they deny serving black people because if they say it's against their religious beliefs?

Which religion states that you cannot serve black people?

[DuffMan]

Could a gay business stop dealing with Mennonites?

[photon]

Which religion states that you cannot serve black people?

Why do you answer a question with a question?

[photon]

Could a gay business stop dealing with Mennonites?

No.

[MRCboicgy]

Could a gay business stop dealing with Mennonites?

Is there a gay Ford dealership that specializes in 18-passenger vans.

Oh wait, that's Hutterite. I guess -ites all look the same to me :bag:

[jammies]

Why do you answer a question with a question?

I see what you did here.

[Rerun]

Took me 10 minutes to find this on the internet..


Does a business in the US have a right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason? .......


Businesses can refuse service for almost any reason (or no reason) with exceptions. Those exceptions at the federal level are race, religion, gender, national origin, and disability/perceived disability (refusing service based on sexual preference does not violate any federal law).

Some states have laws covering all these categories plus sexual preference, and some also include transgendered persons and transsexuals..

There is a narrow exception allowing legalized discrimination when the business has a bona fide business-related reason, such as when a fitness center chain targets only women on the theory some women would only be comfortable working out when there are no men present and the exercise equipment they provide is specifically targeted at women. Similarly, when an organization's main purpose is to prevent teen pregnancy and unmarried pregnancy, and then an unmarried employee/teacher gets pregnant, she can be fired even though normally firing a woman for being pregnant is illegal discrimination based on gender.

As for churches being forced to marry gays, like that one post claimed and several people gave thumbs up, this is a commonly repeated claim by some groups, despite the fact it has absolutely no legal basis and would violate the First Amendment. While it is true that the right to marriage is fundamental, that does not mean that churches must go against their beliefs and marry anyone who wants a marriage; it has never been that way and it never will be. Churches always have had the right to refuse to marry people. For example, the Catholic Church has never been legally forced to marry someone who was previously divorced because that would go against Catholic beliefs. My mother is a pastor, and in her church no couple can marry until they have gone through pre-marital counseling; if the couple refuses to go through this counseling, she can refuse to marry them and no law could say otherwise. I have never heard a lawyer claim that churches would be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage became legal, yet homophobes cling to this false belief and repeat it so many times that many people actually believe it is true.

For your question about whether or not caterers, florists, and wedding photographers would be legally allowed to refuse to work for gay weddings, the answer is: unless the federal discrimination laws are changed, they would not violate any federal law by refusing to accept those bookings solely because the couple was gay (although if a boss accepts the booking and an employee refused to work it, the boss could fire the employee in most circumstances).

However, because many state laws are different and most are more expansive than the federal law, there may or may not be a state law violation for that same refusal to accept the booking.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090423074554AAJP6jF

[Rathji]

So if its not against federal law in the United States, its totally fine?

edit: For reference (from http://www.iowa.gov/government/crc/publications/brochures/english_brochure.html)

The "Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965" prohibits discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education. Discrimination, or different treatment, is illegal if based on race, color, creed, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, physical disability, mental disability, retaliation (because of filing a previous discrimination complaint, participating in an investigation of a discrimination complaint, or having opposed discriminatory conduct), age (in employment and credit), familial status (in housing and credit) or marital status (in credit).

[Rerun]

I think he covered exceptions or addendums to federal law in the second paragraph and the last sentence.

Some states have laws covering all these categories plus sexual preference, and some also include transgendered persons and transsexuals..


However, because many state laws are different and most are more expansive than the federal law, there may or may not be a state law violation for that same refusal to accept the booking.

[WilderPegasus]

Why do you answer a question with a question?

Because I'm not aware of any religion that prohibits serving black people and if there is I'd like to be aware of it.

[MarchHare]

Because I'm not aware of any religion that prohibits serving black people and if there is I'd like to be aware of it.

I'm also not aware of any religion that prohibits serving gay people, and if there is I'd like to be aware of it.

[undercoverbrother]

Because I'm not aware of any religion that prohibits serving black people and if there is I'd like to be aware of it.



You might be missing the forest for the trees.........

[chemgear]

If they are a private business that does not receive subsidies from the government they should be able to deny anyone for whatever reason they want religious or not.

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/MFW+Teacher+Assigns+Homework+on+Weekend.+C+mon+Man _aec91d_4276857.gif

[moon]

Not according to the law, since 1964 in the US.

Why do you think allowing whites only restaurants is a good idea?

Because I think if you are running a private business you should be able to run it as you like.

If you want only whites go ahead. I am sure the backlash from community would affect whether the business is a success or not. If there is a need for a business that caters to other folks then it will pop up to deal with them.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Because I think if you are running a private business you should be able to run it as you like.

If you want only whites go ahead. I am sure the backlash from community would affect whether the business is a success or not. If there is a need for a business that caters to other folks then it will pop up to deal with them.

Ah yes, the "Libertarian Paradise" option. Let the free market solve the problem!

The reason these laws exist is because the free market wasn't solving the problem.

[photon]

Ah yes, the "Libertarian Paradise" option. Let the free market solve the problem!

The reason these laws exist is because the free market wasn't solving the problem.

But this time it will work for sure!

[squiggs96]

Lol! I blame the picture, Fox clearly framed it that way because it looks like a church.

Well the sign does say it's an art and framing place.

[Chingas]

There are many businesses that get away with being discriminatory to certain sectors of the public. They do it by a members only system and use the membership process as a way to discourage and sometimes outright refuse new members if and when they see fit.