Gay Mafia Claims Another Victory – Private Farmer Fined/Sued For Not Allowing Lesbian Wedding On Private Property…

We shared last year that New York would be the epicenter of all gay issues because their gay marriage law intentionally demands 49 state reciprocity in recognizing legal marriage.

gay-womenThe latest victory claimed by the Gay Mafia comes as a result of a set up. Two gay advocates recorded a phone conversation with a farmer where they asked permission for a lesbian wedding, when the farmer politely declined – – the civil rights commission complaint was immediately filed and the subsequent lawsuits began. Poor farmers didn’t stand a chance….

The phone call at 8:30 p.m. seemed routine for Cynthia and Robert Gifford—a bride-to-be inquiring about holding a wedding at their home, Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York.

Then Cynthia Gifford realized the caller wanted to book their family farm near the village of Schaghticoke for a same-sex wedding. She politely declined.

“We’re not hateful people,” Gifford said in an interview with The Daily Signal, holding back tears. “We just believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and we do not want to hold a [same-sex] marriage ceremony here on our family farm because the state tells us we have to do it.”

In this special video report from The Daily Signal, Cynthia Gifford tells the story of the government’s unexpected action to punish her and her husband for their religious beliefs. Their attorney, James Trainor of the Alliance Defending Freedom, explains the constitutional issues at stake.

Initially, Gifford—a Christian, as is her husband—had no idea the caller was recording their conversation.

That was Sept. 25, 2012. The lesbian couple, Melisa Erwin and Jennifer McCarthy, soon filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights.

In July, an administrative law judge ruled that by not agreeing to hold the wedding at their home, the Giffords discriminated against the couple, who had their wedding elsewhere. A state human rights commissioner last month fined the Giffords $10,000 and ordered them to pay the women $1,500 each. (read more)

Gay filla

This entry was posted in A New America, Big Stupid Government, Christian Values, Conspiracy ?, Cultural Marxism, Gay Issues, media bias, Notorious Liars, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Gay Mafia Claims Another Victory – Private Farmer Fined/Sued For Not Allowing Lesbian Wedding On Private Property…

  1. ZurichMike says:

    The conversation was recorded without the farm owners’ knowledge? Isn’t that illegal?

    Liked by 5 people

    • Not in all states. In mine, only one is needed. You would not believe how hard one of my federal informants has tried to get me to use the “N-word” on the phone. So I fill their hard drives with a litany of federal crimes instead. It’s fun.


    • St. Benedict's Thistle says:

      It is legal in New York, as long as one of the parties is aware of the recording.


  2. czarowniczy says:

    Why good heavens, they should have called a farmer in my area, the declination would not have been so polite. We have several 1/2-ton plus bulls who’d be glad to officiate, might even kiss the bride.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. robert morgan says:

    Sorry to say this, but normal people need to learn to hate if they want to survive. The “others” hate them with a passion and will wipe them off the earth without blinking. And how appropriate to see these monsters with a “boom box”- one of the worst inventions of all time!

    Liked by 1 person

    • yankeeintx says:

      I refuse to allow someone or something turn me into a hater. I was raised not to hate and the word wasn’t allowed in our house. That being said, I am rethinking the expressions of “loving someone to death” and “killing with kindness”. As the Marines say, if their goal is to meet their maker and obtain 72 virgins, they can help arrange the meeting.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. conservalicious says:

    Ugh, that picture is so offensive. 🙀


  5. tessa50 says:

    I am not understanding how this can happen. Unless I read wrong, this is their private property, so why can’t they legally say no? I thought I read it all but still not getting it.


    • sundance says:

      The farmer and family had allowed the community to use the property for fall harvest festival and pumpkin patch, thereby extending “public accommodation” to the use of their private property.

      Once they began allowing the general public, even just the local community, to participate in events on their property, they became subject to “accommodation” rules which would apply to business ownership.

      Legal business rules/laws like Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance et al, then become attached to the use of the land. The property owner is, as a consequence, then subject to the same laws which apply to public business, discrimination, civil rights act 1964, and associated legal obligations.

      Hence, the farmer must make all accommodations based on legal requirement and cannot discriminate on any protected category. Age, race, national origin, pregnancy, disability, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. etc.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It seems like there should be a loophole to get around this…perhaps making attendance at any event “by invitation” or something to that effect. It would be time-consuming, but could be done. Then again, their idea is a good one, too – we just won’t do ANY ceremonies, only receptions. It isn’t fair and I’m sure they’re going to now lose a lot of business as a result but it DOES solve their issue.

        Once again, negative government intrusion in our lives. It’s time for a new revolution in this country. Our government is, and has been, completely out of control.


      • lineman says:

        Well you know what they say “No good deeds ever go unpunished…


    • BertDilbert says:

      The problem is that they run business and part of the year they are open to the public. By enforcing their belief they are infringing/discriminating on others on others belief. To comply with the law they are stopping wedding ceremonies but will still hold receptions on the property.

      Supposing they came up with an angle to pursue a legal challenge, would the income derived from wedding receptions pay for the lawyers?

      Even if they claimed the act of kissing was a homosexual act that defiles the area from having regular ceremonies, the state might come in and say you have to provide a separate facility much like you have to have a handicap bathroom to accommodate the disabled.

      On the bright side at least the couple was not running a motel. ..


    • 2x4x8 says:

      folks are going to have to designate themselves as a private club, being Christian as the entrance key to get in, not a non-profit, like discriminating country club golf courses


      • Moishe Pipik says:

        “Christian” won’t work. There are many main-stream Christian groups that will officiate and recognize same-sex marriages:

        While I support same-sex marriage, I also support the right of creative people (like cake decorators) and small businesses to refuse to do business with anybody. I wouldn’t want to rent out my property for a “Hip-Hop Concert”, for example.

        What this couple did wasn’t an honest attempt to find a venue–they tried to entrap someone with their tape recorder ready. Why would you want to force someone who doesn’t like you to take your money when there probably are other options around? It’s pure malice.

        Liked by 2 people

    • elvischupacabra says:

      What we need is a test case where a homosexual couple wants to get married in a venue owned by Muslims.

      Watch the Left hoist themselves on their own petard!

      Liked by 5 people

  6. Andrei says:

    There’s no way to beat these people without going bad on them. Whatever it takes. Do it. Make them disappear or they’ll have everything you own and you’ll be sent to the gulag. Take the gloves off and do not be tolerant any longer. Go for the throat.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Prenanny says:

    This “couple” is united in hatred towards others, it wil not end well for them.
    They do not know what love is come a day they wil see how ugly eachother is at their core.
    disgusting …..

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Prenanny says:

    one word FRACKING.. they wouldn’t need to cater to evil.


  9. Prenanny says:

    sorry to keep posting but have the two evil cows gotten married elsewhere> I could find no news that they have……


  10. This is always such a tough issue for me, because I am pro gay marriage. I’m pro marriage in general, because I feel it adds stability to society for people to make that commitment and proceed accordingly. So if two guys or girls want to get married and create a household, I’m fine with that.

    What I am against is this constant hate crime/everyone must think like I do bull s-word. How on earth can that farm be your perfect place if the owners don’t want gay people to get married there?


    • sundance says:

      The issue is one of “freedom”.

      I support the right of the two women to get married (their freedom), it’s their choice.

      However, I also support the right of the property owner to discriminate against anyone for any reason – this is also their freedom, and should be their choice.

      The freedoms of any individual, or party, should not infringe on the freedoms of another individual, or party. By forcing the farmer to indulge the lesbian couple, only one groups freedom is respected. This is the reason why government should not be involved in the decisions of private entities.

      Public entities (individuals and/or organizations) transportation, education, etc. can be held to a divergent standard, as defined by the local, state or federal authority – that’s why people should vote.

      However, private entities, individuals or organizations -those existing within a free market system- should not be held to the same standard(s) as public ones.

      It is, in essence, the fatal flaw in the 1964 civil rights act and all the attachments that have grown as a result. Private citizens (not part of federal, state or local subsidy) should be free to discriminate and allow the “free market” to determine the preference of the societal customer base. Just my opinion.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Oh, I totally agree. The idea of punishing/forcing a job creator to give in to this kind of thing is anathema to me. I’m a free market girl all the way…and I feel business owners should have autonomy to set their rules about who they should serve.


        • texan59 says:

          Whatever became of the “We deserve the right to refuse service” that I used to see when I was growing up? I guess that ship has sailed.

          Liked by 7 people

          • Well, until the shirtless and shoes-less become protected classes, which will be next. “That’s discriminatory because they can’t afford shoes or clothes, and you’re a RACISS for expecting them to!!”

            Liked by 1 person

          • michellc says:

            I often wonder that as well and although I still see the signs I always think, “yeah except when you do you will be sued.” I also have heard of a few who were sued for doing just what their sign says.


            • michellc says:

              BTW, although I hate no gun signs on businesses, I still support their right to have them. I won’t do business with them and will let them know why I won’t do business with them, but I would never sue them.

              I think a loophole for this farmer though could be to hire one or two specific pastors to conduct the ceremonies and then use that as the reason to not do the gay weddings, the pastors as of now anyway can’t be forced to perform gay weddings. Although that is another goal of theirs, force pastors and Churches to marry gays.


      • “However, private entities, individuals or organizations -those existing within a free market system- should not be held to the same standard(s) as public ones.”

        Exactly. Common sense would dictate that unless an entity is receiving some measure of government consideration, i.e. tax-exempt status, subsidy, funding, etc. they should NOT be subject to discrimination laws in any form.


      • BertDilbert says:

        Yeah people in business should be allowed to discriminate who they do business with but if they choose to do so, they would need to place that discrimination in all advertising. For instance if people running a restaurant do not want to serve gays, they would need to put that on their restaurant sign and all TV and radio spots they do etc. That way people do not show up expecting to be served only to be turned away.

        For small towns that can only support one business and there is no alternative business that a gay can go to, then the business or town should pay reasonable travel expenses to the gay party that was denied service.


        • not surprised says:

          ”For small towns that can only support one business and there is no alternative business that a gay can go to, then the business or town should pay reasonable travel expenses to the gay party that was denied service.” Are you joking ?


          • BertDilbert says:

            No I am not. Let’s say a small town only has one barber shop as there are only enough heads in town to support one barber. If the barber will not cut a gay persons hair then the barber should pay reasonable travel expenses so the gay can get a haircut. If the barber does not want to pay then he can move his business to a larger community which has choice, allowing a new barber to spring into business that will cut a gay persons hair.

            Supposing the tables were turned and a Muslim bought the only gas station in town and decided Christianity was wrong and decides not to server anyone with a Jesus sticker on their car. He can have his right to his belief as long as he is willing to pay reasonable travel expenses so you can get your tank topped off.

            This system allows everyone to exercise their beliefs as long as they can afford to. .


      • Hughes Angell says:

        Wow, if this is not validation of the saying ‘no good deed goes unpunished’ I don’t know what would be more apt. Allow the community to hold a fundraiser for the family of a soldier killed in combat on your property and find you are now forced to allow a group of transvestites to hold an event too is real punishment.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Along the same lines, I feel that photographers and cake decorators are artists and trying to ‘force’ inspiration is not going to get pleasing results. I just don’t understand it.


  12. TeddyOn20th says:

    So as a result of this incident, the two women end up $3,000 richer as compensation for their emotional suffering, and the state comes away with $10,000? Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

    Liked by 6 people

    • Sure is, isn’t it? Not to mention the attorneys who will now profit from the ensuing lawsuits. In a real display of irony, many of those attorneys fighting it and making money representing people unfairly penalized by this nonsense will have either supported candidates who implemented the policies to start with or openly supported the policies themselves. Poetic Injustice.


  13. supajohnny says:

    Reblogged this on Your Dog Wouldn't Like It and commented:
    Lord Jesus Christ, you ordained that a Marriage is a Holy ceremony that joins ONE MAN to ONE WOMAN as long as both live. They then live as one flesh producing future generations of Humans.
    God never intended Marriage to be a political pantomime for Godless people to parade their hatred and rebellion against God.
    So I pray, Lord please comfort and protect the Gifford family during this, their trial, in your Holy Name. The name above all names that of Jesus the Christ (Yesuah);

    Liked by 2 people

  14. yakmaster2 says:

    No religious freedom for the farmer—even on his own property. That couple’s generosity to their community has gotten them kicked in the teeth. Other property owners should take note and decide whether they want to be hi-jacked the same way. Gay activists are not doing themselves or society any favors by using these strong-arm tactics. Aggressive in-your-face behavior is hostile and irritates me and many others.
    You’re Gay and wanna get married, then do it without purposefully making an issue out of it.
    PS. Curiously, these activists don’t target Muslim caterers, wedding planners, etc. etc. Now THAT would put the liberal government in a very AWKWARD predicament wouldn’t it????!!

    Liked by 7 people

    • justice099 says:

      Surely there is a conflict here in the laws that are also meant to protect the freedom of religious expression. The state was trying to essentially force them to participate in a sin according to their beliefs. This is the same reason I supported Hobby Lobby.

      Why can’t people just respect each other? If I were gay, I would simply have found another venue and respected the farmer’s beliefs.


    • justice099 says:

      Also, what blows my mind is the same people that will attack a Christian simply saying they pray for a victim will go on to defend muslims.

      I am discouraged about the mental capacity of the majority in this country. Sometimes it hard for me not say we are deserving exactly what we are getting.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Curiously, these activists don’t target Muslim caterers, wedding planners, etc. etc.”

      And if they did, the outcome would be 160 degrees divergent of the outcome here. Count on it.


  15. justice099 says:

    Gay marriage is a very complicated topic often muddled in emotional BS.

    A) “Marriage” is a religious tradition. When one gets married, they first LEGALLY get joined, and then they go and do a ceremony based on their own religion. I have no qualms about a gay couple becoming legally joined and getting the same benefits that a heterosexual couple enjoys. However, it is a DIRECT attack on religion to call it “marriage.” Perhaps the word marriage should be removed from the legal language.

    B) It should have been very clear to this judge that this couple was purposefully setting up the farm owners here. The farm owners should counter-sue for conspiracy and extortion. They no doubt already knew how the farm would respond when they decided to record the call. Nothing should have been rewarded to them.

    C) This entire liberal policy of “Intolerance of Intolerance” is nothing more than moral fascism. If I had been a gay person, I simply would have respected the owner’s beliefs and found a different venue. But no, these evil wenches wanted to force it on someone. SD has a far greater ability to communicate in writing than I do, his comment above regarding this was spot on.

    One of my best friends was a black transgendered gay man (I say was because he was murdered.) He was also a religious man and very active in his church. We talked about these things quite often. He knew it was a sin, but we are all born sinners and one sin is no different than any other sin. My friend would have been angry over this. Angry that these women did this. It was hateful because it was an attack on those farmer’s beliefs. My friend would have known that according to those farmer’s beliefs, it was a sin for them to participate in the couple’s sin. Having this position is not the same as hate.

    And we (meaning Christians) should understand that the path to heaven is through Jesus. Jesus died for our sins. Once you are saved, you will pass in to heaven regardless of your sins.

    Anyway, I don’t hate gays, but I do hate bigots of any form. And these two women are bigots towards Christians.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Thank you. The fact they recorded this call screams entrapment.

      Liked by 5 people

      • joanfoster says:

        Not only entrapment, but perhaps a set up by the State of NY. Just like cameras at traffic lights, refusing to assist gay weddings is becoming a revenue stream for the state.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Jonathan Cohen says:

      You can never repeat Eric Hoffer’s words often enough:

      “Great causes begin as movements, become businesses and end up as rackets.”

      The public accommodations part of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was enacted because among others, professional baseball players such as Willie Mays and hank Aaron, traveling in the south had to stay at hotels for blacks and not with the rest of the players and had to eat at restaurants for blacks and not with their teammates.

      It is sad that the 1964 Civil RIghts Act which ended a great injustice against black people has now become a tool for two gay women to defraud a farm couple out of $3000 and for government extortionists to pick up a $10,000 share in the bounty.

      Liked by 2 people

      • justice099 says:

        The real irony of it is that the people that crafted that bill would have denied these women themselves. A good lawyer could most probably craft that case to develop the ‘spirit of the law’ by researching the prior writings of those that crafted it to determine their frame of mind.


    • JunieG says:

      One would think that catering to gay weddings would be a profitable economic niche! 100% guaranteed to to offend, or come across anyone who has a moral objection to your same sex marriage. Why choose the path of resistance? Did they already have an inkling the farmers were conservative Christians and desire to take the Mickey out of them? Sounds that way, tape recording the conversation and all. It’s hard to be sympathetic towards any group of people who sought out a vendor in order to punish, to slap them across the face for having a moral objection, how every politely they state it. I know sweet gay couples who would never set out to hurt someone who had polite objections to them. What I can’t stand is the aggressive in-your-face bullying. Are they gleeful that this family has to pay the government a fine of $10,000 for being polite traditional Christians? There are crimes that injure far more deeply than being denied a venue for your wedding that have to pay out far less than this. This is awful.


  16. doodahdaze says:

    It has become Halloween 365 days a year in America.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. dsb steve says:

    I have never heard a national level republican advocate a change to the anti discrimination laws. No republican I know wants to change title IX that forces colleges to effectively defund sports programs. Myself, I think it is crucial that an individual be allowed to discriminate as they see fit.


    • justice099 says:

      You aren’t going to see any politician of either party attempt to make any changes to hot button topics because they are too useful for keeping the population polarized into voting for them.

      If someone came in and did something about abortion, for example, what would they talk about then? They might actually be expected to stand on principles, then.

      That is why issue voting is completely stupid to me.


      • michellc says:

        Some states would but they’ll never follow the constitution to allow states to do so, which is why they always sue states like mine that try to ban abortion, gay marriage, sharia law, illegals, affirmative action, etc.


  18. libby says:

    I was raised by lesbians for a coupla’ years myself.
    Though I support their rights to form long lasting bonds that engender a spectrum of rights (AND RESPONSIBILITIES), i dont call it marriage, per se, as that is between a man and a woman, these pro rights groups trample on the rights of service providers like the nice farmers.
    Gender rights? Men largely are ignored.
    Racial equity? Whites maligned and severely limited in their rights.
    Gay rights? Us straights still have rights, too, and we aint ready to give them up

    Liked by 2 people

  19. joanfoster says:

    I don’t understand why the owners are willing to have wedding receptions for gay couples, but not the ceremony. It would seem to me that by even allowing the reception you have given your stamp of approval for the marriage. I would shut the farm down and see if the people of my community care enough about it to pitch in and help with the legal fees.


  20. Tkim says:

    Probably the only time I agreed with Bill Maher is when he said there is a gay mafia in this country and if you run afoul of them you will be whacked.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. stella says:

    They made the right decision, for them, to stop marriage ceremonies of any type. I’m sure it was an accommodation for their guests in the first place – how much money would they make for a marriage ceremony? They will still have their income from receptions, so all is well for them in that respect. It seems to me that the losers are those who want to get married at their farm. Instead of being inclusive, the legal suit excludes everyone.


  22. elvischupacabra says:

    Left Logic: Reciprocity for “gay marriage” but not for Concealed Carry.

    Let me carry concealed in NY and California under my Second Amendment right, and we’ll talk about reciprocating the SCOTUS-constructed “right” to homosexual marriage between the states.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hughes Angell says:

      Excellent point, in particular because if one carries a firearm it is not reasonable to expect that person to either know or conform to different state firearm laws as they travel on the interstate highway system. One might expect the commerce clause to require reciprocity for a gun permit. OTOH one’s marital status would not affect the ability to travel or conduct business across state lines.


  23. mcfyre2012 says:

    It’s all part of the game.

    After publically shaming the farmer (and maybe making some money), the newly-married couple will move to a state that doesn’t allow gay marriage. Soon after, they’ll file for divorce in that state, which forces the gay marriage issue to the fore-front again, trying to force their new state to accept gay marriage as legal.

    Liked by 4 people

  24. Angie says:

    The farm couple should have rented loudspeakers and blared either religious sermons or religious music throughout the ceremony.
    I have no problem with gay people or with them getting married if they choose to but I have a huge problem with the violation of owner’s property rights.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Sharon says:

    When I go into my garage I don’t turn into a car and no matter what gays say or what paper they get, married is not the result. I can claim I’m a car all day long. Doesn’t change the meaning of the word.

    I’m sick of turning the re-definitions of words over to people who change them just because they don’t like the meanings; and they get by with it because those who understand the language are intimidated.

    The white dresses they always flaunt are a complete (wicked) joke. Unfortunately, those whose hold on power depends on deception will always find an audience willing to be deceived.

    These female grifters are a lot of things, but married ain’t one of them.

    Those are comfortable with them calling their civil nonsense marriage shouldn’t be troubled when incest is declared lawful (under discussion in Germany – this week) and multiple spouses are made legal (under discussion in Utah – last week).

    Liked by 2 people

    • justice099 says:

      You know, really by the same definition they used in this case, a court could force a church to hold these ceremonies.

      I think it would be very easy to have this overturned.


      • Sharon says:

        Yup. If they can get some “minor” precedents set then those can be used as the leverage for the next step.

        We gotta stop this blasted over-compensating as they take down one perimeter fence after another. 😦

        Liked by 1 person

  26. i8bugs says:

    Cripe. C’mon folks, are you learning nothing? Charge them full price and donate the money to “Focus on the Family”. “…wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Jesus- Matt 10:16)

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s