ROBERT and Cynthia Gifford have been ordered to pay $10,000 to the State of New York, and $3,000 in damages to a lesbian couple, for having refused to host a same-sex “wedding” ceremony at their home and business, Liberty Ridge Farm, near Albany. The Giffords had offered to host a reception for the couple but an administrative judge for the New York Division of Human Rights determined that the Giffords had indeed violated the human rights of the couple.

— Comments —

Buck writes:

This defendants didn’t have a snow ball’s chance in hell of winning. What a waste of time. No one seems to be thinking past his nose.

The defendants, certainly their lawyer, had to know that they we’re going to lose, no matter what they argued. So they pick the dumbest of all strategies; they argue that they aren’t a public accommodation. That’s one of the more pathetic “hail-marries” yet.

A year ago, almost to the day, I made a similar argument. Again we see that state “human rights” laws are more specific. They name the LGBTXYZs. Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act only specifies race, color, religion, and national origin. That’s the only prayer in hell that’s left.

If all the lawyers choose to run away from the only other potentially fruitful challenge, going instead to a goofy argument that a business is not a business, then as those lost cases pile up in state after state, each subsequent avoidence will be even more pointless.

But, if everyone sticks to their religious guns, like we saw with Hobby Lobby, there is something there to work with and a glimmer of chance at Title II.

Otherwise, I speculate, we’re just swirling down an open sewer.

Buck adds:

I omitted another issue with this finding, something that seems pervasive. A conspicuous effort is a repeated emphasize of the emotional state of the complainants (their pain and suffering), while completely disregarding the emotional state of the defendants (dismissing their pain and suffering as if they are non-human actors). This mind-set may be insurmountable.

Laura writes:

I don’t think it was a stupid argument. They do actually live at the farm.

They are reportedly considering pursuing the religious argument in court, but they were before the Division of Human Rights (a wedding is a human right, don’t you know) at this stage, and, as you say, the religious argument could not cut it.

Same-sex “marriage” was sold to the gullible masses because of the supposed oppression of homosexuals. And then with utter brazenness, the proponents institute oppression that was unknown to homosexuals in this country.

Buck writes:

That the Giffords live at the farm is not in dispute, but for purposes of their legal argument, it’s irrelevant. They were not hosting the weddings in their “home”. The first Respondent is Liberty Ridge Farm, LLC. The Giffords turned most of what was their “home” into a business intended to accommodate the public. They placed it in an LLC to limit their liability, and opened it up for business. They can’t have it both ways. People are increasingly confusing their personal and business lives and expecting them to be treated the same when it suits their needs, and objecting when it doesn’t. The Giffords can’t turn their business into a legal fiction because they got blind-sided by something that they should have seen coming. If you’re going to stay in business, then someone needs to tend to the store. The tyranny of same-sex marriage was out of the closet well before their clumsy rejection of the lesbian couple in October of 2012. New York legalized same-sex marriage in June, 2011.

Maybe the Giffords were hoping against hope that gaydom would pass them by, and if not, then they would do what they did; lob their Hail Mary hoping against hope.

Laura writes:

What do you think they should have done? Closed their business down?

Buck writes:

Thanks.

What should they have done? There had no good choices. They could close their business down. They could host frequent weddings for their “friends”. They could capitulate. They could continue to refuse all non-traditional ceremonies and pay the fines and penalties until the state tired of that and shut them down. They could continue their business but refuse to pay the fines and penalties until the state shut them down. They could surround the farm and their home with private militia and challenge the authority of the state. What we don’t know is, what was on the Giffords’ minds. What was their plan? Did they anticipate the inevitable? Did they actually believe that they were immune from the homosexualizing of the state? Or, were they planning to string it out as long as they could, then throw out an inexpensive and half-hearted defense just for grins? Did they have a clue?

Doesn’t matter what I or anyone else thinks that they should have done. If they intend to stay in business, the state tells them what to do.

Is it possible to somehow restructure the business and still live there or must they live elsewhere? I doubt it.

Had I or anyone else been able to give them advice, at least we would know for sure that they knew what to expect. Maybe they did, but opted out of a long legal battle. Maybe taking a principled stand wasn’t possible or important to them. Talking the talk is so much easier than walking the walk.

Laura writes:

There is nothing to suggest that they were clueless. In a two-minute phone call, they refused to host a same-sex wedding, but offered to do the reception. I’m not sure what else they could have done, short of closing down their wedding business. I know they are contemplating appeals. So they had to start somewhere to try and save their business and livelihood.

Buck writes:

I must admit that I was confused, and I may have been duped again.

That the Giffords broke the law is not a question. The state punished them. They may or may not appeal. If they do appeal, God only knows on what grounds.

You write that “there is nothing to suggest that they were clueless.” You may be part correct, and so may I. But, both for different reasons.

An adult husband and wife are raising their two children at their home, a home which they have turned into a business. Their ongoing business is weddings, festivals, corporate events and pumpkin chunkin, among a host of other events and farm markets. They live in New York state which legalized same-sex marriage.

If the Giffords, who are married adults, have been running a business on the one hundred acre property for nearly all of the twenty-five years that they have lived there, where they are raising their two children, have no idea that they can’t discriminate against homosexuals, then that suggest to me that they are clueless.

But, that’s what they said.

You ask me what they should have done and wonder what they could have done. My first response was “get a clue!” It’s against the law to refuse homosexuals. Either they know this or they don’t. I don’t find any indication that they knew that they were breaking the law, except for the fact that they admitted it as they denied it.

Unless you are arguing that the Giffords knew full well that they were in violation of the New York’s Human Rights Law, and purposefully and defiantly determined to challenge it in court, which may be the truth, then your objection to “clueless” may be correct. I suspect that that is not what you meant.

I’m no longer calling them clueless for the simple reason that I first thought them clueless. It’s more charming. They are still clueless, or at least they appear or pretend to be. I don’t know about Mr. Gifford, but Mrs. Gifford has offered a clue.

Mrs. Gifford said that their refusal of the homosexual couple was legal. But her stated reason for that claim is what suggests that she is clueless.

In May of 2011 the Giffords set up Liberty Ridge Farm, LLC and on January 1, 2012 leased their farm to it for fifteen years, and LRF opened to the public. Their home is now incorporated into the LLC. The Gifford family resides on the third floor of a 10,000 square foot mixed use commercial building, one of many buildings and structures in a sprawling complex of gardens, arenas, event and activity areas. The Gifford family also occupies space on the second floor, next to the bridal suite. There is a two hundred car parking lot and a trolley to accommodate the festival and corporate event goers.

Ma and Pa Kettle? Back woods farmers just trying to feed their kids? The Giffords obviously have a clue about something.

But, when Cynthia Gifford told Melisa McCarthy on that two-minute phone call that “we do not hold same sex marriages here at the barn” and explained that it was not illegal because “we are a private business”, she obviously had no clue about what she was saying. Or, she was playing dumb? If we go with clueless, rather than the greater evils, Mrs. Gifford must have heard the phrases “private company” and “public company” on the farm business channel and thought, yes, we are a private business.

That is the definition of clueless. She had absolutely no idea what that meant.

Then Mrs. Gifford tells McCarthy, who asked her for a reason, that “it’s a decision that my husband and I have made that that’s not what we wanted to have on the farm”.

So Ma and Pa Gifford didn’t just spontaneously decide during that phone call, that they didn’t do same-sex weddings. Ma had already discussed it with Pa and they had already made that decision.

“We’re a private business. You gals need to go to some public place.”

Laura writes:

Again, I don’t understand why you are suggesting they were naive or that they had no idea what the law was. What could they have done differently, other than shut down preemptively or said yes?

They only had two basic choices: to say yes or to say no. They had agreed in advance they were going to say no and were trying to be as accommodating as possible to the “couple” while resisting and to survive the administrative hearing as  best they could.

They should not have closed their business in anticipation of this problem. I don’t see how they could have handled this any better, except for not agreeing to do the reception too.

Nothing they could have said or done, short of agreeing to host the ceremony, would have made any difference. Once they received that phone call, they were doomed. They needed to offer a legal challenge and the fact that the business is their home seems to have been the best defense.

Buck writes:

The Giffords are either naïve or they’re pretending to be. What could they have done differently? As I said, they could have made an honest effort by arguing the truth. Or, is that not important? What else is there? They had to know that they were going to lose no matter what they said. Who has ever won with such a silly argument? “I’m not a business” or “I’m a private business” or “my business in not public”. What is that? How do you appeal that? How do you appeal to a higher court to hear a case based on nothing? “Supreme court, I’m here to re-argue that I’m not a public accommodation, that I’m not an LLC doing business, that I’m not selling to the public…” Really?

You write: “They needed to offer a legal challenge and the fact that the business is their home seems to have been the best defense.” That is my point. The business is not their home. Their home is part of a business. That was not their best defense. That was a feeble defense, a waste of time and money.

As I said at the beginning of this entry, the only shot we have at resisting this is religious accommodation. I would have thought that you would be all over that. The Giffords are Catholic. They claim that that is why they object. The courts understand fundamental Catholic doctrine and clearly they understand why a Catholic would object to hosting a same-sex wedding. That’s not a mystery to anyone. There’s your argument.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is a huge positive going forward. It’s not a first amendment decision, it’s statutory; it’s based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The decision recognizes the need for religious accommodation. We should be whipping this horse until it wins or drops. The Gifford’s court challenge pre-dated HL, but the RFRA has been there since 1993.

I’m running my mouth, and I’m not a lawyer. But, it seems clear to me that screwing around with dead-end arguments that would require re-writing long established chunks of tax code and the Civil Rights Act, simply makes no sense. To me, anyway.

 Laura writes:

Sorry, I was not following you. You mean they should have pursued the religious argument with the Orwellian  Human Rights Division even though that is probably not valid under state regulations, just as one is not allowed to discriminate racially for religious reasons in business transactions. Still, there is no reason why they could not have made that argument anyway.

Please follow and like us: