Court upholds fine against farmers who won't host gay weddings

A New York court has upheld the $13,000 judgment against a couple who declined to host a same-sex wedding on their upstate farm.

The state’s Division of Human Rights found Robert and Cynthia Gifford guilty of discrimination in July 2014 and ordered them to pay a $10,000 fine and $3,000 in damages to the women who could not hold their ceremony at Liberty Ridge Farm. The Giffords paid the fine even as they continued to challenge its legality.

Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) argued the Giffords had the right to refuse to host certain events at their farm, where they also live, just like children in school have the right to refuse to salute the American flag, a First Amendment protection upheld in U.S. Supreme Court rulings. But the appeals court disagreed.

In its decision, the court acknowledged the state’s anti-discrimination law placed a “not inconsequential” burden on the Giffords’ religious freedom. But the court insisted the state is not requiring the couple to participate in same-sex weddings.

“Indeed, the Giffords are free to adhere to and profess their religious beliefs that same-sex couples should not marry, but they must permit same-sex couples to marry on the premises if they choose to allow opposite-sex couples to do so,” the ruling stated. “To be weighed against the Giffords’ interests in adhering to the tenets of their faith is New York’s long-recognized, substantial interest in eradicating discrimination.”

Although the Giffords argued their opposition to same-sex marriage did not equate to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation—which is prohibited by law—the appeals court disagreed.

“The act of entering into a same-sex marriage is ‘conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation’ and, for purposes of the Human Rights Law, we hold that there is ‘no basis for distinguishing between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on someone’s conduct of publicly committing to a person of the same sex,” the appeals court determined.

In making its decision, the court cited several other cases against Christian wedding service providers, including a photographer from New Mexico, bakers from Oregon and Colorado, and a florist from Washington—all represented by ADF. Religious liberty advocates hope at least one of these cases will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined in 2014 to hear the New Mexico photography case.

“The Constitution prohibits the government from forcing anyone to help communicate messages that conflict with their core beliefs about marriage,” said James Trainor, a private attorney working with ADF. “The Giffords welcome all people to the farm, but not all messages or events.”

A few months after the initial ruling against them, the Giffords decided to stop hosting weddings altogether, while still offering to host receptions—which they also offered to do for the lesbian couple who filed the complaint against them in 2012.

The law forbids discrimination, but it does not require business owners to do anything any potential customer requests, ADF argued in its brief.

“For example, if the infamous Westboro Baptist group asked the Giffords to host an event that would express their false message that God hates people in same-sex relationships, the Giffords would not be discriminating based on religion if they declined the event because they did not want to host expression that violates their belief that God loves everyone. … The statute does not require that they treat all messages equal,” the lawyers argued.