Christian couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm

Judgment - Public Domain

Cynthia and Robert Gifford are caught in a same-sex nightmare. They’ve been forced to defend themselves against claims that they’re lesbian-hating homophobes.

“We respect and care for everyone!’’ Cynthia Gifford told me. “We had an openly gay man working for us this past season,’’ she said.

“We’ve had a woman who’s transitioning to be a man. We don’t discriminate against anyone.’’

But the government of the state of New York sees things differently. The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

***If you are a news addict, be sure to bookmark The Most Important News and visit on a daily basis for the very best breaking news, articles and videos from all over the Internet!***

1 thought on “Christian couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm”

  1. As long as they fine Muslums for not allowing a Christian Wedding on their grounds. . .
    The problem is equality. Everyone has the right to believe what the want in this country.
    That does not give them the right to violate their basic belief system. If someone believes pork will harm you and is an abomination to eat pork, we do not force them to eat pork. Neither do we force anyone to perform ceremonies that are considered an abomination in their religious beliefs.
    But the godless judges doing this either do not understand the rules of religious belief in this country. The idea is to be neutral. Not biased in the direction of any one person’s beliefs.
    They will wish they had never started this. A good lawyer can cut them to ribbons in a case like this based strictly on constitutional rights.

Comments are closed.