NY Farm Couple Must Still Pay Thousands in Fine for Refusing to Host Gay Wedding

News Staff : Jan 15, 2016
CBN News

"All Robert and I want is the freedom to peacefully live and work faithfully on our family farm and according to what God says about marriage without fear of government punishment. The America we love is one where we respect each other's differences, and the government still protects the freedom to have those differences. Others have the freedom to say or not say what they want to about marriage, and that's all we are asking for, as well." -Cynthia Gifford

(New York)—[CBN News] A New York court has upheld a state decision to fine a farm couple for refusing to host a lesbian wedding on their property. (Photo via LifeSiteNews)

The New York Division of Human Rights ruled in July 2014 that Cynthia and Robert Gifford were guilty of "sexual orientation discrimination" for refusing to allow Melisa and Jennifer McCarthy to use their "place of public accommodation" for their same-sex ceremony.

The Giffords said doing so would violate their conscience, but invited the two women to use their property for their reception site.

The state agency has ordered the Giffords to pay a fine of $10,000 plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to implement re-education training classes.

On Thursday, the New York Supreme Court appellate division upheld the order and fines.

Melisa McCarthy originally called Cynthia Gifford in 2012 to ask about the use of Gifford's farm for her upcoming same-sex ceremony. [Because of her Christian faith's teachings on marriage, Cynthia politely told McCarthy that she and her husband don't host and coordinate same-sex ceremonies but left open an invitation to visit the farm to consider it as a potential reception site. Instead, McCarthy and her partner filed a complaint with the Division of Human Rights.]

Caleb Dalton, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom who represented the Giffords, said "the government went after both this couple's freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property."

"The court should have rejected this unwarranted and unconstitutional government intrusion, so we will consult with our client regarding appeal," he said.