Memo on The New York Marriage Equality Act - Case Study Example

Memorandum al Affiliation) Memorandum Federal Civil Rights Statute that maybe a Basis for the Claim of the Clients The New York Marriage Equality Act This act can be used as a basis for argument for Jennifer McCarthy and Melissa Erwin to make their claim regarding the manner by, which they were treated by the Giffords, when they intended to book a same sex wedding on the Gifford’s Liberty Ridge Farm. The New York Marriage Equality Act is a 2011 law applicable in the state of New York as of July 2011. This act provides equal right to marriage to both males and females regardless of their sexual orientation i.e. regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. However, this law does not permit courts as well as local governments from subjecting religious, religious monitored institutions, clergy as well as their employees into penal acts for refusing to sanctify or recognize marriages that are against their religious doctrines. Human Rights Law Cap 269 (2) This law provides freedom to access of all places of public accommodation to persons of divere sexual orientation, religious affiliations, ethnic, cultural and political affiliations. That is, this law guarantees all citizens living in New York the freedom and the right to access all places that have been made public for provision of accommodation services. According to this law the term “public place of accommodation” includes road houses, inns, taverns, motels and hotels. The public is free to access such facilities whether for purposes of health, food, entertainment and rest. Additionally, this law provides the freedom and rights to the populace of New York to access saloons, parks enclosure and bar rooms where spirituous as well as malt liquors are sold; the public is also able to access ice-cream parlors, soda fountains, confectionaries and all any other facility that has been opened with an intention to provide services and products to the general public. Facts that Support Claims from the Statutes Provided From case provided, taking into consideration the telephone conversation that was recorded by Jennifer McCarthy between Mrs. Gifford and Melisa Erwin, it is indicated that Mrs. Gifford answered Melisa politely that they could not host a lesbian or same sex marriage on the Liberty Farm. This is a fact that could be claimed using the New Marriage Equality Act of 2011. The act hinders any kind of discrimination that may be directed to persons intending to engage in same sex marriage. It is therefore a fact that Mr. and Mrs. Gifford violated the terms of the New York Marriage Equality Act, by specifically asserting that they could not host McCarthy and Melisa’s wedding on their Liberty Ridge Farm on the basis that they were Lesbians. In relation to the New York Human Rights Act Cap 269 (2), an aspect of violation also occurs from Mr. and Mrs. Gifford. To begin with, the Liberty Ridge Farm has been at the disposure of the general public, basically offering grounds for various ceremonies for over five years. In this regard, taking into consideration the stipulations of the Human Rights Act Cap 269 (2), the Liberty Ridge Farm is regarded as a public business venture that offers accommodative services to the general public of New York. Therefore, the act of denying Melisa and McCarthy access to the Liberty Ridge Farm on the basis of their sexual orientation in itself is a violation of this act. Melisa and McCarthy could use this provision to support their case. Facts that Should be Investigated to Determine of the Claims under these Statues are Viable An investigation into the New York Executive Law, specifically article 15 of this law indicates that it is unlawful and discriminatory for the owner, proprietor, lessee or manager of any public place of accommodation to indirectly or directly refuse, deny or withhold from their clients the advantages or privileges of such place solely on the basis of their sexual orientation whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. This law cites such an act as unacceptable, objectionable and unwelcomed and against the New York Human Rights Law cap 269 (2) a. In accordance to New York Executive Law Cap 300, it is recognized that the provision of Human Rights Law “will be constructed in a liberal manner for the achievement of the purposes thereof”. Any business that provides accommodative services to the general public even on premises owned privately, is regarded as a place of public accommodation, in this regard, such place are open for any comer. In Baskin et al vs. Bogan et al, it is comprehensively stated that same sex marriage should be looked as marriage, thus simply referred as marriage. The case identified the fact that when gender as well as sexual orientation is taken way from same marriage couples, they are similar to heterosexual couples, meaning that they are both equal and are a family. The United States Constitution demands that they are awarded similar treatment like heterosexual couples. On the other hand, the New York Fair Housing Act stipulates various provisions that hinder discrimination when it comes to leasing, renting, and lease renewal services. These stipulations may be applicable in the case of the Giffords vs. McCarthys. Basically, the McCarthys were interested in renting the Liberty Ridge Farm for a short period of time during their wedding ceremony; however, the Giffords claimed that they could not rent theur property to same sex couples; this is a discriminatory act and is barred by the New York Fair Housing Act. Possible Counterclaims from the Defendants One possible counter claim from the respondent is that Gifford Barn is their private premises and home and thus is not open to the general public. In this regard, the respondent may claim that they have a right to manage and determine who accesses and who does not access their private property. Additionally, the respondent or the defendant may claim that Liberty Ridge Farm is a distinctively private property and may not be in a position to determine who accesses its services and who does not access its services. That is, a distinctively public places of accommodation i.e. a distinctively private club, institution or any other public place. This basically means that the owners considers such property private, but on the other hand offers services to specifically selected members of the public. The Giffords as the respondents may also claim that their selection of their clients is guided by their religious beliefs that solely consider marriage between a man and a woman morally and spiritually acceptable. In this regard, the respondents may claim that their selection was based on a heterosexual marriages, thus this is the reason Melisa and Jennifer the chance to perform their wedding ceremony in the Liberty Ridge Farm. On the other hand, the respondents may also claim that their Liberty Ridge Farm has a policy that do not allow same sex couples to hold their wedding ceremonies on the farm. However, the couples could have not been denied a chance to visit the farm for their wedding reception. In this regard, the respondent would argue that an invitation for Jennifer and Melisa to visit the farm was not rescinded, thus no unlawful prejudice took place. References Couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/ Top of Form Bottom of Form Supreme Court Review. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://supremecourtreview.com/ Defense of Marriage Act (H.R. 3396) signed into law on September 21, 1996 U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) Loving v. Virginia, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967) Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2014 WL 4347099 (E.D. Louisiana) Baskin v. Bogan, Civ. Nos. 14-2386 to 14-2388, 14-2526 (7th Cir. 2014) Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) Title VIII The Fair Housing Act New York City Human Rights Laws- Fair Housing Provisions. Burwell , Secretary of HHS et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. 573 U.S.____(2014) Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs et al., Petitioners vs. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. Housing & Contractual Relations 42 USC 1981 & 42 USC 1982 Civil Rights Act of 1964: Non-Discrimination in Federally-Assisted Program Read More