Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[RodISHI]

He didn't...it's quite simple. It's time you grasped it

That one has gone full troll.

Nope, nothing I've done in this thread has been trolling, just stating my opinion and you guys are falling all over the place.

We're pointing out until he refuses service he has broken no law. You're too ignorant to grasp it and think speech is regulated

Advertising that you discriminate is discrimination.

Not according to the court in the Elaine's Photography case. It was held that she could have any kind of disclaimer she wanted in her advertising as long as services were provided to same sex couples. She could have a disclaimer that said she personally opposed same sex marriage if she wished.

These dumb ass fascist case for an argument went moot before it was ever heard.

 

[hazlnut]

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU!

Jacques: Farmer gets boot for expressing his beliefs

I think we're done allowing homophobes to hide behind their twisted version of "Christianity".

If you're a homophobe just admit it and stop calling yourself "christian"... your ignorance about "traditional marriage" is laughable.

In the Bible the word WIFE refers to a girl who was sold by her father, traded for land and sheep.. That's 'traditional marriage'-- a rich man having as many wives and sex slaves as he could afford.

Does this farmer really support that? Or he just personally squeamish about penis and butts? That's his own insecurity about this his sexuality. Tell him to stop hiding behind some outdated backwards reading of the Bible, quoting lines out of historical/cultural context.

 

[HappyJoy]

He didn't...it's quite simple. It's time you grasped it

That one has gone full troll.

Nope, nothing I've done in this thread has been trolling, just stating my opinion and you guys are falling all over the place.

We're pointing out until he refuses service he has broken no law. You're too ignorant to grasp it and think speech is regulated

Advertising that you discriminate is discrimination.

You have to have an actual action. He refused service to nobody for the 1000th time, loon

Yes, the action was advertising. Just like a business can't just hang a sign that says "whites only" and expect to be in the clear.

 

[hazlnut]

And since the story appears in the Opinion section, I'm skeptical about the facts.

If he employs LGBT people and sells to anyone, there shouldn't be an issue.

Keep in mind, the first amendment doesn't protect you from a public backlash from exercising your rights.

Is the farmer's market run by local Gov. or private group?

 

[HappyJoy]

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

That law violates the First Amendment.

Public accommodation laws violate the first amendment?

yes.

They don't. Sorry, not even the 1964 civil rights act violates the first amendment.

yes it does.

Oh, sorry, which court came to that conclusion?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That one has gone full troll.

Nope, nothing I've done in this thread has been trolling, just stating my opinion and you guys are falling all over the place.

We're pointing out until he refuses service he has broken no law. You're too ignorant to grasp it and think speech is regulated

Advertising that you discriminate is discrimination.

You have to have an actual action. He refused service to nobody for the 1000th time, loon

Yes, the action was advertising. Just like a business can't just hang a sign that says "whites only" and expect to be in the clear.

You're just babbling to babble

 

[RodISHI]

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU!

Jacques: Farmer gets boot for expressing his beliefs

I think we're done allowing homophobes to hide behind their twisted version of "Christianity".

If you're a homophobe just admit it and stop calling yourself "christian"... your ignorance about "traditional marriage" is laughable.

In the Bible the word WIFE refers to a girl who was sold by her father, traded for land and sheep.. That's 'traditional marriage'-- a rich man having as many wives and sex slaves as he could afford.

Does this farmer really support that? Or he just personally squeamish about penis and butts? That's his own insecurity about this his sexuality. Tell him to stop hiding behind some outdated backwards reading of the Bible, quoting lines out of historical/cultural context.

Its is written very clear for those who follow the religious teachings of the Bible. Many verses already quoted in this forum about taking no part with evil minded humans.

Lev. 18
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

[HappyJoy]

He didn't...it's quite simple. It's time you grasped it

That one has gone full troll.

Nope, nothing I've done in this thread has been trolling, just stating my opinion and you guys are falling all over the place.

We're pointing out until he refuses service he has broken no law. You're too ignorant to grasp it and think speech is regulated

Advertising that you discriminate is discrimination.

Not according to the court in the Elaine's Photography case. It was held that she could have any kind of disclaimer she wanted in her advertising as long as services were provided to same sex couples. She could have a disclaimer that said she personally opposed same sex marriage if she wished.

That's different. She can talk about her personal views all she wants. This farmer specifically said that his business will not cater to gay weddings.

 

[HappyJoy]

As of now it's very constitutional, as for arbitrary, that's a matter of speculation. However I would presume that since homosexuals have been discriminated a in the past that there is nothing arbitrary about it.

Lib please it stomps all over his 1st amendment rights. We should just fence off part of the US and you libs can go live your depraved lives unfettered behind the razor wire.

He has the right to express his beliefs on homosexuality all he wants, he does not have the right (according to the city) to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's quite simple.

He didn't...it's quite simple. It's time you grasped it

He did, by his own admission he said his farm is not open to gay weddings, that is discrimination.

that is his freedom of speech. and you discriminated against him as did the city.

Nope, just like posting a sign that says "whites only" in front of your business is also not free speech.

 

[jc456]

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU!

Jacques: Farmer gets boot for expressing his beliefs

I think we're done allowing homophobes to hide behind their twisted version of "Christianity".

If you're a homophobe just admit it and stop calling yourself "christian"... your ignorance about "traditional marriage" is laughable.

In the Bible the word WIFE refers to a girl who was sold by her father, traded for land and sheep.. That's 'traditional marriage'-- a rich man having as many wives and sex slaves as he could afford.

Does this farmer really support that? Or he just personally squeamish about penis and butts? That's his own insecurity about this his sexuality. Tell him to stop hiding behind some outdated backwards reading of the Bible, quoting lines out of historical/cultural context.

ahhh look at you, pushing your morals over a message board. BTW, fk your morals.

 

[hazlnut]

A little searching around and I found the fact that was left out.

The farmer does not serve all. He opens his orchard as a banquet and events facility. Guess who he bans from having weddings at his for profit wedding orchard?

The writer of the Opinion piece left that out.

East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows told the Lansing State Journal that the city’s decision to exclude Country Mill—also known as Country Mill Orchard—from the farmers market had nothing to do with religious beliefs, but with the farm’s “business decision” not to host same-sex weddings.

“This is about them operating a business that discriminates against LGBT individuals, and that’s a whole different issue,” Meadows said, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market.

 

[jc456]

Lib please it stomps all over his 1st amendment rights. We should just fence off part of the US and you libs can go live your depraved lives unfettered behind the razor wire.

He has the right to express his beliefs on homosexuality all he wants, he does not have the right (according to the city) to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's quite simple.

He didn't...it's quite simple. It's time you grasped it

He did, by his own admission he said his farm is not open to gay weddings, that is discrimination.

that is his freedom of speech. and you discriminated against him as did the city.

Nope, just like posting a sign that says "whites only" in front of your business is also not free speech.

sure it is, it wasn't outside his business. so you're wrong.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Did you notice the government assholes think Lansing property is their personal property when it in fact belongs to the people. Very typical of government fiefdoms.

Of course it beongs to the people. The ones that voted for the ordinance violated by the farmer.

How did he violate the ordinance?

 

[Camp]

His farm is privately owned, it's still a business and there are laws he has to follow. I'm sorry you don't like it but it's nothing new.

What he accepts at his farm is not regulated by the city.

If he runs it like a business, there are laws. Just like if you own a restaurant, it's private property, that doesn't mean you're allowed to let the cockroaches run wild all over the place.

so someone can't refuse business to a white nationist or kkk or white supremacist? Trump Supporter? DOH!

Neither one of those groups is included in what SCOTUS has designated as a "protected class". Businesses have a wide range of reasons for refusing service. SCOTUS has ruled that discrimination and refusal to serve protected classes are not included in that range.

so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.

I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.

 

[jc456]

What he accepts at his farm is not regulated by the city.

If he runs it like a business, there are laws. Just like if you own a restaurant, it's private property, that doesn't mean you're allowed to let the cockroaches run wild all over the place.

so someone can't refuse business to a white nationist or kkk or white supremacist? Trump Supporter? DOH!

Neither one of those groups is included in what SCOTUS has designated as a "protected class". Businesses have a wide range of reasons for refusing service. SCOTUS has ruled that discrimination and refusal to serve protected classes are not included in that range.

so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.

I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.

again, the issue I have is this, that demanding someone accept someone elses principles violates the rights of that person. one can't try and correct discrimination by discriminating. that's all this is about. the man has his rights and is being discriminated against. that's all and it's simple. the government trying to force a person to accept another. it's fking wrong and it is discriminating. it is the swamp.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What he accepts at his farm is not regulated by the city.

If he runs it like a business, there are laws. Just like if you own a restaurant, it's private property, that doesn't mean you're allowed to let the cockroaches run wild all over the place.

so someone can't refuse business to a white nationist or kkk or white supremacist? Trump Supporter? DOH!

Neither one of those groups is included in what SCOTUS has designated as a "protected class". Businesses have a wide range of reasons for refusing service. SCOTUS has ruled that discrimination and refusal to serve protected classes are not included in that range.

so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.

I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.

SCOTUS is set to hear the Colorado baker's case....it's going to be hilarious when you loon's heads explode if they side with religious freedom.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you sell weddings, you have to sell to all legal couples.

 

[Camp]

If he runs it like a business, there are laws. Just like if you own a restaurant, it's private property, that doesn't mean you're allowed to let the cockroaches run wild all over the place.

so someone can't refuse business to a white nationist or kkk or white supremacist? Trump Supporter? DOH!

Neither one of those groups is included in what SCOTUS has designated as a "protected class". Businesses have a wide range of reasons for refusing service. SCOTUS has ruled that discrimination and refusal to serve protected classes are not included in that range.

so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.

I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.

SCOTUS is set to hear the Colorado baker's case....it's going to be hilarious when you loon's heads explode if they side with religious freedom.

I posted the SCOTUS hearing the case several pages back. So far the courts are siding with sexual orientation is a protected class, but it is true, the court could rule against it. The farmer's case will be directly impacted by the decision in the bakers case.

 

[jc456]

If he runs it like a business, there are laws. Just like if you own a restaurant, it's private property, that doesn't mean you're allowed to let the cockroaches run wild all over the place.

so someone can't refuse business to a white nationist or kkk or white supremacist? Trump Supporter? DOH!

Neither one of those groups is included in what SCOTUS has designated as a "protected class". Businesses have a wide range of reasons for refusing service. SCOTUS has ruled that discrimination and refusal to serve protected classes are not included in that range.

so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.

I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.

SCOTUS is set to hear the Colorado baker's case....it's going to be hilarious when you loon's heads explode if they side with religious freedom.

again, if I'm the baker's lawyer, I merely site to force the baker to violate his rights, is the law discriminating the baker's own religious rights. what the fk is the difference then?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If he runs it like a business, there are laws. Just like if you own a restaurant, it's private property, that doesn't mean you're allowed to let the cockroaches run wild all over the place.

so someone can't refuse business to a white nationist or kkk or white supremacist? Trump Supporter? DOH!

Neither one of those groups is included in what SCOTUS has designated as a "protected class". Businesses have a wide range of reasons for refusing service. SCOTUS has ruled that discrimination and refusal to serve protected classes are not included in that range.

so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.

I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.

SCOTUS is set to hear the Colorado baker's case....it's going to be hilarious when you loon's heads explode if they side with religious freedom.

No, we'll just be reminded of the danger of putting RW bigots on the Court.