Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[jc456]

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

why cause you say so? nope. they have the same freedoms as everyone else. and you are therefore discriminating against their rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What century are we in that conservatives still believe that discriminating is a civil right?

 

[jc456]

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.

oh the wittle PC cop is offended. fk political correctness and you.

 

[jc456]

What century are we in that conservatives still believe that discriminating is a civil right?

discriminating is all there is in the world and you're doing it right now. but you're too stupid to know it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

why cause you say so? nope. they have the same freedoms as everyone else. and you are therefore discriminating against their rights.

There is no right to discriminate in the operation of a business open to the public.

 

[hazlnut]

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?

The opinion piece left that out.

He ran an events business at his orchard for weddings. For profit. Guess who he wouldn't let get married at his banquet facility.

Most of the stories are leaving that out. Talk about "media bias"...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Your problem is you fail to recognize I don't give two shits what you spew.

 

[jc456]

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?

The opinion piece left that out.

He ran an events business at his orchard for weddings. For profit. Guess who he wouldn't let get married at his banquet facility.

Most of the stories are leaving that out. Talk about "media bias"...

so what does that have to do with selling vegetables at a flee/ farmers market? I bet he sold to geys.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

So you think the SC is infallible?

 

[jc456]

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

why cause you say so? nope. they have the same freedoms as everyone else. and you are therefore discriminating against their rights.

There is no right to discriminate in the operation of a business open to the public.

to force someone to go against their religious rights is discrimination fk head.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Jacques: Farmer gets boot for expressing his beliefs

I hope they kick the cities ass.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Your problem is you fail to recognize I don't give two shits what you spew.

Then put me on ignore so I don't have endure your mentally retarded comments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Right's obsession with protecting an imaginary right to bigotry is one of the best indicators of what the Right really is.

 

[jc456]

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.

Your problem is you fail to recognize I don't give two shits what you spew.

Then put me on ignore so I don't have endure your mentally retarded comments.

well you could ignore him. but you're too stupid to know that eh? LOL dude you're a fking kick.

 

[Rustic]

The Right's obsession with protecting an imaginary right to bigotry is one of the best indicators of what the Right really is.

It's really nobody else's business who sells to who, who buys from who... why the **** do you want to give a shit about such meaningless things? Unless of course you're a control freak?
Anybody else getting sick of the government meddling in personal business? Lol

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Your problem is you fail to recognize I don't give two shits what you spew.

Then put me on ignore so I don't have endure your mentally retarded comments.

You'd have to put me on ignore, dope. See I'm constantly schooling you

 

[Seawytch]

For the last time (probably not) it's not about personal opinions, he stated his farm was not open for gays to get married at. At that point it's no longer opinion and it's actual discrimination. Whether the city ordinance covers this or not is why it's going to court.

I think the baker's suit in the SCOTUS will settle this even faster.

And what Supreme Court precedent leads you to believe they will rule the way you want?

the one coming down for the baker, here:
Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple

"The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider whether a Denver baker acted lawfully in refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, setting up a major test next term weighing religious freedom against discrimination based on sexual orientation."

That isn't SCOTUS precedent. This is

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

well not yet, but it will be.

Why would you expect a different precedent being set?

 

[Camp]

The SCOTUS will probably show interest in the position of the baker in that case, in that the "belief" or opinion of the baker is not a tenet of the Christian religion, rather it is an interpretation by a specific denomination or faction of the Christian religion as a whole. Some Christian denominations and factions disagree with the interpretation of the baker and supporters of the baker. Hence, the interpretation is not a tenet of Christianity

If the baker's position can not be shown to be a tenet, supporting the baker's position opens up a big can of worms and promises chaos. It would mean any religious faction could simply interpret passages from their holy book and demand exception to various laws. Weird as it may seem, a ruling in the baker's favor could lead to forcing communities to accept Sharia law as interpreted by various Imans.

 

[jc456]

The Right's obsession with protecting an imaginary right to bigotry is one of the best indicators of what the Right really is.

your morals are not necessarily mine. I can't stand the way you wish to shit on everyone's right to things.

 

[jc456]

I think the baker's suit in the SCOTUS will settle this even faster.

And what Supreme Court precedent leads you to believe they will rule the way you want?

the one coming down for the baker, here:
Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple

"The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider whether a Denver baker acted lawfully in refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, setting up a major test next term weighing religious freedom against discrimination based on sexual orientation."

That isn't SCOTUS precedent. This is

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

well not yet, but it will be.

Why would you expect a different precedent being set?

the baker will win.