Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[Seawytch]

His farm is a business open to the public. He has to follow the law.

He did. No one is saying he didn't. Contrary to what you might believe, there are no laws mandating what personal opinions to have.

A baker might specialize in making cakes for same sex weddings and STILL voice the opinion that homosexuals are depraved scum that don't deserve to draw another breath. He's following the law.

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

What law did the farmer break? He never refused service to anyone. Why can't you wrap your head around that?

OMG he dared have an opinion that conflicts with the liberal world view ALARM SEIZE HIM!!!

TO THE OVENS!!!!!

 

[BluesLegend]

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

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

The law is unconstitutional and arbitrary.

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.

 

[RodISHI]

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

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

What law did the farmer break? He never refused service to anyone. Why can't you wrap your head around that?

He advertised that he refuses service on facebook. In other words, you can't just go around town throwing out flyers that your lunch counter doesn't serve ******* and expect that to be legal.

You must be another atheist asshole pushing your own agenda since you have also tried to argue about what Jesus would do when the lord clearly states in the word that being queer is an abomination in his sight. You going to start burning bibles next?

 

[HappyJoy]

Honestly, I can't say who will win, but I know you want him to win because you don't like homosexuals and the law really has nothing to do with what you think.

It's not that I don't like homos. They're just disgusting human waste. Other than that, they're stand-up guys.

anyone who wishes to stick their unit in the wrong hole is

Technically your anus is open for business so maybe you should open it up to gay weddings. Better yet, perhaps we should force you to. But you might enjoy that.

We have freedom of association in America, and just like a bar has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, a farmer has a right to refuse access to his farm to people who would engage in activities he finds morally objectionable.

Actually a bar does not have the right to refuse service to anyone.

sure they do. if you don't have shoes or shirt on, already drunk, look drunk, not old enough. it's amazing the things you stoops don't know.

Even I don't like your looks is sufficient to refuse service to anyone.

It's not as simple as that. You do not have the right to discriminate based on race, color, sex or national origin, that's federal law. Many state and local municipalities have further passed public accommodation laws protection sexual orientation.

It is as simple as that JC pointed out what an idiot you are when you said a bar couldn't deny service to anyone.

You can't throw someone out of your bar for being black, so deal with it.

Furthermore, You and Lansing city are too stupid to realize that they are the ones discriminating against the farmer and his family who merely made a statement about what he would reject at his private property where his home is also located. We reject communism and your fascist bs at every turn.

Doesn't matter if his home is located there or not, wherever on his land the ceremonies are held for a fee is a business and there are laws to follow.

He, did you ever wonder why communist and fascist countries aren't too big on homosexuality?

 

[BluesLegend]

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

What law did the farmer break? He never refused service to anyone. Why can't you wrap your head around that?

OMG he dared have an opinion that conflicts with the liberal world view ALARM SEIZE HIM!!!

TO THE OVENS!!!!!

Where's a good pike when we need to stake a Christian who dares speak.

 

[TheDude]

This ranks right up there with Miss American contestants being required to make a statement condemning the president.

Awww, is this the new conspiracy?

Do try to keep up.

Miss America Contestants Asked to Condemn President Trump

When were they required to make statements condemning the president? And why should they ask questions about the leader of the free world?

I guess this is going to be the latest nutbag conspiracy, start a thread on it yet?

Simply because it's a liberal setting, and liberals high-five one-another on liberal narrative. An honest conservative opinion would be booed, and there goes their goal for a crown.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

That law violates the First Amendment.

Public accommodation laws violate the first amendment?

 

[Seawytch]

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

What law did the farmer break? He never refused service to anyone. Why can't you wrap your head around that?

He advertised that he refuses service on facebook. In other words, you can't just go around town throwing out flyers that your lunch counter doesn't serve ******* and expect that to be legal.

You must be another atheist asshole pushing your own agenda since you have also tried to argue about what Jesus would do when the lord clearly states in the word that being queer is an abomination in his sight. You going to start burning bibles next?

Oh yeah? Quote the chapter and verse where Jesus said anything about gays...

 

[bripat9643]

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

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

That law violates the First Amendment.

Public accommodation laws violate the first amendment?

yes.

 

[HappyJoy]

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

The law is unconstitutional and arbitrary.

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.

 

[RodISHI]

It's not that I don't like homos. They're just disgusting human waste. Other than that, they're stand-up guys.

anyone who wishes to stick their unit in the wrong hole is

Actually a bar does not have the right to refuse service to anyone.

sure they do. if you don't have shoes or shirt on, already drunk, look drunk, not old enough. it's amazing the things you stoops don't know.

Even I don't like your looks is sufficient to refuse service to anyone.

It's not as simple as that. You do not have the right to discriminate based on race, color, sex or national origin, that's federal law. Many state and local municipalities have further passed public accommodation laws protection sexual orientation.

It is as simple as that JC pointed out what an idiot you are when you said a bar couldn't deny service to anyone.

You can't throw someone out of your bar for being black, so deal with it.

Furthermore, You and Lansing city are too stupid to realize that they are the ones discriminating against the farmer and his family who merely made a statement about what he would reject at his private property where his home is also located. We reject communism and your fascist bs at every turn.

Doesn't matter if his home is located there or not, wherever on his land the ceremonies are held for a fee is a business and there are laws to follow.

He, did you ever wonder why communist and fascist countries aren't too big on homosexuality?

They got sick of dealing with shit like is being pushed by you peeps and went rogue. The creepy billionaire atheist class is working it and who knows if this shit keeps up it may go that route.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

The law is unconstitutional and arbitrary.

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

 

[HappyJoy]

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

What law did the farmer break? He never refused service to anyone. Why can't you wrap your head around that?

He advertised that he refuses service on facebook. In other words, you can't just go around town throwing out flyers that your lunch counter doesn't serve ******* and expect that to be legal.

You must be another atheist asshole pushing your own agenda since you have also tried to argue about what Jesus would do when the lord clearly states in the word that being queer is an abomination in his sight. You going to start burning bibles next?

I don't usually get into debates about what Jesus said, it's just not my thing. Really, couldn't care less.

 

[BluesLegend]

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

The law is unconstitutional and arbitrary.

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

That one has gone full troll.

 

[HappyJoy]

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

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.

 

[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.

It belongs to every taxpayer, cockroach.

Including the farmer.

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

That law violates the First Amendment.

Bri, it's ok for them, they are allowed to discriminate. they don't understand what discrimination actually is.

 

[HappyJoy]

And there are responsibilities, like following the law.

The law is unconstitutional and arbitrary.

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The law is unconstitutional and arbitrary.

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

That one has gone full troll.

Stupid as a stump.

 

[jc456]

He did. No one is saying he didn't. Contrary to what you might believe, there are no laws mandating what personal opinions to have.

A baker might specialize in making cakes for same sex weddings and STILL voice the opinion that homosexuals are depraved scum that don't deserve to draw another breath. He's following the law.

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.