Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[NYcarbineer]

Until it's been declared unConstitutional....it is. Feel free to challenge any law's Constitutionality, RL.

So you're saying the decision is what makes it unconstitutional? That sounds like the mentality that something isn't a crime unless you get caught.

How else would it be held unconstitutional, if it wasn't ruled unconstitutional?

How do you prevent Congress from passing an unconstitutional law before they pass it?

The ruling doesn't make it unconstitutional. The ruling says that it is. If it's ruled unconstitutional, it was before the ruling took place.

Do you believe something is a crime only if the person gets caught?

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

You're making comically circular arguments.

Did you think the mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional?

 

[Conservative65]

You don't seem to understand that because you want the federal government to do it that makes it within their power.

I read what the Constitution says. You read for what you want it to say.

It's obviously within their power if it's the law of the land.

Are you claiming that every law passed is Constitutional?

Yes they are until ruled unconstitutional. That is the way the Constitution works.

Are you aware that the judiciary can only rule on the constitutionality of laws that are challenged in court?

So the wording changes when the decision is made?

Still using the it isn't illegal unless you get caught excuse I see.

You have every right to THINK a law is unconstitutional, if that's what you're ranting over.

You seem to think the decision rather than what the law says makes it unconstitutional. Using that logic, someone with cancer really doesn't have cancer until the doctors tells them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Until it's been declared unConstitutional....it is. Feel free to challenge any law's Constitutionality, RL.

So you're saying the decision is what makes it unconstitutional? That sounds like the mentality that something isn't a crime unless you get caught.

How else would it be held unconstitutional, if it wasn't ruled unconstitutional?

How do you prevent Congress from passing an unconstitutional law before they pass it?

The ruling doesn't make it unconstitutional. The ruling says that it is. If it's ruled unconstitutional, it was before the ruling took place.

Do you believe something is a crime only if the person gets caught?

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

It's obviously within their power if it's the law of the land.

Are you claiming that every law passed is Constitutional?

Yes they are until ruled unconstitutional. That is the way the Constitution works.

Are you aware that the judiciary can only rule on the constitutionality of laws that are challenged in court?

So the wording changes when the decision is made?

Still using the it isn't illegal unless you get caught excuse I see.

You have every right to THINK a law is unconstitutional, if that's what you're ranting over.

You seem to think the decision rather than what the law says makes it unconstitutional. Using that logic, someone with cancer really doesn't have cancer until the doctors tells them.

There is a legal authority to rule on constitutionality. You are not part of that decision. You're like the fan in the stands second guessing the umpires.

 

[Timmy]

Tough titties. The yokel can peddle his wares plenty of other places.

Discrimination is A-OK with you as long as you approve of it.

What a fucking scumbag you are.

It's not okay. Thus the ordinance. Scumbag.

That bunch of commies who passed that ordinance are going to learn they screwed the pooch with that dumb ass law. That farmer will take it to the Supreme Court. He knows the law and Constitution are on his side. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. (It protects the 1st)

More like the ACLU protects the first .

The only people the ACLU protects are the Free Shit Generation, deadbeats and trash.

They protect our rights more than anyone . They even take on cases for nasty people .in order to secure our rights .

 

[bodecea]

It's obviously within their power if it's the law of the land.

Are you claiming that every law passed is Constitutional?

Yes they are until ruled unconstitutional. That is the way the Constitution works.

Are you aware that the judiciary can only rule on the constitutionality of laws that are challenged in court?

So the wording changes when the decision is made?

Still using the it isn't illegal unless you get caught excuse I see.

You have every right to THINK a law is unconstitutional, if that's what you're ranting over.

You seem to think the decision rather than what the law says makes it unconstitutional. Using that logic, someone with cancer really doesn't have cancer until the doctors tells them.

Cancer doesn't have a third branch of government established to interpret the seriousness of the disease, does it?

Poor RL doesn't know the purpose of the 3rd Branch of our government.

 

[Conservative65]

So you're saying the decision is what makes it unconstitutional? That sounds like the mentality that something isn't a crime unless you get caught.

How else would it be held unconstitutional, if it wasn't ruled unconstitutional?

How do you prevent Congress from passing an unconstitutional law before they pass it?

The ruling doesn't make it unconstitutional. The ruling says that it is. If it's ruled unconstitutional, it was before the ruling took place.

Do you believe something is a crime only if the person gets caught?

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

You're making comically circular arguments.

Did you think the mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional?

Absolutely.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos where George asked him several times about the mandate being a tax, Obama said, "No. That's not true, George. The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs."

Strange thing is the Supreme Court upheld the mandate using the reasoning, wait for it, that the mandate could be considered a tax. When they did that, why didn't Obama step up and say that's not what it is, you're wrong?

As far as other parts of that statement, Obama's full of shit and not very knowledgeable about the difference between auto and health insurance. He said that "we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens . . ". The subsidies one person receives that others have to pay for is just that. If the burden on someone was (fill in the blank $) before Obama care and the burden on someone is the same amount to fund subsidies, how is that not carrying a burden for someone else? Can you tell me the difference between the purpose of auto insurance and the purpose off health insurance? If you can, you'll know Obama's full of shit. If you can't, you'll realize you are.

 

[Conservative65]

Discrimination is A-OK with you as long as you approve of it.

What a fucking scumbag you are.

It's not okay. Thus the ordinance. Scumbag.

That bunch of commies who passed that ordinance are going to learn they screwed the pooch with that dumb ass law. That farmer will take it to the Supreme Court. He knows the law and Constitution are on his side. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. (It protects the 1st)

More like the ACLU protects the first .

The only people the ACLU protects are the Free Shit Generation, deadbeats and trash.

They protect our rights more than anyone . They even take on cases for nasty people .in order to secure our rights .

Are you saying someone else has a right to what you earn?

 

[Conservative65]

Are you claiming that every law passed is Constitutional?

Yes they are until ruled unconstitutional. That is the way the Constitution works.

Are you aware that the judiciary can only rule on the constitutionality of laws that are challenged in court?

So the wording changes when the decision is made?

Still using the it isn't illegal unless you get caught excuse I see.

You have every right to THINK a law is unconstitutional, if that's what you're ranting over.

You seem to think the decision rather than what the law says makes it unconstitutional. Using that logic, someone with cancer really doesn't have cancer until the doctors tells them.

Cancer doesn't have a third branch of government established to interpret the seriousness of the disease, does it?

Poor RL doesn't know the purpose of the 3rd Branch of our government.

But cancer still exists in someone's body prior to that person knowing.

You're also arguing that something isn't a crime until the person gets caught. Stupid mentality from a stupid n*gger.

 

[mudwhistle]

Tough titties. The yokel can peddle his wares plenty of other places.

Violation of the bill of rights according to the US Constitution.
Free expression of religion shall not be infringed.

 

[g5000]

You pay a tax penalty if you don't take out a mortgage.

You pay a tax penalty if you don't have kids!

You pay a tax penalty if you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator!

You, the American people, INSIST on this insanity. You DEMAND this government behavioral control.

So you have only yourselves to blame for having to pay a tax penalty if you don't buy health insurance.

 

[Conservative65]

So you're saying the decision is what makes it unconstitutional? That sounds like the mentality that something isn't a crime unless you get caught.

How else would it be held unconstitutional, if it wasn't ruled unconstitutional?

How do you prevent Congress from passing an unconstitutional law before they pass it?

The ruling doesn't make it unconstitutional. The ruling says that it is. If it's ruled unconstitutional, it was before the ruling took place.

Do you believe something is a crime only if the person gets caught?

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

Are you claiming that every law passed is Constitutional?

Yes they are until ruled unconstitutional. That is the way the Constitution works.

Are you aware that the judiciary can only rule on the constitutionality of laws that are challenged in court?

So the wording changes when the decision is made?

Still using the it isn't illegal unless you get caught excuse I see.

You have every right to THINK a law is unconstitutional, if that's what you're ranting over.

You seem to think the decision rather than what the law says makes it unconstitutional. Using that logic, someone with cancer really doesn't have cancer until the doctors tells them.

There is a legal authority to rule on constitutionality. You are not part of that decision. You're like the fan in the stands second guessing the umpires.

The ruling isn't what makes it unconstitutional. The ruling simply says something that was passed before the ruling is.

 

[Conservative65]

You pay a tax penalty if you don't take out a mortgage.

You pay a tax penalty if you don't have kids!

You pay a tax penalty if you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator!

You, the American people, INSIST on this insanity. You DEMAND this government behavioral control.

So you have only yourselves to blame for having to pay a tax penalty if you don't buy health insurance.

Interesting how the black boy that has his name attached to it said it was absolutely not a tax to have a mandate with a penalty. Why wasn't he man enough to stand up and say the Court was wrong? I thought he was such a constitutional scholar.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How else would it be held unconstitutional, if it wasn't ruled unconstitutional?

How do you prevent Congress from passing an unconstitutional law before they pass it?

The ruling doesn't make it unconstitutional. The ruling says that it is. If it's ruled unconstitutional, it was before the ruling took place.

Do you believe something is a crime only if the person gets caught?

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

You're making comically circular arguments.

Did you think the mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional?

Absolutely.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos where George asked him several times about the mandate being a tax, Obama said, "No. That's not true, George. The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs."

Strange thing is the Supreme Court upheld the mandate using the reasoning, wait for it, that the mandate could be considered a tax. When they did that, why didn't Obama step up and say that's not what it is, you're wrong?

As far as other parts of that statement, Obama's full of shit and not very knowledgeable about the difference between auto and health insurance. He said that "we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens . . ". The subsidies one person receives that others have to pay for is just that. If the burden on someone was (fill in the blank $) before Obama care and the burden on someone is the same amount to fund subsidies, how is that not carrying a burden for someone else? Can you tell me the difference between the purpose of auto insurance and the purpose off health insurance? If you can, you'll know Obama's full of shit. If you can't, you'll realize you are.

So you were wrong about the mandate. See? You aren't the one who decides.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How else would it be held unconstitutional, if it wasn't ruled unconstitutional?

How do you prevent Congress from passing an unconstitutional law before they pass it?

The ruling doesn't make it unconstitutional. The ruling says that it is. If it's ruled unconstitutional, it was before the ruling took place.

Do you believe something is a crime only if the person gets caught?

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

Yes they are until ruled unconstitutional. That is the way the Constitution works.

Are you aware that the judiciary can only rule on the constitutionality of laws that are challenged in court?

So the wording changes when the decision is made?

Still using the it isn't illegal unless you get caught excuse I see.

You have every right to THINK a law is unconstitutional, if that's what you're ranting over.

You seem to think the decision rather than what the law says makes it unconstitutional. Using that logic, someone with cancer really doesn't have cancer until the doctors tells them.

There is a legal authority to rule on constitutionality. You are not part of that decision. You're like the fan in the stands second guessing the umpires.

The ruling isn't what makes it unconstitutional. The ruling simply says something that was passed before the ruling is.

Wrong. The ruling makes a constitutional law unconstitutional.

All laws that have never been challenged successfully are constitutional, your opinion of them notwithstanding.

 

[Conservative65]

The ruling doesn't make it unconstitutional. The ruling says that it is. If it's ruled unconstitutional, it was before the ruling took place.

Do you believe something is a crime only if the person gets caught?

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

You're making comically circular arguments.

Did you think the mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional?

Absolutely.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos where George asked him several times about the mandate being a tax, Obama said, "No. That's not true, George. The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs."

Strange thing is the Supreme Court upheld the mandate using the reasoning, wait for it, that the mandate could be considered a tax. When they did that, why didn't Obama step up and say that's not what it is, you're wrong?

As far as other parts of that statement, Obama's full of shit and not very knowledgeable about the difference between auto and health insurance. He said that "we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens . . ". The subsidies one person receives that others have to pay for is just that. If the burden on someone was (fill in the blank $) before Obama care and the burden on someone is the same amount to fund subsidies, how is that not carrying a burden for someone else? Can you tell me the difference between the purpose of auto insurance and the purpose off health insurance? If you can, you'll know Obama's full of shit. If you can't, you'll realize you are.

So you were wrong about the mandate. See? You aren't the one who decides.

Apparently the black boy President was, too since he said it wasn't a tax. Why didn't he do the honorable thing by standing up and saying it absolutely is not when the Supreme Court decided? He's just like the looters after the hurricane that think taking things that don't belong to them are theirs because they have them in their possession.

 

[Conservative65]

The ruling doesn't make it unconstitutional. The ruling says that it is. If it's ruled unconstitutional, it was before the ruling took place.

Do you believe something is a crime only if the person gets caught?

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

So the wording changes when the decision is made?

Still using the it isn't illegal unless you get caught excuse I see.

You have every right to THINK a law is unconstitutional, if that's what you're ranting over.

You seem to think the decision rather than what the law says makes it unconstitutional. Using that logic, someone with cancer really doesn't have cancer until the doctors tells them.

There is a legal authority to rule on constitutionality. You are not part of that decision. You're like the fan in the stands second guessing the umpires.

The ruling isn't what makes it unconstitutional. The ruling simply says something that was passed before the ruling is.

Wrong. The ruling makes a constitutional law unconstitutional.

All laws that have never been challenged successfully are constitutional, your opinion of them notwithstanding.

The ruling only says whether it is or not. For what you say to happen means the wording would have to change.

 

[Camp]

Breaking News Breaking News Breaking News

The farmer in the topic of this thread is still operating his business and organizing and conducting marriages. The business is located outside of the Lansing City limits and the city has no jurisdiction outside of the city limits. Neither the county or state have taken action. The authorities with jurisdiction where the business is located seem to be staying out of the dispute. The dispute with the city caused the business to close for 0 days. That is zero impact on the operation of the farm business or event rentals.

Check for yourself at the Country Mill web site.

countrymillfarms.com

Country Mill Farms is scheduled to have a hearing for a proposed law suit today against the city of Lansing that would allow them to operate a farm stand in the town limits during next years farmers market season.

 

[Seawytch]

You're deflecting from the question. Who has said Jesus never talked about marriage? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Nothing, Not a word. He did have some things to say about divorce though didn't he? Was it good? Did he approve of divorce?

Are you saying that Jesus would have approved of your homosexual marriage? He did indicate, when referencing God's word in the OT, that marriage was between a man and a woman didn't he?

Jesus never specifically mentioned lots of things that I suspect you'd say are wrong. Not a word. Are you saying that they are OK because Jesus didn't say a word about them?

Oh look...You're deflecting again. Jesus actually mentioned divorce did he not? Jesus himself actually condemned divorce in no uncertain terms, is that not correct? Why are no bakers, florists, photographers, pizza kitchens or farmers refusing to serve divorced people? Jesus never said diddly about gays but "Christians" feel it's their "god given" duty to refuse to serve them....but happily bake wedding cakes for fat couples (gluttony is a deadly sin) and divorcees remarrying. Why the selective enforcement?

Oh look, you're ignoring that Jesus didn't mention your type of marriage and but mentioned my type.

No, I'm acknowledging he said nothing about gays...but he did mention divorce. Why aren't divorced people being denied service by these "good Christians"?

He also mentioned marriage being between a man and a woman. Why do you ignore that?

What's to ignore? It was pretty much the only kind there was over 2,000 years ago. So what? It has nothing to do with the questions posed. Your continued deflection is noted.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying that Jesus would have approved of your homosexual marriage? He did indicate, when referencing God's word in the OT, that marriage was between a man and a woman didn't he?

Jesus never specifically mentioned lots of things that I suspect you'd say are wrong. Not a word. Are you saying that they are OK because Jesus didn't say a word about them?

Oh look...You're deflecting again. Jesus actually mentioned divorce did he not? Jesus himself actually condemned divorce in no uncertain terms, is that not correct? Why are no bakers, florists, photographers, pizza kitchens or farmers refusing to serve divorced people? Jesus never said diddly about gays but "Christians" feel it's their "god given" duty to refuse to serve them....but happily bake wedding cakes for fat couples (gluttony is a deadly sin) and divorcees remarrying. Why the selective enforcement?

Oh look, you're ignoring that Jesus didn't mention your type of marriage and but mentioned my type.

No, I'm acknowledging he said nothing about gays...but he did mention divorce. Why aren't divorced people being denied service by these "good Christians"?

He also mentioned marriage being between a man and a woman. Why do you ignore that?

What's to ignore? It was pretty much the only kind there was over 2,000 years ago. So what? It has nothing to do with the questions posed. Your continued deflection is noted.

Things you don't like that the Bible addresses. It has to do with you claiming things the Bible says then ignoring it when you don't like. Jesus didn't mention your kind of marriage. Tell me He didn't think it was a valid kind either.

 

[RodISHI]

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.

EVERYTHING you have is the government's....you only have what you have because they LET you have it...temporarily.

That does seem to be the thing from the left and 'you didn't build anything'. I'm thinking if that is the case we can just seize whatever those who believe that shit has and distribute their goods, wealth, what ever among the middle class and poor they screwed over to get their billions or millions.