Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[Weatherman2020]

The irony here is that the farmer is claiming discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate. His farm has not been affected because his farm is not in the city, it is outside of the city and continues to operate unimpeded. His complaint is that he is not allowed to operate at a vendor site provided by the city inside the city.

The farmer was promoting a service that had nothing to do with his "crops" being sold. He operates various services and hosts events at his farm, including a banquet hall used for weddings and facilities for holding the actual wedding. When potential customers tried to arrange to use those facilities and services at his farm stand in the city at the city owned farmers market, they would be denied. Hence, the farmer was violating the anti-discrimination ordinances of the city and putting the city in jeopardy of becoming a defendant as part of any law suits filed by third parties for supporting discrimination and ignoring its own anti-discrimination laws.

The farmer's argument and point is that he should be allowed to discriminate because of his beliefs, but the city, via decisions made by elected officials, should not be able to discriminate because of their beliefs, legal obligations, adherence to what they understand as enforceable law or any other reason, including the concept that the city is protecting a purely business decision to protect and project the reputation of the operation of the city owned and operated farmers market.

So a city can discriminate simply based upon the opinions of its elected officials?

Yes, you leftists are fascists.

anti discrimination isnt discrimination


thats really goofy


i guess civil rights are discriminatory against racists


murder laws are discriminatory against murderers


derpppl

Since the city of Berzerkly discriminates, any city can ban a Berzerkly government official from it's borders. Sounds good to me.

 

[martybegan]

People have them, and this person when engaging in commerce doesn't lose their 1st amendment protections.

Not being sponsored by taxpayers =/= losing 1st amendment protections.

How is this being "sponsored" If a couple selling jam at the market is also a bunch of swingers is East lansing now "sponsoring" swinging?

Uh, yea

Just like Disney can fire a retard for smoking meth and plastering it all over his social media that says "employed at disney" in his profile


nobody has to sponsor that trash

Disney is not a government entity.

Thanks for playing, you fascist twat.

No, it was an example of how an entity sees themselves as "endorsing" something if it happens off their own property for you, since the concept confuses ya

Your example doesn't make any sense regardless of you explanation.

 

[Seawytch]

I would not want do it as I would consider it murdering one's own child.

Neither would I unless it was medically necessary...but I support a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

How could the baby be her body, as it has different DNA, different fingerprints, often different blood type and sex?

Until it is living outside of it, it's her body.

 

[G.T.]

The irony here is that the farmer is claiming discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate. His farm has not been affected because his farm is not in the city, it is outside of the city and continues to operate unimpeded. His complaint is that he is not allowed to operate at a vendor site provided by the city inside the city.

The farmer was promoting a service that had nothing to do with his "crops" being sold. He operates various services and hosts events at his farm, including a banquet hall used for weddings and facilities for holding the actual wedding. When potential customers tried to arrange to use those facilities and services at his farm stand in the city at the city owned farmers market, they would be denied. Hence, the farmer was violating the anti-discrimination ordinances of the city and putting the city in jeopardy of becoming a defendant as part of any law suits filed by third parties for supporting discrimination and ignoring its own anti-discrimination laws.

The farmer's argument and point is that he should be allowed to discriminate because of his beliefs, but the city, via decisions made by elected officials, should not be able to discriminate because of their beliefs, legal obligations, adherence to what they understand as enforceable law or any other reason, including the concept that the city is protecting a purely business decision to protect and project the reputation of the operation of the city owned and operated farmers market.

So a city can discriminate simply based upon the opinions of its elected officials?

Yes, you leftists are fascists.

anti discrimination isnt discrimination


thats really goofy


i guess civil rights are discriminatory against racists


murder laws are discriminatory against murderers


derpppl

Since the city of Berzerkly discriminates, any city can ban a Berzerkly government official from it's borders. Sounds good to me.

im sure this made sense

 

[G.T.]

Not being sponsored by taxpayers =/= losing 1st amendment protections.

How is this being "sponsored" If a couple selling jam at the market is also a bunch of swingers is East lansing now "sponsoring" swinging?

Uh, yea

Just like Disney can fire a retard for smoking meth and plastering it all over his social media that says "employed at disney" in his profile


nobody has to sponsor that trash

Disney is not a government entity.

Thanks for playing, you fascist twat.

No, it was an example of how an entity sees themselves as "endorsing" something if it happens off their own property for you, since the concept confuses ya

Your example doesn't make any sense regardless of you explanation.

I foretold itd confuse you and.
...voila!

shit you dont even know what free speech means...how can i not win

 

[Seawytch]

Condoned normal marriages (i.e. - man and woman).

Church marriages didn't even begin until long after Christ was dead.

Where did I say church marriages? I said man and woman. That's what makes it normal based on what Jesus said in Matthew 19 repeating w

Condoned normal marriages (i.e. - man and woman).

Church marriages didn't even begin until long after Christ was dead.

I said marriages between a man and a woman were the standard of normal. It's what Jesus taught in Matthew 19 repeating the standard set by God the Father in Genesis 2.

Not my fault you ignore that standard.

1. Jesus never said a thing against gays and gay marriage
2. Our secular laws don't have to have anything to do with your so-called religion

Jesus never said a thing about murder.
In Leftardia that means Jesus condones murder.

However, murder is mentioned: 1) elsewhere in the bible, and 2) in most other religions and governments because.......it harms others.
Hint: look up "The Golden Rule"

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20

 

[martybegan]

How is this being "sponsored" If a couple selling jam at the market is also a bunch of swingers is East lansing now "sponsoring" swinging?

Uh, yea

Just like Disney can fire a retard for smoking meth and plastering it all over his social media that says "employed at disney" in his profile


nobody has to sponsor that trash

Disney is not a government entity.

Thanks for playing, you fascist twat.

No, it was an example of how an entity sees themselves as "endorsing" something if it happens off their own property for you, since the concept confuses ya

Your example doesn't make any sense regardless of you explanation.

I foretold itd confuse you and.
...voila!

shit you dont even know what free speech means...how can i not win

It's not confusing me you moronic fuck-tard, you are not arguing the point.

This is a government entity trying to punish a person for their views, even though they follow all the fucking rules when inside the government's jurisdiction.

That you get a hard on and jerk off to justifying government bullying someone over their views is not my problem, you cheap dime store hack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would not want do it as I would consider it murdering one's own child.

Neither would I unless it was medically necessary...but I support a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

How could the baby be her body, as it has different DNA, different fingerprints, often different blood type and sex?

Until it is living outside of it, it's her body.

That's a made up excuse for those who want to use murder to hide their mistakes.
Almost every single abortion is for convenience and nothing more.



Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?


'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.

That's called logic.

 

[G.T.]

Uh, yea

Just like Disney can fire a retard for smoking meth and plastering it all over his social media that says "employed at disney" in his profile


nobody has to sponsor that trash

Disney is not a government entity.

Thanks for playing, you fascist twat.

No, it was an example of how an entity sees themselves as "endorsing" something if it happens off their own property for you, since the concept confuses ya

Your example doesn't make any sense regardless of you explanation.

I foretold itd confuse you and.
...voila!

shit you dont even know what free speech means...how can i not win

It's not confusing me you moronic fuck-tard, you are not arguing the point.

This is a government entity trying to punish a person for their views, even though they follow all the fucking rules when inside the government's jurisdiction.

That you get a hard on and jerk off to justifying government bullying someone over their views is not my problem, you cheap dime store hack.

You invented this all in your head.

Theyre not punishing him - the government punishing someone looks like what, knucklehead??? Fines, arrests and prosecutions.

Theyre simply not inviting him to an event because they feel the business' interests dont represent its constituents.

Theres no "right" to attend the event, knucklehead.

 

[Camp]

The irony here is that the farmer is claiming discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate. His farm has not been affected because his farm is not in the city, it is outside of the city and continues to operate unimpeded. His complaint is that he is not allowed to operate at a vendor site provided by the city inside the city.

The farmer was promoting a service that had nothing to do with his "crops" being sold. He operates various services and hosts events at his farm, including a banquet hall used for weddings and facilities for holding the actual wedding. When potential customers tried to arrange to use those facilities and services at his farm stand in the city at the city owned farmers market, they would be denied. Hence, the farmer was violating the anti-discrimination ordinances of the city and putting the city in jeopardy of becoming a defendant as part of any law suits filed by third parties for supporting discrimination and ignoring its own anti-discrimination laws.

The farmer's argument and point is that he should be allowed to discriminate because of his beliefs, but the city, via decisions made by elected officials, should not be able to discriminate because of their beliefs, legal obligations, adherence to what they understand as enforceable law or any other reason, including the concept that the city is protecting a purely business decision to protect and project the reputation of the operation of the city owned and operated farmers market.

So a city can discriminate simply based upon the opinions of its elected officials?

Yes, you leftists are fascists.

It depends on the legal definition being used. Legal based vs. opinion based and whether the discrimination is against the SCOTUS definition of "protected classes". Sexual orientation is not defined as a protected class by the SCOTUS. It is defined as a protected class via an executive order. Whether the SCOTUS will define it as a constitutionally protected class or not is currently in the process of being heard before the full SCOTUS as early as next month. At the time of the incidents related to the farmer's case and present, the definition of protected classes legally includes sexual orientation. Discrimination by the elected officials based on opinions of those elected officials would put the city in jeopardy of law suits. They are able to discriminate only because their decision is based on federal and state laws.

 

[martybegan]

Disney is not a government entity.

Thanks for playing, you fascist twat.

No, it was an example of how an entity sees themselves as "endorsing" something if it happens off their own property for you, since the concept confuses ya

Your example doesn't make any sense regardless of you explanation.

I foretold itd confuse you and.
...voila!

shit you dont even know what free speech means...how can i not win

It's not confusing me you moronic fuck-tard, you are not arguing the point.

This is a government entity trying to punish a person for their views, even though they follow all the fucking rules when inside the government's jurisdiction.

That you get a hard on and jerk off to justifying government bullying someone over their views is not my problem, you cheap dime store hack.

You invented this all in your head.

Theyre not punishing him - the government punishing someone looks like what, knucklehead??? Fines, arrests and prosecutions.

Theyre simply not inviting him to an event because they feel the business' interests dont represent its constituents.

Theres no "right" to attend the event, knucklehead.

There is no right for a government to prevent someone from attending for their viewpoints. As long as he follows the rules when in East Lansing he cannot be singled out for what he does legally in other jurisdictions.

What part of this isn't sinking into your room temperature IQ head?

 

[G.T.]

No, it was an example of how an entity sees themselves as "endorsing" something if it happens off their own property for you, since the concept confuses ya

Your example doesn't make any sense regardless of you explanation.

I foretold itd confuse you and.
...voila!

shit you dont even know what free speech means...how can i not win

It's not confusing me you moronic fuck-tard, you are not arguing the point.

This is a government entity trying to punish a person for their views, even though they follow all the fucking rules when inside the government's jurisdiction.

That you get a hard on and jerk off to justifying government bullying someone over their views is not my problem, you cheap dime store hack.

You invented this all in your head.

Theyre not punishing him - the government punishing someone looks like what, knucklehead??? Fines, arrests and prosecutions.

Theyre simply not inviting him to an event because they feel the business' interests dont represent its constituents.

Theres no "right" to attend the event, knucklehead.

There is no right for a government to prevent someone from attending for their viewpoints. As long as he follows the rules when in East Lansing he cannot be singled out for what he does legally in other jurisdictions.

What part of this isn't sinking into your room temperature IQ head?

That you made it up, and do not know what free speech means.

 

[RodISHI]

You are very confused between what is private and public.

The farmers market is public.

that means, taxpayer funded.

his business is private.

which means - if he wants to attend a tax payer endorsed event, he cant be a bigot.

its pretty simple, and not a free speech issue at all.

He wasn't being a "bigot" as he did not deny anyone service at his booth at the farmers market. You on the other hand seem to think that you can decide what someone has the right to do in a totally separate venue which his private property is totally separate from the farmers market.

No, dont put words in my mouth.

Theyre not dictating what he can and cant do....he can still do it. derppppp

Theyre dictating who theyll invite or not, and what theyll base that decision on, and face the voters to say yay or nay to those decisions they make.

So in essence you are telling us that it is fine and dandy for the city to discriminate against a person for their personal religious beliefs. FU and that nasty ass horse you ride.

No, the city has an ordinance for their damn farmers market and theyre allowed to have standards based on who they invite sherlock

how could the voters ever fix that fascism!!!! err meee gerddd!!!

vote a new legislature.


ohhh....guess its not fascism then, derpppll

The irony here is that the farmer is claiming discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate. His farm has not been affected because his farm is not in the city, it is outside of the city and continues to operate unimpeded. His complaint is that he is not allowed to operate at a vendor site provided by the city inside the city.

The farmer was promoting a service that had nothing to do with his "crops" being sold. He operates various services and hosts events at his farm, including a banquet hall used for weddings and facilities for holding the actual wedding. When potential customers tried to arrange to use those facilities and services at his farm stand in the city, they would be denied. Hence, the farmer was violating the anti-discrimination ordinances of the city and putting the city in jeopardy of becoming a defendant as part of any law suits filed by third parties for supporting discrimination and ignoring its own anti-discrimination laws.

The farmer's argument and point is that he should be allowed to discriminate because of his beliefs, but the city, via decisions made by elected officials, should not be able to discriminate because of their beliefs, legal obligations, adherence to what they understand as enforceable law or any other reason, including the concept that the city is protecting a purely business decision to protect and project the reputation of the operation of the city owned and operated farmers market.

When the city can prove that the man discriminated against anyone at that venue which the city host they may have a point. Until then they are pissing on his constitutional rights to freedom of speech, his right to worship and choose the religion he has and they are inhibiting his ability to enjoy life and liberty. The City of Lansing are being obstructionist perhaps they should read Michigan's own constitutional preamble and learn from it too!



CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.
§ 1 Political power.
Sec. 1.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.

§ 2 Equal protection; discrimination.
Sec. 2.

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.

§ 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition.
Sec. 3.

The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.


§ 4 Freedom of worship and religious belief; appropriations.
Sec. 4.

Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose. The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.

§ 5 Freedom of speech and of press.
Sec. 5.

Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.


more at link.....Michigan Legislature - Constitution-I

 

[HappyJoy]

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

Don't try to dodge you fascist fuck. You get a hard on being an asshole to people over political disagreements.

This man did nothing to discriminate when selling his product, he got banned for his views.

Fuck off and Die you miserable sack of shit.

His business discriminates against gay people. Thus the metaphorical booting out of the metaphorical door.

Except it's illegal, he never refused to sell to anyone. The city will pay through the nose for this colossal blunder.

Dumb ass leftists

He refused services at his farm, per his facebook post:

This past fall our family farm stopped booking future wedding ceremonies at our orchard until we could devote the appropriate time to review our policies and how we respectfully communicate and express our beliefs. The Country Mill engages in expressing its purpose and beliefs through the operation of its business and it intentionally communicates messages that promote its owners’ beliefs and declines to communicate messages that violate those beliefs. The Country Mill family and its staff have and will continue to participate in hosting the ceremonies held at our orchard. It remains our deeply held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and Country Mill has the First Amendment Right to express and act upon its beliefs. For this reason, Country Mill reserves the right to deny a request for services that would require it to communicate, engage in, or host expression that violates the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs and conscience. Furthermore, it remains our religious belief that all people should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of their beliefs or background. We appreciate the tolerance offered to us specifically regarding our participation in hosting wedding ceremonies at our family farm.

So, at least get the idea that it's about first amendment rights, though the guy himself doesn't even seem to understand that.

Again, how does that mean East Lansing can deny him a spot at their Farmer's Market as long as he follows the Jurisdiction's rules in the jurisdiction?

That's up to the court to decide.

 

[G.T.]

The farmers market is public.

that means, taxpayer funded.

his business is private.

which means - if he wants to attend a tax payer endorsed event, he cant be a bigot.

its pretty simple, and not a free speech issue at all.

He wasn't being a "bigot" as he did not deny anyone service at his booth at the farmers market. You on the other hand seem to think that you can decide what someone has the right to do in a totally separate venue which his private property is totally separate from the farmers market.

No, dont put words in my mouth.

Theyre not dictating what he can and cant do....he can still do it. derppppp

Theyre dictating who theyll invite or not, and what theyll base that decision on, and face the voters to say yay or nay to those decisions they make.

So in essence you are telling us that it is fine and dandy for the city to discriminate against a person for their personal religious beliefs. FU and that nasty ass horse you ride.

No, the city has an ordinance for their damn farmers market and theyre allowed to have standards based on who they invite sherlock

how could the voters ever fix that fascism!!!! err meee gerddd!!!

vote a new legislature.


ohhh....guess its not fascism then, derpppll

The irony here is that the farmer is claiming discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate. His farm has not been affected because his farm is not in the city, it is outside of the city and continues to operate unimpeded. His complaint is that he is not allowed to operate at a vendor site provided by the city inside the city.

The farmer was promoting a service that had nothing to do with his "crops" being sold. He operates various services and hosts events at his farm, including a banquet hall used for weddings and facilities for holding the actual wedding. When potential customers tried to arrange to use those facilities and services at his farm stand in the city, they would be denied. Hence, the farmer was violating the anti-discrimination ordinances of the city and putting the city in jeopardy of becoming a defendant as part of any law suits filed by third parties for supporting discrimination and ignoring its own anti-discrimination laws.

The farmer's argument and point is that he should be allowed to discriminate because of his beliefs, but the city, via decisions made by elected officials, should not be able to discriminate because of their beliefs, legal obligations, adherence to what they understand as enforceable law or any other reason, including the concept that the city is protecting a purely business decision to protect and project the reputation of the operation of the city owned and operated farmers market.

When the city can prove that the man discriminated against anyone at that venue which the city host they may have a point. Until then they are pissing on his constitutional rights to freedom of speech, his right to worship and choose the religion he has and they are inhibiting his ability to enjoy life and liberty. The City of Lansing are being obstructionist perhaps they should read Michigan's own constitutional preamble and learn from it too!



CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.
§ 1 Political power.
Sec. 1.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.

§ 2 Equal protection; discrimination.
Sec. 2.

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.

§ 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition.
Sec. 3.

The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.


§ 4 Freedom of worship and religious belief; appropriations.
Sec. 4.

Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose. The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.

§ 5 Freedom of speech and of press.
Sec. 5.

Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.


more at link.....Michigan Legislature - Constitution-I

The man cant establish the "right" to be invited to a fucking event

especially since he uses company media to violate the ordinance and express discrimination, in writing!

the fack do you folks eat in the morning

 

[RodISHI]

He wasn't being a "bigot" as he did not deny anyone service at his booth at the farmers market. You on the other hand seem to think that you can decide what someone has the right to do in a totally separate venue which his private property is totally separate from the farmers market.

No, dont put words in my mouth.

Theyre not dictating what he can and cant do....he can still do it. derppppp

Theyre dictating who theyll invite or not, and what theyll base that decision on, and face the voters to say yay or nay to those decisions they make.

So in essence you are telling us that it is fine and dandy for the city to discriminate against a person for their personal religious beliefs. FU and that nasty ass horse you ride.

No, the city has an ordinance for their damn farmers market and theyre allowed to have standards based on who they invite sherlock

how could the voters ever fix that fascism!!!! err meee gerddd!!!

vote a new legislature.


ohhh....guess its not fascism then, derpppll

The irony here is that the farmer is claiming discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate. His farm has not been affected because his farm is not in the city, it is outside of the city and continues to operate unimpeded. His complaint is that he is not allowed to operate at a vendor site provided by the city inside the city.

The farmer was promoting a service that had nothing to do with his "crops" being sold. He operates various services and hosts events at his farm, including a banquet hall used for weddings and facilities for holding the actual wedding. When potential customers tried to arrange to use those facilities and services at his farm stand in the city, they would be denied. Hence, the farmer was violating the anti-discrimination ordinances of the city and putting the city in jeopardy of becoming a defendant as part of any law suits filed by third parties for supporting discrimination and ignoring its own anti-discrimination laws.

The farmer's argument and point is that he should be allowed to discriminate because of his beliefs, but the city, via decisions made by elected officials, should not be able to discriminate because of their beliefs, legal obligations, adherence to what they understand as enforceable law or any other reason, including the concept that the city is protecting a purely business decision to protect and project the reputation of the operation of the city owned and operated farmers market.

When the city can prove that the man discriminated against anyone at that venue which the city host they may have a point. Until then they are pissing on his constitutional rights to freedom of speech, his right to worship and choose the religion he has and they are inhibiting his ability to enjoy life and liberty. The City of Lansing are being obstructionist perhaps they should read Michigan's own constitutional preamble and learn from it too!



CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.
§ 1 Political power.
Sec. 1.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.

§ 2 Equal protection; discrimination.
Sec. 2.

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.

§ 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition.
Sec. 3.

The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.


§ 4 Freedom of worship and religious belief; appropriations.
Sec. 4.

Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose. The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.

§ 5 Freedom of speech and of press.
Sec. 5.

Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.


more at link.....Michigan Legislature - Constitution-I

The man cant establish the "right" to be invited to a fucking event

especially since he uses company media to violate the ordinance and express discrimination, in writing!

the fack do you folks eat in the morning

Obviously you have a really bad comprehension problem as I already gave you Michigan's constitutional authority on the matter.

 

[G.T.]

No, dont put words in my mouth.

Theyre not dictating what he can and cant do....he can still do it. derppppp

Theyre dictating who theyll invite or not, and what theyll base that decision on, and face the voters to say yay or nay to those decisions they make.

So in essence you are telling us that it is fine and dandy for the city to discriminate against a person for their personal religious beliefs. FU and that nasty ass horse you ride.

No, the city has an ordinance for their damn farmers market and theyre allowed to have standards based on who they invite sherlock

how could the voters ever fix that fascism!!!! err meee gerddd!!!

vote a new legislature.


ohhh....guess its not fascism then, derpppll

The irony here is that the farmer is claiming discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate. His farm has not been affected because his farm is not in the city, it is outside of the city and continues to operate unimpeded. His complaint is that he is not allowed to operate at a vendor site provided by the city inside the city.

The farmer was promoting a service that had nothing to do with his "crops" being sold. He operates various services and hosts events at his farm, including a banquet hall used for weddings and facilities for holding the actual wedding. When potential customers tried to arrange to use those facilities and services at his farm stand in the city, they would be denied. Hence, the farmer was violating the anti-discrimination ordinances of the city and putting the city in jeopardy of becoming a defendant as part of any law suits filed by third parties for supporting discrimination and ignoring its own anti-discrimination laws.

The farmer's argument and point is that he should be allowed to discriminate because of his beliefs, but the city, via decisions made by elected officials, should not be able to discriminate because of their beliefs, legal obligations, adherence to what they understand as enforceable law or any other reason, including the concept that the city is protecting a purely business decision to protect and project the reputation of the operation of the city owned and operated farmers market.

When the city can prove that the man discriminated against anyone at that venue which the city host they may have a point. Until then they are pissing on his constitutional rights to freedom of speech, his right to worship and choose the religion he has and they are inhibiting his ability to enjoy life and liberty. The City of Lansing are being obstructionist perhaps they should read Michigan's own constitutional preamble and learn from it too!



CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.
§ 1 Political power.
Sec. 1.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.

§ 2 Equal protection; discrimination.
Sec. 2.

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.

§ 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition.
Sec. 3.

The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.


§ 4 Freedom of worship and religious belief; appropriations.
Sec. 4.

Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose. The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.

§ 5 Freedom of speech and of press.
Sec. 5.

Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.


more at link.....Michigan Legislature - Constitution-I

The man cant establish the "right" to be invited to a fucking event

especially since he uses company media to violate the ordinance and express discrimination, in writing!

the fack do you folks eat in the morning

Obviously you have a really bad comprehension problem as I already gave you Michigan's constitutional authority on the matter.

Yeah, your opinion on it and how it applies is cool, bro.

 

[Camp]

Uh, yea

Just like Disney can fire a retard for smoking meth and plastering it all over his social media that says "employed at disney" in his profile


nobody has to sponsor that trash

Disney is not a government entity.

Thanks for playing, you fascist twat.

No, it was an example of how an entity sees themselves as "endorsing" something if it happens off their own property for you, since the concept confuses ya

Your example doesn't make any sense regardless of you explanation.

I foretold itd confuse you and.
...voila!

shit you dont even know what free speech means...how can i not win

It's not confusing me you moronic fuck-tard, you are not arguing the point.

This is a government entity trying to punish a person for their views, even though they follow all the fucking rules when inside the government's jurisdiction.

That you get a hard on and jerk off to justifying government bullying someone over their views is not my problem, you cheap dime store hack.

The city government was not trying to punish the farmer. They had talks with him and tried to get him to adhere to city ordinances. He was not following all the rules. He was violating them.

 

[RodISHI]

So in essence you are telling us that it is fine and dandy for the city to discriminate against a person for their personal religious beliefs. FU and that nasty ass horse you ride.

No, the city has an ordinance for their damn farmers market and theyre allowed to have standards based on who they invite sherlock

how could the voters ever fix that fascism!!!! err meee gerddd!!!

vote a new legislature.


ohhh....guess its not fascism then, derpppll

The irony here is that the farmer is claiming discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate. His farm has not been affected because his farm is not in the city, it is outside of the city and continues to operate unimpeded. His complaint is that he is not allowed to operate at a vendor site provided by the city inside the city.

The farmer was promoting a service that had nothing to do with his "crops" being sold. He operates various services and hosts events at his farm, including a banquet hall used for weddings and facilities for holding the actual wedding. When potential customers tried to arrange to use those facilities and services at his farm stand in the city, they would be denied. Hence, the farmer was violating the anti-discrimination ordinances of the city and putting the city in jeopardy of becoming a defendant as part of any law suits filed by third parties for supporting discrimination and ignoring its own anti-discrimination laws.

The farmer's argument and point is that he should be allowed to discriminate because of his beliefs, but the city, via decisions made by elected officials, should not be able to discriminate because of their beliefs, legal obligations, adherence to what they understand as enforceable law or any other reason, including the concept that the city is protecting a purely business decision to protect and project the reputation of the operation of the city owned and operated farmers market.

When the city can prove that the man discriminated against anyone at that venue which the city host they may have a point. Until then they are pissing on his constitutional rights to freedom of speech, his right to worship and choose the religion he has and they are inhibiting his ability to enjoy life and liberty. The City of Lansing are being obstructionist perhaps they should read Michigan's own constitutional preamble and learn from it too!



CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.
§ 1 Political power.
Sec. 1.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.

§ 2 Equal protection; discrimination.
Sec. 2.

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.

§ 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition.
Sec. 3.

The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.


§ 4 Freedom of worship and religious belief; appropriations.
Sec. 4.

Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose. The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.

§ 5 Freedom of speech and of press.
Sec. 5.

Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.


more at link.....Michigan Legislature - Constitution-I

The man cant establish the "right" to be invited to a fucking event

especially since he uses company media to violate the ordinance and express discrimination, in writing!

the fack do you folks eat in the morning

Obviously you have a really bad comprehension problem as I already gave you Michigan's constitutional authority on the matter.

Yeah, your opinion on it and how it applies is cool, bro.

Not my opinion just the facts troll. The fact that you are too ignorant to comprehend is your personal problem. The farmer has an absolute right to his beliefs, an absolute right to publish those beliefs and the city has no right whatsoever to attempt to punish him for those beliefs.

 

[RodISHI]

Disney is not a government entity.

Thanks for playing, you fascist twat.

No, it was an example of how an entity sees themselves as "endorsing" something if it happens off their own property for you, since the concept confuses ya

Your example doesn't make any sense regardless of you explanation.

I foretold itd confuse you and.
...voila!

shit you dont even know what free speech means...how can i not win

It's not confusing me you moronic fuck-tard, you are not arguing the point.

This is a government entity trying to punish a person for their views, even though they follow all the fucking rules when inside the government's jurisdiction.

That you get a hard on and jerk off to justifying government bullying someone over their views is not my problem, you cheap dime store hack.

The city government was not trying to punish the farmer. They had talks with him and tried to get him to adhere to city ordinances. He was not following all the rules. He was violating them.

Utter bullshit, the city has no rights over and above his rights. Your comprehension is as lame as G.T's.