Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[G.T.]

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.

The farmers right to practice or promote his religious beliefs are not in question. He can do those things in the City of Lansing in a multitude of ways. The city is using its right to not endorse or subsidize those beliefs or his efforts to promote those beliefs. The key is that the farmer wants to use the government venue and facility to promote his views. He can stand outside of the venue and say what he wants to say, pass out fliers, carry signs, march around the venue, hold a public prayer event, etc. He just can't operate a business in or on the cities commercial endeavor and private venue.

You are conflating his personally owned farm with the farmers market which are separate venues. The city is punishing him for his views that he published concerning his farm. The city does not have the right to punish him for publishing what he will not do at his farm in accordance with his beliefs.

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Like I said their Michigan Constitution is already the authority on the matter and it is very clear what the city did is wrong. I have no clue whether the lawyers are rational or qualified, Now that issue would be subjective but the constitution is not as it is very clear.

Here is the proof that the farmer's business operations outside the city limits are not being hindered or affected.

countrymillfarms.com

Now that is exceptionally lame and is by no means proof as the city already denied him the permit to sell his goods at the farmers market which would mean that what he normally generated at that market affects his families income overall. Again a punishment for not bowing down to their bullshit and a clear violation by the city against Michigan's constitutional authority on the matter.

Yeah, in your opinion....which is ienfiediedini477d3jd8e in making sense.

The City has guidelines.

His Business doesnt adhere to them.

His business was uninvited.

Its rocket secksssss

The city also has to follow the law of Michigan and the city fascist obviously f'd up.
Now go troll someone else dumb ass.

In your quite unhumble interpretation.

I'll have to side with cautious pessimism that youre all that smart.

 

[bodecea]

"they shall surely be put to death?"

good thing christians are kinda phony in their beliefs and dont actually follow that shit, but instead follow secular morals

Cafeteria Christianity......they worship at the Church of St. Luby's.

 

[bodecea]

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.

This farmer's market is in Berkeley?

 

[martybegan]

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.

The farmers right to practice or promote his religious beliefs are not in question. He can do those things in the City of Lansing in a multitude of ways. The city is using its right to not endorse or subsidize those beliefs or his efforts to promote those beliefs. The key is that the farmer wants to use the government venue and facility to promote his views. He can stand outside of the venue and say what he wants to say, pass out fliers, carry signs, march around the venue, hold a public prayer event, etc. He just can't operate a business in or on the cities commercial endeavor and private venue.

You are conflating his personally owned farm with the farmers market which are separate venues. The city is punishing him for his views that he published concerning his farm. The city does not have the right to punish him for publishing what he will not do at his farm in accordance with his beliefs.

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Yes....it will be interesting to see how his lawsuit pans out....what will be his rational for not having to follow the city's clearly stated ordinances on this.

that he follows all the rules when he is in city limits, and the cities ordnance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction.

 

[bodecea]

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

The farmers right to practice or promote his religious beliefs are not in question. He can do those things in the City of Lansing in a multitude of ways. The city is using its right to not endorse or subsidize those beliefs or his efforts to promote those beliefs. The key is that the farmer wants to use the government venue and facility to promote his views. He can stand outside of the venue and say what he wants to say, pass out fliers, carry signs, march around the venue, hold a public prayer event, etc. He just can't operate a business in or on the cities commercial endeavor and private venue.

You are conflating his personally owned farm with the farmers market which are separate venues. The city is punishing him for his views that he published concerning his farm. The city does not have the right to punish him for publishing what he will not do at his farm in accordance with his beliefs.

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Yes....it will be interesting to see how his lawsuit pans out....what will be his rational for not having to follow the city's clearly stated ordinances on this.

that he follows all the rules when he is in city limits, and the cities ordnance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction.

You are right....the city ordinance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction. And they are not dictating anything he does outside their jurisdiction.

 

[martybegan]

The farmers right to practice or promote his religious beliefs are not in question. He can do those things in the City of Lansing in a multitude of ways. The city is using its right to not endorse or subsidize those beliefs or his efforts to promote those beliefs. The key is that the farmer wants to use the government venue and facility to promote his views. He can stand outside of the venue and say what he wants to say, pass out fliers, carry signs, march around the venue, hold a public prayer event, etc. He just can't operate a business in or on the cities commercial endeavor and private venue.

You are conflating his personally owned farm with the farmers market which are separate venues. The city is punishing him for his views that he published concerning his farm. The city does not have the right to punish him for publishing what he will not do at his farm in accordance with his beliefs.

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Yes....it will be interesting to see how his lawsuit pans out....what will be his rational for not having to follow the city's clearly stated ordinances on this.

that he follows all the rules when he is in city limits, and the cities ordnance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction.

You are right....the city ordinance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction. And they are not dictating anything he does outside their jurisdiction.

By making it a condition of selling at the market they are dictating. It is a violation of home rule concepts as well as a 1st amendment issue.

 

[Camp]

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.

The farmers right to practice or promote his religious beliefs are not in question. He can do those things in the City of Lansing in a multitude of ways. The city is using its right to not endorse or subsidize those beliefs or his efforts to promote those beliefs. The key is that the farmer wants to use the government venue and facility to promote his views. He can stand outside of the venue and say what he wants to say, pass out fliers, carry signs, march around the venue, hold a public prayer event, etc. He just can't operate a business in or on the cities commercial endeavor and private venue.

You are conflating his personally owned farm with the farmers market which are separate venues. The city is punishing him for his views that he published concerning his farm. The city does not have the right to punish him for publishing what he will not do at his farm in accordance with his beliefs.

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Like I said their Michigan Constitution is already the authority on the matter and it is very clear what the city did is wrong. I have no clue whether the lawyers are rational or qualified, Now that issue would be subjective but the constitution is not as it is very clear.

Here is the proof that the farmer's business operations outside the city limits are not being hindered or affected.

countrymillfarms.com

Now that is exceptionally lame and is by no means proof as the city already denied him the permit to sell his goods at the farmers market which would mean that what he normally generated at that market affects his families income overall. Again a punishment for not bowing down to their bullshit and a clear violation by the city against Michigan's constitutional authority on the matter.

Yeah, in your opinion....which is ienfiediedini477d3jd8e in making sense.

The City has guidelines.

His Business doesnt adhere to them.

His business was uninvited.

Its rocket secksssss

The city also has to follow the law of Michigan and the city fascist obviously f'd up.
Now go troll someone else dumb ass.

How did you become a Michigan Constitutional scholar.

 

[RodISHI]

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

The farmers right to practice or promote his religious beliefs are not in question. He can do those things in the City of Lansing in a multitude of ways. The city is using its right to not endorse or subsidize those beliefs or his efforts to promote those beliefs. The key is that the farmer wants to use the government venue and facility to promote his views. He can stand outside of the venue and say what he wants to say, pass out fliers, carry signs, march around the venue, hold a public prayer event, etc. He just can't operate a business in or on the cities commercial endeavor and private venue.

You are conflating his personally owned farm with the farmers market which are separate venues. The city is punishing him for his views that he published concerning his farm. The city does not have the right to punish him for publishing what he will not do at his farm in accordance with his beliefs.

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Like I said their Michigan Constitution is already the authority on the matter and it is very clear what the city did is wrong. I have no clue whether the lawyers are rational or qualified, Now that issue would be subjective but the constitution is not as it is very clear.

Here is the proof that the farmer's business operations outside the city limits are not being hindered or affected.

countrymillfarms.com

Now that is exceptionally lame and is by no means proof as the city already denied him the permit to sell his goods at the farmers market which would mean that what he normally generated at that market affects his families income overall. Again a punishment for not bowing down to their bullshit and a clear violation by the city against Michigan's constitutional authority on the matter.

Yeah, in your opinion....which is ienfiediedini477d3jd8e in making sense.

The City has guidelines.

His Business doesnt adhere to them.

His business was uninvited.

Its rocket secksssss

The city also has to follow the law of Michigan and the city fascist obviously f'd up.
Now go troll someone else dumb ass.

How did you become a Michigan Constitutional scholar.

Are you saying you cannot read it for your self?

 

[bodecea]

You are conflating his personally owned farm with the farmers market which are separate venues. The city is punishing him for his views that he published concerning his farm. The city does not have the right to punish him for publishing what he will not do at his farm in accordance with his beliefs.

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Yes....it will be interesting to see how his lawsuit pans out....what will be his rational for not having to follow the city's clearly stated ordinances on this.

that he follows all the rules when he is in city limits, and the cities ordnance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction.

You are right....the city ordinance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction. And they are not dictating anything he does outside their jurisdiction.

By making it a condition of selling at the market they are dictating. It is a violation of home rule concepts as well as a 1st amendment issue.

Their market........They are not allowed to have a criteria for their own market? Who's the fascist here?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



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?


.

Yes, because this:

isn't this:

 

[martybegan]

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Yes....it will be interesting to see how his lawsuit pans out....what will be his rational for not having to follow the city's clearly stated ordinances on this.

that he follows all the rules when he is in city limits, and the cities ordnance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction.

You are right....the city ordinance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction. And they are not dictating anything he does outside their jurisdiction.

By making it a condition of selling at the market they are dictating. It is a violation of home rule concepts as well as a 1st amendment issue.

Their market........They are not allowed to have a criteria for their own market? Who's the fascist here?

They can set criteria AT the market, but once they allow vendors, they can't discriminate due to beliefs, and they can't impose rules outside their jurisdiction.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Claims of religious motivations are not a license for discrimination any more than any other motivation.

 

[martybegan]

Claims of religious motivations are not a license for discrimination any more than any other motivation.

So you think Catholic Churches should be forced to perform Same Sex weddings?

 

[Camp]

You are conflating his personally owned farm with the farmers market which are separate venues. The city is punishing him for his views that he published concerning his farm. The city does not have the right to punish him for publishing what he will not do at his farm in accordance with his beliefs.

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Yes....it will be interesting to see how his lawsuit pans out....what will be his rational for not having to follow the city's clearly stated ordinances on this.

that he follows all the rules when he is in city limits, and the cities ordnance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction.

You are right....the city ordinance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction. And they are not dictating anything he does outside their jurisdiction.

By making it a condition of selling at the market they are dictating. It is a violation of home rule concepts as well as a 1st amendment issue.

Your concept means a preacher, monk, or Iman or any other person can set up a stand and preach sermons while he or she sells ears of corn and the city that operates the farmers market would have to allow it. Anyone within hearing distance would have to listen to the preaching while they looked for fruit and vegetable, local honey and farm fresh jams.

 

[martybegan]

That will be decided in the courts. Rational and qualified lawyers are claiming the city had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. The idea that the city was or is "punishing" the farmer is a very subjective and rhetorical statement and position. Punishment has nothing to do with the cities position.

Yes....it will be interesting to see how his lawsuit pans out....what will be his rational for not having to follow the city's clearly stated ordinances on this.

that he follows all the rules when he is in city limits, and the cities ordnance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction.

You are right....the city ordinance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction. And they are not dictating anything he does outside their jurisdiction.

By making it a condition of selling at the market they are dictating. It is a violation of home rule concepts as well as a 1st amendment issue.

Your concept means a preacher, monk, or Iman or any other person can set up a stand and preach sermons while he or she sells ears of corn and the city that operates the farmers market would have to allow it. Anyone within hearing distance would have to listen to the preaching while they looked for fruit and vegetable, local honey and farm fresh jams.

No, the market can set up rules AT the market. But the rules have to be content neutral, so if you stop them iman from speaking, you have to stop the World workers party idiots from speaking as well.

 

[Camp]

Claims of religious motivations are not a license for discrimination any more than any other motivation.

So you think Catholic Churches should be forced to perform Same Sex weddings?

The First Amendment prevents that from happening. This topic is about a religious belief being forced on or impacting on persons not belonging to that religion or agreeing with those beliefs.

 

[bodecea]

Claims of religious motivations are not a license for discrimination any more than any other motivation.

So you think Catholic Churches should be forced to perform Same Sex weddings?

No...they aren't even being forced to perform marriages for the previously divorced....because they are a church. Duh.

 

[bodecea]

Yes....it will be interesting to see how his lawsuit pans out....what will be his rational for not having to follow the city's clearly stated ordinances on this.

that he follows all the rules when he is in city limits, and the cities ordnance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction.

You are right....the city ordinance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction. And they are not dictating anything he does outside their jurisdiction.

By making it a condition of selling at the market they are dictating. It is a violation of home rule concepts as well as a 1st amendment issue.

Your concept means a preacher, monk, or Iman or any other person can set up a stand and preach sermons while he or she sells ears of corn and the city that operates the farmers market would have to allow it. Anyone within hearing distance would have to listen to the preaching while they looked for fruit and vegetable, local honey and farm fresh jams.

No, the market can set up rules AT the market. But the rules have to be content neutral, so if you stop them iman from speaking, you have to stop the World workers party idiots from speaking as well.

How do you know that the rules are NOT content neutral?

 

[Camp]

Yes....it will be interesting to see how his lawsuit pans out....what will be his rational for not having to follow the city's clearly stated ordinances on this.

that he follows all the rules when he is in city limits, and the cities ordnance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction.

You are right....the city ordinance can't dictate what he does outside their jurisdiction. And they are not dictating anything he does outside their jurisdiction.

By making it a condition of selling at the market they are dictating. It is a violation of home rule concepts as well as a 1st amendment issue.

Your concept means a preacher, monk, or Iman or any other person can set up a stand and preach sermons while he or she sells ears of corn and the city that operates the farmers market would have to allow it. Anyone within hearing distance would have to listen to the preaching while they looked for fruit and vegetable, local honey and farm fresh jams.

No, the market can set up rules AT the market. But the rules have to be content neutral, so if you stop them iman from speaking, you have to stop the World workers party idiots from speaking as well.

You are correct. If the World Workers Party attempted to operate a farm stand while they preached or gave speeches the city would have the right to shut them down.

 

[martybegan]

Claims of religious motivations are not a license for discrimination any more than any other motivation.

So you think Catholic Churches should be forced to perform Same Sex weddings?

The First Amendment prevents that from happening. This topic is about a religious belief being forced on or impacting on persons not belonging to that religion or agreeing with those beliefs.

I am asking him to quantify his blanket statement. The first amendment protects everyone, not just clergy.

And since the farmer sells his product to ANYONE, and employs ANYONE with his only qualm being using his own property for a SSM ceremony where is the impact?