Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[martybegan]

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?

I don't. but I didn't bring up this non-applicable example, i was just responding to it.

 

[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?

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

Ok, so where does the 1st amendment restrict free expression to only Churches and the Clergy?

 

[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.

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?

The impact centers on the legal implications and the rights of the venue owner to determine how the commercial venue is operated. The venue operator has a right to design the venue to attract demographics that benefit the business. It is their money invested in the venue. As a purely business decision, they have decided to make the venue attractive to specific demographics such as the same sex marriage community. The farmer's presence at the venue could be viewed as a negative factor and harm efforts to attract a particular demographic the city had decided it wanted to bring business to the venue.
On the legal front, it is really very simple. If a lawyer tells you something you are doing puts you at risk for law suits, the smart and rational thing to do is don't do what the lawyer has warned you will put you at risk.

 

[bodecea]

This will be an interesting case in federal court.....to a certain extent I can see this farmer's case.....he sees his business being discriminated against based on religion.....federal PA law. The question will be, IMO, will that apply since his business where he plies his trade isn't impacted.

 

[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.

Ok, so where does the 1st amendment restrict free expression to only Churches and the Clergy?

Are there any restrictions on my 1st amendment freedom of religion? Can I make up stuff and say it's part of my religion?

 

[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?

The impact centers on the legal implications and the rights of the venue owner to determine how the commercial venue is operated. The venue operator has a right to design the venue to attract demographics that benefit the business. It is their money invested in the venue. As a purely business decision, they have decided to make the venue attractive to specific demographics such as the same sex marriage community. The farmer's presence at the venue could be viewed as a negative factor and harm efforts to attract a particular demographic the city had decided it wanted to bring business to the venue.
On the legal front, it is really very simple. If a lawyer tells you something you are doing puts you at risk for law suits, the smart and rational thing to do is don't do what the lawyer has warned you will put you at risk.

The venue operator has no such right when they are a government actor. If he meets the requirements and follows the rules while onsite, he cannot be prevented from attending due to his viewpoints, or his actions outside the juristiction.

And people don't have to buy from his stall, and people can protest it all they want, as long as they follow those rules. Government cannot decide it doesn't like someone because of their views, or their legal actions outside their zone of control.

 

[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?

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

Ok, so where does the 1st amendment restrict free expression to only Churches and the Clergy?

Are there any restrictions on my 1st amendment freedom of religion? Can I make up stuff and say it's part of my religion?

There are of course restrictions, but such restrictions must be due to a compelling government interest, and implemented in the least restrictive manner possible.

 

[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.

Ok, so where does the 1st amendment restrict free expression to only Churches and the Clergy?

Are there any restrictions on my 1st amendment freedom of religion? Can I make up stuff and say it's part of my religion?

There are of course restrictions, but such restrictions must be due to a compelling government interest, and implemented in the least restrictive manner possible.

So I can make up stuff and say it's part of my religious faith.....ok.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Ok, so where does the 1st amendment restrict free expression to only Churches and the Clergy?

Are there any restrictions on my 1st amendment freedom of religion? Can I make up stuff and say it's part of my religion?

There are of course restrictions, but such restrictions must be due to a compelling government interest, and implemented in the least restrictive manner possible.

So I can make up stuff and say it's part of my religious faith.....ok.

The flying spaghetti monster people have already done that.

 

[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.

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?

The impact centers on the legal implications and the rights of the venue owner to determine how the commercial venue is operated. The venue operator has a right to design the venue to attract demographics that benefit the business. It is their money invested in the venue. As a purely business decision, they have decided to make the venue attractive to specific demographics such as the same sex marriage community. The farmer's presence at the venue could be viewed as a negative factor and harm efforts to attract a particular demographic the city had decided it wanted to bring business to the venue.
On the legal front, it is really very simple. If a lawyer tells you something you are doing puts you at risk for law suits, the smart and rational thing to do is don't do what the lawyer has warned you will put you at risk.

The venue operator has no such right when they are a government actor. If he meets the requirements and follows the rules while onsite, he cannot be prevented from attending due to his viewpoints, or his actions outside the juristiction.

And people don't have to buy from his stall, and people can protest it all they want, as long as they follow those rules. Government cannot decide it doesn't like someone because of their views, or their legal actions outside their zone of control.

The argument and dispute hinge on whether the farmer was following the rules. You say he was, but the authorities say he was not. His presence constituted his selling or promotion of a service at the venue that violated the cities ordinance.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying that because an entire denomination supports it God will change his mind about them being wrong? Don't think that thought hasn't gone through the minds of some that call themselves Christian but support things that go against God's word.

God doesn't have to change her mind. She's fine with gay people....she wouldn't have made us otherwise.

Support things that go against god's word? You mean like divorce? Divorce is very expressly against "god's word". Why aren't good Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes for divorced and remarrying couples?

He's so fine with homos that He considered them an abomination and said they won't inherit His kingdom.

Like the things listed in I Corinthians 6:9. Homosexuality and the sexually immoral are on that list. The funny thing is when Christians try to do what you say and refuse to bake cakes for them, you freaks fight against that. Which one is it?

 

[Conservative65]

Why can't you accept that Jesus condoned the type marriage I have and didn't think enough of you to acknowledge the abomination your have?

Jesus did what?

lolol

Why can't you accept that Jesus condoned the type marriage I have and didn't think enough of you to acknowledge the abomination your have?

Jesus did what?

lolol

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

Why can't you accept that Jesus condoned the type marriage I have and didn't think enough of you to acknowledge the abomination your have?

Jesus did what?

lolol

Why can't you accept that Jesus condoned the type marriage I have and didn't think enough of you to acknowledge the abomination your have?

Jesus did what?

lolol

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

1) Jesus indicated the only type of marriage that He found acceptable
2) Yet you use the words of a religion in your argument about divorce. Jesus taught about hypocrites. Should I show what he said about you?

 

[Camp]

Are you saying that because an entire denomination supports it God will change his mind about them being wrong? Don't think that thought hasn't gone through the minds of some that call themselves Christian but support things that go against God's word.

God doesn't have to change her mind. She's fine with gay people....she wouldn't have made us otherwise.

Support things that go against god's word? You mean like divorce? Divorce is very expressly against "god's word". Why aren't good Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes for divorced and remarrying couples?

He's so fine with homos that He considered them an abomination and said they won't inherit His kingdom.

Like the things listed in I Corinthians 6:9. Homosexuality and the sexually immoral are on that list. The funny thing is when Christians try to do what you say and refuse to bake cakes for them, you freaks fight against that. Which one is it?

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. No one has to adhere to your religious beliefs and any of the many holy books promoted by the various religions. Corinthians is not anyone's boss that doesn't want to be bossed around by Corinthians.

 

[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.

This farmer's market is in Berkeley?

I'd say you're playing stupid but we all know it's not an act.

Love making you eat your own stupid excuses for pushing your bigoted hate upon others.

 

[Conservative65]

[

Attending a church, using a church facility, belonging to a religious group, listening to a preacher even or reading the bible doesn't make Jesus Christ your personal Savior.

Is Donald Trump now a born-again Christian?

Ah thats right- to some Christians, nobody is a Christian unless they believe in Jesus exactly the way that those Christians believe Christians have to believe in Jesus......

Trump calls himself a Christian- if you don't want to believe him- well hells bells- fine with me.

LOL

(RNS) Donald Trump recently accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior, making him a 'baby Christian,' Focus on the Family founder James Dobson reportedly said.

Funny how many on the left think being a Christian means they can support abortion, same sex marriage, and all sorts of other things the Bible says will keep them from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Trump is (supposedly) a Presbyterian,

a denomination that does in fact support same sex marriage and is pro-choice on abortion.

What do denominations have to do with it?

Are you saying that because an entire denomination supports it God will change his mind about them being wrong? Don't think that thought hasn't gone through the minds of some that call themselves Christian but support things that go against God's word.

The Bible was written by humans.

The ACT of writing was done by humans. What it expressed was that of God's purpose. Think of the humans that used the writing devices as ghostwriters.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying that because an entire denomination supports it God will change his mind about them being wrong? Don't think that thought hasn't gone through the minds of some that call themselves Christian but support things that go against God's word.

God doesn't have to change her mind. She's fine with gay people....she wouldn't have made us otherwise.

Support things that go against god's word? You mean like divorce? Divorce is very expressly against "god's word". Why aren't good Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes for divorced and remarrying couples?

He's so fine with homos that He considered them an abomination and said they won't inherit His kingdom.

Like the things listed in I Corinthians 6:9. Homosexuality and the sexually immoral are on that list. The funny thing is when Christians try to do what you say and refuse to bake cakes for them, you freaks fight against that. Which one is it?

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. No one has to adhere to your religious beliefs and any of the many holy books promoted by the various religions. Corinthians is not anyone's boss that doesn't want to be bossed around by Corinthians.

You have that choice. It doesn't change the result just like thinking traffic lights and speed limits don't apply to you until you get a ticket.

 

[Conservative65]

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"

Please, not the "it doesn't harm anyone else bullshit".

 

[bodecea]

Are you saying that because an entire denomination supports it God will change his mind about them being wrong? Don't think that thought hasn't gone through the minds of some that call themselves Christian but support things that go against God's word.

God doesn't have to change her mind. She's fine with gay people....she wouldn't have made us otherwise.

Support things that go against god's word? You mean like divorce? Divorce is very expressly against "god's word". Why aren't good Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes for divorced and remarrying couples?

He's so fine with homos that He considered them an abomination and said they won't inherit His kingdom.

Like the things listed in I Corinthians 6:9. Homosexuality and the sexually immoral are on that list. The funny thing is when Christians try to do what you say and refuse to bake cakes for them, you freaks fight against that. Which one is it?

You think Corinthians was written by Jesus?

 

[Conservative65]

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

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

Like I've said before, if a fag baker doesn't want to serve heterosexuals, I'm OK with that. In fact, if (fill in the blank) doesn't want to serve (fill in the blank) for whatever reason, I'm fine with that, too.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying that because an entire denomination supports it God will change his mind about them being wrong? Don't think that thought hasn't gone through the minds of some that call themselves Christian but support things that go against God's word.

God doesn't have to change her mind. She's fine with gay people....she wouldn't have made us otherwise.

Support things that go against god's word? You mean like divorce? Divorce is very expressly against "god's word". Why aren't good Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes for divorced and remarrying couples?

He's so fine with homos that He considered them an abomination and said they won't inherit His kingdom.

Like the things listed in I Corinthians 6:9. Homosexuality and the sexually immoral are on that list. The funny thing is when Christians try to do what you say and refuse to bake cakes for them, you freaks fight against that. Which one is it?

You think Corinthians was written by Jesus?

Did I say that, fag?