Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[G.T.]

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.

Well, yeah...you are a racist asshole that would be fine with whites only lunch counters.

I'd be fine with blacks only lunch counters. Seems you didn't read what I posted. If as lesbo like you wanted to start a business and exclude anyone of your choosing for whatever reason, I'm fine with that. It's YOUR choice. I wouldn't consider you racist, bigoted, or any of the other terms you thin skinned assholes throw around when someone gives you an answer you don't like. I'd consider you a business owner making a choice about her business.

why would you not call bigotry by the purest definition of the word..... bigotry


thats weird bro!

 

[Conservative65]

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.

No, your views on abortion are not logical. They are based solely on your personal feelings about abortion. My views are logical. I want there never to be another abortion performed in this country...I just know that cannot be accomplished legislatively. I know the only way to reduce abortion is through science, education and free birth control.

Oh, another one that thinks only what she believes is the way to do things.

Free birth control? When you idiots use terms like that, you prove you don't think logically. Someone has to pay and I bet you think it should be someone other than the one using it being forced to fund it.

No, I just recognize the reality that we don't have an abortion problem we have an unwanted pregnancy problem and abortion is simply one solution.

Women have and will always find a way to rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy. I preferred that way to be safe, legal, and rare.

With over 1 million since 1973, we have an abortion problem.

Except in cases of rape, there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy.

Give them coat hangers. I'll fund that. However, if you prefer free birth control be provided to those that want it, write a check. If the choice of what a woman does with her body is hers and hers alone, any cost related to that is hers or those like you willing to fund it yourself.

As for women that choose not to have an abortion but can't support herself/her children, do you support the rest of us being able to say no when it comes to having to pay for her choice?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Well, yeah...you are a racist asshole that would be fine with whites only lunch counters.

I'd be fine with blacks only lunch counters. Seems you didn't read what I posted. If as lesbo like you wanted to start a business and exclude anyone of your choosing for whatever reason, I'm fine with that. It's YOUR choice. I wouldn't consider you racist, bigoted, or any of the other terms you thin skinned assholes throw around when someone gives you an answer you don't like. I'd consider you a business owner making a choice about her business.

why would you not call bigotry by the purest definition of the word..... bigotry


thats weird bro!

I believe it was bodecea that used the Golden Rule analogy earlier. I'm using it. I don't have a problem if any else says they don't want to serve, sell, etc. to me. How can it be bigotry if I'm willing to accept from others what I think I should have the ability to do?

 

[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.

No, your views on abortion are not logical. They are based solely on your personal feelings about abortion. My views are logical. I want there never to be another abortion performed in this country...I just know that cannot be accomplished legislatively. I know the only way to reduce abortion is through science, education and free birth control.

I'm opposed to murder.

You're not?

 

[G.T.]

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.

Well, yeah...you are a racist asshole that would be fine with whites only lunch counters.

I'd be fine with blacks only lunch counters. Seems you didn't read what I posted. If as lesbo like you wanted to start a business and exclude anyone of your choosing for whatever reason, I'm fine with that. It's YOUR choice. I wouldn't consider you racist, bigoted, or any of the other terms you thin skinned assholes throw around when someone gives you an answer you don't like. I'd consider you a business owner making a choice about her business.

why would you not call bigotry by the purest definition of the word..... bigotry


thats weird bro!

I believe it was bodecea that used the Golden Rule analogy earlier. I'm using it. I don't have a problem if any else says they don't want to serve, sell, etc. to me. How can it be bigotry if I'm willing to accept from others what I think I should have the ability to do?

Your perception of bigotry doesnt make bigotry bigotry or not bigotry.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

No, your views on abortion are not logical. They are based solely on your personal feelings about abortion. My views are logical. I want there never to be another abortion performed in this country...I just know that cannot be accomplished legislatively. I know the only way to reduce abortion is through science, education and free birth control.

I'm opposed to murder.

You're not?

I don't believe abortion is murder. The bible didn't either. I also don't believe in legislating what a woman can or cannot do with her own body...from abortion to prostitution.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

Right. They can't make him not be a bigot through PA laws...they just don't have to invite him to participate in their tax payer funded Farmers Market.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

Right. They can't make him not be a bigot through PA laws...they just don't have to invite him to participate in their tax payer funded Farmers Market.

What "funding"? They are opening up a public area to vendors and he is a vendor. He follows the rules as applied locally when he is in the jurisdiction.

You assholes have a Sith like need to control everyone around you.

 

[Camp]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

No, it doesn't. It dictates what Country Mill Farms can do at the farmers market located inside the cities jurisdiction. Country Mill Farms is still operating without having to stop their practices at the farms business location outside of the city. I have posted the proof of this several times in this thread. I will do it again in this post. The link takes you to the Country Mill Farms page. As you will see, they are still advertising their marriage services at the farm's location outside of the cities jurisdiction.

countrymillfarms.com

 

[Seawytch]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

Right. They can't make him not be a bigot through PA laws...they just don't have to invite him to participate in their tax payer funded Farmers Market.

What "funding"? They are opening up a public area to vendors and he is a vendor. He follows the rules as applied locally when he is in the jurisdiction.

You assholes have a Sith like need to control everyone around you.

You don't think it costs money to put on a Farmer's Market? You have to close streets and provide additional cops. Of course it costs money.

The dude signed the agreement. He knew that if he violated the agreement, his place at the market would be in jeopardy. He did it anyway. He is free to continue to be a bigot at his own business, he just isn't going to be allowed to do it and be part of the city's FM. Boo hoo.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

No, it doesn't. It dictates what Country Mill Farms can do at the farmers market located inside the cities jurisdiction. Country Mill Farms is still operating without having to stop their practices at the farms business location outside of the city. I have posted the proof of this several times in this thread. I will do it again in this post. The link takes you to the Country Mill Farms page. As you will see, they are still advertising their marriage services at the farm's location outside of the cities jurisdiction.

countrymillfarms.com

No one disputes that. The dispute is the city unilaterally denying them access to the farmers market over something they do OUTSIDE their jurisdiction, based on an ordinance that probably violates home rule provisions.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

Right. They can't make him not be a bigot through PA laws...they just don't have to invite him to participate in their tax payer funded Farmers Market.

What "funding"? They are opening up a public area to vendors and he is a vendor. He follows the rules as applied locally when he is in the jurisdiction.

You assholes have a Sith like need to control everyone around you.

You don't think it costs money to put on a Farmer's Market? You have to close streets and provide additional cops. Of course it costs money.

The dude signed the agreement. He knew that if he violated the agreement, his place at the market would be in jeopardy. He did it anyway. He is free to continue to be a bigot at his own business, he just isn't going to be allowed to do it and be part of the city's FM. Boo hoo.

He isn't being a "bigot" when he sells and works at the market, or when he hires people. He simply doesn't host SSM weddings on his property.

You morons should really consider where this "all or nothing" mentality you have will lead. backlashes tend to overreach past the point of their target as well.

I attribute it to the general narcissism found in progressive twats such as yourself.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

Right. They can't make him not be a bigot through PA laws...they just don't have to invite him to participate in their tax payer funded Farmers Market.

What "funding"? They are opening up a public area to vendors and he is a vendor. He follows the rules as applied locally when he is in the jurisdiction.

You assholes have a Sith like need to control everyone around you.

You don't think it costs money to put on a Farmer's Market? You have to close streets and provide additional cops. Of course it costs money.

The dude signed the agreement. He knew that if he violated the agreement, his place at the market would be in jeopardy. He did it anyway. He is free to continue to be a bigot at his own business, he just isn't going to be allowed to do it and be part of the city's FM. Boo hoo.

He isn't being a "bigot" when he sells and works at the market, or when he hires people. He simply doesn't host SSM weddings on his property.

You morons should really consider where this "all or nothing" mentality you have will lead. backlashes tend to overreach past the point of their target as well.

I attribute it to the general narcissism found in progressive twats such as yourself.

Gosh, he's not a bigot on one Tuesday a month. We should give an honorary medal of some sort.

I'm sure good Christians have some way of justifying that kind of hypocrisy, but I don't care. The agreement is clear that it's policies, for inclusion in the market, are to be extended to the business at all times. He knowingly violated the agreement.

 

[martybegan]

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

Right. They can't make him not be a bigot through PA laws...they just don't have to invite him to participate in their tax payer funded Farmers Market.

What "funding"? They are opening up a public area to vendors and he is a vendor. He follows the rules as applied locally when he is in the jurisdiction.

You assholes have a Sith like need to control everyone around you.

You don't think it costs money to put on a Farmer's Market? You have to close streets and provide additional cops. Of course it costs money.

The dude signed the agreement. He knew that if he violated the agreement, his place at the market would be in jeopardy. He did it anyway. He is free to continue to be a bigot at his own business, he just isn't going to be allowed to do it and be part of the city's FM. Boo hoo.

He isn't being a "bigot" when he sells and works at the market, or when he hires people. He simply doesn't host SSM weddings on his property.

You morons should really consider where this "all or nothing" mentality you have will lead. backlashes tend to overreach past the point of their target as well.

I attribute it to the general narcissism found in progressive twats such as yourself.

Gosh, he's not a bigot on one Tuesday a month. We should give an honorary medal of some sort.

I'm sure good Christians have some way of justifying that kind of hypocrisy, but I don't care. The agreement is clear that it's policies, for inclusion in the market, are to be extended to the business at all times. He knowingly violated the agreement.

He doesn't approve of SSM, that doesn't make him a bigot. He sells to whoever wants his product, and employs people regardless of their orientation.

The agreement is unlawful.

 

[Camp]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

No, it doesn't. It dictates what Country Mill Farms can do at the farmers market located inside the cities jurisdiction. Country Mill Farms is still operating without having to stop their practices at the farms business location outside of the city. I have posted the proof of this several times in this thread. I will do it again in this post. The link takes you to the Country Mill Farms page. As you will see, they are still advertising their marriage services at the farm's location outside of the cities jurisdiction.

countrymillfarms.com

No one disputes that. The dispute is the city unilaterally denying them access to the farmers market over something they do OUTSIDE their jurisdiction, based on an ordinance that probably violates home rule provisions.

They were operating an "office" or "facility" inside the cities jurisdiction. If a same sex couple tried to make arrangements for a marriage at that facility they would be denied, violating the cities ordinance.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The part of the ordinance in question dictates business practices outside the jurisdiction of the city government, practices that as far as we know are legal in his jurisdiction.

No, it doesn't. It dictates what Country Mill Farms can do at the farmers market located inside the cities jurisdiction. Country Mill Farms is still operating without having to stop their practices at the farms business location outside of the city. I have posted the proof of this several times in this thread. I will do it again in this post. The link takes you to the Country Mill Farms page. As you will see, they are still advertising their marriage services at the farm's location outside of the cities jurisdiction.

countrymillfarms.com

No one disputes that. The dispute is the city unilaterally denying them access to the farmers market over something they do OUTSIDE their jurisdiction, based on an ordinance that probably violates home rule provisions.

They were operating an "office" or "facility" inside the cities jurisdiction. If a same sex couple tried to make arrangements for a marriage at that facility they would be denied, violating the cities ordinance.

Their farm is nowhere near the cities jurisdiction, and i doubt they arrange marriages at their property at the farmers market.

They were selling apples.

 

[Syriusly]

Jesus said quite clearly that if one divorces except for infidelity, it's adultery. But isn't it odd how you cafeteria christians ignore that part.

He said quite clearly that marriage was between a man and a woman yet you still support fags marrying. How odd you ignore that part.

The New Testament quite clearly states that Christians are to obey the law- yet you still support Christians breaking the law. How odd you ignore that part.

Satan quoted Scripture more than anyone.

Well I know you and Satan are tight- so who am I to disagree with your personal communication with Satan.

Based on things you support, it's quite clear you and Satan are whether you realize it or not.

Based on everything you post, Satan has found you a willing agent of his.

 

[Syriusly]

[

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.[/QUOTE]

Funny how many on the right think that being a Christian means they must control a woman's body, and must prevent a same sex couple from marrying- and all sorts of things the Bible never even mentions.

But ignore what the Bible says about divorce- and obeying the law.

 

[Syriusly]

[

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? .[/QUOTE]

Well clearly that entire denomination disagrees with faux Christians like yourself.

Hard to believe that Christians would disagree over the content of the Bible- when every Christian is certain that his personal interpretation is of course- the only correct one.