Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You are wrong......The Government today has just as much of a right to take your land as they did the Indians..........It's why they took it for "peace and freedom"Frankly, it's rather dumb to open up your own property to the Public anyhow, but as I see it, unless eminent domain were somehow to be invoked here, government cannot make you do something on your own property against your will. Am I the only one that sees individual freedom and property rights being swept aside here?
Frankly, it's rather dumb to open up your own property to the Public anyhow, but as I see it, unless eminent domain were somehow to be invoked here, government cannot make you do something on your own property against your will. Am I the only one that sees individual freedom and property rights being swept aside here?
If I own a store, it's my "property". That doesn't allow me to refuse service to Black people.
Normally, most businesspeople don't live in their stores. That farm is her home. How can you not see that?
I know countless people who live in apartments over their stores.
The Gifford's don't live in the commercial space they rent out for weddings, they live in an apartment above it.
May I implore you to read more closely the article?
New York City Administrative Law Judge Migdalia Pares ruled that the Giffords’ farm, which is also their home, is a place of public accommodation and is therefore subject to New York’s anti-discrimination laws, RNS reported.“The fact that the Giffords also reside at Gifford Barn,” the decision says, “does not render it private.”
Er, so now any space I don't use in my own home is now public domain? What?
You are wrong......The Government today has just as much of a right to take your land as they did the Indians..........It's why they took it for "peace and freedom"Frankly, it's rather dumb to open up your own property to the Public anyhow, but as I see it, unless eminent domain were somehow to be invoked here, government cannot make you do something on your own property against your will. Am I the only one that sees individual freedom and property rights being swept aside here?
The irony is the people who hate Big Government always stand on the side of bigotry and future big gov.
Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?
What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)
Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?
What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)
You're not understanding this at all.
Their farm is a public business. It's not "in the public domain", but it's subject to all other laws that govern public businesses. The fact that they live on the premises of their commercial business does not stop it from being a public business, and subject to all the laws applying to that sort of business.
Do you doubt that the Giffords claim that "barn" as commercial space on their taxes?
Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?
What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)
You're not understanding this at all.
Their farm is a public business. It's not "in the public domain", but it's subject to all other laws that govern public businesses. The fact that they live on the premises of their commercial business does not stop it from being a public business, and subject to all the laws applying to that sort of business.
Oh I understand completely.
The farm is also a place of permanent residence. The land--the venues, the corn mazes, the first floor of her home-- are all on the same property. This woman OWNS ALL OF IT. Just because the place is a tourist attraction does not mean she can be forced to host something against her will on her own property. It does not mean she surrenders her rights as a homeowner. Yes doc, she owns the place as her home. Once again, you have no legal precedent to back up your claim. I do for mine. She has a right to property via the 5th Amendment, all effects and people therein are subject to her purview. It isn't rocket science.
Do you doubt that the Giffords claim that "barn" as commercial space on their taxes?
Can you provide me with the tax returns to back up such a claim? Are you insinuating she has no say so over what happens on her own property? There's a big difference between owning a home and owning a business. But when that business you own happens to be your home, then what? Is the place no longer your home because it is a place of interest?
Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.
Read the court decision, it's very interesting.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf
Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?
What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)
You're not understanding this at all.
Their farm is a public business. It's not "in the public domain", but it's subject to all other laws that govern public businesses. The fact that they live on the premises of their commercial business does not stop it from being a public business, and subject to all the laws applying to that sort of business.
Oh I understand completely.
The farm is also a place of permanent residence. The land--the venues, the corn mazes, the first floor of her home-- are all on the same property. This woman OWNS ALL OF IT. Just because the place is a tourist attraction does not mean she can be forced to host something against her will on her own property. It does not mean she surrenders her rights as a homeowner. Yes doc, she owns the place as her home. Once again, you have no legal precedent to back up your claim. I do for mine. She has a right to property via the 5th Amendment, all effects and people therein are subject to her purview. It isn't rocket science.
No, you really, really don't seem to understand at all.
All property is owned by someone. Every single business in the world exists on someone's property. Whether the owner lives on the premises or not.
That doesn't change the application of public accommodation laws - and if you want precedent, feel free to read the court's decision on this case.
Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.
I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.
The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.
Read the court decision, it's very interesting.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/140808_DHR_LRF_Ruling.pdf
Pictures do not an argument make. Doc. A home is a home is a home. I don't need blanks filled in for me, thanks. My home is my property. Anything I do (legally) on my own property is not subject to government purview. Yes, they have employees, farm hands and the like. If I employed a single person to mow my lawn for a set fee, does it also make my residence a place subject to public domain?
What is RESIDENCE? definition of RESIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)
You're not understanding this at all.
Their farm is a public business. It's not "in the public domain", but it's subject to all other laws that govern public businesses. The fact that they live on the premises of their commercial business does not stop it from being a public business, and subject to all the laws applying to that sort of business.
Oh I understand completely.
The farm is also a place of permanent residence. The land--the venues, the corn mazes, the first floor of her home-- are all on the same property. This woman OWNS ALL OF IT. Just because the place is a tourist attraction does not mean she can be forced to host something against her will on her own property. It does not mean she surrenders her rights as a homeowner. Yes doc, she owns the place as her home. Once again, you have no legal precedent to back up your claim. I do for mine. She has a right to property via the 5th Amendment, all effects and people therein are subject to her purview. It isn't rocket science.
No, you really, really don't seem to understand at all.
All property is owned by someone. Every single business in the world exists on someone's property. Whether the owner lives on the premises or not.
That doesn't change the application of public accommodation laws - and if you want precedent, feel free to read the court's decision on this case.
"All property is owned by someone."
That's plainly obvious. And a non sequitur.
"Every single business in the world exists on someone's property"
Yeah, but when you own said property lock, stock, and barrel, it doesn't matter who owns it, now does it? That is a dodge, doc.
And actually, I cited precedent in the legal definition of a residence. Feel free to read the cases listed there. The fact this incident took place on the first floor of her actual home muddies the waters. Do PA laws suddenly apply to the inside of someone's home just because you let other people use it? No. It's still her home.
Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.
I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.
The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.
The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.
I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.
The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.
The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.
