Family farm banned from city farmers market over refusal to host gay weddings

Based on something NOT done on city property. You can't see the problem with that?

 

NO. That is just plain false.

The city is fine with those people using the city park. The city does not give a hot damn what their religion is.

The "farm" just can't use the park for purposes that include discrimination.

 

Great, I agree. Now you just need to show how they discriminated against anyone on CITY property.

 

The farm is not using the city park for purposes that include discrimination.

 

Well, their goal in life is to stay 19 forever ...

 

AGAIN (and I have been crystal clear about this) the issue of the private use of the farm property can't (shouldn't) be in contention, UNLESS the property is being used as a public accommodation - like a hotel, restaurant, hardware store, cake shop, wedding chapel, or whatever). If it is a public accommodation, then it is guided by public accommodation law, just like all other businesses open to the public. If it is NOT a public accommodation, then they get to be as bigoted as they want while on their own property - as long as they don't violate other law, such as employment discrimination law, etc.

However, the CITY property can't be used in ways that discriminate.

No, you are missing the point.

The KKK gets public services just like everyone else. They can hold their personal beliefs.

What they DON'T get to do is to open public accommodations that discriminate (or violate employment law or take other various actions that are not legal).

 

My understanding is that they were holding marriage ceremonies on public property where this business discriminated against same sex couples.

 

Show where their PRIVATE property is public.

Private businesses can refuse services for no reason at all.

 

And yet they are NOT availabe to all on an equal basis, evidenced by this action against certain individuals. An action based purely on a perceived discrimination in a completely separate sphere of their lives, and which is entirely unrelated to their use of public resources.

If that's not policing for wrongthink, I don't know what is.

 

Based on my understanding, the use HAS discriminated in that the marriage business was using the property as one of the assets in the furtherance of it's business practices that clearly discriminate.

 

Irrelevant. "Hate" is in the eye of the beholder. I regard Progressives as a Hate Group, but you may not.

 

People are allowed to disagree with homosexuality.

I know that drives some people crazy, they simply can't fathom opposing viewpoints.

But if you want to get into a pissing match about constitutionality and government resources, I'm game. Next time there is a nativity scene put up by a local government, all the progressives would be wise to be quiet.

 

And in this case, the people in question were not 'discriminating' on city property, but on their own PRIVATE property. Yet the city has punished them by excluding them from use of public property. That's a like a public school expelling your kid because he/she once thought or said something on a random weekend, which was contrary to their teacher's religious beliefs.

 

???
Property can ONLY be private OR public. So, your first sentence makes no sense. And, I've been EXPLICIT about that above.

Private businesses, that is privately owned public accommodations, are required to follow public accommodation and employment law. They are not allowed to discriminate along lines that are stated in federal, state and local law.

Whether or not a business is a public accommodation business has to do with applying the criteria spelled out in law. Elks, Moose and other such clubs are not public accommodations. Businesses that are open to the public for commerce are almost always public accommodations.

 

Which have NOTHING to do with their selling strawberries in the city park.

 

Yes, people are allowed to be bigots along any line that they choose - race, religion, body weight, skin color, national origin, whatever.

However, if they are doing business with the public or hiring labor there are significant bodies of law involving discrimination that they are required to follow.

 

I don't believe the issue being discusses is that superficial or trivial.

 

Forget you sidetrack 'public accommodation' argument, it's pointless. A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE is subject to PRIVATE PROPERTY laws .. and that's where the buck stops. Their wedding venue business is a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, and has nothing to do with clubs/churches etc.

 

No, it is not like that at all.

The wedding business is a whole. It is not an off hand comment made outside of city property.

 

No, they are NOT required to follow those laws. They are free to discriminate their heads off, since it's their private property to do with as they please. The only thing that's illegal is stating the reason for the discrimination, if it's one of the aforementioned reasons.

 

No, the public accommodation aspect is one of the central issues.

There are private enterprises that are subject to public accommodation law and those that are NOT subject to public accommodation law.

Saying "private enterprise" does not answer the questions at the heart of this issue.

I agree that the wedding business doesn't have to do with "clubs/churches etc.".

But, I do not see any possible way that the wedding business can dodge being a public accommodation business. And, they clearly state that they discriminate against a protected class.

 

Govt can only penalise for actions within the context of their purview. Private property is OUTSIDE their purview. Private Property law protects enterprise and home owners from persecution for activities conducted within those properties, when laws are not being broken. And you cannot break the law by refusing entry or service - it's 100% legal under private property law.

In this instance, Govt's purview does not extend beyind the activity within the city owned park in question. If these Christians are not discriminating in the park, then Govt cannot do anything about their PRIVATE beliefs and activities (when those beliefs and activities are legal - which they are). In acting agains these people for their private beliefs, Govt has engaged in fascism. There is no other way to describe it. It's also very ****ing illegal.

 

THIS BUSINESS IS NOT A FREAKING CLUB!!! It's a private enterprise, and not subject to accommodation laws. Stop dodging, FFS.

 

Any store, restaurant, hotel, hardware store, etc., can own the property it uses. And, any of those businesses could be family owned - not some corporation, but a family with 6 kids and two dogs, with the family being there during all open hours.

That has NO BEARING on whether that business has to follow public accommodation law.

 

Good, we agree. Even progressive liberals are bigots against religious institutions... they are free to do that.

In this case, nobody was saying that homosexuals couldn't enter their market or buy their goods. They said they would offer services, on private property, to facilitate gay marriage. Should they be forced to provide a service which is directly contrary to their religious beliefs?