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

The farm is perfectly free to discriminate, they are not free from the consequences of doing so.

 

I would recommend that you look up the definition of property that is known as private public property this means it is privately owned but it is generally understood that the public is welcome there. I have looked into this issue before as I'm on my cell phone at the moment I can't go and do much coffee and pasting cuz I don't know how but you can feel free to go ahead and post some data verifying your claims if you want me to further expound upon it you'll have to wait until I get off of work about 7:30 a.m. I'll be posting from my laptop and then I can copy and paste it

 

I love all of those commenting on the pro-government side of this thread they keep making definitive claims about laws about public and private property and discrimination and what's not discrimination but what I do not notice is them posting links to prove their claims now yes there are federal and there are state laws but there are also a plethora of other laws that they're not even taking into account county ordinances city code city laws....

 

Wrong.

You are defending the right to be those things. If you are not defending people's right to think for themselves even in ways you find terrible than you are simply aq hypocrite who opposes human rights.

The very idea of a protected category IS racist and sexist and bigoted.

You support bigotry.

 

Somehow I get the feeling if he magically could he would use government to force people to like other people ... Unfortunately for those sorts we're free to like and dislike whoever we please there's no law against it

 

They shouldn't suffer "consequences" from the public sector.

 

it's not a public accommodation it's a farm the city Farmers market is a public accommodation if it was against the rules to discriminate in a public accommodation within the city should be punished for discriminating against Catholics.

 

By using terms like "public accomodation" you're just obfuscating the issue.

But in this case we are talking about a government-controlled accommodation discriminating against people for discriminating in a separate government jurisdiction. Suppose the place where the farm was located did not have any of these laws.

Is that too complicated for you to think about?

 

There would not seem to be a clear connection between the two removed situations. Marriages on a farm somewhere and farmers' markets in a town would not appear related.

 

I see this as an example of government trying to use their power of ownership and control to coerce people into going against things they should have the right to do.

There's a Libertarian quote about "the power of the purse" and there's even a Wikipedia article about this issue:
Power of the purse - Wikipedia

"the power to tax involves the power to destroy"
(US Supreme Court opinion McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819)

 

So you believe the KKK is a group that spreads tolerance and love towards black people? Interesting.

 

Only in your mind.

 

Would one expect a kosher restaurant to serve pork, or a vegetarian restaurant to serve meat. Is a dragonfly a sandhill crane. Does an oak tree drop pine cones. So why suppose that a place that performs traditional Christian marriages would perform anything other? This is more about reality than rights. One may go insane or to hell, but the remainder is not obligated to follow or assist.

 

What exactly is a traditional Christian marriage? Does it exclude those that have been divorced and are causing someone to commit adultery by marrying them?

 

The farmer made a mistake. He announced his intention not to serve gay couples. All he needed to do was wait until a gay couple wanted their involvement in a wedding and explain that he was busy that day. Laws that are developed from emotion should be countered with something other than emotion.

 

To each their own. You'd have to query them....shop around.

 

That is not what is happening here. Nobody asked this famer to hold a gay marriage. Not only did nobody not knock on his door asking him to do anything, they sure did not demand a damn thing

 

Thank you for so perfectly proving my point.

 

So when it is a mistake to freely speak your religious beliefs because you fear government action against your livelihood ....then freedom doesn't exist for anybody here.
Heck in Saudi Arabia and Egypt it is a mistake to freely speak about your Christian or Atheists beliefs as governments there pull rights and adversely affect livelihoods as consequences. Are we becoming a totaltarian country? And are our citizens OK with that?

 

YOU""""The difference between Conservatives and a lot of those on the Progressive Left is that Progressives seem to want to force things on people and not recognize the right to individual choice"""

Uh, gee, haven't ya heard how Conservatives want to ban abortion ..they seem to want to force things on people and not recognize the right to individual choice.

 

Ok, does that go both ways? Does a progressive liberal business owner have to serve white supremacist with nazi tattoos on their face at his local eatery?

I mean, just want to make sure we are being equal in this requirement.

 

Is being Nazi or having face tats a protected class?

 

Well I guess that makes both sides look kind of inconsistent then.
But it kind of makes your side look worse.
Guess abortion supporters don't actually believe a woman should have the right to her own body, even if they say it all the time.

Oh, by the way, I did bring up this exact same issue in the Abortion section, many months before the pandemic started. Most of the pro-choicers who responded at that time just played dumb and pretended like no one would ever want to force vaccines on people.

 

it is impossible to be partisan and be consistent at the same time

 

Read Justice Ginsburg's Passionate 35-Page Dissent of Hobby Lobby Decision

The justice goes on to criticize the opinion's interpretation of the religious freedom law, writing that "until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'"
The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...e-dissent-in-the-hobby-lobby-decision/373703/