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

The question bears on whether the property is city property and/or whether the business is a public accommodation.

If it is either of those things, then the law gives direction on discrimination.

 

Huh? You seem to be arguing against your own position now.

Or mindlessly conflating the meanings of different things.

 

Well, you scrambled things there.

Again, if it is city property and/or if it is a public accommodation, then there are laws requiring equal access.

 

If you have questions, go ahead and ask.

 

At the market which has nothing to do with their own damn property again I will ask you are they refusing to sell their goods to certain people at the market yes or no?

 

Which the city is not doing here.

You're trying to completely redefine the meaning or what "equal access" means.

You are obviously talking about "equal access" on private property, not on city property.

Stated another way, the city is not providing equal access, if we only consider what is happening on city property and not what is happening on private property.
By claiming the city is "providing equal access" through your extended reasoning, you are ignoring what the rights of the private property owners should be.

 

So you don’t consider the KKK a hate group? Why am I not surprised by that!
You seem to be confused. I never stated the bigots should be forced to host gay weddings.

 

No you’re right…the KKK teaches tolerance to everyone. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

Not surprised you need to believe that.

 

Do un to others as they do un to you.

 

Many of the threads like this are just a cornucopia full of basic logical fallacies of reasoning.

Words and phrases get tossed around with semantic meanings, that are not their ordinary and common meanings. This allows arguments to be able to seem reasonable on the surface when they are actually totally not.

 

Which ignores public and private property differences.

Sorry, when you're controlling public property you shouldn't discriminate against people for discriminating on their private property.

There are different rights on public and private property, especially when it is on someone's private home.

 

My understanding is that they were refusing to sell weddings to certain people.

If those denying the sale of weddings had absolutely zero dealings with the city in regard to use of city assets, then it simply becomes an issue of public accommodation law.

If it was a public accommodation, then it comes under the same law that wedding cake bakers have had problems with.

 

If you have a question, then ask it.

 

What the heck does THAT mean? Is it public property or not??? You can not have it both ways.

When it is private property (NOT public property) the question becomes one of whether it is a public accommodation.

The KKK and some Catholic can build themselves a stupendous club house and exclude anyone they want to exclude as long as it isn't a public accommodation.

 

Once again you're mixing your statements between private and public property.

The property can not be both private and city. That's not how property works.

If it is city property, those who contract with the city for the use of that property have to abide by the fact that it is city property.

 

The Farm is the home to the couple and 6 children.
The city in question has nothing to do with the Farm since it is not in the same community.
The East Lansing rulers ruled the city park can't be used by the Farmers who are deeply religious.

 

Even if it was in the same city, it should not make any difference.

The city is trying to impose selective treatment on them contingent upon their treatment of other people on private property.
The city is infringing on their right to choice on their own private small farm property.

 

The Farm in question is not in the jurisdiction of that city of East Lansing. The park is in East Lansing.

What happened is the city rulers suddenly decided to change rules.

 

The council of City A made a ruling impacting on the Farm in city B.

I see scads of legal problems for the city.

 

Thanks. That has been my understanding, thought I was about to have to go back and reread!

The East Lansing ruling is absolutely correct, as it pertains to city property, which comes with equal access rights for all citizens.

Another example would be that the KKK can't rent that city property and open a vegetable market for use exclusively by Caucasians.

 

So far as I can tell, the ruling EXCLUSIVELY addressed the use of public property.

Was there something beyond that? Was there a move against the farm on the principle of it being a public accommodation and thus prohibited from discrimination due to public accommodation law???

 

No, if one city is ruling on the use of property outside of that city, that would be a significant issue.

A city doesn't have standing outside it's own borders.

Your second paragraph is a total muddle.

 

Again, my understanding is that the city ruled on use of its own city property.

No higher government is going to demand that the city allow for uses of city property that discriminate on the bases indicated.

 

On their own PRIVATE property.
Again (try answering this time)....are they refusing service to anyone at the CITY market, the property they DONT own?

If they are on city sewer (just a what if) should the city deny them service? Maybe refuse trash pick up too?