- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:13 pm to Salmon
quote:
He initially stopped hosting weddings, but then they decided to start back again, thus the City's ruling.
It's still crap. Unless the city can demonstrate that the family is telling queers to move along instead of selling them produce, then the city has no jurisdiction over what happens outside the city limits.
As long as they are abiding by the vendor rules at the Farmers' Market, then they should be allowed to sell their produce.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:15 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
You, and those who agree with you, are wrong. And here's why.
Let's say that instead of this being a gay issue, it was simply a health issue.
Let's say the city had an ordinance that said that anyone who had at any time failed a health and safety inspection couldn't sell food products at the farmer's market.
Then let's say this place DID fail a safety inspection in another county and this city said "nope can't sell food here"
Is the city wrong? Of course not.
quote:This is so fricking dumb.
So , stop confusing the issue. where the business is located is irrelevant. This is a simple matter of religious discrimination by the city. It's simple the city ordinance says in effect "if your religion says X you can not do Y" I'd sue their asses off on that basis.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:16 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Ah the ole "Let's all pretend we are being discriminated against as Christians to argue that we can discriminate against gay people" argument. Gotta love that one.
You can love it all you want. It's true.
Let me ask you this.
What if a city passed an ordinance that said "if you agree with gay marriage, you can't sell fruit here?"
You would , OF COURSE, say that city is discriminating against people who don't share their religious beliefs, and you would be RIGHT. because thanks to SCOTUS no government in the US can discriminate based on religion. Unfortunately for you that doesn't just mean those who don't have any religious beliefs can't be forced to accept a religion to get benefits from the government (in this case the benefit of selling fruit at a farmer's market), it also means that those who have religious beliefs can't be forced to surrender them in order to get benefits from the government.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:19 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
That's absurd. Sure, comply while there because you...are there. The "non-compliance" is in an area governed by a completely different legislative body.
I don't see how it is absurd that the City requires it Vendors to practice its business practices or ordinances.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:22 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
You, and those who agree with you, are wrong. And here's why. Let's say that instead of this being a gay issue, it was simply a health issue. Let's say the city had an ordinance that said that anyone who had at any time failed a health and safety inspection couldn't sell food products at the farmer's market. Then let's say this place DID fail a safety inspection in another county and this city said "nope can't sell food here" Is the city wrong? Of course not. So , stop confusing the issue. where the business is located is irrelevant. This is a simple matter of religious discrimination by the city. It's simple the city ordinance says in effect "if your religion says X you can not do Y" I'd sue their asses off on that basis.
Worst straw man argument I have ever read.
You analogy is terrible.
The farmers growing and selling food to ANYONE regardless of their race, sex, religion, or deviancy has nothing to do with the second issue that they were banned from performing their primary function(which was growing and selling food)
The second unrelated issue to their growing and selling food only dealt with to their use of their property.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:27 pm to Loserman
quote:
Worst straw man argument I have ever read.
I don't think you know what a straw man is
quote:
The farmers growing and selling food to ANYONE regardless of their race, sex, religion, or deviancy has nothing to do with the second issue that they were banned from performing their primary function(which was growing and selling food)
The second unrelated issue to their growing and selling food only dealt with to their use of their property.
None of this is actually important. The city has an ordinance that has gays as a protected class. The city owns and runs the farmers market and requires all of its vendors to abide by its ordinances. The farm doesn't, so the city denied their permit for the farmer's market.
The only case for the farm here is whether or not the city can deny them a permit based off an ordinance in which they do not fall under. I contend that they fall under the ordinances once they become a vendor for the city.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:33 pm to Salmon
quote:
Also, the headline to this thread is incredibly misleading/click bait. The business can sell their blueberries, just not at the City's FM.
Why is gay marriage tied to selling blueberries?
If they were frefusing to sell their blueberries to gays, I would say, ok, I understand. But....seriously....."Bend to our will, or we will break you!"
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:33 pm to Salmon
quote:
The only case for the farm here is whether or not the city can deny them a permit based off an ordinance in which they do not fall under. I contend that they fall under the ordinances once they become a vendor for the city.
That is just plain stupid.
Until recently, Madison County, NC, was dry. There were several restaurant owners who owned restaurants in other counties where they sold liquor. As long as they weren't selling alcohol in MADISON County, they were free to run their restaurants in that county. It doesn't matter that what they do in another county, which is legal THERE, is against the local ordinance.
Again, if they were refusing to sell to a gay or lesbian couple AT THE FARMERS' MARKET, then the county has a duty to deny them a permit.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:34 pm to Salmon
quote:
None of this is actually important. The city has an ordinance that has gays as a protected class. The city owns and runs the farmers market and requires all of its vendors to abide by its ordinances. The farm doesn't, so the city denied their permit for the farmer's market.
So you're saying Indonesian goods aren't used or sold in this town? I assume they do not allow oil from regressive Islamic states sold there either.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:35 pm to CrazyCow202
quote:
Because they do not want to abide by the laws of the land.
Then shouldn't the law handle that and not the Farmer's Market?
What about sanctuary cities? Are they abiding by the law of the land?
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:39 pm to mtntiger
quote:
Until recently, Madison County, NC, was dry. There were several restaurant owners who owned restaurants in other counties where they sold liquor. As long as they weren't selling alcohol in MADISON County, they were free to run their restaurants in that county. It doesn't matter that what they do in another county, which is legal THERE, is against the local ordinance.
That is fine.
But the Lansing Vendor Guidelines states that the business must abide by all city ordinances "at all business practices".
You and I can think it is stupid all we want, but I'm not sure what type of case the farm is going to have here.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:40 pm to the808bass
quote:
So you're saying Indonesian goods aren't used or sold in this town? I assume they do not allow oil from regressive Islamic states sold there either.
Does the city own these places that sell Indonesian goods or oil?
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:53 pm to Salmon
quote:You really don't? This Vendor is in fact following its ordinances since it is not performing weddings anywhere governed by the ordinance.
I don't see how it is absurd that the City requires it Vendors to practice its business practices or ordinances.
Let's say the city has a no-Jake Brake ordinance. Many do. The business trucks the blueberries in on their truck equipped with Jake Brakes. They do not use them within that city's limits.
While back at the farm, they do use the brakes. Same thing. This is the most wrong you've ever been.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:54 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
This is the most wrong you've ever been.
quote:
the Lansing Vendor Guidelines states that the business must abide by all city ordinances "at all business practices".
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:57 pm to Salmon
quote:
the Lansing Vendor Guidelines states that the business must abide by all city ordinances "at all business practices".
If I were them, I would sue them for discrimination based on religion.
They are not violating any business practices of that county. they are not violating any laws.
As long as all of their businesses in THAT county are being obeyed they do not have a leg to stand on.
The city cannot enforce their business guidelines on businesses that are not in their county.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 6/1/17 at 4:00 pm to Salmon
quote:
But the Lansing Vendor Guidelines states that the business must abide by all city ordinances "at all business practices".
Please provide a link to those regulations.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 4:07 pm to Salmon
quote:
the Lansing Vendor Guidelines states that the business must abide by all city ordinances "at all business practices".
I don't see what yoou are saying....
Posted on 6/1/17 at 4:08 pm to Salmon
quote:
Does the city own these places that sell Indonesian goods or oil?
So they don't really believe in non-discrimination. They just selectively believe it when it doesn't force them to be inconvenienced.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 4:10 pm to Salmon
Is THIS what you are talking about?
m.
Complying with the City of East Lansing’s Ci
vil Rights ordinances and the public policy
against discrimination contained in Chapter 22
of the East Lansing City Code while at the
ELFM and as a general business practice. (Appendix B)
Because if it is, it doesn't say what you are saying it says.
m.
Complying with the City of East Lansing’s Ci
vil Rights ordinances and the public policy
against discrimination contained in Chapter 22
of the East Lansing City Code while at the
ELFM and as a general business practice. (Appendix B)
Because if it is, it doesn't say what you are saying it says.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News