Thursday, June 1

City bans a farmer from selling at their farmers' market because...can you guess?

Remember all the oh-so-solemn promises from the pushers of gay-marriage that legalizing gay marriage would never ever ever cause any harm to any straight person?

You may also recall that opponents warned that those solemn promises were false, and that legalizing gay marriage would lead to a flood of prosecutions and lawsuits against people who declined to fully embrace and support that practice, even if it went against their religious beliefs.

Sure enough, bakers, photographers and wedding venues have all been sued and either fined or forced out of business by aggressive criminal prosecutions for declining to participate in gay weddings.  And it's getting worse:

A Michigan farmer who wrote a Facebook post stating that he didn't believe gay-marriage was right has been banned from selling his produce at a city 20 miles from where he lives.

It started last August when an un-named "official" in East Lansing, Michigan tried to simply intimidate the farmer into not coming to their market, claiming that showing up could incite protests.  The farmer saw that for what it was and decided to take his chances.

No one showed up to protest that August day, and the farmer continued selling at the seasonal market until October, as he had done for six years.

Of course the LGBTQWYZPMN lobby never stops trying, and this year East Lansing went from a warning about possible protests to banning the guy from selling at the farmers market.  The city cited its human-relations ordinance, an anti-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation.

Recall that the farmer was only wanting to sell produce, and would sell to anyone.  His views on gay marriage shouldn't have been relevant in this activity.  So the farmer sued the city for religious discrimination.

East Lansing's mayor, Mark Meadows, said the city’s decision to ban the man from selling at the farmers market had nothing to do with religious beliefs, but with the farm’s “business decision” not to host same-sex weddings.

“This is about them operating a business that discriminates against LGBT individuals, and that’s a whole different issue,” Meadows said.

The farm hosts weddings and other events.  In 2014 two lesbians sought to book the farm for their wedding ceremony but the farmer turned them down.  This was before the 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage across the country.  The farmer referred the women to an orchard that held same-sex weddings.

Last August one of the lesbians wrote a Facebook post discouraging consumers from doing business with Country Mill, which prompted the farmer to post on Fakebook that they would no longer host any weddings.  But in December he announced that he would resume holding weddings:

[Our] family and staff have and will continue to participate in hosting the ceremonies held at our orchard.  It remains our deeply held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and [that we have] the First Amendment right to express and act upon [our] beliefs. For this reason, Country Mill reserves the right to deny a request for services that would require it to communicate, engage in, or host expression that violates the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs and conscience.
   It remains our religious belief that all people should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of their beliefs or background. We appreciate the tolerance offered to us specifically regarding our participation in hosting wedding ceremonies at our family farm.
East Lansing city officials determined that these public statements violated the city’s 1972 human relations ordinance prohibiting discrimination.  The farmer's lawsuit counters that the city "has no authority to enforce its ordinance" because the farm is 22 miles outside the city. 

In March, the city sent the farmer a letter denying his application to sell at the 2017 farmers market, citing the city ordinance. 

So what does a city banning a guy from their farmers' market show us?  First, that the warnings sounded by conservatives before gay marriage was legalized by the supreme court were not only correct, but if anything were less dire than reality turned out to be.
Second, that people hired by cities to monitor and enforce "tolerance"--meaning, of course, tolerance for approved thinking but not for those who express thoughts contra to the protected groups--will find a way to reach out and fuck with the livelihood of anyone they don't like.  And will be sucking up taxpayer money to do so.
Third:  The Left loves this outcome--evidence being that not a single leftist voice will be raised against it.  The case will not get a word of coverage in the Mainstream Democrat media.
Finally, consider this: if the farmer had been a Muslim and had written the same thing this guy did, does anyone believe for a moment that the city would have banned him?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home