Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Federal Judge orders East Lansing to allow apple seller

"LANSING - A federal district judge (in Kalamazoo, Michigan) Friday issued a preliminary injunction against the city of East Lansing that allows a Charlotte farmer to return to the city's farmers market for the remainder of the 2017 season.

Judge Paul Maloney wrote in his order that "The City of East Lansing must allow Plaintiffs to participate in the East Lansing Farmer’s Market for the remainder of the 2017 season....There exists a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will be able to prevail on the merits of their claims for speech retaliation and for free exercise of religion."

The Charlotte, Michigan farmer had been banned from the East Lansing City market after posting on social media that his family only hosted male-female marriages on his family farm. The reason given for only allowing male-female marriage was his family's religious convictions.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...-allow-farmer-back-its-market/670626001/

Nice.

What's wrong with the right to refuse service ....

The ordinance was written after the social media post and was written so narrowly that it appeared to specifically target that family.

That gave the appearance that administrators for the city were abusing their power to advance their own, political agenda at the expense of some poor smuck just trying to be right with God and make a living. It would be different if it was the mayor's or the city manager's personal property.

The smuck could have easily split his business into two parts to avoid the ordinance but it stuck in his craw. Farmers can get a little bit funny about private property rights after working 70 weeks to bring in a crop.

Should have never been let out of the closet.

Exactly. I could care less what people do in the privacy behind their closed doors, but it's a whole different matter when those doors are flung open, and their behavior is allowed to spill out in the streets AND the rest of us are ordered to accept it.

Not only are we ordered to accept it but they want to make us think it's normal.

Good for the Judge on actually doing his job and not caving to PC.

I further hope that they can recover their legal and business losses in civil litigation against the city. The folks who elect those yahooos need to pay.

This reminds me of an essay I wrote a few years ago. The pertinent part is paragraph three. Here it is:

ESSAY ON WORLD VIEW
Rich Coyle (541) 450-4170
richlovessuemsn.com
December 6, 1992

The objective of this work is to reduce some thoughts to questions: Then by a progression of thoughts, have the reader come to some reasonable conclusion despite, or as a result of, their dogmas, biases, or generally preconceived notions.

We need to start by informing the reader that he or she is opinionated. If we say, "I am not!" this is our opinion, and we hold to it dearly, thus proving we are. It should be added at this time that there are some people (let's hope their numbers are small) who are as one writer put it, “Tossed here and there by every wind of doctrine." Perhaps, though, even these poor folks are opinionated. There is a man, we’ll call him Rick, who used to say after almost every paragraph, "...but I could be wrong." Is this then his opinionated opinion? No, because when he was pressed about something, he would say, "O yea, I guess I was right." His opinion could be changed by anyone he respected. There are also some who are so confident in the views they hold, almost nothing can overcome their biases. If these views cannot be supported by facts, it is irrelevant. Who needs facts when you have a good prejudice? Maybe these individuals are the most fortunate. They are convinced, not because of or despite a lack of any evidence but, by their prejudices.

If we decide that someone's positions are bad, what criteria do we utilize, our own prejudice? This brings us to ask about the idea of good and bad; which leads one to include right and wrong. We may consider some of our views to be good or right; and at other times we hold these same positions to be wrong or bad.
From where does the concept of good and bad or right and wrong come? What leads us along this path? There are some things that certain people think the absence of is bad; while others consider their presence to be bad. Some would say that these bad things will lead to other bad things which are perhaps even worse. Again the question arises: What is good or bad? Who determines what is good or bad, right or wrong? This results in bigotry. Who's to say that bigotry is good or bad, though? If the person who became a bigot was aborted before being born, some would be delighted. Some believe the absence of abortions is wrong. Others might conclude aborting unborn humans is murder. Most everyone agrees that murder is bad, don’t we? We just don't agree when murder is or is not. Euthanasia is against the law. It must be wrong! But then, abortion used to be against the law didn’t it? Some are dead set against euthanasia for any reason. Others feel it is wrong not to practice it in some instances.
When I was young, the media told us that homosexuality was "just a disease". We were told that we should feel sorry for homosexuals. Now, aren’t we considered "sick" if we don't endorse the “gay” lifestyle?

In the past the idea of an unmarried couple living together was strongly condemned by society. Even the term to describe it is repugnant: Shacking up.
Hedonism has replaced thoughtfulness of others. Why? Why are things going this way? Why is there such a thing as "politically correct" in a day of tolerance? Why is it that one can say, "Wrong is not wrong, it is a matter of perspective."? The answer is obvious when one looks at the difference in "Why are there birds and bees?" as being taught now compared to a century ago. Everything was a result of a Creator God. Now we are taught by enlightened thinkers that we are the result of a mindless undirected struggle orchestrated by unguided natural laws. Modern science knows we are a result of a fortuitous arrangement of inorganic matter. There is no creator: We created ourselves. We are at the top of the evolutionary heap.

Since there is no Creator God, evolution will eventually do its thing. Man will, by chance, destroy himself and then bacteria will rule. That is...if there is no Creator God.