According to Reason, a man named Steve Tennes, who owns Country Mills Farms located twenty miles outside East Lansing, is suing the government of East Lansing for barring him from its city-run Farmers’ Market because of his own personal opinions on marriage.
The city does not like the fact that Tennes, a Catholic who believes that marriage is a religious bond between a man and a woman, hosts heterosexual weddings on his farm, but denies requests for same-sex weddings.
The state of Michigan does not include sexual orientation in its list of protected groups in “public accommodations,” but East Lansing does. So, even though Tennes has not broken any state or local statute -- because he hosts and declines weddings on land far outside East Lansing, and not at the Lansing Farmers’ Market -- the gub-ment of East Lansing is blocking him from conducting business at its city-run market on government property.
As Reason observes:
“…(A)fter begging Tennes to drop out of the market and failing (according to the lawsuit), the city updated its law to require those who want to conduct business within East Lansing to follow the city's discrimination laws as ‘a general business practice.’ Thus, East Lansing wants to use Tennes' refusal to host same-sex weddings elsewhere as a reason to keep him from doing business within the city.”
This begs an important question, even beyond the obvious infringement on religious freedom: At what point can a municipality punish someone for engaging in behavior that is not conducted within its city limits? Certainly, East Lansing could not legally try to punish Tennes simply for refusing to host gay weddings outside the city's legal authority.
So instead, they just banned him from selling his fruits and veggies at their local farmers' market.
There are two big issues at stake here: the unworkability of government-run “farmers’ markets” (or government-run anything, actually), and the right of a person to discriminate.
To “discriminate” is simply to choose a preference between two or more options. Should a person who prefers hosting weddings on his farm be attacked in any way by any government – be it indirectly by East Lansing or some other state-wide statute – simply for peacefully declining to engage in a business venture with others? To compel another person to engage in an activity that politicians prefer is to participate in statutory enslavement. It is immoral, unethical, and counter to any concept of self-ownership.
People might not like doing business with a man who opposes gay marriage. In that case, they should be free to not do business with him. Thanks to private enterprise, we can all make those choices. But when government runs anything (in this case, a farmers' market), it cannot, on principle, discriminate against anyone who might pay taxes to help support it.
As a result, the East Lansing rule barring people from showing wares at its farmers’ market is an example of the very “discrimination” city politicians abhor when applied to gay weddings. In principle, anything the government manages must be open to all taxpayers, and exclusion is impossible.
But don’t tell that to the big-wigs running East Lansing. They appear too focused on being politically inclusive to realize that they are being just the opposite.
Thank you for supporting MRCTV! As a tax-deductible, charitable organization, we rely on the support of our readers to keep us running! Keep MRCTV going with your gift here!