“But at the same time, if you’re going to publicly advertise to the public that they’re welcome to rent your house, but restrict certain parts of the public, then it’s false advertising.”
>But if you advertise that you reserve the right to reject any applicant for any reason, what then?
Then you lose business, simple. You may also be vilified socially for discriminating against a group based on your own personal biases. Rightfully so. You'll be no different than the people who display these signs on their windows..
>>“Unless you’re running a private club or a church, you have no right to refuse anybody from buying your particular product.”
>Under current law, yes. Prior to the 1960s, that was not true - most businesses reserved the right to refuse service to anyone.
Prior to the 1980s, driving drunk wasn't illegal either. Does that mean drunken driving should be decriminalized?
>>“God created ALL people in his image”. >Then man fell. And we are NOT all children of God.
Oh really, Pastor Rogers? Ok, let's see what the good book says.
Romans 3:10 "What then? Are we better than they? No, in no way. For we previously charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. As it is written, 'There is no one righteous. No, not one.'"
Or how about this quote? "Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."
Or how about Matthew 18:21-35?
>>“A Christian wouldn’t discriminate.” >If his goal is to collect money on time, not renting to someone he suspects is a deadbeat would be a good idea.
But what if that suspicion of being a deadbeat is based on superficial stereotype and not actually giving a person a background check, an interview and a credit check? Who has the poor judgment now? And what does the bible say about that? Oh yeah.. Matthew 7:1,2, Matthew 6:14, Mark 4:24.
>If his goal is to honor God, then renting a basement apartment to homosexuals, or pastors wanting a place to shack up, would NOT be good.
So being a member of a different ethnic group is akin to being a homosexual. Nice stretch of logic there.
>A morals clause used to be common in renting rooms. Prior to the 60s...
Pastor Rogers, what does discriminating against a person based on ethnicity have to do with morality? Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.
>>“No, you don’t advertise your house as being open to the public nor do you charge admission for people to enter your house.”
>But my home receives the benefit of sewers, roads, etc - so what gives me the right to do what I want and to believe what I want?
Do you believe that you think that your right to free assembly and free speech supersedes the right for a person to legally and constitutionally further their well being?
If you do, then you just admitted that a Muslim who is trained in first aid has no obligation to give first aid to an injured Christian they see on the road because it's against their faith to intermingle with Dhimmis.
>By your argument, anyone who receives any public benefit must conform to what the public wants. Thus you have wedding photographers being sued if they refuse to photograph the weddings of homosexuals.
So how does sexual deviancy relate to a discussion about race? Nevermind, this bizarre paragraph only deserves this response... 
I'd hate to be your shrink.
“Then you lose business, simple. You may also be vilified socially for discriminating against a group based on your own personal biases. Rightfully so. You’ll be no different than the people who display these signs on their windows..”
Yes, I believe Mall of America should have the right to ban guns from their private property. As someone who carries regularly, if I’m asked by a property owner not to carry, I either comply or leave.
“Prior to the 1980s, driving drunk wasn’t illegal either. Does that mean drunken driving should be decriminalized?”
No. But then, drunk driving on your own property IS still legal. Can you not see the difference between life-threatening behavior on a public highway, and non-violent behavior on private property?
“>>“God created ALL people in his image”. >Then man fell. And we are NOT all children of God.
Oh really, Pastor Rogers? Ok, let’s see what the good book says.”
Yes, lets look:
“5-14 For of this much you can be certain: that neither the immoral nor the dirty-minded nor the covetous man (which latter is, in effect, worshipping a false god) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Don’t let anyone fool you on this point, however plausible his argument. It is these very things which bring down the wrath of God upon the disobedient. Have nothing to do with men like that—once you were “darkness” but now you are “light”. Live then as children of the light. The light produces in men quite the opposite of sins like these—everything that is wholesome and good and true. Let your lives be living proofs of the things which please God. Steer clear of the activities of darkness; let your lives show by contrast how dreary and futile these things are. (You know the sort of things I mean—to detail their secret doings is really too shameful).” - Ephesians 5
” 18-21 Now the holy anger of God is disclosed from Heaven against the godlessness and evil of those men who render truth dumb and inoperative by their wickedness. It is not that they do not know the truth about God; indeed he has made it quite plain to them. For since the beginning of the world the invisible attributes of God, e.g. his eternal power and divinity, have been plainly discernible through things which he has made and which are commonly seen and known, thus leaving these men without a rag of excuse. They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and plunged their silly minds still further into the dark.
22-23 Behind a facade of “wisdom” they became just fools, fools who would exchange the glory of the eternal God for an imitation image of a mortal man, or of creatures that run or fly or crawl.
24 They gave up God: and therefore God gave them up—to be the playthings of their own foul desires in dishonouring their own bodies.
The fearful consequence of deliberate atheism
25-27 These men deliberately forfeited the truth of God and accepted a lie, paying homage and giving service to the creature instead of to the Creator, who alone is worthy to be worshipped for ever and ever, amen. God therefore handed them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another. Men with men performed these shameful horrors, receiving, of course, in their own personalities the consequences of sexual perversity.” - Romans 1
We are not all children of Gd. We were all made in his image, and we are all capable of repenting and accepting the offer of salvation - but most do not.
Should I be forced to rent out my home to anyone? Or can I use my property in a way consistent with traditional values?
“Pastor Rogers, what does discriminating against a person based on ethnicity have to do with morality? Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.”
I agree. My wife is a Filipina. But when you take away the right to discriminate based on ethnicity, you open the door to remove it for all sorts of other reasons - as we see now, with homosexuals and bisexuals being protected types of people.
That outcome was predicted by conservatives at the time, and is why many conservatives refused to vote for the CRA. Since the 1960s, the government in DC or state capitols gets to decide who is special, and who is not.
When younger, I had a fellow refuse to rent his house to me because I wasn’t Mormon. Did I sue? No, I just rented elsewhere.
I know the reasons the Civil Rights Act passed. I was in Selma Alabama in 1965. Close enough to remember the racial hatred. But when you take away the right of free association, you lose a critical part of freedom.
“If you do, then you just admitted that a Muslim who is trained in first aid has no obligation to give first aid to an injured Christian they see on the road because it’s against their faith to intermingle with Dhimmis.”
I believe the Muslim, in that situation, should be free to do as he believes is right. I’ll trust God’s judgment of him, but not government’s.
In this case: A gun shop gets a lot of scrutiny, and more so now that we know government agents will enter a store and try to get the owner to do something illegal. As the store pointed out, they have a requirement to refuse a sale to someone they think is a ‘straw man’ purchaser. That is true regardless of the race of the buyer.
Had they refused me, I wouldn’t be able to shout “Racist!”. But when I bought a revolver a few years back, the gun shop owner said my unusual last name helped - that if I said my name was Smith, he would have held up the sale fr a few days until he was sure I wasn’t using a false ID. He told me back then, before the revelations of government action, that his business was on the line every time he made a sale.
The government loves to put businessmen in a Catch-22. Hire an illegal, and you can be fined. Ask someone for paperwork, and you can be fined. Depends on the state.
If this “Miller” gave the same address as the “Miller” who was turned down, or if comments made to the clerk indicated he might be buying for someone else, then the gun shop had a legal requirement to refuse the sale. Black or white.
My Filipina wife, daughter, and daughter-in-law have yet to find a store that wouldn’t take their money. I rather doubt a large store in Charlotte NC (45% non-hispanic white, 35% black), with 2 stores in Charlotte & 450 nationwide, is refusing to sell to blacks.
