Posted on 07/18/2015 2:45:16 PM PDT by Kaslin
Used to be, in my lifetime, and in my office, that a simple notice on the wall sufficed:
“This business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.”
That it had to be posted was bad enough. Especially in a sole proprietorship or partnership, where the business is certainly an extension of the owner... ‘Get off my property’ should be naturally understood to be sacrosanct. And if it is not, we are lost.
Please.
I have went to more than one church in my life where people talked about other people who are members of that church and how they disagreed over the scriptural grounds of their divorce and remarriage. Don’t tell me that word doesn’t get around. It does.
This is why there is more than one scripture that talks about gossip and using that word or words similar to it, like backbiting and so on, and how Christians are to refrain from it.
We don’t need Christian bakers telling other Christians that they aren’t going to bake a cake for them because they think they are committing adultery and don’t agree with them on their interpretation of Mt. 5:32 or 1 Cor. 7:15. We had enough of that religious control over other Christians in the 4th through 18th century in Europe, and don’t need to go back even one inch towards that mess (Christian sectarianism involving the state apparatus) we left behind as a society.
BTW, I addressed 1 Cor. 7:15 in an earlier post just a few minutes ago.
God provides for His. He did in this case. Message to the homo’s and Obama: GOD RULES!!! Not you.
He does indeed
They should take their contributions and move to Idaho.
That was not an ad hominem attack on your moniker. Your character in the matter is mute.
Please excuse me for being confused about someone with the name “Laissez-faire capitalist” not being one, and posting reasons why it should be acceptable for certain businesses to be forced to into commerce with anyone with whom they explicitly do not want to do business.
Clearly my mistake.
No, as that was not my argument, which you should be dealing with rather than a strawman.
The issue is not about refusing service to anyone based upon religion, race, country etc., but refusing to make a special work for or otherwise accommodate a certain event with a substantial moral weight that the owner finds morally contrary to his known beliefs, along as such accommodation was not for essential services, such as the need for shelter which was not available elsewhere.
Thus a Muslim baker could refuse to make a cake for celebration of the birth of the nation of Israel, but could not refuse any service simply because of their religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.