If Jan Bewer’s gay hairstylist can refuse her business, why can’t Christians do that too?
Let me put it this way, homosexuals and Muslims will have the right to refuse your business but Christians won’t
I have the right to refuse service to anybody I deem a MARXIST/LIBERAL/COMMUNIST.
I also have the right to refuse them employment.
Catastrophic logic beautifully argued!
EXCELLENT illustrations!
And whatever happened to “no shirt, no shoes, no service” ? seen at many shops at resorts
Or “only two children with backpacks in the store at one time” - sign near a middle school.
I guess he'd make an exception about the Mormons and polygamy.
Most here are loathe to admit it, but we sacrificed the “absolute right to refuse service” with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Business owners have not actually had such a right since the day it was signed.
We did it for the most noble of reasons. But put ourselves on a very slippery slope in the process. Unintended consequences.
Good counter illustrations, but in offering them up, you must assert the truth about the agenda.
The agenda is anti-Christian. All answers to your scenarios will be given within this agenda.
The goal is the criminalization of Christian belief and the punishment thereof by the State.
And we need to call them out on it, not pussyfoot around with counter-examples to point out their “hypocrisy”.
Pointing out hypocrisy is a “shame” tactic, and it does not work with the left.
Bttt
In Colorado where I live, the voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1995 that sought to refuse a “special class” status under the law to those who engaged in homosexual behavior. Hollywood and many other pro-homosexual interests launched a massive boycott against the state. Now I’m told that to refuse business because of sexual practice is unconstitutional. Why then was not the boycott unconstitutional and how is that different from a baker refusing to do business. An entire industry refused to do business costing Colorado real documentable financial damages, not just hurt feelings; why is that business discrimination just and the bakers unjust? I think that the principle of equality under the law is dead in such rulings when some groups are more equal than others.
Isn’t it interesting, that Apple’s Tim Cook has said, “If you don’t believe my ideology, you are not welcome here”, and New York state has basically done the same, if not worse? But if you are a private business owner, you are not allowed to do the same.
when the time comes to deny christians the ability to buy food because they do not wear the mark, will this decision come back to haunt them... i think not.
teeman
I can still remember a time long ago when my wife and I wandered into Provincetown on Cape Cod as a side trip to Boston. It was lunch time and we decided to have a bite to eat so we found a nice restaurant the overlooked the water and went in. Well we stood there for a while and could plainly see people who worked there but they never approached us so I finally walked over and asked if they were serving lunch. The answer: yes but we do not serve “your kind”, i.e. hetros. So, this has been going on for some time from the homo side.
Forced segregation and forced integration both violate the right of free association.
Bush had it right when he said if he could he would just pass a law that made everyone love one another. Too bad it does not work that way.
The left has become a fascist religion that seeks not just to win converts to its faith but rather compel everyone to submit to it. I think this is why the left and Islam get along so well.
"An Absolute Right to Refuse Service" is a principle that could, would, and should apply to all businesses and individuals, even allowing exceptions for emergency services and such. Such a simple bill would have provided little room for opposing debate, and little room for judicial tyranny.
Such a bill would have protected the interests of the religious people and organizations, as well as the interests of their opposing forces. Principled legislation provides equal justice for all.
But that's not what AZ SB1062 was about. A few unprincipled, religious fruitcakes scrapped together a scrambled mess of idiotic religious mumbo-jumbo, and ran it through the state senate and house.
Absolute pure stupidity from a bunch of severely mentally retarded religious fruitcake legislators.
And in their stupidity, they further ratcheted back the freedoms of the non-stupid citizens, just like every other effort at legislating religion has done in the past half century or so.
He was right.
Unfortunately for the analogy, Einstein was a big lefty, which means he had in mind only leftists disobeying conservative laws. He'd doubtless be a cheerleader for "gay marriage" if he were around today.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
Ditto, despite what his conservative relatives are saying.
So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap.
Liberals should have been made to understand from the outset that "jim crow" was wrong not because it violated secular standards of justice (which ultimately don't even exist), but Divine ones. But nobody, not even conservatives, want to talk about Divine law.
My personal opinion is that conservatives are going to have to adopt leftist tactics--mass resistance, protests, going to jail--to even begin to make headway on this issue.