FReegards!
Posted on 04/27/2018 10:44:08 AM PDT by blam
A judge ruled that a bar was well within its right to kick out Trump supporters. And this is great news.
Not because I have any particular animosity towards Trump supporters (any more than other enablers of government oppression). I’m not saying Trump supporters should be kicked out of bars. If I owned a bar I certainly wouldn’t kick out Trump supporters. After all, it’s not like the Bernie supporters have enough money to keep a business afloat.
But this is a win for freedom of association. All interactions should be consensual. Obviously, we understand this concept when it comes to relationships and sex. But for some reason, fewer people hold consent as so important when it comes to business transactions.
You don’t have to go to a bar, and a bar doesn’t have to serve you.
But this does seem like quite the contradiction compared to courts forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay couples.
The distinction, in this case, is that the bar did not deny someone based on religious beliefs. Political discrimination is allowed. So you cannot deny a customer based on your own religious beliefs, but you can deny a customer based on their–and your–political beliefs. Unless of course, that customer holds a protected political belief, in which case you still cannot deny them.
Some people think that when a business opens their doors, they are waiving their right to deny service to any peaceful customer willing to pay the price for a product on offer.
But imagine extreme examples where the store owner should absolutely be able to deny a customer.
A Jewish-owned bagel shop advertises that they will make your bagels into any shape you want. Can they deny a Neo-Nazi who wants a dozen swastika bagels?
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybell.com ...
Leftists are among the most intellectually and morally bankrupt group of people who have ever existed.
They drew the line in performing their service for a gay couple. The same service they perform for heterosexual couples. That violated the state anti-discrimination laws. So the courts ruled against them.
No one wants to be told we don’t serve your kind. How humiliating to the recipient but you can surely tell them we don’t do it that way.
The bar is wrong and the bakery is right.
Other way around. Political leaning is not a protected class in any state while sexual orientation is protected in most states. So the solution as I see it is to have the business clearly and prominently state who they will serve and who they will not. No need for humiliating verbal rejections. The customer can see before they enter the establishment if they will be served or not.
Ah but a Margarita, if done right, is an absolute work of art.
“Businesses have the right to refuse to serve any one.
Then again, you’re free to look elsewhere.”
So if you have the only gas station at the edge of the desert with a truth full sign saying “Last gas for 200 miles”, you have the right to refuse service to someone who pulls in with a quarter tank.
And if someone already had enough gas but their car breaks down and they walk back to your place, you have the right to refuse service, a place to stay out of the sun, water to drink, a phone to call for help...anything.
So you can potentially let them die because “Businesses have the right to refuse to serve any one”.
A business has the right to close the business at any time.
"The distinction, in this case, is that the bar did not deny someone based on religious beliefs. Political discrimination is allowed. So you cannot deny a customer based on your own religious beliefs, but you can deny a customer based on their–and your–political beliefs. Unless of course, that customer holds a protected political belief, in which case you still cannot deny them."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Politically correct, anti-Christian interpretations of the Constitution aside, please note the following.
One of the reasons that Christian business owners have been getting unjustly punished by pro-LGBT, anti-Christian state actors is this. Christians evidently don’t know their constitutionally enumerated protections, the 14th Amendment in these cases, well enough to protect themselves from activist actors.
"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"14th Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In fact, consider that Acts 22:25-29 shows that Paul used his Roman citizenship to save himself from being flogged.
But the main reason imo that state actors continue to get away with harassing Christians is the following imo.
The corrupt, post-17th Amendment (17A) ratification Congress left over from the lawless Obama Administration has been wrongly silent on state abridgment of constitutionally enumerated rights.
More specifically, it has stubbornly refused to take the initiative to exercise its 14th Amendment powers to make punitive laws to discourage state actors from harassing citizens who value their freedoms of religious expression and speech in these cases.
The remedy for the worthless uniparty Congress that condones harassment of Christians …
Patriots need to finish the job that they started when they elected Trump president.
More specifically, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting patriot candidates on the 2018 primary ballots, candidates who will be willing to make punitive laws to discourage abridgment of constitutionally enumerated rights by state actors.
Patriots must then pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day so that they can start making such laws.
And until the states wake up and repeal 17A, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of the outcome of Alabama's and Pennsylvania's special elections, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for possible deep state ballot box fraud, associated MSM scare tactics, and interference from people like Soros.
Hacking Democracy - The Hack
Yes, a gay life stile is a mental disorder not protected by any constitutional right that I know of.
Leftist hypocrisy bump for later....
Any loud boisterous group should be shown the exit. However, if they are conducting themselves in accordance within the norms of the establishment, they should not be fair game for being refused service.
Evidently this judge hasn’t heard of Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals...
I’ll guarantee you, if this group had been a Leftist group, this judge would have seen things quite differently.
Some folks will try to say, being born Black, Hispanic, Gay, and several other categories makes this situation different.
No, Conservatives were born with the ability to see things clearly, and they should not be penalized anymore than anyone else for how they were born.
OK. Since 90% of blacks are Democrats, and I have the freedom to discriminate based on politics I just tell all Democrats to get the hell out of my business.
Right?
“A business has the right to close the business at any time.”
So a business has the right to close at any time, which means without warning, leaving you closed inside with no way out till someone feels like opening the premises again.
So, if I own a bakery, I should bake the cake but add “Dykes burn in Hell” to the directions, because, First amendment and artistic license?
They didn’t deny gay customers. They denied a same-sex marriage
Yeah, because we all know Trump supporters are all for that government oppression. Effin moron.
It might be “verrrrry interresting,” as Arte Johnson used to say.
Why not? They'll sue you anyway regardless of whether you refuse the cake or make it the way you describe.
You mean the same anti-discrimination law that prevents religious discrimination? That one?
Hmmm. This should open some new doors.
Can the conservative Christian who owns a bakery now simply ask the gay couple who comes in wanting a wedding cake, “Well, what do you think of Trump? Did you vote for him or did you vote for Hillary?” If they indicate they hate Trump and voted for Hillary, can the couple then say, “Get out of my damned bakery. I don’t make cakes for DEMOCRATS or anyone with whom I disagree with politically!”?
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.