Posted on 07/02/2013 9:01:34 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
The Supreme Court Justices recently made a decision that is squalid, shameful, sorry, shocking, and stupefying that will put perverts on a pedestal and decent Christians in prison! That decision will affect churches, schools, and businesses.
Does a Christian business person have the right to choose whom he will serve? Most sane people will agree that no one has absolute rights. In this matter, both the owner and customer have rights, but which right is superior? If we eliminate the possibility of the owner using tax dollars to start the business, it becomes a little less confusing, less contentious as well as less conflicting. It is also to be understood that a customer has the opportunity to do business elsewhere since there are similar businesses available. And it isn’t a life and death matter.
The business owner takes a huge risk putting his own money into the business, working long hours, often without salary and the customer risks nothing. No one will argue that there are some legitimate restrictions: a bar does not have to serve a customer already drunk; nor will a store have to sell a butcher knife to a five-year-old who wanders in with a twenty-dollar bill. Alright, there are exceptions but what about homosexuals who want a Christian photographer to take pictures of their “wedding” or want a baker to make a cake for their wedding reception? That is a sticky wicket! There are similar cases on file of these conflicts; the most famous is the Christian couple in Oregon who got in legal trouble because they refused to bake a cake for two lesbians.
Customers discriminate (make choices) all the time so why not a business owner? The bakery sells to adulterers, homosexuals, tax cheats, etc., but will not bake a cake for a “gay” wedding. Obviously, they don’t hate gays since they sell them birthday cakes but not wedding cakes. The bakery owners do not support same-sex “marriage.” That is their right and responsibility as Christians. What if a pedophile group wants a cake for their annual bash promoting sex with kids? Motto: “Sex by eight or it’s too late.” This is not about a cake but forcing a perverted agenda on others just as the Supreme Court did. I would bake homosexuals a birthday cake but not a wedding cake. I would sell a cake to an abortionist but not to celebrate his 10th anniversary as an abortionist.
What about a Jewish baker refusing to make a cake for a meeting of holocaust deniers? How about a black baker who refuses to bake a cake for the KKK? Can a Muslim business refuse to serve a Jew, or a Muslim caterer refuse to provide pork for a Christian organization? How about a gun-hating baker refusing to bake a cake for a gun manufacturer’s annual party? What about a “gay” architect refusing to draw plans for a pro-family group? What about a radical leftist printing firm refusing to print material for an outspoken conservative cause?
My religious views do not end when they conflict with another person’s religious views. Of course, mine have priority! I can be flexible in some things but unbending in others. Only I can decide the difference. As an American, I can start a business and serve only people with red hair. Dumb but not wrong. Illegal but not immoral.
Homosexuals yell the loudest about freedom, tolerance, respect of others, yet they are the epitome of intolerance and hate when someone opposes them. The homosexual mafia, the attack dog of the LGBT lobby, demands tolerance and practices tyranny so how do you spell hypocrites: H o m o s e x u a l! A Christian couple refused to bake a cake because of religious beliefs and now they are picketed, persecuted, and could be prosecuted for their decision.
This comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required a businessman to serve burgers to anyone. Any businessman whose business was started with any tax dollars is morally obligated to serve anyone; however, absent the tax support, a man could morally (but not legally) start a business and refuse to serve Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Indians, and only serve bald dwarfs from Lithuania. He would not be in business long but that should be his right. The U.S. Congress overreached with the Civil Rights Act rightly giving legal rights to Blacks while wrongly removing basic business rights from Whites (maybe even bigoted, hateful, unreasonable rights). That part of the Act was troublesome, tragic and tyrannical.
I don’t support businesses that actively support “gay” rights such as Penny’s and Starbucks. When I think about buying a shirt at Penny’s or stopping at Starbucks, I take a deep breath, count to 10, and then have a sandwich at Chick-fil-A.
That is not bigotry but Bible! Not prejudice but principle! And if the Supreme Justices don’t like it, they can go jump in the lake.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 15 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His shocking book, ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse!; Christian Resistance: An Idea Whose Time Has Come–Again!; and The God Haters are all available at Amazon.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.
"Like" Dr. Boys on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/CSTNews?ref=hl and http://www.facebook.com/TheGodHaters?ref=hl Follow Dr. Boys on Twitter at https://twitter.com/CSTNews
You’re exactly right. There is no constitutional right to be served by a business establishment. But there IS a right to the unimpeded practice of one’s religion.
There's a big leap between "should refuse" and "should be able to refuse". Thank you for saying it in the latter way.
nope those are private property owner rights, the same rights that allow you to control what goes on on your land and your house.
Then as a business owner, I should be able to have separate bathrooms for homosexuals, right?
“It is also to be understood that a customer has the opportunity to do business elsewhere since there are similar businesses available.”
This is the same argument used in regard to businesses that post “No guns allowed”. It’s a weak argument because while it may be true in the author’s neighborhood that doesn’t mean it is universally true.
“If we eliminate the possibility of the owner using tax dollars to start the business, it becomes a little less confusing, less contentious as well as less conflicting.”
We also need to recognize that if a business operates as a corporation, it is a creation of the state.
“...only serve bald dwarfs from Lithuania...”
What if the business was established to serve only bald dwarfs from Lithuania?
“A business should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason, including skin color, race, gender, national origin, sex, religion, creed, viewpoint, handicap condition, mental condition.”
Should? Can you provide some reasoning as to why that “should” be the case? Can you provide something that would convince someone who believes otherwise to change their opinion?
Since the goal is to eliminate Christianity, none of this is a surprise.
if you’d want to remodel for that, i guess if you want to offer that. whether they use that one or not would be up to them as you may not know if they are gay or not.
i wouldn’t want to clean it if i were you because they often use bathrooms for different reasons than other people.
A petard is a small explosive charge, originially used in siege warfare. “Hoist by one’s own petard” means something like, “Blew himself up with his own Improvised Explosive Device.”
Freedom of association was destroyed with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
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.