I think it's a stupid business practice to turn people away and say "We don't serve your kind" -- but still, it is a businessman's right. You own the property, you should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever you please. But, America decided that the lunch counters in the south had to serve blacks, like it or not.
From that, we get the Americans with Disabilities Act (you have to spend $100,000 on a wheelchair ramp because someday someone with a wheelchair might want to browse your store) and we get bakeries who get into hot water because they don't wish to bend over for the homosexuals.
When this country respected individual liberty and property rights, it was strong. Those days are long gone.
I think it's a stupid business practice to turn people away and say "We don't serve your kind" -- but still, it is a businessman's right. You own the property, you should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever you please.
It took me a long time to accept that as well. It hurt... but what you say is indeed the truth.
“...From that, we get the Americans with Disabilities Act (you have to spend $100,000 on a wheelchair ramp because someday someone with a wheelchair might want to browse your store)..”
As an amputee (and a combat veteran of two tours in Vietnam) I STRONGLY resent your comment above...It is NOT a choice to become handicapped...
No they weren't, it was about a person's characteristics, something they were born with, that had absolutely nothing to do about their character.
On the other hand, this is about behavior, and value systems, which is a choice. I'm not talking about whether or not being gay is a choice or not, but the choice to be 'in your face' about it.
Not serving someone because of race clearly violates the founding principles of the nation of which the Constitution is to secure. We are all created equal, thus if one opens a business it should be for all. However, the Constitution does not force people to build ramps for the handicapped nor does it force the baker to endorse a behavior that he feels is morally wrong. The baker is not refusing to serve them, but rather, he does not want to use his business to promote a message that is morally wrong. This is entirely different and unrelated to the issues of the civil rights era and the lunch counter sit-ins. It is a distortion, by the way, that is intentionally fomented by the Left.
It doesn’t make sense to compare “sexual orientation” with race/ethnicity (or disability). When the Left makes that comparison, it makes no sense. It doesn’t make sense when the Right does it, either.
Consider this: When a business owner opens a store to the public, if he is permitted to refuse service to customers for any reason he may choose, even if a customer is being polite and respectful, what does he do if a customer won’t leave his store?
If someone he doesn’t want to serve walks in and refuses to leave, how should he be permitted to get that customer to leave the store? Use physical force? Call the police? If the police help the storeowner remove customers based on race, as in the lunch counter example, then the storeowner’s policy becomes the state’s policy.
But, in this case, the bakery owner didn’t refuse to do business with anyone. He merely refused to fill a special order. One would think there should be a distinction there. He may not be permitted to refuse business to people based on “sexual orientation”, but does that mean he must fill every special order everyone wants him to fill?
Here’s a question: Suppose a bakery refused to bake special cookies for a tea party protest? Would these same officials be threatening to close his shop then?
This isn't a matter of turning away customers at all, they will sell cookies to the proud-in-their-sodomy group. They just won't customize the order against their beliefs. The store owner said it well in the interview: he also wouldn't make an order of cookies displaying obscenity. This is an apt comparison.
Oh, but THIS is NOT what this is about!
Them FAGS could buy anything their little hearts desired that were sitting in the display case.
What they WANT, is for the business to GO OUT OF IT'S WAY to bake aup some SPECIAL things; things not normally stocked.
Would it be stupid if a black baker turned away a KKK member that wanted cupcakes with white hoods on them?
No business owner should have to endorse a message through a product he or she doesn't approve of.
“I think it’s a stupid business practice to turn people away and say “We don’t serve your kind” — but still, it is a businessman’s right. You own the property, you should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever you please. But, America decided that the lunch counters in the south had to serve blacks, like it or not.”
The death of freedom of association. And nobody noticed it....