Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 04/16/2015 11:18:05 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
GRANDVILLE, Mich. (WWJ) – A west Michigan business owner claims he’s been the target of death threats after he announced he won’t serve gays.
Brian Klawiter, who owns Dieseltec Automotive Repair in Grandville, posted a message on his business’ Facebook page saying that he is a Christian, and that his company does not welcome “immoral behavior” — including homosexuality.
“Our rights as conservative Americans are being squashed more and more everyday. Apparently if you are white (or close to it), you have a job, go to church, and own a gun… That translates into racists, privileged, bigot, conspiracy theorist.
How do you tell a “HOMO” car owner from a straight one? rear end? driveshaft? radiator leakage?
quite easily, as the shop owner himself explained; two indidivduals of the same sex coming in and engaging in a public display of affection...
I agree. It makes no sense. Just confuses the issue and damages the righteous cause of those who are fighting for religious protection.
“Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR not a characteristic”
or a sex or religion, plus,
its a lifestyle and a dangerous one at that..
Q/Why do restaurants tell the help to wash their hands after using the bath room.....?
A/ Because feces can make people sick.
“No, it’s not. We have had both federal and state anti-discrimination laws on the books for decades that make that kind of stuff illegal.”
Just because the government claims a person doesn’t have the right to so doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t have that right. What happened to freedom of association? A person should be free to serve or not serve whomever they wish without government intervention. Of course the government made it illegal, but the government makes many things illegal that probably should not be made illegal. My comment was not on the legality of such actions, but on a person’s freedom. Stuff like this just gives the government more and more power over our lives.
I think that Christians need to be careful not to be a stumbling block to people struggling with sin, but who are nonetheless seeking the truth in Jesus.
Note that 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 shows that some members of that church had struggled with same-sex temptations, but had evidently accepted God’s grace to repent and turn their lives around.
Or do you think there is nothing different in the character of a person who engages in homosexual acts, versus the rest of us? Is everyone just as likely to engage in that behavior?
Or do you think there is nothing different in the character of a person who engages in homosexual acts, versus the rest of us? Is everyone just as likely to engage in that behavior
I do believe that the post you respond to was making the point that the shop owner was referring to people’s behavior, not characteristic, when putting the kabosh on the service...the only way he could know of a person’s intrinsic character would be through behavior...
“Just because the government claims a person doesn’t have the right to so doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t have that right.”
Sure, I can agree with that, but if the government doesn’t recognize your supposed right, then you are going to have quite a hard time asserting it in a court of law.
“What happened to freedom of association?”
Freedom of association never referred to the right not to serve customers in a business setting. It’s a relatively recent right, asserted only since about the 1950s, as a derivative of the right to assembly, and it has always been strictly about association for the purposes of advancing ideas, such as in political, religious, or cultural groups.
“Of course the government made it illegal...”
No, as I said, this is a recent right that was only recognized around the same time as the anti-discrimination laws. They were never in conflict. In fact, both recognition of a right to association and the anti-discrimination laws were products of the same civil rights movement.
Or do you think there is nothing different in the character of a person who engages in homosexual acts, versus the rest of us? Is everyone just as likely to engage in that behavior?
Or do you think there is nothing different in the character of a person who engages in homosexual acts, versus the rest of us? Is everyone just as likely to engage in that behavior
I do believe that the post you respond to was making the point that the shop owner was referring to people’s behavior, not characteristic, when putting the kabosh on the service...the only way he could know of a person’s intrinsic character would be through behavior...
and I do believe the posting gremlins are hounding me today...I’m outta here...
No grease job for your Smart car with the rainbow in the window. Go pack.......
No GoFundIt Jackpot for you!
The civil rights era just keeps on givin.
I’m all for businesses being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason short of dire lifesaving care.
Seems to me, letting a business do business as they please is good for all of us. If I owned a restaurant I would pray to God that my competition would refuse to serve blacks or asians.
“Sure, I can agree with that, but if the government doesn’t recognize your supposed right, then you are going to have quite a hard time asserting it in a court of law.”
Of course but again, I am not speaking of legality.
“Freedom of association never referred to the right not to serve customers in a business setting. It’s a relatively recent right, asserted only since about the 1950s, as a derivative of the right to assembly, and it has always been strictly about association for the purposes of advancing ideas, such as in political, religious, or cultural groups.”
You are correct. Mea Culpa. I have always understood it as something else.
“In fact, both recognition of a right to association and the anti-discrimination laws were products of the same civil rights movement.”
From what I understand, the Freedom of Association is implied in the First Amendment because of the right to assemble and petition the government. Although I guess you are correct in the fact that the SCOTUS defined freedom of association as related to Freedom of Speech in 1958.
I do understand what you’re saying. I obviously miscommunicated my opinion. I wasn’t arguing the legal issues, just what I believe the government should not have the ability to do.
When are people like this going to learn to keep their mouths shut? No one asked his opinion. He had to have known he was going to get a lot of negative responses. What was his end game? Money?
Bumper stickers. Gays are proud of their perversions and display them.
Remonds me of an old joke;
What's another name for a Hydramatic homosexual?
At any rate, I certainly wouldn't refuse to sell an article from a store I owned to anyone. Unless, like the florists or the bakers, they were asking me to design something that conflicted with my ethics. Selling a firearm to a homosexual (if somehow I could determine they were homos) would not bother me in the slightest.
And yes, I'm against homo marriage, homo adoption, and I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.
Fear. The new tend it to moderate, dilute and shrink back from one's convictions and principles. Taking a steadfast stand is too costly. Let's face it, most good conservatives have even been cowed.
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.
