Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay Coffee Shop Owner Forcibly Ejects Christian Customers for Their Beliefs
RedState ^ | 10/06/2017 | Brandon Morse

Posted on 10/06/2017 12:26:09 PM PDT by ForYourChildren

It turns out those who vehemently demand Christians be tolerant of their views and lifestyles, and force Christians to perform services under threat of legal retaliation are — and I can’t believe I’m writing this — intolerant of Christians, and refuse to provide services for them.

In a recently released video from the group Abolish Human Abortion, a pro-life advocacy group, a gay coffee shop owner can be seen berating, insulting, and forcing the removal of the Christian group because of their beliefs.

Caytie Davis and her fellows had been handing out pro-life pamphlets that targeted the homosexual community for the spread of the Gospel. I won’t pretend that the pamphlet’s designs and words were fully geared for opening up discussion with the gay community without agitation first — you can check out the pamphlet for yourself at The Liberator — but the pamphlet’s blunt message aside, the group did not bring it into the coffee shop with them.

Davis and her fellow activists, seeking to relax after handing out pamphlets, went into Seattle’s Bedlam coffee shop. According to Davis, they didn’t engage anyone, or — as previously said — bring any of their literature into the shop with them. They got their coffee, and went upstairs into the lounge area to relax.

Only minutes later, the owner of the coffee shop burst into the room and demanded they leave.

The video shows the Christian group attempting to reason with the coffee shop owner, but to no avail. In fact, it only seemed to make him angrier according to The Liberator, and soon the owner :

{..snip..}

(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ac; antichristianbigotry; coffeshop; discrimination; gays; homosexualagenda; owner; persecution; sick; sodomite; tolerance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 last
To: ForYourChildren

Needs to be unable to afford his glass coverage.....for starters


81 posted on 10/06/2017 4:40:13 PM PDT by S.O.S121.500 (Had ENOUGH Yet ? ........................ Enforce the Bill of Rights .........It is the LAW...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LambSlave
As conservatives, it is up to us to not stoop to the level of the left with respect to litigation and diminishing our rights.

Completely disagree. Not "stooping to the level of the left" too often means "let's take it on the chin and ask for another." It is a well known axiom that one of the best ways to rid yourself of a bad law is to enforce it to the fullest. Many people don't realize how bad of a law it is until they, themselves, are forced to follow it. Force the Left to follow their own policies with respect to conservative-type groups and they will suddenly decide that freedom of association is a precious right. Allow them to engage in one-sided enforcement of the law/policy to their benefit and they will continue on into eternity.

Additionally, as conservatives, it is our duty to see that all laws are applied equally. We don't really have a representative, constitutional government if the laws only apply to some, but not others. Therefore, if current "settled law" says you can't refuse to serve customers you disagree with, then, by God, it is our duty to ensure that NOBODY is allowed to refuse to serve customers they don't agree with. And, of course, we are free to attempt to change this "settled law" at the same time.
82 posted on 10/06/2017 4:42:14 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
I am for the Coffee Shop, because (a) they are not the government, (b) they have Liberty of their beliefs just like anyone else, (c) they have Liberty over who and why they associate with anyone and (d) they should be legally able to determine who they will do business with.

Sure, that's the way it should be, but until the law is re-established that way, then these queers don't get to discriminate either. The law, as it stands, must be applied equally to EVERYONE. If these queers don't like it, then they can join the conservative effort to re-establish freedom of association. Until then, pour the coffee, bi-atch.
83 posted on 10/06/2017 4:48:05 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Call the ACLU. Christians have civil liberties too.


84 posted on 10/06/2017 5:14:21 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Bake the ******* cake.

L


85 posted on 10/06/2017 5:24:13 PM PDT by Lurker (President Trump isn't our last chance. President Trump is THEIR last chance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
I’d like to be a Christian lawyer defending them, to, in the process, demonstrate to them the Liberty principles they in turn should be accepting for Christians...

I understand your point, but trials are not about teaching "liberty principles" to homosexual hatemongers, they are about judging defendants based on current laws.

The long term goal should be to change public accommodation laws. One way to do that is to make the laws as unpalatable to the left as they are to the right. In other words, make leftists feel the consequences of living up to their own rules. So, let's do what is necessary to see a few bigoted gay coffee shop owners bankrupted and put out of business by the state for failing to serve Christians.

While we're at it, let's publicize the hell out of the appalling words and behavior of thuggish leftist "victims" like this shopowner.

86 posted on 10/06/2017 6:23:08 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: blueyon; daniel1212; metmom; boatbums; Gamecock

Wow. What foul language. Guess tolerance only goes one way.


87 posted on 10/06/2017 6:31:11 PM PDT by redleghunter (Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

Homosexual/Leftist activists have been targeting Christian businesses to force them with the choice of violating their religious principles or be fined/litigated out of business. Don’t expect this restaurateur to suffer the same fate from local authorities either.

For the Hard Left, it is not what is done, but who is doing it and to whom. Homosexuals can deny service to Christians, but Christians cannot refuse to cater a same-sex wedding. [Note that Christian businesses do not refuse to serve or sell to homosexuals, only to participate in a ceremony their religion and conscience cannot allow.]

Muslim caterers and bakers have been scrupulously avoided in these targeted attacks. They may be sanctimonious bullies, but don’t want their fool heads cut off. Even though Islam tolerates homosexuality far less — and their governments barbarically execute homosexuals — the likes of this self-righteous fiend would never treat Mohammedans this way.

Cowards. Hypocrites.

Though not a Christian, I fully understand that religion is one of the pillars of Western civilization. Hence, it is targeted by the Left for annihilation. As dialectical materialists, they believe that the existing order must be brought down so new Utopian flowers can emerge from the ashes.

So part of their program is to replace Christianity with Islam, thinking that followers of the latter will be more controllable as they become addicted to social programs. Only when they are buried to the waist as stone-toting men are approaching will LGBT activists realize their folly. Perhaps.

This truly is a conflict between good and evil.


88 posted on 10/06/2017 7:28:44 PM PDT by walford (https://www.facebook.com/wralford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForYourChildren

As a Christian I wouldn’t take my business to a place with that display.


89 posted on 10/07/2017 3:56:56 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Completely disagree. Not "stooping to the level of the left" too often means "let's take it on the chin and ask for another."

Note that I said with respect to (i) litigation and (ii) diminishing our rights. I agree 100% that if we need to get in the mud to win, then that's what we need to do. They will paint us as evil racists regardless, so do what we need to to advance our objectives. I am specifically stating two special cases that are exceptions to this, because using the courts as a weapon, and intentionally passing laws or broadening the intent of laws that further restrict our rights ultimately advances their agenda and hurts more than helps. Regarding the well known anecdote (it's not an axiom, perhaps a maxim at best) about bad laws: Bad laws that restrict freedom number in the thousands, so how many have ever been fully reversed?? I suppose prohibition is one, but that is the only one I can think of, and really eventually reversing one in thousands is not a reliable strategy for victory, only eventual defeat.

90 posted on 10/07/2017 5:15:23 AM PDT by LambSlave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: All

One reason I am a conservative and no longer a Libertarian is practical application. If someone’s freedom of choice adversely affects society as a whole, I am willing to eschew ideological purity in favor of what’s best for all.

Hence, I would never support having businesses that serve the public having “Whites Only” signs out front. Hence, I support the laws against polygamy — and think they should be enforced much more stringently.

The current law holds that a hotel can refuse to host a person, and does not need to provide a valid reason, but if it comes out that people are being discriminated against because of race, sex or religion, that business is rightly subject to legal sanction.

As a practical matter, allowing such discrimination from places of public accommodation only serves to entrench cronyism and fosters balkanization. Demographic enclaves could be formed, making it perfectly legal for the residents to beat, imprison and/or murder anyone who doesn’t belong.

I could never get behind that. It was wrong for caterers to be forced to participate in same-sex weddings and it was wrong for this homosexual to expel Christian customers. The law should reflect that and be enforced.


91 posted on 10/07/2017 9:27:13 AM PDT by walford (https://www.facebook.com/wralford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: LambSlave
...so how many have ever been fully reversed?? I suppose prohibition is one, but that is the only one I can think of, and really eventually reversing one in thousands is not a reliable strategy for victory, only eventual defeat.

Eh? If it isn't your intention to try and get any of these unjust laws or interpretations reversed, then what is your goal? Simply to pretend, only on our side, that they don't exist? And holds our heads up high as we refuse to use those laws to our benefit even as they are used against us?
92 posted on 10/07/2017 1:01:53 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

My point is that by supporting these laws/interpretations and using them against our political opponents only creates additional precedence and makes it more difficult to reverse them; we need to spend all of our energy opposing them, and never wavering in our commitment to full repeal. When we try to use them when they benefit “our side” it ultimately hurts our cause.


93 posted on 10/07/2017 2:22:48 PM PDT by LambSlave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: LambSlave

OK. I still disagree with you completely, though, and I think the history of law in this country supports my position.


94 posted on 10/07/2017 3:32:31 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

Yeah, cause you know what would have happened had the roles been reversed and it was the Christian forceably evicting the homosexual couple for their beliefs.


95 posted on 10/07/2017 5:12:16 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

“Talk to those business people in Oregon who were sued for not baking a cake for a gay wedding. $130,000 fine. Then there was those florists.”

Yes, because they were held to be denying accommodations to a protected class, exactly as this coffee shop owner did.

“The only protected class is the GAYSTAPO.”

No, these are the protected classes:

Race, Color, Religion or creed, National origin or ancestry, Sex, Age, Physical or mental disability, Veteran status, Genetic information, Citizenship, Pregnancy, Familial status (for housing)

..and that is only what is protected under federal law. There are even more classes protected under Oregon state law, but religion is one of the original protected classes, protected from discrimination since 1964 along with race.


96 posted on 10/09/2017 7:45:24 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson