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 ...
Needs to be unable to afford his glass coverage.....for starters
Call the ACLU. Christians have civil liberties too.
Bake the ******* cake.
L
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.
Wow. What foul language. Guess tolerance only goes one way.
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.
As a Christian I wouldn’t take my business to a place with that display.
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.
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.
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.
OK. I still disagree with you completely, though, and I think the history of law in this country supports my position.
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.
“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.
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.