What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[jon_berzerk]

As a function of public safety, I would say yes it is reasonable to ask customers to be unarmed. If I ran a bar, I would not want the liability of a fist fight escalating into a shooting.

But this argument of yours is a straw man. You cannot equate bigotry with responsibility. You are looking for a legal way to create second class Americans by discriminating against them. Not packing heat is a matter of liability and responsibility, not discrimination.

it certainly is not a strawman argument

a few places refuse to serve legal firearms holders

by issuing the concealed carry permit

the state has already said the person is not a public safety threat

the holder is well within his legal right to carry concealed

yet you find it ok to withhold services to the individual

interesting

so now the business has a right to exert its will against

the cc holder but all other times the business has no will

and must comply under the threat of legal action

--LOL

Public safety is the watchword where firearms are concerned. If Dick Cheney came into my tavern with his gun, I would ask him to leave because he is not safe where firearms are concerned. How can I be assured that every Rambo wannabe coming through my door is at least safer than Cheney?

My insurance policy states that firearms on my premises are an undue hazard. I cannot permit guns in my store due to insurance restrictions.

And besides, why on earth would I want to take on the responsibility for gunplay when for years, people seemed to know how to behave without resorting to cinematic violence!

now you are just spewing nonsense

 

[Nosmo King]

it certainly is not a strawman argument

a few places refuse to serve legal firearms holders

by issuing the concealed carry permit

the state has already said the person is not a public safety threat

the holder is well within his legal right to carry concealed

yet you find it ok to withhold services to the individual

interesting

so now the business has a right to exert its will against

the cc holder but all other times the business has no will

and must comply under the threat of legal action

--LOL

Public safety is the watchword where firearms are concerned. If Dick Cheney came into my tavern with his gun, I would ask him to leave because he is not safe where firearms are concerned. How can I be assured that every Rambo wannabe coming through my door is at least safer than Cheney?

My insurance policy states that firearms on my premises are an undue hazard. I cannot permit guns in my store due to insurance restrictions.

And besides, why on earth would I want to take on the responsibility for gunplay when for years, people seemed to know how to behave without resorting to cinematic violence!

now you are just spewing nonsense

How so? You want to equate refusal of service to an armed customer with refusal of service to an unarmed paying customer. You trot out packing heat as a means to discriminate. There is a viable threat to public health and safety whenever there are guns involved. Where's the threat from taking pictures or baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

 

[alan1]

You are confusing "personal choices" with business practices. We all discriminate when it comes to choosing how we dress, who we have as friends, what we eat, and what entertainment we seek. That has nothing to do with "business"

And you are wrong about a business owner having the right to refuse service to anybody they want if their principles are against their race, and if their state has a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, they can't discriminate based on that. They can, but if the person files a lawsuit/complaint, then they have to face the consequences.

You can say it is their decision to make all you want, but if their state has a law banning it, they really can't. And we know the nation has a law banning discrimination based on race, so they can't do that either. And, trying to change the law isn't working because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way that you and those who are making these discrimination bills, feel. And, in America, it's majority rule. When you get enough people to agree with you that a business has a right to discriminate, and you get that into law, then you can say that it is his right, the way it stands right now, it isn't.

I'm not confusing anything, I'm expressing my opinion, just as you are.

But your opinion is not supported by law, that's all.


You may find it foolish, but some states have a law prohibiting it. I'm not equating the two, they are two separate issues. But, the Arizona law was written in a way that would override the Federal law that prohibits discrimination based on "race".

And, in America, it's majority rule.

No, America isn't majority rule. A very strong tenet of being a republic form of government is that the majority can not impose its will upon the minority. As a contrast, the minority should not be able to impose their will either.

In order to get a law passed, you have to have a majority vote on it, whether Congress or the people. That's the way we operate. You can deny it all you want, but that is the way it is. Sometimes a minority can win by filibuster, trickery or cheating, but if the law is passed, then it takes a majority to undo it. Obviously, the majority of the people did not like Arizona's law, and Brewer was able to see the dire consequences if she had voted it into law, so in essence, majority won.

The bill in Arizona was written by mostly Republican. It passed with majority Republican vote.

The votes on the bill were mostly along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing. Three Republicans voted against it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

In this case, the majority of elected representatives voted for it, and then the minority vetoed it. The Arizona state government is modeled after the federal government, that means that if 2/3 of both the state house and state senate agree on something, they can over ride the Governors veto. I don't personally know the make up of the Arizona congress, so I don't know if that is possible.

Edit to add,
And oh, BTW, whether or not my opinion is currently supported by law is irrelevant. Law once allowed slavery, it no longer does.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Public safety is the watchword where firearms are concerned. If Dick Cheney came into my tavern with his gun, I would ask him to leave because he is not safe where firearms are concerned. How can I be assured that every Rambo wannabe coming through my door is at least safer than Cheney?

My insurance policy states that firearms on my premises are an undue hazard. I cannot permit guns in my store due to insurance restrictions.

And besides, why on earth would I want to take on the responsibility for gunplay when for years, people seemed to know how to behave without resorting to cinematic violence!

now you are just spewing nonsense

How so? You want to equate refusal of service to an armed customer with refusal of service to an unarmed paying customer. You trot out packing heat as a means to discriminate. There is a viable threat to public health and safety whenever there are guns involved. Where's the threat from taking pictures or baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

the state has deemed that the legal cc holder is not a threat to the public

 

[Nosmo King]

now you are just spewing nonsense

How so? You want to equate refusal of service to an armed customer with refusal of service to an unarmed paying customer. You trot out packing heat as a means to discriminate. There is a viable threat to public health and safety whenever there are guns involved. Where's the threat from taking pictures or baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

the state has deemed that the legal cc holder is not a threat to the public

That argument just isn't good enough for my insurance carrier.

Are you a Conservative? According to Conservative rhetoric, "the state" is an incompetent institution incapable of teaching children, collecting and spending tax revenues and regulating commerce. Your argument hangs on the reliability of "the state" to assure the public that each and every gun toting Rambo wannabe is benign. How can this be?

 

[alan1]

It's your business - you can choose what to provide yes, but not necessarily who to serve. Not if you are in business to serve the public.

If you specialize in grand cakes and they want cupcakes you can provide a referral becuase you don't carry or make the product.



It's not your choice to discriminate based on who to serve if you are a public business unless you are defined as a religious entity - for example a Christian church can't be forced to perform an Islamic wedding. A Halal caterer can't be forced to serve bacon at a wedding reception because that is not one of the products they offer - it's not the "who" it's the "what". Likewise a kosher caterer can not be forced to offer a non-kosher product and your specialist in grand wedding cakes can not be forced to offer cupcakes if he doesn't make them.




A restaurant is not a legally defined action - it's a business entity. They can pick and choose what food to serve but not who to serve it to.

No shirt, no shoes, no service.
Yes, they can decide who to serve and who to not serve.

Sort of.

However that same person can dress according to the dress code and will be served - the person does not have to alter who or what he is, he merely has to comply with the establishment's code.



Again - it's not the same. The person is not being denied service because of who or what he is but rather how he is attired.

Once you decide that it's ok to deny service to a person based on who or what he is rather then where do you draw the line? Why should a business' right to discrimminate over-rule an individual's right to equal treatment?

By the way,

It's not your choice to discriminate based on who to serve if you are a public business

We are talking about PRIVATE business. The public doesn't own them, the government doesn't own them, it is an individual that owns this business, not a public entity.

When I said "public business" - I meant a business that serves the public - as opposed to private clubs or religious institutions - not government entities.

Attire is a chosen behavior. Marriage is a chosen behavior. Owning a bakery is a chosen behavior. Serving your fellow man as a baker, butcher or candlestick maker is a chosen behavior. And yes, having sex is a chosen behavior. It is completely unethical to force one person to serve another if said person disagrees with said behavior. You admitted that chosen attire is one of those reasons, why can you not accept other choices as a reason?

Why do you think the government should force a business owner to do business with a behavior that person finds unacceptable?
Here is an analogy for you, you like dogs a lot, should a dog trainer be forced to train my dog to be an aggressive attack dog if that is against the dog trainers principles?

 

[alan1]

Don't tell me that they are enslaving homosexuals now! Or are you resorting to the lazy man's argument and throwing hyperbole out there as a last resort?

Is it your contention that providing the exact same services for homosexuals as heterosexuals is really slavery?

The oppressor has become the oppressed! Just like in the good old days of Jim Crow! "It's our right to be bigots! This 'Civil Rights' business is denying us our right to be repressive!"

Good luck selling that to anyone who thinks!

doesnt matter who the players are

forcing one person to perform a service against their will is by definition

involuntary servitude

Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude. Involuntary Servitude synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

If you are a wedding photographer, taking pictures at a heterosexual wedding or a gay wedding is still just taking pictures. Are you suggesting homosexuals will not pay for the services?

If taking pictures is your normal set of services, you cannot claim "SLAVERY" at a homosexual wedding and "FREEDOM" at a straight wedding! The money from both occasions is still green!

If I were a house painter and my next door neighbor hired me to paint his house an outlandish color, I could not claim I am being enslaved to paint his house. Even though I believe that Lime Green with Orange trim on my neighbor's house will ruin my property value.

You silly Conservative bigots! First you tell us that 'victim hood' is a Left wing tactic. Next you try to assert that someone providing the exact same services to a heterosexual as a homosexual, that enslavement happens only when the homosexual is involved!

But you could refuse to paint the house.
See the difference?

 

[Nosmo King]

doesnt matter who the players are

forcing one person to perform a service against their will is by definition

involuntary servitude

Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude. Involuntary Servitude synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

If you are a wedding photographer, taking pictures at a heterosexual wedding or a gay wedding is still just taking pictures. Are you suggesting homosexuals will not pay for the services?

If taking pictures is your normal set of services, you cannot claim "SLAVERY" at a homosexual wedding and "FREEDOM" at a straight wedding! The money from both occasions is still green!

If I were a house painter and my next door neighbor hired me to paint his house an outlandish color, I could not claim I am being enslaved to paint his house. Even though I believe that Lime Green with Orange trim on my neighbor's house will ruin my property value.

You silly Conservative bigots! First you tell us that 'victim hood' is a Left wing tactic. Next you try to assert that someone providing the exact same services to a heterosexual as a homosexual, that enslavement happens only when the homosexual is involved!

But you could refuse to paint the house.
See the difference?

But I would not refuse to paint the house. In spite of my objection to the color scheme and the proximity to my own home, I could not legally justify a refusal. The property is not mine.

And the wedding is not that of the photographer or the baker. There is no legal standing for their refusal of services. Claiming "religious freedom' just doesn't wash. There is no direct threat to the practice of religion by he photographer or he baker. They are not the ones getting married. Their services of photography or baking are the exact same services they would render to any other couple.

 

[jon_berzerk]

How so? You want to equate refusal of service to an armed customer with refusal of service to an unarmed paying customer. You trot out packing heat as a means to discriminate. There is a viable threat to public health and safety whenever there are guns involved. Where's the threat from taking pictures or baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

the state has deemed that the legal cc holder is not a threat to the public

That argument just isn't good enough for my insurance carrier.

Are you a Conservative? According to Conservative rhetoric, "the state" is an incompetent institution incapable of teaching children, collecting and spending tax revenues and regulating commerce. Your argument hangs on the reliability of "the state" to assure the public that each and every gun toting Rambo wannabe is benign. How can this be?

and i see you are back to your nonsense again

 

[Nosmo King]

the state has deemed that the legal cc holder is not a threat to the public

That argument just isn't good enough for my insurance carrier.

Are you a Conservative? According to Conservative rhetoric, "the state" is an incompetent institution incapable of teaching children, collecting and spending tax revenues and regulating commerce. Your argument hangs on the reliability of "the state" to assure the public that each and every gun toting Rambo wannabe is benign. How can this be?

and i see you are back to your nonsense again

Your arguments hang on the slender east of reeds. You seem unsure, unprepared and ill equipped to make a cogent argument for legal discrimination.

 

[jon_berzerk]

That argument just isn't good enough for my insurance carrier.

Are you a Conservative? According to Conservative rhetoric, "the state" is an incompetent institution incapable of teaching children, collecting and spending tax revenues and regulating commerce. Your argument hangs on the reliability of "the state" to assure the public that each and every gun toting Rambo wannabe is benign. How can this be?

and i see you are back to your nonsense again

Your arguments hang on the slender east of reeds. You seem unsure, unprepared and ill equipped to make a cogent argument for legal discrimination.

it has already been made

 

[Nosmo King]

and i see you are back to your nonsense again

Your arguments hang on the slender east of reeds. You seem unsure, unprepared and ill equipped to make a cogent argument for legal discrimination.

it has already been made

How? Conflating gun rights with gay rights? Claiming that gun toting customers are not a threat but homosexual customers are? How have you made an argument?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Your arguments hang on the slender east of reeds. You seem unsure, unprepared and ill equipped to make a cogent argument for legal discrimination.

it has already been made

How? Conflating gun rights with gay rights? Claiming that gun toting customers are not a threat but homosexual customers are? How have you made an argument?

more of your nonsense

 

[Chuckt]

Who in their right mind wants to piss off gays? They have one hell of a steamroller agenda going on right now. They have all that disposable income they don't waste on having children...wait a minute, yes they do! They have kids alright. In vitro fertilization. Gay adoptions. Deceptive heterosexual unions. We intellectualize such a simple issue. I know gays love each other, but THEY can’t have children in and of themselves. That is the be-all end-all here. Gays don’t NEED marriage, it’s just empty symbolism. Please. They have the same rights everyone else does, and that isn’t enough?

Your comments make you a sympathizer.

Nobody wants to aggravate anyone. It seems they are singling out the Christian community for attacks. I'm sure any atheist would be happy to bake their cake but they don't seek out the atheist.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Who in their right mind wants to piss off gays? They have one hell of a steamroller agenda going on right now. They have all that disposable income they don't waste on having children...wait a minute, yes they do! They have kids alright. In vitro fertilization. Gay adoptions. Deceptive heterosexual unions. We intellectualize such a simple issue. I know gays love each other, but THEY can’t have children in and of themselves. That is the be-all end-all here. Gays don’t NEED marriage, it’s just empty symbolism. Please. They have the same rights everyone else does, and that isn’t enough?

Your comments make you a sympathizer.

Nobody wants to aggravate anyone. It seems they are singling out the Christian community for attacks. I'm sure any atheist would be happy to bake their cake but they don't seek out the atheist.

can a gay print shop owner refuse to print

flyers on the dangers of homosexual behavior

for some anti gay group without fear of penalty under law

 

[Nosmo King]

Who in their right mind wants to piss off gays? They have one hell of a steamroller agenda going on right now. They have all that disposable income they don't waste on having children...wait a minute, yes they do! They have kids alright. In vitro fertilization. Gay adoptions. Deceptive heterosexual unions. We intellectualize such a simple issue. I know gays love each other, but THEY can’t have children in and of themselves. That is the be-all end-all here. Gays don’t NEED marriage, it’s just empty symbolism. Please. They have the same rights everyone else does, and that isn’t enough?

Your comments make you a sympathizer.

Nobody wants to aggravate anyone. It seems they are singling out the Christian community for attacks. I'm sure any atheist would be happy to bake their cake but they don't seek out the atheist.

"Christian victim hood" is a crock. The merchants refusing service due to their fervent beliefs in Jesus Christ who taught that those without sin should cast the first stone and we should do unto others as we would have others do unto ourselves are not really all that Christian, are they? Hiding behind the robes of Jesus to foment hate and fear and suspicion smacks of hypocrisy at best, heresy at worst. Those brave "Christians" are not the victims of attacks. The same sex customers are.

 

[whitehall]

Christians respect the Muslem dietary laws. Why can't left wing bigots respect fundamentalist Christian views about sodomites?

 

[Nosmo King]

Who in their right mind wants to piss off gays? They have one hell of a steamroller agenda going on right now. They have all that disposable income they don't waste on having children...wait a minute, yes they do! They have kids alright. In vitro fertilization. Gay adoptions. Deceptive heterosexual unions. We intellectualize such a simple issue. I know gays love each other, but THEY can’t have children in and of themselves. That is the be-all end-all here. Gays don’t NEED marriage, it’s just empty symbolism. Please. They have the same rights everyone else does, and that isn’t enough?

Your comments make you a sympathizer.

Nobody wants to aggravate anyone. It seems they are singling out the Christian community for attacks. I'm sure any atheist would be happy to bake their cake but they don't seek out the atheist.

can a gay print shop owner refuse to print

flyers on the dangers of homosexual behavior

for some anti gay group without fear of penalty under law

No they cannot. In fact my brother owns the print shop that has been in my family for four generations. He prints raffle tickets for gun clubs in spite of the fact that he is active in anti-gun political groups.

His activism stems from the shooting of his step son, my step nephew. It was a senseless crime that could have been avoided had there not been a gun readily available.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you consider real science and what Iconsider real science are two different things. You want to use your misconception of science to rationalize your fears and suspicions. I want to see science as confirming my belief in live and let live. I seek equality for homosexuals, you seek repression. Which is the more noble?

Let me clear it up for you, real science is stuff that uses experiments and observation to test a hypothesis, it is not ignoring decades worth of data that runs contrary to your personal beliefs and manufacturing evidence to prove that you are right. Astronomy is real science, astrology is not. Physics is real science, psychology is not.

I seek freedom for everyone, not equality. Equality is for people that are afraid of the real world, freedom is for people who want to make the world real.

So equal justice under law is counter to your values? Because in cases of discrimination, equal treatment is what is sought. This does not mean the 'freedom' to discriminate. It means the equality of accommodation.

Social justice is not only contrary to my personal values, it is contrary to the values of the United States. Equal opportunity means everyone has the same chance to use their personal talents to get ahead, it does not mean that you hold people back so everyone is equal.

This is not freedom to discriminate, it is simply freedom. I know being free scares you, but that is your problem, and it does not give you the right to demand that I become a slave simply so you don't have to make choices.

And contrary to your rather narrow template of what is science, phyciatrty qualifies as science as much as any other medical science such as cardiology, epidemiology, endrocronology or neurology.

Funny, I could have sworn I said psychology.

Wait, I did.

Contrary to your completely ignorant argument, psychology is not psychiatry. Would it help if I said that psychiatry is real science, psychology is not? Or would you still be confused the same way most uneducated idiots are when I talk about the difference between science and pseudoscience?

 

[Chuckt]

Who in their right mind wants to piss off gays? They have one hell of a steamroller agenda going on right now. They have all that disposable income they don't waste on having children...wait a minute, yes they do! They have kids alright. In vitro fertilization. Gay adoptions. Deceptive heterosexual unions. We intellectualize such a simple issue. I know gays love each other, but THEY can’t have children in and of themselves. That is the be-all end-all here. Gays don’t NEED marriage, it’s just empty symbolism. Please. They have the same rights everyone else does, and that isn’t enough?

Your comments make you a sympathizer.

Nobody wants to aggravate anyone. It seems they are singling out the Christian community for attacks. I'm sure any atheist would be happy to bake their cake but they don't seek out the atheist.

"Christian victim hood" is a crock. The merchants refusing service due to their fervent beliefs in Jesus Christ who taught that those without sin should cast the first stone and we should do unto others as we would have others do unto ourselves are not really all that Christian, are they? Hiding behind the robes of Jesus to foment hate and fear and suspicion smacks of hypocrisy at best, heresy at worst. Those brave "Christians" are not the victims of attacks. The same sex customers are.

If it was a police officer doing entrapment then it would be against the law but since it is the homosexual community looking for Christian owners to sue then it is okay. Right?