Posted on 12/22/2014 12:43:45 PM PST by Impala64ssa
And Is Denied Service By All Of Them
Say that “Bestiality Is Wrong” or “Polygamy Is Wrong” and it’s not considered hate speech, but if you have the opinion that “Gay Marriage Is Wrong” the whole world jumps up and down screaming “racism” “bigotry” and “hatred”.
This is becoming the politically-correct norm, but no matter what one argues, this is suppressing free speech.
No one targeted pro-gay bakeries, but gay activists target Christian bakeries. “Support Gay Marriage” is one Christian bakery was sued for refusing to put that slogan on a cake for an event to support the gay agenda. Yet Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are getting sued left, right, and center. They get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. This experiment proves beyond doubt that the gay agenda is not just about their freedom to practice a sexual orientation, but the suppression of free speech.
To make our case we provided 3 video clips, the third one is a video showing homosexual activists in Ireland used the state to force a Christian bakery to make a cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage” for a pro-gay marriage event, but he refused which added a tremendous loss to his business. Several Christian bakeries were sued in the United States with several who lost their businesses and we said enough is enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at shoebat.com ...
inserting your penis into another man’s arse will change your race??
these people are whacked
I think English is a second language for both Walid Shoebat and Theodore Shoebat—who I think is Walid’s son. They should spend the money for a preafrooder/editor.
The gay bakeries will never be held to the same standards
homo privilege
“My opinion [and existing law] is that anyone who operates a fee-for-service business for the public must serve all comers.”
That is not the law and it never happens. Newspapers, TV stations and websites refuse ads all the time these days.
I believe you are making the same mistake the courts have, by confusing the PERSON making the request with the REQUEST being made.
I agree that a public business should not refuse service to a person for what they are. If a bakery sells wedding cakes, they should sell wedding cakes to everybody.
But a bakery should be allowed to refuse to sell a cake with a specific message, or with specific characteristics. For example, they should be allowed to not put to male figures on the top, or to write a pro-gay message on the cake. Messaging is a first amendment issue.
To the degree a person performs an act of artistic expressions, they should be allowed to dictate that expression. So, for example, a photographer should be allowed to refuse to photograph a gay wedding, but NOT to refuse to photograph a gay person.
>>if you have the opinion that “Gay Marriage Is Wrong”
>>the whole world jumps up and down screaming “racism”
Given the transhumanist / postgenderist agenda of the perverts, they should really be screaming “specism”.
Meanwhile the heterosexual evolutionary history of the human species is immutable - and the sociobiological fitness of homosexuals is, naturally, ZERO.
“I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY”
—Thomas Jefferson
They should spend the money for a preafrooder/editor.
...preafrooder...? I beg your pardon...?
The whole situation is explainable with this:
The left is anti-Christian.
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
In the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ?
He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is His reward.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it
In a really free society, a person should be able to serve whatever product they want to whomever they want, and not provide that service to anyone they choose.
Doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences to those choices (boycotts, pickets, etc.), but having the government force its choices at the point of a gun is the wrong answer. If the government selects your choices today, a new government can use that same power to select different choices tomorrow - sound familiar?
I don’t agree with this. It sounds “correct”, and would be a preferred situation if the vast majority of people were decent.
But I believe the government does have a responsibility to protect the lives and property of the people. If people were allowed to refuse service to people based on non-germane characteristics, the live, liberty, and property of a class of citizens could be jeopardized. This of course is how we ended up with such laws to begin with.
I’d really like to say “we don’t need civil rights laws, and shouldn’t have them”. But imagine a town were everybody refused to sell a house to a black person. Can we argue that all citizens should have the right to live in a place of their choosing, or should a community be able to forbid a class of people from living among them?
What if no grocery stores would sell food to Christians, no farmer would allow Christians to come pick food, nobody would sell them seeds, or farming equipment. Suppose nobody would sell them water, or clothing.
It is hard to say this couldn’t happen — it is precisely the problem blacks faced in some towns prior to the civil rights movement. And while I believe that we could have used social stigmatism to overcome this, and that would have been preferable to the civil rights laws, I believe government has an interest in ensuring that people can buy food, and pick shelter where they desire.
Sadly, it is the confrontational era we live in that causes the trouble here. Because in the past, people wouldn’t go shop where they weren’t wanted, even if they had the “right” to do so. But now we have gays ignoring gay businesses so they can attack Christians.
I would prefer if government involved itself only when there was an institutional issue — like if a town clearly had encouraged a situation where NO business would serve someone. If the non-service businesses are outliers, the government should let them be.
So really, I would prefer not having laws that require service, but I think they are a rational and legal response to an institutional issue, if one exists.
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.