Posted on 10/01/2010 5:47:38 AM PDT by IbJensen
1) The government should try to provide social justice for people who choose to live deviant lifestyles.
2) The government should try to provide social justice for people who have certain characteristics -- something they did not choose, but which is part of their life.
3) The government should protect property rights.
For me, #3 matters. You cannot have a decent society without the protection of the rights of property owners. Neither #1 nor #2 matter to me.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a decent person and I have nothign against either blacks or the handicapped. But as to the question of government intervention so as to provide special rights for people with special characteristics (chosen or unchosen), I have to say no.
Access and right to serve or not to serve is, to me, different issues.
So long as they don’t make rainbow-colored confections for ANYBODY, I fully support their right not to do so as a special order.
Otherwise, there are limits to what a publicly-operated business can do, and denying a product to one customer that you offer to another customer based on that customer’s sexual preference is probably over the line.
In this case, I believe the articles have all said they don’t do rainbow-colored confections, so they should be OK.
Not serving someone because of race clearly violates the founding principles of the nation of which the Constitution is to secure. We are all created equal, thus if one opens a business it should be for all. However, the Constitution does not force people to build ramps for the handicapped nor does it force the baker to endorse a behavior that he feels is morally wrong. The baker is not refusing to serve them, but rather, he does not want to use his business to promote a message that is morally wrong. This is entirely different and unrelated to the issues of the civil rights era and the lunch counter sit-ins. It is a distortion, by the way, that is intentionally fomented by the Left.
I have to say I’m surprised by some of the responses I see here...
I feel a craving for cookies. Hmmmm...where to buy?
Just Cookies
222 E Market St Ste 43 · Indianapolis
(317) 634-4456
I wonder if they do mail order? They just might start if they get enough orders. Just a thought.
If access is mandated, but the propery owner retains the right to refuse service, then that is a strange outcome. The government forces me to spend $100,000 on a wheelchair ramp, and when someone rolls into my restaurant, I say "I don't serve people in wheelchairs." That's just a crazy outcome.
Businesses should provide access to all customers who they wish to serve. By not providing access, the businessman hurts himself and denies himself additonal revenue. Building a ramp may be a very smart choice. But it should be the businessman's choice, not a government mandate.
“Access and right to serve or not to serve is, to me, different issues.”
Access is important to me as well, which is why I am very supportive of private property protection. I reward the businesses I support with little green certificats. The free market is a much better method to ensure that all customers are being serviced than what we get as a result of relying on the government.
This story just shows the natural progression that is bound to happen when we default to government.
I do understand your point and I agree with the way you stated it just now...Before, I was upset by the way it read.....
I agree.
I have to disagree with this as well.
The Consitution served to limit the government. It defines what the government can do and what it cannot do. There is an understanding in the Constitution that in the eyes of government, all men are created equal (the lack of a ban on slavery works against this and was a tremendous flaw in a great document -- but I accept idea that the document sees all men as equal).
However, private business transactions are pretty much outside the scope of the Constitution. That document isn't about what businesses can do. It's mostly about what government can do (which is very little) with the understanding is that there is a great deal that government cannot do. And I maintain that telling a business owner who he must serve is not something that is covered in the Constitution.
I was wondering the exact same thing.
I agree here also...The Constitution is for limited FEDERAL government....States, individually, need to take into consideration some of the responsibilities being “stolen” by the Federals....for power over all...
For those of you on Facebook, they have a business page...lots of supportive posts there. I took a second to “like” them.
Another story on the same incident states that the queers wanted rainbow cupcakes, and were denied because the business is “Just Cookies”. Who’s lying (or misinformed)?
They have lots of new facebook fans asking the same thing. I’m in for an order.
1. This business claims to not do ANY special orders. They bake cookies, place them in a case, and people stop by and buy what is in the case. Those students were told that they could buy any cookie out of the case. Thus this is not discrimination.
2. This order came by phone, this student group from a local University were part of the "Social Justice" activism group at that same University. They were requesting cookies be made to help SPONSOR the coming out day event.
3. By participating in the SPONSORSHIP, the business owners would have been ENDORSING this activity. As Christians who have moral objections to this lifestyle in good conscience they could not do that.
Now I may be wrong on my understanding of what has happened with this business, but my sources are trustworthy. If I am wrong, please feel to correct me. But it seems to me this isn't about discrimination. This is about a gay agenda, in particular a gay activist group who specifically targeted a well known Christian business who has been at this specific location for 20 years. They then repackaged and resold the refusal to participate in SPONSORING a gay event as discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Welcome to the new gay attack agenda on Christian businesses. When the hate crimes law passed I predicted that Christian businesses would soon be targeted. Now my prediction is as this tactic appears to be successful - that churches will soon follow.
It doesn’t make sense to compare “sexual orientation” with race/ethnicity (or disability). When the Left makes that comparison, it makes no sense. It doesn’t make sense when the Right does it, either.
Consider this: When a business owner opens a store to the public, if he is permitted to refuse service to customers for any reason he may choose, even if a customer is being polite and respectful, what does he do if a customer won’t leave his store?
If someone he doesn’t want to serve walks in and refuses to leave, how should he be permitted to get that customer to leave the store? Use physical force? Call the police? If the police help the storeowner remove customers based on race, as in the lunch counter example, then the storeowner’s policy becomes the state’s policy.
But, in this case, the bakery owner didn’t refuse to do business with anyone. He merely refused to fill a special order. One would think there should be a distinction there. He may not be permitted to refuse business to people based on “sexual orientation”, but does that mean he must fill every special order everyone wants him to fill?
Here’s a question: Suppose a bakery refused to bake special cookies for a tea party protest? Would these same officials be threatening to close his shop then?
Maybe they do mail order?
I'm going to look into this and order a few dozen if they do. But I'll probably be labeled as a hate criminal for doing so.
Along with my cookie order, I’m going to include contact information for the Alliance Defense Fund. Those guys are bulldogs for traditional values.
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.