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

Skip to comments.

An Absolute Right to Refuse Service
Townhall.com ^ | March 3, 2014 | Matt Barber

Posted on 03/03/2014 8:55:22 AM PST by Kaslin

Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

He was right.

In the aftermath of the Arizona religious freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owner’s conscience.

To wit:

If you said no to any of the above, and you opposed Arizona’s cowardly vetoed SB1062, then you’re logically inconsistent and need to re-evaluate your position.

To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that someone is an “out and proud” homosexual.

I’ve never even heard of a case where a Christian baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the baker finds repugnant (rainbow “pride” cupcakes, “gay wedding” cakes and the like). I’ve never heard of a single instance in which a Christian business owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: “We don’t serve your kind here.”

And neither can the left provide such an instance. Because it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it would be front-page news for a month.

No, I’m specifically referring to scenarios that have occurred – and continue to occur – with alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian business owners are being sued, fined or even threatened with jail time for politely declining to apply their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate deeply held – and constitutionally protected – religious beliefs.

It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.

Freedom, man.

Because ‘Merica.

While from a constitutional standpoint it’s not even necessary, that’s all the drafters of SB1062 and similar such bills have endeavored to do. Because government has begun alienating unalienable rights at a level unparalleled since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legislators have attempted to merely re-affirm the already existing right for religious business owners to live out their faith without fear of persecution or government reprisal.

Seriously, unless you’re fascist, who could disagree? Nobody should ever be forced to spend their time and talent to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that he or she finds repugnant. I don’t care if you’re Christian, pagan, black, white, gay or straight. That’s your God-given right as an American.

As a constitutionalist, I’ll remain consistent – will you? If you’re a homosexual photographer, for instance, and, for whatever reason, you oppose natural man-woman marriage, and you choose to exercise your right to only photograph gay weddings, then knock yourself out. If I come knocking and want you to photograph my wedding, and you tell me to pound sand, I’ll suck it up and take my business down the street.

And I won’t even demand you be thrown in jail for it.

See how easy that was? I mean, you’re a liberal. You’re "pro-choice,” right?

Starting to get it?

Well, let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically-based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.

No debate. No question. No compromise.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

Those are wise words from a wise man. For purposes of today’s debate, however, those words require a slight contextual modification. No “anti-discrimination” law that presumes to remove the constitutional right of business owners to operate their business according to conscience is worth the paper it’s written on.

Poo paper for puppy.

So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap. It belittles the legitimate civil rights struggle and makes you look stupid. You’ve created an ugly and offensive straw man and beat the stuffing out of him.

I rarely agree with gay activist Andrew Sullivan, but on the subject at hand, he at least has a remedial understanding. Gloss over all the obligatory “homophobe” and “bigot” nonsense, and he recently made a few good points on “The Dish”:

I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me. … There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots [read: Christians], if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. … I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.

And besides, as constitutional law expert Jan LaRue recently observed in an email: “If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes?”

Why indeed?

Yuck.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: freedomofreligion; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 03/03/2014 8:55:22 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If Jan Bewer’s gay hairstylist can refuse her business, why can’t Christians do that too?


2 posted on 03/03/2014 8:57:46 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Let me put it this way, homosexuals and Muslims will have the right to refuse your business but Christians won’t


3 posted on 03/03/2014 8:59:33 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I have the right to refuse service to anybody I deem a MARXIST/LIBERAL/COMMUNIST.

I also have the right to refuse them employment.


4 posted on 03/03/2014 9:01:03 AM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Catastrophic logic beautifully argued!


5 posted on 03/03/2014 9:01:33 AM PST by shove_it (long ago Orwell and Rand warned us of Obama’s America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The Same People Donate Over And Over

Getting The Rest To Donate Shouldn't Be Like This.......


Click The Pic To Donate

Donate

6 posted on 03/03/2014 9:02:23 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; wagglebee; little jeremiah; carriage_hill
* Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “God Hates Fags” cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?

* Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?

* Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?

* Should a progressive environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?

* Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event – rife with nudity and public sex – simply because the customers identify as gay?

* Should a “gay married” lesbian hotel owner – a card-carrying member of GLAAD – be required, under threat of incarceration, to host and cater a fundraiser for the “National Organization for Marriage,” a group that opposes “marriage equality”?

EXCELLENT illustrations!

7 posted on 03/03/2014 9:02:45 AM PST by lightman (O Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance, giving to Thy Church vict'ry o'er Her enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I had heard it was the hair dresser of the governor of New Mexico, not Arizona.
It would have/should have made the national headlines if it were Jan Brewer.


8 posted on 03/03/2014 9:03:02 AM PST by BilLies (330,000 WHITE Union military went to their deaths to free the slaves .... REALLY???!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

And whatever happened to “no shirt, no shoes, no service” ? seen at many shops at resorts

Or “only two children with backpacks in the store at one time” - sign near a middle school.


9 posted on 03/03/2014 9:03:39 AM PST by maica (We are seeing an interesting mixture of malice and incompetence at healthcare.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

I guess he'd make an exception about the Mormons and polygamy.

10 posted on 03/03/2014 9:03:52 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Most here are loathe to admit it, but we sacrificed the “absolute right to refuse service” with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Business owners have not actually had such a right since the day it was signed.

We did it for the most noble of reasons. But put ourselves on a very slippery slope in the process. Unintended consequences.


11 posted on 03/03/2014 9:04:49 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

> I have the right to refuse service to anybody I deem a MARXIST/LIBERAL/COMMUNIST.

I also have the right to refuse them employment.

You just found a more qualified candidate for the job...


12 posted on 03/03/2014 9:07:16 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Wait a minute, if her hair stylist is gay, who styles her hair then?


13 posted on 03/03/2014 9:07:21 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I support the absolute right to refuse service in all but life or death matters. It makes good business sense.

If a klansman opens a whites only business it leaves a niche for a blacks only business. Both racist owned businesses leave a niche for a business that caters to all who come through the door.

Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.
- Calvin Coolidge
14 posted on 03/03/2014 9:07:22 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-hair-stylist-drops-new-mexico-governor-client-opposes-same-sex-marriage-article-1.1027072

The article is from 2012, would have thought it would have been in the commentaries about Arizona.
The fellas at the filtered News Services are always on the job.


15 posted on 03/03/2014 9:08:57 AM PST by BilLies (330,000 WHITE Union military went to their deaths to free the slaves .... REALLY???!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; GeronL

Good counter illustrations, but in offering them up, you must assert the truth about the agenda.

The agenda is anti-Christian. All answers to your scenarios will be given within this agenda.

The goal is the criminalization of Christian belief and the punishment thereof by the State.

And we need to call them out on it, not pussyfoot around with counter-examples to point out their “hypocrisy”.
Pointing out hypocrisy is a “shame” tactic, and it does not work with the left.


16 posted on 03/03/2014 9:11:26 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BilLies

I heard it wrong, I also didn’t know it was years ago


17 posted on 03/03/2014 9:11:51 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
We did it for the most noble of reasons. But put ourselves on a very slippery slope in the process. Unintended consequences.

Its exactly why Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 version. He was fine with affirmative action in government and federally funded programs for a while but warned that inflicting it on the private sector would be a disaster. He himself was practicing affirmative action in his own offices and personal business dealings before it ever became an issue.
18 posted on 03/03/2014 9:14:22 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Freedom of Association must include the freedom NOT to associate with people whom I consider unsavory, or it's not a freedom at all.

19 posted on 03/03/2014 9:14:49 AM PST by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Bttt


20 posted on 03/03/2014 9:16:08 AM PST by fedupjohn (America...Designed by Geniuses...Now inhabited by Idiots..Palin 2016...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

My thoughts exactly. If this is intended to be an appeal to reason, then it’s a waste to time. Those of us you can be sufficiently angry already are. They’ve won. They’re no reason to move one inch off their position. Keyboards should be clicking to the sounds of calls to action or remain silent.


21 posted on 03/03/2014 9:17:47 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Most of the “we” youre talking about are dead. I was 8 years old myself.

Greatest generation my ass.


22 posted on 03/03/2014 9:25:28 AM PST by subterfuge (CBS NBC ABC FOX AP-- all no different than Pravda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

To what end? Our enemies are getting everything they want without any appeals to logic. They have no need to respond to logic. If I made this argument to the guy in the cube next to me, he’d assent to it, but it wouldn’t change the way he votes one bit.

There’s a coordinated assault on our freedom and values and we’re supposed to be impressed with logical arguments?

I’m sorry, I just feel like we’re like a basketball team who’s down by 12 with 30 seconds left, we have great three point shooters, but we keep pushing into the paint, and getting our shots blocked. We should be in desperation mode.


23 posted on 03/03/2014 9:30:21 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In Colorado where I live, the voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1995 that sought to refuse a “special class” status under the law to those who engaged in homosexual behavior. Hollywood and many other pro-homosexual interests launched a massive boycott against the state. Now I’m told that to refuse business because of sexual practice is unconstitutional. Why then was not the boycott unconstitutional and how is that different from a baker refusing to do business. An entire industry refused to do business costing Colorado real documentable financial damages, not just hurt feelings; why is that business discrimination just and the bakers unjust? I think that the principle of equality under the law is dead in such rulings when some groups are more equal than others.


24 posted on 03/03/2014 9:31:41 AM PST by DaveyB ("When injustice becomes the law; rebellion becomes duty." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Isn’t it interesting, that Apple’s Tim Cook has said, “If you don’t believe my ideology, you are not welcome here”, and New York state has basically done the same, if not worse? But if you are a private business owner, you are not allowed to do the same.


25 posted on 03/03/2014 9:47:04 AM PST by um1990
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

when the time comes to deny christians the ability to buy food because they do not wear the mark, will this decision come back to haunt them... i think not.

teeman


26 posted on 03/03/2014 9:48:33 AM PST by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

My point is that if the arguments presented in the posted article were not made to Governor Brewer, they should have been. She’s only one person but a powerful person with a veto pen. She could have been persuaded to take the lead to explain the reason why she DID NOT veto the legislation to the people of Arizona citing the examples in the article, as a right guaranteed in Amendment 1 of The Constitution.


27 posted on 03/03/2014 9:50:09 AM PST by shove_it (long ago Orwell and Rand warned us of Obama’s America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

Thank you.


28 posted on 03/03/2014 9:51:01 AM PST by MeshugeMikey (Jesus came to Save not Entertain / Ground John Kerry Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I can still remember a time long ago when my wife and I wandered into Provincetown on Cape Cod as a side trip to Boston. It was lunch time and we decided to have a bite to eat so we found a nice restaurant the overlooked the water and went in. Well we stood there for a while and could plainly see people who worked there but they never approached us so I finally walked over and asked if they were serving lunch. The answer: yes but we do not serve “your kind”, i.e. hetros. So, this has been going on for some time from the homo side.


29 posted on 03/03/2014 9:52:16 AM PST by mc5cents (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

She wouldn’t have done anything that would cost her the Super Bowl coming to Az. Her reasoned arguments wouldn’t have persuaded the NFL. She’s part of the problem.


30 posted on 03/03/2014 9:54:04 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

I don’t get the connection with the Super Bowl. What’s that got to do with it? Is the NFL against the Bill of Rights?


31 posted on 03/03/2014 9:59:59 AM PST by shove_it (long ago Orwell and Rand warned us of Obama’s America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Noble? I think that’s naive. I think there was a concentrated effort going on at the time to undermine American confidence in its own institutions, and the 1964 CRA was in part an outgrowth of that. There was a lot of talk at the time about “Communist infiltration” and “Communist agitation,” and people may laugh, but it was proven later to be true.

Subversion of the American way of life was a known Communist goal.

And you speak of “unintended consequences” in terms of property rights, which is one problem - but what about the effect on American cities? Can you look at any major Southern city now and say that it is better-run, more prosperous, or in better shape than it was in 1950? And I think that was not an “unintended” consequence at all.


32 posted on 03/03/2014 10:08:54 AM PST by DogWrangler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

"You have no moral obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. Just be prepared for the consequences when you get caught." - Doctor Walter Williams.

33 posted on 03/03/2014 10:34:40 AM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

Is the NFL against the Bill of Rights?

...where the NFL chooses to hold its Super Bowl has absolutely zero to do with the Bill of Rights...why should it...?

...and while we’re on the subject, we must acknowledge, as does Ross Douthat at the NYT, that conservative principles are in retreat...just imagine the reverse of this current tiff..let’s say a blue state, like Minnesota, attempted to pass a bill guaranteeing the freedom of openly gay business to refrain from doing business with heteros...what influential organization or entity, with a ton of true clout, would come to the heteros defense, and threaten the state with loss of business...anything come to mind...?

...for that matter, what entity out there right now even remotely approaches the NFL with its crown jewel Super Bowl in terms of influence...and if conservative principle fails to engage the game of football, of all things, on what ground can it choose to fight...?


34 posted on 03/03/2014 11:09:48 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

Is the NFL against the Bill of Rights?

...where the NFL chooses to hold its Super Bowl has absolutely zero to do with the Bill of Rights...why should it...?

...and while we’re on the subject, we must acknowledge, as does Ross Douthat at the NYT, that conservative principles are in retreat...just imagine the reverse of this current tiff..let’s say a blue state, like Minnesota, attempted to pass a bill guaranteeing the freedom of openly gay business to refrain from doing business with heteros...what influential organization or entity, with a ton of true clout, would come to the heteros defense, and threaten the state with loss of business...anything come to mind...?

...for that matter, what entity out there right now even remotely approaches the NFL with its crown jewel Super Bowl in terms of influence...and if conservative principle fails to engage the game of football, of all things, on what ground can it choose to fight...?


35 posted on 03/03/2014 11:09:48 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

...drat those double post demons...


36 posted on 03/03/2014 11:10:51 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Forced segregation and forced integration both violate the right of free association.

Bush had it right when he said if he could he would just pass a law that made everyone love one another. Too bad it does not work that way.

The left has become a fascist religion that seeks not just to win converts to its faith but rather compel everyone to submit to it. I think this is why the left and Islam get along so well.


37 posted on 03/03/2014 11:29:06 AM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

It bears repeating.


38 posted on 03/03/2014 11:40:56 AM PST by shove_it (long ago Orwell and Rand warned us of Obama’s America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.

"An Absolute Right to Refuse Service" is a principle that could, would, and should apply to all businesses and individuals, even allowing exceptions for emergency services and such. Such a simple bill would have provided little room for opposing debate, and little room for judicial tyranny.

Such a bill would have protected the interests of the religious people and organizations, as well as the interests of their opposing forces. Principled legislation provides equal justice for all.

But that's not what AZ SB1062 was about. A few unprincipled, religious fruitcakes scrapped together a scrambled mess of idiotic religious mumbo-jumbo, and ran it through the state senate and house.

Absolute pure stupidity from a bunch of severely mentally retarded religious fruitcake legislators.

And in their stupidity, they further ratcheted back the freedoms of the non-stupid citizens, just like every other effort at legislating religion has done in the past half century or so.

39 posted on 03/03/2014 11:43:27 AM PST by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


Let's Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $932 To Go Green!!
Please Help End This Quarter's FReepathon

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

40 posted on 03/03/2014 11:44:09 AM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

We can clearly see whom you hate.


41 posted on 03/03/2014 5:31:56 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
We can clearly see whom you hate.

Probably not. I detest stupid people who mindlessly set back the causes for freedom for themselves and countless others.

If you see something other than that, then no, you do not see clearly.

42 posted on 03/03/2014 7:06:50 PM PST by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

God never guaranteed that doing right would get you applause.


43 posted on 03/03/2014 8:50:34 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: lightman

Placemark


44 posted on 03/03/2014 9:42:49 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
God never guaranteed that doing right would get you applause.

There is nothing right or Godly about submitting legislation loaded with preferential, unprincipled and nonsensical religious jargon that is most likely to get vetoed, or most likely to get thrown out in the judicial process.

This particular issue in AZ would have passed legal muster had it simply provided every person or business the right to refuse service to anyone, period, with appropriate exceptions noted for life-threatening emergencies.

That would be equal treatment under the law. That would be principled. That would be right and Godly.

Such a legally principled point of view is not sufficient for some unprincipled religious fruitcakes, such as the ones who crafted the Arizona bill. Their demands for preferential treatment to be encoded within the law, using their peculiar brand of nonlegal jargon, is just as much an abomination to constitutional law as are the demands of gays, minorities, illegal aliens, and other groups for their groups' preferential treatment to be encoded within the legislation, using the peculiar nonlegal jargon of their respective groups.

45 posted on 03/04/2014 12:02:49 AM PST by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

There are signs up in many establishment that simply state, NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SERVICE.

Yet I have to face going to the Mall or other high crime shopping areas with OUT MY CCW LEGAL GUN, my child’s SOCIOPATH killer has made threats, and he now walks a free man after serving only a fraction of a BAD PLEA DEAL that took 2 years to reach, thanks to the RINO prosecutor. God had nothing to do with this man made nonsense.


46 posted on 03/04/2014 12:21:05 AM PST by GailA (IF you fail to keep your promises to the Military, you won't keep them to Citizens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GailA

I agree. People have the right to keep and bear arms. People have the right to defend their life, liberty, and property.


47 posted on 03/04/2014 1:05:54 AM PST by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

Memphis city schools are 95% black, 4% Hispanic and 1% white. Who is the minority there?

County schools reflect the population in percentages.

Last time I checked America is a Polyglot nation. I can trace down my mom’s side to Scot, English, German, French and a tad of Cherokee. My 2 younger siblings have a different father, they can add Italian to their ancestry besides our mom’s.


48 posted on 03/04/2014 5:51:03 AM PST by GailA (IF you fail to keep your promises to the Military, you won't keep them to Citizens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GailA

Yeah, I am very familiar with that school system. What we learn from the integration issue is that people still tend to live near and associate with whomever they want to. You can bus people across town to reach certain quotas but it does not really change people.

I think that church is the only place where true racial equality can happen. The secular version of equality is to try to force equality because the government really has no power to change people or human nature.

Further, racial equality and many other leftist ideals (I say ideal because the left has many goals which are never achieved no matter how much power and control they obtain) are in the domain of religion. The left cannot separate its religious dogma from the legal realm. They are determined to force everyone to comply with their religious views.

When it comes to homosexuality, they first claimed they just wanted privacy (sexual morality based on the principle of consenting adults). Then they wanted tolerance if homosexual acts become known. (This is what the supreme court ruled on against Texas in the manufactured case from Dallas which essentially made homosexual acts legal everywhere.) Then they no longer wanted privacy. (Clinton’s first act as president was to implement “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military, which was considered major progress for homosexuals at the time. Now that policy is supposed to be discriminatory.). Homosexuality must be openly praised, embraced, and celebrated. But that is still not enough. They want those who oppose homosexuality to be forced to support it. They want to punish and penalize any opposition. But they will NEVER be satisfied. They will not be satisfied to beat down people’s doors and rape their families like the men of Sodom wanted to do. They are currently demanding access to all children. They can be foster parents and adopt children in all 50 states. But they want access to all children through the public schools.

The Nazi movement was started by and made up of homosexuals. We are seeing the same pattern here in the USA. Germany was the most tolerant nation in Europe when the homosexual Nazi’s rose to power. They will continue to move the entire world toward the worst and most abusive kind of tyranny that exists until they are stopped.


49 posted on 03/04/2014 10:38:50 AM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

He was right.

Unfortunately for the analogy, Einstein was a big lefty, which means he had in mind only leftists disobeying conservative laws. He'd doubtless be a cheerleader for "gay marriage" if he were around today.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

Ditto, despite what his conservative relatives are saying.

So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap.

Liberals should have been made to understand from the outset that "jim crow" was wrong not because it violated secular standards of justice (which ultimately don't even exist), but Divine ones. But nobody, not even conservatives, want to talk about Divine law.

My personal opinion is that conservatives are going to have to adopt leftist tactics--mass resistance, protests, going to jail--to even begin to make headway on this issue.

50 posted on 03/04/2014 10:48:51 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next 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