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To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that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 1-2021-4041-53 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 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