Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court is Wrong: Christian Businesses Should Refuse Service to Homosexuals!
CST News ^ | June 27, 2013 | Don Boys, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/02/2013 9:01:34 AM PDT by John Leland 1789

The Supreme Court Justices recently made a decision that is squalid, shameful, sorry, shocking, and stupefying that will put perverts on a pedestal and decent Christians in prison! That decision will affect churches, schools, and businesses.

Does a Christian business person have the right to choose whom he will serve? Most sane people will agree that no one has absolute rights. In this matter, both the owner and customer have rights, but which right is superior? If we eliminate the possibility of the owner using tax dollars to start the business, it becomes a little less confusing, less contentious as well as less conflicting. It is also to be understood that a customer has the opportunity to do business elsewhere since there are similar businesses available. And it isn’t a life and death matter.

The business owner takes a huge risk putting his own money into the business, working long hours, often without salary and the customer risks nothing. No one will argue that there are some legitimate restrictions: a bar does not have to serve a customer already drunk; nor will a store have to sell a butcher knife to a five-year-old who wanders in with a twenty-dollar bill. Alright, there are exceptions but what about homosexuals who want a Christian photographer to take pictures of their “wedding” or want a baker to make a cake for their wedding reception? That is a sticky wicket! There are similar cases on file of these conflicts; the most famous is the Christian couple in Oregon who got in legal trouble because they refused to bake a cake for two lesbians.

Customers discriminate (make choices) all the time so why not a business owner? The bakery sells to adulterers, homosexuals, tax cheats, etc., but will not bake a cake for a “gay” wedding. Obviously, they don’t hate gays since they sell them birthday cakes but not wedding cakes. The bakery owners do not support same-sex “marriage.” That is their right and responsibility as Christians. What if a pedophile group wants a cake for their annual bash promoting sex with kids? Motto: “Sex by eight or it’s too late.” This is not about a cake but forcing a perverted agenda on others just as the Supreme Court did. I would bake homosexuals a birthday cake but not a wedding cake. I would sell a cake to an abortionist but not to celebrate his 10th anniversary as an abortionist.

What about a Jewish baker refusing to make a cake for a meeting of holocaust deniers? How about a black baker who refuses to bake a cake for the KKK? Can a Muslim business refuse to serve a Jew, or a Muslim caterer refuse to provide pork for a Christian organization? How about a gun-hating baker refusing to bake a cake for a gun manufacturer’s annual party? What about a “gay” architect refusing to draw plans for a pro-family group? What about a radical leftist printing firm refusing to print material for an outspoken conservative cause?

My religious views do not end when they conflict with another person’s religious views. Of course, mine have priority! I can be flexible in some things but unbending in others. Only I can decide the difference. As an American, I can start a business and serve only people with red hair. Dumb but not wrong. Illegal but not immoral.

Homosexuals yell the loudest about freedom, tolerance, respect of others, yet they are the epitome of intolerance and hate when someone opposes them. The homosexual mafia, the attack dog of the LGBT lobby, demands tolerance and practices tyranny so how do you spell hypocrites: H o m o s e x u a l! A Christian couple refused to bake a cake because of religious beliefs and now they are picketed, persecuted, and could be prosecuted for their decision.

This comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required a businessman to serve burgers to anyone. Any businessman whose business was started with any tax dollars is morally obligated to serve anyone; however, absent the tax support, a man could morally (but not legally) start a business and refuse to serve Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Indians, and only serve bald dwarfs from Lithuania. He would not be in business long but that should be his right. The U.S. Congress overreached with the Civil Rights Act rightly giving legal rights to Blacks while wrongly removing basic business rights from Whites (maybe even bigoted, hateful, unreasonable rights). That part of the Act was troublesome, tragic and tyrannical.

I don’t support businesses that actively support “gay” rights such as Penny’s and Starbucks. When I think about buying a shirt at Penny’s or stopping at Starbucks, I take a deep breath, count to 10, and then have a sandwich at Chick-fil-A.

That is not bigotry but Bible! Not prejudice but principle! And if the Supreme Justices don’t like it, they can go jump in the lake.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 15 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His shocking book, ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse!; Christian Resistance: An Idea Whose Time Has Come–Again!; and The God Haters are all available at Amazon.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

"Like" Dr. Boys on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/CSTNews?ref=hl and http://www.facebook.com/TheGodHaters?ref=hl Follow Dr. Boys on Twitter at https://twitter.com/CSTNews


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: business; homosexual; rights

1 posted on 07/02/2013 9:01:34 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

A business should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason, including skin color, race, gender, national origin, sex, religion, creed, viewpoint, handicap condition, mental condition....


2 posted on 07/02/2013 9:04:30 AM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

That’s the real problem, we have become a nation where federal law is used to make people be “nice”.

I don’t think anyone should be denied service based on race, etc., but I know it’s become a real problem that federal law is involved. In most places, local, state, and federal law all proscribe the same activity.

Everything does not need to be a “federal case”.


3 posted on 07/02/2013 9:07:51 AM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

The 1950s and 1960s ended that, when the WWII generation came home and sent the paratroops into our towns to get America shaped to their new vision.


4 posted on 07/02/2013 9:09:14 AM PDT by ansel12 (Sodom and Gomorrah, flush with libertarians and liberals, short on social conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

If the government can force a specific bean merchant to sell beans to red heads, and the government can force red heads to buy beans from some bean merchant, then I suppose the government can force red heads to buy beans from a specific blue haired bean merchant.


5 posted on 07/02/2013 9:09:36 AM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Unfortunately for freedom that ship sailed away fifty years ago to a fanfare of “civil rights legislation.” It isn’t coming back.


6 posted on 07/02/2013 9:12:14 AM PDT by jboot (It can happen here because it IS happening here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

:: A business should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason ::

Amd not be legally expected to provide that reason.


7 posted on 07/02/2013 9:12:16 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alteration: The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
If they can apply the constitution to businesses, does that mean those signs that prohibit me from carrying a concealed weapon are unconstitutional too?


8 posted on 07/02/2013 9:17:01 AM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

The supreme court has ruled that you do not have the right to refuse service to anyone, anymore. This is a ready made ambulance chaser ruling crafted solely to shake down anyone who may be slightly offended by your business practices. The lawyer-government complex is salivating at all of the perceived sleight lawsuits as we speak.


9 posted on 07/02/2013 9:18:08 AM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

He has hit on something here. I propose that groups send forth “War Shoppers” whose assignment is to do some of the very things he wrote, get refused service upon religious reasons, and then sue citing the SCOTUS case described.
People are always asking, “What can one person do?” Here’s an answer - War Shopping. Go do unto them as they have done unto our Constitution and our civil rights and right of free association. “Freedom From Religion?” Fine. How about “Freedom From Overbearing Atheist Morons?” That works too, and SCOTUS has unwittingly given us the weapon.
Provoke an incident AND SUE THIER LIBBY BUTTS!

FIGHT BACK! DO NOT SUBMIT ANY LONGER!
W of B

The good doctor wrote:
What about a Jewish baker refusing to make a cake for a meeting of holocaust deniers? How about a black baker who refuses to bake a cake for the KKK? Can a Muslim business refuse to serve a Jew, or a Muslim caterer refuse to provide pork for a Christian organization? How about a gun-hating baker refusing to bake a cake for a gun manufacturer’s annual party? What about a “gay” architect refusing to draw plans for a pro-family group? What about a radical leftist printing firm refusing to print material for an outspoken conservative cause?


10 posted on 07/02/2013 9:22:04 AM PDT by William of Barsoom (In Omnia, Paratus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Can a liberal refuse to make a cup of coffee for a conservative businessman?


11 posted on 07/02/2013 9:22:41 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
That is not bigotry but Bible! Not prejudice but principle! And if the Supreme Justices don’t like it, they can go jump in the lake.

I listened to an atheist "public relations" troglodyte on Michael Medved's radio show yesterday.

He repeated the same mantra that is the God haters doctrine: "People can have freedom of religion, but they can't harm someone else through their beliefs. If their beliefs cause harm to gays or pro-choice citizens, that cannot be tolerated in this country."

For the clueless who have not been paying attention, that is the same arguement the IRS agents used when they were intimidating Chrisitan pastors and churches (some of it on audiotape).

If you choose to be on God's side, you are going to be persecuted in this country, and the persecution has only just begun.

Christians are a reminder to the Godless that they are on the side of evil. Evil cannot tolerate being exposed.

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.

John 3:20

12 posted on 07/02/2013 9:30:20 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

**The Supreme Court Justices recently made a decision that is squalid, shameful, sorry, shocking, and stupefying that will put perverts on a pedestal and decent Christians in prison! That decision will affect churches, schools, and businesses.**

No mincing of words here!


13 posted on 07/02/2013 9:32:26 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
"Can a liberal refuse to make a cup of coffee for a conservative businessman?"

Most certainly.

14 posted on 07/02/2013 9:33:27 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
What about a “gay” architect refusing to draw plans for a pro-family group? What about a radical leftist printing firm refusing to print material for an outspoken conservative cause?

Things that should be tried and when found, sue the business like homos do. This would help set precedent and (hopefully) really confuse the libs. Hoist them on their own petard!

What's a petard, anyway???)

15 posted on 07/02/2013 9:35:25 AM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

The homosexual crowd’s agenda has placed all Christians (not just businesses) in a difficult position.


16 posted on 07/02/2013 9:37:03 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Can a liberal refuse to make a cup of coffee for a conservative businessman?

Should be an illegal act, but liberals being as childish as they are (a requirement to believe all the crap they do), I would not let a liberal getting me a cup of coffee know I was a conservative. Who knows what they'd put in it.

17 posted on 07/02/2013 9:41:10 AM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

I think Christians SHOULD take the homosexual’s money. Why not? It all spends. However, you can also put a sign on your door that says “10% of the proceeds of all sales goes to a Bible-believing Christian church.”


18 posted on 07/02/2013 9:47:16 AM PDT by hoagy62 ("Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered..."-Thomas Paine. 1776)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
There is a standard accepted business prcatice, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody”.

This is frequently applied to “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”

For the subject at hand, I would add;

“Incompatible Plumbing”

19 posted on 07/02/2013 9:48:43 AM PDT by G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoagy62

“I think Christians SHOULD take the homosexual’s money. Why not? It all spends. However, you can also put a sign on your door that says “10% of the proceeds of all sales goes to a Bible-believing Christian church.””

Totally agree! As a businessman I wouldn’t hesitate to sell or buy from anyone. I’ll just put the money I make to good use.


20 posted on 07/02/2013 9:56:43 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

You’re exactly right. There is no constitutional right to be served by a business establishment. But there IS a right to the unimpeded practice of one’s religion.


21 posted on 07/02/2013 10:08:46 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
A business should be able to refuse service

There's a big leap between "should refuse" and "should be able to refuse". Thank you for saying it in the latter way.

22 posted on 07/02/2013 10:23:42 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RC one

nope those are private property owner rights, the same rights that allow you to control what goes on on your land and your house.


23 posted on 07/02/2013 10:25:55 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Then as a business owner, I should be able to have separate bathrooms for homosexuals, right?


24 posted on 07/02/2013 10:29:22 AM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

“It is also to be understood that a customer has the opportunity to do business elsewhere since there are similar businesses available.”

This is the same argument used in regard to businesses that post “No guns allowed”. It’s a weak argument because while it may be true in the author’s neighborhood that doesn’t mean it is universally true.

“If we eliminate the possibility of the owner using tax dollars to start the business, it becomes a little less confusing, less contentious as well as less conflicting.”

We also need to recognize that if a business operates as a corporation, it is a creation of the state.

“...only serve bald dwarfs from Lithuania...”

What if the business was established to serve only bald dwarfs from Lithuania?


25 posted on 07/02/2013 10:48:36 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

“A business should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason, including skin color, race, gender, national origin, sex, religion, creed, viewpoint, handicap condition, mental condition.”

Should? Can you provide some reasoning as to why that “should” be the case? Can you provide something that would convince someone who believes otherwise to change their opinion?


26 posted on 07/02/2013 10:52:55 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Since the goal is to eliminate Christianity, none of this is a surprise.


27 posted on 07/02/2013 11:05:08 AM PDT by I want the USA back (If I Pi$$ed off just one liberal today my mission has been accomplished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC one

if you’d want to remodel for that, i guess if you want to offer that. whether they use that one or not would be up to them as you may not know if they are gay or not.

i wouldn’t want to clean it if i were you because they often use bathrooms for different reasons than other people.


28 posted on 07/02/2013 11:26:57 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jeffc

A petard is a small explosive charge, originially used in siege warfare. “Hoist by one’s own petard” means something like, “Blew himself up with his own Improvised Explosive Device.”


29 posted on 07/02/2013 12:22:52 PM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Freedom of association was destroyed with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.


30 posted on 07/02/2013 3:34:35 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson