Gay Coffee Shop Owner Forcibly Ejects Christian Customers for Their Beliefs

RedState ^ | 10/06/2017 | Brandon Morse

[henkster]

I wouldn’t want to patronize the place. I mean, you want some cream in your coffee? Not a chance.

[doorgunner69]

A buddy says Portland is about the same.

OTOH, what normal person would knowingly go into a homosexual establishment. Maybe in a HAZMAT suit, if paid to............

[Chickensoup]

Stonewall Kitchen products are owned by a militant homosexual couple.

[simpson96]

Bedlam Coffee shop's Facist owner, in action.

Yelp page: https://www.yelp.com/biz/bedlam-coffee-seattle

[Angels27]

As a Christian, I would never venture into any business waving a pride flag.

[TChad]

The Christians were clearly targeted for their religious beliefs. This was a violation of public accommodations laws.

Most of those laws should not be on the books, but that's another subject.

SUE THE BASTARD.

[redangus]

Not because he knew too much, but because the head of the German Army let Hitler know they would not support him unless he disbanded and disavowed association with the SA/Brownshirts. Therefore ‘The Night of the Long Knives’ became part of German history.

[Rastus]

If abortion is outlawed, Bruce may have to take a coat hanger up the butt in a back alley. Or, is that just a regular Saturday night?

[Thibodeaux]

No settle jury will oppose a queer

And , no Seattle judge ment will provide a win for a plaintiff suing a queer

[TChad]

I'm not so sure. This is VERY clear-cut discrimination on the basis of religion.

If the Christians set up a GoFundMe page, I bet their legal expenses would be quickly covered.

[onedoug]

There’s nothing gay about homos. Particularly really nasty fags.

That being said, they went into a place called Bedlam, which was flying a homo flag? Two bad signs right there.

[Wuli]

I am for the Coffee Shop, because (a) they are not the government, (b) they have Liberty of their beliefs just like anyone else, (c) they have Liberty over who and why they associate with anyone and (d) they should be legally able to determine who they will do business with.

My only complaint, and wish, is that they were not such hypocrites and would respect those same rights when it comes to businesses that are run by folks of different beliefs than theirs.

Goldwater was not opposed to some of the last “civil rights” legislation out of a moral desire to be racially prejudiced. He opposed that legislation when it morphed from preventing racist segregationist GOVERNMENT LAW AND POLICY acting in a “discriminatory manner”, to interjecting the law into the private field of “public accommodation”, which in effect turned EVERY PRIVATE business practice into an arm of the government, and destroyed a good part of the right to free association in true Liberty is all about. Once that was “settled” for “race”, it was not long before it slid down the slippery slope of “mandating” all sorts of “protected” classes.

“Public accommodation” should have never been breached, in terms of “civil rights”. All society really needed on that score was time.

[Carry_Okie]

Not because he knew too much,

Disagree, with multiple sources. Start with The Pink Swastika, and then go on to Gay Berlin. The NAZI Party held its first meetings in a gay bar. Gay blackmail was exceptionally common among, particularly because of existing anti-sodomy law per Paragraph 175. Hirschfeld's Institute provideded "therapy" sessions, and kept meticulous records.

[Dawgreg]

Hope the Christian sues............

So do I........but I’m not expecting anything to come of it even if the Christian does sue. Like hate crimes, it’s a one-way street if you get what I mean.........sigh

[ForYourChildren]

Your point is well-taken and well-stated.

Good one.

[SkyDancer]

Talk to those business people in Oregon who were sued for not baking a cake for a gay wedding. $130,000 fine. Then there was those florists. The only protected class is the GAYSTAPO.

[TChad]

I am for the Coffee Shop,

I would prefer that public accommodations laws only apply when discrimination might result in serious physical harm. The coffee shop owner should be able to refuse to serve Christians, and a Christian baker should be able to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, but a hotel owner should not be able to legally deny lodging to Christians during a hurricane, simply because they are Christians.

Since that is not the current law, the question is: Should existing public accommodations laws be enforced against leftists as well as against conservatives?

I think the answer is yes, so I am NOT "for the Coffee Shop."

Sue the bastard.

[Wuli]

No, I am still for the Coffee shop. The “Christian” group was not really harmed, because (a) getting coffer is NOT a “necessity” and (b) nothing prevented them from getting coffee somewhere else. Therefore, the situation does not even meet, in my view, what the “public accommodation” test was originally all about.

I’d like to be a Christian lawyer defending them, to, in the process, demonstrate to them the Liberty principles they in turn should be accepting for Christians, such as Christian bakers who won’t do a “same sex” wedding cake.

[TChad]

Alinsky Rule #4: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

[fr_freak]

Yup. Why patronize a “gay” business in the first place?

It's Seattle. If you want to get a cup of coffee at a coffee shop, it's going to be a "gay" business. Heck, the tire shops and hardware stores probably have rainbow flags out front.

The interesting thing is that I bet some of those anti-abortion people had no real problem with homos. This ridiculous homo just hated them because he found out they were Christians.

As a side note, I've wondered before why homosexuals care about the abortion issue anyway. It's not like they're ever going to need it. It seems like the issue makes them angry simply because any effort, ever, to promote any standard of decency enrages them.