Business Owners Have Few Civil Liberties?: No rights who to do business with?

[kayem77]

I think treating the gay ''rights'' issue as a civil rights issue is the main and first problem, and as long as people don't see that, this will continue to be an issue.

I believe nobody should be refused certain services, like medicine, health treatments, or other services which are mostly catalogued as public services , like water, electricity,etc.
But besides those services, a business owner should have the right to do business whichever way they want, and reserve the right to refuse their services to anyone. If I'm a Christian, and I go to a Muslim photographer, I would understand if they refuse to shoot my wedding. Or if I have a bakery, and a neo-nazi comes and wants me to bake a cake with a nazi sign on it, I would refuse to. I believe those are rights people should respect. I think there are limits though, on both sides of the spectrum, and those are hard to define outside of a Christian worldview, where ''everything goes''.

 

[kayem77]

My thought right now, is that businesses that are necessary to maintain life, should have stricter limits on owner rights.
Places like grocery stores, hospitals, transportation, should have VERY strict rules against discrimination.
Everyone NEEDS food, emergency healthcare, transportation, and the like.

On the other hand, humans won't die if they don't get a birthday cake. Maybe a cake baker can be granted more rights.

So finding the proper balance, to me, right now, is about weighing the necessity of a business for human survival.

The less a business is actually needed for human survival, the more rights the owner should be granted.

I think I agree with this

 

[MidniteWelder]

I think there are limits though, on both sides of the spectrum, and those are hard to define outside of a Christian worldview, where ''everything goes''.

You make a good point here,
we're told we are in the world (where everything goes.)
But we're not of the world (we're of the kingdom where not everything goes)

 

[SonInMe]

It depends on state & local laws. For example, some states/cities have given gays a protection status, meaning you can't discriminate against them any more than a black person. I believe that happened in Colorado when two gays went into a cake shop and wanted a cake but the owner denied them. I believe it was either a Denver statue that gave them this protection against discrimination. Some cities & states do make it illegal to discriminate against gays. But I believe most cities & states do not protect gays. I really feel sorry for an ice cream shop, filled with family oriented customers, when two gay men with pink & blue ballerina outfits enter to order ice cream. If the city has given gays protection status, the ice cream parlor owners will likely have to serve them. However, I know for a fact that the gay community will refrain from this type of behavior because it knows that it will only ignite & unify the community against the gay agenda. Every now & then, a few of them will anger the straight community with their outrageous behavior ... but it's rare. What the gay community really want is federal protection against discrimination.

Is it descrimnation when two gay people go to a bakery, that has publicly declared itself as a christian business, and ask for a wedding cake? It sounds more like an instigation than a descrimination. They went specifically to this bakery because it was christian, knowing the reaction they would get, and the subsequent hooplah that would arise.

Would a bakery owned by black americans be forced by law to bake a cake for some kkk members who were celebrating some anti-black rally? I doubt it....but its ok to go after christians.

Community values? A christian business is a christian business. In declaring itself christian, then it may lose, or gain customers. That's free market and that is american....or at least it was.

...and please never equate the homosexual agenda with civil rights. That spits on every grave created in the struggle for the rights of minorities in this country.

Now, if this is a secular business that is a totally different story. Religious freedom is what this nation was built from. If it has nothing to do with your religion, then, it can be a civil matter.

 

[SonInMe]

You're kinda getting stuck in the details here.

The overall discussion is about customer rights vs. owner rights.

It's kinda an ethical discussion.

Yes current laws are what they are.

I'm not really seeking to appeal to current laws as indicators of what should be done.

I'm asking a greater question.

Is there a point where customer rights intrude on the rights of the owner?

If its a business owner and a gay person, that's one thing.

If its the business owner's religion that's another. You cannot force someone to go against their religious beliefs. If those beliefs cause a loss of business, so be it but no christian should be forced to support, an anti-christian ideal, by the state.

...and the wacked out religions out there that make ridiculous religious claims, I do believe those have been addressed by laws as well.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

So if a murderer comes up to my knife shop and announces he wants to buy a knife to murder someone, I'm forced to sell it to him or face prison and bankruptcy for violating the Interstate Commerce clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was intended to correct race and gender inequality?

How about if I own a pet shop and someone wants me to sell them an animal so they can sexually penetrate it?

How about a NAMBLA membership drive? Do I have to go to prison and be bankrupted by the government for refusing to support a NAMBLA membership drive?

How about if I own a bar and an intoxicated person wants another drink before they get into their car to drive home?

How about a naked person walking into my store? Do I still have to provide service?

Where did you get the idea that when someone enters the marketplace they are bound by law to sell anything to anyone for any purpose whenever they are ordered to or they are in violation of the Interstate Commerce clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I'm just curious because you're spreading misinformation. You're wrong.

Your rights are subject once you choose to interact with the govt./other people. Once you decide to operate a business on a public square, you are required not to discriminate. This goes back to the Interstate Commerce clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You were never ever given unlimited domain of your business by the US govt, just the right to run it without the confiscation of property without due process.

 

[amdg]

So if a murderer comes up to my knife shop and announces he wants to buy a knife to murder someone, I'm forced to sell it to him or face prison and bankruptcy for violating the Interstate Commerce clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was intended to correct race and gender inequality?

How about if I own a pet shop and someone wants me to sell them an animal so they can sexually penetrate it?

How about a NAMBLA membership drive? Do I have to go to prison and be bankrupted by the government for refusing to support a NAMBLA membership drive?

How about if I own a bar and an intoxicated person wants another drink before they get into their car to drive home?

How about a naked person walking into my store? Do I still have to provide service?

Where did you get the idea that when someone enters the marketplace they are bound by law to sell anything to anyone for any purpose whenever they are ordered to or they are in violation of the Interstate Commerce clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I'm just curious because you're spreading misinformation. You're wrong.

Wow, strawman. How about you ask for clarification before you make such ridiculous claims.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Show me a case involving a Christian business owner and a homosexual in which the Christian business owner is refusing to sell a homosexual ANY of their goods and services for ANY moral purpose whatsoever. In every case I have seen, the conflict involves a Christian business owner refusing to facilitate an immoral activity.

An immoral activity is NOT a person.

The Christian business owner is the one being discriminated against and being severely persecuted by the government at the behest of immoral people for refusing to violate his normative moral conscience and religious convictions toward morality and facilitate an immoral event in a marketplace with many other alternatives for the immoral person with regards to their immoral activity/event.

The reality is that the immoral people have targeted Christian business owners for elimination. They would rather spend the time and effort to hunt them down and severely persecute them and their families because they were able to get a law passed inappropriately extending legislation that was meant to correct inequalities in race and gender to people based on the immoral behaviors they engage in.

And that's a very slippery slope. NAMBLA is already stepping up. So are bestiality groups. They want their piece of the Civil Rights pie. They want the special protections based on their immoral behaviors. If homosexuality is a genetic flaw, so is pedophilia and bestiality. They use the same argument, and rightfully so if you're going to accept the argument to begin with. They say they were "born that way."

What this society is allowing is very UNAmerican. It's tyranny. This society is allowing people who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors to use the government to severely persecute moral Americans for refusing to facilitate their immoral activities while simultaneously creating a template that allows every immoral group of people in the nation to seek civil rights protections intended to normalize race and gender solely based on their immoral behaviors.

That's insane. If you're going to do that, then you should extend the protection to moral people as well to protect them. For if you do not, the U.S. will end as a degenerate immoral nation with the moral people transformed into felons going in and out of prison and forced by the government into extreme poverty for nothing more than remaining moral and refusing to facilitate immoral activities.

And tragically, I've never seen a "liberal" bat an eye at this. It's what they want.

I think a business owner SHOULD be able to decide whom they'll do business with. But I also despise discrimination. So which side gets chosen?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Except for the last statement, which is a true statement, they were questions not claims. Take an English comprehension class and learn the difference. If you can't even see they were questions, then I suppose we can't expect you to actually answer them competently.

Wow, strawman. How about you ask for clarification before you make such ridiculous claims.

 

[MidniteWelder]

As our nation was founded upon principles of Christian liberty...
We wouldn't be telling others to believe one way or another simply because we say so...
but to provide them with the liberty of freedom to believe not just the bible, but the one the bible reveals...
To believe what God says because he said so.

So that others may align their own life with the standards of Jesus Christ.
The freedom Christ brings is liberty of conscience to no longer be under a yoke to the world.
Not to bring others some sense of freedom of liberty in their own thoughts and opinions in their conscience.

But to submit to the realization that ultimate control and authority belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ.
To take upon his yoke.

If we expect others to do this, how much more must we do the same.
God has many things against the church right now...too much is being tolerated from the world.
Mostly due to passive Christians who do nothing and expect God to do work they are called to do.

 

[amdg]

Umm...what does that have to do with the argument. You're backtracking from your original statement here. I will agree that under the current statues, a business owner doesn't have the right to discriminate based on ones sexual orientation.

"The Christian business owner is the one being discriminated against and being severely persecuted by the government at the behest of immoral people for refusing to violate his normative moral conscience and religious convictions toward morality and facilitate an immoral event in a marketplace with many other alternatives for the immoral person with regards to their immoral activity/event." He's being "severely persecuted" maybe, maybe I'd give that to you for the photographer, but for a baker. I mean the baker spends 0 seconds at the ceremony.

"The reality is that the immoral people have targeted Christian business owners for elimination. They would rather spend the time and effort to hunt them down and severely persecute them and their families because they were able to get a law passed inappropriately extending legislation that was meant to correct inequalities in race and gender to people based on the immoral behaviors they engage in." Come on. I think this was far more of a case of a gay couple getting upset that they were refused service (which I can empathize with, I don't want to have to search to see which businesses religious beliefs allow them to serve me some random product). Besides, is there really a need for Christians to participate in the thriving businesses of wedding cake makers, i mean it seems like an awfully circuitous route to attack Christianity.

"And that's a very slippery slope. " And slippery slopes are a fallacy. Can we please as Christians avoid the cliche comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia.

"What this society is allowing is very UNAmerican. It's tyranny. This society is allowing people who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors to use the government to severely persecute moral Americans for refusing to facilitate their immoral activities while simultaneously creating a template that allows every immoral group of people in the nation to seek civil rights protections intended to normalize race and gender solely based on their immoral behaviors." Nope actually this is a long-standing precedent from the civil rights era. You're religious beliefs don't give you the right to discriminate on certain things (like race and orientation). I'm sorry, but I don't know where you get this idea from.

"I've never even seen anyone on the left bat an eye at this. It's what they want." Yep, I want to live in a world where I can go to any Kinkos I want to to print out my pro-life posters, order pizza from any establishment for my protect traditional marriage meeting, and go to any formal wear store to buy a tux for my interracial marriage.

 

[amdg]

Except for the last statement, which is a true statement, they were questions not claims. Take an English comprehension class and learn the difference. If you can't even see they were questions, then I suppose we can't expect you to actually answer them competently.

"Where did you get the idea that when someone enters the marketplace they are bound by law to sell anything to anyone for any purpose whenever they are ordered to or they are in violation of the Interstate Commerce clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?"

Rhetorical questions are a common thing. Based on your tone in this post and the previous one that was my inference. Are you saying I'm mistaken? If that is the case I'm sorry. However, I would appreciate a more civil tone in a Christian forum.

 

[amdg]

As our nation was founded upon principles of Christian liberty...
We wouldn't be telling others to believe one way or another simply because we say so...
but to provide them with the liberty of freedom to believe not just the bible, but the one the bible reveals...
To believe what God says because he said so.

So that others may align their own life with the standards of Jesus Christ.
The freedom Christ brings is liberty of conscience to no longer be under a yoke to the world.
Not to bring others some sense of freedom of liberty in their own thoughts and opinions in their conscience.

But to submit to the realization that ultimate control and authority belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ.
To take upon his yoke.

If we expect others to do this, how much more must we do the same.
God has many things against the church right now...too much is being tolerated from the world.
Mostly due to passive Christians who do nothing and expect God to do work they are called to do.

I'm sorry but this country was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment and not "Christian liberty."

 

[MidniteWelder]

“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
This is one of the most important, but perhaps the most overlooked, ideals set out by the Founding Fathers.

Yet this self-evident truth that a Creator, or God, granted these rights, although often overlooked as poetic phrasing in the Declaration of Independence, is the first foundational building block of our country. For, if these rights were not granted by our Creator, where did these rights originate?
If these rights were granted by our Creator—who possesses power and authority far greater than any found on earth—then no power on earth can remove those rights and no one can, with impunity, infringe on the rights of others.

 

[MrsRoseTreasure]

This is a quandry, isn't it? Whose rights matter more, the business owner or the gay couple?

I once owned a small motel. My home was attached, and my children lived there with me. They often came into the office, played on the grounds, and were generally underfoot, as children are. It's hard to say what I would have done if the Drag Queen USA tour showed up. I probably would have taken their money, to be honest. I tend to let others judge. They are usually happy to do so.

I think I should have had the right to say no, on the grounds of protecting my children from a lifestyle they didn't need to be exposed to at that time.

On another note, these folks had another option. They could have said, "Yes, I'd love to take your photo/bake your cake/bring you flowers as long as you allow me to tell you about the saving grace of Jesus, and the sacrifice he made on the cross. Do you know that he thinks your lifestyle is a sin, and that he wants you to repent so that you can be with him forever in eternity?" These folks missed a wonderful opportunity to witness about their faith and the saving grace of messiah. Besides, how long do you think they'd want to be around you if you met them with your bible in your hand every time they came in? If you showed up at their wedding singing "What a friend we have in Jesus." or "Amazing Grace" at the top of your lungs? Offered to pray a blessing then spoke about loving forgiveness for our sins? I see an opportunity lost. That's all.

 

[amdg]

1) The fact that the quote doesn't use the words God, Father, Jesus, Christ, etc. makes it a very weak argument. If the country was truly founded on Christian principles, then you think we would have used a more overt term instead of this one.

2) The fact that this is the only reference. If we are founded on Christian liberty, then why is this the only reference in the declaration and why do neither the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, and the 27 Amendments make no reference to God.

3) The fact that the author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, clearly did not think of Jesus as much more that a great moral teacher, hence his work of the Jefferson Bible.

4) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Taken from the Treaty of Tripoli signed by the 2nd president of the united states, John Adams.

 

[amdg]

Amen, MrsRoseTreasure, trying to witness to them while baking them the cake is far more likely to do good than refusing outright.

This is a quandry, isn't it? Whose rights matter more, the business owner or the gay couple?

I once owned a small motel. My home was attached, and my children lived there with me. They often came into the office, played on the grounds, and were generally underfoot, as children are. It's hard to say what I would have done if the Drag Queen USA tour showed up. I probably would have taken their money, to be honest. I tend to let others judge. They are usually happy to do so.

I think I should have had the right to say no, on the grounds of protecting my children from a lifestyle they didn't need to be exposed to at that time.

On another note, these folks had another option. They could have said, "Yes, I'd love to take your photo/bake your cake/bring you flowers as long as you allow me to tell you about the saving grace of Jesus, and the sacrifice he made on the cross. Do you know that he thinks your lifestyle is a sin, and that he wants you to repent so that you can be with him forever in eternity?" These folks missed a wonderful opportunity to witness about their faith and the saving grace of messiah. Besides, how long do you think they'd want to be around you if you met them with your bible in your hand every time they came in? If you showed up at their wedding singing "What a friend we have in Jesus." or "Amazing Grace" at the top of your lungs? Offered to pray a blessing then spoke about loving forgiveness for our sins? I see an opportunity lost. That's all.

 

[MidniteWelder]

1) The fact that the quote doesn't use the words God, Father, Jesus, Christ, etc. makes it a very weak argument. If the country was truly founded on Christian principles, then you think we would have used a more overt term instead of this one.

2) The fact that this is the only reference. If we are founded on Christian liberty, then why is this the only reference in the declaration and why do neither the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, and the 27 Amendments make no reference to God.

3) The fact that the author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, clearly did not think of Jesus as much more that a great moral teacher, hence his work of the Jefferson Bible.

4) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Taken from the Treaty of Tripoli signed by the 2nd president of the united states, John Adams.

Yet neglecting little known facts such as in 1804 instead of using the phrase
"in the year of our Lord" in an official document
Jefferson said "In the year of our Lord Christ" the original Document signed by Jefferson on the 18th of October in 1804.
As well as the Jefferson Bible was used as a summary tool to evangelize to the Indians.
Nonetheless despite Jefferson putting chaplains on the govt payroll, setting aside money for priests salaries and construction of churches as well as attending services himself, he may not have been the most devout follower with a full conversion of the heart as is needed to define a true follower of Christ.

And jumping right to referencing the second president before acknowledging the first, who was a devout Christian who prayed to God, was also deemed the Father of our Country seems somewhat negligent.

At any rate my point originally was, that our rights being granted by God should also follow and be consistent with Gods principles...not the worlds.

Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves,
than it is to dislodge them after they have gotten possession.
---George Washington...1st president

​

 

[wisebeardman]

Please explain to me why you have the right to discriminate. Also, no one disagrees with the above claim, hence the various restrictions on the other groups. I think you need to justify why owners have any rights in the public square other than those granted by the bill of rights.

you keep tossing this public square crap out.

public does NOT own the building. the business owner ether buys the property or rents it.
Utilities are NOT given for free to the business, the business owner PAYS for those utilities.

business owners should have every right to not serve customers.

 

[David_1]

Why does anyone have the right to tell a business owner whom they must do business with?
It's THEIR money.
It's THEIR investment.
It's THEIR gamble.

Are you seriously in favour of this bill? I personally thought you had more sense.

When was the last time any gay people had gay sex in a shop??

Tell me where in the Bible it says that this stuff is okay?

Should we get them wearing a big rainbow star with the letter G on it? So we can pick them out from the crowd? A separate drinking fountain that says 'For Fags only'?

What does any of this Nazi nonsense have to do with preaching the Good News of the Gospel?