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

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jun 19, 2011
271
4
0
#61
A bit of me wonders if we allow people to refuse service to those they deem as wrong, where does it stop, wheres the line? Is someone who believes that black people have no place at his business going to be allowed to refuse service to the black people who wish to visit his store? Are people who dislike Jewish people going to be allowed to refuse service to Jews? A christian who thinks pre martial sex is wrong, would they be able to refuse service to someone who had a child out of wedlock? Can an atheist who believes people who are religious are bringing down the world refuse service to those who practice religion?

I can't imagine how painful it would be to be refused service, I imagine there would be a lot of pain to the person being refused.
 
Last edited:
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#62
1. No PERSON has been refused ANY goods or services for ANY moral purpose whatsoever. Moral people refused to facilitate normatively immoral activities/events. That's all that has occurred. An immoral activity or event is not a "someone."

2. This has zero to do with race or gender which are rightfully legally protected. This is about wrongfully extending civil rights legislation to people based on their immoral behaviors and then severely persecuting every moral person who refuses to facilitate those immoral behaviors.

3. We are speaking in terms of normative morality and normative immorality, not a post-modern pluralistic relativist definition, which has been established in Western Civilization for a very long time and rooted in the Christian worldview. Unless someone refuses to facilitate a normative immoral activity or event based on a normative morality, they cannot refuse logically refuse service.

This is why a murderer cannot refuse service to non-murderers, for example. Or why a pedophiliac cannot refuse service to non-pedophiliacs. Their behavior is normatively immoral by definition which logically removes them from claiming a normative morality ordained by God.

And freedom of religion has been protected for a very long time in this country. No atheist can refuse service to a Christian or visa versa on the basis of their religion (or lack of one).




A bit of me wonders if we allow people to refuse service to those they deem as wrong, where does it stop, wheres the line? Is someone who believes that black people have no place at his business going to be allowed to refuse service to the black people who wish to visit his store? Are people who dislike Jewish people going to be allowed to refuse service to Jews? A christian who thinks pre martial sex is wrong, would they be able to refuse service to someone who had a child out of wedlock? Can an atheist who believes people who are religious are bringing down the world refuse service to those who practice religion?

I can't imagine how painful it would be to be refused service, I imagine there would be a lot of pain to the person being refused.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#63
A bit of me wonders if we allow people to refuse service to those they deem as wrong, where does it stop, wheres the line? Is someone who believes that black people have no place at his business going to be allowed to refuse service to the black people who wish to visit his store? Are people who dislike Jewish people going to be allowed to refuse service to Jews? A christian who thinks pre martial sex is wrong, would they be able to refuse service to someone who had a child out of wedlock? Can an atheist who believes people who are religious are bringing down the world refuse service to those who practice religion?

I can't imagine how painful it would be to be refused service, I imagine there would be a lot of pain to the person being refused.
On the other hand, who are we to say that we're entitled to use of someone's business and services?
You don't own it, they do.
You didn't invest in the startup, they did.
You didn't take the risk in starting the business, they did.

When you strip back what's been commonly believed for so long, and look at it from another angle, things aren't as cut and dry.
 
D

djness

Guest
#64
I cut and paste this response from another thread. I think my answer there works on this one just fine.

Hard call I think. It is interesting to see where people draw the lines on what morality is being threatened.
I would say some think it similar to Daniel 3 in that they are refusing to do something against their belief.
"But there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego—who pay no attention to you, Your Majesty. They neither serve your gods nor worship the image of gold you have set up.”

At the same time then as someone else stated who else would they not make cakes for? Would they refuse a birthday cake for a known alcoholic? How about a wedding cake for someone who very obviously was pregnant [fornication] before marriage? But then again a friend of mine recently told me some people at a restaurant he was at were behaving badly and the manager told them to leave. Is it illegal to not serve rude people? I think this is really the heart of the issue when it comes to a Christian insulating themselves against sin. Are they serving other sinners who quietly sin but not the outspoken ones?

I fixed computers for 15 or so years, I never refused anyone service based on any factor like this. I did a job. What if people used their computers to look at pornography , was I assisting them? I had a coworker who was gay, I never refused to work with him or eat lunch with him because of his lifestyle. I had a co-worker who was straight and slept with his girlfriend, I didn't refuse to work with him or eat with him either. I tried to show them how a Christian lives though, they knew what I believed. One time I refused to work on a guys computer because the inside was so full of gunk from smoking cigarettes that I was afraid to stick my hand in it and perhaps cut myself and get a nasty infection. Actually I told him to clean it out and bring it back and I would work on it.

I suppose you could say to someone go and stop being immoral and come back when you and holy and righteous and I will serve you.

Jesus spent all his time amongst ''tax collectors and sinners''. He was a carpenter by trade, do we think he ever sold a chair to a sinner? How about all of Luke 15? Clearly he loves sinners enough to die for them. All of heaven rejoices when even one repents it says. So why the total refusal of one group of people?

I'm sure some users will read the post and say 'woe unto you vacillators, you John Kerry FlipFlops" So which sinners should we serve and which should we cast unto damnation?

1 Corinthians 5:12 NIV New International Version
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#65
Someone said to me, "keep your religion in your church!" I replied with, "how tyrannical of you to attempt to rob me of my unalienable human rights ordained by God. No, I will not! But you can align to your own statement and keep your immorality out of my business."
 
A

amdg

Guest
#66
"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.

What Document? It wasn't the declaration of independence as that was ratified in 1776. Even still, just look at what your evidence. Can't you see you are just scrapping at the barrel to find anything slightly Christian in the old government documents of the US. If you're claim is true, then why isn't it blatant. The founding fathers had plenty of opportunities to make it blatant and the fact that you can only find these obscure references demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

"As well as the Jefferson Bible was used as a summary tool to evangelize to the Indians." Source please.

"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." The few chaplains on the govt. payroll is still done today, it does not denote a religious founding.

"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." Well, do you have any quotes from Washington stating that this is a nation founded on Christianity. I chose the 2nd because Adams had far more to do with the actual framework of this country and because Adams made his statement explicit and formally.

"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." Was it? Because the issue then comes on which "god" do we follow. As Christian's we know the answer, my point is that the govt. remains agnostic on that principle.
 
A

amdg

Guest
#67
Way to long for me to go through so unless you have a specific to mention then I'll let it be as the other poster has. You should know that the Adams quote is a misquote and distorts the original context. While it is one thing to remove the ellipses and bring both parts of the quote closer together, it is something far worse to end the quote on a period and not to finish the rest of what he had to say.

I'd also point out that the quotes you mentioned are mostly non-primary quotes or quotes from private documents. The only decent argument here concerns the declaration, which doesn't bother to mention the Christian God (I will give you it was founded on Deism like the Enlightenment) and is completely absent from the constitution.
 
A

amdg

Guest
#68
This country was founded by those fleeing religious persecution. It was founded on religious freedoms. To force a christian business to go against its religious ideals is 100% against what this nation was founded upon.
Not really. That's a romanticization of the past and ignores tons of peoples' motives. You can't put America into one quick brush stroke and this ignores the contributions of numerous groups. For instance, the Jamestown was not founded for religious reasons.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#69
Your rambling together a bunch of information that doesn't mean what you think it does, making false assertions again, and sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich regarding what has already been shown to you.

Jamestown was founded by Puritans (Puritans today align best with Baptists) whose worship was being repressed by Anglicanism (e.g. the dominant religion of England). Of course, they needed to leave England to find freedom for their religious expression and that costs money, lots of money. So they acquired a charter from the Virginia Company of London, which viewed the Puritan journey as a speculative investment, and set sail.

Their primary motivation was not economic and it's disgenuine of you to falsely assert that it was. The only thing romanticized about this discussion is your delusion that America was founded to severely persecuted moral Americans who refuse to facilitate immoral activities and events. Obviously, only an immoral person would find such a ridiculous false assertion romantic.


Not really. That's a romanticization of the past and ignores tons of peoples' motives. You can't put America into one quick brush stroke and this ignores the contributions of numerous groups. For instance, the Jamestown was not founded for religious reasons.
 
A

amdg

Guest
#70
Your rambling together a bunch of information that doesn't mean what you think it does, making false assertions again, and sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich regarding what has already been shown to you.

Jamestown was founded by Puritans (Puritans today align best with Baptists) whose worship was being repressed by Anglicanism (e.g. the dominant religion of England). Of course, they needed to leave England to find freedom for their religious expression and that costs money, lots of money. So they acquired a charter from the Virginia Company of London, which viewed the Puritan journey as a speculative investment, and set sail.

Their primary motivation was not economic and it's disgenuine of you to falsely assert that it was. The only thing romanticized about this discussion is your delusion that America was founded to severely persecuted moral Americans who refuse to facilitate immoral activities and events. Obviously, only an immoral person would find such a ridiculous false assertion romantic.
Reputable source please. As the first expedition included Reverend Robert Hunt, a chaplain of the Church of England, it makes me doubt your claims. I'd also greatly appreciate it if you refrained from making attacks on my character. You're not really presenting a good face of Christianity.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#71
We can start with the writings of the Puritans themselves and work our way forward to every reputable 17th, 18th, 19, and 20th scholar to the present. And I quote from the Library of Congress:

"Puritans were English Protestants who wished to reform and purify the Church of England of what they considered to be unacceptable residues of Roman Catholicism. In the 1620s leaders of the English state and church grew increasingly unsympathetic to Puritan demands. They insisted that the Puritans conform to religious practices that they abhorred, removing their ministers from office and threatening them with "extirpation from the earth" if they did not fall in line.

Zealous Puritan laymen received savage punishments. For example, in 1630 a man was sentenced to life imprisonment, had his property confiscated, his nose slit, an ear cut off, and his forehead branded "S.S." (sower of sedition).

Beginning in 1630 as many as 20,000 Puritans emigrated to America from England to gain the liberty to worship God as they chose. Most settled in New England, but some went as far as the West Indies..."

Source: America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

I insist that you be accurate. If you are going to post false assertion after false assertion after false assertion while ignoring everything that is presented to you that refutes your false assertions, then you have bigger problems than disliking my style.

Try asking a question once in a while. It's obvious you don't know.

Reputable source please. As the first expedition included Reverend Robert Hunt, a chaplain of the Church of England, it makes me doubt your claims. I'd also greatly appreciate it if you refrained from making attacks on my character. You're not really presenting a good face of Christianity.
 
A

amdg

Guest
#72
Jamestown was founded in 1607. Please re-read my claim. I never ever claimed that many people didn't come over here for religious freedom.

If you are saying that my claims are false please refute them. You're tone is getting ridiculous.
 
A

amdg

Guest
#73
Just so everyone knows, the veto just happened. Will post a link later.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes SB 1062, controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com

Governor Jan Brewer is being pressured to veto a bill that would allow business owners to
discriminate against customers for religious reasons. A Christian owner wouldn't be forced by law to do business with gay couples.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer expected to veto 'religious freedom' bill - CNN.com

We hear a lot about civil rights and civil liberties for the individual, but what about civil rights and civil liberties for the business owner?

A business owner by definition owns. They've invested their time, money, life, into their business.
Usually when you own something, you control it.

In America, people who take a gamble and start a business, are told whom they must do business with.

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.

Shouldn't those in favor of civil liberties and civil rights stand for the rights of business owners?
If you're really for "rights", can't you stand for the rights of a business owner to refrain from doing business with some people?

Ok, pardon my rhetorical bluster.
At this point you may be thinking I'm actually supporting discrimination.
I'm trying to direct you into considering rights from another angle.

I think often we only consider civil rights and civil liberties from the customer side.
But what about from the side of the person/people who actually OWN a business?
Don't they have rights too?

Under which circumstances should a business owner have the right to "discriminate"?
When does granting rights to customers cross the line into intruding upon the rights of business owners?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#74
There is a large body of written records about religious and practices in New England that preserve information about those religious beliefs and practices which is remarkable given they didn't even have a printing press the first century and a quarter.

Supplimenting that is written evidence confirming the extence of church buildings throughout the settled Virginia landscape, surviving county records, cour order books, deed books, will books, etc... all have references to churches scattered all through them with people identifying their places of residence by the name of the parish or by a distance from the local church. And churches mean clergy.

Even from the earliest days of the colony, they recorded facts about English men who left the settlement in religious language to live with the Indians in terms of "Christians," "English," "savages," "heathens," and "uncivilized."

English virginians viewed themselves and their world thoroughly through a religious theological perspective.

Captain John Smith's worship service records, religious regulations incorporating their well developed theology, and descriptions of the colonists' religious experiences are emperical evidence of the colonist's religious beliefs and faith and thoroughly religious context in which they lived their lives.

I could go on for hours. The library of Congress is not wrong. You are.
 
A

amdg

Guest
#75
What a shame. I ask for sources and you can't provide them and then continually make false accusations and try to misrepresent my views. SHOW ONE REPUTABLE SOURCE THAT PURITANS WERE THE PRINCIPLE FOUNDERS OF JAMESTOWN.

There is a large body of written records about religious and practices in New England that preserve information about those religious beliefs and practices which is remarkable given they didn't even have a printing press the first century and a quarter.

Supplimenting that is written evidence confirming the extence of church buildings throughout the settled Virginia landscape, surviving county records, cour order books, deed books, will books, etc... all have references to churches scattered all through them with people identifying their places of residence by the name of the parish or by a distance from the local church. And churches mean clergy.

Even from the earliest days of the colony, they recorded facts about English men who left the settlement in religious language to live with the Indians in terms of "Christians," "English," "savages," "heathens," and "uncivilized."

English virginians viewed themselves and their world thoroughly through a religious theological perspective.

Captain John Smith's worship service records, religious regulations incorporating their well developed theology, and descriptions of the colonists' religious experiences are emperical evidence of the colonist's religious beliefs and faith and thoroughly religious context in which they lived their lives.

I could go on for hours. The library of Congress is not wrong. You are.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#76
I responded to your assertion that: "I'm sorry but this country was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment and not 'Christian liberty'" refuting that false assertion.

In response, you have somehow become sidetracked about Jamestown and Puritanism I suppose because you falsely believe the founders of Jamestown were not religious and this will somehow bolster your false assertion that Christianity did not play a role in the formation of the United States as a nation.

European settlers came from a variety of religious groups (e.g. the Dutch of New Netherland, the Swedes and Finns of New Sweden, the English Quakers of Pennsylvania, the English Puritans of New England, the English settlers of Jamestown, and the "worthy poor" of Georgia).

Just because Jamestown was settled by Anglicans does not equate to them not wanting their Christian beliefs to affect their community. They certainly did as the evidence clearly shows.

The Church of England religion was central to the lives of the Jamestown settlers. Near the end of the voyage on April 29, the colonists erected a cross and gave thanks to God on a point of land they named Cape Henry in honor of the eldest son of King James.

Captain John Smith tells of the settlers landing at Jamestown in 1607 and erecting a crude temporary structure to use for church services. It was made from a sail stretched among the boughs of trees, sides of rails and benches made of unhewed tree trunks. The altar was made by nailing a log to two neighboring trees as a cross bar. Later that year, the settlers built the first real church building.

You need to understand that each Anglican settler was required to attend Anglican services or be punished. The Poles did not have to as they were Roman Catholic.

The puritans also settled in Virginia.

The historian Perry Miller has done seminal work on the American Puritans. One chapter in his book, Errand Into The Wilderness, concerns Virginia:"When Lord De la Warr (Thomas West) arrived, just in time to save the colony, his first act even before his commission was read, was to hear 'a sermon made by Mr. Buck.'" (page 103, fifth printing 1976)

"The legend of Pocahontas is a classic of American mythology, but John Rolfe's own version of his love for the Indian maiden is less widely known. Rolfe cannot for a moment entertain the thought of this marriage unless he is certain that he is 'called hereunto by the spirit of God,' no matter how much he fancies himself in love."

"To discover a courtship conducted in this spirit is to realize that Virginia and New England were both recruited from the same type of Englishmen, pious, hard-working, middle class, accepting literally and solemnly the tenets of Puritanism." (pages 107-108, fifth printing 1976)

Of course, Puritans settled in Virginia. The first English plantations along the south shore within present-day Isle of Wight were established by Puritan colonists, beginning with that of Christopher Lawne in May 1618. Several members of the Puritan Bennett family also came to settle the area, including Richard Bennett who led the Puritans to neighboring Nansemond in 1635, and later became governor of the Virginia Colony.


What a shame. I ask for sources and you can't provide them and then continually make false accusations and try to misrepresent my views. SHOW ONE REPUTABLE SOURCE THAT PURITANS WERE THE PRINCIPLE FOUNDERS OF JAMESTOWN.
 
A

amdg

Guest
#77
"Jamestown was founded by Puritans (Puritans today align best with Baptists) whose worship was being repressed by Anglicanism (e.g. the dominant religion of England). Of course, they needed to leave England to find freedom for their religious expression and that costs money, lots of money. So they acquired a charter from the Virginia Company of London, which viewed the Puritan journey as a speculative investment, and set sail. " -AgeofKnowledge about 4 posts back.

I'm done. Good day. You're butchering of the principles of rhetoric is too much for me to bear and your attitude disinclines me to give you any more charity on this issue.
 
Mar 1, 2012
1,353
7
0
#78
Its discrimination against christians to force them to condone, what is to them, a sin, something that is against their religion.

I truly do not see the problem here. This law is not discrimating against homosexuals.....its protecting christians FROM homosexuals!

Since when is it american to force religions to cowtow to popularism? Nothing could be more anti-american than a blatant attack upon religious practices.

Would the left condone a black baker refusing to bake a cake for a KKK rally? Of course! Think for a second here, liberals. Why did a homosexual couple go to a known christian bakery and ask them to make a cake for their wedding? It was the only bakery in town? Somehow I doubt that.

HOW does someone know their customer is gay? Aha!!! Either you believe people can tell by looking if someone is gay, which would make you a bigot....or the gay person tells them they are gay! Bingo.....this has absolutely nothing to do with some fabricated rights issue.

It has to do with, once again, the promotion of this immoral activity.

NO ONE is born gay.

Its a choice.

Its a perversion, and worst of all, and this is what every liberal mind just will never acknowledge...

homosexuality hurts those who practice it. That's why christians are against homosexuality and why God says its a sin.

Every sin hurts those who practice it...or it would not be a sin. Educate yourself. See the inherent health risks associated with homosexual behavior. The moral implications. The influence on families. Promiscuity in the gay community.

To say perversion is a civil right? The bible describes this modern day belief system...

man will follow after his own knowledge and will call good bad and bad good.

If you are not a christian and you have a business, I don't see a problem with you being forced to sell or provide services for a gay person.

This is about religious freedom.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#79
I got my wires crossed for a minute and have since made the correction showing that Jamestown was founded originally by religiously minded Anglicans and that Puritans also settled Virginia.

Now let's look at your PATENTLY false assertion: "I'm sorry but this country was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment and not 'Christian liberty'."

Nonsense. Both played a role and it is disgenious of you to falsely assert otherwise.

"This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely.

That the religious intensity of the original settlers would diminish to some extent over time was perhaps to be expected, but new waves of eighteenth century immigrants brought their own religious fervor across the Atlantic and the nation's first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century injected new vigor into American religion.

The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville's observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.

The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens is the central question which this exhibition explores."

Source: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)


"Jamestown was founded by Puritans (Puritans today align best with Baptists) whose worship was being repressed by Anglicanism (e.g. the dominant religion of England). Of course, they needed to leave England to find freedom for their religious expression and that costs money, lots of money. So they acquired a charter from the Virginia Company of London, which viewed the Puritan journey as a speculative investment, and set sail. " -AgeofKnowledge about 4 posts back.

I'm done. Good day. You're butchering of the principles of rhetoric is too much for me to bear and your attitude disinclines me to give you any more charity on this issue.
 
M

MidniteWelder

Guest
#80
Well, do you have any quotes from Washington stating that this is a nation founded on Christianity. I chose the 2nd because Adams had far more to do with the actual framework of this country and because Adams made his statement explicit and formally.

"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." Was it? Because the issue then comes on which "god" do we follow. As Christian's we know the answer, my point is that the govt. remains agnostic on that principle.

French social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, while touring the United States in the 1800s said about America: “America is great because America is good. If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”
God’s Word speaks of this “good”

President George Washington said in his farewell address,
"Reason and experience both forbid us that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

John Adams, America's second president, said,
"The United States Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."


We have only to look at what is inscribed upon the edifice that houses the U.S. Supreme Court, and what is etched in the surfaces of walls that frame other government buildings, to understand what is the “religion” to which Washington and Adams referred as being the basis for America’s “morality”.

The Ten Commandments-the foundation for Moral Law



Liberty of conscience is the highest liberty.
Christians not going against the conviction of their conscience is what makes standing up for Godly principles
"Good."