Jump to content

No Gays Allowed?


bullets13

Recommended Posts

LOL and don't forget, no Stars & Bars. I think if I fit in that category I would take my business elsewhere and hurt them on the profit margin but I wouldn't whine and cry about like I feel some will do because their feelings got hurt!

Edited by 77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Can't a privately owned business post, "we have the right to refuse service"?

​Post it? Sure. 

Enforce it? Maybe.... according who is banned and if it violates the federal civil rights acts such as race, national origin, sex (but not sexual preference.... yet), religion, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Post it? Sure. 

Enforce it? Maybe.... according who is banned and if it violates the federal civil rights acts such as race, national origin, sex (but not sexual preference.... yet), religion, etc. 

Didn't a small privately owned bakery recently get in "trouble" when they refused to cater a gay wedding because the owners young son worked and she didn't want him around it?   I'm senile so can't remember how it turned out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they should be able to refuse service to homosexuals.

What if they had a business with a conservative crowd that might be uncomfortable around homosexuals...should they be forced to sit by and lose business.

You could replace them with rowdy bikers that made folks uncomfortable and not come back... Can they be refused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Post it? Sure. 

Enforce it? Maybe.... according who is banned and if it violates the federal civil rights acts such as race, national origin, sex (but not sexual preference.... yet), religion, etc. 

This could very well be the instance that brings it in front of the the SC for review, depending on how long it stays in the news and whether or not it brings about a lawsuit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since he's a baptist preacher who doesn't want gays in his store because "what they're doing is wrong", shouldn't he also be banning   divorcees, fornicators, liars, blasphemers, idolators, and all other manner of sinners from his store?

Should be his call to ban whoever he wants for whatever behavior he wants.

Some businesses may make the call simply because they feel it might cost them business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should be his call to ban whoever he wants for whatever behavior he wants.

Some businesses may make the call simply because they feel it might cost them business. 

The occasional gay customer is going to cost him business?  Gay customers go to EVERY business.  That being said, I'm not arguing whether he has a right to do so.  I'm asking other Christians that, as a minister, is he demonstrating Christianity by singling out an individual sin to ban from his store while continuing to cater to sinners of all other kinds.  Whether or not you believe in gay marriage, I can't find anything in the bible that preaches picking one sin and denying that sinner the opportunities that you'd afford to different types of sinners. 

Edited by bullets13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The occasional gay customer is going to cost him business?  Gay customers go to EVERY business.  That being said, I'm not arguing whether he has a right to do so.  I'm asking other Christians that, as a minister, is he demonstrating Christianity by singling out an individual sin to ban from his store while continuing to cater to sinners of all other kinds.  Whether or not you believe in gay marriage, I can't find anything in the bible that preaches picking one sin and denying that sinner the opportunities that you'd afford to different types of sinners. 

If he was going to keep out all sinners, no one could come in.

Would you make any distinction between a child molester and someone that speeds...both are sinners.

He can make his choice and folks can decide whether or not to go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he was going to keep out all sinners, no one could come in.

Would you make any distinction between a child molester and someone that speeds...both are sinners.

He can make his choice and folks can decide whether or not to go there.

I would make that distinction.  Not sure I'd make one between gays and people having sex out of wedlock, though.  It's also worth noting that he didn't ban child molesters ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would make that distinction.  Not sure I'd make one between gays and people having sex out of wedlock, though.  It's also worth noting that he didn't ban child molesters ;) 


Businesses should be able to make the call, and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences IMO.

Taking a stand can help, like Chic-fil-a, or it could hurt, like the Dixie Chicks, but should be allowed without gov interference...let the market decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since he's a baptist preacher who doesn't want gays in his store because "what they're doing is wrong", shouldn't he also be banning   divorcees, fornicators, liars, blasphemers, idolators, and all other manner of sinners from his store?

​He isn't banning customers. He is not wanting to make a cake for the sin.

Yes your comment might hold some water if he was asked to make a Fornicator's Cake, a Liar's Cake, etc.

It is making the cake to celebrate the sin that he is against, not the sinner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact if you are talking about the Colorado case, the baker offered to make any other item than a cake. Again, it is not the customer or the sin itself but being forced to back it up with a celebration cake for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The occasional gay customer is going to cost him business?  Gay customers go to EVERY business.  That being said, I'm not arguing whether he has a right to do so.  I'm asking other Christians that, as a minister, is he demonstrating Christianity by singling out an individual sin to ban from his store while continuing to cater to sinners of all other kinds.  Whether or not you believe in gay marriage, I can't find anything in the bible that preaches picking one sin and denying that sinner the opportunities that you'd afford to different types of sinners. 

Yes , I agree

Edited by Big girl
additional info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact if you are talking about the Colorado case, the baker offered to make any other item than a cake. Again, it is not the customer or the sin itself but being forced to back it up with a celebration cake for it. 

Actually, this thread is about a hardware store owner who has posted a sign that no gays are allowed in his store.  I can actually understand where the cake shop owner is coming from, even if I don't necessarily agree with him.  The same goes for churches.  A church should not have to wed them if they don't want to.  This case is a little different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with it, how will he tell/know someone is gay. Will they look different? Will you be asked before you enter? Is it a just a judgment call by the owner depending on how you look? Maybe it's just two men walking side by side? I wonder if he has the same sign on the front of his church?

He may or may not have the right but there's a lot wrong with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...