Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’

[K9Buck]

Does it apply to the baker who doesn't want associated with a certain "people?"

I presume the Christian baker would have no issue making a birthday cake for a gay person. Their objection arises when they're asked to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage because it is their religious belief that same-sex marriage is immoral.

 

[K9Buck]

Freedom of Assembly. It applies in that this owner doesn't want his business associated with these people.

Would you feel the same if it was a BLM group that was thrown out? Or would you be screaming "RACISM!"?

 

[danielpalos]

Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’

Gay coffee shop owner boots out pro-life Christians, refusing them service.

Well, it's time to put these motherfuckers out of business!!!

Now you know why I, put up with women in modern times; the heterosexuality of it.

 

[Penelope]

What do you call handing out fliers is?

I didn't see in the article that they were handing out flyers in the coffee shop. Did the article state such?

why did they go into a gay coffee shop? Too cause trouble. Why aren't they voicing concerns over lack of funding for Chip.

 

[Darkwind]

Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’

Gay coffee shop owner boots out pro-life Christians, refusing them service.

Well, it's time to put these motherfuckers out of business!!!

I'm not sure what the problem is. If you stand up and say that gays cannot force a baker to serve a gay couple, how is it you have a problem with a gay not serving a straight person?

I support the right of business owners to refuse to do business with people, for any reason the choose.

The issue isn't serving a gay couple. The issue is when you ask a baker to be a part of something that they consider sinful, such as same-sex marriage. After all, I've never heard of a baker refusing to make a birthday cake for a gay person.

No, it is not. I get real tired of people trying to change the issue to suit their own intellectual dishonesty.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Either a business owner has the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, or they do not.

You cannot say they can when it suits My personal philosophy and they can't when its something I don't like.

Pick one and stop trying to justify everything.

They need to sue just to make the point as this chit of private ownership needs to be addressed and finalized. We are either a free country with rights to what we own, our own thoughts, right of self determination and beliefs or we are a communist country where the state and whomever is in charge at the moment gets to decide what you can and cannot do with your own privately own property/businesses, etc..

Perhaps. I am always loathed to bring government into any situation and we as a nation rely on government far too much.

Far better to teach people that if the owner of a business doesn't like you or what you stand for, you can reciprocate by using word of mouth and your own inner circle of acquaintances to spread the word not to do business with this person. If the circle expands far enough, the shop owner will feel the repercussions of their actions.

 

[mdk]

I support the business owners.

What does pro-life have to do with doing the bone dance with Mr. Sphincter?

Nothing. Either we have a right to association or not.

Where is this "right of association" and how do you think it applies?

Freedom of Assembly. It applies in that this owner doesn't want his business associated with these people.

Again I asked, where is this right stated? Bill of rights?

Does it apply to the baker who doesn't want associated with a certain "people?"

Freedom of Assembly is in the Bill of Rights.

And yes, it should apply to all people. I've made my positions on public accondations laws quite plain on this forum. Nobody should be forced to do business with anyone against their wishes. The free market will decide if a business that refuses to serve X, Y, Z will fail or not.

 

[JoeB131]

Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’

Gay coffee shop owner boots out pro-life Christians, refusing them service.

Well, it's time to put these motherfuckers out of business!!!

Do you have a more credible source than the Moonie Times?

 

[mdk]

Freedom of Assembly. It applies in that this owner doesn't want his business associated with these people.

Would you feel the same if it was a BLM group that was thrown out? Or would you be screaming "RACISM!"?

Yes, I would feel exactly the same.

 

[JoeB131]

I presume the Christian baker would have no issue making a birthday cake for a gay person. Their objection arises when they're asked to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage because it is their religious belief that same-sex marriage is immoral.

But that same baker will do a wedding cake for divorcees, people living together out of wedlock, women who wear pants, or braids or jewelry, or dudes who have tattoos, or any of a whole list of other things that the Big Book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales calls "immoral".

 

[danielpalos]

Special beverage containers for special patrons: " I heart gay guys", on the coffee cups.

 

[RodISHI]

Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’

Gay coffee shop owner boots out pro-life Christians, refusing them service.

Well, it's time to put these motherfuckers out of business!!!

I'm not sure what the problem is. If you stand up and say that gays cannot force a baker to serve a gay couple, how is it you have a problem with a gay not serving a straight person?

I support the right of business owners to refuse to do business with people, for any reason the choose.

The issue isn't serving a gay couple. The issue is when you ask a baker to be a part of something that they consider sinful, such as same-sex marriage. After all, I've never heard of a baker refusing to make a birthday cake for a gay person.

No, it is not. I get real tired of people trying to change the issue to suit their own intellectual dishonesty.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Either a business owner has the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, or they do not.

You cannot say they can when it suits My personal philosophy and they can't when its something I don't like.

Pick one and stop trying to justify everything.

They need to sue just to make the point as this chit of private ownership needs to be addressed and finalized. We are either a free country with rights to what we own, our own thoughts, right of self determination and beliefs or we are a communist country where the state and whomever is in charge at the moment gets to decide what you can and cannot do with your own privately own property/businesses, etc..

Perhaps. I am always loathed to bring government into any situation and we as a nation rely on government far too much.

Far better to teach people that if the owner of a business doesn't like you or what you stand for, you can reciprocate by using word of mouth and your own inner circle of acquaintances to spread the word not to do business with this person. If the circle expands far enough, the shop owner will feel the repercussions of their actions.

That would be true but the fact is it is already before the courts and it has all been pretty one sided thus far against private property rights for small businesses. If this country is not willing to take a stand for personal property rights then it will be given over further to corporate thugs who have all but wiped out most privately owned small business enterprises.

 

[Darkwind]

I support the business owners.

What does pro-life have to do with doing the bone dance with Mr. Sphincter?

Nothing. Either we have a right to association or not.

Where is this "right of association" and how do you think it applies?

Freedom of Assembly. It applies in that this owner doesn't want his business associated with these people.

Again I asked, where is this right stated? Bill of rights?
Does it apply to the baker who doesn't want associated with a certain "people?"

This is an interesting article on just that, though it doesn't focus on business owners. Also listed are two SCOTUS ruling pertaining to the right of free associations.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. --> N.A.A.C.P. vs Alabama
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. --> BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA v. DALE

The Bill of Rights — of which the capstone is the First Amendment — was added to the Constitution in 1791 at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists. Contrary to what most Americans probably think, the Bill of Rights does not grant anyone rights. What the government grants, the government can take away. Since no power was granted to the federal government in the body of the Constitution to infringe what are commonly referred to as Americans’ “First Amendment freedoms,” the government has absolutely no authority to do so. That is why James Madison, who did not initially support adding a bill of rights to the Constitution, said that no “great and important power” could be exercised by Congress unless it was “evidently and necessarily involved in an express power.” The First Amendment merely reinforces the idea that the federal government lacks the authority under the Constitution to abridge Americans’ existing freedoms. The individual rights to freely exercise one’s religion, speak freely, publish freely, peaceably assemble, and petition the government are natural rights independent of the Constitution — just like the right to freedom of association.

The freedom of association simply means that a person has the right to associate, not with whomever he chooses, but with whoever is willing to associate with him. Inherent in the right to associate is the right not to associate. Any person has the right not to associate with whomever he chooses.

In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.

It doesn’t matter whether a government bureaucrat or a person who was refused association believes that the actions of the refusing person or group are illogical, unreasonable, irrational, hateful, discriminatory, bigoted, or racist. What matters is freedom.

taken from Does the First Amendment Protect the Freedom of Association? - The Future of Freedom Foundation

 

[danielpalos]

Use Capitalism for all of its worth!

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not sure what the problem is. If you stand up and say that gays cannot force a baker to serve a gay couple, how is it you have a problem with a gay not serving a straight person?

I support the right of business owners to refuse to do business with people, for any reason the choose.

The issue isn't serving a gay couple. The issue is when you ask a baker to be a part of something that they consider sinful, such as same-sex marriage. After all, I've never heard of a baker refusing to make a birthday cake for a gay person.

No, it is not. I get real tired of people trying to change the issue to suit their own intellectual dishonesty.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Either a business owner has the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, or they do not.

You cannot say they can when it suits My personal philosophy and they can't when its something I don't like.

Pick one and stop trying to justify everything.

They need to sue just to make the point as this chit of private ownership needs to be addressed and finalized. We are either a free country with rights to what we own, our own thoughts, right of self determination and beliefs or we are a communist country where the state and whomever is in charge at the moment gets to decide what you can and cannot do with your own privately own property/businesses, etc..

Perhaps. I am always loathed to bring government into any situation and we as a nation rely on government far too much.

Far better to teach people that if the owner of a business doesn't like you or what you stand for, you can reciprocate by using word of mouth and your own inner circle of acquaintances to spread the word not to do business with this person. If the circle expands far enough, the shop owner will feel the repercussions of their actions.

That would be true but the fact is it is already before the courts and it has all been pretty one sided thus far against private property rights for small businesses. If this country is not willing to take a stand for personal property rights then it will be given over further to corporate thugs who have all but wiped out most privately owned small business enterprises.

I agree, which is why I am siding with the gay coffee shop owner.

 

[Penelope]

I imagine this is him, he looks to be in a shop. Does he know God does not like Tattoos.

 

[SeaGal]

Which is why I chose to be intellectually consistent in My stances. I'm not sure how the coffee shop owner knows the patron is Christian, it's not like being a Christian is a distinguishable trait.

Regardless of that, I think you should rethink that stance. The First Amendment keeps the government from infringing on your religious rights, not business owners. No person, Christian or otherwise, has a right to someone's services.

Now, if there wasn't another coffee shop within 25 miles, there may be a case for public accommodations, but other than that......

My stance remains the same - a business should be able to refuse service...and I agree, no one has the right to someone else's service.

However, the clear language in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not have the caveat 'only if there isn't another coffee shop within 25 miles'. Even if there were 15 open-to-the-public coffee shops within a 2 block area - all 15 must abide by the public accommodation laws.

I'm not advocating for anyone to sue a business, merely stating that they may have a case. Public accommodation laws for the most part, in my opinion, go against the spirit of the Constitution...so, where is our disagreement?

 

[RodISHI]

The issue isn't serving a gay couple. The issue is when you ask a baker to be a part of something that they consider sinful, such as same-sex marriage. After all, I've never heard of a baker refusing to make a birthday cake for a gay person.

No, it is not. I get real tired of people trying to change the issue to suit their own intellectual dishonesty.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Either a business owner has the right to refuse service to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, or they do not.

You cannot say they can when it suits My personal philosophy and they can't when its something I don't like.

Pick one and stop trying to justify everything.

They need to sue just to make the point as this chit of private ownership needs to be addressed and finalized. We are either a free country with rights to what we own, our own thoughts, right of self determination and beliefs or we are a communist country where the state and whomever is in charge at the moment gets to decide what you can and cannot do with your own privately own property/businesses, etc..

Perhaps. I am always loathed to bring government into any situation and we as a nation rely on government far too much.

Far better to teach people that if the owner of a business doesn't like you or what you stand for, you can reciprocate by using word of mouth and your own inner circle of acquaintances to spread the word not to do business with this person. If the circle expands far enough, the shop owner will feel the repercussions of their actions.

That would be true but the fact is it is already before the courts and it has all been pretty one sided thus far against private property rights for small businesses. If this country is not willing to take a stand for personal property rights then it will be given over further to corporate thugs who have all but wiped out most privately owned small business enterprises.

I agree, which is why I am siding with the gay coffee shop owner.

I agree also he has the right to tell whomever to get out or off of his property/business.

 

[Penelope]

Oh I see that Christian GOP who is staunchly pro life ( for political reasons) is stepping down due to him wanting his mistress to have an abortion.

Is he the poster boy for all Christians everywhere?

Pretty much.

 

[mdk]

By forcing the owner to serve them coffee, the owner has indeed become a part of their pro-life protest.

Is not analogous.

So if I read on Facebook that you support something I oppose and you walk into my restaurant with a group of friends, you would be fine if I kicked you out, right?

They were handing out the flyers all over the city. Near enough to this coffee shop for the owner to have one his hand. By serving them, he has become a part their protest. Just like baking a cake for queers make one apart of their wedding.

 

[Darkwind]

Which is why I chose to be intellectually consistent in My stances. I'm not sure how the coffee shop owner knows the patron is Christian, it's not like being a Christian is a distinguishable trait.

Regardless of that, I think you should rethink that stance. The First Amendment keeps the government from infringing on your religious rights, not business owners. No person, Christian or otherwise, has a right to someone's services.

Now, if there wasn't another coffee shop within 25 miles, there may be a case for public accommodations, but other than that......

My stance remains the same - a business should be able to refuse service...and I agree, no one has the right to someone else's service.

However, the clear language in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not have the caveat 'only if there isn't another coffee shop within 25 miles'. Even if there were 15 open-to-the-public coffee shops within a 2 block area - all 15 must abide by the public accommodation laws.

I'm not advocating for anyone to sue a business, merely stating that they may have a case. Public accommodation laws for the most part, in my opinion, go against the spirit of the Constitution...so, where is our disagreement?

I understand that. I am taking the stance that Title II is wrong in this regard and that it is unreasonable to force associations of people when clear alternatives exist.