Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

Taq, I don't need to prove this to you, the fact that Christians are standing against gay marriage in this way ought to be sufficient proof that we read the Bible as requiring this of us. We are going to take this stand no matter what the law says, so we don't have to prove anything about the state's definition of religious freedom in respect of business practices either. When the state's authority contradicts God, we stand with God no matter what the consequences and no matter what you or anybody else thinks about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you want to claim that it is a Biblical stand, yes you do.If you also want to claim that not being allowed to discriminate is a religious freedom, then you need to demonstrate that as well with references to court decisions. It is not sufficient since I can point to hundreds of thousands of christians who stood up to desegregation and marriages of mixed races. Just as long as we both agree that you are asking for rights not granted in the US Constitution. You haven't shown that the state's authority is contradicting God. The only contradiction is in what you want to do.

It's already been argued quite clearly, so if you or the courts don't get it, as I said we'll take the consequences [abe] doled out by the fascist state in violation of the Constitution. [/abe]Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is quite clear that what you consider Biblical is really the religion of Faith.

Well, five Christian businesses that have taken this stand apparently share my biblical view.abe: What's the probability that they are the only other five in the country who share my view?And again, the test of your comparison with civil rights laws is that the objections all evaporate when they aren't clearly based on God's authority, but the refusal to validate gay weddings will continue to stand as long as Christians have the courage for it, because it is based on God's authority. [/abe]Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really? What is the reason for the offense?Because I don't like who "those people" are? Because I don't like what they stand for? Because I don't like their accents, their smell, their funny dress?Or is it because this one specific person, regardless of race, creed, color or sexual orientation, deliberately abused the honor of my wife, violated the decorum of my business, gave, not just any offense, but direct personal, pointed and deliberate offense to me, my family, my business all without cause or justification?It was not some general offense I feel because of my bigotry. It is the offense one experiences when a person is deliberately personally, individually and wrongfully violated by the callus actions of another. I was the innocent unwilling victim of a personal attack.There is no law that says I must suffer such offense in quite or to unwillingly invite its repetition. As the proprietor I am allowed to maintain the decorum of my business free from the acrimonious actions of any abusive person.As long as there is reasonable evidence that my barring a person from my custom is based upon their history of such individual abuse rather than some bias towards some group the anti-discrimination laws do not apply.I am free to order and keep the bum out of my store even to the point of having the cops drag his butt off my property. Yes, they will do that to calm a situation at the request of a business manager and then assess the reasons outside.From there, let the courts decide. The "reasonable man" doctrine will prevail.[abe]Arizona Civil Code, Civil Rights - Article 3 Public Accommodations, Section 41-1442 Discrimination in places of public accommodation

quote:

---

C. Any person who is under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, who is guilty of boisterous conduct, who is of lewd or immoral character, who is physically violent or who violates any regulation of any place of public accommodation that applies to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry may be excluded from any place of public accommodation and nothing in this article shall be considered to limit the right of such exclusion.

---

Emphasis mine.So long as the rules are equally applied to all persons and are not designed to exclude any protected group a business proprietor has every right to exclude persons who's conduct the proprietor considers disruptive or inappropriate to his place of business.You can probably find similar language in the civil statutes of every state and province in this hemisphere.[/abe]Edited by AZPaul3, : Added AZ Civil Statute

What Biblical view? Then show me the bible verse where it says that you are forbidden from baking wedding cakes for gay couples. If you are going to claim biblical authority, then show it.Also, show how civil rights allow you to discriminate as part of a business.

EvC Forum: Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?And perhaps you missed some of the others following that.

Still not seeing a verse that says, "thou shalt not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple". All I see are commands of how christians are to act, and none of it includes discriminating against homosexuals as part of your business.

You are perfectly free to refuse to serve a gay wedding or an inter-racial wedding or a Jewish bat mitzvah. It's a freedom millions of Americans, most of whom are Christian exercise freely every day of their lives. And long may they be free to do so. If it came it, I'd seriously consider taking up arms against a government that tried to take away this right.Let me correct me 'ignoring the obvious context' for you (hint: I didn't ignore it, you didn't understand me).You will not find many supporters here who say you can operate a public business who may well provide some services to a protected class but who refuses to subsequently provide other services that they do provide to anyone else. For just about any reason (maybe you can be right to 'discriminate on the basis of genetic makeup' if those genes render you incompetent to handle a firearm, for example, but in this case its discriminating on competency grounds so is it really prejudicial discrimination) - and religious reasons aren't typically employed as reasons but historically as rationalisations so I see no good reason to start accepting them as anything other than rationalisations untilI hear as much stink about re-marriage as I do about same-sex marriage.I hear of more of these good Christians starting up their own banks or flocking to Islamic banking in order to avoid usury.That these businesses are essentially non-profit in that any capital left after paying expenses and re-investment goes to the poor. Nothing to savings.If they get sued, they not only concede but provide double the compensation requested.I hear of good Christians refusing to provide services to weddings where the man has long hair and woman has short hair.Good conservative evangelical bible believing Christians denounce those that utter prayer in public or in church as hypocrites.When I see good Christian parents neglect to budget for food and clothes for themselves or their family.And finally...when good Christian don't treat sinners, who probably have much love, poorly - just because they want to sign an agreement with the government to allow them to provide tax benefits, to encourage the adoption of children too many of whom are without proper family care, provide visitation rights, burial rights, and also commits them to a mutual agreement to have a life of sinning with only one other person 'if they cannot contain, let them sign a binding contract where they agree to engage in drawing as few people into sin with them as possible, for it is better to sign a secular document conveying numerous government and social benefits than to condemn a string of lusty men to hell alongside you'.

As I said, I don't need to convince you. We'll obey God and take the consequences. End of subject.

quote:

---

Taq, I don't need to prove this to you, the fact that Christians are standing against gay marriage in this way ought to be sufficient proof that we read the Bible as requiring this of us.

---

You could say the same for the segregationists. But you don't have any problem with the law when it stops them discriminating. The issues were the same. If your arguments don't work for them - and you implicitly admit that they don't - then they don't work for you either.And, of course, you haven't come up with anywhere that the Bible requires this of you. You HAVE come up with verses that require you to obey the law. You aren't following the Bible, you are disobeying it.

Again, I don't need to prove anything to anyone here. I'm with those Christians who know what God's will is and intend to obey it no matter what the law says and no matter what any of you think.

quote:

---

Again, I don't need to prove anything to anyone here. I'm with those Christians who know what God's will is and intend to obey it no matter what the law says and no matter what any of you think.

---

Sure. And you don't have to hurl false accusations all over the place, claim to be following the Bible when it isn't true or appeal to obvious double standards.But if you want to justify your position - and you clearly do - then it is up to you to offer real justifications.

On which basis any belief based action can be justified.I know what God's will is and intend to obey it no matter what the law says and no matter what any of you think - Says the person who flies a plane into a skyscraper.I know what God's will is and intend to obey it no matter what the law says and no matter what any of you think - Says the person who decides to brutally kill prostitutes.And so on. These are things that have actually been done on the basis of knowing God's will.For obvious reasons neither the law nor society can simply accept knowing God's will as the justification for people doing things.