25 votes

Liberty Crier POLL: Should Homosexual Business Owners Be Forced To Serve Members Of The KKK?

In light of recent events where a court claimed that a commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, we must ask how we feel about this ruling if the shoe were placed on the other foot.

So, if persons who do not support homosexuality can be forced to serve homosexuals, should gay business owners be forced to serve KKK members?

http://libertycrier.com/poll-should-homosexual-business-owne...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Forcing someone to work against his will?

...they used to call that slavery, now they call it "tolerance."

doubleplusgood, comrade

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Follow-up on insightful statement

DR. NO made the comment earlier, "The original Constitution put few limits on the states doing whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted to do it to."

I would like to add that when it came to forming a government for the union of the several states, more thought was put into it to ensure no powers were granted (given by consent) that were not wisely and expressly limited, and that by enumeration.

I believe if the same group of men had put their heads together for a state constitution, it would be very similar and much better than any individual state constitution that has ever been put together.

Bottom line - hind sight is better than foresight unless God actually tells you what to put in a constitution, and that He did not do.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

Reread it Again!

It says Congress shall" make no law" respecting a Religion....

Think Truth...Trust Truth...Rely on Truth!

Force is wrong in either case.

Non Aggression principle should apply in both cases, as should freedom of association.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

meekandmild's picture

What about the store owners constitutional rights?

Does the store owner have the right to do business with whom they want?

It really depends. The

It really depends. The original Constitution put few limits on the states doing whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted to do it to. In fact, since colonial times, many states/provinces already had laws saying that businesses could not bar entry to any White men. Strangely, there were few protests of these laws.

With equal protection and then finally the Civil Rights Act, the notion became that states couldn't confer those rights on Whites without giving it to Blacks/minorities as well. As a result, the federal government started to basically tell businesses whom they could do business with (by telling the states which laws were allowed or had to be passed).

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I would say that for 95% of

I would say that for 95% of business, I am OK with a store owner serving who he wants to serve.

I have issues with false advertising (a store saying they are an EOE and not following through).

Also, I think an exception would have to be made for certain health services. For example, I don't have an issue forcing private hospitals to treat everyone on an emergency basis. Of course, the vast majority of private hospitals take a lot of government money, so I feel even less poor about it.

But, at the end of things, I have really no issues with laws that prevent racial/ethnic discrimination by store owners. Simple fact of the matter is that those types of laws aren't affecting 99.99% of businesses. In principle I don't like the laws, but from a functional standpoint, it isn't remotely worth the bother.

Same with the minimum wage laws. 99% of jobs in this country pay more than the minimum wage.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

only if they aren't selling

only if they aren't selling wood, gasoline, and matches.

You say it is not hate, but...

isn't finding something repugnant according to one's beliefs essentially the definition of hate? I would be very surprised if the photographer didn't hate at least something about the potential customer they turned away. And I defend their right to hate. We all hate something, so why be hypocrites and pretend we don't.

I personally find no justifiable reason for ME to differentiate between people because of whom they choose to love. I know gay couples that are as normal and boring as straight couples. And I love them and get annoyed by them all equally.

Who knows what kind of experiences the photographer has had that led him to his hate? All I know is that an antidiscrimination law won't make him hate any less.

No-one but Paul!

GoodSamaritan's picture

When did you stop beating your wife?

"Who knows what kind of experiences the photographer has had that led him to his hate?"

These questions would be called logical fallacies; specifically, the fallacy of the Loaded Question. The first question assumes you have been beating your wife. The second question assumes that the photographer hates homosexuals. Unless you can point to evidence that the photographer was motivated by hate, you have no rationale for assuming that hate was involved.

Just as the government can't force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, the government shouldn't be able to force any other business owner to violate their religious convictions.

If the government can force organizations and businesses to pave over their own consciences, what will stop the government from imposing its will on your conscience next time?

BTW, the photographer is a woman.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

LOL...

I love that line...

It's like Heeeey, good to see you back in men's clothing!

FYI I know that crest well...been there many, many times.
Father was class of '56. Uncle class of '55, Uncle Class of '59,

Dad roomed with Don Holleder (Holleder Sports Center near Michie) and Gen. Perry Smith CNN's commentator during the Gulf War. Stormin' Norman lived across the Hall. Present commander of the 82nd Class of '83, was my sandbox buddy in Germany and then later friends growing up in Baltimore. Love the place, but not what it's grads have been doing lately...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Thanks

and agree about the slide in direction. I would point to the introduction of political correctness in '80 that *coincidentally* accompanied the introduction of women.

Strength as One, '81.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

What constitutes "hate"?

How do you ever know if "hate" is involved? Is it only when someone explicitly states "I hate..."? Does it always involve burning crosses and hooded robes? Regardless of the photographer's motivation, the result was a particular action WHICH I SINCERELY DEFEND. I'm just saying that I believe refusal of service for that reason will not be tolerated by the market in the future.

Remember, there were plenty of folks who claimed they had no hatred for black people, but just felt segregation (even slavery) was good for everyone. I thought THOSE folks were in denial and they probably DID have an element of hate in them despite what they said. Your post points out that I am in no position to make that assumption. Perhaps, but we all call it like we see it. I bet you do too.

No-one but Paul!

Unfortunately, today most people think being told 'no' is the

equivalent of hate. When I tell my child, "no, that's harmful. don't do that", I DO NOT hate them. I'm actually loving them. For instance, I hate cars running over children, so I say "don't go near the road". My child probably thinks I'm being mean and trying to ruin his fun--"hate" in his little world. But, you and I having greater understanding, know that in truth I LOVE my child.

I hate sexual perversion, but I understand that many of those who practice it had things happen in their childhood over which they had no control. I sympathize and want to help them (as well as all human beings) understand the enslaving nature of sin and its dire consequences. I love them, but am accused of hating them because I call sin what it is.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Not me

They were not in denile, least you forget Buffalo Soldiers.. Western Louisiana attracted many run away slaves, that becoma share croppers, who wound up owning a lot of land, and with that land, they built churches, schools, stores, and had established thriving black communities. They were happy.

So when intregration happened, it hurt them the most, because intregration forced them to stop being black, having their own culture, church, music, foods.. like gumbo.. African word for gumbo. black communities had green gumbo, white had red gumbo.. red has tomatoes, green has feild greens..

My family was transfered to Lousinana during intregration and I didn't meet anyone who was happy about it, because FORCED intregration hurt many independent communities white and black. The winners were the bankers and politicians who profitted off the clashes and losses.

To me, FORCED intregration is the hatred of people being self reliable, having communities where they know each other, trust each other, for broken communities where no one knows anyone and police are not locals, don't know anyone, just doing their job.

The war on drugs would have never been able to be established had segregation continued.

Agreed.

You make a good argument.

I heard they were tough and stringy. but the secrets in the sauc

That's what they tell me.

Free includes debt-free!

When private property is used in business for profit,...

you surrender some of your "property rights".

The Liberty Crier question is disingenuous. Given the violent history of the KKK, a homosexual business owner has ever right to deny service to a potential threat. I would say this even if the the group were the Black Panthers or the Gay Liberation Front, so this is not a "political correctness" issue. However, I would NOT extend this to abortion, because abortion, in ALL instances, is an elective procedure, and a Catholic Hospital has no obligation to perform an elective procedure.

To whom are these rights

To whom are these rights ceded?

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Serve who you want

I think thoe folks who didn't get their picture taken are making a mountain out of a mole hill

why didn't they just go to another photographer?

They may have been shopping

for a "pay day".

Libertarianism allows people the freedom to be bigots...

I will defend a restaurant's right to put a sign in its window that says "No Indians Allowed" (I happen to be Indian). I and my friends will take our business elsewhere. I agree with Dr. Paul that the market will naturally eliminate these attitudes.

I oppose any Federal involvement in marriage gay or straight. Why should I be discriminated against for being single? But if you're homophobic, rest assured the market will make you irrelevant soon enough.

No-one but Paul!

Talk about pre war Germany?

Talk about pre war Germany? ie "No Jews allowed". We're not getting any closer to human interaction if this is the attitudes that are taking over.

honestly i think with

honestly i think with advances in technology and the way we communicate and are so connected being a b igot is just a dying idea and i prob wouldnt waste resources trying combat some stupid kkk people... u just let them be bigots and you tell stores they dont have to serve anyone they dont want to, specifics controlled state to state

Cyril's picture

Compare apples to apples,

Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

This was following the government's plan and directives, in Germany.

Tyranny was already in place for long by then; cf. the "Enabling Act".

The comment was about what a moron or bigot or racist - you name it - business owner could hypothetically do to lose customers and reputation IN A FREE society with FREE markets.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Is there really a difference?

Is there really a difference? They're all the fruits of "societal decay".

Cyril's picture

I can see many differences

Well, yes, I can see many differences between a free and a non-free society. But I'll take only one of the biggest:

You will always find idiots and selfish people in both kinds of society. Mankind is much imperfect as a whole, yet all individuals should be considered precious and expected to be responsible for their actions, with both their qualities and flaws.

So, one big difference between the two kinds of society is such aforementioned people will hurt themselves in the former, while they'll be encouraged to become accomplices of the tyrannical state and its force in the latter.

The difference is between liberty for all and the tyranny of the majority over minorities, with the smallest minority to start with: the individual.

The collectivists' claim they can bring perfection and happiness for all, thanks to the division in groups they deem relevant is a gross insult to man's intelligence. As the Nazis and soviets have proven it so.

Can't we read history, or are we supposed to constantly ignore it and repeat it?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

We can't seem to agree on

We can't seem to agree on your flagrant use of wording "free". You've taken the scenario as I see it to the ideological academic difference which is textbook garble.

Cyril's picture

Textbooks?

Textbooks? I don't see what you are talking about.

By free I meant such a society we'd have if the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were followed to the letter, which hasn't been the case for long now... or if ever, some will nitpick.

What you have today is NOT a free society, it is socialism everywhere to various degrees. The governments use force to steal from the people the money they have earned on more or less controlled markets, and then redistribute OR WASTE IT, more often than not.

Again, bigotry, racism, reckless behaviors would tend to disappear or stabilize and stay seldom in a free society with true incentives for wisdom and honesty. That's the exact opposite we have today: despite - or should I say BECAUSE OF - hypocrite laws for this or that protected "group", envy, jealousy, hate, and thuggery just don't cease to spread. Government and unjust laws that promote social agendas don't fix problems : they create always more, instead, BY DIVIDING the people ever further.

Where is the "academia" there? I only look thru my window.

These are facts.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

^^^ BUMP THIS !

^^^ BUMP THIS !

Finding posts or comments like this from people who really understand what liberty and responsibility are about, helps me to not go completely insane only because of the "newz".

The free markets and enforced contract and bankruptcy laws NATURALLY eliminate :

the bigots, the idiots, the under-performers, the fraudsters, ... you name it.

On the other hand... BE RECKLESS ENOUGH and let the government pick and choose the "winner" or "protected" groups, in a typical COLLECTIVIST fashion, DISGUSTINGLY UNFAIR and INDEFENSIBLE (for whoever values individuality)...

... AND EVERYBODY GETS ***SCREWED***, eventually.

ALWAYS.

That is :

Bye bye, freedoms.

Hello, TYRANNY.

WHAT THE FREAKING HELL IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND :

http://www.dailypaul.com/249170

? ? ?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius