Evidence for God from Science

+

Gay coffee shop owner kicks Christians out of cafe, goes on vulgar rant

Thoughts?
-
-
-

It's his business, he has every right to kick them/whoever out. I just hope he realises the same when he is refused a cake. You konw there will be zero sympathy for Christians right? But, then, if we come to Christ we know He was crucified so we shouldn't be surprised. I'd consider it an honour.

He has every right to kick people out of his business.

Normally I'd say that his actions would cause him to lose business. But seeing that he's in Seattle, there probably won't be any repercussions.

The owner showed himself to be a bigot, and to assume he knows these Christians to be haters. He surely has shown himself to be a hater. But I agree he should have the right to refuse business from anyone - as the simple solution simply is: Go find a nice, welcoming coffee shop!

BTW, would he likewise kick out Muslims, Jews and Mormons as well? Obviously he can't treat people with courtesy who have different views than he does? If they love God, or their religion teaches acts of homosexuality to be sin, he'll hate them. He equates Christian teachings with hating him as a person, or as spreading hate in general. So, he's also woefully ignorant - unless these Christians unnecessarily offended him. Did he perhaps aggressively engage them over questions about what the Bible teaches concerning adulterous relations of ALL types (including homosexuality) - if so, and honest answers incurred his rage , then so be it.

It would be really sad to merely view this incident in terms of societal politics, or to demonize this shop owner beyond the love of Christ - as he is NOT our enemy! Only seeing and recognizing the love of God in Christian and otherwise, will he begin to soften. But that said, we also best watch those who have his views getting in to political or judicial leadership - as that's certainly a concern. The shop owner is just like bigots of all stripes, as he appears to believe if we just get rid of these or those people, the world would be a great place to live: Fantasy spurred on by false beliefs.

RickD wrote:He has every right to kick people out of his business.

I disagree. I think he has some rights to kick people out of his business, but I also think there are limits. If the people he booted were doing something to deserve it then fine, but just being Christian (or gay, or Black, or whatever) isn't enough.

The other thing I want to point out is that we only have one side of the story. His outburst was obnoxious and indefensible, but he might have had a reason for his decision other than anti-Christian antipathy.

Unless there's something we don't know, I agree the shop owner wasn't morally right, but I'd rather him have the LEGAL right to not serve a person he believes by doing so violates his personal belief. Because when we lose the right to refuse whatever services based upon our personal beliefs, then people will be legally punished whenever their spiritual beliefs conflict with providing some requested service - and that is a nasty social war that we don't want to crank up. It's also an unnecessary war, if we will just let people follow their own conscience, as long as they've done no more than inconvenience someone (ok, AND pissed them off)!

Phil, that opens the door for people to say "I don't serve your kind." Or reopens it, actually. That's not a big deal for the White, Christian majority, but it puts the rest of us in a pretty tough spot.

edwardmurphy wrote:Phil, that opens the door for people to say "I don't serve your kind." Or reopens it, actually. That's not a big deal for the White, Christian majority, but it puts the rest of us in a pretty tough spot.

White Christian majority in Seattle?

America extends well beyond Seattle.

Ed: That's not a big deal for the White, Christian majority, but it puts the rest of us in a pretty tough spot.

That would only be the case if almost EVERY shop owner refused gay people, or white people, black people, Muslims, etc. But that is not the case - not even close. People might be inconvenienced, but "put in a tough spot" - I'm not seeing it. From a Christian perspective, if the LAW is given the ability to force people to do things against their spiritual conscience, that will make them law breakers - subject to fines, jail, legal fees, all that - and that certainly wouldn't apply only to Christians. And mature Christians, so refused, would not want such things to come down on the heads of those who refuse to provide them a service. Why? Because OTHERS having the right of conscience to refuse also ensures Christians (and whatever other group types) their OWN rights of conscience. Now, legally, there are already laws limiting what can be refused. I would say that the test for conscience is, IF ANYONE of ANY group, race or background desires you to do something against your moral conscience, one should have the freedom of refusing them. The question is, can you apply that test to ALL people and groups equally, per one's religious or spiritual conscience of what a person perceives as not right. Either we have individual freedom to act out our moral views, or not. If not, WHOSE determination of morality should dominate? The state's? That's really a bad move.

Mentioned before, but all manner of private business long have and very commonly DO refuse business that the business owner deems not in their best interests - and for a variety of reasons - even as simple as that honoring many request are inconvenient or aren't financially prudent. So, do you also go after such business people - saying they must provide all people every service? That's not done - so why the clamor to do it to those of moral conscience? Why do it by force of the state, when almost always, there are other options of service through other businesses? Mere occasional inconveniences does not a good argument make - as the alternative puts the state and those of different moral beliefs as lords over those with differing viewpoints. And that is far more scary than you or I being inconvenienced by the random business owner.

"No shirt or shoes, no service?" Ah, but the state asserts you must serve EVERYONE, regardless of attire? Why?

Kicking people out of your shop because they're Christian, is so gay.

edwardmurphy wrote:Phil, that opens the door for people to say "I don't serve your kind." Or reopens it, actually. That's not a big deal for the White, Christian majority, but it puts the rest of us in a pretty tough spot.

What if the guy was a known rapist or paedophile? Is refusing to serve him then justified in your eyes?

Why do pedophiles inevitably come up when homosexuality is discussed in this forum?

edwardmurphy wrote:Why do pedophiles inevitably come up when homosexuality is discussed in this forum?

It's a legitimate question, if your argument is to be taken to its logical conclusion.

Are you ascared to answer?

So was mine. Why do threads here always follow the same pattern?

Why does mentioning homosexuality inevitably lead to somebody equating it (either directly or by implication) with pedophilia?

If the point is that eventually someone repugnant will come into your business and test your principles, why not just put it that way?