The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles
Title: Gay Coffee Shop Owner Forcibly Ejects Christian Customers For Their Beliefs
Source:
Red State
URL Source: https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mo ... ians-goes-anti-christian-rant/
Published: Oct 6, 2017
Author: Brandon Morse
Post Date: 2017-10-06 21:49:27 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Religious History and Issues* Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Keywords: None
Views: 14274
Comments: 114
Gay Coffee Shop Owner Forcibly Ejects Christian Customers For Their Beliefs It turns out those who vehemently demand Christians be tolerant of their views and lifestyles, and force Christians to perform services under threat of legal retaliation are — and I can’t believe I’m writing this — intolerant of Christians, and refuse to provide services for them. In a recently released video from the group Abolish Human Abortion, a pro- life advocacy group, a gay coffee shop owner can be seen berating, insulting, and forcing the removal of the Christian group because of their beliefs. Caytie Davis and her fellows had been handing out pro-life pamphlets that targeted the homosexual community for the spread of the Gospel. I won’t pretend that the pamphlet’s designs and words were fully geared for opening up discussion with the gay community without agitation first — you can check out the pamphlet for yourself at The Liberator — but the pamphlet’s blunt message aside, the group did not bring it into the coffee shop with them. Davis and her fellow activists, seeking to relax after handing out pamphlets, went into Seattle’s Bedlam coffee shop. According to Davis, they didn’t engage anyone, or — as previously said — bring any of their literature into the shop with them. They got their coffee, and went upstairs into the lounge area to relax. Only minutes later, the owner of the coffee shop burst into the room and demanded they leave. The video shows the Christian group attempting to reason with the coffee shop owner, but to no avail. In fact, it only seemed to make him angrier according to The Liberator, and soon the owner : Remainder of article at link. Poster Comment: I would normally warn readers of the foul language, but given this is LF....
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 112.
#1. To: redleghunter (#0)
The Redstate author is bearing false witness, aka lying. They went in there to troll. I've got no problem with that, but don't lie about it.
They went in there to troll. I've got no problem with that, but don't lie about it. BINGO! They went in looking for a fight. Probably as a fund-raising tool with their fundie supporters.
You have evidence of such?
Of course he doesn't. He gets excited by by faggot causes. Pete's weakness.
ROFLMAO! Yeah,my bad. I'm one of those un-American radicals that thinks all Americans are equal in the eye of the law,and we all have equal rights as well as equal responsibilities as citizens,regardless of race,gender,wealth,or religious POV's. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong,but it seems to ME that those radical anti-homosexual bible-thumpers that condemn homosexuals to an eternity in hell just for BEING homosexuals could have PROBABLY been able to find a coffee shop in SEATTLE that WASN'T owned by homosexuals if homosexuality bothered them that much. Is there any city in America that has a higher percentage of coffee shops per 1,000 population than Seattle? And since these people live in Seattle themselves and are radical anti-homosexuals,you would THINK they were aware THAT particular coffee shop was owned and operated by a homosexual. Drama queens looking for drama in order to get some press for fund-raising purposes,nothing more,nothing less.
They were near the coffee shop, handing out pamphlets that specifically targeted gays on the issue of abortion. I kinda thought that this must have been a predominantly gay neighborhood and that they knew that or they wouldn't have handed out those particular pamphlets.
I don't see the relevance. They weren't handing them out in the coffee shop. They were thrown out of the coffee shop solely based on who they were. Flip it around. Gays are near a straight cofee shop handing out NAMBLA literature. You take it from there.
I was only saying that this was likely a gay neighborhood since they were targeting a gay audience for their pro-life literature. You wouldn't go hand out such literature out in the suburbs where maybe 1:1000 people are gay. You'd go to a neighborhood known for gayness, where you might get 20%-30% gay people walking down the street to give your gay pro-life pamphlets to. So I think this was a gay-owned coffee shop in a neighborhood that is known for being a gay ghetto place with large numbers of gays or even a majority of gays living there.
Why? High rate of abortion among homosexuals? Even if they knew the coffee shop owner was gay I don't see how it would make a diference. Does he throw out everyone he doesn't like?
Stone does. It's legal to be a authoritarian ahole in the USA. Lucky for you! If you own the place, you can pitch out whomever you want, and you don't have to bake them gay wedding cakes or whatever. Presumably Stone would ban Donny Trump for promoting the gay agenda.
Not if you run a public accomodation, such as a place that serves food. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/public-accommodations-equal-rights.html Through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal government prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of the following: race, color, religion, national origin, and disability. The federal government does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. However, numerous states protect against age, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity discrimination.
I saw a few of them with coffee cups. So they were served their beverages. So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?
"Here's your filet mignon sir, now take it outside and eat in on the sidewalk".
"...while we continue to allow all the other customers to sit and enjoy their food in our dining room." Exactly.
If that's the rest of the equation... Isn't this entire public accommodation thing either all or nothing?
The laws forbid "all discrimination". Including discriminating against white people or Christians if words still have meaning. They really should sue, let the Ninth Circus decline and then take it to the USSC. There is also the broad principle of "equal protection under the laws" in their favor as mentioned at the end of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Why is it the ""equal protection under the laws" always seems ambiguous in cases AGAINST conservative causes, but specific and in support of in cases affecting the radical/homo cause? Just sayin'....
Just sayin'.... Par for the course. However, many of these states which we see Christians prosecuted are due to unConstitutional local or state laws/ordinances. So we have the 14th cited in quite a few cases against Christians, yet the 1st Amendment "protects" the free exercise of religion. The Constitution does not protect the free exercise of sodomy promotion, but as we know for homosexuals it is truly a religion. ;) The liberal view is free exercise of religion stops with an individual's basic civil rights (read 14th Amendment). Some states, take this view as 'gospel' truth and so do the leftist courts. This is why the Christian baker case before the SCOTUS will be the Roe v. Wade of religious liberty in these United States. If ruled in favor of the Christian baker, a lot of state and city ordinances will be null and void.
One thing we know: Gorsuch is not timid. Not in arguments before the Court, not in conference, not in deference to Roberts. And he's been voting in lockstep with Clarence Thomas so far. Of course, Anthony Kennedy is probably sensing a prime opportunity to stab us in the back, no matter what his former clerk is up to.
Of course, Anthony Kennedy is probably sensing a prime opportunity to stab us in the back, no matter what his former clerk is up to. For the question of the Christian baker it is truly testing the extent of the 1st Amendment. The homosexual plaintiffs do not have much to go with except a very loose interpretation of "equal protections." They can't even cite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it specifically states no discrimination of "race, color, religion, or national origin." Whereas the coffee guzzling Christians do indeed have a case against the barista owner as we see below. SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, , or national origin. (b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment. Now of course atheists of the New Atheist brand are not slackers and are now using the temple of Satan to mask their intents of gay "rights." There's also an attempt in Missouri for a self proclaimed Satanist who has a civil case against the State to remove pre abortion mandatory counseling as she said is religious in nature and not accepted by her 'religion' of Satanism. Satanist sues Missouri over abortion laws I think she will lose as her premise is human life beginning at conception is a religious view. When in fact life beginning at conception is a biological fact. That she is a science denier won't help unless she gets an all liberal court. The State's Attorney General should know human life begins at conception as is abundantly clear:
I was going to quote the exact same thing in my earlier post but wasn't sure how the 1964 act has been altered in EOs or subsequent legislation. I think it has sex or gender in there now. I know 0bama was trying to do that via regulatory authority but I don't think he succeeded. Maybe nolu is up to date on the statutes and regulatory changes.
The Executive branch can impose such but only within the power of the branch. So Obama did extend such rights to the military and fed gov agencies but not impose such on the States. That is my understanding. The emperor also did so for transgenders but looks like Trump pulled the carpet.
I think we are both a little unsure exactly what the current state of the laws and regulations are after 0bama's unlawful orders and Trump's recissions of much of them.
There have been no SCOTUS decisions expanding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to homosexuals. There have been attempts in conference committees to bring forth legislation to extend these rights but have all been buried. They will now remain so as long as there is a GOP House and Senate. This is how the Zer0 admin tried but now being torpedoed by Sessions: Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn’t Protect Gays 1789 Attorney General Jeff Sessions boarding a plane on Thursday for a trip to El Salvador, where he will meet with local leaders about fighting gang violence. PABLO MARTINEZ MONSIVAIS / ASSOCIATED PRESS By ALAN FEUER JULY 27, 2017 The Justice Department has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama. The department’s move to insert itself into a federal case in New York was an unusual example of top officials in Washington intervening in court in what is an important but essentially private dispute between a worker and his boss over gay rights issues. “The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,” the Justice Department said in a friend- of-the-court brief, citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in the workplace based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.” The department filed its brief on Wednesday, the same day President Trump announced on Twitter that transgender people would be banned from serving in the military, raising concerns among civil rights activists that the Trump administration was trying to undermine lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights won under previous administrations.
Except for Obergefell which granted gay marriage and associated legal rights.
#113. To: Tooconservative (#112)
A good point. Which begs the question on what Obergefell hangs it hat? What precedence? None that I know of other than the very loose use of the 14th Amendment.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDavis and her fellow activists, seeking to relax after handing out pamphlets, went into Seattle’s Bedlam coffee shop. According to Davis, they didn’t engage anyone, or — as previously said — bring any of their literature into the shop with them. They got their coffee, and went upstairs into the lounge area to relax.
#3. To: hondo68 (#1)
The Redstate author is bearing false witness, aka lying.
#5. To: sneakypete (#3)
#11. To: redleghunter (#5)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#11)
Of course he doesn't. He gets excited by by faggot causes. Pete's weakness.
#25. To: sneakypete (#15)
And since these people live in Seattle themselves and are radical anti-homosexuals,you would THINK they were aware THAT particular coffee shop was owned and operated by a homosexual.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#25)
They were near the coffee shop, handing out pamphlets that specifically targeted gays on the issue of abortion.
#34. To: misterwhite (#32)
I don't see the relevance. They weren't handing them out in the coffee shop. They were thrown out of the coffee shop solely based on who they were.
#36. To: Tooconservative (#34)
since they were targeting a gay audience for their pro-life literature.
#66. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, Tooconservative, buckeroo, Fred Mertz (#36)
Does he throw out everyone he doesn't like?
#73. To: hondo68, misterwhite, A K A Stone, Tooconservative, buckeroo, Fred Mertz (#66)
If you own the place, you can pitch out whomever you want
Public Accommodations at the Federal Level
#74. To: nolu chan (#73)
Not if you run a public accommodation, such as a place that serves food.
#83. To: Tooconservative (#74)
So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?
#90. To: misterwhite, Liberator (#83)
"Here's your filet mignon sir, now take it outside and eat in on the sidewalk". ...
#92. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite, nolu chan (#90)
"...while we continue to allow all the other customers to sit and enjoy their food in our dining room."
#96. To: Liberator, nolu chan (#92)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
#98. To: Tooconservative, nolu chan (#96)
There is also the broad principle of "equal protection under the laws" in their favor as mentioned at the end of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
#104. To: Liberator, Nolu Chan (#98)
Why is it the ""equal protection under the laws" always seems ambiguous in cases AGAINST conservative causes, but specific and in support of in cases affecting the radical/homo cause?
#105. To: redleghunter (#104)
If ruled in favor of the Christian baker, a lot of state and city ordinances will be null and void.
#106. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#105)
One thing we know: Gorsuch is not timid. Not in arguments before the Court, not in conference, not in deference to Roberts. And he's been voting in lockstep with Clarence Thomas so far.
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
#108. To: redleghunter, nolu chan (#106)
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, , or national origin.
#109. To: Tooconservative, Nolu Chan (#108)
I was going to quote the exact same thing in my earlier post but wasn't sure how the 1964 act has been altered in EOs or subsequent legislation. I think it has sex or gender in there now. I know 0bama was trying to do that via regulatory authority but I don't think he succeeded.
#110. To: redleghunter (#109)
#111. To: Tooconservative (#110)
I think we are both a little unsure exactly what the current state of the laws and regulations are after 0bama's unlawful orders and Trump's recissions of much of them.
N.Y. / Region
#112. To: redleghunter (#111)
There have been no SCOTUS decisions expanding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to homosexuals.
Replies to Comment # 112. Except for Obergefell which granted gay marriage and associated legal rights.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 112.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]