Avatar feed
Responses: 11
SGT Laura Delgadillo
3
3
0
To all the people here saying it is your right to deny service to LBGT community because your bible says so. You're being hypocrites. You hide behind your bible when it is beneficial to you. You won't deny service to divorced people, you won't deny service to men who shave their beard (levictus 21:5)

So people, please stop hiding behind your bible and say it out loud. Its not because of the bible that you don't accept lbgt, it's because they freak you personally out. Things that are different freak you out.
(3)
Comment
(0)
LTC David Brown
LTC David Brown
>1 y
COL Ted Mc - The point is in choosing to sacrifice their lives for others they didn't shun those different from them.
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
>1 y
LTC David Brown - Colonel; They were treating sick people. They had probably been sick themselves. That means that the sick people were NOT all that different from themselves.

The point here is that it was NOT ONLY "American Christian Missionaries" who were treating the Ebola patients. The secondary point is that the "American Christian Missionaries" who were treating Ebola patients weren't even the majority of the people who were doing so.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC David Brown
LTC David Brown
>1 y
I give up, before Mother Thersea of India all kinds of people were treating the untouchables... Oh well. Can you document who was treating Ebola patients besides the Christians.
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
>1 y
LTC David Brown - Colonel; Nice try.

However, you can't actually "win" by deleting the word "Missionaries" from "Christian Missionaries" and still claim to be making the same point that it was the "Christian Missionaries" who were on the forefront of the fight.

The "First Responders" to the Ebola outbreak came from the World Health Organization which IS NOT a "Christian" organization. However, while I will grant that there were probably "Christians" amongst the WHO personnel, that does not make them "Christian Missionaries".

"At its peak, MSF employed nearly 4,000 national staff and over 325 expat staff to combat the epidemic across the three countries." [ http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/our-work/medical-issues/ebola ]

Possibly you were misled by the headline in "Christianity Today" that read "Ebola Medical Missionaries Named Time's Person of the Year" and didn't bother to read the actual article in "Time" - I mean why waste your time reading something in the lying, left-wing, socialist, commie, so-called "Mainstream", media when you can get **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H** from Christians?

You also (probably) don't know that one of the main partners in the fight against the Ebola outbreak was Cuba - which is one of those "Godless Communist" countries [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/10/04/in-the-medical-response-to-ebola-cuba-is-punching-far-above-its-weight/ ]

Please note that I AM NOT saying "There were NO "Christian Missionaries" who treated Ebola patients.". What I AM saying is "The fight against Ebola was ONT one fought solely (or even in a major part" by 'Christian Missionaries'.".

You don't have to LIKE reality for it TO BE reality.

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/one-year-report/who-response/en/
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC David Brown
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
I posted earlier about Muslim bakers refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings, why do they get a pass? Because the media are pushing s story line against Christians. http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/
(2)
Comment
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
>1 y
LTC David Brown - Colonel; Was there an ACTUAL refusal of service?

[HINT - No.]

Should there be a prosecution if there is an ACTUAL refusal of service?

[HINT - Yes.]

Does someone "get a pass" if they aren't prosecuted because they didn't actually break the law?

[HINT - No.]

Would "You know, I'm really uncomfortable taking your order for that because of my religious convictions. I'll do it if you REALLY want me to (and even though I would think that you are a VERY unthinking, uncaring, and unfeeling person for insisting that I do something that I find religiously and personally repugnant) but I'm sure that we'd both feel better if you had someone else do it for you." get a better reaction than "I don't do no wedding cakes for fags."?

[HINT - Yes.]

Would ANYONE who has been the butt of perceived disrespectful treatment by others who don't have the same beliefs/feelings as they do be likely to understand the long version and take their business elsewhere WITHOUT being "shocked and offended"?

[HINT - Yes.]
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC David Brown
LTC David Brown
>1 y
Well you can watch the video. If he refuses to talk to the guy or take the order that is refusal of service..(hint)
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
COL John Hudson
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
I decided to do a better job of educating myself to offer some type of reasoned response to what is, at its heart, a highly emotional issue. I looked up the basic tenants of a 'business license' and found there are over 40,000 separate licensing jurisdictions in the United States, and each has its own particular licensing requirements. I needed to narrow that down a bit and focused on exactly what is the purpose of a business license? The following holds true pretty much across this large field of business endeavor:

1) To identify your business and make sure you are accountable for your actions
2) To protect the public health and safety
3) To keep track of your finances for tax purposes

The next definition pretty much puts an end to argument for specific discrimination:

"For 150 years, states have had public accommodation laws requiring businesses that choose to offer goods and services in the commercial marketplace to serve customers equally. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve – even when that commercial service involves some form of speech or expression."

That pretty much sums up the totality of any question about the subject, and is the cornerstone of arguments before the courts even as we here at RP speak. So - keep a sharp eye on current events to see where this goes in the legal arena.

As to my own experience and personal opinion: The Constitution and Bill of Rights provides a right of association, generally interpreted to mean I may associate with whom I will. An act of free association does not tie to 'discrimination;' nor does it speak to bigotry or make me a bad person. In my private life, I have my own circle of friends and associates composed of individuals of all walks of life and gender association (including alternative life styles). It's important to point out one very significant fact: NOT ONE OF THEM FORCES THEIR PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW ONTO ANY OTHER. We are all of us tolerant and acceptable of each other's life choices.

And that, I believe, is the crux of this entire issue of gender and orientation...if a business does not wish to service certain aspects of the public - it may give up its license and close its doors. That is its only course of action. If I do not wish to associate with someone for any particular reason, I am not compelled to do so - that is my course of action.

Too many groups out there, who already enjoy the full protection of every law and benefit available to citizens of the United States, disregard common respect, tolerance or acceptance in an attempt to draw attention to their particular issue in whatever form that may be. This runs full against the fundamental aspect of free association, causes unnecessary friction, unrest, and outright civil disobedience - seen almost daily throughout the media (in that it's seen as an attempt to force a point of view onto someone else who chooses to believe otherwise).

They will not prevail by continuing such actions. One can ignore their antics by simply turning off the media device. One may pick and choose whom they associate with without fear of confrontation. Laws exist prohibiting behavior tied to harassment based on verbiage, religion or lifestyle orientation in many aspects of our society - both in the public and workplace.

None of this would have ever been necessary if people simply learn how to get along with others by practicing tolerance and acceptance, civility and courtesy...aspects that were commonplace in my time but seem to have lost all meaning in the world we live in today.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MSgt Michael Bischoff
MSgt Michael Bischoff
>1 y
Including/especially__________,_______, you fill in the blanks it is still discrimination. I remember those days when it was common place.
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
>1 y
COL John Hudson - Colonel; In response to your original post (not the modified one) - just try getting away with putting up a sign that says "We do NOT serve [__[insert "M-word" here]__ here." and see how long it takes before you get closed down.
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL John Hudson
COL John Hudson
>1 y
Thanks Ted...not certain of the meaning of "M-word" but no worries. My original comment was to share an observation of a time long past. There are still businesses that post "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and will, in fact, toss out individual malcontents and other trouble makers if they disturb customers (club bouncers or "floor managers" do this on a nightly basis). But, that's on a very small scale in small-town environments that never reach the media. My amended brief above chronicles my efforts to shine light on applicable law and policy on a wide scope. Hope that helps to add clarification. John
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close