Nip and Tuck — 8 Comments

  1. Hold on a second. The gay marriage one actually is different. Christians, to my knowledge, are the only religion to be responsible for marital rites. If Muslims were in the same position, and made the same refusal, they would receive the same legal repercussions. So, in a sense, it’s actually not different at all, and you’re the one trying to make it different.

    And that’s not the only issue, either. Marriage, legally defined, has no ties whatsoever to religion, and remains a legal institution no matter the beliefs of the involved parties. Why then does it change when the involved parties are gay? Why is it “different” then?

    But wait, there’s more! Who are you to be judging? Why are you paying attention to the speck in someone else’s eye?

    And, moreover, why are you judging inequally? Though it’s not exactly the same case, it is the same topic; I’ve been looking at your Twitter feed on the right as I’m typing this comment, and you brought up the cake. What gives you the right to refuse service gays, and not lawyers, bankers, interest earners, tax collectors, grudge holders, pork eaters, rabbit eaters, men who shave (God forbid), tattooed people, mixed gardeners, dog breeders, people with fabric blends, divorced people, girls with braided hair, the list goes on and on. If all sins are equal, then why are you picking and choosing which ones to reject?

    • I’ll address the latter one first:
      It’s called “freedom of assocation.” It’s an inalienable human right; the right to associate– or NOT— with whomever we choose. A private business SHOULD have the right to refuse to serve anyone they choose, for whatever reason they choose. This right was violated by the overreach of the civil rights laws; demanding equality before the LAW, the right to VOTE, and equal access to PUBLIC institutions (such as the post office or government-run schools) was fair and just. Demanding the right to coerce others into serving you against their will was not.

      I can already SMELL the seething outrage rising up off you at this statement. Like most people of this generation you are too happily used to perverting the Law and using the government as a bludgeon to pound those whose views displease you. But you’d better grow up and learn this now, or learn it to regret in your old age: the constitution wasn’t written to protect the rights of just the people you like and agree with. In fact it was made precisely to legally protect the rights of people who are hated. Precisely because in this life, at some point, you will be one of them.

      In a free society assholes are protected too— and glory be, when they’re free to speak, they self identify, and that way nobody has to associate with them. The businessman will see customers who despise his views or policies shun him, and those that agree with him come to his doors. Pisses you off that worked in Chik-fil-A’s favor doesn’t it? Well you should be thanking whatever it is you believe in that it did, because it works for YOU on a daily basis.

      You do not have the right to demand the service or property of any living human being, just as noone has the right to demand yours.

      And as to the law applying to Muslims— it’s already been proven that it doesn’t. Our ruling Masters(tm) have demonstrated repeatedly that their various unconstitutional rules, regardless of what they say, only apply one way, and not the other. We have “hate” crime laws that only apply if the victim was African American, even though there are five times as many black-on-white incidences of violence as white-on-black. Even though domestic violence is nearly fifty-fifty, we have no shelters or support groups or protective laws for battered men. Thousands of Gay “pride” parades routinely violate public indecency laws with everything from nudity to mass public sex acts without a single arrest; meanwhile a straight couple having sex on a public beach gets arrested and the man gets a 15 year sentence. A Christian couple is fined hundreds of thousands of dollars and has their freedom of speech violated by the Court for not baking a gay cake; elsewhere We have FOOTAGE of Muslims refusing to bake a homosexual wedding cake— unsurprising as Muslim businesses routinely refuse service to people for any number of Sharia laws, and not so much as a single citation against them. We have an elite category in this society, a category of people who wallow in legal privilege that consists of liberal politicians, their “pet” social classes, and anyone who mouths their platitudes with sufficient fawning obeisance. The practice is clear: one law for them, one law for you and me.

      As to your understanding of biblical law, it’s rather sadly broken— and even more sadly, typical of the average person today in post-Christian society.

      First off, many of the Old testament Laws were fulfilled at the Crucifixion. The most obvious being is that we are no longer required to perform sacrifices of sheep and goats, as Christ was the final and ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity. They had served their purpose and, in the age of Grace, were no longer necessary.

      Secondly yes, all sins are sins, just as all laws broken are crimes… however, to insist that all biblical laws are “equal” is like assuming that a traffic violation is the same as committing murder. Right from Genesis, the biblical laws had different categories and different penalties for transgression. Some had nothing more than social censure. Others had compensations that had to be paid to the victim. Still others had the death penalty. People who blither that “so what if the bible forbids homosexuality, it forbids eating pork!” are playing stupid to make a point they only think is valid. Would they make this same dimwitted comparison elsewhere? “Well yeah the bible forbids raping women and demands the death penalty for it, but so what, they had a law against wearing mixed clothing too!”

      • “A private business SHOULD have the right to refuse to serve anyone they choose, for whatever reason they choose. This right was violated by the overreach of the civil rights laws; demanding equality before the LAW, the right to VOTE, and equal access to PUBLIC institutions (such as the post office or government-run schools) was fair and just. Demanding the right to coerce others into serving you against their will was not.”

        I don’t believe any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone based on anything but their behavior while on the premises of or otherwise dealing with said business, but I don’t believe it has a damn thing to do with civil rights. It has to do with a little thing called PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY, something I’m seeing less and less of in businesses in general. My view on professional integrity as pertaining to this is that when you run a business, you have a responsibility to the people who can and/or do frequent it. When you post business hours, you have a responsibility to ensure the business operates during each and every minute of those hours. And you have a responsibility to be fair and impartial, to only disallow anyone from doing business with you if to not do so would be of harm to your business. To refuse service to anyone for any reason that essentially boils down to “I don’t wanna serve you/your kind” is completely unfair in every sense of the word unfair that I know.

        The powerful THINK they have the right to trod on those without power, when what they SHOULD have is a responsibility to protect them. Even people with such small amounts of power as small business owners.

        • Rule #1: reality does not give a tinker’s damn what you THINK it should be.

          You may think it’s “not fair.” You’re free to think that all you want. You’re also free to shop elsewhere, and if enough people agree with you the store owner will pay the price of failing to please his customers… but he is not under any moral obligation to please anyone but himself. If he only wishes to serve those that agree with him— that is his right. THAT, little child, is the DEFINITION of fair.
          That is the POINT of the constitution— to protect us from those who are “offended” at us.

          • Again, I’m not even discussing any MORAL obligation whatsoever. I’m also well aware that how things are doesn’t give a damn about how I think they should be. It is NOT, however a business owner’s right to serve only those who he agrees with or vice versa because of forces outside humanity’s control, it is his right BECAUSE OF US. All rights anyone has in this world came about because somebody, somewhere, or a group of somebodies, decided that they should be rights and set out to make it so they were rights. Just because something IS a right doesn’t make it RIGHT. And just because reality is a certain way doesn’t mean it has to stay that way! I’m free to think it’s not fair. I’m free to shop away from such people. I’m ALSO free to do whatever I can to change popular public opinion away from such concepts as business owners have the right to refuse service to people who have done them no legitimate wrong whatsoever, and let the results of those efforts speak to whether I’m right or wrong. And believe you me, I will. It will take time, but I will.

            I was only stating my opinion in my previous comment. Reality can be changed, and this issue is only one of several ways I plan to change it. Call me crazy, hubristic, I don’t care. There are too many things in this world that are too dang stupid, and to me trying to change that is the meaning most worth finding in life. Whether you’re among the cheerers or the jeerers for this ideal, I don’t care.

          • No, little child. My rights do not exist because of you. They are inalienable, bestowed by my Creator. You may use brutish coercion to suppress or violate them, but you don’t get a say in editing them.

          • You DO realize that the phrase “inalienable rights” itself was coined by man, right? The Declaration of Independence was written by men, not dictated to Moses by a burning bush and chiseled into a stone tablet. Ergo, the very CONCEPT of “rights” is a human invention! And do you get some kind of psychological enjoyment from calling those who disagree with you children? How is that act itself not more childish than anything I’ve said?

Leave a Reply