Connect with us

Politics

College students say in America anyone should be able to deny anyone service for any reason, except Christians

What do we normally call it when one person is FORCED against their will to perform a service for another person? We call that slavery.

Published

on

In the latest video from the folks at Campus Reform, students at George Washington University in Washington, DC were asked their opinions on the recent Supreme Court decision involving the Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The outcome is unsurprising as the students argue that the Christians have no right to refuse service for a homosexual “wedding.” As one student puts is, “His ability to exercise his freedom of religion ends when that infringes on another person’s ability to be who they are.” Apparently, this doesn’t apply to Christians, who are having their “ability to be who they are” infringed upon by those people who are suing them.

However, in an interesting, and incoherent turn, these same students believe that almost everyone else most certainly has the right to refuse service on the grounds of their personal beliefs.

Trending: Biden’s Brother’s Firm Received $1.5 Billion In Government Contracts, Had Zero Experience

When asked if a black baker should be forced to bake a cake for a KKK rally, one of the students suddenly realizes that she’s a massive hypocrite. “Um, well, yeah, no. I mean, like, they shouldn’t but, like, I guess that kind of just, like, contradicts what I just said. Uh, but yeah.”

take our poll - story continues below

Will You Vote For Donald Trump in 2020?

  • Will You Vote For Donald Trump in 2020?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Here’s the video:

Should a Jewish (or Muslim) deli owner be forced to serve pork products to his customers? Should a Muslim artist be forced to paint a picture of Mohammed for an anti-Muslim event? (That’s a twofer!) Should a gay sign making company be forced to make anti-gay signs for the hateful folks at the hateful Westboro church?

Of course not.

In fact, i’ll go even further and argue that in America anyone should be able to deny anyone service for any reason. And in the same vein, all consumers should be free to choose when and where to spend their money. If they don’t like the business, we should be free NOT to spend our money with them.

In fact, why is that liberals are free to boycott Chick-fil-a based on the Christian convictions of the founder, but a Christian baker must serve a gay wedding? In a FREE market, both sides should be FREE to decide to take part in the transaction.

If I can get a little deeper into the philosophical weeds here, what do we normally call it when one person is FORCED against their will to perform a service for another person? Yes, we call that slavery. If our business owners (of all religious, ethnic, racial, and philosophical stripes) are not free to refuse service to certain customers, than for all practical purposes they have been enslaved by those customers.

It’s immoral. It’s evil. It’s wrong.

Here’s a better answer to this “problem.” If a baker (or florist, or photographer, or deli owner, or sign maker, or what-have-you) denies you service, spread the news. If they’re racists, you’re community will no doubt ostracize them and soon enough they’ll be out of business. If they’re anti-gay, you’re community will stop buying from them and give their support to a pro-gay store instead. And so on, and so forth. Society already has a way to deal with these issues without needing to get the government involved and stripping people of our rights.

In most of America today a racist store will not survive because the locals will not support them. The same can be said of most issues of bigotry or hatred – the nation, as a whole does not support these attitudes and a business that is openly hateful will never be long for this world. Let the market handle these things, leave the government out of it, and let’s defend everyone’s freedom.

 

Save conservative media!

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

New Survey Reveals 55 Percent Think Media Is ‘Corrupt’ And ‘Exaggerates’ News

Published

on

The mainstream media in America has become infamous for rejecting any sort of objective standard of ethics when it comes to their news coverage, opting instead to be a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party and the progressive movement as a whole. For a lot of folks, such a statement probably seems like a tinfoil hat kind of theory, a ridiculous claim that surely only exists on the fringes of our civilized, modern society. These individuals would be dead wrong. A new survey has revealed that 55 percent of those surveyed believe that the media is corrupt and that they exaggerate news stories to fit a specific agenda or talking point. Here’s more from The Washington Examiner: According to a survey done for SeniorList, a medical device firm focused on older Americans, 55% of Americans believe that the media is “corrupt.” https://twitter.com/SenMcSallyAZ/status/1218380597678288899 In addition, many, especially Republicans, believe that the media exaggerates stories while some Democrats believe reporters minimize issues, a sign that the political polarization in media has deepened. “Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to think the media overblow issues on a large scale, indicating a more conservative trend of questioning the mainstream media,” said the survey analysis, citing Russian interference in elections, the treatment of illegal immigrants at the border, and racism. “The repetitive programming on networks and websites and the emphasis of the media to pump the news cycle with the same stories can create burnout, causing many to question the overall quality of the news,” said the survey analysis. The survey concluded that the answer to all of this is to get your news from sources and check facts out for yourself. It also suggested readers learn to be aware of the bias in modern reporting and to read up on which websites have…

Continue Reading

Faith

Tulsi Gabbard Launches $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Hillary Over ‘Russian Asset’ Comment

Published

on

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is quickly proving that while she is most assuredly on the left politically, she’s also got a lot in common with those on the right as well. Like a mutual disdain for former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Clinton targeted Gabbard for some of her more centrist policies last year, stating that Gabbard is a “Russian asset.” Well, much like President Trump, Gabbard isn’t afraid of a fight. In fact, she’s now suing Hillary for $50 million in a defamation lawsuit over the statement. Here’s more from Fox News: During an October 2019 interview with the podcast Campaign HQ With David Plouffe, Clinton suggested the 2020 presidential candidate was “the favorite of the Russians” and “a Russian asset.” Gabbard insists these statements have no grounds in reality, and that Clinton knew or should have known this at the time. “Rather than facts or reliable evidence, Clinton’s basis for the Defamatory Statements was one or both of: (a) her own imagination; or (b) extremely dubious conspiracy theories that any reasonable person (and especially Clinton, a former United States Senator and Secretary of State) would know to be fanciful, wholly unverified, and inherently and objectively unreliable,” said the lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court. Clinton did not specifically name Gabbard in her remarks, but strongly implied she was referring to her. The complaint points out that when asked if she was referring to Gabbard, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill responded, “If the nesting doll fits,” a reference to Russian dolls. Gabbard’s complaint states in no uncertain terms that “Tulsi is not a Russian asset,” and that neither Russia nor anyone else “controls her or her presidential campaign.” To the contrary, it plays up her history of public service, from her time in the Army National Guard…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend