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: As If The Matt Gaetz Case Couldn’t Get Any Weirder…

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

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • 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.

 

Opinion

Hunter Biden’s Art Dealer Had Grand Chinese Ambitions in 2015

This certainly raises a few new questions…

Published

on

Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, has been heavily criticized in recent weeks, as he begins to sell hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of art to anonymous buyers around the world. As one can imagine, the idea that such vast amounts of money are pouring into the First Family without any transparency has led to concerns about foreign interests gaining a foothold in the White House via untraceable transactions. New reporting regarding Hunter Biden’s art dealer is now exacerbating those worries. The art dealer representing the president’s son has longstanding ties to China and said in 2015 that he wanted to be the art world’s “lead guy in China.” Georges Berges, who is representing Hunter Biden as he ventures into the art world, has talked about his business dealings in China in the past, but his reported ties could pose an ethics issue as he sells Biden’s art to anonymous buyers. Here is where it gets wild: Berges said in a 2015 interview with Resident that he wanted to be the art world’s leader in China. “My plan is to be the lead guy in China; the lead collector and art dealer discovering and nurturing talent from that region,” Berges said. “I plan to find and discover and bring to the rest of the world those I consider China’s next generation of modern artists.” He also said that that he believes “China’s economy is transforming the global economy and everything is changing because of a rising China,” and that he was fascinated by “cultural impact” China is “having on the world.” “Cultural power is real power. That is the reason America continues to be the capital of the world, because of its influence on culture for generations and on an unrivaled global level,” Berges also said. “And I…

Continue Reading

News

GOP Rep. Says There’s ‘Credible’ Evidence of Wuhan Lab-Leak Theory

China has been avoiding any such investigation for months now.

Published

on

From the very moment that the COVID-19 pandemic began, there were concerns that China wasn’t telling us the truth. This was primarily based on Beijing’s horrendous record of dishonesty when it comes to the international community, which has been ever-so frequent in cases in which the Chinese government could be made to appear cruel or uncaring. To be fair, it doesn’t take long for most to realize that this is, in fact, reality, especially as we continue to receive credible reports of the nation’s use of concentration camps and ethnic cleansing. In the case of the coronavirus, not only did the world discover that the data coming out of Beijing was wholly incorrect, but that a laboratory specializing in the exact type of coronaviruses that caused COVID-19 happened to be just a few miles away from the epicenter of the pandemic. Now, despite numerous attempts to stall or stymy efforts to investigate the theory that pandemic began as a lab-leak, one US lawmaker is claiming that there is credible evidence of just such a possibility.  Sunday, on FNC’s “The Next Revolution,” Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) stressed the importance of investigating the origins of COVID-19, and in particular, China’s role. His statement was stern. “As you know, we still have yet to have any notice that there will be an investigation. And so I think, rightfully, we used the powers of oversight that we have in Congress and we convened a hearing. Unfortunately, none of the Democrats attended that hearing. But the expert testimony from the witnesses was quite profound and quite significant. “And I think as they said, and I would tend to agree that this virus came from the laboratory, whether it was a leak, whether it was accidental, whether it was intentional, whether it was manmade or whether it…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week