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: IT HAPPENED: The Next James Bond Is Confirmed to Be A Black Female [Details]

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

Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?

  • Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?  

  • 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.

 

 

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

Beto O’Rourke Drops Bombshell About Connection To Slavery

Where’s the liberal outrage?

Published

on

In a move that should, if the left were consistent, spell the end of his political aspirations, Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke revealed that both he and his wife are descendants of slave owners. Yes, a consistent application of the beliefs of the modern-day progressive should see Beto dropping from the race and spending the rest of his life attempting to atone for the sins of his ancestors. Probably not going to actually happen though. You know, because hypocrisy or something. via The Daily Wire: The failed Texas Senate candidate, who is losing ground in the presidential race, made the revelation in a Medium post, saying that he was recently given documents that revealed his family’s past. “A paternal great-great-great grandfather of mine, Andrew Cowan Jasper, owned these two women in the 1850s,” O’Rourke wrote. “There are also records showing that a maternal great-great-great grandfather, Frederick Williams, most likely owned slaves in the 1860s (“most likely,” because we are not certain that the Frederick Williams who is my ancestor and the Frederick Williams who owned slaves are the same person, but there’s enough circumstantial data to lead me to conclude that it’s likely).” “Records also showed that Amy had an ancestor who owned slaves and another who was a member of the Confederate Army,” O’Rourke added. O’Rourke’s claim comes after the media last week tried to tie Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s opposition to reparations to the fact that his great-great-grandfathers owned slaves. When the media tried to push that narrative they were met with the fact that former President Barack Obama’s ancestors were slave owners. Sen. Kamala Harris’ ancestors also owned slaves. So where is all of the classic liberal outrage over these folks having this sort of bloodline? Surely they would have no problem striking at these kind…

Continue Reading

News

Trump Administration Set To Carry Out Major Crackdown On Asylum Abuse

This is going to make liberals absolutely furious.

Published

on

The Trump administration has announced some major changes in the country’s current asylum policies that will inevitably lead to a sizable reduction in the number of individuals that are eligible for asylum who are trying to enter the country at the southern border. If you listen closely, you can hear the left already throwing a total fit over this, ready to compare the president to a whole plethora of deplorable fascist world leaders throughout history. via Daily Wire: “The new rule, published in the Federal Register, would require most migrants entering through America’s southern border to first seek asylum in one of the countries they traversed – whether in Mexico, in Central America, or elsewhere on their journey,” Fox News reported. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) highlighted three limited exceptions: (1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country; (2) an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11; or, (3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The statement went on to detail that a very small minority of these individuals actually receive asylum, however, a large number of requests burdens the system and undermines its humanitarian purposes. The statement also notes the large number of requests…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend