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: What Does Bill Gates Plan to Do After He Vaccinates the World Population?

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

Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?

  • Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?  

  • 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.

 

News

Apple Backs Down, Will Allow Parler Back on App Store

The news is seen as a major boost for the First Amendment.

Published

on

Free speech is a fickle thing, and precious too.  If we’re not careful, it can be stripped away but those who hide behind the claim that a “private” company can limit your personal freedoms. Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms are almost always the culprits here, bending the algorithmic reach of those with whom they disagree. Enter Parler:  A free speech app where only the bare legal minimum of content would be moderated. The platform became incredibly popular with an astonishing swiftness, but soon faced trouble from companies who had previously aligned themselves with Facebook and Twitter’s more controlling stance. Apple, who had previously booted Parler from its App Store, has now relented to the Constitution. Apple has approved Parler’s return to the iOS app store following improvements the social media company made to better detect and moderate hate speech and incitement, according to a letter the iPhone maker sent to Congress on Monday. The decision clears the way for Parler, an app popular with conservatives including some members of the far right, to be downloaded once again on Apple devices. The letter — addressed to Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Ken Buck and obtained by CNN — explained that since the app was removed from Apple’s platform in January for violations of its policies, Parler “has proposed updates to its app and the app’s content moderation practices.” On April 14, Apple’s app review team told Parler that its proposed changes were sufficient, the letter continued. Now, all Parler needs to do is to flip the switch. The news is seen as a major boost for the First Amendment.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Oath Keeper Leader Claims Police are Training Militias for ‘Civil War’

And the FBI seems to agree with him!

Published

on

At the very end of the first term of Donald Trump’s presidency, we were as close to a civil war as this nation has come in over a dozen decades, and we may not fully appreciate that yet.  We are, perhaps, too close to the events themselves to fully understand just how narrowly we escaped a broader calamity, but we must try to remain vigilant still. Especially if what one of the leaders of the Oath Keepers says is true. The far-right paramilitary the Oath Keepers is home to active-duty law-enforcement officers who are training up other members to prepare for civil war, according to one of the group’s top figures. CBS News’ 60 Minutesprofiled the the increasingly notorious militia on Sunday night, and one of its leaders from Arizona, Jim Arroyo, spoke openly about the close involvement of police officers. “Our guys are very experienced,” said Arroyo. “We have active-duty law enforcement in our organization that are helping to train us. We can blend in with our law enforcement and in fact, in a lot of cases, our training is much more advanced because of our military backgrounds.” And the government seems to already be away of this. Arroyo’s statement was backed up by Javed Ali, an ex-National Security Council senior director and FBI counterterrorism official, who said the Oath Keepers are a “unique and challenging” threat to the U.S. because a “large percentage have tactical training and operational experience in either the military or law enforcement. That at least gives them a capability that a lot of other people in this far-right space don’t have.” Several members of the Oath Keepers were arrested during the January 6th Capitol riot, as they attempted to prevent the certification of the results of the 2020 election by Congress.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week