If there is one thing we, as citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, have learned it is that any business that serves the public (is there any other kind?) must not discriminate between various customers. Equality in all things is all the rage. Discrimination is right out. In the old days I remember seeing signs informing me, as a potential customer, that the proprietor "reserved the right to refuse to serve anyone." Or, in some cases, a sign simply informed me, "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Nobody that I was aware of ever complained about those acts of discrimination, although I did not hang out with a lot of shirtless and shoe-less people during that time. Maybe they complained, but even if they did nobody cared. They were told to grow up, get over it and go buy a pair of shoes and a shirt.
In the SDA everything has changed for the worse. These days everyone must be a member of a victim class that has special privileges and protections from the federal government. Enormous sums of money are expended by various groups of people in search of government approved victim status. Once that status is achieved the members of those classes go about asserting their authority over others and generally making the lives of normal people like me a bit less enjoyable. What jerks they all are.
Recent cases wherein Christian business people were forced to perform services for people they would rather not serve have made this a hot topic. We are all aware of the militant heterophobic lobby that has pushed through laws and legal precedents which allow them to force Christian business people to serve them whether they want to or not. Given the current state of affairs in this perverted country I do not think it will be long before some militant heterophobes sue a church for refusing to hire one of them as a pastor. Then the theological rubber will really hit the road. Pastors will be carted off to jail and their churches will suffer heavy fines simply because they believe in the ancient, historic and orthodox Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior.
The argument that is always made in support of the heterophobe's perverted position is that once a business person opens a business he is not permitted to choose whom he will serve. We have heard this argument so many times it now tends to fall upon deaf ears. It shouldn't. It is an important legal precedent that only goes one way and that needs to be exposed for the hypocritical law that it is. Shortly after Christians in Denver were persecuted by heterophobes for refusing to serve them, a Christian fellow in Colorado Springs reversed the terms in the matter. He went to a heterophobic business and placed an order for something the heterophobe did not want to produce. Not surprisingly, the heterophobe refused to serve the Christian. In other words, the heterophobe discriminated against the Christian because of his personal beliefs that homosexual behavior is right dandy in the eyes of God and, most importantly, in the eyes of the SDA government. The Christian took him to court and, as we all know, lost the case. The Judge looked at the facts and declared that he could not see any signs of discrimination on the part of the heterophobe despite the fact he refused to serve a Christian because of his own personal and discriminatory beliefs. So much for logical and legal consistency.
Yesterday I was reading the newspaper and I came across an interesting article that adds to the body of hypocrisy that is steadily building up in this immoral land in regards to the requirement for businesses to serve everyone. The article was entitled, "Snowboarder ban at Utah resort okayed." The brief story went on to inform me that, "A federal appeals court backed a ban on snowboarders at a Utah ski resort, saying the private business has a right to remain one of the last resorts in the nation to ban the activity." Now isn't that an interesting way to report the story. Notice how the author carefully describes the ski resort as a "private business" although the business is clearly serving the public and is no more private than the Christian bakery in Denver is. Or, conversely, if the ski resort can be deemed a private business then the Christian bakery must be as well. I guess when the media wants to cast a profit seeking corporation in a favorable light they call it a private business but when they want to slander a business it is suddenly a public one, even though they are both engaging in the exact same sorts of business activities.
The report said, "snowboarders had argued that it was discriminatory to stop them from shredding its slopes at the resort largely on public land." Notice the argument being made here once again. The snowboarders, who the media obviously hate more than ski resort owners, attempted to make the case that the business, which is clearly serving the public just as much as the Denver bakery is serving the public, is a public business because it operates largely on public lands. Now let's get one thing straight. Snowboarders, also know as knuckle-draggers, knuckle-heads or nincompoops, are being discriminated against at Alta ski resort in Utah. Alta ski resort is also clearly serving the public. It is not a private, members only, resort. Why, then, does the rule that forced the Christian businessman to serve heterophobic people not apply here? The answer is obvious. The rule does not apply here because Alta is not ostensibly a Christian business and there is no value to be derived from persecuting a business that is not overtly Christian. Remember, in the SDA you are encouraged to persecute and prosecute two groups of people. Those two groups are smokers and Christians. The fact that the law requiring equal service for all, with discrimination against none, does not apply to Alta ski resort is simply another example of government hypocrisy and it once again illustrates that Christians have no voice in the civil affairs of this disgusting and immoral country. Take note Christians....your voice will never be heard. The matter is already settled and it does not matter what you might have to say. In the SDA, the opinions of Christians are irrelevant.
A reader wrote to ask me about the specifics of the Colorado Springs case mentioned above. A Christian individual went to a bakery owned and operated by a homosexual and asked him to bake a cake for him. The inscription on the cake, as described by the Christian, was to be a verse from the Bible declaring homosexuality to be sinful. The homosexual business owner refused to serve the Christian. The Christian sued and the Judge deciding the case declared the homosexual business owner was not engaging in discriminatory practices against the Christian when he refused to serve him.