The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles
Title: Gay Coffee Shop Owner Forcibly Ejects Christian Customers For Their Beliefs
Source:
Red State
URL Source: https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mo ... ians-goes-anti-christian-rant/
Published: Oct 6, 2017
Author: Brandon Morse
Post Date: 2017-10-06 21:49:27 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Religious History and Issues* Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Keywords: None
Views: 17237
Comments: 114
Gay Coffee Shop Owner Forcibly Ejects Christian Customers For Their Beliefs
It turns out those who vehemently demand Christians be tolerant of their views and lifestyles, and force Christians to perform services under threat of legal retaliation are — and I can’t believe I’m writing this — intolerant of Christians, and refuse to provide services for them.
In a recently released video from the group Abolish Human Abortion, a pro- life advocacy group, a gay coffee shop owner can be seen berating, insulting, and forcing the removal of the Christian group because of their beliefs.
Caytie Davis and her fellows had been handing out pro-life pamphlets that targeted the homosexual community for the spread of the Gospel. I won’t pretend that the pamphlet’s designs and words were fully geared for opening up discussion with the gay community without agitation first — you can check out the pamphlet for yourself at The Liberator — but the pamphlet’s blunt message aside, the group did not bring it into the coffee shop with them.
Davis and her fellow activists, seeking to relax after handing out pamphlets, went into Seattle’s Bedlam coffee shop. According to Davis, they didn’t engage anyone, or — as previously said — bring any of their literature into the shop with them. They got their coffee, and went upstairs into the lounge area to relax.
Only minutes later, the owner of the coffee shop burst into the room and demanded they leave.
The video shows the Christian group attempting to reason with the coffee shop owner, but to no avail. In fact, it only seemed to make him angrier according to The Liberator, and soon the owner :
Remainder of article at link.
Poster Comment:
I would normally warn readers of the foul language, but given this is LF....Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-45) not displayed.
.
.
.
#46. To: no gnu taxes, misterwhite (#38)
You can see their pamphlets at The Liberator.
This is a very aggressive pro-life group, they refer to themselves as abolitionists. You can see their flagship site AbolishHumanAbortion.com.
#47. To: redleghunter (#45)
For example, if the coffee shop saw Christians saying grace before eating and drinking, throwing them out would be doing so for their free exercise.
They had already been served and gone upstairs to a reading room before the owner, probably tipped off by some busybody, found out what kind of literature they handed out and came up to demand that they leave.
If he served them, I'm not sure how you would sue him. He provided the beverages and bakery-made goods (if any) that he had on display. I'm not sure that public accommodation includes a right to be seated if other customers are claiming that you upset them.
#48. To: Tooconservative (#44)
I suspect he was kicking them out for trying to convert Teh Gays from sodomy to Christianity
Something along those lines -- but not in the coffee shop which, again, is the key point.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#47)
I'm not sure that public accommodation includes a right to be seated if other customers are claiming that you upset them.
Good point! I think they used that loophole in the 50's when blacks demanded a seat at the counter -- "No can do. It'll upset the whites."
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
Something along those lines -- but not in the coffee shop which, again, is the key point.
True enough. No one has alleged they were proselytizing in the coffee joint.
They might have been wearing their abolitionist T-shirts or had other abolitionist gear. Some of the abolitionist T-shirts are pretty graphic stuff with aborted babies all chopped up and such. There are a lot of restaurants that would not want you to wear that kind of stomach-churning stuff in their business.
Looking at the pamphlet, it seems they were trying to convert gays to pro-life, not to get them to dump their sodomy lifestyles and become Christians.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#46)
This is a very aggressive pro-life group, they refer to themselves as abolitionists.
I think you agree that if that was their sole message they're in the wrong neighborhood.
#52. To: sneakypete (#12)
Or maybe you believe those fundies just happened to find a coffee shop owned by a homo IN SEATTLE by accident,because there are so many of them and so few owned and operated by heterosexuals or people who keep their sexual orientation to themselves?
When was the last time you were in Seattle? It's the second largest gay haven next to San Francisco.
#53. To: misterwhite (#49)
I think they used that loophole in the 50's when blacks demanded a seat at the counter -- "No can do. It'll upset the whites."
If they were wearing graphic bloody T-shirts, that is very different from refusing to seat someone because of their skin color.
And you forget: these abolitionists were served their orders.
In Selma and Birmingham, they were not allowed to sit or to be served, per state law.
Not the same. And I'm not going to spend the day explaining why. Because this is kind of a dumbass thread to begin with.
#54. To: redleghunter (#52)
To: sneakypete (#12)
I think Stone banned him again. He hasn't surfaced over at 4um yet though he reads and posts over there too on pretty much a daily basis.
Maybe he's busy with his new tractor. I was hoping he'd tell us how he likes it.
#55. To: Tooconservative (#43)
Why would faggots care one way or the other about abortion?I have no idea.
Well, I do.
They all support everything anti-Christian, anti-socialist, anti-white people and have been taught to behave that way. They are indoctrinated idiots.
Frankly I have seen no seen no evidence that this Christian group behaved in any way other than what they said.
#56. To: buckeroo (#39)
I don't want to call you "phucking stupid." but it seems like you missed his point.
#57. To: misterwhite (#51)
I think you agree that if that was their sole message they're in the wrong neighborhood.
You should find out more about these abolitionists. They are small but very aggressive.
Not like the Westboro church bunch but a lot more aggressive than your run-of-the-mill pro-lifers.
#58. To: no gnu taxes (#56)
"phucking stupid."
You voted for TRUMP? You are a phreaking phucking stupid retard, incapable of realizing your voter responsibilities.
#59. To: no gnu taxes (#55)
Frankly I have seen no seen no evidence that this Christian group behaved in any way other than what they said.
I didn't say that they did.
#60. To: Tooconservative (#53)
If they were wearing graphic bloody T-shirts, that is very different from refusing to seat someone because of their skin color.
Yeah. Or if they brought with them actual aborted fetuses.
Then again, the article mentioned neither. So maybe we can put the speculation behind us.
#61. To: misterwhite (#60)
You've mistaken me for someone who actually gives a shit about this non-story.
#62. To: buckeroo (#58)
You voted for TRUMP? You are a phreaking phucking stupid retard, incapable of realizing your voter responsibilities.
Sorry that Mrs. Bill Clinton thing didn't come through for you.
Maybe next time, comrade.
#63. To: Tooconservative (#61)
You've mistaken me for someone who actually gives a shit about this non-story.
He said in post #61.
#64. To: no gnu taxes (#56)
I don't want to call you "phucking stupid." but it seems like you missed his point.
#65. To: Tooconservative, y'all (#35)
misterwhite (#33) Yeah. I miss Roscoe.
You would. Tooconservative
Roscoe was such an obvious White clone/idiot, that most here miss him, as a whipping boy.
Free Roscoe!
#66. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, Tooconservative, buckeroo, Fred Mertz (#36)
Does he throw out everyone he doesn't like?
Stone does. It's legal to be a authoritarian ahole in the USA. Lucky for you!
If you own the place, you can pitch out whomever you want, and you don't have to bake them gay wedding cakes or whatever.
Presumably Stone would ban Donny Trump for promoting the gay agenda.
#67. To: misterwhite (#33)
Kinda think I put Roscoe back. Maybe he doesn't want to come back because he thinks I'm an asshole. I think that is it.
#68. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#67)
Maybe he doesn't want to come back because he thinks I'm an asshole. I think that is it.
Most people on this chit-chat forum know and understand that you are an asshole. So, you haven't added to our collective knowledge.
#69. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone (#0)
I didn't know there was a full video of the coffee shop.
#70. To: Tooconservative, Liberator, A K A Stone (#69)
Yes the video was embedded at the link.
I was wondering why so many said Red State embellished and added. The video is quite clear he threw them out. And used all that gay nasty language.
#71. To: redleghunter (#70)
I was wondering why so many said Red State embellished and added.
The Christians never said that they went there to "relax", that was added at Redstate. Why are there no quote marks around the relax shuck 'n jive?
Because they never said any such thing.
There are several quotes from the Christians as well as the video, but nothing about them going there to relax.
#72. To: hondo68 (#71)
There's a link to another site at the red state link. Might shed some light on this for you.
#73. To: hondo68, misterwhite, A K A Stone, Tooconservative, buckeroo, Fred Mertz (#66)
If you own the place, you can pitch out whomever you want
Not if you run a public accomodation, such as a place that serves food.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/public-accommodations-equal-rights.html
Public Accommodations at the Federal LevelThrough the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal government prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of the following: race, color, religion, national origin, and disability. The federal government does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. However, numerous states protect against age, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity discrimination.
#74. To: nolu chan (#73)
Not if you run a public accommodation, such as a place that serves food.
I saw a few of them with coffee cups. So they were served their beverages.
So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?
#75. To: Tooconservative (#74) (Edited)
So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?
It depends. IF you are a faggot. You get to stay and watch the dude butt fuck his butt buddy.
The guy did says something about doing that.
#76. To: A K A Stone (#75) (Edited)
It should be a fundamental right of any American businesses owner to not cater or sell to anyone for ANY reason... and be able to ask ANYONE for ANY reason to leave property owned by them.
I agree with this filthy cum guzzling sperm burper... he should have the right to kick anyone out of his business. By the same ideology, a cake maker should be able to tell a faggot to fuk off, leave, when they want a faggot cake.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#77. To: A K A Stone (#75)
It depends. IF you are a faggot. You get to stay and watch the dude butt fuck his butt buddy.
Well, as entertaining as that might be, I was trying to ask nolu about accommodation law.
They were served beverages and went upstairs to relax and hang out, just like any other customers.
So if they were served in a coffee shop, does that constitute compliance with the requirement to serve all without discrimination? Or, if the coffee shop offers seating inside for all other customers, are you discriminating by asking the Christians to leave because you don't like literature they distributed elsewhere in the neighborhood?
Since the accommodation laws are written in terms of forbidding all discrimination, it seems to me that the shop owner did discriminate in telling these people they had to leave while allowing other customers to sit in the coffee shop, use the restrooms, browse books, use Wi-Fi, etc.
I'd like to see these Christians get a lawyer and sue this coffee bitch into the seventh circle of hell.
#78. To: nolu chan, SJW (#73)
Not if you run a public accomodation
May a horde of gays demanding service descend on every public accommodation you enter.
Perhaps that will change your love for illegal unconstitutional legislation?
#79. To: Tooconservative (#74)
So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?
So why is that a problem as long as they are not bothering anyone else?
I bet you had no problem with the bakery being sued out of business because their Christian beliefs caused them to politely refuse to provide for a wedding for reasons that violated their beliefs.
#80. To: no gnu taxes (#79) (Edited)
So why is that a problem as long as they are not bothering anyone else?
It isn't. I'm speaking of whether they are denying an accommodation to these Christians based on their subjective belief that the Christians had distributed political literature elsewhere that the homo barista found objectionable.
I bet you had no problem with the bakery being sued out of business because their Christian beliefs caused them to politely refuse to provide for a wedding for reasons that violated their beliefs.
I've supported the Christians in all these RFRA cases. I don't get as lathered up over them as some of you do.
However, that bakery refused service entirely to the homo. In this case, the homo barista did serve them their coffee but refused to allow them to stay and enjoy the premises as he allowed others to do, all based on his objection to their freedom of speech activities elsewhere in the neighborhood. But he did clearly discriminate against them and admitted it was because of their free speech activities that were conducted entirely outside his establishment.
They should find a lawyer or get one of these generally useless Christian legal defense foundations like ACLJ to represent them.
But thanks for the baseless accusation all the same.
#81. To: Tooconservative (#80)
However, that bakery refused service entirely to the homo.
Well, it's not like the fag could sit down and hold his wedding there.
Also this was a long term event. They are dozens of places they could have gone to get a wedding cake. it's not like he came in from the street looking for a place to relax.
But i will agree with you that this is a civil matter.
#82. To: hondo68 (#66)
If you own the place, you can pitch out whomever you want, and you don't have to bake them gay wedding cakes or whatever.
I agree you should be able to do that, but the law says otherwise.
#83. To: Tooconservative (#74)
So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?
"Here's your filet mignon sir, now take it outside and eat in on the sidewalk".
#84. To: GrandIsland (#76)
It should be a fundamental right of any American businesses owner to not cater or sell to anyone for ANY reason... and be able to ask ANYONE for ANY reason to leave property owned by them.
I agree. If his business suffers because of his decision, it's on him.
What about a restaurant taken over by Nazi bikers? Being forced to accommodate them results in the owner losing all his other customers. He goes out of business. Will the federal government compensate him?
#85. To: misterwhite (#84)
What about a restaurant taken over by Nazi bikers?
I remember a number of years ago when I would hang out in such places, I would see signs saying "locals only" for a a select area of the establishment.
It was obvious this was meant for bikers traveling through. They were hardly locals.
#86. To: GrandIsland (#76)
It should be a fundamental right of any American businesses owner to not cater or sell to anyone for ANY reason... and be able to ask ANYONE for ANY reason to leave property owned by them.
Of course. It *should* be. BUT ISN'T (as illustrated by several high-profile cases -- including the CHRISTIAN baker, the CHRISTIAN florist, etal. that went to court and/or were sued out-of-business.)
THIS incident was intended only to underscore the hypocrisy and unequal application of the law in OTHER CASES. And that was the point being scored by the Christian coffee drinkers.
MOREOVER, it also underscored the disgusting degree of hatred, cowardice, contempt and militancy of the typical Homofascist (as well as a pro-atheist judiciary) of and for Christians.
.
.
.
Comments (87 - 114) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]