Christian business owners who show evidence of faith risk being shut down
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If there was any remaining doubt, this past week’s news puts it to rest. Christians are now being punished in America.
From San Francisco, California to San Antonio, Texas, the church is being persecuted. Faithful Christians — those who still believe in the Bible as their rule of faith and practice — are being harassed for simply holding to the millennia-old creeds of their faith. Devout Catholics are being blackballed from our nation’s courts. Evangelicals are being excluded from the public debate. Today, orthodox Christians are not only considered politically unpopular, but they are now dubbed morally unacceptable to even engage in local commerce.
If you’re a Christian business owner who dares give money to a charitable cause grounded in traditional morality, your company will be targeted, protested and shut down. Your restaurant will be shuttered. Your bakery will be shunned. Your flower shop will be attacked. Faithful and devout Christians are now officially considered a cultural embarrassment. They are a pariah that must be removed from the market square. They cannot be tolerated. They must be barred. Under the rainbow banner of “inclusion,” Christians are now excluded from speaking, buying or selling in the arena of public life.
Proof?
On March 22, the San Antonio City Council announced with great pride and fanfare it was officially banning Chick-fil-A from doing business in the San Antonio International Airport over what it called the fast-food chain’s “anti-LGBTQ behavior.”
What was this egregious “behavior” you ask? Was it the refusal to do business with homosexuals? No. There has never been any such claim against Chick-fil-A. In fact, this company has been complimented repeatedly by the LGBTQ community for its gracious, kind and exemplary customer service. Was it a refusal to hire homosexuals? No. Again, there has never been such an accusation against this company and in fact Chick-fil-A does not ask about nor discriminate against any employee’s private sexual choices.
So, what did Chick-fil-A do that warranted the blacklisting of the San Antonio City Council?
Well, this company which is owned by evangelical Christians has dared to designate some of its annual charitable giving to churches and church related organizations that still believe in — can you believe it? — orthodox Christianity.
It is this shameful act that led San Antonio City Councilman Roberto Trevino, to breathlessly run to the microphone this past Friday to announce: “With this decision [to exclude faithful Christians], the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of inclusion.” One has to wonder if Mr. Trevino even hears the sounds of that branch upon which he is sitting creaking and cracking as he saws away so feverishly while chanting his self-refuting mantra of not tolerating those he finds intolerable? A course or two in elementary Socratic logic might be in order here.
So, there you have it. We have actually come to a point in our culture where the state presumes the authority to tell a baker in Colorado what art he must create and a florist in Washington what religious ceremonies she must celebrate. Moreover, we now live in a time where your local city council proudly denies a fast-food chain the right to buy, sell or do any business in the general economy simply because a Christian owner had the audacity to make private donations to the church.
Christians are now considered verboten. Show any evidence of believing in a biblical God and biblical morality and you will be shut down. You will be forbidden to sell your product. Your “intolerance” will not be tolerated. To paraphrase Mr. Trevino, “Oh, you Christians may have your precious ‘freedom of religion.’ Yes, the Constitution may protect your right to believe in your silly God and spew your old-fashioned ideas about sin and salvation. But if you dare say anything about any of this in the public square, or if you have the actual temerity to try to practice the tenets of your faith in your business or your public life, we will sue you, we will silence you, we will fine you, we will malign you, we will blackball you, we will de-platform you, we will not buy from you or sell to you. We will crush you. Submit or be destroyed.”
With deference to Martin Niemoller: First, they came for the evangelical and I said nothing because I wasn’t evangelical. Then they came for Catholics and I said nothing because I wasn’t Catholic. Then they came for the bakers, the florists and the Christian restaurateurs, and I said nothing because I was not a florist, a baker or a restauranteur. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak.
“And no one could buy or sell unless he has the mark ” Revelation 13:17
Tags
Who is online
215 visitors
I had no idea that there has been mass extermination of Christians in this country. Yet, this is allowed
I think that Jews, blacks, and other minorities have more to fear.
Yes they are allowed to march and protest just as the occupy and other liberal groups are allowed to march and protest. That right is guaranteed to them by the constitution and it applies whether you agree with a groups message and beliefs or not.
There is another section of the constitution that guaranteed the right to freely express one's religious beliefs. Chick FIL A is a privately owned company and and the owner of it can donate to what ever Christian group he chooses. The action of the city council is obviously in violation of the provision of that constitution as well as the state not making rules and laws that interfere with religious belief.
But typical of the rising intolerance toward us by the pro science secular gang.
More of a case that some folks do not want the beliefs of others foisted upon themselves, hence the push back perhaps. Somewhere along the line the personal has fallen out of personal belief.
When did everything become a team sport?
I agree that personal belief should be just that, applying to all.
Science is not a personal belief - it is surrounded by facts.
So some here want to FORCE a municipality to allow a business to open?
So not allowing them to open is forcing Christian businesses to close down? I would love to see where Christian businesses are being FORCED to close down. Most of the small business I go to are owned by Christians & they display whatever they choose to - they seem to be fairing well. Guess this stuff only happens in the Christian states. LOL
Did you read the article?
Yes, actually I did, but the headline states "Christian Business Owners Who Show Evidence Of Faith Risk Being Shut Down" and I simply pointed out that:
1. Not being allowed to open is not being "shut down"
2. The Christian owners in my BLUE state are not worried & display their faith in their businesses.
Did you read my comment?
PSSSSTTTTT.....
This is not true and you know it.
Yes, i did read your comment.
Are you open to questions or should i just stop this train of thought right here?
I thought I answered your question. Yes, I did read the article and told you why I commented as I did, seems you are the one not wanting to move forward.
Lol, so you aren't being intentionally snarky in your answers eh? Perhaps my snark meter needs readjusting ...... or yours .....
That said you didn't answer my question in 5.2.3 so i'll ask it again.
Are you open to questions?
Sure question away....
I am prone to snarkiness on occasion.
Me to ...
So my question is, do you feel their reasoning for not allowing a Chick -fil-a is fair and sound?
No, I do not. I figure - let the consumer decide.
I agree. Besides, the premise they used to refuse this new restaurant is built on a falsehood. Its rarely for the common good when a bureaucrat makes decisions for us like this.
The weaponizing of causes against others can be a very slippery slope. Many in the LGBTQ community have overstepped in that regard on this one IMO.
I could see it if they had denied them because they are not open on Sunday (a busy travel day), but the reason to me is just not right.
And many in the Christian community have overstepped theirs. Maybe if everyone backed off, minded their business life would be less stressful.
You will never hear me defending them either. This loud fundamentalism on both sides (religious and secular) that is trying to take over the narrative in the US is bad for the majority in the end. No other way to say it.
I don't know about San Antonio, but the Denver airport concession rules clearly require:
At the Baltimore and Dulles airports, though, I've certainly found that when I arrive on a late flight, none of the concessions are still open. The place is like a ghost town. I've never arrived in Denver on a late flight.
Fair enough. They set their hours rules and businesses are free to accept them or not start up there.
Reasonable enough.
The Denver rules even say that they can require the concessions to change their hours if they feel it's necessary.
I agree that it's fair - and it clearly applies across the board. But no airport concession rules I've found so far mention any morality clause, or any limitations on what charities a given concession may donate to.
That's what I thought, and that's what will likely come back to bite them. The Sunday closure might have made a difference (depending on their rules for concessions - if they're similar to the Denver airport they would matter, but I have no idea if that's the case for San Antonio). But they publicly stated it's for a different reason which is most likely not valid justification for exclusion. And now they can't go back and pretend it was all about the operating hours.
So very true.
This is probably nothing more than a Council member doing a 'buddy' a favor. By banning one fast food chain in favor of another. It is unfortunate that the claim of being a 'champion of equality and inclusion ' was made - while performing an act of exclusion.
The Texas Attorney General is looking into this matter.
See, KAG - no worries.
So relax - this is not a world ending event.
A minor point...Evangelicals and Orthodox Christians are not the same denomination. Entirely different doctrine and dogma. About the only thing they can agree on is that Jesus was crucified
No he did not. He did say that there were fine people on both sides of the issue which is a true statement. You and others of your I'll forget that because it dies not fit your agenda.