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
51 visitors
“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.”
It's called capitalism. If customers don't like the way a business is being run, they will not support or patronize it. Very simple. I would think you of all people would support that.
But that’s different!
Why not? If a business wants to operate somewhere, a municipality has the right to decide if they want that business there or not.
Ultimately, it will;.
The municipality, in this case, is the landlord as this occurred on airport property. Would think that gives them the authority to determine who the tenants should be.
Additionally, being closed on Sunday's, may have been a consideration.
Then the populace will either accept a municipality's decision, or fight it. They'll be the one's to ultimately decide. They'll also be the one's to patronize any business or not.
Good point.
No, not really.
The state of Texas is looking into the matter.
Bingo,
and double Bingo!
Don't know of the other "instances" to which you refer. My only take relates to the facts presented in this posting.
There are also likely security concerns. Why would an airport welcome a controversial store that draws protests? I'm sure that airport security has enough to worry about.
Also a valid point.
Government decree is not “the market” in a capitalist country. What happened in San Antonio was common place in dystopian and communist regimes.
In a capitalist country, anyone can establish and operate a business and reap the profits for themselves. But the government can certainly establish regulations.
The problem is bigotry. Too bad some Christians engage in bigotry because of religious beliefs.
Which atheists engage in bigotry? This article speaks of Christian business owners. Where are atheists named?
Just look at #2 below and you will see a prime example.
What are you talking about? Perrie is merely pointing out the absurdity of your comparing Christians who aren't being allowed to persecute others and discriminate against them with Holocaust victims, and pointing out what REAL persecution looks like.
Christian dominion theory persecution complexes are ridiculous.
Your first statement does not name the Christians in the article- it uses the blanket statement of some. It is true, some Christians do engage in bigotry; but does Chick-fil-A? They are listed in the article. I am interested in your response.
Texans1211's response was also true, some atheists do engage in bigotry.
I'm an atheist and even I am shaking my head at that statement.
Yes, Cathy was a big donor to groups who explicitly worked to deny equal rights to LGBT people, including a conversion therapy group. They've backed off somewhat since then, but still donate to groups that are antigay.
The seed has nothing to do with dominionists. It’s about secularists bigotry against ordinary Christianity and its believers.
It seems to be more like about imagining persecution where there is none.
Why? Are you accepting Texan's juvenile twisting of my words to a new meaning? My question did not imply 'atheists do not engage in bigotry' it asked Texan to name the atheists in the article engaged in bigotry. (Note the word 'which'.) Texan introduced atheists into the discussion so I called him on it.
My full comment:
In other words, I am asking: 'Where does the article discuss atheists?"
Look at the context:
My opening comment is that bigotry is the problem. My second sentence ⇧ observes that it sucks that some Christians translate their beliefs into bigotry (per the topic). I did not mention Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. because the topic focuses on Christians.
Texan then brings atheists into the equation (rather than all non-Christians), pretending that my comment had deemed bigotry to be exclusive to Christians.
My response asked which atheists ...? Which, not 'what'. Which atheists in the article are deemed as bigots?
No, it's not. Ordinary Christians are not dominionists and don't get off on discriminating against others, all while whining about how they're being persecuted when they're prevented from discriminating. They don't try to shove their religion onto everyone else, either - and they actually try to act how Jesus would want them to. Nothing ordinary about the whackjob who wrote this bullshit article - he's a fringe Christian dominionist.
Did they donate corporate money, under the corporate name, to those groups? If yes then they can say the corporation is anti LGBT, and are not discriminating against it.
Since this was private money, they have no right to deny a business license to operate. From the article- and unless you can prove otherwise Chick-fil-A has not violated any laws.
So they serve everyone. They will employ anyone- no religious or sexual preference standards. Then why was their request denied? If an individual does not like some of the organizations the owners donate their own money to; then it is up to the individual not to eat there. Government officials do not get a say in the matter; unless the company violates the law.
Unless you want the same standards to be used against non Christian business owners donating private money? Donate to LBTQO causes, there are many areas of the country that would find that offensive. Donate money to the SPLC, sorry- they are bigots. I could easily go on.
It is not the job of federal or local governments to discriminate against businesses that follow the law.
Yes, it was corporate money. So as you stated, they can say the corporation itself is anti-LGBT.
There were no violations of the law that I'm aware of; it just pissed off a lot of people who stopped eating there (and conversely, thrilled a lot of people who made a point of eating there more often).
Personally, I would have a problem with choosing an airport restaurant that is closed on Sunday - I'd want any restaurant to be open 7 days a week, when travelers are at the airport. But I don't know if the company's anti-LGBT stance would be a legal ground for denying them a presence at the airport; I have no idea what the rules are for getting an airport concession. I can see how a company who supports hate groups could maybe fail some clause in the application rules, but my understanding is that Chick Fil A scaled way back on the nastiness of the groups they actively support after the kerfuffle. No more gay conversion therapy, for example.
I imagine we'll be finding out, though. City councils do seem to have a habit of overreaching themselves.
However, I do find it amusing that the same person whose panties are in a wad over the Colorado baker has a problem with this; it strikes me as hypocritical.
Me too.
Or, from the Denver airport's rules:
I didn't see any type of Morals clause in the Denver airport rules. Now, if the council had used the Sunday closure as a reason, they'd apparently be fine. Not sure if the support of hate groups is considered valid though. We shall see.
I am not a fan of denying them over the "hate" group thing, but if it were due to them not operating on Sundays (prime travel day) then I would be supportive.
Thanks for the info.
It's not their religious beliefs. Sometimes people are just prejudiced and they try to justify it with scripture.
When it comes to people, pretty much every option applies. Some justify bigotry with scripture (and of course other means) and some are taught the bigotry based on religious interpretation.
The problem is the bigotry (regardless of the source / justification).
really? Prove it!
So? Who they donateminey to is their concern.
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.
A not so nice blood libel of all Christians across America. But typical of the rising intolerance toward us by the pro science secular gang.
I saw nothing where Perrie accused all Christians in America of anything. Care to show us how that wasn't a false accusation?
You're being kind calling it a false accusation. The more accurate term a is ''damn lie''...
When one has no defense or rational comment to make this is what you get...''A DAMN LIE".
Oh, be nice to C4P - he's probably in mourning because the Christian charlatans who run WorldNutDaily have been found out for what they really are, after stealing from their devoted followers, and their fake news and conspiracy theories probably won't be around for much longer.
I'd love to post that article but I wouldn't be able to moderate it enough.
Whoa. I missed this.
How is what I said a blood libel of Christians? How about what you said is a character assignation of me. How dare you!
You had the gall of using Martin Niemoller poem which was dedicated to the 12 million people who died in WWII, 6 million Jews alone.
Look at that mob. That is here in the USA. The actual people who Martin Niemoller is referring to. Maybe you forgot what they were saying. "The Jews will not replace us. Blacks will not replace us. " When mobs like that form against Christians I will agree with you. So far I have not seen that.
Proud to be a secular scientist.
I don't even think about religion for months on end, much less show intolerance.
Why do the vast majority of your seeds revolve around the imagined persecution of Christians?
I'd wager that virtually every single one of them in the picture claims to be a Christian. "Gott Mit Uns!". Let's face facts, the lions share of violence, intolerance and anti-Semitism shown towards the Jewish people over the last thousand years has been almost exclusively at the hands of those who claimed to be good Christians. Much like how some (those same pictured) have used claims of "reverse racism" against minorities, here we have "reverse blood libel". Blood libel was invented by Christians and spread by Christians for centuries, now we have a Christian claiming "not so nice blood libel of all Christians across America" because a photo of an actual torch wielding mob chanting "Jews will not replace us!" was used to question the premise of this seed and the claims made by the seeder. And on top of that misappropriating Niemoller's poem. Wow. Just wow. Words fail me.
I didn’t have the gall, the author had the well reasoned use of the paraphrase of that quote which I included in my quote from the seeded article. So, why the broad brush against over 100,000,000 Christians in America regarding my article’s content with pictures from two groups with a few tens of thousands in the whole country that no legitimate Christian or Christian group condones or is accepting of. The use of those pics in regard to Christianity in America is similar to someone saying that all Muslims are a part of or support and condone ISIS/Al Qeda, which I’d never do.
I am utterly speechless. Are you missing my point on purpose? Those men are a direct threat to Jews, blacks and other minorities. It is disgusting to use Martin Niemoller's poem, to draw a comparison to what you think is happening to Christians in the US and what actually did happen to 12 million people at the hands of Nazis, and what happened that day. I never said that they represented all Christians. I am shocked at the fact that you feel persecuted when there are people out there who are actually being persecuted. You complain, but it is actually both Antisemitism that is up and blacks are being murdered in their houses of worship.
I don't do broad brush, the irony being that this article is one big broad brush.
If you can't see how offensive equating a wedding cake baker being asked to bake a cake for a customer regardless of who they might be marrying with the genocide of over 7,000,000 Jews, then I'm not sure what I can say to open your eyes.
The use of those pictures in response is more than fair. Those are the folks that this President, and by proxy his supporters, have refused to expel from their party and have called them "fine people". Those in the photo are metaphorically arm in arm with Trump and all the other religious conservatives who have abandoned their morality, discarded propriety and tried to justify their prejudice and discrimination behind lies and spurious claims of religious freedom.
You're dealing with pure idiocy and you'll will never crack that nut.
In a way, I'm glad that KAG made that blatantly false accusation (although you certainly didn't deserve to be the target) and utterly offensive comparison, and doubled down on them. It lets us all know exactly what we're dealing with, here.
Off hand, I'd say yes.
I'm not. Notice how often he plays the persecution card in these kinds of discussions?
Some fundamentalists think they're fulfilling a prophecy about persecution. The Bible tells them they'll be persecuted, so they have to see persecution where it doesn't exist. Not being able to persecute others becomes, to them, persecution.
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.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Some certainly have no idea what persecution really is.
Sounds like the "new" and "Improved" Democrat Socialist presidential candidates. "Thy speak of doom and gloom" every time someone hands them a mic. Are thy "God" fearing too ?
Poo-flinging deflection noted.
Out of sight, out of your mind....
Reality Sucks huh !
Can't defend the persecution complex, so you deflect by attacking others.
That's a pathetic and transparent tactic.
Are "YOU", one of those "Others" ?
Anything on your part showing those "Imp-proved Dems." don't speak as I note they do ?
Still deflecting.
The "Go-To" response when rebuttals get harder to think up !
Yes, I've noticed that deflection does seem to be your go-to response when you can't think up a rebuttal.
That was Great !
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.
As long as Christians beliefs and viewpoints of whatever issue are considered questionable, hate, pseudoscience etc. and the expression repressed, there will be resentment, bitterness, and an us vs. them team sport written combat due to that persecution here. This has only increased tension and lack of comity and settled nothing.
So some here want to FORCE a municipality to allow a business to open?
A municipality should not be discriminating against various businesses because of the religious beliefs of the owners. That’s a violation of separation of church and state.
Well, I am sure if it a Constitutional violation it will be reversed. See nothing to worry about. LOL
It's no different from denying WalMart or Target a zoning variation.
A municipal airport is no different and the business tennants are considered on what amount of gross sales tax they might contribute to the municipal coffers.
Air travel is busiest Friday through Monday.
A restaurant as popular as ChickFilet being closed on Sunday will impact more airport customers and diminish the municipal income more than a competitor
who realizes that Sunday is the busiest day at the airport.
Easy, peasy, capitalism at work in the heartland.
And another airport that didn’t discriminate against Chick Fil A over their owners religious beliefs discovered that Chick Fil A brought in more revenues there in 6 days than any of its competitors did in 7. So, money isn’t the real issue. Anti Christian bigotry and discrimination is.
Prove that this airport did!
Money is always an issue. Just because one airport may have had success doesn't mean it will happen at another location.
Whining and victim playing is what you have.
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
It happens in liberal cities.
HA HA HA. Don't worry Christian owners can keep their doors open everywhere.
As a rule I am not quite so rude, but that is utter bullshit!
As an aside, there is no such thing as a conservative or liberal city, there are just cities.
Really ?
Where? Point out where a "Christian business" was "FORCED" to close down!
Yes really.
[deleted]
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.
Chick Fil A did nothing wrong and overstepped no bounds.
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.
I already mentioned that somewhere around here. I’m excited because my California city (Redding) is finally getting one built in the parking lot of our Mt. Shasta Mall. It will almost certainly compete with In and Out Burgers as our #1 and #2 fast food single store franchises.
So relax - this is not a world ending event.
But we’re likely the most conservative city in the state and we don’t turn businesses away. We openly recruit them.
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.