Skip to main content

See also:

The good, bad, and ugly truth of ‘anti-gay’ laws and liberalism

Liberals lied about Arizona's law being anti-gay when it was only to affirm religious freedom.  Should doctors be forced to perform abortions?  Should priests be forced to perform Satanic rituals?  How far will the Left go?
Liberals lied about Arizona's law being anti-gay when it was only to affirm religious freedom. Should doctors be forced to perform abortions? Should priests be forced to perform Satanic rituals? How far will the Left go?Tea Party

Do Arizona lawmakers need a lesson in writing legislation or are liberal pundits telling lies about the legislation they wrote to protect businesses from predatory customers? Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed legislation written by Arizona lawmakers to protect businesses from predatory customers under threats by liberals to pull Apple and the Super Bowl out of the state. The cases for which this law was written was over a caterer in Colorado who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding and a photographer in New Mexico who wouldn’t photograph a gay wedding. They both refused on religious grounds, whereupon the customers filed suit and demanded the state prosecute them for bigotry and hate crimes.

Was the law they wrote reminiscent of previous laws that denied blacks the right to enter a restaurant? The dilemma here is not how to protect businesses from customers, but defining the employer/employee relationship and who can be forced to do what by the other. People who go into a restaurant are doing so to participate in the business's event - eating. But when someone hires a photographer they are not going to his event, rather than are hiring him to attend their own. This is not a business customer relationship, but an employer employee relationship.

A restaurateur runs a service in which he is an employer whose employees serve his customers. A photographer or a caterer runs a service in which his customers are his employer. Employers cannot force employees to do something against their will, as in this case, and therefore the employer does not have to employ that person’s service.

On the flip side is a pair of Moslems who were hired to drive delivery trucks, yet refused to drive trucks delivering alcohol, which all of them do, being fired from their jobs. Here again liberals are prosecuting the employer for not keeping employees who refuse to do the job for which they were hired. Liberals want it both ways and they can’t have it.

The question in all of this is; can government force employees to obey their employer and can government force employers to accommodate their employees. There is a word when government uses force on people to make them do something against their will that is immoral, unjust, or unnecessary and it is called slavery. People didn’t have to pay for a service if they didn’t want to, but now they do – ObamaCare, or they go to jail. And people didn’t have to provide a service if they didn’t want to, but now they do?

The “tolerant” liberals are the most intolerant and vicious people on the planet. Agree with them and they will treat you like wonderful people, but disagree and you must be destroyed. Just the opposite is Christianity on the Right and what Jesus told his followers, “Tell others about me, and if they do not want to hear your words walk away.”

In any case, what kind of fool wants to force someone to perform a service who doesn’t like them, especially preparing food for them? In their self-righteous hypocrisy these liberal’s two-faced reprisals may come at a heavier price than they expect. (Kinda gives new meaning to the phrase, “eat sh*t and die!”) The only thing worse than someone being an impertinent ass is someone who, in their ultimate depravity, wants to make it a federal crime!

Gov. Brewer vetoes bill

Baker could go to jail

EEOC prosecutes company for Moslems

Attorney General Holder advocates State AGs not uphold laws with which they disagree