“Brian Klawiter owns Dieseltec shop in Grandville [MI],” cnn.com reports. “In a statement this week on his company Facebook page, he urged gun owners to visit his business, promising a discount for those who do. ‘Enough is enough,’ his post said, declaring that the voices of conservative Americans are getting drowned out. He pledged to operate his business the way he sees fit. ‘I am a Christian. My company will be run in a way that reflects that. Dishonesty, thievery, immoral behavior, etc. will not be welcomed,’ he said. ‘I would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons. Homosexuality is wrong, period.” Oh dear. Here’s the Facebook post:

Enough is enough.

Our rights as conservative Americans are being squashed more and more everyday. Apparently if you are white (or close to it), you have a job, go to church, and own a gun… That translates into racists, privileged, bigot, conspiracy theorist. Too many of us say nothing. Well, freedom of speech isn’t just for Liberals, THEY are the ones that need to learn to “co-exist”, THEY are the ones who need to WORK to be “equal”
Therefore, in the spirit of freedom (whats left of it) and MY right to operate MY business as I see fit:
Guns ARE allowed at DIESELTEC, so much so in fact that we will offer a discount if you bring in your gun. (“On duty” cops are excluded because thats not their gun, thats my gun bought with my money, off duty absolutely!)

I am a Christian. My company will be run in a way that reflects that. Dishonesty, thievery, immoral behavior, etc. will not be welcomed at MY place of business. (I would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons. Homosexuality is wrong, period. If you want to argue this fact with me then I will put your vehicle together with all bolts and no nuts and you can see how that works.)
We, as a team, work hard for whats ours. We are not protected by unions or contracts. We absolutely MUST provide our customers with a service level that would make them come back or tell their friends about us. We don’t have a “right”, and we are not “entitled” to our pay. We must EARN it.
I am not racists, you are for assuming I am, however, I am really quick to judge… if it acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

It IS a free country and I support your right to your opinion, that being said, if you don’t like what I have to say I reserve that same right to tell you to go cry to your momma (cause your daddy would probably smack ya’, better yet, yes, go tell your dad.)

The backlash wasn’t pretty . . .

Klawiter told CNN affiliate WOOD TV [sic] he had to contact local authorities after protesters showed up at his home. He said he’s received death threats and hundreds of calls from all over the country.

He said he’s not asking customers about their sexuality, but same-sex couples who exhibit affectionate behavior openly will not get service.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited in Michigan, but some municipalitieshave laws against it, according to the affiliate.

Grandville is not one of them.

Dieseltec responded to the threats:

Listen up folks, If you have an opposing view to mine that IS OK, what is NOT OK is threats to kill me, my family, and friends; threats to burn down my shop and my home. I will stand firm on my views and will not back down. I said I am a christian and I think any true (as you all like to call it) christian would readily admit they are a sinner, as am i, and that we practice our religion: i.e. try to get better at it.

I am NOT Jesus. What he did was perfect and as far as what he would do I will not speculate as I am merely broken flesh. The Bible has been at the center of debate many times and left subject to interpretation. My interpretation is different than yours. I did not ask to debate sin, however, I am being reminded of mixed fabrics and eating shellfish… so can we all agree then that homosexuality is a sin? If it is then we should always make an effort to move away from sin right?

If its not then why are you offended? Enough about that, I am not qualified nor worthy to get in to theology. I set some ground rules for how I operate my life; do I not have the right to do that? If we both have the right to our opinions at what point does it become acceptable to destroy someones reputation, and the reputation of everyone they know, threaten to kill and destroy because you disagree.

The evil in this situation is clearly identifiable. Just read the comments below. I never threatened to intentionally put someones vehicle together wrong, use you sense, (although it may not have been the best way to elaborate) You need a bolt and a nut to hold something together, two bolts can not, and two nuts can not, you must have one of each, a male and a female. Get it now?

To all of our supporters, there is a semi-local preacher of some kind rallying a protest tomorrow Sat. 12:00-2p, they are gonna “occupy” something near by. We invite our supporters to join us for some fellowship, we will roll out the grill (bring something for us to cook up for you, and byob) and we can enjoy a sunny afternoon together with our guns, our God, our freedom.

Well now. The controversy over whether a private business can refuse service to homosexuals continues, regardless of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” But putting gun owners into this mix is nothing less than toxic, giving ammo to gun control proponents who paint gun owners as paranoid, racist, homophobic morons. Shame.

254 Responses to Michigan Auto Repair Shop: Yes to Gun Owners, No to Gays

  1. Guess his head would explode knowing that some of us gun owners are gay.

    Sorry I don’t match your stereotype.

      • He matches the prejudiced stereotype but not the reality, at least for the gun owners I know.

        I suppose that for any stereotype you can find a “poster child” for it and the opposite. This story falls into category of finding someone that says/does something outrageous and that becomes the story of the day.

        The worst thing about these stories is that they seem to be contributing to more prejudice, in this case against gun owners, with the ironic twist that there are many gay gun owners. Including one below

        http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/07/22/a-gay-perspective-on-d-c-gun-rights/

      • “But boy oh boy does he match the stereotype of gun owners.”

        If by that, you mean, “But boy oh boy do I match the stereotype of a leftist.”, then you are correct. The owner of the repair shop is a bigot because he refuses to do business with homosexuals even though doing so does not disrespect his beliefs. YOU are a bigot because you think it is acceptable to pigeonhole a group and assign a negative trait to them all.

        • I would explain to you about the broader stereotype of prejudiced OFWG gun owners, but you don’t seem to be very reasonable to being with.

      • How would he know you were gay? It’s not like we require homosexuals to wear a Star of David on their clothes.

        • He’s probably fixed dozens of trucks for homosexuals. The ones who have the sense to keep their private matters private.

        • @Hannibal No, truck nuts are for trolling your buddies until they realize what youve done. Then magically, the truck nuts somehow happen to show right back up on your own truck.

        • “He said he’s not asking customers about their sexuality, but same-sex couples who exhibit affectionate behavior openly will not get service.”

          Sooooo……maybe the openly affectionate gay behavior might tip him off? Did you even read this article, let alone the original source? Or did you just scan the headline and flounce off to the comments section in a hyperventilating huff?

    • Sounds like you can walk in the shop, by what you need as long as you don’t suck face with your boyfriend.

      1st thought is straight couples don’t suck face so not sure why such a big deal

      2nd thought is now that you know he is a hater why would you want to give him your money. I love gun free shops as I know who to avoid. If only everyone wore their prejudice on their shirt I’d have a lot more money in my pocket

      Furthermore I will say that if someone pulls the capital together to start a business, let’s be honest a mechanic shop isn’t cheap, then he/she should run it however the hell they want. There is a “blacks” only bar in Chicago, I also knew a bar that was for circuit folks only in Sarasota FL, never bothered me I couldn’t get in. Their money, let me run it as they see fit and if it fails then it is their own fault.

      • Nope. “I would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons.”

        That’s the difference between him and the cake-makers who just don’t want to cater gay weddings but will (and do) serve gay people in general.

    • Exactly. This guy is a real POS. Let’s just support all the rights in the Constitution. And while that means he has every right to be a bigot I have every right not to give him any cash.

    • I have tattoos. If people are truly, honestly basing their prejudices on the Bible, I’d be barred from his shop too.

      I wish people would just be honest that they’re squicked out by gay people. I’d respect that a lot more than hiding behind religion in an extremely dishonest way.

      I actually support store owners in doing whatever stupid or ignorant shit they want to do. It is not the place of the government to dictate how business owners run businesses. However, just as free speech only is a right to fee speech and not a right to favorable reactions to saying stupid things, these business owners who make choices like this have to deal with the consequences.

      • Pretty sure the New Testament says nothing about tattoos. It’s just civilization that has determined that tattoos are the mark of a “rebel without a clue” who is conforming. Or an idiot.

    • What stereotype did he mention, that you take exception to? The closest he comes to describing homosexuals is when he wrote that some engage public displays of affection. Is that untrue? Let’s go ahead and concede that some heterosexual couples engage is such, as well, since I know that’s the knee jerk, irrelevant, retort. Now, back to gays, is that untrue? He does suggest that homosexuals engage in sexual intercourse with each other. Is that untrue? I’m seeing some basic facts here, not a stereotype.

    • Not quite. Let’s revisit Obama’s infamous bitter quote:

      “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

      That quote describes someone who’s economically defeated, who feels ignored and abandoned by the government, and so develop a sense of unjust treatment. In response, they “cling”, as in superficially and desperately, to religion and guns.; suggesting such things aren’t serious parts of their lives, but rather mere convenient crutches. Then these people target “others” as scapegoats. Well.

      None of that applies here. This man is a successful businessman, supporting his own family and those of his employees. He isn’t defeated and he doesn’t depend on the government. Further, he’s a lifelong Christian and 2A supporter. Those aren’t recent, expedient props, but rather reflect commitments and principles by which he’s always lived.

      As for antipathy toward others, he has none. He will serve gays, but not if they’re open about it. He’s not exploiting gays to explain financial frustrations, because he has none. He’s only saying it’s a sin and he opposes the sin, not the sinner. I’d expect he would likewise oppose a heterosexual’s coveting of another’s wife, which is also a sin, were that taking place in his shop.

      Really the only thing somewhat relevant is how he feels that white, straight, churchgoers are ridiculed in this country. That’s actually happening, but it has nothing to with the motivations Obama manufacturered. It’s just anti-American hatred on liberals’ parts, not frustration and scapegoating on Americans’ parts.

      He’s not validating any stereotype. If you already hate regular, everyday Americans like this guy, then you still will after this. If you don’t won’t.

  2. Um…it’s Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Keynes adopted the iron first approach towards economics, and per your own link, lived long enough to regret it.

    How are you any different than the gun nuts if you’re going to comment on stuff you know nothing about?

    • Well, yeah–and fix whoever’s truck you want, and bake cakes for whoever you want to bake cakes for. Get it? And leave the rest to that “invisible hand”.

    • Easiest, yes. However, no law can force you to go against your beliefs. Force by government is immoral no matter in which direction it is applied.

  3. Wow. I am a Christian. You won’t work on my truck because I might be a happy guy? Why doesn’t he tell the errant man about JESUS? It’s not like he’s celebrating a gay marriage…and in my occupation as an art and antique dealer I run into a lot of happy folk. I won’t be in your wedding party but I’ll buy/sell with you. Maybe he ‘s against interracial marriage too. I guess I won’t be kissing my beautiful black wife in front of this idiot(who stated he isn’t qualified to talk theology)…

    • Not gay. But any business is there to sell a product or provide a service. I don’t want lectures, scriptures, etc.from a business owner.

      As for refusing service to someone because you suspect they’re gay? How is that any less wrong than refusing service based on race or religion?

      @A rights are not the only rights that need defending.

      • Yup–like property rights. As in, I own this property, i’ll let who I want on it, and use it for the benefit of who I want.

      • It’s not even just the gay thing. He also has this gem:

        “I am not racists, you are for assuming I am, however, I am really quick to judge… if it acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck…”

        You know, when people get defensive for no reason and claim that others just assume they are racist, it’s probably because they are. People don’t just assume that out of nowhere. I especially love the fact that he claims to be quick to judge, then asks not to be judged a racist. I’m glad the news got out so people can make sure not to frequent his establishment.

      • It never made sense to me when freedom loving people who understand the danger of government overreach in firearms suddenly believe that the government needs to step in and regulate what a business OWNER does. Do you sue businesses that post have no gun signs posted? Likely not, but I hope you tell them that they are losing out on your money and the money of anyone else you can influence.

        He owns the business, is he wielding his business in a dangerous manner? Serve who you want, be annoying if you want, it’s your business, not mine, but you may lose business for it. I don’t care if I get turned away from a business for my religious beliefs or my racial heritage. Seriously. I legitimately think that the owner of a business has the right to turn me away because I’m a gun owner/Christian/mixed race American, as irritating as that might be. I would leave, never come back, and tell every other gun owner/Christian/family member I know to never go there because we apparently aren’t welcome, as is MY corresponding privilege as the co-owner of each of those relationships.

        I think of tthe gun shop that had a guy at the counter flip out and accuse me of “throwing a fit” when I asked a question about a policy they had (asked calmly and to try to avoid accidentally breaking said policy). He told me to leave and never come back. I didn’t return for several years (until he no longer worked there), and in the mean time took my thousands of dollars of firearms/ammo/accessory purchases elsewhere. I never once questioned his “right” to tell me to leave. In my judgement, EVERY BUSINESS should have the right to refuse service to ANYone, at ANYtime, for ANY reason, understanding that there may be PR/lost business consequences because of that choice. (Including but not limited to: I want to sleep instead of work, you’re too smelly to serve, I’m right in the middle of a MOBA match, you irritated me once while waiting in the line for popcorn at the theater, my people don’t like your people…)

        • +1

          Or no reason at all. Government needs to get out of people’s lives, not further entrenched. Our government holds far too much illegitimate power already.

        • Out of curiosity, do you believe the Civil Rights Acts were wrong when they forbade business owners to discriminate against their customers based on race? If you think they were, then how would you fix the situation in the South where 99% of the businesses would segregate if not mandated otherwise, free market or not? Or do you think that it wasn’t something that needed fixing (i.e. that, if a free market results in segregation and widespread discrimination based on race to the point where it significantly affects quality of life for people of that race, then so be it)?

      • @A
        Hey, I like it.
        I often hit the shift key too soon or long and type a special character. You wanted to type a 2 and a capital A but got the @ instead a 2. But the @ is kind of an A so you still have 2 A’s.

        It could become secret code amongst POTG

  4. Nobody here is JUST a gun owner, each of us has other attributes that compose who we are and anyone who knows us might just associate said attributes with gun ownership. Most of us believe in our 2A rights to the point of being unapologetic, why should we apologize for any of our other beliefs then? Or try to separate them? Christian, catholic, atheist, brown, black, white, gay, straight. They are me, I am me and I’m not sorry.

    • Exactly. Our firearms ownership is just one aspect of our lives. Hell, I work in entertainment, not exactly a pro-2A sort of industry, but it’s how I earn a living. A good friend of mine with a far larger arms budget than I is gay. He doesn’t come across as such, but there ya have it. Assault him for holding hands with another man and the next thing you’ll see is the beauty of a .45 ACP round as it expands right in front of your eyes. Other “2A” friends of mine are black & Latin. The biggest range in the area is owned by an Asian doctor.

      Whether we like it or not, we can’t be choosy about the gender, race, and orientation of people who pick up a gun. When it comes to 2A, if I have your support, everything else is secondary. We need all the help we can get.

    • Not asking you or him to compromise any beliefs. He’s drawing a bold line linking two beliefs. He’s allowed to, and I’m allowed to say it’s sh*tty and doing nothing but hurting the cause.

  5. I would tell this man to piss right off. Jesus also said love thy enemy as thy neighbor. I don’t remember the part about refusing to fix their hemi.

    If we can’t support other’s lifestyles don’t expect them to support us.

    • Thou shalt refuse to make operational the hemi of any man who lieth with other men as with a woman. Leviticus 86:86.

      Yeah, I made that up.

    • The dodge ‘hemi’ is a gasoline motor, I’m going out on a limb here…….dieseltec……he might be a diesel guy.

  6. I’m not talking about TTAG here, but man, can’t we stick to dealing with gun rights without dredging in all this other stuff…

    2A, pro gun, I never saw where I had to buy into a package here. Wrong or right, not the issue — “This isn’t helping”. Gun rights are gun rights. Not other social issues. This is gift wrapped for the antis…

  7. This business owner has every right to speak his mind. Whether he condemns or endorses firearms ownership, that is his choice. Whether he condemns or endorses homosexual behavior, that is his choice as well.

    To a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, homosexual behavior is just as unnatural and vile as adults engaging in sex with young children. What is wrong with a Christian, Jew, or Muslim stating that they refuse to engage in any business with someone who openly engages in homosexual behavior/lifestyle?

    The fact that this man has an opinion on both firearms and homosexual behavior is irrelevant. Everyone has an opinion on both. He simply decided to speak his mind and stand behind his principles. If someone doesn’t like his opinion, they are free to voice their opinion and, if they desire, take their business elsewhere. And people who agree are free to voice their opinion and support his business.

    This business owner is exercising his rights and he isn’t denying anyone else their rights. Why is it okay for others to deny his right to speech or (given the death threats) deny his right to life?

    • Thank you– perfectly stated. He has a right to his opinion and regardless of whether I agree completely with that opinion or not, I’m glad he is standing by it in the face of pressure.

      If he goes out of business because his opinions drive away all his potential business, that is the risk he signed up for when he opened his mouth. If he goes out of business due to violence threatened against him or his customers or employees, that is shameful on the part of his opponents.

      Tolerance is a two-way street.

    • Ugh. Any of the Semite ‘belief systems’ have no problem with you buggering kids according to their ‘holy texts’, let alone selling your daughter as a sex slave…

      When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

      Or killing the homosexuals, or unbelievers, or those who believe in other gods, or…

      You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

      Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

      Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

      Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

      Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

      Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

      Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

      Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

      The scribblings of marginally literate bronze-age goat herders reinterpreting Mazdaism to suit their political whims means jack shit to a modern human.

      • BUT BUT “GOD“ SAID SO Those words are nothing more than stories created by the powerful to control the masses. Live however you like as long as your not actually hurting another person.

      • Plus I thought the laws of Levicicus were “fulfilled” and therefore no longer applied, so good Christians can wear their polyester clothes covering their tattoos on their way to Red Lobster.

      • Go back to sucking off your gay jihadi abortion loving dope dealer, you freak, since you clearly dont understand the OT.

        Which also gave us THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, which you are too stupid and jelly spined to be able to hold even 1 or 2 of.

        With scum like you claiming to support the 2nd Amendment, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES. Please be sure and announce yourself at the range so I dont have to worry about shooting you before you try and shoot us God Fearing Constitutionalists who support Traditional Values.

        • Someone’s a little defensive.

          I notice he seemed to provide more evidence of his Old Testament knowledge than you did.

        • Is this Poe’s Law? I’m going to say this is Poe’s Law. Please let this be Poe’s Law.

        • Grindstone, Somewhere else, this might be Poe’s. I wish it were too, but I doubt it…

          Joe, If you’re going to believe in something, you might want to actually read the book through, at least once…

          All the laws of the OT are still in force, Jesus says so throughout the NT (of course the first writings about Jesus were 75 years after his supposed death, but still, “he said”…)

          “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

          “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

          We were founded to be free from religion as well as free to believe as you wish. The founders were all “deists” at most generous. Jay was the only one who was a “Christian”.

        • Have fun believing in your made up literary figure. Theres this guy I fear to the cat in the hat hes just plain creepy. Sonetimes I have to beg him not tp smite if I commit to many sins like fornicating without a magic ceromony that makes it ok. I

        • Copy and pasting out of context is not knowledge of the Old or New Testament.

          The fact is the gaystapo would destroy the businesses of any who dare to speak their religious values, doing anything they can to limit and hope to use govt to limit FIRST AMENDMENT Rights.

    • You’re not free if you don’t have the freedom of association, and you don’t have the freedom of association if you aren’t allowed to disassociate with anyone for any reason. Deal with it.

      If you don’t like his views, don’t do business with him and don’t let him into your store.

  8. Brian Klawiter should be saying “yes” to everybody who can pay the bill. And in a morality contest between gays and auto repair shop owners, I’m thinking that gay people rate juuuuust a bit higher.

  9. Oy vey. While he absolutely has a right to conduct his business however he sees fit, this sure puts the POTG in a bad light.

    • Only with the teach gay love to grade school crowd, or those weak spined sheep who are afraid to insult those whose primary goal is not “gay marriage’ but the complete overthrow of Western Civ.

  10. I don’t have any problem with this fellow. It is his right to associate or not associate with anyone for any reason. He can also express this. I won’t fault him for that either. I don’t think that he is dragging me into anything. If anyone looks unethical in this, it is the people making threats.
    Not sure I got the Keynes (Smith?) invisible hand reference you were making.

        • As far as dealing with pervasive segregation and shitty goods/services preferentially offered to blacks, yes, it did work much better, actually. Go ask any black dude old enough to have lived then.

        • @int19h: If quality of goods and services or collective good is the criteria then it could be argued that slavery in the South was better than abolition. The problem with the current solution is that it places the provider of goods and services into servitude. They are forced to provide their goods and services against their will. The implementation of “civil rights” laws in this country were and remain detrimental to individual Liberty and contrary to the notion of a truly free society. Government funded institutions were bound by the Constitution to not discriminate but private individuals were well within their rights to do so. To defend the current system is to defend collective rights; which do not exist. Only the individual has rights. What lies beyond that is privilege. A person does not have the right to the goods or services of another. The rightful owner of those goods or services may grant the individual the privilege at his discretion. Once government forces a private individual to provide goods or services against his will, then we have servitude. Wasn’t slavery supposed to be a bad thing? Aren’t we just shifting from one harsher form of slavery to a perhaps less harsh form? When we support the false notion of collective rights, we are no different than the rest of the world and have lost our way. No royalties, no oligarchs, no central committees; nothing other than the individual is sovereign and the sole possessor of his or her inalienable individual rights. THAT is the America way which made us a beacon of Liberty to the entire globe. Lose that and we lose our soul and our prosperity.

        • @John: it doesn’t really answer the specific question of how you would deal with the very real problem in the South (other than just declaring it to not be a problem?).

          Then there’s another aspect to consider. You say the property owners have the right. But how did they become property owners in the first place? In a society that heretofore was discriminatory, not even just on private level (though that alone is enough to severely skew the opportunities and hence the distribution of wealth), but also by law, there are bound to be profound distortions that wouldn’t have been there if the market was free to begin with, and those distortions will keep skewing the whole arrangement for many decades to come, unless there is a forcible correction.

          It’s not at all unique to US and slavery or Jim Crow, by the way. When various European countries abolished serfdom, they were facing the same dilemma. Before, only the feudal class was permitted to hold land in their name, and peasants had to rent it from them (and didn’t really have much freedom in negotiating the terms of said rent in most cases). If you just get rid of that part and allow everyone to freely buy and sell land, nominally you have a free market where everyone is equal, but in reality you’re in a situation where the ex-feudal class still owns everything. If you declare their property right sacrosanct, even though it was originating from a manifestly unjust and non-free period, then you will have serfdom in truth if not in name for many more decades as peasants have to keep renting land. Or you can declare that the property right was not entirely valid to begin with, and that emancipated peasants deserve their share by virtue of all their contribution to that land, the fruits of which were disproportionately enjoyed by the feudal class by virtue of the past unfair arrangement.

          Is the South really all that different? If there are laws proactively disenfranchising a large part of the population economically and politically to the point where they cannot possibly elevate themselves to the owner class (and not to mention slavery not that long before which made that arrangement super-explicit!), do we really have to respect the property rights of white owners in the South in that period as inviolable? Or do we say, “okay guys, you had a very profitable run on the backs of these dudes, but now you owe them”? And if you do, there isn’t really any way to do this other than collectively, because individual gain is impossible to quantify in any given case.

          With serfdom in Europe, the countries that did take away some of the land from the former owners and gave it to the peasants invariably managed the transition better than those who preserved the existing arrangement. I think it’s fairly obvious why: free market works much better if you kickstart it on a more even ground.

        • I imagine he was talking about the private (but ostensibly open to the pubic) accommodations like hotels and restaurants that refused to let anyone in with more than a tan.

  11. And on the 8th day God sayth “Thou shalt not provide diesel services to the gheys.”

    Seriously, just using religion to excuse is own personal assholerly. If he was true in his “religious convictions” he would also refuse service to divorcees, unwed mothers, menstruating women, people wearing blended fabrics, people with tattoos, people who don’t worship his god, etc.

    Let’s be real here, the hate directed at gay people by these so-called Christians is just assholes trying to excuse their behavior. They did the same thing in the 50’s and 60’s during the Civil Rights movement. They’re doing the same thing today. I look forward to them dying out and being relegated to the dust bin of history.

    • Gays don’t like me (heterosexual, white, male, conservative, Catholic gun-owner), why should I have to like them?

      Seriously, though, I have several gay friends and co-workers, and we get along just fine. They don’t give me shit about my personal beliefs, I don’t give them shit about theirs. If it weren’t for the ridiculously outspoken fringe elements from both groups, everyone would get along just fine.

      • Your second paragraph doesn’t mesh with your opening line at all. And who said anything about “liking”?

      • You don’t have to like them. You just have to take their money in exchange for service provided, so long as you offer that same service to everyone else, and aren’t member-only.

        • The owners alone posses the right to their goods and services. A potential customer has no such right. According to your comment, the woman doesn’t have to like the stranger having forced sex with her. She need only accept payment for the service she is forced to provide and provide it to everyone. Unless, of course, she is in an exclusive relationship that has been documented prior. That is servitude and, in this example, rape.

    • I seem to recall a commandment about not stealing. And yet, many repair shop owners have never heard of that one.

      • What does that have to do with this particular guy? I didn’t see anything about him stealing.

        • This man is openly and proudly a bigot. First class asshattery. He may not be a theif but his lack of judgement and decency would make me very leery of trusting him to work on my vehicle and hard to trust his honesty.

        • Ralph is trying to say that many repair shot owners are thieves (dishonest). As a former vehicle repair shop owner for many years that offends me. But, I am not going to threaten his life for saying something stupid like that. He is free to make any idiotic remark he wants to. Just like the guy that this article is about. I just consider the source and move on. I had many loyal customers in my business. When someone like Ralph came in and told me that my shop was the only honest one in town I could never find time on my schedule to fit them in, for some reason. I knew that I would just be the next shop that could not please him. Better to let prospective customers like Ralph go down the street to my competition. Let them have the headaches. Trust is a two way street. I would much rather work a vehicle of a person where we both trusted each other than someone like Ralph. And I would not give a damn if that trustworthy person was gay. In fact, that would be the least of my concerns.

        • Being a bigot, even if unpleasant and irrational, is not a crime in the ethical sense. Stealing is.

        • Forgive me, Gatha58. In this age of instant outrage, I did not mean to offend your delicate sensibilities. What I actually meant to say is that many auto repairmen have the same high ethical standards as used car dealers, politicians and mainstream journalists. I hope that clears things up.

        • Gatha, Ralph didn’t say “all”, he said “many”: As someone in the auto biz directly for a decade (and indirectly for 3) I know he speaks the truth.

          I was in a chain franchise joint (something-x) the other day when the writer/mgr quoted an F150 owner $2200 for struts, front brakes, and a radiator. With a straight face. I almost fell out of the chair with the hubris/obscenity.
          $600 for top-grade parts and 6 hours book to install it all. $1250 would be a fine bill for 1 shop man-day. But they were selling $1K on top of that. Disgusting.

      • It was probably on the last five of the original Fifteen Commandments that Moses accidentally dropped.

      • Lawyers have bilked more out of clients and this entire country (through Medicare and Social Security Disability scams) that all the auto/truck/diesel shops put together for the last 100 years.

        • AND given un to us the modern Washington DC and reformed formerly federal gov’t.

          Ralph is almost always level headed and reasonable. Perhaps he sent to much money to Barak this week or forgot his meds.

    • Grindstone, I agree with your statement 100% and you stated it well. This guy has a right to state his opinion even if it is bigoted and flawed in the minds of most people. Though I do wonder why he picked gays out of the mix of people he could discriminate against? People that are very outwardly homophobic often have those tendencies themselves and are trying to overcompensate. OTOH, anyone that uses his comments as an excuse to threaten him and his family or his business is WAY out of line. He is not threatening violence against anyone. Just saying he won’t serve them if he suspects they are gay. Not sure how he will determine that but that is his problem. Those folks that threaten him for stating his views are just as misguided as he is.

      • Though I do wonder why he picked gays out of the mix of people he could discriminate against?

        My uneducated guess? Fear. How many times have the firebrand anti-gay politicians and preachers been caught with male prostitutes?

        In the age of instant anyonymity, death threats are to be expected now. Just as ant-gun people receive death threats, just as the girl who sued to have the picture of Jesus taken down at a school received death (and rape) threats, just as that Indiana pizzia shop received threats, etc. It’s wrong, but it’s basically meaningless.

        Maybe he’ll know they’re gay because his gaydar will be pinging…

        • And seems this “issue” means WAY too much to you. Need to come out? Go do it somewhere else.

        • You’re right, discrimination is a HUGE issue for me. Ever since I saw happen first hand to my minority wife, I finally understood a little bit of what it is like. And it is terrible. You literally have no idea what it’s like to have the majority of the population look down on you and want to craft laws that target specifically you because of a certain characteristic you were born with.

  12. I’m not pro-gay-marriage, because my religious beliefs are absolutely opposed to it. But I’m not anti-gay-person, and have many great friends who have same sex attractions. Thing is, from a Christian viewpoint you’re sup posed to lover the sinner and hate the sin. Take in the man living an openly gay lifestyle and feed him and clothe him, and tell him to go and sin no more. If he doesn’t, then that’s his choice, and I respect that even as I fight against things that harm my own family, who come before all other people. I honestly don’t hate anyone, because I see everyone as humans created in God’s image. If I don’t treat you as I want to be treated, then I am wrong, no matter what you may have done or be doing. But I have my beliefs and will not sacrifice them for anyone, which in a way is what this auto guy is doing. He’s just going about it very, very poorly.

    And need I point out 2 Peter 1:20-21? I think that says something about the Bible being interpreted differently by everyone.

    • Your priest or your Pope may spout nonsense about “loving the sinner”. Your deity and your ‘good book’ have a slightly different viewpoint. And before you say it, Jesus says twice in Matthew alone that all OT laws apply till the end of time.

      “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13)

      They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

      A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)

      So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32)

      But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

      If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

      There’s dozens and dozens of passages like this throughout the Bible/Torah/Qu’ran.

      • Do you feel better taking scripture out of context and applying your own interpretation.?
        Interesting how you pick certain paragraphs to fit your narrative and ignore countless others that refute you. Keep it up, it displays your very ultra fundamentalist view of the meaning of the bible and most certainly disparages the 80% of the U.S. population that is Catholic or Christian. Just about as misinformed about Christianity as this guy who owns the diesel shop.

        • Hi-effen-larious. My own interpretation, out of context?.

          It says what it says. That you want to pretend it doesn’t actually say what it does, means nothing in reality.

        • Yes. It says what it says. Do you understand the difference between literal and figurative? Only fundamentalists Christians, extremist Muslims and modern agnostic liberals read the Bible literally.
          Your embarrassing yourself.

        • Yup, it just “says” whatever you want it to, regardless of the actual nonsense text.

          Remove you cranium from your rectum.

        • Typical. Can’t handle (or even attempt to respond to the point) Figurative or literal has you flummoxed I take it. Well here is theology 101. Much of the Bible is figurative. It is a metaphor for our lives. But go ahead keep copying and pasting repeatedly with your decidedly unoriginal argument.

        • I have no idea how you function in real life, not knowing the difference between literal and figurative until your authority figure tells you. Regardless of the facts.

          I’m sorry they didn’t teach you the origins of the Bible in school, that they didn’t explain it was all bullshit ripped off from Mazdaism with some concurrent Roman mythology thrown in to sell it to the marginal humans (in modern context). I’m sorry you’re so brainwashed that you can’t step back and see that it’s designed for the uppers to control the lowers.

          Imaginary context arguments are the last refuge of the clinically insane. I went to Catholic school, I was shown how it helped control the masses, I know the Semitic cult texts backward and forward. Pretending it doesn’t say what it says just because you want to believe otherwise is really sad. And 100% indicative that you have no handle on the cult you are dumb enough to follow.

  13. Well he sounds like a man that is pretty pizzed that the Gaystapo and the Leftist media has made it illegal for someone to make the religious choice to not participate in a gay event.

    Sounds like a man who recognizes that the Gay mafias next step will be to force churches to marry gay people in the sincere hope and belief that it will fracture and destroy religion in the United States.

    Sounds like a man that remembered just a year or so ago that gays and the Left media was scremaing….

    “If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t get married to a gay….what difference will gay marriage effect your straight marriage…stop being a hater!”

    Sounds like a man that’s just fed up with the deluge of leftist bullsheet that rains down like a monsoon.

    • I’m with Ralph. I’ve been RIPPED OFF more than once by dishonest mechanics in 40some years of driving .Once again he’s an idiot…and there’s plenty of competition fixing trucks. It reminds me of a sign not tolerating bad language in a so-called Christian junkyard/pick & pull yard…as he charged double what I should have paid for a rear end for a van. He also took cash only which is a GIANT red flag. “but he tithes on the cash income”…

      • The only way he may be an idiot is because he’s putting himself in needless financial harm. If he doesn’t want to serve gays he can just give them an outrageous high estimate.

        Remember, the latest actions by the gay mafia started the fight. They pretty much have moved me from accepting and tolerant to extremely perturbed. If they keep forcing their anti-religion agenda down our throats they can expect open hostility. This guy just reached his tipping point before me.

      • There’s “plenty of competition”. Why did you pay double? You’ve been ripped off more than once and elect to pay double. Who is an idiot?

        • You are-because the rear end was for a 1998 Astro van and I coulldn’t find one within 60 miles. By the shorthairs doofus. And I’ve known exactly ONE honest mechanic in 60 some years.

  14. just because I don’t agree with his ideology doesn’t mean he’s wrong, he absolutely have the right to refuse service to whomever he wishes.

    What ever “image” it reflects upon gun owners as a whole is inconsequential to the bigger picture, he is exercising liberty.

    It’s what we all want.

    • just because I don’t agree with his ideology doesn’t mean he’s wrong, he absolutely have the right to refuse service to whomever he wishes.

      Like… black people?

      • “Anyone” means anyone–even a black person. You can exclude anyone from your property that you want to yourself, Grindstone. That even mean black people, if that’s your desire. Or Christians. Or Republicans. Anyone. Get it?

      • Yep he should be able to refuse service to anyone, and any black person should be able to refuse service to white people, and Muslims should be able to refuse service to non muslims, and gays should be able to refuse service to amputees, so on and so forth.
        I don’t agree with it, but I’m not about forcing people to do anything in their business and personal lives. I want to know who the asses are, so I can avoid them. Just like anti carry/gun businesses. I want to know so I dont spend money there

    • What about the rights of those being refused service? If you open a business to the public then the public has the right to expect service. Nobody is forcing him to open his home to gays, or blacks or jews or anyone else. He can socialise with whomever he sees fit.

      • No one has a right to your service (other than those you promised it to). Just because money is changing hands doesn’t mean people not involved get a say.

      • No, the “public” does not have any rights. Rights belong to individuals and as such a business owner should be able to refuse service to any one for any reason. If the business owner does not want your money, spend it elsewhere.

      • If government is going to force businesses to provide goods and services to everyone through the notion of public accommodation then such places ought not be able to deny an armed individual. It needs to be one way or the other.

        • AFAIK, he was claiming privilege due to being an agent of government and not the right of an individual. When an agent of government acts under the color of government authority, it is not the same thing. Denying the privilege of an off duty agent of government, when that privilege is all that the agent is claiming, is a much easier thing to justify.

  15. Free association, a natural and true human right. Forcing someone to do business with you against their will is tyranny, pure and simple.

    • Free association. Sounds like the klan is trying to sound respectable while they peddle the same old crap. Noboby is forcing you to have any one in your home that you don’t approve of. But if you open a business to the public, the public is what you get. In all its shapes and sizes and colors and foibles. If you’re not adult enough to deal with that then don’t open a business.

      • But if you open a business to the public, the public is what you get. In all its shapes and sizes and colors and foibles. If you’re not adult enough to deal with that then don’t open a business.

        …and that piece of stupidity has led us to the point that churches will be sued for not performing gay marriages…I bet my botttom dollar.

        Why should the government be able to tell me if I can start a business or not and who I should do business with? Like really…just what the Freek…do you think our founding fathers would be OK with that stupid idea?

        “The bigger the government…the smaller the person”…Prager

        • …and that piece of stupidity has led us to the point that churches will be sued for not performing gay marriages…I bet my botttom dollar.

          I’ll take that bet, as long as you recognize the difference between a place of worship and a chapel whose sole business is weddings.

        • Our founding fathers were okay with slavery. Judging by a lot of your comments d2 you should have been born 200 years ago. You would have fit right in. Unless you were not a wealthy landowner.

          Sadly for you it’s the 21st century and we live in a first world country. And none of your temper tantrums will change that.

        • Our founding fathers were okay with slavery.

          ….like most other nations at that time.

          Like all leftists, every social issue is on par with slavery and everybody is currently guilty. Well Fvck you on that supposition.

        • ’ll take that bet, as long as you recognize the difference between a place of worship and a chapel whose sole business is weddings.

          No I don’t accept that at all……why should a chapel who is committed to the idea that people should be wedded in matrimony before God and which has generally been acknowledged as a good thing for society for the past couple thousand years have to “marry” a gay couple?

          I refuse to operate by your flawed leftist rule set.

        • d2, how is advocating for the civil rights off us all leftist? You brought up the founding fathers and I ran with it. And 2 adhominems in 2 comments. As I said, your temper tantrums aren’t going to roll back the hands of time.

        • JWM – You have engaged in ad hominem rather liberally in your comments as well.

        • You missed this part:
          “unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.”

          Renting a facility is not a religious function. That’s business.

        • Renting a facility is not a religious function. That’s business.

          Says the statist you.

          Why the hell do you think you should be able to tell a church how to run its operation?

          Once again, I reject your leftist liberty destroying mindset.

        • Why the hell do you think you should be able to tell a church how to run its operation?

          The same place you think you should be able to tell gays they can’t have a marriage? The same place you think society should regress back to the 1950s and be able to bar people by race, sex, orientation, etc?

        • Most other nations didn’t retain slavery until mid-19th century (and had to fight a war to abolish it because so many people were so strongly for it). Most other nations also didn’t have legal and institutional discrimination by race until mid-20th century.

        • Also, forgot to add, RENTING a church out is not a “religious service”. It’s a business transaction! The church is receiving INCOME. Should lose it’s tax-exempt status.

        • @int19h: Slavery in its mildest form is simply forcing another to provide services (and sometimes goods) against their will. Slavery is alive and well in the world today. It never left. The real issue was not recognizing all people as human beings with unalienable rights. Supporting the forcing of business owners to provide goods or services against their will is supporting involuntary servitude.

      • Freedom of association and equality before the law. You can refuse to shop at a store for whatever bigoted or reasonable reasons you may hold, and the shop-owner have the same and equal right to boycott you.

      • Needs and wants are not rights. You own your body, you own your time, your property, and the fruits of your labor. The fact that someone wants or needs something, does not make that an externally enforceable right. I believe all people should be treated with respect and dignity, but I won’t point a gun at someone’s head to force them to associate/ give of their time/ skills/ property to anyone. I also won’t support people who work for the government doing that. The power you give government to take away the rights of others will someday be turned on you. Be careful.

        • Suppose you don’t own any property, and everyone refuses any deal of you because they don’t like your race/gender/religion/… (substitute as desired). So you have no way to buy food, because no-one will sell it, and you have no way of growing your own because you’d need to trespass on someone’s land to do so.

          So basically the only right you have, effectively, is the right to die.

          Does that sound like a healthy society to you?

        • @int19h: To avoid a situation that might occasionally arise in nature (and would tend to be quite rare as the trapped individuals would tend to fight for survival), you are advocating collectivism or a return to royalty and oligarchs. Let the rest of the world pursue those old, dead end models. America was to pursue the outcome of the sovereign individual. These laws forcing individuals into involuntary servitude are repugnant to the very notion of individuals with unalienable rights. Our government is doing something that it has no legitimate authority to do.

    • Free association sounds great unless it is your child the doctor won’t treat because your wife is a minority they don’t like. Or your family is freezing and trapped because the POS tow truck driver or mechanic doesn’t like the way you look.

  16. He’s ignorant and doesn’t represent me in any way but really, he’s just another idiot with an opinion. If you/I/we don’t like it, we’re all free to not associate with him. Part of freedom is putting up with idiots and, while disagreeing with their idiocy, respecting their right to express it. No one guaranteed anyone the right to not be offended, luckily our Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, we can at least all try to agree on that part.

  17. I will never understand how/why someone can expect their own rights to be respected and ‘not infringed’ while not respecting the rights of others.

    That being said, this guy should be allowed to turn away all the business he wants to, somebody else can reap the rewards.

    • ^This +1. Tolerance is not synonymous with acceptance or endorsement. It is, however, a two-way street.

      I tolerate the opinions and actions of those with whom I disagree, but they should not expect me to endorse them.

    • That being said, this guy should be allowed to turn away all the business he wants to, somebody else can reap the rewards.

      In other words…let liberty flourish.

  18. Mr Dieseltec hasn’t done himself any favors here, especially since his business presumably has a storefront and is therefore a public accomodation. He said he’d kick out a customer who displayed open gayness in his shop, suggesting he hasn’t understood the distinction being drawn by others between serving a day-to-day customer and participating in a ritual that violates your beliefs.

    Since we live in the world we live in, I also have to wonder if this whole thing is either made up or exaggerated to the point of falsehood. Was Rolling Stone involved in any way?

    • Ummm, no, a “public accommodation” as originally defined in law is a restaurant or a hotel, basically. A place for people to get food or lodging while travelling. Calling every private business a “public accommodation” is essentially ceding ownership to the government.

      • Andrew Napolitano made the argument that it is because businesses that invite the public in are viewed as public accommodations, of sorts, that government has seen fit to tell them that they cannot discriminate. I’d rather government not have any involvement but since government insists, it cannot pick and choose.

        • With all due respect to judge Napolitano, this business about classifying any business as a “public accommodation” is nothing but a naked power grab by governments at all levels. The feds originally limited the idea to places of lodging and eating because they were hanging their authority to regulate such businesses on the Interstate Commerce clause. It was BS to start with, and expanding the definition to include all businesses is more BS.

        • OOPs, I’m sorry, I think I kind of missed your point. I agree with the logic, but I think the .gov shouldn’t be involved in the first place.

        • No problem and I agree with you about the origin. Our government hangs anything it doesn’t really have the power to do off of interstate commerce. 🙂

          Unfortunately, expansion of the term “public accommodation” has already been happening.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
          Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.

          Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. The US states, in various non-uniform laws, also provide for non-discrimination in public accommodation.

          Within the United States, federal legislation dealing with public accommodations include:

          Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
          Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

          http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html
          Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered “public accommodations.” The definition of a “public accommodation” may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a “public accommodation” can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

          Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
          Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings

        • Yes. Public accommodation means a premises that is freely open to the public during business hours. If our cake baker has a bakery on Main St, they are obligated not to discriminate among walk-in customers. The RFRA debate is about whether they can also decline to take a non-public job such as catering a private event if that event goes against their personal beliefs. Yes, public accommodation is problematic with respect to freedom of association, but it’s a political compromise that society agreed to in order to quickly change the reality of racial segregation. It’s reasonable to criticize it, but you need to acknowledge the relevant history.

          From the photo alone, Dieseltec is a public accommodation. And the owner clearly stated that he would eject a customer if he knew the customer was gay. That is completely different from the florist or baker examples, and is illegal discrimination under longstanding jurisprudence. Then he dragged gun rights into it, as if he assumes all gun owners share his viewpoint. So he’s wrong about quite a few things, here.

        • @Stacy: I think you misunderstand my simple position. The Constitution enumerates specific powers and reiterates some prohibitions on government only. It doesn’t prohibit private individuals and private businesses from anything even though our court system has perverted interpretation thusly. So, I would rather that government butt out completely. (Yes, that means… *gasp*… discrimination!) However, if government insists upon sticking its nose in then it must protect all rights, at least those which are incorporated, in its efforts. The Second Amendment has been ruled by the courts to have been incorporated so businesses cannot discriminate against those bearing arms under the current nanny state model.

          If government is going to continue this charade of being our nanny then it must do so completely and not just in situations that are politically favorable.

        • @Stacy:

          it’s a political compromise that society agreed to in order to quickly change the reality of racial segregation.

          “Society” agreed? I wasn’t asked and I don’t agree.

          I do know one thing that the People, through their representatives, agreed upon and ratified… the Second Amendment. If government isn’t going to abide by something that evidence so strongly supports was the will of the People, then how can it be trusted to fairly administer something so vague as to be wrapped in “public accommodation” and backed by some undocumented assertion of an agreement of “society”? Hogwash. Government over stepped its bounds when it began telling private businesses that they had to provide goods or services to anyone. That is slavery… something else not condoned by our current Constitution.

        • @John in Ohio

          I think you and I are in agreement on all the technical details of the law. I just don’t think you quite get the context of the public accommodation laws, which makes their meaning and intent quite clear. The SJWs don’t get it either. We’re not talking about businesses being posted “no gays” (which is the part that Dieseltec didn’t get either), just a certain narrow, and rare category of private transactions having an available legal defense that the provider couldn’t do the job because of personal beliefs.

          If we were just inventing public accommodation today, I might agree with you that I don’t trust the government to implement it fairly or competently, but it’s been with us for long, and has a substantial and coherent body of law built up around it. In other words it ain’t broke, so it would be foolish to fix it.

        • But it is broken. The racist has a right to deny his goods and services to those different from him. The anti-semite has the right to deny his goods and services to Jews. The mysogynist has the right to deny his goods and services to women. The mysandrist has the right to deny her goods and services to men. The anti-gunner has the right to deny his goods and services to those who are armed or even support the RKBA. The Catholic has the right to deny his goods and services to Protestants. So on and so forth.

          Frankly, I cannot understand how anyone with a true grasp of individual Liberty doesn’t see how broken the system currently is. To force any private individual to provide goods or services against their will is servitude. How can our system forcing people into servitude not be considered broken? Undoubtedly, slave states felt that their imperfect system worked and was not broken. Surely, the Tories felt that their system of loyalty to the Crown for colonial America was not broken. When individuals are denied their rightful Liberty, that system is broken.

    • Well, you can get ready to tote your gun all the way to the police station and stand in line to turn your gun in by force, if you insist on voting for liberals. Because that’s the government you’re going to get.

  19. …. How does he determine someone’s sexual preference? I don’t get… Does the person walk in and say Im have g transmission problem and by the way I’m gay. It’s makes no sense…

    • You’re actually on to something there. If people would keep their sexual preferences private most of these problems wouldn’t come up at all. The guy probably fixes trucks for homosexuals and doesn’t even know it.

      • say, if my wife and I walk into a shop holding hands, it’d be a safe bet to say we’re together and romantically linked. same with two guys or gals. It’s not always face-sucking that clues folk in.

  20. Just proof that gays are among the most hateful and intolerant people in this country. You say or do anything they don`t approve of,they believe it`s license to ruin or harm someone that has an opposing opinion. Freedom means allowing someone to have and practice different beliefs and views then you do. Provided that you are not physically harmed and your property not damaged. It`s time the gays step up and show they are tolerant and support freedoms. Not just their own beliefs and privileges. Gays actions alone make me despise them for the liars that they are and the intolerant bigots they act like.
    100% right on to the auto shop owner. Stand your ground and hold fast to your freedoms. The freedom of private property,association,and religious affiliation.

  21. I don’t know the answer to if he should have to deal with gays. It does seem he should have the right to work for who he wants. But replace gay with black, and would we be having the same discussion. What I do have a problem with is him calling himself “Christian”. I sure he also doesn’t provide service with anyone who is divorced. The bible seems to forbid divorce a lot more than it does homosexuality. In fact I think it talks about stoning women of divorce. If he is a “Christian” who lives by the bible, no divorced customers. Now if he doesn’t want any gay customers, that’s his business, but please, don’t let him call himself Christian.

    • It doesn’t have to be a Christian thing….there has never been any religion, society, or moral thinker over the past thousands of years that exposed the idea of gay marriage.

      The Left thinks it’s smarter, kinder, and wiser than all of mankind over history.
      Their narcissism knows no limit.
      What’s even more fascinating is that they hold this belief even though their ideas have driven Europe and the United Sattes to the brink of non-functionality.

    • You’ve really hashed up your Biblical references. Maybe you should just leave that subject aside. The Bible, Jesus included, actually ok’ed divorce, at least in the case of marital infidelity. And even someone who got a “divorce” for a different reason was not said to be living in sin until such time as he or she purported to marry someone else. OTOH, nowhere in the Bible, New Testament or Old, is homosexual conduct OK’ed. It is condemned in both New and Old Testaments.

  22. I am so sick and tired about all these groups griping about tolerance and yet they have none they have none themselves. If you disagree with someone’s point of view, life style or what ever then just disagree. Threatening to ha someone or their way of life is not tolerance, it is hatred. It is the exact same thing they claim to be against. I personally don’t care about what you want to stick where, or who or what you want to marry, just don’t demand that I have to be involved. If you are gay, then be gay. If you are bi be bi. If you want 3 wives, go for it and heaven help you. Whether anyone agrees with your choice in life should not matter.

    Personally I think any business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason they see fit. I would want to know that said business is run by a racist bigot or hating homophob so I could spend my hard earned money elsewhere. That might just be the libertarian in me.

    That being said, if you want real tolerance, then you need to be tolerant too. Even if you disagree.

    A tolerant libertarian conservative with several very happy friends that I care for dearly.

  23. And this is but one type of so-called “Christian” that I avoid like the plague — and for good reason.

    • Amen. My grandfather, a hellfire and brimstone country baptist preacher used to say that a whole lot of “Christians” were going to the lake of fire come judgement day.

      I choose to not have a religion. Saves me a lot of hate and asshattery.

      • I dismiss the whole “fire and brimstone” rhetoric altogether because hardly any one of those “pastors”, “bishops”, and “preachers” even know what they’re talking about to begin with, let alone anybody in their little “flocks”. No mere mortal has any right to pass any kind of divine Judgement on anybody else anyhow, as that’s exclusively up to Him and no one else. No mere mortal here truly knows what He thinks or is going to do, either, contrary to what some like to think that they “know”.

        This is why I just can’t get into what passes for “mainstream” organized religion anymore. I’m a Christian myself, but I haven’t yet found a denomination or even a single church that’s worth a damn. I’ve been a Mormon, a Baptist, and a Pentecostal. I still find some the core messages of Christianity beautiful and elegantly simple, but I’m tired of being condemned by people who have no authority over me for going to the “wrong” church or not engrossing myself in their particular brand of group-think. I think I’m just going to go my own way and bypass all this doom-sayer horseshit, which essentially boils down to Inquisitors interrogating other Inquisitors.

        What happens to me when I am Judged will happen, and I’ll just have to take whatever is due to me. I’m just trying not to do stupid things with stupid people in stupid places that I’ll end up regretting later and still be at least a half-way decent person in the meantime.

  24. Here’s what I’m waiting for: I’m waiting for the day that one of these SJW gay couples marches in to a Muslim-owned business and tries to set up one of their little media tempests in a teapot.

    I’m eagerly looking forward to that. And I’d wager that the first place it will happen will be in Michigan as well.

    • They are too smart to try that. A conservative rabble-rouser did go to a bunch of Muslim bakeries in Michigan and ask them to bake a wedding cake for himself and his male spouse-to-be. Several refused. Nothing much happened.

      • “Nothing much happened” if you define that as every single place refused to partake in the wedding festivities.

        The point of the piece was that you’ll never see any of the leftist MFM go and try this at Muslim establishments because that doesn’t adhere to their PC playbook.

        • Yea.

          The part I’m waiting for is the bunch of leftists lobbing death threats against Muslims. That will be amusing to see.

          It probably won’t ever happen. The last 50+ years of Christians “turning the other cheek” when left-wing Jews have had their little hissy-fits about Christians and the Christian religion have trained liberals to think that Christians are safe, easy targets.

          When one Muslim made a threat against Comedy Central, they pulled South Park episodes that ever even mentioned Mohammed from airing. And then they pulled them out of the online archives, too. Liberals are pussies. They like to claim (with smug superiority) that religion is for fools, but when it comes to putting their money (and bodies) where their mouths are, they run from any real threat and hide under the desks…. like the pussies they are.

    • There was this news report about a lesbian making a complaint about not getting her crew cut done by an Muslim barber, He only served males he explained. I was really looking forward to the court case, but unfortunately they settled, under a NDA. Ah well, maybe another time.

  25. “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”

    Barry Goldwater

  26. I’m a gun owner.
    I’m a conservative.
    I’m straight.
    I wouldn’t bring my 6.4 to his shop if I was being paid to do so.

    Though I also wouldn’t demand he be shut down or have his business license pulled or anything like that. Let him serve anyone he wants. Whomever still visits his shop.

  27. I guess it would be the same as being a democrat and posting on here and all my posts get deleted. The so-called CONservatives always wrap themselves in the flag and freedom and the bill of rights, except when someone doesn’t agree with them. Then they seek to dismiss and destroy them.

    • Lefitst socio-CONs wrap themselves in the flag and colors of freedom and preach tolerance. Except they literally don’t in any case anyway, and Heaven help you if you openly disagree with them. Then they will actively try to damage or literally demolish you and your reputation by doxxing and SWATting you; and also your businesses by way of fraudulent reviews, DDoS, malicious domain squatting, vandalism of business websites, and malicious hacking of business computers.

      That’s a two-way street.

    • Name a single incident where conservatives tried to put someone out of business for having an opinion.

      • To be fair there are incidents of evangelicals and others that lead the rare social boycott (one against Disney parks IIRC) but they are so rare they probably fit on one hand where as in contrast its probably outnumbered 1,000 to one in the opposite direction.

  28. “The controversy over whether a private business can refuse service to homosexuals continues”

    No, it starts now. Not one of the previous incidents involved anyone refusing to serve shrine because they were gay, it has always been a refusal to participate in a same sex union. The two are very different. Those upset at the Indiana pizza joint or the Colorado cake maker are literally arguing that faithfully serving gays without any concern as to their sexuality is the same as refusing service to gays entirely.

  29. If I were a lawyer in his state I’d be figuratively camping out waiting for an unhappy customer. His statements would be used to show he has a tendency to purposefully deliver unworkmanlike service and soon I would own his business.

    There is a right, not currently recognized by law, to conduct business with whom you choose. But that’s not the same as damaging someone’s property that is brought in good faith for repair. If you don’t want to do business with homosexuals, it’s none of my business, it’s a loss for your customer base (and the law is not supportive of that right) but sabotaging vehicles based on a suspicion that someone is homosexual is vicious.

    • Simile? I doubt that you would get very far in court on that basis. He didn’t state that he would reassemble someone’s vehicle incorrectly without their knowledge.

      Homosexuality is wrong, period. If you want to argue this fact with me then I will put your vehicle together with all bolts and no nuts and you can see how that works.

      and

      I never threatened to intentionally put someones vehicle together wrong, use you sense, (although it may not have been the best way to elaborate) You need a bolt and a nut to hold something together, two bolts can not, and two nuts can not, you must have one of each, a male and a female. Get it now?

  30. Hmmm…

    So in the closet is dishonest, and out in the open isn’t O.K. either. What about a gay with a gun…?

    Decisions, decisions…

  31. But putting gun owners into this mix is nothing less than toxic, giving ammo to gun control proponents who paint gun owners as paranoid, racist, homophobic morons. Shame.
    Hey, it is a free country, and if he wants to be a right wing conservative Christian, then he can go for it. While being more of a libertarian, I can see where he is coming from as I was raised in a fairly conservative German-Swiss Christian area myself. I am sure all of this “Gay Rights” stuff is really going to fly in rural Indiana about as well as rural Michigan.

  32. ‘Enough is enough,’ his post said, declaring that the voices of conservative Americans are getting drowned out.
    Well, that might be a somewhat accurate statement.

  33. Stop “helping”. Just shut your cry hole and sit quietly at the children’s table.

    I swear the god damned hicks are more of an impediment to second amendment rights than the democrats.

    • We should all be quiet as the brightly painted cattle cars arrive at the siding with people who wear uniforms designed by Hugo Boss.

      • Here’s the deal; people who work to make the 2nd Amendment a crackers only private club are a problem. Like it or not, this is a numbers game. Ask Japanese-Americans how it goes when the rest of society decides your rights aren’t worth a cup of warm piss. There is zero long term benefit to linking 2nd Amendment rights to a raft of unrelated social issues. It simply makes it more difficult to bring anyone who isn’t a social conservative over to our side.

        • Generally, any ethnic group living in an unlicensed (OC and/or CC) state that isn’t bearing arms has only themselves to thank for that decision. I’m of mixed background and activists here in Ohio try very hard to get all people to bear arms. If money is the problem, members of our groups have stepped up to help, financially and loaning firearms. Fortunately, our numbers in Ohio are becoming more and more representative of the diversity in our population. IMHO, we have a very long way to go but it has been a good start. There is opportunity for any non-prohibited person to carry in Ohio. They just have to choose to do so.

        • Remember, I am a libertarian. If people want to be gay and have guns that is their right. If right wing religious folk who own private businesses do not want to service gays, that is their right. I have real mental problems with the government putting guns in the faces of religious business owners and telling them they must bake gay people a wedding cake.

        • It simply makes it more difficult to bring anyone who isn’t a social conservative over to our side.
          I am not a social conservative, but I will stand for their rights against the Progressive dictatorship movement.

    • What helping? He’s exercising his rights to association and to keep and bear arms. You’re not even in this story. How dare you define the central tendency and out ambit of the movement? Who are you?

      For him, it may not even be a movement, but rather him living his life and practicing his faith. It’s funny, if he wants to avoid doing business with gays, then he’s a hater and a monster. Yet, if the POTG choose not to do business with establishments banning guns, then they congratulate themselves as civil rights heroes. Curious, that.

  34. You need a bolt and a nut to hold something together, two bolts can not, and two nuts can not, you must have one of each, a male and a female. Get it now?
    Uhhhmmm…..he may have a point.

    • Yeah, his incredibly simplistic analogy is totally applicable to complex humans! And if a bolt and a nut have different threading, they can’t hold something together, either!

  35. As a vocal 2nd amendment rights advocate AND Gay rights advocate I am offended to be painted by his broad brush. Discount or no, I would never take my business there. That being said, the death threats are no better. Be a bigger person and speak by taking your business elsewhere, not by threatening the man and his family.

  36. Sounds like the owner of that shop doesn’t like money. His loss, I say. I couldn’t give a sh*t what my customers do in their personal lives, their cash spends the same.

    I’d treat it just like I would an anti-gun business, and go somewhere else. Piss on ’em.

  37. What cracks me up is when shops turn away business, then launch a gofundme campaign, like that pizza place in Indy that wouldn’t cater a gay wedding. Particularly when they claim they’re being slandered, discriminated against, etc. If you’re going to claim freedom of association, then don’t be surprised when other people say they don’t want to associate with you.

    • That was a pretty Christian pizzeria. Verses from the bible framed on the wall, crucifixes and so on also. A notepad on the counter were the waiting customers could write down they’re worries, drop the note in a box with a promise the store owners would pray for them. Man…

      They closed the shop and went into hiding after all the death threats. Didn’t have any guns maybe? The auto repair shop guy announces (‘loud and proud!’) that he’s armed and wont be intimidated.

      The GoFundMe campaign was launched by someone else btw. The joint have re-opened and after taking a cut to cover operating losses the owners gave the rest to charity. Or so I have read.

    • What a total FAIL of a post that was just about 180 degrees away from reality and the truth.

      So Paul do you rightfully feel like an uniformed azz ?….because that’s what you are when you only get your “facts” from HuffPo and the like?

    • The Christian pizza place was in Walkerton Indiana near the Michigan-Indiana border and the town has a very small population. The area is very conservative. I have been to the town, not to the pizza establishment. My daughter has been to the Christian pizza establishment. In Indiana, having an eatery with crosses and bible verses as decorations is not totally unusual.

  38. The comments here were enlightening. For me, they served to demonstrate how many pro second amendment folks had embraced the socialist notion that private businesses are ‘public accommodations’. Since that is what is taught in public and most private schools, I shouldn’t be surprised that it has been accepted by even those who have begun to question other notions from the same source.
    Yeah, it also demonstrated how many of us are very disturbed by gays too, but I already had a handle on that.

  39. Good for him, let the free market decide.

    Imagine that freedom to choose who you want to do business with.

  40. Why is this a feature story? Seems to fit the pattern of politically correct agitprop on this site. Yes some gay people own guns, we all know gay people and many of us even have gay family members…..

  41. He’s using his religion to prop up his discrimination. And doing it in a very public way, And crying about being victimized. Does he have a personal right to be discriminatory? Absolutely. If you don’t like gays, by all means, feel free to go with that. I’m a little uncomfortable around gays, but that’s just me being me. No law or societal pressure is going to change how I feel. But you’ve got to look at the big picture. American gays are still American people. People. I’m sure a portion of his customers are child molesters, thieves, wife beaters, etc. Why is he limiting his options? Jesus dined with sinners, he didn’t send them away hungry. At best, he’s seriously misunderstood Jesus’ teachings.

    • Does he have a personal right to be discriminatory?

      Are rights anything other than “personal”; i.e. individual? Collective rights are a misnomer because they are really collective privileges. Therefore, your sentence would be more accurate written as, “Does he have a right to be discriminatory?” Which, of course, we both agree that he does indeed have a right to be discriminatory. He owns the business so he can express his right to be discriminatory by discriminating.

      I’m curious as to the reason you chose to preface his right with the word “personal”.

      BTW: Kudos for admitting your discomfort. IMHO, alot of people are too frightened or embarrassed to admit such a thing these days. 🙂

  42. The issue is whether the individual has the Right to control his own assets and hold his own beliefs, unaccounted by the imposition by others. That there are those there who express shock a heterosexual gun owner would express a view not in lockstep with their own is typical–not stereotypical– of the leftist cultural marxist. Funny how some many demand “diversity” so long as they can enforce its eradication.

  43. These situations are making my head hurt. In my opinion this guy is a bigot. This disputing is toxic for gun owners when religion and sexual orientation get mixed into the discussion, but in all honesty, how is this different than my gas station down the street with a “No shirt, No Shoes, No service” sign on the door? If im a business owner, shouldn’t I have the right to serve whoever I damn well please? I have a problem with people wearing turtle necks, in my place of business am I not allowed to deny service to turtle neck wearers? Or does the constitution only consider race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc?

    • how is this different than my gas station down the street with a “No shirt, No Shoes, No service” sign on the door? If im a business owner, shouldn’t I have the right to serve whoever I damn well please?
      I still think it would be funny to show up at such an establishment with a shirt and shoes, but not wear any pants.

    • Yes……mutual recognition of individual freedom is the proper path….Live and let live….Mind your own damn business stay out of mine !!!!

    • Freedom for the property owner to choose who he allows on his property and for whom he provides goods and services or freedom of the collective to ignore the desires of the owner and force him to provide goods and services against his will? The former is freedom for all as the customer is free to make his own choices and the owner is free to make his. The latter ends up with one free and the other in servitude.

  44. As far as sterotypes go will cross dressing men picket his business? Will plain clothes men openly kiss each other in front of his business? Will they wear sex toys outside their clothes as has been done at other protests. I Hope they do. This will help the homosexuals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *