Maine Restaurant Owner Refuses To Serve Gun Owners
I based my topic of an Article from the Federalist, but I also used various sources from liber and conservative sources, and the Federalist is biased in its opinions on the topic, but not the facts. A restaurant Owner in Maine claimed she would no longer allow anyone who owned any semi-automatic gun or supported the second amendment. In a series of Facebook Posts, she stated that it would violate her “conscience” if she allowed anyone who supported the 2nd amendment in her restaurants.
She later followed up with a picture of a rifle, resembling a AR-15, referring to it as a “weapon of war”.
The problem with this is that the two restaurants are located in Portland, Maine, where open-carry is legal, and hunting is popular.
Her posts were soon deleted however, when backlash arose, and pro-gun supporters decided to boycott her restaurants.
She probably based her authority to do this based on the Right To Refuse Service. This right isn’t absolute, no business can refuse service to someone based on their color, race, religious belief, or nationality. This refusal of gun supporters wasn’t based on any of these, it was based on a political belief.
The owner believed that she was taking a stand to gun violence, but it just caused more havoc, and did nothing, if not hurt, gun banning.
It’s also probably good she lived in Portland Maine instead of Portland Oregon, where a bakery refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, for the same reason: violating their conscience. Yet the bakers ended up having to pay over $135,000 in “emotional damage”.
The owner believed that she was taking a stand to gun violence, but it just caused more havoc, and did nothing, if not hurt, gun banning.
It’s also probably good she lived in Portland Maine instead of Portland Oregon, where a bakery refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, for the same reason: violating their conscience. Yet the bakers ended up having to pay over $135,000 in “emotional damage”.
I believe that today, laws isn’t nearly as absolute and set in stone as it used to be. Although it is rare to directly contradict a amendment or right, some laws have shifted and gradually passed more restrictions, inching towards a contradiction with amendments and rights.
From a Christian perspective, this could probably be viewed as discriminatory, but not for a justifiable reason. While it wasn’t a sin for the owner to make these statements, it probably didn’t help her, and definitely didn’t help anyone else.
This can affect us today, because the freedom of gun ownership, freedom of speech, and freedom of choice is becoming more and more restricted, and it won’t be long until the freedom of religion will join that category.
From a Christian perspective, this could probably be viewed as discriminatory, but not for a justifiable reason. While it wasn’t a sin for the owner to make these statements, it probably didn’t help her, and definitely didn’t help anyone else.
This can affect us today, because the freedom of gun ownership, freedom of speech, and freedom of choice is becoming more and more restricted, and it won’t be long until the freedom of religion will join that category.