POLL: Should Homosexual Business Owners Be Forced To Serve Members Of The KKK?

KKK-member-350x250-ssIn light of recent events where a court claimed that a commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, we must ask how we feel about this ruling if the shoe were placed on the other foot.

So, if persons who do not support homosexuality can be forced to serve homosexuals, should gay business owners be forced to serve KKK members?

If a gay man is forced to serve members of the KKK, KKK members being persons who may participate in gay bashing and possibly even the murder of gay men, has the gay business owners liberty been violated? Doesn’t the gay business owner have a right to express him or herself as being opposed to the ideas and political stances that members of the KKK hold by refusing to associate with them? or does he or she not have that right?

[poll id=”11″]

KKK member image via Shutterstock.com


A free, once–weekly e-mail round-up of liberty news, articles and activism.



  • Another Guest

    Whats good for the goose,is good for the gander. Can’t have it one way with out the other.Fair is fair.Force it on one group,force it on the other.Wrong is wrong,and both groups should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

    • texaschris

      An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

      Taking away the liberty of a group because the freedom of others has been infringed doesn’t make anyone more free. Only the state wins. Never liberty. Never freedom.

      • TheHabMan

        No one’s freedom was infringed upon here, well that is until the court ruled against the photog. There is no freedom to force a photographer to film your wedding. However once you create this pseudo-right you can darned well be sure it will be used against you. So as they say BOHICA, cuz your turn is coming.

        • texaschris


          Personally, being anti-homosexual, I would have refused the job as well. And if faced with prison over the inevitable future coercion, the state would simply have to jail me. The ruling is irrational on its face, and blatantly political, but our focus should be on overturning the decision and/or repealing the law, not using the ruling in a tit-for-tat manner.

      • TheHabMan

        No one’s freedom was infringed upon here, well that is until the court ruled against the photog. There is no freedom to force a photographer to film your wedding. However once you create this pseudo-right you can darned well be sure it will be used against you. So as they say BOHICA, cuz your turn is coming.

      • TrevorLyman

        Well, there is also such a thing as equal treatment under the law, and when you stray from that you can have problems that are much worse than an eye for an eye.

        • texaschris

          I certainly do not disagree. But there is moral high ground that, once lost, cannot easily be regained, and will turn quickly into ammunition for our opponents and the opponents of liberty.

  • Cin

    Neither group should be forced to serve anyone but if homosexuals insist on forcing someone to serve them against that person’s objections than yes they should be required to do the same.

  • llellc

    Aha! I wondered when the Klan was going to enter the fray. The terrorists and the Destroyers have never seen the likes of these guys!! I grew up in the south and know what these people do. They are the ultimate in frightening. I can’t wait until the Obama Destroyers try to mess with them. Should be real interesting folks. Feds=Destroyers of America and Freedom. Klan=they hate everybody–especially black presidents. Hmmmmm…

  • Boomergirl

    I voted Yes because that is what the current law interprets and what the law finds legal for the photographer is legal for the gay business owner. Of course, this is carrying the concept to its absurd conclusion, but that was what the poll was for. In reality the answer is NO, but this legal concept as practiced has no reality.

  • Dwightmannn

    Hell yes, turn about is fair play. . .


    How would they know?
    “Invisible Empire” means “invisible”.
    They do not appear on Oprah.

  • Leland Polk

    Fair is “Fair”.

  • PleaseKillMe

    The difference is that joining the Klan is a choice, sexual preference is not.

    That being said, the original decision of forcing a business to patronize clientele he or she doesn’t like is wrong in and of itself. The business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone, and the homosexual couple have the right to trash that business through the media and internet forums.

    • jahsoul

      Some may agree, and some may not, but that is another topic for another day.

      But this is nothing but baiting. It is probably hundreds of photographers in the city and they could have easily went to another but you get things like this when people try to force an agenda. Honestly, I have a gut feeling that the couple knew the owners views regarding homosexuality and they targeted them, but since I can’t nor have a reason to prove it….*shrugs*

    • BigUgly666

      No, they don’t have the “right” to trash them through the media or internet forums ….. no more that straights have the right to bash gays through the media and internet forums …. or are you saying that that is also acceptable?

      • PleaseKillMe

        There is a difference between what is morally/socially acceptable, and what rights are. They do have the right to do what was stated before. Are you suggesting people should not have the right to verbally trash a business that they feel is discriminatory? That is scary that anyone in America feels that way, so I am hoping I read that wrong.

        • BigUgly666

          You are correct …. there IS a difference between Morally acceptable and socially acceptable.
          Yes, some is able to “trash” someone else …. from both sides of the issue.
          What is so ‘scary’ is that there are the “liberal types” who feel the way they do … that they have the “right” to force others to their will but that they should be protected from the same treatment BY those “others”.

          • PleaseKillMe

            I agree with everything you said there. The left has a way of using the media and special interest groups to destroy the career of someone who has publicly said things they disagree with.

    • aphil

      Sexual preference IS a choice, just like Klan membership is. People aren’t born with same sex attractions any more than they are born with attractions to corpses, animals, or pre-pubescent children.

      • PleaseKillMe

        Non-bigots can always see this silly nonsense coming from a mile away. This debate was about businesses being forced by government to allow service to anyone, which most of us have shown that we found wrong. It’s about government interference into the lives of anyone with a differing ideology(like yours which I would disagree but protect your right to run your business as you saw fit).

        Please don’t change the argument because you are a bigot, and deny basic human knowledge. Stick with the rest of us, and argue the merits of the story at hand.

        • aphil

          Bigot? I don’t think so. I made my comment strictly because you stated that “sexual preference is not a choice”. That had to be answered, because I (and many scientists and medical professionals) don’t agree with it. Basic human knowledge my ass. Child molesters are expected to keep their behavior in check upon their release from incarceration, and their behavior (like same sex attraction) is based upon a sexual attraction. To say that one type of sexual behavior is controllable, while another is not, is patently absurd. Otherwise, I agree that the government should allow people to run their businesses as they see fit. The woman in question shouldn’t have lost her case.

          • PleaseKillMe

            You just compared adults in the privacy of their own home to a child rapist. I can’t ever imagine what that mindset is like, then again I am not a bigot.

    • TheHabMan

      This is not a question of group membership as groups do no possess rights, only the individual does. A private business owner has a right, as the OWNER of the business, not to service anyone they do not care to. An individual doesn’t have the right to force anyone to supply them with anything. Only the government is required to serve all. It all is about ego and force in the end, as if someone doesn’t want to serve me, I don’t want their service. Why should I line the pockets of someone who hates me?

  • Bisley

    This isn’t a yes, or no question. The answer is that no one should be forced to serve anyone and that all laws requiring such service are unconstitutional, regardless of the rulings by political-hack judges that uphold them.

  • Charlotte Juett

    Forcing anyone to serve someone else is a form of slavery, but if gays are allowed to force Christians to serve them, then the KKK has the same right to force gays to serve.

  • NHConstitutionalist

    It’s an absurd notion but a fair question given this kluge of a law as it exists. So Yes
    Although admittedly, I might lie and give some trumped up reason to refuse service to someone I found objectionable just to avoid the possibility of a costly and time wasting law suit, benefiting no one but the dam lawyers and the dip squat who sued me.

  • Penny_Worth

    It really should be neither/nor not either/or/ ! The right to association should extend to the right to do business or not do business with anyone.

  • TheHabMan

    Force should never be used. If private transactions are subject to the use of force, then we are slipping back into the dark ages. Why anyone would want to give their money to someone who finds them repugnant is beyond, but to sue them on top of it, that just shows how maladjusted this particular couple is.

  • Pingback: KKK Wins Lawsuit Against Bakery For Discrimination (Refusal Of Service) - Liberty Crier()