News-Record.com

I think that Bono was in the wrong. If you start up a business, you should be willing to provide your services to everyone who asks, within the bounds of the law. I would liken this to the civil rights issues of serving blacks at the lunch counters. Making a copy of images of a parade surely can't be illegal. Providing a service like this shouldn't include the right to pass moral judgements on the legal images involved.

Eric:

So those involved in the civil rights movement were wrong because they sometimes advocated breaking the laws that were in effect at that time?

It sounds like Bono does not like the money/business of some! I recall in the LTTE blogs here on the N & R, that one conservative person (Dan), stating something to the effect that with his business, he did not care about the politics of any! He liked the money of all!

So, it seems to me that Bono wants to pass judgement on people and alienate himself and his business to only a small percentage of the population for his business. Wonder if he is ready to go to work for someone else?

Shalom

ECU-dude.

You have a valid point. There are some laws that should be broken, and my analogy was flawed. Sorry about that.

However, I think the vendor of this service was in the wrong because he was not asked to copy anything illegal. And I fail to see how his service could be construed as "partaking" in anything other than a commercial transaction.

Eric:

Thanks for acknowledging my point. We all have flaws in reasoning at one time or another.

I might argue that this particular law itself discriminates against merchants with religious viewpoints.

Thanks for the respectful discussion.

"I might argue that this particular law itself discriminates against merchants with religious viewpoints."

I suppose that's true -- after all the law is a secular instrument. But what happens if religious exemptions are made? Either you allow for any possible refusal of services with religious reasons (including refusing to serve people of the "wrong" race) or you pick what reasons are acceptable, leading those left out of the chosen group saying "this is establishment of chosen religions!"

Personally, I think the choice to leave religion out of the legal mix is the best for society.

Eric:

I agree there's no easy answer. Someone's rights are going to be violated either way and someone is going to be discriminated against either way. It seems to depend on which side screams the loudest or has the best attorney.

There are genetic reasons that we can use to identify racial characteristics, but the scientific jury is still out on homosexuality and genetics.

So much for consitutional religious liberty in the face of the Pink Shirts. It's all part of the efforts of the Gay lobby to force thier lifestyle dowm American's throats - whether they like it or not. Any oppostion, criticism or active resistance is met with legal assaults thru the liberal courts. Mr. Bono has a perfect right to run his business the way he wishes. When this kind of oppressive force-feeding occurs, rights (his)go out the window.

Yes, the Marriage Ammendment thing is a political move - to flush out the cowards and force the issue. It's high time. There is NO semblance whatsoever between the civil rights movement and the gay "rights" movement. ECUMEN is right; discrimination based on skin color is blatantly wrong. Supressing unrighteousness and perversion, on the other hand, is a biblical duty. Personal attacks are not in view here; nor is violence or the curtailing of essential public rights. But immoral behavior should not be openly encouraged or condoned in any society; certainly not legally enshrine: the end game is too horrible and corrupt to imagine. Touche, Mr. Bono. Too bad for the decision. Hang in there: God always wins!