Friday, July 03, 2015

'No Gays Allowed': Hardware store owner posts sign refusing service to homosexuals

A hardware store owner is refusing to serve gays after the supreme court legalized same-sex marriage last week. Jeff Amyx, the proprietor of Amyx Hardware in Washburn, Tennessee posted a sign outside his business that said 'No Gays Allowed' earlier this week.

He is banning homosexuals he says because he hates their sin, and he claims that is his religious right.

Amyx revealed that the response to this decision has been mixed, though he continues to stand by his ban.  'A lot of people have called me and congratulated me,' he told ABC 6.

'People calling and threatening me. Telling me I would regret this. No I’ll never regret this.'

It seems that Amyx, while not changing his mind, did decide to change his approach however and take down his sign early Tuesday, replacing it with a new one.

That sign reads; 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.'

He said of the sign change; 'People told me I ought to do it a little bit more, make it a little nicer because I’m a very blunt person.'

The sign he said will now stay, at least until he is forced to remove it from the window.  'Until they tell me it is illegal to have my freedom of speech and to my freedom of religion, the sign will stay,' said Amyx.



Anonymous said...

He is free to express his bigoted views under the guise of "religion", but he may suffer the commercial consequences, unless he is gambling on getting more customer backing than loss of custom (which would be cynical, as would doing it just for the publicity). He may well also be hindered by local laws that regulate how commercial businesses may operate for the general welfare of the public.

Bird of Paradise said...

Wait for the ACLU and GLAAD to call and send their lawyers and the usial liberal human and Civil rights freakos

Olaf Koenders said...

How's he gonna tell them apart from non-gays.. Hoist up their skirts or give them legally-binding questionnaires?

Anonymous said...

Sometimes the people who agree with you help the cause, sometimes they hurt it.

Anonymous said...

5:18 AM
Are his views any less bigoted than the gay rights lobby? Where is the representation of heterosexuality in the gay rights agenda? There seems to be no accommodation of heterosexuals as equals in the gay rights lobby. If I walk into a gay bakery and want a cake that defines marriage as a man and a woman, what will they do? Can I sue them if they refuse? If not, why not? Will they bake a cake with the confederate flag? If not, why not? The flag is not illegal? Would they bake a cake for a polygamist? Would they bake a cake for a paedophile? Who wouldn't they bake a cake for if they didn't support the cause?

Susan Stern said...

11:27: Got any answers or solutions? I didn't think so.

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.
Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke one.
Don't like abortions? Don't have one.
Don't like sex? Don't do it.
Don't like drugs? Don't do them.
Don't like porn? Don't watch it.
Don't like alcohol? Don't drink it.
Don't like guns? Don't buy one.
Don't like your rights taken away?
Then don't take away someone else's.

Anonymous said...

Susan Stern,

Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone.
Don't like rape? Don't rape anyone.
Don't like theft? Don't steal from anyone.

Some things are NOT RIGHTS. Don't be stupid like your post above was.

Anonymous said...

Well said Susan! Bigots like 11:27 just try to deflect blame by pointing fingers at other people - though I've never heard of gay-run businesses discriminating against heterosexuals, and certainly not in such an egregious way as that business-owner. The so-called gay-rights lobby would only be in existence as a reaction to discrimination and unfair treatment by the likes of this business-owner, fundy Christians and Muslims and this person "11:27 PM".
If 11:27 wonders what kind of cakes that gay bakers would make, why doesn't he go and find out and then report back!

Anonymous said...

2:05 seems a bit dumb. Rights are what the law grants. Other rights may be sought or imagined but they are not rights until they are in the law of the land or international law.
Obviously murder, rape and theft are not rights upheld by the law (unless exceptional circumstances like capital punishment, self-defence, war-time, etc.). Laws against discrimination of people on grounds of their sexual orientation may or may not be upheld in law, according to the country in question, and whether there is sufficient pressure to change those laws one way or the other.

Anonymous said...

2:27 seems a bit ignorant.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed......(US Declaration of Independence)

Governments and laws don't grant rights. Government and laws are there to protect the rights of people from those (including the government) who would seek to deprive people of their rights.

Without the recognition that rights are inherent to a person, the result it the tyranny.

Anonymous said...

5:12 lacks comprehension. 2:27 pointed out that some "rights" are imagined but have no reality or "teeth" until they are passed into law. It's all very well saying a Creator endowed rights, but until they can be enforced they are meaningless in practice. The US Declaration of Independence was only a declaration and had no legal effect until a legal government could pass recognized laws. Governments can also rescind rights no matter if some people feel they were entitled to them by divine fiat (until such time as the government or a new form of government restores those legal rights or introduces new ones).

Anonymous said...

5:57 may be slightly illiterate.

What 5:57 said:

2:27 pointed out that some "rights" are imagined but have no reality or "teeth" until they are passed into law

And what 2:27 said:

Rights are what the law grants. Other rights may be sought or imagined but they are not rights until they are in the law of the land or international law.

2:27 clearly and wrongly believes that rights do not exist unless created by the government. In fact, rights exist whether the government chooses to acknowledge or even protect them. Rights exist whether the "law grants" them or not.

Anonymous said...

8.13 is under a misapprehension. Rights that are claimed simply by belief that they exist or desired have no other reality until they are supported by a law or regulation of some sort which can be used to enforce such a right and thus cause it to exist IN FACT.

Anonymous said...

People have rights by being a part of groups that have enough strength to provide those rights. The sizes of the groups varies from the family to nations.

Anonymous said...

7:18 is spouting leftist thinking which is contrary to the founding of the United States and the idea that people - not the government - have control of their rights.

Anonymous said...

5:06 - dear heart, the above discussion about rights and the law is not just about the United States even if Americans think the World revolves around them. And as for the high-sounding words of the Declaration of Independence and rights of Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc. - some of those same so-called Founding Fathers had slaves, and how long afterwards did it take to abolish slavery in the US, and how much longer still to stop racial segregation in all US states, and allowing different races to inter-marry, let alone people of the same gender. Or to give women the vote to make it a democracy of some sort, although it is still or even more so a plutocracy? (These questions are rhetorical by the way!)