Some may wonder how refusing service or employment to a homosexual is any different than refusing service or employment to a Black person who cannot change his skin. The answer is this: Black people have sadly been maligned over the years with a variety of descriptions that range from "thuggish" and "menacing" to "ghetto." Colin Powell enjoys the stereotypes of "lazy, shiftless,…" and a third word which comes next, but only he knows what it is. In essence, we Blacks have been likened to criminals in an effort to keep us at the lowest level in all walks of life. People of other races are led to distrust us and think the worst of us.

While in the '40s and '50s we used to fight against these stereotypes, since the "Civil Rights" movement, many Blacks have embraced these negative titles, proudly proclaiming ourselves "pimps," "ho's," and "gangstas." We let our pants sag so you can see our underwear, raise the red, black, and green Flag along with our Black-gloved fists and shout, "Black Power!" to bring attention to the negativity we wish to be associated with. Despite this, there are many Black people who cannot be described by these stereotypes, although they are hated by the rest of their own race who demand conformity. One does not have to act "ghetto" or dress like a thug to be Black.

Therefore, if someone came into a store dressed and acting like a common street criminal, it would be appropriate to demand that person leave the establishment, and even to refuse them service indefinitely so long as the owner suspects they will not act in a way that is conducive to doing business. If the street thug could force the business owner to serve him anyway, that would be slavery.

The stereotype of Blacks being watched hawkishly when they go into Asian-owned convenience stores is well-documented. Instead of trying to dress and act appropriately, however, the Blacks who find themselves mistrusted complain that the business owners are "racists," and the Leftist media supports this meme. In most cases, the police will support the efforts of business owners to keep their establishment free of hooligans.

Likewise, a homosexual does not have to broadcast his objectionable bedroom behavior to the public in order to frequent a place of business. Yet many do, dressing down to the most revealing attire, (or dressing up as the opposite gender,) raising a rainbow flag and pumping their fists militantly shouting, "Gay Pride!" When a man comes into a store wearing the makeup of a woman, speaking in a bad falsetto, or dressed in drag, a business owner has a moral right to demand that person leave, and not return unless he is able to display a certain decorum. If a business owner has to serve a homosexual despite his objectionable behavior, that is also slavery!

It is only in recent years that homosexuals have refused to restrain their behavior, and this is largely because they have bought off the politicians who refuse to enforce the community's moral laws.

All of our laws reflect our social decorum and morality. Libertarians will reject this statement, but ALL LAWS ARE MORAL LAWS. It is merely a question of whose morality you wish to be governed by. In this case, the choice is between God's morality and man's immorality. A stop sign, a speed limit, or a tax on certain goods like cigarettes is designed to encourage moral or wise behavior, and to discourage immoral or unwise behavior.

One of the first and most basic laws of our society—that all people, especially mature adults, should be clothed in public, and in certain environments must dress for the occasion (e.g. swimming suits in swimming pools)—is in fact a moral law. People break this law all the time, but that does not make the law improper. Even the Libertarian thinker Bastiat lamented the loss of this purpose of law by noting that "Instead of checking crime, the law itself [is] guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!" If, as he says, our rights come from God, and if, "the common force … cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups," then why are so many Libertarians willing to allow the State to force God-fearing people to serve and employ Sodomites, who by their actions flaunt their rebellion against God and demand all in society not only tolerate but facilitate their behavior? The answer is that those who support the subjugation of a God-fearing people to the will of the Sodomites have chosen to stay slaves (or to make slaves of others) instead of breaking away to freedom.

John Newton, author of the famous hymn Amazing Grace, was so humbled and completely transformed that he worked the rest of his life to end slavery, ministering to William Wilberforce, the British Prime Minister who led Parliament to end slavery throughout the United Kingdom. The exclamation point to his life, his epitaph reads: "John Newton, Clerk, once an infidel and libertine, a servant of slaves in Africa, was, by the rich mercy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, preserved, restored, pardoned, and appointed to preach the faith he had long labored to destroy." A "libertine," being "a man who behaves without moral principles or a sense of responsibility, especially in sexual matters," adequately describes the minds of those who tolerate and encourage the promulgation of sodomy in defiance of God and Scripture. May we, who have fallen to this darkness of mind, find the saving grace that John Newton did, and in doing so become free of our chains and bondage to sin and the world

Learn more about your Constitution with Robert Broadus and the "Institute on the Constitution" and receive your free gift.

This is Part 3 in a series. Click here to read Part 1. Click here to Read Part 2.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.