By on April 17, 2015

Dieseltec Ram Diesel Burnout

What does a diesel shop in Michigan have in common with a Washingtonian florist and a Hoosier pizza hut? An owner who refuses to serve openly gay customers.

WOOD-TV reports the owner of Grandville, Mich.-based Dieseltec, Brian Klawiter, posted a statement to his shop’s Facebook page Tuesday regarding his view that those with conservative, Christian values are being drowned out by those who don’t hold those values. Said statement includes the following passage:

I am a Christian. My company will be run in a way that reflects that. Dishonesty, thievery, immoral behavior, etc. will not be welcomed at MY place of business. (I would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons. Homosexuality is wrong, period. If you want to argue this fact with me then I will put your vehicle together with all bolts and no nuts and you can see how that works.)

When interviewed by the NBC affiliate, Klawiter said that while he’d fix a vehicle in need of repair, he would not welcome a gay male couple openly displaying their affection in his shop, proclaiming he and his shop doesn’t believe in homosexuality. Klawiter adds that he isn’t going to ask customers about their sexuality, while also reaffirming his stance on PDAs by same-sex couples.

Asked to view his post from the eyes of a gay individual, he said he would find the statement of belief “enlightening,” and that he would cross off Dieseltec from his list of shops.

UPDATE: And just like the aforementioned theoretical gay customer — and myself, if I had diesel business in the first place — Cummins wants no part of Dieseltec. Per their Twitter to another consumer who noted the engine manufacturer’s support of the LGBT community:

Diversity = our core values. We have no affiliation with this business and are notifying them to stop using our logo.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

282 Comments on “Michigan Diesel Shop Refuses To Serve Openly Gay Customers...”


  • avatar
    Hummer

    I think we’re really pushing into territory that, as an automotive site, we shouldn’t tread.

    • 0 avatar
      sproc

      Agreed. I try to keep my views on the morality of brodozers to myself.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “I think we’re really pushing into territory that, as an automotive site, we shouldn’t tread.”

      This site doesn’t really have issues with being TheTruthAboutBankruptcyLaw or TheTruthAboutLegalLiability, or even TheTruthAboutBoothBabes. It’s only when it’s politics that run counter to one’s own that it becomes uncomfortable.

      Personally, I disagree with the editorial slant of various contributors, and I think it’s occasionally click-baiting, but I wouldn’t say that the topics are off-limits just because they piss me off.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        It’s not about being in my comfort zone, it’s just that making these stories have no good outcome, I’ll tell you my opinion.
        I think the shop owner is stupid, business is business no matter where it comes from. If someone doesn’t want to take my money because of their personal beliefs, I wouldn’t want them to work on my vehicles anyway. If you can’t respect me, then how can I expect you to respect my vehicles? However, I am absolutely pro-business, and I fully support the shop owners right to turn away anyone they please for any reason. They have the absolute right to believe whatever they want no matter how silly it sounds or how much angst it causes others. They are not a government entity, there are no laws or regulations that require someone to use their services, it is completely voluntary. That is to say, they live on voluntary actions of clients that don’t require the services provided by that one single shop, to outcast a certain group of people is suicide in some places.
        This is a non-story that serves as nothing more than click bait, it’s relevancy to what this site pertains to is only by coincidence.
        Obviously some people are going to be low enough to draw serious conclusions about me because of my less than full support for or against. Go ahead, I am not homophobic but I refuse to incite hatred towards a business simply because another group of people feel wronged.
        Hatred does not solve Hatred.

        • 0 avatar
          bachewy

          Following that logic we should still have white-only water fountains and so forth. Religion was also used as a crutch to justify that behavior just 50 years ago.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            No. That was government.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Laws don’t change people, understanding and acceptance changes people. If you prove you can be an honest, hardworking, reasonable, important function in society, you positively represent any values or traits you carry with you. There will always be people that hate others, they are still being born into society and they forever will, and it goes both ways, there are still Whites that hate blacks, and blacks that hate whites. There’s a child that been born somewhere around this world in the last hour that will hold a hatred for some group of people til the day they die, and on that day, a child with the same traits will be born.
            Whether they use religion as a crutch or just outright hate, is aside the point, they shouldn’t represent a religion no more than the owners of the particular vehicle they drive.

            Again I’m here for vehicles, my beliefs on politics, what-ifs, and other non-auto chat shouldn’t be of importance.

          • 0 avatar
            drw1926

            This is exactly the type of comment that demonstrates why this article has no relevance to TTAC. Unles we’re going to turnthis into an “anything goes” type of blog let’s keep it focused on auto-related issues. There’s more than enough politically inspired blogs available via other sites for this type of discussion.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Aww come on. Moderation? Really?

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      This whole topic is a bit much for this site. And I don’t see this diesel shop retiring like the owner’s of Memories Pizza did in Indiana after morons sent money to support the shop. This site is becoming more about personal issues with cars rather then facts about cars. On one hand you have nanny whiner’s like Corey on the other hand you have writers pissing people off about social issues that don’t have to do with the automobile industry. But, it is all very entertaining.

    • 0 avatar
      Rod Panhard

      Hummer is correct.

    • 0 avatar
      mikefitzvw

      As a car enthusiast who happens to be gay, I disagree, and I’ll tell you why. While we are a car community and should remain one, civil rights for LGBT persons shouldn’t remain relegated solely as a focus of the LGBT community in the same way that civil rights in the 1960s didn’t remain solely a focus of blacks.

      As a car enthusiast, I want to know that my own community supports me as a member. I shouldn’t have to worry that just because I’m not on an LGBT website, that I will be shunned. Obviously it isn’t a relevant part of my identity, but specifically regarding cars, the car community tends to be more conservative. I’d rather be a member of a car community that I know is rational enough to generally support LGBT rights, even though they are irrelevant to cars, because that just makes them good people, whom I know I can get along with.

      So as a car enthusiast, who happens to be gay, I think this one post (if not many), is a good discussion topic for us to consider how we view people who wish to be included by us. For the record, I think this site is pretty rad.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Agreed mikefitz. Anyway, this site has always been political.

      • 0 avatar
        VW16v

        mikefitzvw, I tend to agree with you. But, some on this site tend to open up a whole can of hate when they discuss gay or not gay.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @mikefitzvw – I agree. One can argue that politics and religion have no business on a car site but any time there is a violation of human rights and/or human dignity then one should shine a light upon that dark corner of the world.

        Scholars disagree on some of the passages in the bible that relate to homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is assumed to refer to homosexual behavior and thus the origin of the word sodomy but may in fact be a reference to a lack of charity and a lack of social order.

        The Bible was not written in English and has been interpreted and retranslated many times and often bias does enter into that process.

        There are over 200 different Christian Denominations and not all are against or condemn homosexuality. How does one reconcile that fact?

        Even if biblical passages exist to support being against homosexuality there are passages that also support slavery and women’s inferiority to men.

        One has to look at the time and era the bible covers as well as the time and era it was written. Muslim and Jewish faiths argue many of the same points used to support the same views as Christian Conservatives. That makes sense since all three faiths trace back to a common origin and a common era.

      • 0 avatar
        boozysmurf

        Absolutely that, @mikefitzvw.

        I’ve had this discussion recently, within my own little portion of the car world, that I’m part of. I’ve heard some truly hateful things from within the car community that are supposed to be brushed off because “this is big-boy town”. I do what I can, very slowly, to at least provide another opinion.

        And you’re dead on: the automotive/enthusiast community DOES slant right, and it is, very often, it’s own echo-chamber. So bringing this kind of thing forward OCCASIONALLY is good. Also, it highlights the division within the community: Cummins is not impressed, and that’s good to know, that not only are they inclusive, they’re vocally so.

    • 0 avatar
      statikboy

      Hummer, many, if not all, commenters on this site seem to feel the need to push their own personal political, economical or ethical views, regardless of whether there’s any connection to the automobile world. How is this any worse? At least it IS connected.

      Also, it was presented as NEWS, which it is, not as an editorial. My own opinion: exclusionary tactics as a means to promote hatred are damaging to everyone… Any act, such as consenting homosexual sex, which does no harm to anyone should not be feared and reviled.

  • avatar
    Speed3

    I think we should avoid issues that are political…leave the to thetruthaboutguns.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    If I start clicking on some ads, will you just stop already?

  • avatar
    Brumus

    Not sure why a story of this ilk was posted. Hopefully a one-off thing…

  • avatar
    thelaine

    OK Mr. Aubernon, I get it.

    I heard there is a 4 chair nail salon owner in Anchorage who won’t serve vegetarians.

    Time to call in the SJW SWAT team.

  • avatar
    Truckducken

    What they said.

  • avatar
    Zekele Ibo

    It’s funny how the subject of religion provokes such fear from commenters. Personally, I’m not in to this imaginary-friend thing, but I don’t see why it shouldn’t be discussed.

    As for building trucks with bolts and no nuts, it doesn’t sound very “christian” to me, but it’s clear that in this garage the nuts like to stay in the shop.

  • avatar
    Sgt Beavis

    *facepalm*

    Brian Klawiter may think he is a Christian, but his actions clearly demonstrate that is not the case. You have no excuse to hate someone else just because their sin is different from their sin.

    Christ doesn’t condemn sinners, his very existence is because of them (and them includes us).

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Well said.

      The Bible isn’t a salad bar,and it’s shockingly hypocritical to decide that you’re okay with some parts of it, but not others.

      At best—best!—you could read it as if earlier portions are amended by later entries. That means that, frankly, everything in Leviticus can be safely ignored because the Gospels contradict and supersede the lot of it.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        “it’s shockingly hypocritical to decide that you’re okay with some parts of it, but not others.”

        I agree, but personally I believe doing so is the only way to keep it viable in this day and age. John 3:16 reads so nicely, but try squaring it with, say, God sending bears to eat taunting children or the story of Lot’s daughters and you can see why the salad bar approach exists.

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          “I agree, but personally I believe doing so is the only way to keep it viable in this day and age.”

          If you read it as later parts overriding the earlier silliness then it makes perfect sense. The “salad bar” option exists to allow people to justify some pretty awful things with religious righteousness even when the Book itself explains why they’re wrong.

          Case in point: I haven’t seen many Christian businessmen refusing to charge interest or use the Church as a springboard for furthering your business career, but Christ went totally , unequivocally, apeshit on that particular practice

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I really like your last point.

          • 0 avatar
            tedward

            psarhjinian

            Love the last point. Ducks and runs.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            psarhjinian – great points. One must look at the context and sequence of the bible and the fact that virtually everything Christ said and did over-rides everything else.
            “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          Man, moderated again. I’m killin’ it today.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Throw a $ or * to avoid the filter. Some innocous words get moderated once in awhile too.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            This is where I wish TTAC would allow me subscribe and circumvent the filter.

            I think, at this point, the editors can trust me not to any further off the deep end than I already have.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Yeah, I’m with you. I guess the filter is supposed to keep a higher level of decorum around here… Can’t have everyone just throwing [email protected]*ks around, I guess.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        I disagree 1000000%.
        The bible, is in fact, a salad bar.
        You couldn’t possibly survive in this world if you did not pick your salad choices carefully, depending upon when and where you live.As are most religious guides.
        There…said it and likely started something bad.
        Sorry.

      • 0 avatar
        ja-gti

        Even if the New Testament “amends” the book of Leviticus so that it can be “ignored”, there are numerous NT passages that refer to homosexuality and other types of sexual immorality (i.e.. fornication and adultery- which applies to a lot of people, unfortunately, me included.). It’s not as if Christianity chose certain parts of the Old Testament to enforce so that certain groups could be disparaged. Rather, the apostle Paul wrote about such things in Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6, to show our separation from God’s holiness, and the need for redemption through JC.

        Christians are called to witness to the world, including those who practice homosexuality. I wish this business owner would follow the Great Commission’s directive to do such witnessing. He is calling more attention to his name then to Christ’s.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Why don’t you focus on witnessing your own behavior, and letting the rest of us be? Eventually God judges us all, doesn’t He? So let him. But here on Earth, in the United States of America, let’s not set ourselves up to open ourselves to judgment every time we walk in a damn shop, OK?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      No, I’m sure this brave Christian warrior turns away every single customer who fools around on his wife, sleeps around with different women, or masturbates.

      Kinda amazed he has any customers at all. Or maybe this is a Mafia front company?

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Neither do you necessarily have to hate someone in order not to want to do business with them…..

      If you live in a community where half the population has been told it is cool to be demonstrably “against” homosexuals, and the other half has been told it is not cool; and there are other shops that serve the second market; there are very possibly competitive advantage to be gained by loudly proclaim you unquestionably cater to the former. Just sound business.

      We do, after all, live in a dystopia where we have the right to vote for one of two parties, the right to pay lawyers to those who vote for the other, and no other rights left whatsoever. IOW, all that’s left, is pick which team of sillies to support, and then compete at supporting it in the most obnoxious manner possible.

  • avatar
    Mr. Orange

    Two things. If two smoking hot blond models walked into his shop to fix their F350 and they started making out, would his objections still stand?

    And is this one cynical attempt at getting new equipment via the GoFundMe page that will be created for him following this. Cause if I had a business I would find this method to be a very useful cash generating one.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      OK.
      Wrong.
      Although I am in complete agreement with many above who want such openly non auto subjects off this site, your thought process is completely off base when generalizing human strength and weakness.

      Yes…you can be a moral person. You can possibly be faithful to your morals.
      Men can be faithful (in a non-religious definition) to wives and personal standards without falling to the Two Hot Blonds Kissing…” or other temptations.
      There are a great many people, a majority I would suggest, who successfully stay true to standards they hold.

  • avatar

    So a gay guy/girl wants a monster diesel truck and they say, whoa dude/lady we can’t do that for you because you know, you like to do guys/girls. Whatever, who the hell cares. The beauty of capitalism, the marketplace decides.

  • avatar
    Dan

    With no diesels in Subaru’s US lineup I can’t imagine this guy will find anyone to actually turn away.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      You muntmnot know many gay people.

      My sister and her life partner have owned a Corolla, a Sable, a Rondevous, and a Jetta wagon.

      They’re musicians and they’re outdoorsy and they have dogs (they match that port of the stereotype at least), so the cargo space in the Rondevous and the Jetto came in handy.

      They would probably like a Subaru just fine, but they spent their extra cash on a sailboat instead. Because Subaru’s don’t float, and aren’t wind powered.

      I’m far more likely to own a Subaru than they, and I’m a happily married family man who lives in the Midwest.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        If you want a sample of what gay people actually think about cars, you can read:
        http://gaywheels.com/

        It’s a little light on the minivan reviews for my taste, but it was a pretty good car site otherwise, the last time I read through it.

        There enough car guys out there who happen to be gay that you’ve probably met a few without knowing it — they probably just haven’t mentioned it to you specifically, because they’d rather talk about cars with you.

        • 0 avatar
          VW16v

          I think Gaywheels.com is well read site for some on this site.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I just had to click the link, and the featured vehicle articles (on the right) were: the 2015 Volkswagen Golf R, the 2015 Nissan Frontier, and… the 2015 Subaru Impreza which “turns SAABs to Joy”.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        I don’t know many homosexuals no, or at least don’t know of many, which is just as it should be. I keep my fetishes to myself and I’d rather that they did too. Out of those few there’s only one Subaru.

        But who am I to let that stand in the way of perpetrating a humorous stereotype?

        • 0 avatar
          Minnesota Nice

          You know more gay people than you think.

          Describing the fluidity of human sexuality as a fetish is slightly inaccurate. I won’t get into a discussion of what an actual fetish is on a car site, but suffice it to say that many fetishes are shared in both communities, but sexuality is not one of them.

          Most gay people don’t ‘shove it’ in anyone’s face. It seems to me the bigger fuss is always made by other’s perceptions and assumptions. Are there exceptions here- of course, just like there are obnoxious traits in other religions or minorities. Most gay people don’t walk into a bank and say, “Hi, I’m Joe the Homosexual.” But most well-adjusted ones don’t hide it, either – nor should they have to, if it comes up.

          Am I vocal politically? You bet – especially when it comes to politicians who want to legislate my ‘fetish’. Other than that, I wake up every morning just like you do, drink my coffee, go to work, have hobbies, friends, and family, volunteer at the Humane Society, and have a passion for cars.

          At the end of the day – I’m human just like everyone else, and my money works just the same as everyone else’s.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Let me guess: if a man introduces his wife to you, you don’t have any particular reaction, but if a man introduces his husband to you, you think he “isn’t keeping his fetish to himself.”

          Or the same thing if they are holding hands in public.

          • 0 avatar
            jrmason

            OK, let’s continue on with your logic. Would you be comfortable with 2 men or 2 women coming into your home or buisiness and kissing or showing some other form of affection in front of your children? I for one would not, I feel it is extremely innapropriate. That’s all this shop owner was really saying. He did say he would otherwise fix anyone’s vehicles, but that he did not want any open affection shown on his property. There is an awful lot of judgment going on here without knowing the full story. People dont normally go making random comments like this and for all we know there could have been something inappropriate being said or done. I’m not siding with anybody, I’m simply saying nobody should be passing judgment without knowing the FULL story.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            People don’t feel the need to tell straight people not to show open affection on their property.

            And, no, I wouldn’t care in the slightest if two people of the same sex came into my house, at my invitation, and then engaged in any form affection that is polite in public in front of my son. If gay or straight people start making out (or worse), that’s one thing, but hand-holding, a hug, sitting close, or a peck kiss — I wouldn’t care if straight people do that sort of thing, and I wouldn’t care if gay people do either.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            In my youth older people found it offensive when I would make out with my then girlfriends in public and let it be known to me on at least two occasions I can remember. People get offended by lots of things. You can’t please all of the people all of the time.

          • 0 avatar
            jrmason

            That’s what I’m talking about. Open display of affection, just as the owner of said shop has been quoted. It is offensive in more ways than one.

            Especially when not invited.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            dal20402 – I agree. The owner of the shop did not state “public displays of affection” period but “public displays of affection” between gay males.

            What would he consider “PDA”?

            I don’t consider holding hands, a hug or kiss offensive nor would I be upset by that sort of display in front of my children.
            I would however be offended by an over the top “make-out session” by any couple….. heterosexuals included.

            I used to be in the anti-gay Christian camp but when my wife was pregnant she asked me if I would be upset if my child turned out to be gay. I initially said yes but after years of mulling over that question and having to help my 2 son’s with the reality that one of their friends is gay plus have worked with gays, I’ve realized how wrong I was.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    This is doubly hilarious given the double entendre nature of many diesel and truck names.

    Powerstroke…

    RAM…

    Cumins… (which I know was a family name, but still)

    And the proliferation of “Calvin peeing” decals on these trucks along with chrome naked ladies of various types.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      +1

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        +1. We desperately need more openly gay diesel mechanics and fewer secretly gay anti-gay diesel mechanics.

        • 0 avatar
          bachewy

          I would wager there are more gay mechanics than there are gay monster diesel truck owners. Just sayin’ :)

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            I’m not so sure.

            I’m always surprised by who’s gay and who’s not. I know some pretty swishy-seeming guys with a happy wife and three kids — and I know some pretty masculine gay dudes.

            I hesitate to make a prediction. If someone wants me to know about their home life, they’ll tell me about it.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            My friend was friends with a big, tough long haul trucker who liked to wear a bra. He knew more than a few diesel mechanics. They are a naughty bunch.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            I’m no longer surprised by who’s gay and who’s not.

            However, sometimes I’m still saddened by it and not because of who they are but because of how they’ve had to live. I know of several heterosexual couples who split up after a dozen or more years of marriage when Mom or Dad finally came out. If we’d had a more tolerant society 50 years ago, quite a few people I know would have been spared a lot of heartache.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    My stereotypes may be showing, but I’m guessing openly-gay couples aren’t a big part of his clientele. So this is mostly for show, a kind of “look at me, I’m Jesus throwing the money-changers out of the temple” moment. No surprise.

    So what’s more interesting to me is this man equating a sexual orientation with thievery and dishonesty (those gays should just hide their feelings deep down and live in fear like they used to back when America was America) and calling a facet of his religious belief system a “fact”.

  • avatar
    Sceptic

    This is a new low for this site. Maybe TTAC staff should keep their sexual preferences to themselves?

    • 0 avatar
      MR2turbo4evr

      +1

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Yeah, this is the trutaboutcars, not thetruthaboutsex.

        But it’s more complicated than that because this is a big story elsewhere and car related.

        Also speaking for myself, I feel car people who happen to be gay should be welcome here. Excluding car entuesiasts on any stripe is likely to shrink “car culture” — and will be self defeating in the long run.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I agree with your points but also Sceptic’s. The problem is these sorts of semi-relevant articles tend to be intentionally divisive. One indy shop somewhere does one thing and its suddenly relevant to the auto industry as a whole? Quite a stretch, IMO.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “One indy shop somewhere does one thing and its suddenly relevant to the auto industry as a whole? Quite a stretch, IMO”

            How is this any more divisive and flame-baiting than, eg, anything Doug DeMuro posts?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            DeMuro seems to simply ask an open question which typically related to the industry and is then debated. I suppose occasionally he writes on other topics but I don’t generally read those pieces thus I can’t speak to their click-baiting/flaming.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            I like Doug & actually find him funny, but most of his stuff is pure puff piece, opened-ended titled, click bait.

            His next article will be titled “Whose smarter: Cat or Dog Owners?”

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Cats are disgusting, except as food.

  • avatar

    I realize that people are upset that TTAC is highlighting this issue since it’s not strictly about cars; however it’s not a *trivial* issue, as some of you are insinuating.

    • 0 avatar
      Zoom

      People aren’t upset about highlighting the issue, just the way it’s done. I think the post is trivial, for what this web site used to be, but no longer is. The business owner is dumb, for a couple of reasons, but you could fill this web site with stupid things dumb people say. The only reason to post this is click bait.

    • 0 avatar
      an innocent man

      It’s certainly not trivial, I agree. It’s an important discussion to be had on whether or not we are going to recognize everyone’s right to live their lives as they see fit. I also agree this shop owner is an idiot. But not every important issue needs hashed out on TTAC. I thought the Subaru-Indiana post was a worthwhile thread, as it was a larger issue. This is some little shop that has no impact on the larger issue. I’m sure I’ll be seeing this in my newsfeed on FB, and all the local and national news, it doesn’t have to be here. I come hear to read about cars.
      Having said that, I think this is a new cash cow for people:
      1. Bash gays
      2. Get backlash
      3. Set up gofundme account
      4. Retire early

      Wait, maybe the guy’s not an idiot.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      The only connection is that there is it is an auto repair business.
      That is it.
      We do not need to get a news bulletin every time any kind of nonsense happens with key auto words in it.

      There are our other, non-auto personal interest/news and topic sites for this.

      This does NOT involve the auto industry…in any sense.

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    I am SO not gonna post what I had just typed. But anyway, people are dumb. What else is new.

  • avatar
    hreardon

    Since they are not providing a public service, they are allowed to serve whom they please, however they please.

    They are not, however, protected from the inevitable blowback from their publicly made comments. I imagine that that public backlash will be enough for them to recognize their worldview is just a tad out of line with mainstream thought.

    That said – they should be allowed to conduct business in a matter they see fit, until such a time as the free market puts them out of business. ;-)

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “Since they are not providing a public service, they are allowed to serve whom they please, however they please”

      That’s not quite true. You can say what you like, but when you’re providing a service, the rules are a little different.

      Otherwise, we’d still have white-shoe law firms and segregated lunch counters.

      The open question is “is sexuality a protected class?”. I suspect that’s a question that will get a resounding “Yes” as an answer very soon.

      • 0 avatar
        hreardon

        Good point, psarhjinian. I think my reaction comes from a belief that I shouldn’t have to serve someone at my establishment if I don’t care for them. That said, I could never see myself refusing service to someone based on color/creed/sexuality because that doesn’t enter into my thought process – but if someone does something to tick me off, should I be forced by law to serve them?

        I think this specific case is a bit different from the gay cake story a few weeks back: can you force an ‘artist’ to create something that he/she is morally opposed to? That seems different to me than refusing to sell a pre-made cake to a couple simply because they might be gay.

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          “can you force an ‘artist’ to create something that he/she is morally opposed to?”

          That is a really good question. It suppose it depends if the artist is commissioned or not, and if the objection relates to a protected class.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            You know…this may have touched upon yet another philosophical point here.
            IF you are an artist for hire to do wedding paintings and a gay couple request you paint, record their wedding and perhaps whatever is happening at the wedding, and this can be pretty weird to many, many people, then can an artist refuse this????

            There has t be some kind of logic and understanding here.
            JUST because YOU have a belief and act a certain way, you should not require laws forcing people to accept and participate.
            This is not the same as being refused education or lodging.
            There are many options and choices one has in the commercial world.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @hreardon:

          I’d say this is different than making an ‘artist’ create something that offends him.

          The business in question is an truck repair shop. What’s inherently distasteful or offensive about fixing someone’s truck?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            FreedMike – the owner in question had an issue about just using bolts to assemble a truck. He didn’t want to leave out the nuts………..

            There is a metaphor or bad pun in there somewhere!

    • 0 avatar

      “They are not, however, protected from the inevitable blowback from their publicly made comments. I imagine that that public backlash will be enough for them to recognize their worldview is just a tad out of line with mainstream thought.”

      There will come a day in time when the people who do the discriminating will be the ones who will be made uncomfortable in modern society, and not the objects of their discrimination. That day has not yet come, unfortunately. There is still a large enough number of people who agree with sexual-orientation discrimination—and who are apparently willing to put their money where their mouths are and support GoFundMe campaigns in favor of such—that I suspect this business will do just fine for quite some time. This is especially the case if a business serves a demographic and community that is generally thought to swing that way politically.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “Since they are not providing a public service, they are allowed to serve whom they please, however they please.”

      That hasn’t been true in the United States for the last fifty years.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      By this logic, restaurants and hotels in the 1960s were within their rights to refuse to serve black customers, and the Civil Rights Act was in the wrong for prohibiting this.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    I’m not getting this concept of a business refusing to serve s particular group of potential customers. It’s hard enough to keep the doors open when you’re a small independent business as it is without alienating a group of potential customers.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Well, there’s three possible answers, or a mix thereof.

      One, they’re truly bigots. There was a long history of marques (General Motors included) who wouldn’t sell to blacks and almost all of them had to fold to market pressure, but some waited a long, long time, to the point where they were figuratively cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

      Two, they think that they’ll lose more bigoted customers by serving gays (or blacks, or whatever). This logic got used quite often during the Civil Rights movement.

      Three, they’re hoping for a Chick-fil-A bounce, whereby they’ll get more business from bigots for taking a bigoted stance. Personally, I consider that trafficking in hate, and utterly deplorable.

    • 0 avatar
      Zoom

      I’m not the first to say it. People are dumb. I’m guessing the business owner thinks all of his customers thinks like he does.

      • 0 avatar
        hglaber

        This is the answer right here. Most people, but especially uneducated ones, think that the “vast, silent majority” agrees with them especially if the most vocal people in their immediate vicinity really do.

        If only Dave Agema had read this the owner would have been fine. But it escaped Grandville and now his world suddenly got pretty big, pretty fast. Maybe that was his intent, I don’t know, but rumor has it at least one GoFundMe account has already been canceled by the web site, so if that was his plan he screwed up. Now he gets all the flack and none of the cash unless he can find a better electronic hat to pass around. .

        • 0 avatar
          hybridkiller

          “Most people, but especially uneducated ones, think that the “vast, silent majority” agrees with them especially if the most vocal people in their immediate vicinity really do.”

          Bingo.

  • avatar
    jrmason

    Not sure why you all are offended. If a bum or let’s say a grease ball mechanic (just an example) walks into a classy restaurant the buisiness has a right to refuse service, what’s so different about this? Its a private buisiness. They can refuse anybody they want, even if it runs said buisiness into the ground. How many of you that are crying foul are buisiness owners and how many of you would like for Big Brother to TELL you who you will do buisiness with? Be happy we live in a country where we are allowed to make such choices for ourselves, right, wrong, or indifferent.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “If a bum or let’s say a grease ball mechanic (just an example) walks into a classy restaurant the buisiness has a right to refuse service, what’s so different about this?”

      One, refusing customers outside of health reasons isn’t common, and carries real risk of litigation.

      Two, you can’t refuse to serve someone based on their membership in a protected class, even if you are a private business. Race and religion are already such classes, and sexual orientation is very likely to be a protected class very, very soon.

      • 0 avatar
        jrmason

        That’s your opinion, but it is not a law. These guys aren’t the first nor will they be the last.

      • 0 avatar

        Exactly. It’s the same with employment. I live in an employment-at-will state. My employer could fire me because it didn’t like the color of my shirt (especially if it was grease-colored); it could not, however, fire me because I happen to be black.

        • 0 avatar
          kvndoom

          Sadly, he could just tell you it was the shirt, even though it was really because you’re black. We can’t prove what someone thinks, only what they say.

          Ugh, when I lived in DC it shocked me how many places were “no longer hiring” by the time I put down the phone and walked to the store, but were “looking for help” when I called the next day and disguised my voice.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      As psarhjinian posted above, this is going to come down to whether sexual orientation is a legally protected class like race, religion, or gender. If it does become that (and we’re moving that way, thank God), the refusing to serve a gay couple won’t be analagous to refusing a “grease ball mechanic”, it will be analagous to refusing to serve a biracial couple.

      In 1964 we finally decided that it WAS okay for Big Brother to people who they could do business with.

      Edit: psar just beat me to it.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I have no problem with restaurant owners enforcing a reasonable dress code. They have the right to a basic decorum in their place of business.

      I have a big problem with denying someone a basic consumer service – and I’d say auto repair is pretty basic and universal – based on what he likes to do in bed. I think we should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so that when we walk into store or any other business open to the public, we should expect to be served without our sexual morality being questioned. The only reasonable question a business owner should have is “are your funds to buy my product or service good.” After all, the societal purpose of a business owner isn’t to enforce his own personal morality on his customers – it’s to provide goods and services.

      I have an even bigger problem when someone does this in the name of his religion, which finds any number of sexual practices immoral, but only chooses to judge one group of people. That’s pure discrimination.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “They can refuse anybody they want, even if it runs said buisiness into the ground.”

      That hasn’t been true in the United States for the last fifty years.

      • 0 avatar
        jrmason

        Nice try, Minnesota. Were not talking race or gender or handicap or anything else with which we were born with. Were talking PREFERENCE. If that’s your preference, that’s on you, I could honestly care less what others do. Classifying things that we cant control with things we CHOOSE is a big swing and a miss. I’m no racist or sexist, and while I dont condone homosexuality I dont despise anyone who chooses that path, so long as it is not brought upon me or my family. Isn’t that what this guy was stating?

        “When interviewed by the NBC affiliate, Klawiter said that while he’d fix a vehicle in need of repair, he would not welcome a gay male couple openly displaying their affection in his shop”

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          If he can’t be made evil, judging him can’t make one experience the endorphin rush of self righteous superiority.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            And the shop owner in question isn’t all about his self righteous superiority, thelaine? I’d say so…big time. Otherwise he wouldn’t be looking down his nose at people whose sexual activities he frowns on…and ignoring the activities of those he doesn’t, which are probably just as commonplace.

            Or do you not think that the guys who buy jacked up diesel pickups don’t frequent bars, where they intend to pick up women to engage in every single sexual act that gay people do?

            I’m gonna bet our culture warrior here doesn’t even give that a second thought.

          • 0 avatar
            jrmason

            You can call me out by name, its all good.

        • 0 avatar
          Sloomis

          Religion and creed are both chosen, not immutable characteristics, but religious minorities are protected at the federal level, and people are legally protected for their “creed” i.e., belief system, in many states.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          jrmason – please post the evidence that sexual orientation is a “preference”.

          Tell that to my son’s friend who has NEVER had a heterosexual thought enter his head in his ENTIRE life or tell that to my friend who is gay.

        • 0 avatar
          Minnesota Nice

          You need to establish the definition of “preference”.

          Did you CHOOSE to be attracted to women? No. You did not. You CHOSE to ‘act’ on that impulse. Your attraction to women is not a choice – it is who you are.

          You are not sexually or romantically attracted to men – you did not CHOOSE that. You may prefer blondes or brunettes (or Russians or Japanese…and so on and so forth). That is a preference.

          I did not wake up one morning and say “You know what, I’m going to like men today and subject my entire adult existence to explaining to people why I deserve to get my car fixed when it’s broken or simply for acting a certain way that is natural for me.”

          I’m not particularly inclined to care WHY I am the way I am. I had a perfectly normal upbringing with a loving mother and father who continue to be a huge part of my life as I approach 30. I was not abused, raped, nor neglected.

          Regardless of what the media has told you, most homosexuals don’t walk around fornicating or shoving it down people’s throats. And for obvious reason, given the number of hate crimes that happen every year based on ‘perceived’ biases.

          I hate PDA – regardless of the orientation. But to tell me I’m not welcome in your public business because I happen to be slightly different than you is utterly ridiculous.

          Perhaps if these people took the time to actually get to know the people they so strongly feel ‘against’, they’d realize that they are normal people just as they are. For example, I happen to volunteer at the Animal Humane Society once a week, do fundraising for M.S., and volunteer at an old age home, spending hours of my week talking to people who have utterly no one else, in addition to my full time job at Target Corporate – you’ve probably purchased many products I had first-hand involvement in selecting for sale.

          I’m not looking for a medal or award – I’m just trying to say that I am a human being and being told that someone doesn’t ‘condone’ my lifestyle is offensive for so many reasons. What I do behind the scenes is no one’s business – but I’ll be damned if I don’t vocalize my ‘preference’ when people are trying to tell me I should be treated differently.

          I try to be a good person who treats others with respect and dignity and gives back to community and those who aren’t as fortunate. I like working on cars, going to the orchestra, and binge-watching mindless TV on Netflix. I also happen to like guys. I sincerely do not understand why, in light of everything else that comprises a person, that is the only thing people see.

          • 0 avatar
            jrmason

            Minnesota, your taking what I said out of context. I never implied nor do I believe that anybody should be treated differently regardless of race, sex, or sexual whatever since we dont agree on the P word I used. This is the one and only phrase Ive defended from the get go, and there seems to be a lot of resistance, but I agree completely with it whether it hurts someone’s feelings or not.

            “When interviewed by the NBC affiliate, Klawiter said that while he’d fix a vehicle in need of repair, he would not welcome a gay couple openly displaying their affection in his shop”

            While he made a few poor statements I believe this was the intent of his message.Sorry if it offends you or anybody else, but I would not condone this type of behavior on my property either regardless of gender or “orientation”. Its simply inappropriate in a place where there are likely to be other customers and quite possibly children.

    • 0 avatar
      Minnesota Nice

      jrmason, replace ‘bum’ and ‘greaseball mechanic’ with ‘African American’ or ‘woman’ and you’ll see why that logic is a bit troubling.

      Dress codes are not the same thing as refusing service to a person based on observed traits like race or perceived notions like sexuality.

      If you want to work in the public service sector, you need to follow the laws of the land and treat people like you want to be treated. There’s a reason anti-discrimination laws exist (and its sad that they still need to and don’t protect all classes).

      How would you feel if you walked into a restaurant you chose to patronize and give your hard money to, just to be told “we don’t serve your kind here”?

      Trust me – it doesn’t feel good. And it’s really bad for business at the end of the day. Now, if people are being disrespectful, disruptive, or obscene – kick their butts to the street regardless of who they are.

      I worked in high-end hotels for years and when booking groups, there were plenty of things I didn’t agree with – booking Republican groups and swinger parties chief among them. But at the end of the day, I was there to provide a service and unless the group was overtly harmful or hateful, I had no right to turn them away, regardless of how I “feel”.

  • avatar

    There is no such thing as bad publicity and these guys just got a ton of it.

    since he isn’t serving gay people, does he also turn away adulterers, those who eat animals who are unclean, and those eat yeasty breads? I mean how far does he want to take his values because he’s selling Christianity short if he’s only stopping at gays.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      I trim the corners of my beard. Leviticus says I’m a sinner, too.

      But, I’m a straight white family man, so the fart that I don’t get the Leviticus treatment just shows the prejedices of those trying to use the biblical argument.

      As an atheist, though, I don’t really care what the bible says. But, if someone wants to thow a bible at me, I’m happy to parse it and throw it back.

  • avatar
    jrmason

    Comparing this to racism is a wild swing at a policy that doesn’t exist. Sorry if that upsets you, but that’s the way it is.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “Comparing this to racism is a wild swing at a policy that doesn’t exist”

      For the next few months.

      That’s as long as I’d give it until sexual orientation is a protected class, at which point this will be **exactly** like racism.

      • 0 avatar
        jrmason

        Nah, were a long ways away from that. Maybe IF all states were to get on board, but there are enough conservative states that dont support it. There won’t be a national law anytime soon.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Nah, were a long ways away from that. Maybe IF all states were to get on board, but there are enough conservative states that dont support it. There won’t be a national law anytime soon.

          ………………………………………..

          Wasn’t the same thing said about decriminalized marijuana…….. and slavery………….. and woman’s right to vote……….. and………… and…..

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    I’m a carnivore & really, deeply love any red meat, whether beef, bison, elk, venison, horse (don’t knock it until you try certified clean horse), etc.

    Despite this, I will gladly provide business services to vegetarians, and even vegans (vegans are far more fundamentalistic, annoying & proselytizing vs vegetarians).

    I have to draw the line at Pastafarians, though. I know some may deem this judgmental, wrong or whatever, but I just refuse to assist them. I don’t hate them or wish them I’ll-will, however.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    “Dishonesty, thievery, immoral behavior, etc. will not be welcomed at MY place of business.”

    Gee…I wonder if Klawiter applies this standard to all his customers. After all, homosexuality is not the only sexual sin that “conservative Christians” have objections to. The list is legion.

    Now, if that’s really the deal – if he asks ALL his customers if they do anything in bed that Christianity might frown on, up to and including THAT little thing that tends to really freak some people out – then, yes, he’s a brave Christian moralist.

    I’m going to take a wild stab and say he doesn’t do this. That’s called “discrimination.” Just another a**hole bigot.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “up to and including THAT little thing that tends to really freak some people out”

      Well, now I’m curious.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Thank goodness no other religion is anti-gay. No mention need be made or ever shall be. Perish the thought. Heaven forbid.

      Damned evil basta*d closeted Christian powerstroked diesel mechanics. They are the new Bull Connors.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        @thelaine:

        Yes, “anti-gay” is part of the theology of many religions. I’m a Jew and it’s certainly part of mine.

        But you don’t see Jews, or non-fundamentalist Christians, doing this kind of stupid thing, do you?

        Nope.

        I’d say the blame is definitely where it belongs.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          No, you most certainly don’t “see” them, I will grant you that. As a matter of fact, that is my point. Some are seen, some are invisible.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            You don’t “see” Jews doing that because we don’t make our business to try and push our views on everyone else. In fact, Jews find that extremely distasteful, for reasons that should be pretty obvious if you know anything about our history.

            And if you ever wondered why Jews are overwhelmingly liberal on social issues, there’s your answer. It’s not that the faith doesn’t have behavior standards (in fact, many of the Biblical passages folks like this diesel mechanic quote are from the Torah), but that Jews generally aren’t willing to require anyone else to follow them unless they choose to.

            I wish more Christians would do the same. It’d lead to a LOT fewer stupid situations like this one. What, this guy thinks he’s actually going to make a dent in human sexual sin by refusing to fix the monster trucks of gay people? Spare me. If he were smart (and wasn’t an a**hole), he’d live his life the way he sees fit, let his customers do the same, and let God sort it all out.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            ” it’s not that the faith doesn’t have behavior standards, but that we don’t believe anyone else should be required to follow them unless they choose to.”

            I don’t understand, could you please clarify this point?

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            You dont know many orthodox jewish or muslim shop owners I’ll bet. Me either. For some reason, they are never in the news. I think diesel boy is an fool and secretly has a crush on tom cruise, but i also think it is obvious that christians are being targeted by social justice warriors. Others are being left alone. I am not a christian, btw. I just know the beliefs of the orthodox of those three. They are quite similar, i think, except for the executions.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @28:

            At its heart, Judaism does not believe itself to be the only way to salvation. Judaism is more focused on its adherents living their own faith, not convincing the world that Judaism is the correct way to go. That’s not “how we roll,” as they say. It allows us to focus more on our own actions, versus judging others for theirs’.

            It also means I don’t have to explain how non-Jews like Martin Luther King or Mother Teresa are lounging around with Hitler and Stalin in hell for not being Jewish, but I digress… :)

            Hopefully that makes a bit more sense.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “…but i also think it is obvious that christians are being targeted by social justice warriors…”

            Well, of course folks like this shop owner are being “targeted” – people who use their religion to justify their a**hole behavior usually get called out on it!

            And you don’t see Orthodox Jews doing this kind of stupid stuff because they’re not DOING this kind of stupid stuff. It isn’t how Jews do things.

            Put differently: if Mark Zuckerberg had designed Facebook to not work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday for Shabbat, you’d have a point. He certainly had the right to do so – many Christian-owned business close for their sabbath – but he didn’t. Michael Dell never mandated that his computers wouldn’t work on Yom Kippur. Steve Wynn could have said that no pork would be served in his casinos. And on and on. But you don’t see these people doing that, do you?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I wish more Christians would do the same.”

            Unlike Jews, Christians are supposed to proselytize. They are essentially in the marketing business, which explains a lot.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            You are in denial regarding the point i am making, which is fine. Its just christian bigots, after all. Nothing else to “see.”

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @FreedMike

            Thanks.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Well, thelaine, maybe you should give us some examples of Jewish or non-evangelical Christians turning gay patrons away. Do you have any?

            Doubtful.

            This is how evangelical Christians roll, on this and a myriad of other social issues. Or do you see Jewish people going Defcon 1 because evolution is being taught in public schools, or non-evangelicals railing on about abortion or gay rights? No, you don’t. And let’s be clear – all that stuff is wrong by a strict reading of Judaism too. But we don’t push that on the non believers. Evangelical Christians do.

            Sorry if that puts your back up, but that’s how it is.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Some people have decided to redefine “discrimination” so that it means “disliking those who discriminate.”

            There is a word to describe those who would butcher the English language in that manner: Idiots.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Im not targeting anyone.

        • 0 avatar
          Manic

          Well, there’s some Jews who do quite stupid things. http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.538978

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            There is an entire orthodox muslim and orthodox jewish community that makes this guy look like a civil rights pioneer. But…crickets….

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            In Israel, yes. We’re talking the country that gave us all the undying gift that is Benjamin Netanyahu. And in any number of countries, it’s the evangelical Christians who are being told “you can’t shop here.”

            Certainly ironic…but then again, that’s overseas.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          I don’t like the fact that this is being turned into a Christian thing………

          Lets be clear……..

          This guy is a HOMOPHOBE who is using Christianity to justify his own particular dysfunction.

  • avatar
    juicy sushi

    I like that he has the right to free speech which let’s him broadcast his views. It makes it much easier to know not to patronize him were I ever in the position of thinking about doing so. And it makes it easier to let those I know he has these beliefs too.

    I find the whole issue of legally protecting discrimination rather silly. There was never a need to be protected, and there was never a need to seek a law guaranteeing service. He has the right to his views, and the right to air them. We have the right to shun him in response, and to organize ourselves to shun his business en mass. I think that’s an important right that people are too eager to forget now, as it seems more would prefer to litigate than take actual action on their own parts to confront morally incongruent ideas in society.

    But that’s just my thought, and others are free to retort from whatever end of the political spectrum they choose. I will quite happily enjoy my rights to gleefully ignore them.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      It’s soon election season.

      Why would the allegedly different Republican & Democrat candidates, who work for & take campaign funds from mainly the same groups (bankers, lawyers, corporate titans) and therefore essentially represent the same interest groups, pass on a chance to loudly spout off on social wedge issues that are designed to cleave the electorate, and that they more likely than not will have no ultimate control over (despite much potential symbolic, blustery, yet empty voting), being destined to be decided on the substance inevitably by the courts?

      • 0 avatar
        juicy sushi

        Not sure why this was a reply to me? Either way, it’s not my problem as I have the privilege of not living in the US…

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          It was a direct indictment of the joke of a political system & public discourse surrounding that empty, rhetorical, political system that we in the U.S. suffer under, not your comments.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Unfortunetly, this is good for business on the west side of Michigan. That is, unless people just don’t want to be affliated with open discrimination of homosexuals. In WASPy West Michigan, that is usually done in private.

      • 0 avatar
        hglaber

        This instance is another piece of proof that this is changing, though. In 1985 (ok, maybe 1995 in the suburbs, and 2005 in Hudsonville/Holland) if you hang up a No Openly Gay Stuff sign the only reason you would be ridiculed would be for wasting money on such a useless sign. Might as well put one up that says No Martian Cliff Divers. That is clearly not the case now. Grand Rapids added sexual orientation as a protected class over 20 years ago, and East Grand Rapids just did so as well.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          GR has had an influx of young and diverse people coming for work in the health care industry or for school. It is not the bible belt it once was. Get outside the biogger cities though…

          Also, EGR is one of the few cities I would consider living in over where I do now. It’s possibly the only place in the State of Michigan I’d say that about. I live 15 minutes from Comerica Park though…I think I’ll stay where I am.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Fu*K all diesel shops. Psychopaths. They’re all shady. Some are criminal. They treat you like you’re stupid and have no clue just because you’re not working on it yourself. They’re shocked I know as much as they do, when they try to sell me totally unnecessary “recommended” parts, or “just ’cause we have it apart”. Just fix it, it’s not the Space Shuttle.

    The specialized tools and scanners cost too much for the common man. But once they’ve had it apart, you’ll always have problems. It’s just a bad situation and I won’t get another.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      6.0L owner I take it?

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Maybe 6.4L

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          You’re there more often when it’s a powerstroke, that’s true.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            What do you have then, an IDI 7.3L? 6.9L???

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s a 6.0 psd, but you really need to learn how to fix your own diesel, even if you take it to a “pro” anyway. I drove my 6.0 for 100K without a problem until an injector went down. No big right? So I took it to my local diesel shop/tec and have had nothing but problems ever since. Is it sabotage? Even when a tech is very careful, crud and dirt can get in and cause all kinds of havoc, down the road. I’m talking ‘past’ the filter. One time I got the truck back, more than a gallon ‘low’ on oil. WTF? This was after a warrantied ‘oil cooler’ gasket . You can’t trust these idiots. I’m doing all the work myself from now on. Until I can replace it with a gas V8.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            I wouldn’t blame the mechanics, by now they’ve worked on so many of them, they know exactly what they’re doing. The issue is that the 6.0L is notorious for failures, including the oil cooler. Consider yourself lucky it made it to 100k without major repairs. There’s good reasons the diesel shops try and sell you the “bulleproofing” stuff while it’s in for other repairs. Because that other stuff will fail, and fixing it when it’s apart is cheaper and saves consequential damage.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I do blame the mechanics. I trust the owners of the 2 shops in my area, but their techs are out for short-term gain. No doubt about it.

            It doesn’t need bulletproofing when maintained religiously, and that’s what you need to do with all newer diesels. They want to upsell crap like crazy and you can spend $8K on upgrades. It defeats the purpose at some point.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            You do need the bulletproofing because the engine design is garbage. There are many poorly engineered components and systems on it that are prone to failure. That’s not the mechanic’s fault. Low on oil after a repair, sure. 6.0L Powertstroke engines can get by with only regular maintenance if you consider injectors, branch tubes, HP oil seals, oil coolers, VGT components, EBP sensors, IPRs, ICPs sensors, EGR coolers and head gaskets regular maintenance items.

            I rarely pull credentials around here because it’s the internet, but in this case I’m trying to give you sound advice. I’m an expert on these engines, and I recommend you take your mechanic’s advice if you plan on keeping your truck for any length or time or want good value selling it. The bulletproofing stuff is what people look for when byuing these things. If those things aren’t done, many will walk away.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Bulletproof it if you plan on abusing it, mod it or neglecting it. Otherwise it’s totally unnecessary and completely overkill. At the 1st signs of problems, shut it down and deal with it. The truck will let you know. If you don’t trust your drivers, get new drivers. I’m owner/operator.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Most owner/operators don’t like the cost of lost opportunity because of breakdowns out on the road.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “Most owner/operators don’t like the costs…”

            Yeah I hate ALL costs! But that’s how they try to sell you needless parts and upgrades. Just fix it right and I’ll manage the rest just fine.

          • 0 avatar
            jrmason

            Its the general design whether you run it hard or not. I have seen people that used their 6.0 as a DD and occasional horse hauler in stock form sink THOUSANDS into their engine. 6 head bolts per cylinder? Are you kidding me? Is this a small block gasser or a high compression diesel? What an oversight, and that’s just the beginning. In contrast, my 5.9 and 6.7 CTD has 26 head bolts. And that is why I can consistently run 40+ lbs of boost on an 18 yr old engine. Nearly indestructible.

    • 0 avatar
      Manic

      “got the truck back, more than a gallon ‘low’ on oil.”
      That’s just shoddy work, unacceptable.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    “When interviewed by the NBC affiliate, Klawiter said that while he’d fix a vehicle in need of repair, he would not welcome a gay male couple openly displaying their affection in his shop, proclaiming he and his shop doesn’t believe in homosexuality. Klawiter adds that he isn’t going to ask customers about their sexuality, while also reaffirming his stance on PDAs by same-sex couples.”

    Not sure why he had to announce this view to the world, but the practical jist is don’t smooch your boyfriend in his shop, and he isn’t going to ask you if you’re gay. Personally, I’ve dealt with various shops and mechanics all over the eastern half of the US, and the subject of whether I preferred sausage or biscuits never came up. That said, if I were a gay dude, or really even a straight dude with a diesel, I wouldn’t be in any hurry to patronize his shop, but I don’t see where the lawyers need to be sicked upon him either.

  • avatar
    Keith_93

    The shop owner needs to learn some diesel history.

    Rudolf Diesel, whom invented the diesel engine, was a closeted gay man. While he had a wife and children, Rudolf had other interests.

    In effect, the shop owner is running a Gay Machinery Repair Facility. He may need considerable prayer begging forgiveness.

  • avatar
    Slave2anMG

    The wonder of it all.

    I am a Christian. This shop owner doesn’t speak for me.

    “This living a life of faith thing isn’t about looking for loopholes.
    It isn’t about twisting one little phrase of Scripture to make life easier or to avoid sacrifice or to lower the bar.
    It isn’t about exploiting the letter of the law to accommodate my anger.
    Christianity isn’t about figuring out how to get Jesus to consent to me being a jerk to someone else.” – John Pavlovitz

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Matthew 7: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

    3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

    “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

    3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

    *drop mic*

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    This nutjob only spoke out because he’ll get positive publicity, at least in the eyes of religious jihadists. He’s convinced there’s more of those than the alternative lifestyles demo (in diesel pickups).

    I’d just call him extremely racist *1st* and a devout ‘whatever’ 2nd. Except he obviously can’t speak out about specific races.

  • avatar
    Dan

    Perpetually outraged with a victim complex. Believe the other side is not merely incorrect but morally evil. A politicized movement crawling with activists and lobbyists that pushes its beliefs in every sphere of life. Boycotts and demands for firing at the slightest perceived dissent. Well on the way to making those dissents outright criminal.

    From the outside looking in, the fundamentalists and the homosexuals are more alike than different.

  • avatar

    This goes a step beyond what the Indiana pizza place or the florists/bakers/wedding venue people have done – afaik, all of them have said that they wouldn’t serve a gay wedding, but would still serve gay customers – their logic being that being involved in a gay wedding is against their beliefs.

    Personally, I think it’s silly to turn away paying customers, but I also don’t think that my religion says I can’t. I also think it’s silly to force people who don’t like you to take your money.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I’m waiting for some controversy to arise involving someone who practices Islam. Thus far it seems to have only been an issue between homosexuals and the otherwise pussifified Christians.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Muslims aren’t going to make a big deal of this…if they’re smart, that is. They don’t need any more bad press than all the events overseas saddle them with.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I’m not up on their religion exactly so I’m not sure what their exact beliefs happen to be, but I was under the impression they’re not too big on homosexuals and interactions with them. So what happens when a homosexual person/couple is refused some kind of product/service from a Muslim? Will we see outrage from MSM/society for the Muslim person’s beliefs or hypocrisy and sweeping things under the rug? That’s what i am implying above.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnnyFirebird

        @28-Cars-Later There’s a very, VERY Islamic restaurant in Montreal that my buddies go to frequently called Sana. I mean, this is the kind of place where there are posters for Imams speaking and such. It’s also some of the best Pakistani food in Montreal. I go there sometimes with my friends who are extreeeeeemely out (although not effeminate, just loud). Sometimes, honestly, my friends conversations make me a little uncomfortable for such a small restaurant, talking loudly about, er, personal stuff. But my friends are such frequent customers there that the staff has never asked them to change the topics, keep their voices down, and they usually give us a discount because he brings so many friends to their place. I don’t know if they’re afraid, or tolerant, or just don’t care. If you’re ever in Montreal definitely try their chana samosas.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I think these guys have brain damage from breathing the byproducts of the illegal removal of emissions equipment that it appears they do.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    When did LIE2ME get banned?

  • avatar
    cartunez

    I am amazed how many people get up in arms about such a simple matter. The shop owner has every right to refuse service to anyone for any reason he choses. Discrimiation is apart of the human condition and as long as you don’t no harm to anyone else I see no problem with it. Since we are confessing our sexual preferences. I prefer tall chicks (over 5’11) of any color and or shape with a nice butt and c cup or larger breasts. TGIF my TTAC friends.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Not in the USSA, comrade.

      Oh and if you run into a women of that persuasion under 5’11, feel free to send her my way. Thanks.

    • 0 avatar
      Sloomis

      Actually, no, he doesn’t, according to the Civil Rights Act. But in Michigan he does have the legal right to discriminate against gay people.

    • 0 avatar
      Minnesota Nice

      Thank you for highlighting the primary difference between ‘preference’ and ‘orientation’. You prefer your women (orientation) with the characteristics you listed (preference).

      Your attraction to women as a sex is not a preference, it’s your orientation. You don’t have an orientation to be attracted to men, and gay people don’t have the orientation to be attracted to the opposite sex. It’s pretty scientifically immutable fact.

      I would also argue that discrimination on unchanging characteristics are not part of the human condition, but rather socially, religiously, and politically conditioned. You can perceive differences, but your entire philosophy is shaped by experience and conditioning by those around you. You have a bad experience with one African-American male and suddenly its easy to remember that the next time you encounter a black guy – but you can’t generalize the actions of the few to the actions of the many.

      You say that “as long as you’re not harming anyone, you don’t see a problem with discrimination”. That’s the thing about discrimination – it DOES harm people. No disrespect – you’re entitled to your opinions, but I just think that’s a very selfish, narrow-minded opinion to have…the equivalent of saying “if it doesn’t affect me, I don’t care.”

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “It’s pretty scientifically immutable fact”

        Please elaborate I was unaware there was any science to prove whether or not homosexuality was a biological or generic condition.

        • 0 avatar
          Minnesota Nice

          If that’s all you took away from the above response, you are missing the larger point and focusing on reductive argument.

          I’m not going to take the time to list ALL the empirical, peer reviewed studies or engage in a debate about the origin of homosexuality, because it’s likely a waste of time. The bottom line is that it exists, for whatever reason: hundreds of thousands of people identify as homosexual all around the world and in every culture, it in no way negatively impacts your life personally, and frankly – that should be all you need to know.

          But should you desire further reading, here’s a couple: look up studies done by Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer, or Bruce Bagemihl (who has documented homosexuality in over 500 species of animals).

          Again – the point is not to sit here and ***** back and forth about whether it’s biological or not, but suffice to say, as a heterosexual, I don’t really think you get to tell another person what they did or did not ‘choose’. You didn’t choose to be straight – what you did ‘choose’, is to act those impulses. That’s the difference – choosing to be straight is not a thing – choosing to act on it, that’s a choice.

          No human being would ‘choose’ to be gay and subject themselves to the BS they are put through by people citing a 3,400 year old book or archaic thinking.

          At the end of the day, people are people – and should be treated as such regardless. You don’t have to agree, you don’t have to ‘like’ certain things, but your parents likely taught you to treat others like you wanted to be treated. And that’s a pretty simple, easy way to live a happy life.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Minnesota:

            No one’s going to change the thinking of people who believe gay sex to be a mortal sin. You might as well try and talk orthodox Jews into pepperoni pizza. Ain’t happening.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Unfortunately you skirt the only interesting assertion made previously. Yes I agree “it exists” and has throughout human history but earlier you drew a differentiation between a preference and an orientation. I agree with you that there is a difference between the two, and I also personally believe there is a generic or biological condition in which the “true” homosexual does exist and he/she exists as such without any conscious or unconscious choice in the matter. Assuming this was the case, it provides scientific validation to your differentiation between preference which is a choice and orientation which is not a choice on a biological level. Those who might choose to loathe the acts of homosexuality could be convinced otherwise if it was scientifically proven the homosexual is different not by choice and should be accepted as such. While one might argue this should be the case no matter the science, I argue in reality it does matter to people who can rationalize choosing something over being compelled to something.

            I also agree with your last two paragraphs but I would add mankind is a complicated creature and as a whole cannot simplify its thinking into what most of us are taught as “the golden rule”. However on an individual basis, there is hope.

          • 0 avatar
            jrmason

            So are you implying the real reason for intercourse is out of pure desire and not the need to reproduce?
            I guess Ive been confused all along, thanks for straightening me out.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Minnesota Nice – agreed. People have a right to be treated with dignity regardless of their inherited or even chosen characteristics.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I think it’s just common sense, 28. It’s not like I woke up one day when I was 12 and said, “well, on this fine day I’m going to choose to dig girls.” It just sort of came (no pun intended) to me over time.

          Same for homosexuals, from what the ones I know told me.

          That’s not very scientific, but it doesn’t have to be for it to be valid.

          • 0 avatar
            Minnesota Nice

            Well said – both of you!

          • 0 avatar
            hybridkiller

            The reason that science hasn’t been able to definitively identify a genetic or biological component that causes someone to be homosexual, is that science hasn’t been able to definitively identify a genetic or biological component that causes someone to be heterosexual.

            While I think it’s possible that one might “choose” a “lifestyle” that invites ubiquitous ridicule, persecution, discrimination, and severely limits the number of potential romantic partners, it simply defies logic to think that so many people would make such a “choice”. Even some Christian organizations who have supported and practiced so-called “conversion therapy” are now declaring that sexual orientation is not a choice, and at least one has publicly apologized for the damage done by their well-meaning but misguided endeavors .

            I’m straight, but as a former musician/performer I’ve known and worked with a lot of gay people and personally knew 2 who committed suicide because they couldn’t handle the social/religious/family alienation. I’ve also known more than a few who tried to function as heterosexuals but finally gave up after years of lying to themselves and everyone else. These were clearly NOT people who “chose” to be gay.

            IME the vast majority of anti-gay sentiment is fear-driven, and stoked by the political campaigns of right wing conservatives. Thankfully we seem to be reaching, or perhaps have reached, a tipping point on the whole issue.

  • avatar
    jeoff

    Cummins responded well.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    TTAC is like the Holiday Dinner Table, but with a more broad roster of topics sure to incite a riot, including:

    1) Politics
    2) Religion
    3) Unions
    4) Sexual orientation
    5) Immigration/Borders
    6) German BDSM
    7) Cadillac’s 12 billion USD investment over the next 5 year, the overwhelming majority of which will be spent on 3 or 4 sedans designed to compete with zeee German luxury marques, promoted by Melody Handbag Lee (and Johann de Nysschen who will be CEO of BYD Automotive by 2016), and that will together have combined sales, in the best/most optimistic scenario, matching that of 1/2 of BMW 3 series.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I think number seven only incites you to riot.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        When Cadillac, as a result of being perpetually & intractably retarded (full retard level), is killed off or sold to a Chinese firm, I’ll be vindicated regarding my calling out their utterly incompetent management & executives, beyond idiotic planning & decision making, yet it will be a non-celebratory, sad, hollow vindication (because it’s so easy to save Cadillac if only GM wasn’t so hopelessly hopeless).

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I’d like to see the brand fold if they aren’t going to be serious, but I see it not happening, nor do I see it being sold for one reason: 933 dealers.

          GM will not sell the marque to only have it compete with them in their own dealerships nor will they shutter it and then have to go to court with 933 dealers in a class action suit. In short: at Cadillacs the beatings will continue until morale improves OR they slim their offerings down and concentrate on being low volume “icing on the cake” for Chev/Buick/Gmc dealers as I have previously suggested.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I think Cadillac is deadly serious, 28. And I think you’re going to see some bada** product from them coming down the pike, and not just the V-series cars.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            We’ll see what JdN comes up with, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is at least one designer purse in the offing as well from CT Mel-o-dy.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Cadillac has been “deadly serious” during the entirety of their now 35 year old, ongoing self-professed “comeback.”

            The difference now is that they’re going to vastly ramp up the cash they’re committing to be vaporized in pursuing the wrong products, at the wrong time, while ignoring the fact that GM’s underlying cancer hasn’t been dealt with, even with the assist of a government-funded,prepackaged BK.

            You have promised future unicorns & rainbows to point to as your confidence-boosting elixir re Cadillac.

            I have 35 years of complete failure, including some of their biggest failures yet in just the past 3 years (ATS/CTS/SRX/XTS).

            “But, but, but…Johan will fix it for sure this time!”

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Its scary but there’s some real insight in this particular DW post.

            “while ignoring the fact that GM’s underlying cancer hasn’t been dealt with, even with the assist of a government-funded,prepackaged BK”

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            The cheerleaders of Cadillac literally hate me for speaking hard, cold facts about Cadillac’s present AND future prospects.

            They’d be better off, if they want to see Cadillac succeed, by venting their displeasure, frustration and hatred towards GM & Cadillac management (I’m not saying this would be statistically likely to make a difference regarding Cadillac’s long term viability, but it’d be more helpful than shooting me, a mere messenger of truth).

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s strange that you would feel the need to concoct this odd Cadillac-bizarro fantasy world in which you have cast yourself as some sort of sword-wielding hero, and don’t realize that it just marks you as being obsessive compulsive.

            Your Melody Lee fetish has also carries more than a few sexist and racist overtones.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            “Your Melody Lee fetish has also carries more than a few sexist and racist overtones.”

            Waaah! Waaaaaah!

            That’s racist!

            That’s sexist!

            I’m pch101 and I’m a tool & self-appointed PC Police!

            You’re not nearly as intelligent as you think, Cliff Claven, who knows everything about everything.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            For the record (edit wasn’t working on my phone) –

            Know-it-all Pch101 (who for all his accusations of others’ obsessions, is obsessed with knowing every answer to every question dealing with every topic in the history of the universe) accused me of somehow making both sexist AND racist comments against Melody Lee.

            I dare anyone to find such proof.

            I dislike her and believe she’s incompetent, mainly based on her own statements made (and centered around those in Ronnie Schreiber’s article on TTAC, highlighting her belief that “brand trumps product,” and the silly exposes she’s done in the likes of Bloomberg Business Week whereby she emphasizes what she wears to work (e.g. 9 West shoes) and why.

            She’s an idiot. That’s neither sexist NOR racist.

            I’ve been harder on Johan De Nyschenn than Melody CT-Lee. He’s just a complete, incompetent, moron, and worse yet, he’s the top of the food chain, not Melody.

            Pch101, you’re WAY off base.

        • 0 avatar
          hybridkiller

          Does anyone else see the irony in DW posting a comment that is simultaneously off-topic (as usual) while also being the only comment(s) in this thread that’s even remotely relevant to cars?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I actually think this has been a fairly well mannered discussion.

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        It all went well untill DeadWeight started slagging Cadillac again XD
        As for selling Caddy to the Chinese, nah, I think GM will keep going until there’s only Caddy and Chevy left, but yeah, they will be rebadged Buicks built in China.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Buick and GMC now exist to Xerox Chevrolet models for extra cash, until this stops working I don’t see them going away (also in the case of Buick, to be used for Opel imports).

    • 0 avatar
      LectroByte

      > TTAC is like the Holiday Dinner Table, but with a more broad roster of topics sure to incite a riot

      Nah, it’s more clickbaity and agenda driven BS. Other than the one Baruth guy and Murilee, it’s getting to be more of a “scan once a week and move on” site than something you hit every day.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      DeadWeight-
      What if an openly gay Muslim Democrat clad in latex snuck across the border from Mexico driving a Cadillac with the expressed intent of helping VW organize a trade union focused upon electric cars that would prevent global warming?

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Turned to gay coworker.

    Hey, do you have change for a $10.

    Let me check they said.

    Opened their wallet and I noticed their money was green – just like mine.

    *drop mic*

  • avatar
    kjb911

    I have had issue in the past where I was discriminated in Florida a few years back when my Focus had to have an unscheduled repair because I had an equality sticker on my car and my partner at the time hugged me. I was offended but just simply took my business else where. Last time I checked my money is the same as everyone else. I do admire GM for their welcoming environment considering I feel more comfortable then ever before at my dealership.

  • avatar
    Slow_Joe_Crow

    I think he’s just mouthing off to get attention and setting himself up to blame the impending bankruptcy of his shop on being a martyr to the vast gay conspiracy. The underlying assumption here is that he is a loudmouth dumbass who has already run his business into the ground and wants to blame somebody else. The problem is that AFAIK gay men don’t like bro-dozers so the likelihood of this being tested is slim to none.

    Now a Subaru specialist refusing to server lesbians might be more plausible source of conflict.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      I’m assuming that you read this: http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/04/an_open_letter_to_the_michigan.html

      In addition to this, he’s also operating without a required city business license.

  • avatar
    JohnnyFirebird

    This is way, way more attention than that jackass deserves. As socially liberal (and super gay) as I am I think reacting in outrage to every insult doesn’t really help anything. Okay. Cool. I’m not going to your store. Don’t worry about it.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      As a socially conservative, morally conservative, fiscally conservative man; you are on the right track. There’s no freaking biblical imperative to deny service to anyone that wants a brodozer! WTF? This isn’t a situation where the proprietor of the store is being asked to take part in something they find morally reprehensible. This truck accessorizer is being as intentionally insipid as Cameron is by drawing a parallel between the Indy pizza joint and this truck bedazzler. The pizza place proprietor said they’d serve anyone, but wouldn’t cater a gay wedding, which everyone seems to agree they’d never be asked to do. This clown may well be turning away business, business which the bible did not foresee or otherwise allude to.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnnyFirebird

        Ha! Truck bedazzler! At some point this goes beyond the scope of legislation and more into respect: I’d really prefer people working on my hypothetical marriage to not be upset by it. Sure, it’s a little lame that I have to go an extra step of making sure they’re cool with a gay wedding, but tolerance and understanding is a two-way road. Fortunately I’m terrified of marriage.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    The more gays, the fewer babies. I’m for a global campaign to encourage gayness.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/hopkins-hate-and-the-inhumanity-of-political-correctness/16886#.VTPfQ8nn_qB

    Real problems exist, SJW.

  • avatar
    baconpope

    “Diversity = our core values. We have no affiliation with this business and are notifying them to stop using our logo.”

    I would like to commend Cummins on their intolerate stance on diversity. Everyone should be allowed to think exactly like they are told to.

    • 0 avatar
      hybridkiller

      You don’t need Cummins’ permission to display their logo – UNLESS it is in connection with a profit generating business – such as a diesel repair shop. They have the legal right to enjoin this guy from displaying it, and most certainly the monetary wherewithal to make that happen.

      They are acting on their beliefs/principles just as Klawiter is acting on his – not sure why you think they’re somehow worse for doing it.

    • 0 avatar
      LectroByte

      LOL, telling someone to not use your name is intolerance? Persecution complex much? Cummins is not telling them what to think, just telling them they don’t want them using their name. I don’t blame Cummins one bit from disassociating themself from these bigots. Besides, everyone knows the butch dudes drive diesels, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA65lg1HWt4

  • avatar

    This specific situation seems different than others in the news (refusing to bake a cake for a wedding etc.) in my mind. The question that always comes to mind is “How does refusing to serve someone show Christ’s love for the individual?” I have no answers. As far as Christian belief goes – sin is sin. Someone earlier asked if this guy refuses to serve adulterers, fornicators or other such sinners. If not, a gigantic lack of consistency regarding his reaction to sinful behavior. A friend posited that since homosexuality is more easily identified, it gets all the focus. I also have concerns when openly homosexual individuals “target” businesses so they can take them to court for the business’s refusal of service. This even in light of the fact that there are other equally competent businesses that can and would serve them without reservation. That’s just as wrong behavior – vindictive and hateful and, dare I say it, hypocritical. The tolerant acting in an intolerant way. Toleration is not agreeing; toleration has it’s center in disagreement – with respect I might add.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      +1 THX

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      If there was an internet 50+ years ago, you would have been complaining online that the uppity colored folks should be tolerant of those who would deny them a place at the lunch counter or at the front of the bus.

      You would have labeled Rosa Parks as being a racist because she wanted to be equal, while you would have been sympathetic to George Wallace for being a poor white guy who was defending his rights to avoid integration. Which is to say that you and your ilk are pretty clueless.

  • avatar
    hybridkiller

    Pch, you beat me to it – I was just going to ask if THX thinks Rosa Parks was a hypocrite.

    The defenders of those who use the bible to justify doing things that Jesus Christ specifically said NOT to do – they think they’ve found a clever way to shut down progressives by turning the language around. Tell anyone who’s proactively seeking equal rights and equal treatment for all people that no, actually he/she is the hateful, intolerant one – and maybe they’ll just freeze in their tracks, do a does-not-compute, and collapse like a short-circuited robot in a bad Spielberg film. Good luck with that strategy.

    Sure I’m intolerant of intolerance – when it’s only purpose is to screw with people who you simply don’t approve of… based on Leviticus? Seriously?

  • avatar

    PCH and Hybridkiller, I respectfully encourage you both to go back and read what I actually wrote instead of what you “think” i wrote.

    @PCH: I believe that Ms Parks was a courageous individual that did something that was more than necessary at the time the incident occurred. I have immense respect for her due to that fact. I would not agree with anyone who did not feel likewise even though I would fight for their right to hold their opinion.

    @HK: tolerant is defined as: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. Intolerant is defined as: not tolerant of others’ views, beliefs or behavior that differ from one’s own. Do you personally feel it’s acceptable for a gay couple, who has the choice of several businesses to serve them, to deliberately choose the business that they know will not serve them for no other means than to advance their agenda? If you think it’s okay, do you then not find it “intolerant” of them to take that business to court as per the definition of the word tolerant/intolerant? As I said – and will hold to – tolerance has disagreement, not agreement/acceptance, at its source.

    After reading the article itself I came away with the understanding that any individual seeking service from the shop would be served with the only caveat being – provided no public show of affection occurred between 2 gay individuals (whatever the owner means by that!?). Is he within his rights as a business owner? Quite possibly. Would I take the same stance if it were my business? No. PCH and HK: I respect your right to differ with my opinion.

    By the way, you both realize that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr was intolerant? He was intolerant of violence, discrimination, small thinking, bigotry and many other social ills that typify human behavior.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Your inability to understand a concept that is as basic as public accommodation is tedious.

      Type “lunch counter demonstrations” and “public accommodation” into your favorite search engine and try to learn something. Your view of the world was eliminated with the Civil Rights Act.

  • avatar
    hybridkiller

    THX-

    I know you think you’re onto something clever with your selective application of the word “intolerant”, but since we’re quoting dictionary definitions:

    intolerance – unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.

    Now we need to narrow down the meaning of the word “accept” – in this context the most appropriate ones are:

    accept – a. To regard as proper, usual, or right
    b. To regard as true; believe in

    So essentially, “intolerance” IS disagreement – and yes, MLK Jr disagreed with / was intolerant of “violence, discrimination, small thinking, bigotry and many other social ills that typify human behavior” – big f’ing news flash.

    The debate is not about anyone’s right to disagreement – no one’s disputing that and in fact it’s a fundamental tenet in any free society.

    The debate is rather about to what extent you have the right to ACT on your disagreement/intolerance/whatever.

    Rosa Parks wasn’t being thrown off the bus, she was asked to give up her seat to a white person. If she’d simply complied with the bus driver’s direction and stood up she would have arrived at her destination just the same and would not have been arrested (as she had been warned would happen). Her choice and subsequent action was one of deliberate protest – and in her world, at that time, it was the only means available to her to do so.
    If a present-day gay person wants to take a business owner to court for refusal of service, and a judge agrees to hear the case – that is also a legitimate form of social protest, and often the most expeditious way to effect social change (whether you agree with such changes or not).

    For the record, I DID read what you wrote, and you were way too quick to characterize your hypothetical gay plaintiff as “vindictive and hateful and, dare I say it, hypocritical” (you had no such words for Mr Klawiter, so it’s pretty clear which side you’re on). I think you would need to walk in the shoes of the person who is the object of this kind of treatment before you label them so harshly.

    Also for the record, I have made NO comment either way on Klawiter’s right to refuse service.

    • 0 avatar

      HK –

      I appreciate your comments. My take on your question of to what extent one should take their disagreement would be to whatever extent that does not harm another individual – whether personally/physically or financially. I understand we disagree on this point. No worries. To specifically target a business – when others are available to serve me – to make a point would not be something I would choose to do. I do not “need” to force others to agree with my own personal beliefs. That would be intolerant. If I have understood you correctly, you hold the opposite position.

      Also, although I thought I was clear on my opinion of the shop’s stance, I disagree with the shop owner on his choice. I would add that he has the right to make that choice and suffer whatever consequences that may or may not follow. I would think you would agree with this, but I’ve been wrong many times and am sure I will continue to be so in the future.

      Since from your comments it’s clear I wasn’t clear on my opinion of Ms. Parks I would reiterate; I hold Ms. Parks in the highest regard. She did a courageous and necessary thing that day. She also fit my opinion on the appropriate extent to take one’s belief – she harmed no one – neither personally/physically nor financially.

      Again, thanks for your comments.

  • avatar
    hybridkiller

    “My take on your question of to what extent one should take their disagreement would be to whatever extent that does not harm another individual – whether personally/physically or financially. I understand we disagree on this point.”

    As a general statement I in fact do not disagree with that statement. I also am personally “tolerant” of Klawiter’s decision to refuse service at his discretion – at least from a legal standpoint. The fact that I think he’s morally wrong by his own standards (Matthew 7:1-3) is a secondary issue.

    Social change and the ongoing struggle for civil rights and equal treatment for all human beings is rarely clean and orderly (as evidenced by the events of the 1960s) – fairly or not, those who stand in the way of social progress may suffer some damage.

    There is a price to be paid by anyone who has to put their money where their mouth is in defense of their beliefs and principles – on both sides of this, or any, major ethical conflict.

  • avatar

    Perhaps where we differ is on identifying this as a civil rights issue. As you mention the 60s I would take it that you are referring to the discrimination against people of color. Blacks, as they are sometimes referred to, have no choice as to what conditions they were born into as a baby – not their skin color, social standing, where they lived, etc. As of this date there is no credible scientific evidence to suggest or prove that a person is “born” a homosexual – especially in the bio-physical aspect. It is a choice. Comparing the discrimination of someone with no choice in their life circumstances to a person with a choice in those same circumstances is invalid in my mind. If you know of scientific studies and/or evidence that I may be unaware of I would appreciate your direction to such sources.

    Again, I appreciate your thoughtful response, agree with much you have shared and have enjoyed this discourse.

    • 0 avatar
      hybridkiller

      I addressed this “choice” argument 4 days ago in response to another commenter, but I have C&Ped it below so you don’t have to do a lot of scrolling to find it (since we’re approaching 300 comments on this page).

      ***The reason that science hasn’t been able to definitively identify a genetic or biological component that causes someone to be homosexual, is that science hasn’t been able to definitively identify a genetic or biological component that causes someone to be heterosexual.

      While I think it’s possible that one might “choose” a “lifestyle” that invites ubiquitous ridicule, persecution, discrimination, and severely limits the number of potential romantic partners, it simply defies logic to think that so many people would make such a “choice”. Even some Christian organizations who have supported and practiced so-called “conversion therapy” are now declaring that sexual orientation is not a choice, and at least one has publicly apologized for the damage done by their well-meaning but misguided endeavors .

      I’m straight, but as a former musician/performer I’ve known and worked with a lot of gay people and personally knew 2 who committed suicide because they couldn’t handle the social/religious/family alienation. I’ve also known more than a few who tried to function as heterosexuals but finally gave up after years of lying to themselves and everyone else. These were clearly NOT people who “chose” to be gay.***

      Of the many gay people I’ve met and known, not a single one of them would tell you that it is a choice. Is there some scientific data that indicates they are all lying?

      If you’ve decided to withhold your compassion for certain people because you require scientific proof that they are worthy of it then you’re evidently not a Christian (“judge not”, and all that).

  • avatar

    You have made a huge assumption in your last paragraph. I do not and will not “withhold _ compassion for certain people” with the possible exception of a sexual predator of children who may or may not eventually murder their victims. It would be hard for me to have compassion on such.

    I am certain you understand the concept of self deception. Is it not possible the individuals who consider it a choice are lying to themselves to make them “comfortable” (for lack of a better term) with the lifestyle they have chosen? Understand, I am saying possible. I do not know that any of these individuals are knowingly doing so. It is just as possible that I am way off base on this.

    In a certain respect one would have to determine what is normative sexual orientation. From my limited 62 years on this planet I would conclude that heterosexual orientation to be normative and, from a purely biological aspect, the way humans were meant to interact in the area of sexual behavior. Other behaviors would be abnormal or, to put it another way, against natural design. Either way, the onus is on those who say it’s not a choice to prove it to be so. Since scientific evidence is what most people would accept as authoritative, that is where the proof must come from. Until it does, I have to stick to my conclusion that it is a choice until evidence is provided to the contrary. I understand you would not agree. I respect that.

    The “so many” you refer to account for, at most, 3% of our population for those who self-identify as homosexual. I include this for informational reasons NOT to say it’s insignificant. Due to the skewed representation of the gay community in our media – where upwards of 20 to 40% the people portrayed are gay – the public perception is that there is a much higher percentage of our population that is gay then there truly is. It is exaggerated at best, propaganda at worst.

    I’ve known a few gay individuals also. When they have been totally honest with me they have admitted the only “part” of their sexual activity that is pleasurable is when they are on the “giving” end and not the “receiving” end referring to anal intercourse. That,of course, was from males I’ve known. I cannot speak to the female side of this.

    Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the time you took to respond and your insight.

    • 0 avatar
      hybridkiller

      I’ll leave you with a final thought, and then I’ll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

      Suppose you are right, but despite that gay individuals are treated equally by the law – they are guaranteed the same rights as every other citizen, have access to the same products, services, public spaces, activities etc. as everyone else. They are also still bound by the same criminal laws, regulations, and expectations of modest and civil public behavior as everyone else. (despite your apparent disapproval the social, political, and legal trends are moving inexorably toward that end btw). Yes, suppose you are right. What has society lost? Nothing – unless you consider offending religious zealots and homophobes a loss to society.

      But here’s something for you to ponder, and I’m not looking for an answer from you here and now…

      What if you are wrong?

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Every heretic must burn.

        http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150424/hells-kitchen-clinton/owners-of-gay-hotel-face-boycott-ted-cruz-meeting-with-ted-cruz

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        In your argument ultimately you reward one minority at the expense of another. All three subgroups in this case, homosexuals, zealots, and homophobes are still all part of the same greater society.

        Religious aspects aside, polygamists may be in disdain but they do exist and are part of a greater society. If another subgroup came along and said their practice of X is abhorrent and should be outlawed, should one jump on the hate bandwagon or allow the polygamists their freedom?

      • 0 avatar

        HK –
        Interesting that you were thinking a similar thought. I was planning to suggest that we have taken up enough space here and, if you wanted to, we could could continue the conversation via email or some other agreeable format.

        To respond from the last comment: if I’m wrong – which I often am – then I’ll be another tolerant bonehead whose opinion is his own. Nothing more nor less.

        All individuals of this nation should be treated equally under the law. In my mind that is the main tenet guaranteed by the constitution of these united states. All have the right to believe what they chose as long as those beliefs do not infringe on others with like rights. This freedom should be tolerated by a “free” society in general with that caveat. Coercing someone by law to act in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs is wrong as it infringes on their basic rights as guaranteed by the legal documents of this nation.

        What has society lost? A good question and perhaps the crux of the matter in some ways. Society has lost the basic civility that should be shown to all indiviuals. It has lost the ability to reason and accept the fact that disagreement is a fundamental reality among human beings. Without disagreement the word tolerance has no meaning as that is at the core of the word and it’s meaning. Said another way, without disagreement the word tolerance has no relevant meaning to the situation.

        I do not doubt that things will go in the direction you mentioned. As it does, the America you and I know will cease to exist. Consider Rome’s situation leading up to it’s fall from power. Our nation is in a remarkably similar state.

        Wanted to mention a book you might find interesting. It was written by Dr. Rosario Butterfield who was a liberal, gay professor at a school on the east coast. It’s title is “Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert”. I had the opportunity to engineer an interview with her and found her story fascinating.

        In closing HK, I again thank you for your input and thoughtful comments. There are a lot more thngs I’d like to get your opinions on, but as you indicated, this should be the end of our discourse. I would hope things go well for you and those you care about in the future. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. Belief does not create truth. Unbelief does not destroy truth.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Art Vandelay: Anything? I mean I haven’t driven a new GT but I have been behind the wheel of an 05 GT as well...
  • Sundance: As my mom(!) told me: “Never lend you car or your wife to someone.”
  • Lie2me: I’ll stick with “improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.”, thanks
  • Art Vandelay: This isn’t a Leaf, Bolt, or even one of the compliance models like a 500e. Outside of the cities...
  • THX1136: Some may find the linked CDC document interesting. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/arti cle/26/5/19-0994_article...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber