Michigan Diesel Shop Refuses To Serve Openly Gay Customers

by Cameron Aubernon

April 17th, 2015 9:46 AM

michigan diesel shop refuses to serve openly gay customers

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.

#BrianKlawiter #Cummins #Dieseltec #Discrimination #Grandville #LGBTConsumers #Michigan #PoliticalStatements #PrivateBusinesses #SocialMedia

Comments

Join the conversation

7 of 282 comments

THX1136 on Apr 22, 2015

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.

Like Reply
- Hybridkiller on Apr 22, 2015
  
  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).
  
  Like
THX1136 on Apr 23, 2015

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.

Like Reply
- See 3 previous
- Hybridkiller on Apr 23, 2015
  
  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?
  
  Like
- Thelaine on Apr 25, 2015
  
  @hybridkiller 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
  
  Like
- 28-Cars-Later on Apr 25, 2015
  
  @hybridkiller 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?
  
  Like
- THX1136 on Apr 29, 2015
  
  @hybridkiller 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.
  
  Like