Are you cool with companies refusing to let black people sit at a lunch counter? With denying them a Twitter account because they are Jewish? With telling women "Sorry sweetie, this software is for men only?"
Of course not.
But at one time, the idea that the sanctity of property rights gave a private business complete autonomy to discriminate was a "principled conservative position." But this is not a "principled conservative position" anymore; even National Review repudiated having held it a half century ago. Today, mainstream conservatives reject the notion that the government cannot regulate against discrimination based upon race or religion. And it is well-established in the law that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to enact laws doing so, except where the government violates the religious liberty of the business owner, so put that in your cake and bake it.
The "principle" that we can’t tell a private business who it must do business with is no principle at all. We accept that discrimination can be curbed, leaving only a debate over what kind of discrimination should be curbed.
First of all, private property means exactly that: private property. And anyone who claims that the government has a compelling interest in forcing private business owners to conduct business against their will has no idea what it means to be a conservative. This is how you end up in a completely untenable environment where a baker is forced by law to serve clients against his wishes ... under the directives of totalitarian laws and regulations written by lawyers who are free to accept or reject clients at will.
It's pathetic that someone has to resort to a religious freedom argument to make a legal case against this idiocy. A business owner should be free to accept or reject customers for any reason at all ... and "I just don't like you" should be a perfectly acceptable reason. If a business owner wants to reject a specific group of potential customers, then so be it. Professionals like lawyers and accountants do it all the time. Why aren't restaurant owners and bakers held to the same standards?
This country is doomed if someone like Kurt Schlichter no longer understands what the term "Mind your own business!" even means anymore. This idea of government compulsion to conduct business against your will has no place in a free nation.
The "principle" that we can’t tell a private business who it must do business with is no principle at all. We accept that discrimination can be curbed, leaving only a debate over what kind of discrimination should be curbed.
I usually agree with much of what you say on other topics; however, on this topic, it is a good thing that more read Kurt Schlichter than you on FR. :)
My opinion is that winning is the only thing that matters. We can always apologize for any transgressions at the Victory party.
“First of all, private property means exactly that: private property.”
And you can’t use private property to destroy civil and constitutional rights.
These fascists and communists you’re defending are engaged in sedition - direct attack on constitutional rights. But you libertarian lunatics value dogmatic purity and virtue signaling over our constitutional republic. You want to stand up in public and beat your boney libertarian breast, telling everyone how constitutionally pure you are even if it means the republic must fall.
But for you libertarians, corporate private property rights trumps the private property constitutional rights of a sovereign nation and its citizens. That’s asinine in the extreme.
The last so-called libertarian you lunatics ran for office was in favor of open borders and unlimited abortion. Libertarians are seriously messed up in the head.