Allen West BUMP! Mark for later...
Ping on reading this, it gets my thumbs up. Pretty sad that it’s actually Alan West who explains this matter, and not a sitting politician.
As a business owner I should have the right to refuse service to anybody for ANY reason.
Now the refused party also has the right to stand out on my sidewalk and protest my practices and hurt my bottom line by steering potential customers away. But the refused party SHOULD NOT have the ability to seek the force of government to force me to change my service policies.
Why not just rewind the film back to 1776 and start all over?
I, for one, am sick and tired of being sick and tired of these damned, infernal ‘lawmakers’.
That’s why I tell the RNC telecallers that I am a member of neither political party as I am a devout Monarchist.
nailed it.
And honestly it’s an easy argument to make and that nearly everyone “even those on the left” will GET.
The contrary argument is obvious. The practice of religion, any and every religion, is Constitutionally protected, but business ownership is not. The argument is if your religious beliefs disallow you to treat everyone equally, then you cannot go into business.
Something just crossed my mind. How about an employee of a private organization directed to act by his employer against his religious beliefs? Do these laws protect that person? At least to the extent of requiring "reasonable accommodation" by the business owner?
The law should protect people, not businesses.
The First also mentions Freedom of Association.
So, in conclusion, this ruckus is much ado about nothing — other than a certain group that seeks to impose its lifestyle and behavioral choice upon others. Now that ladies and gents isn’t fair — and it’s even more unfair when the state is complicit by way of coercive policies allowing one to throw the punch, forcing the other to take it on the nose.
I think he’s all over the target and getting good hits.
One point I wish folks would think about is the invention of new rights out of wholecloth. For instance, most any “PC” issue hinges almost entirely on a completely contrived “Right NOT to be offended”.
Then there is the additional twist that this “Right NOT to be offended” only applies to PC Issues and not to those who oppose any PC issues. ie. The PC gay mafia has the right NOT to be offended by a baker refusing to produce a same-sex wedding cake; however, if you as a baker are opposed to and offended by producing a same-sex wedding cake, then it is acceptable to deny you the same “right”.
Where did this magical, logically twisted “Right NOT to be offended” come from and why do we (society) even accept it as a premise? Once you remove that premise, what remaining argument do they have?