Posted on 02/26/2014 7:22:13 PM PST by ReformationFan
Today the conservative talkers are jawing about the supposed "balance" between a person's right not to be discriminated against, and a business owner's rights of conscience. But the problem, you see, is that the first thing is not a right. I don't have a right to force people to like me. Or to hire me. Or to sell something to me.
Someone will say that I do indeed have those rights, as created by the Courts or the Congress or Eric Holder (Fleas Be Upon Him). But the government cannot create rights. Only God can grant rights. And a government that does not protect God-given rights (including and especially the right to property) is not a legitimate government.
Further, a government that does not follow the rules we set for it has no authority to make rules for us. The current regime will not even obey its own laws, much less the laws of God or the Constitution.
There is no "balance" between a "right to be served" and a right to do as I please with what is mine. As a boy I saw signs in diners and other establishments reading, "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone." I'm not sure what they were pre-empting. This was in the middle of farm country; there were no black people to exclude. I always assumed that the owners were giving notice to patrons who might disturb other customers with rowdy behavior. Or perhaps their in-laws. It was none of my business, so I never asked.
Would you say that obnoxious patrons have a "right" to be served? Or does the owner have the right to kick them out? What about drunks – must they be served more alcohol? After all, they have a "disease;" and we surely may not discriminate against sick people?!?
Even today I see signs reading, "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service." Doesn't this discriminate against the poor? And the overheated? Must my "right" to a reasonably sanitary dining environment be "balanced" against someone else's "right" to be served naked if he so demands? What if the would-be customer cannot pay? May the owner discriminate against him because he is "underprivileged?"
This is all nonsense.
Of course I have the right – even if I don't have permission from the lawless lawmakers – to discriminate against anyone for any reason, or no reason. Now that's usually a bad idea. I'm against it. But if a business owner does not have the right to hire and to serve whom he wishes, his enterprise is not really his. He has lost his freedom of association as well as his right of conscience and his property rights. Why? How did he lose those rights? Did he commit a crime?
Yes, he opened a business.
The issue is not your rights against his. The issue is one of imaginary, man-made, feel-good rights versus real rights. People who insist that one person has a right to compel another to serve him are properly called slavers. And slavers have always felt morally superior. The Civil War and the 13th Amendment didn't stop them; they're going to force you to work for them.
We want America to be an "inclusive" country, say the talk show hosts and guests. Well, of course. But we don't want it to be a police state, where people are mere puppets of the perverse and powerful.
Why is it that so few are outraged by government discrimination – against the rich, against conservatives, against business owners, against oil companies, against whomever doesn't pay a bribe to play the game – but so many are in a tizzy about private discrimination? Government discrimination is unlawful and evil. Private discrimination may be good (such as hiring your nephew), or bad, or neither. In any case, the coercive "cure" for private discrimination is violation of real rights.
This, and not a "balance" of real versus fake rights, should be the conservative argument.
“If we don’t have the freedom to discriminate, then we are not free.”
The govt-media complex wants everyone to be indiscriminate and undiscerning. That way, the citizenry is easier for them to control.
It’s too late for all these arguments (which is not to say I disagree with them). Too late, and to learn why, look up a legal concept called ‘public accomodations’. That is your culprit that passed while you weren’t looking, or else while you approved of it because it sounded so good and fair.
According to Websters 1828 dictionary:
He especially didn't define "the right to property" and what that right might or might not include.
He writes that "...a government that does not follow the rules we set for it has no authority to make rules for us". That's true enough, as are his words "The current regime will not even obey its own laws, much less the laws of God or the Constitution". However, to over simplify, the rules we set for government have to do with voting on issues, directly or indirectly through representatives who are put in position by voting. That's how the civil-political-public rights from the definition above come to exist. Our problem is that we have been losing "votes" for a very long time.
I've over simplified some here to keep this short, but I think he over simplified too.
People in the upper levels of society as so out of touch with the core values of this nation.
They can force us to serve them but they can’t force us to buy their stuff.
Further, a government that does not follow the rules we set for it has no authority to make rules for us.
maybe wedding photographers and bakeries should have a sign saying, each couple must have one penis and one vagina otherwise we have the right to refuse service.
Rand was a prophet.
That’s true and I would never knowingly eat in a restaurant they run. “knowing” is the keyword.
Unfortunately true.
This is excellent. Even some FReepers have a tough time grasping the vast difference between feel-good man-made rights and real rights. One of the best summaries I’ve read.
Homosexual ‘marriage’ law is about forcing the citizens to support and service homosexual behavior. I’ve been making this point for years now.
It is strange that we give people the legal right to opt out of military service, which is an obligation a citizen has to the entire country, because of religious beliefs, yet don’t want to pass a law which gives someone the right to opt out of providing a service to some private citizen because of religious beliefs - but then lefties don’t like the military, whereas they do like gays, so mystery solved.....
Excellent!!
Concise and correct.
One step more - he incorporated.
The ruling is against the corporation.
The corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate State that does business.
An unincorporated business is not bound by corporate policies (i.e. statutes and regulations and administrative court rulings).
Ths distinction is not just important - it's everything.
A business owner still has the ability to set prices. Unless he posts publicly a price list he can establish the price for any individual job at any level he wishes, particularly when there are custom elements to the product. If a photographer or baker doesn’t want the job, it can be priced so high the potential customer won’t buy.
Of course the government is already setting prices in medical care. It may not be long before we have a national wage and price control board, particularly when the dollar crashes and hyperinflation begins.
Can a gay owned print or graphics shop deny making a Churches literature about the sin of homosexuality?
Can a gay owner caterer deny catering a churches conversion therapy seminar?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.