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.
Holder says State AGs are allowed to act on their “rights of conscience”. But woe to the average Joe citizen who demands the same.
“But if a business owner does not have the right to hire and to serve whom he wishes, his enterprise is not really his.”
~~~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~~~
“You didn’t build that. Someone else made that happen.”
— Baraq Hussein 0bama
I’ve used this same reasoning myself. Unfortunately, most people have shut their brains off and allowed the government to do their thinking for them.
They have no right to force me to serve them, but they have a law that forces me to serve them.
My choice in that society:
1. Change law
2. While waiting for law to change: Rebel in the meantime or Follow law in the meantime.
Is there a choice I’m missing?
I agree that I don’t have a “right” to a hamburger at Burger King. I have the right to “pursue” getting a hamburger at Burger King.
You have more brains than the Arizona legislature who failed to defend the law they passed with any coherency.
...brains had nothing to do with it...the NFL with its Damoclean threat of a Super Bowl takeaway sealed the deal...
“...a government that does not follow the rules we set for it has no authority to make rules for us.”
This should be taught in every school in America. The government can only get its authority from the consent of the governed. If not, stop calling it a “free country.”
Of course, the Muslims will never have to go against their religion. They are members of Islam, the only protected religion in the USA, because they could start beheading people if you offend them.
Unfortunately, Christians don’t have that clout. However, we can refuse to support those companies that blackmailed Gov. Brewer in order to get their way.
That includes the bullies at the NFL.
if they can threaten to boycott Arizona can we not boycott the NFL and the Marriot?
...get back to us on how that boycott of the NFL goes...
Those signs are one lawsuit away from being prohibited.
show me the signed contract please
No contract, no order, no service
That’s interesting. So, we’re back to “Corporations aren’t people?”
Does this mean that I can go into a Muslim restaurant and order a ham sandwichand and sue him if he refuses to sell me one?
...theoretically, it means exactly that...however, what some of the posters are missing with high falutin’ phrases concerning rights and authority is that all social contracts are only as good as the people they are intended to service...and we the people can use moral suasion to override that which we do not like in any contract...just like the Amish and their shunning, which is counter to their ethical code,but works like a charm to achieve intended behavioral results...in this case, that moral suasion is being applied by a group that trades on garnering moral sympathy, and is being buttressed by one of the major cultural influences in the country (NFL)...in your case of the ham sandwich and the Muslim, the people would simply say ‘take it to another diner and be done with it’, because there is no sympathetic impulse to invoke moral suasion to support your action...
...laws, and flowery prose regarding the Social Contract are all fine and dandy, but when we the people go about the business of creating ‘favored group status’, our affairs with that group becomes a game without cogent rules...
I’ve been trying to figure out how I would deal with this if I were the vender. Since I”m close to retirement I know I would just close up but a lot of people can’t do that. I’m thinking of our friends who are living a gay life style. We have two right now whom we have known for decades. They aren’t a couple - one lives in the northwest and the other in the south. They don’t know each other but each is in a relationship. I would pass on going to a “wedding.” The photographer who had been doing photos of the “gay” man and his family and friends for years? And then says “no” to the wedding? I think I would just show up, late, take a few shots and go home. The wedding cake? Do people really want the person who makes the cake cranky at you? I’m really polite to waitstaff. My kids have been waiters and they have some pretty scary stories. Flowers? Same thing. Its creative. At least you don’t eat flowers.
An unincorporated business is not bound by corporate policies (i.e. statutes and regulations and administrative court rulings).
...you’re implying that a sole proprietor can do as he likes and would enjoy doing so under the rubric of complete freedom from authoritative sanction...
...so, if the lesbians in question here walked into a sole proprietorship, and asked for a wedding cake for two women to feed to each other, and were politely refused, they would simply look at each other, shrug their shoulders, and say ‘well, after all, it’s not incorporated, so there is no advantage to getting the vast social propaganda machine going here to publicize the case and expose these people and the rest of their ilk for the bigots they are’...
...in other words, we’d have no thread going on here, all because the bakers hadn’t incorporated and thus the proverbial feces would never have come near the whirling blades...
It's nice to know that someone else realizes government has duped the People into claiming to be what they are not.
Trying to explain that the Founders constructed it so the government and the People didn't operate under the same kind of 'law' can get you called some very interesting names around here. :-)
The author has high lighted some very crucial points.
Excellent.
Agree, good read worth the time. A good display of common sense too.
Trying to explain that the Founders constructed it so the government and the People didn’t operate under the same kind of ‘law’ can get you called some very interesting names around here. :-)
...unfortunately, people are dreaming if they believe a government will limit itself to such legal niceties as treating ‘a person’ as distinct from a ‘corporation’ if said person stands in the way of desired societal objectives...
...legal niceties have nothing to do with zealots out to unmask and intimidate their perceived enemies...
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.