Posted on 04/03/2015 12:15:07 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
Conservatives make a major mistake when they concede basic philosophical points to the Left, rather than risk the flood of name-calling & insult that are the Left's only real "arguments."
Tim has it exactly right. And forget about the word discrimination. This is about a natural right, freedom of association. The natural right trumps everything else.
The right to discriminate is the right to make choices based on one's lights & preferences; rather than be forced to abide by the Government or some one else's lights and preferences.
Let me point out something that is obvious, yet virtually overlooked in this latest example of Leftist bully tactics.
Most Conservative spokesmen today--most Conservative organizations in America today--take an approach to the battle which basically concedes what the Left has already accomplished in its assault on personal responsibility & individual liberty. Most only seek to hold a line that yields no more.
Thus only a few of us still insist that the whole fabric of legislation that forbids discrimination against various protected classifications by private individuals & private businesses is wrong; fundamentally wrong in denying people the freedom to use their own property for what were always legal purposes in the past. We after all, as free people, have always claimed the right to make our own decisions--that is to discriminate in our personal choices. It is not something aimed against any group; rather a right that all free men & women have in common.
When Conservative spokesmen concede the past campaigns' ever broadening the list of protected categories--broadening the limitations on other peoples' choices; they create a situation where the Left can only continue--successfully continue--to ever more aggressively push the envelope. Their strategy--those who supposedly speak for us--gurantees defeat. It surrenders a major part of the primary argument on our side, i.e. personal freedom in one's own choices, while allowing the foe to pick targets one at a time, while citing the previous now conceded triumphs in restricting the rest of us, as a precedent.
Can anyone imagine fighting a war, where every bit of territory previously gained by the foe, is forever conceded to the foe? How long would it be, with such a method of engagement, before the result was total conquest of the idiots employing that methodology?
Instead, please consider adopting the approach offered in the link provided in #21.
Another obvious advantage of a realistic counter-attack that concedes nothing, is that it avoids the necessity of appearing as anti-anyone--something that much of the youth has been conditioned to reject, Palovianly, without analysis.
William Flax
My parents taught me that there are certain people and certain activities that are unacceptable and I should not associate myself with them. “You are known by the company you keep” along with “Birds of a feather flock together”, were repeated many times during my journey to adulthood. I should have the right to free association and not be forced to participate in activities that are just plain wrong. Also what is the point of a religious freedom law if it doesn’t include my choice not to participate in things I have been taught were wrong?
Great article.
Excellent point, never heard that raised before in all the threads on this topic.
“It is this sort of fascist approach that is inherent in public accommodation laws (as well as other laws concerning businesses that I won’t address at present). The government tells businesses who they are to do business with. If the radical Left gets its way, businesses will have no choice in the matter. The appeal to their being “public” is used to justify their being coerced BY the certain vocal segments of the public, through the agency of the government.
“This is an unjust misuse of the police powers of the state.”
Exactly. This type of tyranny of government over private property rights is unconscionable. No one has a right to be served by a private business. If the business wants to do without my money because they don’t like me, they have the right to refuse to serve me. How do I have the right to make them serve me? A pizza parlor, bakery, or photographer is not a government protected common carrier.
Of course, the big government types don’t want anyone to “get their feelings hurt”, except possibly for white persons and Christians.
Prior to the creation of the artificial classification of “Public Accommodation”,
all property was classified as either “Private” or “Public”.
-
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
TITLE II: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SECTION 201.
(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,
as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation
within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation
by it is supported by State action:
-(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests,
other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms
for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
-(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility
principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to,
any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
-(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place
of exhibition or entertainment; and
-(4) any establishment
—(A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment
otherwise covered by this subsection, or
—— (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any
such covered establishment, and
—(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
SECTION 202.
All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation
of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or
segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order
of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
SECTION 203.
No person shall
(a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person
of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or
(b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person
with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or
(c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right
or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.
The above post does make a valid legal point from a neutral point of view and that sounds fine however with a couple caveats from my viewpoint, disagree or not
1. Government nor society does not stop me from any woman I chose to date or what woman I choose to marry if I have freely chosen that female regardless of ethnic background and our families have accepted it and will make no law doing so.
2. Same as number 1, they do not tell me what my friends should be like and who I should hang around on my spare time.
3. No promoting any form of supremacy (ethnic or gender) of any sort by the powers at be.
And to be fair about all of this, in reality our society is not like back then, it is more accepting and things like Jim Crow is a thing in the past and what caused all the crap back then was government, for if it was not for that we would not be going through this mess.
Are all y’all watching the gofundme site for memoriespizza? By this time tomorrow, those people will be millionaires. Up to $780,000.
http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza
“Because when that happens, the revolution starts, and the gay people will end up worse off in the end.”
No doubt. Lets see how the MSM will spin this one.
Yes. And the world of American politics is still divided between those who understood Goldwater's objection, and those who don't have a clue, but prefer to think him a bigot anyhow.
The Civil Rights Act was entirely correct in prohibiting discrimination by government. It erred in extending the principle to private entities, especially businesses, by deeming them "public accommodations."
This was done as an ad hoc expedient to end Jim Crow segregation. Jim Crow would have withered and died once de jure discrimination was ended, but we were in a hurry, and Lord knows that Jim Crow had to go. But Congress most certainly opened Pandora's box.
Mostly we need to remember that the actual intent of public accommodation laws was legitimate, but those laws have now been perverted by the left to the point where they bear little resemblance to their original rationale. There’s nothing wrong in requiring a restaurant, gas station, or hotel that holds itself out as a service provider to the public to provide that service to ALL the public. The alternative would be to permit a group of business people to get together and starve out anybody they don’t like.
But when the rule gets stretched to apply to any business providing any service whether the prospective customer has alternatives or not, it goes too far.
I agree with your analysis of the problem, but the reason we can't address this root issue (that anti-discrimination laws are wrong in principle) is because the Media Industrial complex will go into thermonuclear overdrive heaping vituperation on anyone who dares suggest such a thing.
It is a non-starter. It really is. Therefore I predict we will never be able to solve these sorts of problems short of societal collapse.
Ping for later
Liberaltarians do like to attach their unhealthy practices to racial issues. There’s a difference between serving someone who is black and being forced by law to make a creepy weirdo product with your business name on it.
Nice analysis.
That would be the ultimate triumph for individual liberty. I think it’s an idea worth pursuing.
This is all about the use naked use of power to try and harm Christian businesses. The homos would never ask a Muslim bakery to bake them a wedding cake or a Muslim-owned pizzeria to cater a homo wedding.
Unfortunately, you are right. The "religious nuts" Goldwater railed about shortly before he died are the same people who strongly supported him during his prez run in 1964.
It certainly wasn't the effete, east coast Rockefeller Republicans who supported Goldwater. They despised the church-going, flyover country Republicans who gave Goldwater his strongest support. Too bad Barry lost his marbles in his old age.
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.