American Straight Talk about Religious Freedom and the Free Market
Posted on 04/14/2015 6:04:22 AM PDT by wagglebee
Gutless Republicans are a very big part of pretty much every problem.
counties = countries
I'll admit that I think race is a different issue. Race is my one holdout. There is something about a location that has a history of rejecting gingers, for instance, that would bother me. I wouldn't like a sign in a door that says, "No Gingers!" And the poor gingers could be living in an area where a majority feels negative toward gingers.
Of course race is different, unfortunately the left wants to characterize everything as a form of racism even when it isn't.
And that's exactly why a business should be able to use their own decision making on what they will or won't serve.
Do I think a restaurant should be able to reject as customers a couple that comes in that is covered in lice and bedbugs?
Yes. I do. It would certainly be embarrassing for everybody, but it's not fair to put others at risk.
And there are a host of other good reasons. Is it wrong for a store to have a sign "no shoes, no shirt, no service"? I don't think so. Is it possible there are folks in this country so poor they don't have shoes or shirt. I suppose it's possible. But it isn't very likely.
Keep in mind we have jobs.
I would be fired if I spoke up at work or on FB.
“The Governors needed a public outcry from thousands of angry conservatives pointing out that “religious freedom” means having the right to decide what is immoral, unnatural, perverse, and destructive – and can be openly opposed.”
Pontius Pence folded faster than a plastic yard chair under a 500 lb man. It takes a bit longer to get an effective public outcry going than that.
A simple test would be: is the product or service consumed for its own sake or is it an accessory to another goal or event? If it is an accessory, then the goal or event may be objected to on religious, or political, or any other freedom of association grounds. If it is a product or service the merchant already sells, and is consumed as such, then rules of public accommodation apply, as with segregated businesses back then.
There are two problems with the bills like the Indiana one. First, they do not distinguish between these two cases. Second, they make is a question specifically of religion, whereas it really is a freedom of association issue. For example, a seamstress might refuse to sow KKK gowns or a caterer might refuse to serve a political gathering.
Race is a poor analogy altogether, not only because one cannot choose his race, but also because with Jim Crow laws the issue was public accommodation: if you sell X to the public, then sell X to anyone.
Gay people have rights too. Americans sense that deeply; the moment a legislation reminds them of Jim Crow refusing people to buy a sandwich, they do not support it. Religion freedom is threatened not because a commodity, ordinarily for sale, is refused to the gays, but because the merchant is forced to associate with an event he abhors.
Yes, I did make race my one exception. And it is a poor analogy as long as it isn't the basis of any discrimination. I think my line above shows that I clearly don't see race in any way similar to homosexuality. There is no genetic connection to homosexuality. And for those who think there is, the link they pretend to see is so fuzzy they can't even discuss it. With race, on the other hand, you're not going to mate 2 New England WASPS and out pops a Korean. EVER. Without fail, another Caucasian is born. ALWAYS.
” Keep in mind we have jobs.”
Yes we do - and they do too. Their job is to take away our rights and they are extremely happy that we’re too busy to defend them, or that we consider our jobs more important than our rights.
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.