Posted on 04/07/2015 7:09:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You may have heard that the government is forcing businesses not to discriminate. It isn’t. If you chose to run a business, you have to follow the laws. If you don’t, that’s a choice—and you choose to suffer the consequences.
Still, in the wake of the controversy surrounding Indiana’s law, conservatives don’t see it that way. Even potential Republican presidential candidates are getting in on the assertions. Rick Santorum recently said:
If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up? Should the government—and this is really the case here — should the government force you to do that? This is about the government coming in and saying, “No, we’re going to make you do this.” And this is where I think we just need some space to say let’s have some tolerance, be a two-way street.
There are two problems with Santorum’s reasoning. The first is that a printer doesn’t have to make such signs, under any law, because refusing to do so is not discrimination in any legally prohibited sense. A print shop can also refuse to print a poster that says, for instance, “F*ck Rick Santorum,” either because it disagrees with the language or the sentiment. Both are entirely legally permissible decisions any business can rightfully make.
But let’s say the printer is asked to make a communion sign or a gay wedding sign. In this case—especially in states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as religion—refusing to print such a sign would indeed be illegal. The government isn’t forcing that business to do anything other than follow the law. Which is what we expect of all businesses, equally.
This issue of government force is a funny one. You could also argue that the government is forcing you to drive below the speed limit or wear a seatbelt in your car. But it’s not. There isn’t a police officer holding a gun to your head literally forcing you to buckle up. In fact, you are 100 percent free to speed and not wear your seatbelt—and simply deal with the consequences if you’re pulled over. Is the threat of the fine for breaking the law amount to “forcing” you to follow the law? No.
And more to the point, the government certainly isn’t forcing you to drive. If you don’t like the speed limit and seatbelt rules, and don’t want to be subject to the consequences of breaking them, then you can not drive. Whether to drive or not is your choice.
This all seems simple when we talk about driving, but somehow a fringe set of rightwing conservatives want us all to believe that hapless business owners are somehow being forced, against their will, to serve pizza to gay people. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don’t want to serve pizza to gay people, by all means, don’t—which, by the way, is legal in Indiana and 28 other states, but even where it is illegal, you’re still free to do so and deal with the consequences of breaking the law. That, pizza shop owner, is your choice. And if you don’t want to deal with those consequences, well, no one is forcing you to be in the pizza business. You’re free to do something else.
In the wake of the Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967, Bob Jones University, a Christian college in South Carolina that explicitly denied admissions to black students, maintained its policy against interracial dating and marriage, citing the Bible. So the school suffered the consequences. In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Internal Revenue Service to revoke Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status. But the university was still free to continue its discriminatory practices. In fact, while the school did start admitting African-Americans in the 1970s, the ban on interracial dating was only lifted in 2000.
In the United States, private businesses get all kinds of government support—a functional monetary system, police that safeguard private property, roads that help deliver customers and goods, public schools that educate workers, telecommunications infrastructure, legal protections against copyright and patent infringement, tax benefits for business expenses and employee health care, legal shields for owners and more. No one is forcing businesses to take advantage of all those benefits, nor forcing you to start a business to begin with nor forcing you to do so in a state with non-discrimination laws or in the United States to begin with.
Don’t like following the laws that apply to businesses—including serving all customers equally? Then don’t start a business. That’s your choice.
-- Sally Kohn is a columnist and CNN political commentator.
What is nonviolent about “Do what we tell you or starve because you either cannot start a business or you will lose the one you have?”
No. Sally Kohn is a thug and a supporter of pure evil.
When the government says "actively support gay 'marriage' through expressive work as a photographer, as a baker, or through other artistic expression", government has crossed over from protecting access to a public accommodation to violating freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. These are not people saying, "I'd like a dozen plain pizzas and a dozen pepperoni", they are demanding expressive customization, that their slaves obey their orders to create custom art or cater a gay "wedding" (with pizza? which is as obvious a set up as it gets). Government acting in that manner has become a thuggish force that must be obeyed only out of fear, with no moral duty to obey.
This problem, and many others, started because of the stupidity of making “sexual orientation” a status in the same protected areas as race, gender, religion, etc.
There is NOTHING wrong with being a certain race, colour, gender, religion, etc., and as such they should be protected.
However, there IS something wrong with the act of homosexuality, according to The Bible. This immediately causes a huge problem, which is now playing out.
So far so good.
RE :”But let’s say the printer is asked to make a communion sign or a gay wedding sign. In this case—especially in states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as religion—refusing to print such a sign would indeed be illegal. The government isn’t forcing that business to do anything other than follow the law. Which is what we expect of all businesses, equally. “
This is where her argument breaks down and she contradicts herself.
How about later, when they just chucked them into nut-houses? Was that law good too Sally?
Uh.....muslim cab drivers ARE refusing these fares in NYC. It's just that no one is complaining about it. The muslims, too, are a protected left wing voting block. Their religion is 100% protected by the left.
Nonsense. Our society has long held that people had freedom of speech and association. The idea that anyone offering a creative service to the public would therefore be compelled to provide whatever some customer wanted is nonsensical. Even the author of the article believes that there is an exemption for bakeries - just not Christian bakeries.
By your logic a professional photographer would have to accept every customer who wanted their services, regardless of what the customer wanted them to photograph. And a professional writer would have to write about whatever anybody asked them to. That's inconsistent with the values of our society and common sense.
And no one is saying an LGBT can’t order a simple cake, cupcakes or cookies.
Their personal rights, however, end at the infrimgement of my rights, which are constitutionally spelled out and protected.
Gays are also covered in the Freedom of Religion clause.
Now, what if 7 people came in under the auspice of marrying each other in a polygamous union?
Hey, what if a NAMBLA member came in and simply desired a cake with the words “I like young boys”?
What of the brother and sister entering into a union and insisting they have the right to enter into a union, as well the expectation that a baker should be compelled to put on their cake expressions such as “Thanks mom and dad. We’re keeping it in the family”.
It quickly gets worse from there.
The only real solution, if it is truly a religious issue, is for Religious people, going forward, to just not enter into a grant of license from the state.
You would lose a good many protections under the law but, if you truly desire to be with each other for the rest of your lives then getting married in a church blessed ceremony shouldn’t be a bar.
Besides, there are contracts such as pre-nups that spell out all kinds of things such as marital expectations and even what happens if this union fails.
Personally, I think everyone should have to enter into a pre-nup so they understand what they are getting into and discuss items of importance.
If the state insists on being in the business of marriage and defining whst a union may be and if, that sort of thing bothers you, don’t participate in the scam instigated by the minority.
It isn’t. If you chose to run a business, you have to follow the laws. If you don’t, that’s a choice—and you choose to suffer the consequences.
That's called force. This issue of government force is a funny one. You could also argue that the government is forcing you to drive below the speed limit or wear a seatbelt in your car. But it’s not. There isn’t a police officer holding a gun to your head literally forcing you to buckle up. In fact, you are 100 percent free to speed and not wear your seatbelt—and simply deal with the consequences if you’re pulled over. Is the threat of the fine for breaking the law amount to “forcing” you to follow the law? No.
Yes it is. What happens if you don't pay your fine? A bench warrant is issued for your arrest. If you get pulled over again, a cop puts cuffs on you and sends you to jail. If you don't pull over, guns get drawn on you and you go to jail. How the HELL did you pass the bar exam?
And more to the point, the government certainly isn’t forcing you to drive. If you don’t like the speed limit and seatbelt rules, and don’t want to be subject to the consequences of breaking them, then you can not drive. Whether to drive or not is your choice.
Or you can not get caught.
This all seems simple when we talk about driving, but somehow a fringe set of rightwing conservatives want us all to believe that hapless business owners are somehow being forced, against their will, to serve pizza to gay people.
It's about serving pizzas at a gay wedding, you f'ing idiot. If you ordered pizza or a cake and didn't specify what it was for, they wouldn't even know what team you'd bat for. deal with the consequences of breaking the law. That, pizza shop owner, is your choice. And if you don’t want to deal with those consequences, well, no one is forcing you to be in the pizza business. You’re free to do something else.....Don’t like following the laws that apply to businesses—including serving all customers equally? Then don’t start a business. That’s your choice.
You fascists want us slaves to government and the elite. Those before me fought those people for 1000 years. When it is necessary, I will continue the fight by any means necessary by my way on my terms. The way and terms are dependent on what your allies do against me.
That is quite the obtuse, straw-man argument. The difference in what you are outlining is between and employee and an owner. Owners of a business do not give up their rights simply because they started a business. An employee must abide by the rules established by the owner. You, as an employee, cannot impose your religion upon the owner but the owner can insist that the employee honor the rules of the business (e.g. moral and/or code).
The principle of any law with regard to discrimination is being imposed upon the owner of the business, not the employee. The foundation of that law must abide by the Constitution or be overturned. An owner must be allowed to refuse business that comes into conflict with their faith; whether Christian, Moslem, Jew, or Satanist.
I disagree with you on this. Driving is indeed a right. The right to use the public ways goes back to Roman times.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
By the same logic Laws against homosexual acts are quite OK with the Author. Just don’t engage in them or suffer the consequences.
“And Jews had to follow anti Jewish laws in nazi Germany. If they didn’t, it was their choice to die in the street.......”
Exactly. The wannabe fascist inside most men’s hearts, curbed only by Law, has been busy perverting every law possible. Sure, “you just have to follow the law”. I found this rebuke of that fiction in Psalm 94:
Can wicked rulers be allied with you,
those who frame injustice by statute?
They band together against the life of the righteous
and condemn the innocent to death.
But the LORD has become my stronghold,
and my God the rock of my refuge
He will bring back on them their iniquity
and wipe them out for their wickedness;
the LORD our God will wipe them out.
RE: So when “the Law” said that homosexuality was illegal, and those were convicted of Sodomy should be hanged, Sally Kohn was all in favor of it because “it’s the LAW!”
And THAT is the problem with Kohn’s reasoning. She fails to differentiate between GOOD and BAD law, JUST and UNJUST laws.
She obviously picks and choose which laws she approves of based on her own conception of morality.
The issue here is NOT whether one should obey the law or not, but if the law AS CURRENTLY INTERPRETED regarding participating in a gay wedding, comports with the intent of the framers of our constitution and the first amendment.
I argue that IT DOES NOT and is TYRANNICAL.
Her equating being fined if you violate traffic and highway speed limits with being fined if you refuse to service in gay weddings as if they are the same simply shows how twisted her logic is.
People like Sally Kohn have no idea what it takes to start a business, nor does she care. It would require too much work, dedication, etc., so why would she bother? Let the peons do all the heavy work in a business. She can sit on the sidelines and criticize them for their work ethic, morals etc. See, it’s so easy for her.
Your presumed solution would seem to be "surrender more quickly."
This was not stupidity. This was the result of a long planned and long executed effort to "normalize" homosexuality. They have been calling the natural repugnance towards sodomites "discrimination" since the 1970s. They have merely gotten more vocal about it in the last Decade, thanks in part to ostensibly gay promoting shows like "Glee" and "Modern Family."
Hollywood and New York has been pushing this meme for quite some time, that being homosexual is exactly like being black. We couldn't stop them from doing this because our side has no voice on national television.
"Surrender faster!"
I tell people this all the time. *ALL LAWS* are enforced morality. The only question is "Who's? "
My favorite part - divine retribution.
AIDs was just a warning. Another plague that's bigger, better, and faster is on it's way. History WILL repeat itself, because "God will not be mocked".
(Watch for it. We're living in exciting times.)
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.