Skip to comments.About your "right" to my service...
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.
One of the best summaries I’ve ever read . . .
Look the word up. We live in a fascist regime.
Very good job writing this out.
“People who insist that one person has a right to compel another to serve him are properly called slavers.”
And those compelled to give a portion of their earnings to those who have no rightful claim to it are slaves.
The government is slowly dismantling the bill of rights.
Ping for tomorrow
I quit when medicine was placed under State control some years ago, said Dr. Hendricks. Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I could not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everythingexcept the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the welfare of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, but to serve. That a mans willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyardsnever occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mindyet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents itand still less safe, if he is the sort who doesnt.
Ayn Rand, *Atlas Shrugged*
Excellent summary. You have more brains than the Arizona legislature who failed to defend the law they passed with any coherency.
I remember reading that Aloise Hitler ran a Munich beer hall in a building owned by a Jew. When Hitler wanted to knock out some walls to enlarge the place to hold his little fascist get togethers the Jewish owner said no.
Aloise went to his half brother Adolph who was a rising star politician who had friends in High places and forced the owner to let Aloise expand his business which catered to the “right people”.
Except people are too stupid to grasp it. I tried it today. People's intelligence and attention span are such that all they take away is "That guy is mean. Republicans are mean." Not that I'm recommending caving, but it's tough to educate people the NEA has spent generations dumbing down.
Brave New World is coming true
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Pressure from the NFL and the Marriot among others came down on Arizona, if they can threaten to boycott Arizona can we not boycott the NFL and the Marriot?
There is a boycott of Girl Scout Cookies due to their disrespect for our values and our children. The Girl Scouts are feeling the pinch. The liberal corporations keep insulting our values but the pendulum may start swinging in the other direction.
Too late. Once this country accepted the civil rights laws that banned discrimination by private entities, the game was over. If you tried to defend freedom of association now, the leftists would scream that blacks would be turned away from restaurants, etc., which is nonsense.
The problem is that nobody trusts the free market. When a business turns customers away, for whatever reason, it loses out to some other business that doesn’t. It all works itself out beautifully when government doesn’t intervene. Government is the only entity that cannot be allowed to discriminate. The Jim Crow laws were put in place by politicians, not business people.
If we don’t have the freedom to discriminate, then we are not free.
What we’re doing to GirlScouts has them outraged. You’re right, we need to target these liberal businesses and franchises.
“If we dont 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.
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.....
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?
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.