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.
For those of you here on FR that have NOT yet read Atlas Shrugged, please do so.
I read it for the 11th or 14th time in Dec of 2012. I have lost exact count.
Whenever I read it, it helps solidify my Conservative views which get laughed at by others.
I keep telling them: “Don’t come to me for help when the SHTF, and remember that “I told you so”.
We used to know these truths, taught these truths and lived these truths.
Once upon a time, we were willing to fight and die to uphold these truths.
Soon, we will fight and die because we stopped.
“The government is slowly dismantling the bill of rights.”
Slowly? I guess the issue of speed is a personal opinion, but from my standpoint the erosion has been rapid.
The police are just about to the point where they can shoot you if you have a bulge in your coat based on what happened to the gent in SC.
“There was a bulge in his coat, I was in fear for my life, so I blew him out of his socks.”
“There was a dog, I was in fear for my life, so I shot the aforementioned teacup Chihuahua.”
These statements are always followed by “The officers actions were proper under the circumstances, though we regret what happened.”
My approach to this is going to be missionary in nature.
“Your cake is going to cost $10,000, and we donate the entire amount to AIDS relief in Africa.”
Let them suck on that. What are they going to say?
Another way to handle it is:
“We are charging you $10,000, and we are donating the entire amount to finding a cure for homosexuality?”
“What do you mean a cure!!!!!”
“Given you didn’t choose to be gay, and given that every afflicted individual deserves every medical intervention that society can innovate, and given the pathetic level of funding in the area of study involving the causes of homosexuality, we’ve decided to make our wedding cakes into a mission area for us.
We charge you $10,000, and we donate every last nickel to research for a cure. God bless you both in your buggery and tribadism. We’ll find a cure someday, together.”
Technically speaking, could a photographer just agree to a “no weddings” policy? I’m not saying I like it but how could someone claim “discrimination” if he’s not offering wedding photography services to anybody? Just trying to think of possible options for someone in this PC totalitarian nightmare we’re living in.
bfl
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.