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.
That's all.
Justin Bieber has a brother?
A muslim check out clerk has the right to refuse to check out pork or liquor and his boss has the right to fire him for not doing his job, same with the cabbie. If the cabbie owns the medallion he has every right to refuse service for transporting liquor or a dog.
Tell it to Ernst Röhm
“We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
John Adams
Bottom line: WE ARE NO LONGER THAT PEOPLE and are now nearing the end of the process fulfilling Mr. Adams’ dire prediction.
It will get worse from here.
Tocqueville spoke to the same problem after his visit here, to wit:
“I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...;in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into her churches and saw pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1840)
“When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect, and half paralyzes all the others. Every man accustoms himself to have only confused and changing notions on the subjects most interesting to his fellow-creatures and himself. His opinions are ill-defined and easily abandoned; and, in despair of ever solving by himself the hard problems respecting the destiny of man, he ignobly submits to think no more about them. Such a condition cannot but enervate the soul, relax the springs of the will, and prepare the people for servitude. Not only does this happen, in such a case, that they allow their freedom to be taken from them; they themselves frequently surrender it.”
-—Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America” (1840)
The end game of the secular progressives is in sight! Will we resist or submit and surrender?
BTW, If you believe this “stuff” is just so early 1800s, you are part of the problem.
You know, this kind of “forceless” actions has the tendency to cause “forceless” responses.
If people are hindered from being able to choose whom they associate with, they may find alternate ways to discourage forced association. Like telling the customers that they will donate a percentage of their purchase to the Westboro Baptist Church. Maybe with the wedding’s address and date as well.
I’m glad people haven’t done that yet, at least not what I have seen thus far. They are taking the high road. But if things keep happening this way, it will get uglier.
The Law is an ass.
RE: That’s a lot like saying you don’t HAVE to give up your wallet to the mugger who just stuck a gun in your face.
But by her lights, the mugger isn’t forcing you to give up your wallet.
In other words, the mugger isn’t FORCING you to do anything ( to go by her title ).
Your money or your life.
Participate or lose your business.
As the great logician, Hillary would say: “What difference does it make?”
You have the right to ride in a vehicle on the public roads, but piloting one is a privilege.
At the very base of all forced compliance with “tolerance” laws is the desire to cover up the consequences of adhering to a certain belief or lifestyle and assigning the blame for bad outcomes to someone or anyone else except the wrong choices of said group.
The Christian lifestyle, even a “conservative” one, most often leads to a peaceful and more contented state of being than some others. At least, it does until it comes under fire for being more peaceful, prosperous and better equipped in general than some others. The drawbacks and consequences of being a member of some segments of society are a little too evident for the Liberal Left who needs those groups for its existence. So, the Left must make excuses and “blame” someone for the plight of their constituents. Better wake up. The ability to make and manage money was what initially earned the Jews the hatred they received at the hands of the Nazis. Anyone who is able to make a decent living or manage to be self-sufficient is suspect in this country today. Those who earn and create wealth are labeled somehow selfish to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. American companies today are under increasing pressure to give to the “have nots.” and so is the American taxpayer. It won’t end until no one has one more grain of anything than anyone else regardless of how hard they work or what they bring to the table.
No it is Not. People nowadays cannot make a living without the ability to drive.
But to explore further your position, was driving a horse cart also a privilege?
You speak of true freedom of speech, association and beliefs as somehow ridiculous and as if Christians wouldn’t accept “the shoe on the other foot.” Freedom of association, belief, speech and being requires that all parties accept that premise, not just a few. I assure you, LGBTs would have all the cakes they could use, Muslims would exist and thrive without handling pork, and Christians could proclaim their faith from the rooftops if tyrannical Liberal organizers would just leave free enterprise and freedom of expression alone. Those are things that can’t and won’t be legislated without a tyrant’s touch and tyrants don’t last as long as freedom loving ideas do.
But to explore further your position, was driving a horse cart also a privilege?
The thing is, to further explore your position, should a person who simply cannot operate a motor vehicle be allowed to operate one?
The privilege thing is a big deal. You do not have to get a license to have the God given rights protected in the constitution. But operating a motor vehicle does take certain skills and abilities. There need to be minimum standards. However, once developed, they can’t be used in a discriminatory fashion. That is, the rules should apply identically to everyone. But there do need to be rules.
“Would you cater a Gay Wedding?’”
“Mr. and Mrs. North and South America and all ships at sea,” FLASH! PIZZA SHOP THAT DOES NOT CATER, WILL NOT CATER A GAY MARRIAGE!
FLASH! CALL OUT THE FURRIES!
FLASH! DRIVE THEM OUT OF BUSINESS!
FLASH! FORCE THEM TO SEE THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS!
FLASH! FORCE THEM TO WEAR THE UNCLEAN TAG!
You haven’t read much of what I’ve written before.
I’m in favor of deporting all Muslims.
Too much drama from the drama queens. You know what is the best solution to this? Ignore them.
Want to have your gay wedding catered by a pizza place that caters to gays, then go to a pizza place that caters gay weddings. Frankly, I wouldn’t not because they are gay, but because of the drama associated with it.
No they shouldn't. The government does have a legitimate interest in verifying that someone is capable of competently operating a potentially dangerous vehicle.
This is a very different thing from saying the government should have veto power over demonstrably competent people operating motor vehicles.
The privilege thing is a big deal. You do not have to get a license to have the God given rights protected in the constitution. But operating a motor vehicle does take certain skills and abilities. There need to be minimum standards. However, once developed, they can’t be used in a discriminatory fashion. That is, the rules should apply identically to everyone. But there do need to be rules.
I have no objection to requirements to demonstrate competency. I *DO* have objections to the usage of a "license" as an imminent threat to coerce "state approved behavior" or the presumption that they are doing you a favor by allowing you to exercise your right to use the public roads.
I've read what you've written before, and my recollection of it is that you think the best way to deal with the Homofascistic assault against Christian society is to reward them by removing the state from the position of asserting normalcy.
This is like saying no one can rob you if you give them your money before they ask for it. No. We need confrontation with these people, and they need to lose. Any attempt to get "peace in our time" will simply make the cost higher later.
This article is idiotic to the very core. I am less informed for having read it.
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.