Guest Post by Patrick J. Buchanan
In what has been called the “Catholic moment” in America, in the late 1940s and 1950s, Catholics were admonished from pulpits to “live the faith” and “set an example” for others.
Public lives were to reflect moral beliefs. Christians were to avoid those “living in sin.” Christians who operated motels and hotels did not rent rooms to unmarried couples.
Fast forward to 21st-century America.
Indiana just enacted a law, as have 19 other states, to protect the rights of religious people to practice their beliefs in how they live their lives and conduct their businesses.
And the reaction? Nearly hysterical.
The head of the NCAA, the founder of Apple, chief executives of SalesForce and Yelp, Martina Navratilova, Larry King, Miley Cyrus and other celebrities are rushing to express their shock.
Boycotts of Indiana are being demanded. Tweeted Hillary on her now-empty server: “Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn’t discriminate against [people because] of who they love.”
The culture war has come to Indiana, and all these folks are eager to be seen as standing tall with the LGBT revolution. But what are they actually saying?
Are they saying that Christian bakers, photographers and florists may not refuse to provide their services at same-sex weddings? Are they saying that hotel owners who deny rooms to unmarried couples or for homosexual liaisons should be prosecuted for being faithful to their moral code?
How are we supposed to punish Christians for sinning against liberalism? Will jailing be necessary, or caning, or just depriving them of their livelihood?
The Hillarys of our world have a right to call such folks bigots and homophobes. But should they have the power to punish people for acting on their religious beliefs?
Isn’t the First Amendment supposed to protect this right?
Whatever became of the conservatives’ Free Society?
Initially, under Obamacare, Christian colleges and businesses were forced to provide employees with birth control and abortion-inducing, morning-after pills. The regime was ordering religious people to behave in ways that were abhorrent to them and contravened the teachings of their faith.
Like Shariah Law, liberalism imposes its values upon nonbelievers and punishes noncompliance.
Says Mayor Edwin Lee, who has banned city-funded trips to Indiana, “We stand united as San Franciscans to condemn Indiana’s new discriminatory law, and will work together to protect the civil rights of all Americans.”
But the “discriminatory law” that has the mayor upset does not discriminate against anyone.
It merely guarantees the freedom of religious people who believe homosexuality is wrong to not have to be associated with individuals or events that celebrate it.
The mayor may not like how people exercise their freedom. Does his dislike justify depriving them of that freedom?
The gay rights community seems to have advanced from asking for tolerance of their lifestyles — to demanding punishment for those who refuse to accept its moral equality.
Why do they care that a handful of Christians still reject their truth? Are they so insecure in their convictions about themselves that they must have conformity? Must all kneel before their Golden Calf?
Like all of us, the mayor has a right not to associate with people who use obscene or racist language, or whose behavior is boorish, or whose politics he detests.
To the mayor, it appears commendable for him not to be associated with Indiana because of its values. Why is it then intolerable for Christians not to be associated with gay events because of their values? A little double standard there, Mr. Mayor?
What the Indiana issue is really all about is the replacement of Christian values with secular values as the operating premises of society.
And the hallmark of our new society is intolerance of those who reject the revolution. It is ever so with revolutions.
In 1964, across the bay from San Francisco, the Free Speech Movement was born at Berkeley. Students demanded the freedom to say what they believed, no matter how objectionable to the majority.
Soon, dirty language became common on radio, cable and in film. Pornography was declared constitutionally protected. Larry Flynt was the First Amendment hero. Rap singers used the crudest of terms for women and the N-word for each other. A new freedom was born.
That is, up until two soused freshmen from Sigma Alpha Epsilon began a chant on a bus with high school seniors that used the N-word.
Then the air raid sirens went off. Mass protests were held on campus. Students told how sickened they were to TV cameras descending on campus. Oklahoma University President David Boren expelled the evildoers. The frat house was shut down and fumigated.
An investigation of SAE nationally is being conducted. Editorials blazed, though the U.N. Security Council has yet to table a resolution of condemnation.
As the Jack Nicholson character George Hanson said in “Easy Rider,”
“You know, this used to be a helluva good country.” It surely was.
Stand up for Indiana!
Rules of Stucky’s Bakery, Inc.
Are you a;
— serial masturbator? ……….. if so, Welcome!
— polygamist? ………………….. if so, Welcome!
— rapist? …………………………. if so, Welcome!
— addicted to porn? ………….. if so, Welcome!
— pedophile? …………………… if so, Welcome!
— sheep fucker? ………………. if so, Welcome!
— cheat on your spouse? ….. if so, Welcome!
— homo or lesbo? …………….. if so, NO COOKIES FOR YOU!!!!
You see the hypocrisy?
People on BOTH sides of issue really piss me off.
Lost in all this is a business question. What is the Apple chief doing involving himself in this issue? Does not he have more important things to do? Like it was stated by the prescient trader in “Liars Poker” when he says it is time to short Solly, it is now time to short Apple. They appear to be more interested in social issues than their business. And does not the Apple chief have any moral gumption about running the Apple sweatshops in China and elsewhere? Apparently not. What a fraud.
Will Indiana let me open up a business and post a sign that No Christians allowed? I’d like to go over the Munster and just try that.
Meanwhile the government is trying to start WW3, people are concerned a few Christians won’t serve homos.
This is a media distraction from real news, although the homo agenda has now morphed to them wanting to be like Jews, beyond criticism.
Stucky, the two sides of this issue are right of association versus association via the barrel of a government gun.
It’s not all about respecting one’s religious beliefs , although that does play a role. The main question concerning this issue is either you are the sole proprietor responsible for the management of your enterprise or the government is.
It’s a clear choice for me. The government has FUBARed it’s own shitty nest, therefore has no business meddling in the private commerce of others.
This is a clear case of “trial by media” without anyone looking at what the bill actually does and says.
First and foremost, it strengthens the Bill of Rights.
Secondly, it merely supports a free-market system where business owners can choose who to serve and who not to. This is in full recognition of the fact that refusing to do business with someone FOR WHATEVER REASON is just bad business. If I don’t want to serve Jews? Sure, but I’m only hurting myself. Don’t want to sell products to child abusers? Shouldn’t that be MY choice, instead of the State forcing me to?
Let’s turn it around for better perspective: if you were forced to buy from someone you didn’t like, or had an inferior product, or had friends who made the laws, you would find it fascist, no? Then the opposite — being told you can NOT refuse to do business with someone for any reason — is just as fascist.
The media has made this a gay-rights issue but, in reality, Indiana has many religious groups that this protects — Amish should not be forced to open their restaurants on Sunday just because stupid tourists want to eat out on that day. Muslim delis should not be forced to offer ham sandwiches if they choose not to. And yes, bakers don’t have to make a wedding cake for someone if they don’t want to. All are personal choices that can negatively impact their own business revenues, but I would fight to the death to protect our right to make our own choices.
One last point — this law does NOT prevent people who have felt slighted or discriminated against from suing a business owner over said discrimination in civil court. That’s where the issue belongs, not at a federal level and CERTAINLY NOT in a “trial by media” situation.
I want a God damn Chick-fil-A sandwich on Sunday.
I’m going to sue those Christian fuckers for not being open on the Sabbath!!!
The liberal gay agenda control freak crowd tried to crucify the owner of Chick-fil-A when he said in an interview he didn’t think gay marriage was OK.
Their boycott bullshit backfired when people purposely went to Chick-fil-A on a designated day and gave them their biggest sales of all-time.
Indiana didn’t actually pass an anti-gay bill
By Brett Arends
Published: Mar 30, 2015 2:10 p.m. ET
If you’d read the text of the law, you’d understand right away
Mike Pence, the governor of Indiana, signed a bill last week that prohibits state laws that “substantially burden” residents’ ability to follow his or her religious beliefs.
If you want to know why the so-called wisdom of crowds is a load of B.S., just take a look at the widespread reaction last week to Indiana’s new religious-freedom law.
If you listened to all the voices who have weighed in on this subject, from TV to radio to the Internet, you’d think Indiana just passed a law giving a green light to anti-gay bigotry.
But after talking to some legal experts who had actually read the law in question, I found out Indiana had done no such thing.
The outcry is so violent that one law professor declined to talk on the record. He had already offered a legal opinion about the law in public — and he, and his family, had been swamped by hate mail and personal abuse a result. (So I’m glad we’re all fighting hate speech.)
Read the bill here: Chapter 9 — Religious Freedom Restoration
http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197
Another legal professor initially took the view that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, was anti-gay, but added that his knowledge of it so far was based on media coverage. While we were speaking, I found the text of the law online and emailed it to him. Then I called him back a few minutes later, when he had had a chance to read it.
His opening words when he got back on the phone? “Forget everything I just said.”
The law simply says the state can’t force you to do something that’s against your religion unless it has a very good reason to do so.
The law, he said, was actually no different from the federal religious-freedom law that has been on the statute books since 1993. All the reports and commentary he’d heard had been wrong.
Another law professor, Daniel Conkle at Indiana University, said the new law is also the same as those currently in place in 30 other states. Nineteen state legislatures have passed such laws, and in another 11 states the courts have made rulings in a similar vein, he said.
What the legal experts told me: In a nutshell, the new law does not give anyone carte blanche to refuse to serve homosexuals, or any other group, based on religion (or any other grounds).
Instead, the law simply says the state can’t force you to do something that’s against your religion unless it has a very good reason to do so — the “compelling interest” rule. If it tries to do so, you can go to court and plead legal objection under the religious-freedom law. The court will have to decide if there is a compelling reason to override your religious freedom, or not. Combating discrimination, incidentally, might well be such a reason.
Legal professors gave me examples where these laws had already been used elsewhere in America.
In Texas, for example, a school required all boys to cut their hair short. A Native American boy claimed that violated a religious requirement to let his hair grow. He took the school to court under the religious-freedom law and won.
In Philadelphia, the city tried to stop people handing out food in public parks. A church group that had been giving food to the homeless as part of its mission claimed an objection to the law on religious grounds and won.
A prison in Arkansas demanded prisoners be clean-shaven. A Muslim prisoner claimed the right to grow a short beard on religious grounds. He also won under the freedom of religion statute.
A small religious sect from Brazil uses a hallucinogenic tea in its services, and pleaded for an exemption from anti-drug laws on the grounds of religion. The courts upheld that too.
None of this, I should add, means that the new Indiana law will not be used to justify discrimination against gays in some contexts. No one can prove a negative, and we will have to wait for it to be tried in court.
Mark Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School, said the law might be used to justify discrimination against gays — if the courts agree that that was the intent of the legislators who passed it, and if the courts cannot find a compelling public interest against such discrimination.
In other states, professors said, the laws had not so far been used to justify such discrimination, although that doesn’t mean the same will be true in Indiana. A florist in Washington state tried to plead religious objection against providing flowers at a gay wedding, but the courts ruled against the business owner.
Professor Conkle at Indiana University notes that, ironically, the law won’t change much in many parts of Indiana anyway. Indiana has no statewide laws banning discrimination against gays in the first place (although some counties have local ordinances). In many parts of the state, a business owner who didn’t want to serve gays wouldn’t have to plead exemption from the law on the grounds of religion. There’s no law to be exempt from. Conkle, who adds that he is a supporter of marriage equality, is a professor of law and of comparative religion.
Feelings run high on these topics, and no wonder. (For what it’s worth, I’ve been a supporter of marriage equality since long before the 2003 Massachusetts ruling in the Goodridge case, when everyone else started to get on board.) But I can’t really imagine wanting to make someone do something that went against his deeply held religious beliefs except in a case of necessity. I also do not find it particularly “liberal” to want to stamp out personal religious freedom — any more than it is to want to stamp out personal sexual freedom.
But what really interests me here is, once again, how the alleged “wisdom of crowds” is completely bogus. From the stock market to opinion polls to television ratings to Twitter to the Internet quest for “eyeballs,” we are all becoming slaves to the “crowd.” Some people will tell you that’s OK because the crowd is “wise,” and when lots of people get together and jabber, the result is usually sweet reason, wisdom and truth. Hooey.
@Chicago
Are you a fucking idiot?
They didn’t hang a sign.
Do you believe people have the right to associate with whom they please?
Arends nailed it. I just hope some reasonable people will see that — this whole episode is like something out of the Salem witch trials.
Apple CEO Writes WaPo Op-Ed Against Discrimination
By Robert Wenzel
The guy who sexually discriminates against women writes:
There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.
A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors…., on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation — wherever it emerges.
Translation:
Although I don’t want to have sexual relations with women, I want the government to coerce others to have transactional relationships even when they don’t want. But don’t you dare mess with the way I discriminate, bitch!
As I have pointed out before, discrimination is no big deal. To demand that government be brought in to “prevent” discrimination is a call for the pure evil of government policing of our private transactions against select politically incorrect discrimination, while failing to understand the fundamental nature of discrimination.
To fags, lesbos, and other deviants —- FUCKYOU AND GO BUY YOUR SHIT SOMEWHERE ELSE!!
To hyper-religious zealouts — FUCKYOU YA FUCKIN’ CHERRY-PICKING HYPOCRITES!! Ya won’t serve homos, but you’ll serve most other type of sexual deviants (as I listed in my first post). The Bible strongly hates Liars, but you’ll serve politicians. The Bible hates Murderers, but you’ll serve copfuks, ex-cons, and Tom Crean (who murdered IU basketball). The Bible hates Thieves, but you’ll serve lawyers and accountants. You royal pieces of pigshit need to get over your obsession over which lips suck which dick!
To you ASSHOLES who thumbed me down above —FUCKYOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!
People should have the personal freedom to do almost anything they choose. Stopping at physically harming people. If i don’t like gay people and don’t want to serve you,Its my loss of money and my decision. There’s other bakery shops.
I recently stopped shopping at F.y.e.’s (music and video store) located at the local mall. After buying about 10 movie DVDs from them, I was told by the assistant store manager that I didn’t smile enough and that I really should buy a store discount card to save more money.
I then told her to go fuck a duck (in a nice way) and walked out. I now buy all movie DVDs online at Amazon or at the local flea market. Is this a great country or what? Problem solved. Everybody’s happy.
No one should be passing laws that infringe on businesses rights/restricting private property rights. That Indiana feels the need to pass a law protecting business from such infringements is an indictment of the entire system.
Why should I be forced to do business with anyone I do not want to? I should have the right to do business with whomever I choose. Whatever happened to “we reserve the right to refuse service” and all that?
I would not allow public services to discriminate in any way. But private business?
PRIVATE is the key word. If I own it, I should be able to do with it as I please.
The system is gradually changing so that they require businesses to do business with anyone that walks through the door. If the most abusive gay customer walks through you will have to do business with them, lest you be sued or jailed.
They really need to leave businesses alone.
Stucky – for fuck sake, I suspect the folks that won’t serve homos also will not serve sexual deviants either.
These folks do not walk around with a “I fuck goats” tattoo on their foreheads.
But it seems gays make a point to tell businesses they are gay (or how else are they going to be discriminated against for being gay, save for a lisp or making out with their partner in the store).
Personally, I do business with, and hire, anyone who behaves ethically toward me (criminals I would avoid). Gay, black, Mexican, Jew, Gentile, Muslim, Wicken, whatever. No problemo.
You see, I am in business for the MONEY. It It is profitable, and the people treat me honestly, nothing else matters. I do not even need to like them. If they pay, or if they work, I could give a shit whether we like each other.
By the way, the one group that by definition I do not do business with is politicians. Like I said, my customers gotta be honest.
Loopy for President of Babylon 2016 !!!
Whores don’t like their Johns either but hey, they are in it for the money. There used to be this thing called decency. NO, everything is not acceptable and we should not be MADE to participate.
My dad used to say he had more time for a whore than a slut. He said that whores were running a business, and he could respect that. However, he did not like women giving it away to every Tom, Dick and Harry. He thought that was demeaning.
“But it seems gays make a point to tell businesses they are gay …” —— Kangaroo Boy
I’ve known (NOT in a Biblical sense!) more than a few gays. Not ONE of them makes “a point to tell businesses they are gay”. Quit making shit up.
“PRIVATE is the key word. If I own it, I should be able to do with it as I please.” —— Kangaroo Boy
The is basically no such thing as a “private business” when you serve the …. wait for it …. PUBLIC!!
Where does this shit stop? How about if they refuse to serve tall people. Fat people. Mentally ill people. Disabled people. Or, how about no fucking reason at all!! “Hey, fuck you … I don’t like your shoes. Get the hell out of my store!” I guess all of that would be OK too, right?
In the name of Liberty …. some of you have lost your fucking minds.
There is no such thing as moral neutrality, as is clearly apparent with this issue du jour. This will upset all moral relativist libertarians. As a country, we get what we deserve. And in the sense of Judgment, this we deserve. Keep calm and pray on.
Stuck – what the fuck? If gays do not announce they are gay, then how the hell are they being discriminated against by businesses? How? How? The only way they can be is that they gotta tell, that is how! Don’t be a dolt. And if they do not tell, they will not be discriminated against. Simple as that. Gays are afraid of being discriminated against, and all this uproar is over that?
What a fucking joke. Other than the time the person would not put two men on top of the wedding cake, I am not aware of another situation whee I have heard of gays being refused service. It is fucking bullshit. It is not an issue. Almost all businesses are like me – if the customer is honest and pays his bills, then hey, all is good.
And yes, if I want to not sell to you because you have bad breath, big feet, or are 10′ tall, that should be my right, or for no fucking reason at all. Why the hell not?
It is called FREEDOM for fuck sake. FREEDOM.
Here is what that means, seeing as you seem not to understand the concept:
Freedom is: “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.” “exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.” “the power to determine action without restraint.”
Freedom, damn it. It is supposed to be a right.
Stucky
Your comment made me think of something I read on ZH a while back. Fat people in France can be denied a mortgage loan if their body fat exceeds acceptable levels. WTF?
Will the day come when a hetero can’t get a mortgage/job/management position?
Demand that a side of bacon should be available in a Kosher deli.
Since when do private companies “serve the public”. I do not “serve” any damn person.
I sell goods. Perhaps if the goods are critical to the overall general well being of the populous as a whole that cannot be sourced elsewhere, there would be a case to be made. But otherwise, bullshit on restricting my freedom.
The most abused clause in the Constitution is the “general welfare” clause. It has been subverted such that it now is used to pass laws protecting minority sections of the population, and it was never intended as such.
Bea – the example you give is the other side of the coin – imposing restrictions on buyers. What a crock of shit.
First, sellers have their freedoms infringed, and then buyers – you cannot like dessert, or you do not get to buy a fucking house. You cannot buy or sell big sodas. Where does this shit end?
Fuck all governments.
Governments need to leave people the hell alone. They are perfectly capable of sorting themselves out. Gays and tall people will be able to but whatever they want, and fat people will too – there will be willing sellers Bigots and racists will see their businesses suffer. Etc.
There is zero need for any rules impinging on freedom.
[img
?oh=4f875a918d59fea5efaea4b26cd77125&oe=559EB5BE&__gda__=1437449172_9057bd9876a5b7f25e1e2af9651fedce[/img]
“Freedom is: “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.” “exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.” “the power to determine action without restraint.” —- Llpoh
I see. You want total freedom without any obligation or restraint. Like the old hippie saying — “If it feels good, do it.” As you say, why not?
Do tell me, when and where has such freedom ever been in place?
Bill refuses to sell to John. George likes John so he won’t sell to Bill. Now Bill won’t sell to George. Who cares? Freedom, baby!! What you are espousing will eventually lead to pure chaos … and probably even violence, because if you’re the only food store in my small town and refuse to sell to me because you’re a dick, well …. you’ll probably be a dead dick.
Your type of freedom will never ever happen, thankfully.
Has anybody else noticed that with the homosexuals, and other deviants, tolerance is generally a one way street?
Perhaps not. But it should. It is a guaranteed and enumerated Constitutional right. But folks are afraid of that. Gotta do what is best for the “people”, after all. God forbid people just look after themselves.
Re your example, you could always, well, start your own damn food store! It is called freedom, baby!
And things do not work the way you describe. Because – capitalism, baby! It sorts out these matters with ruthless efficiency.
And freedom does not entail mandatory obligation. Mandatory obligation means …. you ain’t free. It really is that simple.
And re restraint – so long as I do not impinge on your rights (and I do not see one of your rights as being “I can buy from anyone mandatorily” as opposed to “I can buy from anyone I see fit to buy from that will sell to me”, which is a right), then no, I should not be restrained in any way.
Freedom, baby!
Llpoh
Go fuck yourself. Alternatively, go suck off a kangaroo.
.
.
.
.
Hey. I like this freedom thingy!!!
“It is a guaranteed and enumerated Constitutional right.” ——– Loopy Kangaroo
Not the way you define it, it isn’t.
.
“Re your example, you could always, well, start your own damn food store!” —- Loopy Kangaroo
Always your favorite “go to” backup. And I suppose if in the same town a mechanic won’t serve me, then I should open my own auto shop. And if a butcher doesn’t feel like serving me then I should open my own butcher shop … after I buy a farm with cows. Right, Tonto?
Are you getting too much sun on the brain?
Yep, me too!
But do not worry, Stuck. I would sell you food. At grossly inflated prices, of course. .
You see the issue with curtailing rights? Where does it end?
First you demand that they sell to you. Then you demand they do not sell at too high a price. Then you demand that hey, you need to stock my favorite brand of cereal as you are the only store, and I have to have it! I have rights you know! Ad infinitum.
The government needs to keep out of private business.
These are notes on what the US Constitution and the Bill generally are considered to guarantee and protect.
Personal Security (Life):
(1) Not to be killed.
(2) Not to be injured or abused.
Personal Liberty:
(3) To move freely.
(4) To assemble peaceably.
(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]
(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.
(7) To communicate with the world.
(8) To express or publish one’s opinions or those of others.
(9) To practice one’s religion.
(10) To be secure in one’s person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]
Private Property:
(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:
(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.
(2) Tools needed for one’s livelihood.
(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.
(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.
Stuck – see that little tidbit under property, #3?
And do you happen to see anything in there that gives an individual the right to buy something from anyone running a business?
No, I do not think you do.
“But do not worry, Stuck. I would sell you food. At grossly inflated prices, of course.”
—— Crocodile Llpoh
And I would gladly pay it. If I know anything about you, it’s that you’ll sell me the highest possible quality. And when it comes to food, quality is everything. I’d even empty out my piggy bank.
“First you demand that they sell to you.” —— Crocodile Llpoh
You know what? On a very personal level, if someone doesn’t want to sell to me for whatever reason I’d just say, “Well fuck you too, asshole.” and go somewhere else. It would go no further than that.
I’ve never been discriminated against. But, my parents tell me when we first came to this country some of the local shop owners would look down their noses at us, help people in line after us, and even mumble under their breath, but loud enough for mom to hear, “Nazi!”. It was not an enjoyable experience.
Stuck – there are always assholes. I will join with you in hating the dirty bastards. Dirty redskin is not much fun either. And the actions of those fucks are abominable.
I am only saying I do not think legislating against it is the answer. Embrace freedom, and it will be for the better, in the long run. Every small law that protects us in the end enslaves us. Slowly but surely they will take away all the freedoms in return for “security”.
As I said, I would never behave that way. And abhor those that would. I just would rather let the capitalist system send the bankrupt. Hell, the laws might actually allow folks to survive that really should be sent broke.
All good fun. In reality, as ever, we are probably not too far apart in our stance. The fights are always over the nuances.!
“The fights are always over the nuances.!” ———- Llpoh
Indeed.
And to be totally honest with you ……… I was playing Devil’s Advocate, to a certain degree.
On the one hand, I truly abhor people who won’t sell to another person based on (fill in the blank). Personally, I wouldn’t do that to another person … and I hate a lot of people. On the other hand, I truly agree with you totally — “The government needs to keep out of private business.”. I was just being a dick …. for fun.
Well, you almost got me going with the “go fuck yourself” comment. But thinking about it, I figured it was actually a good idea, so I did! Thanks, buddy! I owe you one!
Where do our rights come from? If from gubbermint then let the police state rule and let’s make laws for every fuckkkiinnnggg thing we can think of. If our rights come from God… Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness…. Then get rid of the guubbermint and all its stupidity. The bill of rights allows for a self regulated society. If there was no FSA to rescue all, society will become self regulated in a hurry.
If I’m dumb enough to turn down business (Discriminate) then I am Absolutely Fucking Sure someone else will take their money. And I have, I turned down bidding on a planned parenthood project. I personally did not feel right and you know what??? It got built. And if no one would build it… Then move on… That is life.
Do you want to be free or not?
LLPOH vs Stucky –
Eugend – glad to see you! How is the land of Vlad the Impaler? Don’t be a stranger – really enjoy seeing you post.
And meanwhile on Wall Street, Vaseline stock continues to sore (sic).
Did Jesus not associate with the destitute? Did he say to condemn and avoid prostitutes, gays, people of a different color than you, the poor, etc? Or was it the church leaders?
Hate the sin, not the sinner?
@Bea, do you own a business?
Are you willing to lose 25%, 50%, even 10% of your business AND start a pissing match with lawyer’s fees, to make sure a potential patron, with money in their hot little hands, knows you believe in God?
Then, you are right, you should be allowed to do so.
As I should be allowed to ban (insert group here) from my business.
There are only two types of people I won’t sell to:
1. Those that have proven they are untrustworthy, and screwed me over before. Cash, and pay more than most others, or there is the door. The Big 3 as well as a few other big guys are on this list. We don’t do business with them often but when we do it reflects the true risk of doing business with these bastards.
2. Those that don’t agree, in writing, to MY terms and conditions. You don’t tell Home Depot what the terms of sale are going to be, and you won’t tell us either. Even if our “competitors” allow it. I’ve seen $20,000 in gross sales (so before wages, taxes, materials, heat, lights, office) end up costing $50,000 in violated customer terms. Screw that. My toys, my sandbox, go find somebody else to carry your insanity.
Other than that I really could not care less. We sell to big companies, little companies, companies owned by old guys, widows, Germans, , French, Puerto Ricans, multi-nationals, blacks, whites, yellows, ghetto business and expensive zip codes. I sell to atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and I’m sure I sell to gay men, lesbians and even sexual deviants.
I DO NOT CARE. We may become friendly and open up, and because I am going to judge you based on how you do business, treat us, treat your customers, I am not going to judge, nor turn you away, if you let it out that you are different from me.
Bea, a lot of times I agree with you, but this is one time it leaves me baffled.
What I don’t understand is why the special groups care? If I knew that a person so despised me based on not knowing anything about me other than whom I invite into my bedroom, or heart, I wouldn’t want to support them and give them my hard earned money and help them feed their families.
Seems to me that having these businesses so hell bent on turning down sales in an era of unprecedented – for us – collapse and contraction, should come with great big plaques on their walls, proclaiming for all to see that they are so concerned about my eternal soul, that even though Jesus tells them it isn’t there concern, that they reserve the right to judge not to take my money.
And I deserve the right to not give it to them.
Or, how’s this, freedom is to STOP ASKING Mommy & Daddy Government to swoop in with legislation and fix all our boo-boos and schoolyard tussles.
We will never be free again. At least not until life reverts to its brutal mean and our feelings and beliefs take their customary backseat to our basic survival.
I think Hans Herman Hoppe has the right plan for society modeled on freedom of association.
All land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housing developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example.
Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. In any case, however, admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a “freedom to move around,” unless other property owners consent to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow.
Note that none of this, not even the most exclusive form of segregationism, has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in the neighborhood of Blacks, Turks, Catholics or Hindus, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance. To the contrary, it is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation – the absence of any form of forced integration – that makes peaceful relationships – free trade – between culturally, racially, ethnically, or religiously distinct people possible.
IV
In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government and, accordingly, no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners. This distinction comes into existence only with the establishment of a government, i.e., an institution which possesses a territorial monopoly of aggression (taxation). The territory over which a government’s taxing power extends becomes “inland,” and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner. State borders (and passports), are an “unnatural” (coercive) institution. Indeed, their existence (and that of a domestic government) implies a two-fold distortion with respect to peoples’ natural inclination to associate with others. First, inlanders cannot exclude the government (the taxman) from their own property, but are subject to what one might call “forced integration” by government agents. Second, in order to be able to intrude on its subjects’ private property so as to tax them, a government must invariably take control of existing roads, and it will employ its tax revenue to produce even more roads to gain even better access to all private property, as a potential tax source. Thus, this over-production of roads does not involve merely an innocent facilitation of interregional trade – a lowering of transaction costs – as starry-eyed economists would have us believe, but it involves forced domestic integration (artificial desegregation of separate localities).
Moreover, with the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties. Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism). Furthermore, if the government admits a person while there is not even one domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration (also non-existent under private property anarchism).
V