Slavery is an old and recurring bane of mankind. Even as we imagine we have grown out of it, some of us still try to put down and control others. Hence some people have almost turned our republic upside down. Sadly, many people don’t even realize the extent to which they have lost the freedoms Americans once enjoyed.
The principle remains the same about selling in the public domain: you cannot discriminate on private domain reasons. This was the heart of the case whereby white restauranteurs refused service to black customers. All the rest of your comment about the Left neither addresses the principle at stake nor why protecting arbitrary discrimination by law is harmful. This issue isn’t about Left and Right, Democrat and Conservative differences of philosophy and politics; to steer it in that direction is a diversion. The issue is about the principle of equality law and either maintaining it in practice or subverting it under the guise of ‘religious freedom’ in this particular case.
Now think what it means to operate a private business. If you own the business, you get to decide how to run that business. You get to decide who you serve and how you will serve the people you serve. Isn’t that the whole point of owning your own business?
If customers are happy with your choices, they pay you. Otherwise, those customers discriminate against you, and they don’t use your business. That’s the risk you take.
But what if we take ‘s comment to the logical extreme? Discrimination is wrong, right? What gives customers the right to discriminate? Well, don’t worry. With Obamacare, our government has now established a huge precedent. Our wiser than the rest of us politicians can now tell us how to discriminate in our purchasing choices. Gosh! Don’t they already tell us what kind of light bulbs, toilets, and cars we can buy?
Seriously. Discrimination is not evil. Every time we make a decision, we discriminate between the options presented us. Discrimination becomes a serious issue when people discriminate for the wrong reasons. However, when as a private citizens we discriminate stupidly, we lose customers or we waste our money. As individuals or as private companies, we cannot force someone else to pay the price of our stupid decisions.
When is discriminating stupidly a real problem? That happens when the government discriminates. Government can force one group of people to pay the price of another group’s stupid decisions. Slavery, for example — the tyranny of one group people over another — is government sponsored discrimination. When busybody politicians insist upon being our consciences, punishing private citizens just for disagreeing with their beliefs, that is the first step in enslavement. When we are forced to follow the dictates of someone else’s conscience, they have enslaved us. Unless we are prepared to accept being punished, we must do what those busybodies want us to do.
So what about those Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) laws that states have been passing, the topic of DISCRIMINATION BY GOVERNMENT? Are they all about discriminating against homosexuals? No.
So far the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never worked as a defense for Christian bakers embroiled in lawsuits over gay weddings, but for a handful of Apache, Muslim and Sikh plaintiffs, it’s been a godsend.
Critics of Indiana’s newly signed RFRA — joined Tuesday by the Arkansas legislature’s passage of a similar bill — have warned that the law provides a “license to discriminate” against gay and transgender people, although that hasn’t been the case in the 22 years since President Bill Clinton signed the federal RFRA in 1993 or in 19 states that passed similar laws before Indiana.
Instead, the federal law allowed Abdul Muhammad, a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas, to grow a half-inch beard. Thanks to the Texas RFRA, Adriel Arocha, a Lipan Apache kindergartner, was permitted to wear his hair long. Kawal Tagore won her case against the Internal Revenue Service after being fired for carrying a kirpan, a small knife worn to remind Sikhs of their commitment to justice. (continued here)
Nevertheless, same-sex “marriage” is a device homosexuals use to punish people who disapprove of their perverse sex activity. These people apparently believe that only they have the right to decide how the rest of us should discriminate in our choices, and they are hysterically afraid some baker, florist, or caterer might refuse to endorse their perversions. Hence, to protect their “rights” to practice their sexual perversions, they would deny everyone their first amendment rights.