Another day, another Colorado businessman who decides that providing professional services to a wedding he doesn’t approve of should let him ignore state anti-discrimination law. In this case, it’s a photographer / videographer deciding not to take pictures at a legal wedding between two women.
“He asked, ‘What’s your fiancée’s name?’ And I said, ‘Amanda.’ And I could tell he kind of paused on the phone, but I thought he was maybe jotting down notes,” said Suhyda. “Then I l got to work and looked at my email.”
The email from Media Mansion stated, “Unfortunately, at this time, we are not serving the LGBTQ community!”
“With an exclamation point,” said Suhyda. “Kind of like a punch in the gut.”
First off, class act turning them down by email. With an odd “Unfortunately” (why “unfortunately” when it’s your decision?), and phrasing it as some sort of tribal group thing (they weren’t asking him to serve their “community,” but them as individuals).
To make matters worse, on Media Mansion’s Facebook page, the owner posted a letter stating the company would by happy to work with the LGBTQ community on business videos, but not film “gay ceremonies or engagements,” citing “personal religious beliefs.”
I guess it’s okay to help them make money to support their sinful lifestyle, just not to take pictures of their wedding.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Hostetter, the owner of Media Mansion, said he is not discriminating against anyone, but has turned down more than one gay couple.
Um … isn’t that sort of the definition of “discriminating”?
“It really like just kind of exploded, and everyone just kind of assumed that we hate gay people, which is sad,” said Hostetter.
Yeah, I mean, what could possibly make them think you hate them?
“I have friends who are gay, and if they want to hang out and me to do a video for them, it’s totally cool. But specifically doing a project that would be against my beliefs in anything regardless of what the specifics of it is not something I want to engage in.”
They aren’t asking you to get married to a same-sex individual, Benjamin. They aren’t even asking you to officiate. They’re asking you to take pictures.
Identifying himself as Christian, he said he is not judging anyone, …
Uh, yeah, you kind of are.
… but he is writing a book about “family, covenant, sex and marriage” and has strong beliefs about the covenant of marriage. “I believe it has to do with family and producing healthy families,” said Hostetter. “I don’t think there’s a lot of good evidence out there that two men or two women can come together and have a really amazing effective family that is good and is everlasting.”
So, first off, yes, that sounds exactly like both “judging” and “discriminating.”
Second, one has to wonder how much you grill the opposite-sex couples who come to you to get married. Do you have a checklist of things you go over with them to make sure that they are treating the “covenant of marriage” as seriously as you are? Are you a pre-marriage counselor to them? Do you talk with their pastors? How are you confirming that when Bob and Sue come in that there is any evidence that they will have “a really amazing effective family that is good and is everlasting” so that you can feel religiously okay about taking pictures at their wedding?
And who else should be allowed to make that judgment? If someone believes that, say, black marriages are more transitory because of [fill in stereotypes about black men and black women here], and so doesn’t believe that a marriage between two black people is likely to be “good and everlasting” and properly “covenential” — do they get to discriminate against black customers, too?
I don’t doubt your religious sincerity, Benjamin — but I’m really not sure how you draw a line here that lets you say that your particular religious beliefs get to trump the law, but any other zany beliefs from the bad old days of legal racial discrimination, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, age discrimination, etc., don’t get to do so as well.
Let’s hope the state board that reviews these violations of the anti-discrimination law does a bit better job this time of providing a non-hostile atmosphere in doing so, since that was the primary objection in the SCOTUS ruling in the Masterpiece Bakery. I wish them luck, because it’s difficult for me to hear these kind of arguments without feeling sort of hostile about it myself.
Well, maybe they need to be re-educated just like the Communists and Nazi did to their youth. Once again, the Supreme Court Ruled in favor of the baker.
But, I don’t doubt your belief system, but, if you’re against their faith, why should they be forced to believe your faith system?
Or, there isn’t another video/photographer? Maybe I’m too simple to understand the intelligent aspects of this forced participation.
Once again, not everyone is going to like you, even if your straight,gay,transgender,from another planet, etc…
@Michael – SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker because the state participants in the process were openly hostile to the religious beliefs of the baker. They also ruled that it was legitimate for the state to seek to protect the civil rights of the LGBT population.
I’ll ask you the question I raised: If sincere religious belief is to allow this particular civil rights law to be trumped, where does one draw the line? What laws cannot be violated by (are superior to) sincere religious belief? Murder? Theft? Employment discrimination? Housing discrimination? If someone’s sincere religious belief is that the races should not mix, should they be allowed to decline to photograph a wedding based on that religious belief? Should they be allowed to not allow blacks into their all-white restaurant (there isn’t another restaurant where blacks can go eat?)?
Okay, I’ll continue the discussion based on a few truths and facts about humans and their nature. As I stated, you will not get everyone to like you, no matter how good of a person you are and your positive actions in life. It is sad, that some people choose to live a certain way and possible abuse their religious beliefs. So, yes, they should have that option not to participate in something they do not believe. FYI, the gay community tried to force that baker again to do something and the good State you live in is trying to force him again.
You will never be able to legislate morality or what you might believe as a morality. You have to change a person’s heart, period, end of story. You can’t force someone to believe in God or a god, you can’t force someone to love or like you, no matter how many laws are on the book. This is the some time sad nature of human beings. If you start your legislation or ideal that all humans are basically good, you’ll be sadly disappointed. However, if you base your ideals/legislation that humans are or have a basic selfish/bad nature, then you’ll achieve your goals.
By asking me if a person should be allowed to not follow a law due to their “religious” beliefs,based off of your examples, then I recommend you read the bible and see that that, murder, theft and discrimination are the foundations of the bible and Christianity’s Jewish roots. There’s that thing called the 10 Commandments. There not the 10 suggestions. On the discrimination point, Christ states, love your neighbor as thy self. That’s powerful. But, unfortunately, some Christians, believe that participating in such events go against their faith/beliefs. Many Catholics wont attend a gay wedding or a non-Catholic wedding because it goes against the Catholicism of the Church. I don’t follow that belief, but that will be my burden to bear when the Big Guy asks me why I attended those events. But, I believe that God really doesn’t care too much about that, just if I lived by the 10 Commandments.
So, if someone claims religious and doesn’t want to participate in the wedding, yes, they should have the right because if is a private business, not a government entity.
But, I’ll ask you these questions: is is okay for Muslim girls to have their genitalia mutilated? Who you support a KKK member demanding a Black dry cleaner to clean their hoods and sheets? Who you demand a practicing Catholic doctor or nurse to perform an abortion or infantile like in NY and now possible in Vermont just because it’s the law (FYI-go and research the Dr. Gosnell from Philly and the horrible conditions and woman’s lives lost from legal abortions)
The employment and housing anti-discrimination laws were based on race, i.e. skin color and yes, are founded on sound morality. Ask a black person if they agree with gays claiming discrimination based off of sex and you’ll be supervised on the answers. They feel that they can’t change or didn’t choose the color of their skin. But, it goes back to the simple fact, why not use someone else?
To conclude (boy, about time, right? LOL) If the LGBT community’s goal is to educate and change peoples hearts, they’re going about it the wrong way since over 95.5% of the population isn’t LGBT. I can understand your concerns and wants on this issue, but don’t expect others to belief or support what you believe. Doesn’t matter to me, their your choices and beliefs and I’m good with them. I don’t expect everyone to think like me and I don’t believe you’ll get everyone to think like you. Change their hearts, not their minds.
@Michael –
We have a lot of laws designed to deal with problems with human nature. Appealing to human nature doesn’t speak to morality, or to what it takes to make a society work.
I don’t ask everyone to like me. I mean, it would be nice, but I realize that’s not a rational desire. But if we’re going to run a society and a civilization on people only doing things for people they like, we’re going to be in a lot of trouble.
There are a lot of things I am forced by society to participate in something I don’t believe. The federal government, spending my tax dollars, does that all the time. Strangely enough, claiming a religious exemption for a certain percentage of the federal budget, thus my personal federal taxes, going to activities I don’t believe in, will probably lead to my doing jail time (based on settle case law).
The state also “tries to force” people who don’t want to hire black people, or women, or Muslims, to do that, too.
The people who have passed laws against theft, murder, and rape would probably disagree with you there.
If one didn’t presuppose that people (or some people) will do something hurtful, wrong, or destructive, one would never imagine the need for any laws at all.
By asking me if a person should be allowed to not follow a law due to their “religious” beliefs,based off of your examples, then I recommend you read the bible and see that that, murder, theft and discrimination are the foundations of the bible and Christianity’s Jewish roots. There’s that thing called the 10 Commandments. There not the 10 suggestions. On the discrimination point, Christ states, love your neighbor as thy self. That’s powerful. But, unfortunately, some Christians, believe that participating in such events go against their faith/beliefs. Many Catholics wont attend a gay wedding or a non-Catholic wedding because it goes against the Catholicism of the Church. I don’t follow that belief, but that will be my burden to bear when the Big Guy asks me why I attended those events. But, I believe that God really doesn’t care too much about that, just if I lived by the 10 Commandments.
I find it difficult to peel off the 10 Commandments from the raft of other Laws ostensibly passed on directly from God in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. I prefer (and there are variants in each of the Gospels):
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.
— Luke 10:25-28
But we’re also talking about two different things here. In your example, a given Catholic or Christian (or Muslim) is being asked to attend a wedding as a guest that they may or may not have religious objections to. Whether it’s the religion of the participants (or the service), or something about the nature of the participants (they’re gay, they’re divorced, they don’t seem to be taking the institution of marriage seriously, whatever), then that’s certainly an individual choice (subject to whatever divine debrief we get in the future), and, honestly, I would respect their being faced with a moral decision — especially since the guests at a wedding are being called to witness (and support) the couple.
A photographer, a baker, a limo driver, a dress maker, a tux renter, an invitation printer, a caterer, a UPS delivery person dropping off wedding gifts, the restaurateur for the rehearsal dinner, the hotelier for the honeymoon, the person growing / delivering / arranging flowers, the janitor at the location where the wedding is held … these are not moral participants in the religious activity going on. They are presumed, by the law, to be providing a service to all of the public, subject to civil rights laws at the federal and state level, which identify specific historically discriminated groups for specific protection (age, gender, race, religion, disability, veteran status, national origin — with many states, including my own, including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes).
And that becomes a question of what it means to “participate in the wedding”. At what remove do you allow such religious discrimination to act, as in the examples I give above? Wherever each individual chooses? “I don’t want to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding because that would make me a participant in their sinful relationship.” “I don’t want to provide medical care to a gay person who is pretending to be married because that would make me a participant in their sinful relationship.”
But, I’ll ask you these questions: is is okay for Muslim girls to have their genitalia mutilated?
No. Should it be illegal? Yes.
KKK membership is not, arguably, a protected class in public accomodation laws. But, on general principle, I would.
Without getting into a debate about abortion itself, on an absolute level I’d say yes, if you are providing medical services to the public, you don’t get to impose your personal religious views on who gets those services to what end. I do acknowledge that this is an intensely controversial matter, and acknowledge that doctors do more than just churn out services; to that end, I might be willing to drop back to a position that a doctor can withdraw from a case (within the bounds of medical ethics), but with a referral for the patient to a medical practitioner or facility that will provide the requested service.
While race is certainly a major item in the genesis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and similar laws), it is not just about race: that law calls out race, color, religion, sex, or national origin as protected classes (since all were elements of widespread discrimination in employment, housing, and public accomodation). Subsequent civil right laws pursued the same course to include veteran status and disability.
Well, I think so. And so, clearly, do you.
But others do not. People argued vehemently, from a moral standpoint, against these civil rights laws, just as some people argued vehemently, and sincerely, in favor of slavery based on religious belief.
There are clearly people who today would claim a personal, moral, even religious reason to discriminate in employment, in housing, in public accomodation, regarding the religion, the race, the gender of individuals. I find that wrong, just as I find religious-based discrimination in those areas against people based on sexual orientation or gender identification to be wrong.
I would not be surprised (to the extent that one can generalize what someone from a very large population might say). On the other hand, the righteousness of civil rights principles don’t rely on the personal beliefs of any particular group, even one of the groups that is protected by them. That some black people don’t believe in extending similar civil rights protection to gay people, or that that a given Asian individual might harbor prejudice against blacks,, or that some Latinos men might have a bias against women, or that some Jews might want to discriminate against Muslims … all that simply shows that civil rights laws are not about one group against another, but for the protection of everyone against the prejudices of others.
Take it back to civil rights fundamentals. “If a restaurant doesn’t want to serve black people, why can’t they just go to another restaurant?” “Why can’t they find another neighborhood to live in?” “Why can’t they find an employer who will hire their kind?”
It’s really pretty much the same thing.
I certainly have no moral high ground here. 🙂
1. Why do you assume that people can only feel compassion and empathy and desire equality only for the group they are in. I am not gay, but I’ve been able to empathize with them for the prejudice they face, extrapolating from my own experiences.
2. “Buddhists can’t hope to make a claim for religious tolerance because over 95.3% of Americans aren’t Buddhist.” “Catholics can’t win hearts and minds because 80% of the population isn’t Catholic.”
3. If only blacks would show patience and calm and not be so confrontational, then, eventually, white America will recognize their equality. = The people that Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about in his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”.
I don’t expect the law to make everyone like gay people. Or blacks. Or Catholics. Or people in wheelchairs. Or military veterans. Or women. Unlike morality, one cannot legislate “liking.” But one can legislate equal, non-discriminatory behavior, as one can legislate property rights, etc. Allowing religious prejudice to trump civil rights law (if not other laws as well) doesn’t just hurt gay people, not just racial minorities, but everyone. Because, ultimately, everyone’s a minority of one, and everyone believes or does something that someone else’s likes and religious beliefs doesn’t approve of.
“you will not get everyone to like you”
The couple here did not ask the photographer to like them. They asked him to provide them with a service which he had advertised himself as willing to provide to people in general.
If I hail a bus or a taxi I do not expect to be told “You are not the kind of person I am willing to give a ride to”. Society functions because when a service is advertised we expect to be able to use it. The idea that I should have to wait for another bus at the driver’s whim is just not acceptable.
@David E – Agreed. Ditto for any other sort of business. A taxi. A restaurant. An apartment. A hotel. A car dealership. A grocery store. A pharmacist. A doctor. A hospital.
And this is also something that can play differently in different locales, too. Arguably, in a metropolitan area like Denver, there are other options available. In a smaller city, or smaller town, in certain parts of the country, a license to discriminate might mean that you simply couldn’t get such a service. Because someone has “religious issues” over your sexual orientation. Or your religion. Or your gender. Or your race.
Okay, I’ll discuss, but please don’t lecture me. Maybe that’s one of your issues is that you lecture people and don’t try to sway them. Maybe you do think you’re swaying individuals, but after awhile, we stop reading. Maybe that’s my problem too, because I never said what the individual did was morally correct. I just stated that no one should be forced to participate in anything they believe goes against what they believe. Doesn’t make them right. Just like the example of genital mutilation that the courts said was a religious act. Just like Scientology can get away with their abuses. In life, we have to take the good and the bad of each.
The gentleman that used the bus or taxi example, well, you’re assuming they would stop. There is no guarantee that a taxi or a bus will stop.
Businesses are for a single purpose, they provide a service and or need that a consumer wants them to perform. However, business still have the right to refuse service and, if you’re asking them to participate, which in their belief they would be, your forcing them. If they make fools of themselves and it gets out, then that business will fail, and it should. But, if Planned Parenthood came and asked the owners of the Dealership for a donation or to service their vehicles, I can tell you that they wouldn’t. It goes against their beliefs that all life is precious.
The laws that make it an offense if you discriminate were founded off of race, not sexual orientation. No one ever asked on a rental agreement or a mortgage loan who you slept with or what your sexual orientation. No, it was based solely off of color or nationality. Not sexual preference.
But, even with all the anti-discrimination laws, people still discriminate. They may not be as bold as they used to be, but it still exists. I mean, if you listen to Don Lemon or watched the Oscars, you’d think we were living in the 40’s.
My only point in all of this is that no law will change a person’s heart. Period, end of story. I deal with thousands of customers a year and I’m very proud of the high quality of service my employees provide. None of them ever ask or care what they are, they are just happy that our customer continue to come back to us for service. My employees have good hearts and I’m more than blessed to have them working for me. They know what I expect and carry it out. And this is what I expect them to do. To be as ethically, morally and honest as they can be. I don’t tolerate cheating (fired a few for that), don’t tolerate dishonesty. We don’t discriminate because they want to be as successful as they can be.
So, it’s not about laws, it’s about changing peoples hearts. No law is going to change one’s heart. Maybe that’s being to simplistic, but I live and work in Realville, and it’s can be very messy. I’ve enjoyed some of the discussion, when it’s been a discussion, but, you’ve missed my point that you can’t change someone’s heart or beliefs by a law. If that were true, their would be no more killings, rape or thievery.
@Michael –
Well, that’s certainly an introduction that will encourage discussion.
I understand that the principle of personal freedom applies whether we’re talking about people who are “right” or “wrong.” And I do not take violations of personal freedom lightly. That said, there are limits to all personal freedoms, and to have a society requires compromises to make that society work.
Actually, the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 was struck down, not on religious grounds, but because the judge ruled it was not within the scope of federal authority (it had been justified under the Commerce clause, and the judge ruled that did not apply here). About half of US states have passed anti-FGM laws with no successful religious challenge, I believe.
To the extent that their actions don’t violate civil and criminal law, yes, any religious group can internally do whatever they please, be it saintly or whack-a-doodle. And for internal purposes, the courts (rightfully so, I believe) lean toward granting such organizations discretion in how they work. Thus, while civil rights laws prevent employment discrimination based on religion, courts have established that churches can discriminate religiously for specifically religious positions (e.g., a pastor), if not for non-religious positions (the church janitor, for example).
I’d rather say that there are areas we have to compromise in — areas of freedom that we choose to tolerate (so that our own freedoms are tolerated). But there are limits. A religion that calls for ritual human sacrifice, for example, would not get a pass on doing so, no matter how vehement their claim of “religious freedom.” Should they? Again, where is that dividing line?
A public bus driver who bypassed a stop because there was a black person waiting there to be picked up … would not be in that job for long.
Taxis are a different matter, to the extent that they are hailed and discriminatory behavior is difficult to detect or prove. But if a taxi driver stopped, rolled down the window, and said, “I don’t carry blacks / Jews / Muslims / Asians / whites / Catholics,” they could in fact be sued under federal law.
If you’re speaking about under the law, then I disagree. They do not have a right to refuse service to identified protected classes under federal and state law. They do not have a right to turn away Latinos, or old people, or people in wheelchairs, or men — or, in states with such laws, gay people.
So, yes, they can say, “No shoes, no shirt, no service,” but they can’t say “No white skin, no penis, no service.”
It would be pretty to think so, and certainly cutting off some chunk of the customer base would seem to be counter-productive, just as cutting off some chunk of possible employers would.
And, yet, as you noted, LGBT people are a small percentage of the population, and so from a pragmatic viewpoint, discrimination against them might not be a fatal business decision. Ditto for, say, Muslims, or Buddhists, or, in some parts of the country, Catholics.
And in areas where it’s not just some one-off bigot / ideological zealot, it’s a bigger problem. Would a business in Montgomery, Alabama — or in some small middle-of-Mississippi town — that refused to serve blacks actually go out of business. Or would there be, as there was fifty years ago, enough support and customer base among other who were happy to sit in all-white restaurants or go to all-white stores or ride in the front of the bus to allow such a thing to continue?
If much of the history of Europe, and pre-Constitution America, and, in fact, much of American history demonstrates, discrimination may not be optimal, but it’s not impractical, either.
Asking for a donation? Nobody is obliged to provide that, and the business is not there to provide donations to anyone who asks.
Being turned away for service that is offered to the public? That would get that dealership in legal hot water. And rightfully so.
Again, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the genesis of national civil rights legislation — was most famously (and controversially) about race, it included several categories of protection: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Those categories were not passed down from Heaven on tablets of stone. They were areas that were recognized as subject to significant discrimination, where specific protection was needed to keep people from being treated unfairly and unjustly.
Subsequent laws added other similarly targeted disadvantaged groups: disability, veteran’s status, familial status (having children, being pregnant), and genetic status. And, on a state level (since we live in a federal system, rather than being governed by a single central governmental authority), we’ve seen sexual orientation and gender identity added.
It wasn’t just “racial discrimination is bad.” It was “discrimination is bad, and here are groups that have been historically unjustly discriminated against that need particular protection.”
But, putting all of that aside, do you think that if someone has a profound, serious, committed, honest religious opinion that God does not want the races to be mixed, and therefore (a) refuses to photograph a a mixed-race marriage or (b) turns aside black customers from their all-white restaurant or (c) refuses to hire a black employee that would, perforce, work alongside white employees and share the same restroom facilities and break room, that such exemptions that fundamental civil rights foundation should be legally allowed?
Well, first off, in 1964, homosexuality was criminalized, so of course it wasn’t asked about because nobody would admit to it in writing. Secondly, if a landlord got a whiff that a potential renter was gay, they could easily just not rent to them. Or, if they discovered it after the fact, throw them out under a morals clause (or by threatening to call the cops)
But, even with all the anti-discrimination laws, people still discriminate. They may not be as bold as they used to be, but it still exists. I mean, if you listen to Don Lemon or watched the Oscars, you’d think we were living in the 40’s.
And people still steal. And kill. And cheat on their taxes. And drive faster than the speed limit. And etc. Should we give up on those laws, too?
As Martin Luther King said: “It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important also.”
And, over time, law creates norms. Employment practices of 2019 are very different from those of 1965 … but not just because of regulation, but because what most people consider as natural and normal and right has changed because of those laws. Morality is not just heritage, or reason, but also habit.
Don’t get me wrong — the changing of hearts and minds is more fundamental and longer-lasting and more important than external legalistic constraints on behavior. But that said …
… sometimes it’s not about the cause, but the effect. It would be great if nobody ever preferred to hire a white person over a black person, and, maybe, someday we will get there. But if we simply wait for that to happen, we are condoning decades, if not centuries, of injustice and pain. As King said, the law may not change hearts, but it can enforce behavior.
And that’s really what the law’s about. Law cannot change some folk from wanting to murder — but it can restrain them from doing so by punishing murder. Law cannot make people be moral in their hearts, but it can force people to be moral in their actions. Suggesting that some folk in 2019 will never accept that same-sex marriage is a good and rejoiceful thing, therefore public accomodation civil rights laws are useless, seems to me the same as saying that some folk in 2019 will never accept that murder is wrong, so we should just get rid of laws against murder and instead try to win hearts and minds to convince everyone to not be murderous.
Are you okay with business owners putting signs out and stating that they will not serve or do business with any Trump supporters? Try wearing a MAGA hat and see what kind of love you get in many “liberal” cities.
@Michael – Political affiliation is not a protected class in any civil rights law I’m aware of, whether it’s Main Street businesses shunning Trump Supporters, radio stations eschewing the Dixie Chicks, or employers firing employees whose political opinions they don’t care for (at least in at-will employer states). I disagree with any personal violence or assault for political symbology. But I’ll also note that a lot of folk consider the MAGA hat to be tantamount to “fighting words” — that the ideology of the current president, as symbolized by the hats and phrase that his private organization has trademarked, is fundamentally racist, sexist, classist, nationalist, threatening, and an affront to decency. Based on that, it’s hard for me to suggest that people who feel that way will react positively to someone wearing a MAGA hat, someone who is making an affirmative public political statement.
Purposefully making a political statement is going to draw a reaction — is meant to draw a reaction. Our Constitution protects us from government retaliation against making such a statement, our criminal code protects us from physical violence if we make such a statement. But nothing can protect us from social repercussions from someone who takes such a statement amiss (regardless of the politics involved).
Again, it boils down to what you believe is morally correct. And, that’s your view. But, once again, forcing someone to do something they don’t want or choose to do, it forced socialism/Communism. Why would any one want to give up a right just because a State Legislature passed the law? It’s like all the gun control. We grew up playing army and playing with guns and you didn’t have the violence you have now. But, the only solution is ban all guns. Even if you don’t believe in gun ownership, why would you be willing to give up a right? What will be next.
Just a quick note to your comment that we have to service a vehicle, your wrong, we tell customers many times that their business isn’t wanted here. It’s our right to do so. But, with that said, I’m sure there are many pro abortion customers and well, that’s their believe or choice. But, they don’t coming in here demanding we work on their vehicle just because of that, that’s not how the rest of society works. The vast majority of us just want to take care of our families and live a decent life. But, we still have the right to refuse work or business. People try to threaten us all day long and force us to do things that we choose not to do, but so far, we’ve been in business 50 plus years.
What worries me and with just cause is what is happening on, I assume,your side of the political aisle. You might be okay with the road they are taking but I as you to take a long hard look at the Democrat party and leadership. There is no compromise. They are now threatening moderate Democrats that if they vote for any Republican bill or with the Republicans, they will do everything they can to get them booted out. That’s scary and it’s happening. If you believe the rest of the country thinks like you, I recommend spending a week at the dealership and see how the other side lives. Take a look at how far the Democrats are taking abortion. With what they done in the last 45 days and going to the scariest extremes, more people say they are pro life. Here is the poll from Marist from the Washington Post “n Monday, Marist released a poll sponsored by the Knights of Columbus that showed sudden, dramatic gains for the pro-life side of America’s long abortion fight. The poll showed that Americans are evenly split on whether they identify as pro-life and pro-choice at 47 percent each. That would be a big shift from January, when the poll found that 55 percent considered themselves to be pro-choice and 38 percent said they were pro-life.” Now, you’ll probably say since the Knights sponsored it, it’s skewed. Well, maybe, but maybe not.
I can see some of your points, but I could just as well debate them with different ideals. It still boils down to changing peoples hearts and minds and that never happens with force. That goes against how God created us. I just like bringing another side, which I feel your blog site lacks. But, boy do I get some responses. LOL I don’t think there are gray areas, life is black and white, right or wrong. . The only time it gets gray is when I mix black and white and try to justify my inaction’s. Have a good weekend.
@Michael –
Well, not completely. I’ve offered some questions and drawn some logical conclusions which aren’t based on my druthers, though labeling them as such makes it easier to dismiss them.
No, it’s called society and civilization and government and social contract. Even in the Halcyon days of the Founding Fathers, people were “forced to do things they didn’t want or chose to do.” E.g., paying taxes (see Shay’s Rebellion).
On one level, we all give up certain rights and freedoms to live next to one another.
On another, if the right involved is constitutional, then there’s recourse through the courts.
Actually, violent crime rates peaked in the 1990s, and have been largely in decline ever since. The violent crime rate today is roughly what it was around 1970.
Actually, very few people call for banning all guns. But there are a number of sensible ideas to regulate the acquisition of guns, and their handling, that might reduce violent crime and mass shootings further. These might be debated, were not not for the gun and ammo lobbyists of the NRA who have convinced a substantial number of people that any restriction on gun ownership and possession is a Stalinist plot.
No right is absolute. My freedom of speech and of the press doesn’t give me the right to libel and slander. My freedom of religion doesn’t give me the right to sacrifice my neighbor because of the dictates of my religion (it doesn’t even get me out of paying taxes). Rights ought not to be restricted casually or capriciously, but the intersection of rights between individuals and the needs of society to function justly means that limits do get imposed.
If you do so based on one of those protected classes, you are courting a civil rights law suit. “I won’t service your vehicle because you’re black” is a violation of federal (and probably state) law.
I’m pretty sure the number of people going in to demand service on their vehicle because they are pro-abortion is … well, zero. So what’s your point?
I think that’s probably true for most people.
Not for reasons that are illegal. “We don’t serve Catholics here. No women customers allowed. We don’t hire people over 40.” Those are in direct violation of federal law. That some states have extended that principle to include “We don’t do business with gays” doesn’t make it any more legit to violate the law.
And I hope you’re in business for fifty more.
I’ll note that this has been the M.O. of the GOP since the era of Newt Gingrich. Republican party discipline in Congress has been legendary, and it’s been enforced with an iron rod.
Not that it makes similar behavior from Democratic leadership right. I mourn the fact that both parties been part of such polarization — that the era of Democrats that were more conservative in some areas than some Republicans, and Republicans that were more liberal on some areas than some Democrats is over. I can say, with some historical and statistical basis, that this has been driven more by the Republican leadership than the Democrats, but the ultimate effect on government and society is a negative one.
I’m well aware that there are a lot of people who don’t believe as I do. I trust you are aware of the same.
So first of all, one has to be concerned over an abortion poll sponsored by the anti-abortion Knights of Columbus. The Marist poll is also an outlier — the overall trend of polling on the subject has been a gradual increase in abortion rights. A single poll that shows a dramatic shift in a long-term issue is, frankly, a blip.
That said, I do expect the GOP will make abortion a key electoral issue going into 2020. So?
One might say the same thing about the matter of abortion — “Win hearts and minds. You can’t just pass a law and force the morality you want.” But that’s precisely the approach that anti-abortion forces tend to prefer — and, indeed, the preferred course of religious conservatives in any number of areas.
But I think we’ve already thrashed over that matter.
I just like bringing another side, which I feel your blog site lacks. But, boy do I get some responses. LOL I don’t think there are gray areas, life is black and white, right or wrong. . The only time it gets gray is when I mix black and white and try to justify my inaction’s. Have a good weekend.
I think I’ve answered the questions I can without getting wrapped up on every talking point of the week. Perhaps we can pick this up when one or the other of us has something new to say.
See, even Dr. Phil agrees and he’s on TV and been on Oprah. LOL
Phil McGraw, best known as Dr. Phil, rejected the “social justice” ethos of state-mandated egalitarianism in an interview with Joe Rogan on Tuesday.
Dr. Phil characterized inequalities between persons as a feature of the human condition (comments begin at 1:26:32):
JOE ROGAN: There’s a movement going on in this country, right now, the social justice movement, and it leans in that direction [of preventing kids from facing and overcoming adversity], that people don’t want to look at things for how they are. They want to look at things for how they want them to be.
DR. PHIL: I just don’t understand. You cannot legislate that everything is going to be equal for everybody, because everybody’s not equal. I’m sorry, they’re no equal. They may be equal in terms of their value as a human being, but they’re not equal in math skills, they’re not equal in how fast they run, they’re not equal in creativity. Everybody has their own value, but that doesn’t mean their marketable skills in an open society — in an open market — are going to be the same.
JOE ROGAN: No, it’s ridiculous.
Both Rogan and Dr. Phil noted the centrality of adversity and failure as opportunities for personal development, warning of stultified maturation among children and youth who are denied such experiences (comments begin at 1;17:15):
DR. PHIL: Overindulgence is one of the most insidious forms of child abuse in parenting. It’s not the worst, it’s just insidious, because if you overindulge your children and do everything for them, you never let them observe themselves master their environment. You never let them step back and say, ‘Wow, I did that. I built this. I overcome this. I handled this,’ and so that’s the same way we make our own self-image and level of self-worth. We watch ourselves overcome the third grade. We watch ourselves stand up to a bully. We watch ourselves handle a test with information that intimidated us. We watch ourselves make it onto the little league baseball team and actually get a hit when we needed to. We watch ourselves make it onto the debate team and actually argue something successfully. … I can hang. I can do this. I can rise to the occasion. … I think that’s how we form our level of self-esteem and our identity about who we are.
JOE ROGAN: I think for children, participating in things that are going to test you is so critical. Giving them this opportunity to realize that there’s a line between success and failure, and that you can push through that line. You can become successful at something. That’s why I think sports are so important for children. And that’s one of the more insidious things about having these participation trophies for kids where nobody wins the game. ‘Yay, everybody plays but nobody wins. We don’t keep score.’ Well, why the fuck are you playing?
DR. PHIL: Yeah. That just goes down as an environmental non-event. That contributes nothing to your definition. It’s just something to do.
JOE ROGAN: It’s also psychologically, it’s coddling. It’s very damaging for your potential education that you would get from that situation. The bad feeling that you get when someone scores on you is motivation for you to get better at defense.
DR. PHIL: Yeah. I think we cheat kids when we do that. … Not everybody is meant to be an athlete. So okay, look, go do something else. Be good at what you’re good at. … Everything is not for everybody, so find what you’re good at and watch yourself achieve in that lane.
“Self-esteem” and “self-worth,” concluded Dr. Phil, are developed through overcoming difficulties.
forgot to ask a question about the MAGA hat. Were those high school boys from Covington asking for a fight? Or, were the out of control “peace loving” leftist agitators looking for a fight?