The other day I posted at TZP about the dangers of mainstreaming bigotry and the folly of modern leftists thinking that their bigotry is somehow superior to the bigotry of others.
I was stunned when about half the reader response implied that I was opposing freedom of association.
Thanks to a comment by PB, I went back and realized I’d written this phrase in the final paragraph of the article: “discrimination is wrong.”
That’s simply a dumb statement. Discrimination is not wrong, certainly not categorically wrong. It’s obviously something people do every day and something a free society would just cope with, no need for laws and regulations about it. Discrimination is wrong only when governments or government-sponsored enterprises practice it; but then that’s not news, since most everything governments do is wrong.
I now kick myself for those three hastily chosen, dead wrong, words.
I remain chagrined that three careless words obliterated everything else I was trying to say and thought I had said. But that is simply the Way of the ‘Net. I know that. It was my fault and I walked into it with eyes that should have been wide open.
A mealy mouthed politician would try to weasel his way out of what he said with phrases like what I really meant was or I did not really mean what you thought I said.
You on the other hand Claire come right out and admit when you made a mistake, and I, and probably many others, respect you more for it. Keep up the great work you do!
Just adding for the sake of completeness and because I consider one particular trend in lefty bigotry to be especially ominous: even though I’m not religious, I’m particularly disturbed by the movement to force or pressure people to violate their own peaceably held religious convictions. (Example: http://freebeacon.com/blog/memories-pizza-or-the-illuminati/)
In the original TZP piece I mentioned that mainstreaming bigotry could open the gates of hell (as it has before). Well, when you try to force people to violate their own consciences as a matter of policy, you have already opened the gates of hell.
Mac — Thank you for such a gracious response.
Erm … yes, mistakes were made, I’m sorry if I gave the impression of wrongdoing, and I’ll investigate myself to ensure I didn’t violate any of my own policies. 🙂
Yeah… I didn’t ever think you meant exactly that, Claire. 🙂 Should probably just have quoted that phrase and asked, HUH?
Sure wish I had the ability and opportunity to correct or even apologize for the uncounted mistakes and misspeaks I’ve made over the long years.
Anyway, good on you, and thanks for clearing up the little confusion. 🙂
Like Janet “Recreational Vehicle” Reno, Claire takes full responsibility for her actions. 🙂 Her daily lashing is hereby reduced by seven (to 42). By contract, I thought I erred once, but was mistaken.
Y.B. — If I’m taking responsibility just like Janet Reno, then I’ll get in line and take my lashes after she gets hers. 🙂
You agree with Barry Goldwater then about freedom of association. From the Goldwater Wikipedia article:
Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation and had supported the original senate version of the bill, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do or not do business with whomever they chose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
In effect Goldwater gave support to the then existing Jim Crow laws in the south which were couched in State’s Rights mantra and religious freedom, or in the case of individual business owners, freedom of association like this bigot:
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/
Do you remember Lester Maddox and his Pickwick Restaurant? Blacks weren’t even allowed in the back of the place let alone take out.
Claire, you are all wet on this. (Given where you live quite understandable I guess.) When someone provides a public accommodation they implicitly accept to serve the public, the public at large. Whether you are a Muslim cab driver who tries to shut out Jews, a restaurant owner who prefers a lily white clientele, or a cake shop owner who hides his revulsion against gays under selective religious text, the result is the same. Bigotry and exclusion in the public sphere has found an excuse. The result is a hodgepodge sectarian culture that ultimately leads to the state of affairs we are witnessing in the Middle East.
Claire, it’s also ‘the way of the net’ to make mountains out of molehills and to have ‘party faithfuls’ – including ‘rapid response teams’ – who watch a designated blog for the purpose of nit-picking it and intentionally misinterpreting it. Then they gang-jump the writer in an effort to silence them or at least muddy up the discussion to where the discussion gets totally side-tracked.
Unless you actually managed to write something you didn’t intend to write, don’t beat yourself up over it.
Discrimination isn’t coercion so it isn’t “wrong” in some situations it is essential but in general it tends to be mostly stupid and often counterproductive. So yes your statement can be misused but only by equating wrong with actionable.
@OldPrinter> When someone provides a public accommodation they implicitly accept to serve the public, the public at large.
Why is it not up to me (assuming I’m a business owner), to decide whether I’m operating a “public accomodation”? Who, specifically, has the right to make that determination? Particularly in a free society? This does go back to English common law, but there, no, not all places of business were considered to be “public accomodations”, and there was a certain amount of relation to operating in a monopoly fashion, in order to be considered such. It was not “implicit” for any and all businesses, nor should it be. Again, who is it who has determined that is it “implicit”, and why does that entity have the power to make that determination?
But, irrespective of English Common Law, genuine Liberty also includes freedom of contract, and freedom of association, without government constraint. The notion of a “public accomodation” has no place alongside true Freedom. If the government can coerce or compel me into doing something I don’t want to do, then I am not free. QED.
Further, the line of reasoning being espoused here by the hand-wringing media et. al. is that a person’s sexual orientation is more important than another’s right to run their life and business as they see fit, based on their own set of beliefs and principles. This is plainly wrong. Liberty does not elevate one type or class of people above another, which is what is happening in these “accomodation” cases.
[@OldPrinter> When someone provides a public accommodation they implicitly accept to serve the public, the public at large.]
This is a great idea. Just cook up stuff you’d like to see happen, and then turn it into an “implicit” obligation that others have now to deal with. Why didn’t I think of that? (/sarcasm)
I suspect people run restaurants or bakeries because they want to make some money, and choose to do it in a way they enjoy (must have a masochistic streak, but never mind). They are serving individuals, not some “public”. Maybe people should let them run their business as they please, and mind their own business too.
public accomodation”? Who, specifically, has the right to make that determination?…who is it who has determined that is it “implicit”
You made the determination when you put up the OPEN sign without specifying you were not open to certain people, or when you left the door open to any and all who pass by. There is definitely room for exclusivity and freedom of association. By forming a club or other private entity you are entitled to be as exclusive as you want, unless of course you’re on the government dole like Catholic charities and other quasi-independent organizations that receive government money.
I’m not in any way condoning the behavior of those who are acting like thugs in the Indiana farce. IMO they are looking for a fight and are little better the government sting operators. They are hell bent on finding prejudice and discrimination when there is none. Can’t find it? Create it.
You made the determination when you put up the OPEN sign without specifying you were not open to certain people
I see, so having a “no guns” sign makes it all okey-dokey then to forbid those of us who carry firearms from entering your establishment?
Now go ahead and start subsituting any other class or type of people for “guns”, and watch the outrage. Well, I suppose certain types would pass muster. Nazis, for example. Except it doesn’t work both ways, does it? (There’s at least one court case where it did.)
Some signs I’ve seen on the door of a business:
Open/closed
No shirt, no shoes, no service
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone
No guns
No pets
No smoking
No Indians
No minors – Must be 21 to enter
No minors without parent
Doesn’t matter, at least not in a free country. Customers who do not agree with the signs simply go somewhere else. The business will only survive if enough customers are happy to enter and spend their money in spite of (or because of) the signs.
The 900 pound gorilla in the room is when those unhappy customers turn to government or other coercion/violence attempting to FORCE the business to serve them anyway (or NOT serve someone). It doesn’t make a bit of difference if the business refuses service due to “religious” reasons or any other… or no “reason” at all except individual choice. Nobody has any obligation to serve anyone in any capacity except under individual, signed contract – where they already agreed to it.
MamaLiberty, Paul Bonneau, jed, etc…
For all your spouting about precious individual rights and government interference thereof, you might want to reflect. This is Easter, the day of a certain event that befell a man who grew from a child born in a manger after His parents were turned away at the inn.
Luke 2:7 “And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.”
I’m sure the inn keeper was just exercising his individual rights.
“Spouting”?
Yeah, some of us actually believe in true Liberty. That would include the freedom to ignore the Easter story, or not, as is our choice.
Where you get to exercising his individual rights from no room for them in the inn is mysterious. Had they been exluded because the innkeeper was bigot, wouldn’t Luke have recorded such? I’m sure today’s progressives would be making hay with that one, were it true. However, had he refused them service for any reason at all, as the keeper of that inn, he’d have been entirely within his rights. Whether it’s the “Christian” thing to do has nothing to do with it.
Old Printer — Once before, you stormed off because you were so offended at the radical individualist views here. You’re very welcome here and you’re absolutely free to disagree with the that view of liberty. But your blood pressure will thank you if you simply accept that radical individualism is the most common view around here and don’t let it get to you so badly.
As to Easter and that innkeeper, people get turned away from inns, restaurants, concerts, classes, etc. every day because those things get filled up. As jed notes, even if the story of the birth in the stable actually happened, it’s not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Also, not everybody celebrates Easter and even some who do probably don’t see why they should alter their attitudes or modify their statements about liberty because of the day.
And, because it’s Easter, the next few days will be a good time to get Peeps at marked-down prices. They make good targets.
Oh yeah, Peeps! Best. Targets. Evarrrrr!
I’m sure the inn keeper was just exercising his individual rights.
Actually, I always figured the innkeeper did them a favor. In a crowded inn of the times Mary would have probably ended up in a room sharing two beds with five other women, while Joseph would have been down in the great room with the men, trying to spread his cloak near the hearth.
The stable was warmed by the animals, and private. The innkeeper took some risk letting them stay in it, given all the valuable animals he was responsible for.
Today, of course, the Bethlehem City Zoning Board would have set a maximum occupancy limit for the inn, and lots more people would have to be turned away. Housing them in a stable would be strictly prohibited. If Mary had put her son in a manger, even for an instant, she and Joseph would have been convicted of child abuse and Jesus would have grown up in a Roman child care facility.
After all, a government census was the only reason Mary, Joseph, and all those other people had to make the journey in the first place.
when those unhappy customers turn to government or other coercion/violence attempting to FORCE the business to serve them anyway (or NOT serve someone).
And on a practical level, suing people to force them to make you a wedding cake, then deluging them with hate-mail to the point where they have to close their business and go into hiding, just doesn’t seem like an effective way to convince them or their friends that being gay might not be so bad after all, so they can make friends with some, and learn more about them, and grow out of being bigoted.
In fact, such tactics might just convince some of the neutral folks that gays are really hateful people they don’t want to have anything to do with.
@LarryA Lol.
@MamaLiberty Right on target!
However since Old Printer brings up a valid point, I will spout some more.
[You made the determination when you put up the OPEN sign without specifying you were not open to certain people, or when you left the door open to any and all who pass by. There is definitely room for exclusivity and freedom of association. By forming a club or other private entity you are entitled to be as exclusive as you want…]
It depends on what “OPEN” means, doesn’t it? Does that sign communicate that “we will tolerate any customers, no matter how obnoxious their behavior”? Or does is say, “let’s do business, but just as you choose me, I choose you”? I suppose it’s open to interpretation what it means, especially at present with bureaucrats muddying the waters. However I’d be willing to bet that if government thugs were not around to bully people, the shop owners would naturally include the clarifying information on their OPEN signs, that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone – because it would actually mean something. And that over time, this clarifying information would not be needed, because everyone would take OPEN to imply that.
Who owns the language? Is it the government?
@Paul: In France, I think the govermnet does own the language. They sure as heck regulate it. It’s too late for English. In some ways, I feel it’s no wonder we often don’t communicate well. Oh, that’s a whole ‘nother rant …
Going off on a tangent here, I’m surprised I didn’t think of this sooner:Enigma: Mea Culpa. Trippy.
Claire, I don’t have a problem with the rugged individualism expressed here. But I hate it when people are allowed or feel forced to hide their personal discretions and possible prejudice under the rubric of religion. It gives Christ’s teaching a bad name.
As to those who like Mr. Bonneau use the Clinton defense, What is the meaning of open, it is obvious that an OPEN sign means just that. No one, including the government, holds a gun to anyone’s head and forces him to start a business that serves the public. We all have our druthers, and one of mine is to not deal with or sell to Muslims. But the beauty of capitalism is that their money is just as green as gays. So I often sell a product to businesses that I know are Muslim owned. I don’t solicit it, but wouldn’t think of brushing them off.
For those who have a respect for unfettered capitalism and the freedom it fosters, how can they NOT treat everyone equally?