(My Clovis News Journal column for February 28, 2014)
In Arizona a new "law" is being considered which would allow business owners to refuse service to homosexuals. This is another case of a law being inflicted because of a misguided past law.
Does a business owner already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Yes. No matter what any "law" to the contrary might say. "Anti-discrimination laws" are all violations of the right of association. Even though discrimination based on most criteria isn't nice, no "law" has the authority to force people to do business with anyone.
It cuts both ways. I am also free to refuse to patronize a business because of whom they refuse, and free to tell everyone why I won't do business there. I don't like bigotry, no matter the excuses.
Will their business thrive, or will it die, due to their choices? Let the chips fall where they may.
But what if the business's product or service is critical to life and limb? Like housing, food, or energy?
It's amazing to me that anyone would believe the type of business matters in this question. Why would I ever choose to open a type of business anyone believes requires the State telling me how to run?
Those who advocate this are endorsing fascism. "Fascism" is the economic system in which businesses are "owned" privately, but are told how they must operate by the State's laws, which also demand a cut of the money ("taxes"). Fascism is here- thus all the permits, licenses, taxes, zoning, regulations, etc. controlling businesses. It's also why corporations have found ways to pull the strings of government.
If you own a business I think is "too important" to deny people, I could open the same kind of business and cater to the people you refuse to serve. Maybe we will both stay in business, serving different groups of people. Where's the "loser" in that?
If it is my business I have the inalienable human right to serve- or not- anyone I choose. "Laws" which seek to violate that right are wrong. My reasons may be stupid, bigoted, or absurd, but no one has the legitimate authority to violate that right.
Be that as it may, I would shun any business (and its owner) which refuses service to people who aren't physically attacking the innocent or stealing from them. I would also reward with my patronage any business I discovered refusing service to people who made a habit of using aggression against the innocent, or of committing theft in any way.
This is just a basic human right- the right of association. Respect it or violate it. Your choice.
In Arizona a new "law" is being considered which would allow business owners to refuse service to homosexuals. This is another case of a law being inflicted because of a misguided past law.
Does a business owner already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Yes. No matter what any "law" to the contrary might say. "Anti-discrimination laws" are all violations of the right of association. Even though discrimination based on most criteria isn't nice, no "law" has the authority to force people to do business with anyone.
It cuts both ways. I am also free to refuse to patronize a business because of whom they refuse, and free to tell everyone why I won't do business there. I don't like bigotry, no matter the excuses.
Will their business thrive, or will it die, due to their choices? Let the chips fall where they may.
But what if the business's product or service is critical to life and limb? Like housing, food, or energy?
It's amazing to me that anyone would believe the type of business matters in this question. Why would I ever choose to open a type of business anyone believes requires the State telling me how to run?
Those who advocate this are endorsing fascism. "Fascism" is the economic system in which businesses are "owned" privately, but are told how they must operate by the State's laws, which also demand a cut of the money ("taxes"). Fascism is here- thus all the permits, licenses, taxes, zoning, regulations, etc. controlling businesses. It's also why corporations have found ways to pull the strings of government.
If you own a business I think is "too important" to deny people, I could open the same kind of business and cater to the people you refuse to serve. Maybe we will both stay in business, serving different groups of people. Where's the "loser" in that?
If it is my business I have the inalienable human right to serve- or not- anyone I choose. "Laws" which seek to violate that right are wrong. My reasons may be stupid, bigoted, or absurd, but no one has the legitimate authority to violate that right.
Be that as it may, I would shun any business (and its owner) which refuses service to people who aren't physically attacking the innocent or stealing from them. I would also reward with my patronage any business I discovered refusing service to people who made a habit of using aggression against the innocent, or of committing theft in any way.
This is just a basic human right- the right of association. Respect it or violate it. Your choice.
.
Well said.
ReplyDeleteThere is an element, rampant in some people, that enjoys bullying others, particularly those with whom they disagree. That government encourages this element is no surprise. But I wonder about those gays who (for example) force bakeries to bake them a cake? Don't they worry about what is going to end up in that cake?
ReplyDeleteTo be treated well, the first thing to do is to treat others well. Trampling their right of association is not going to do it. Whatever gains they perceive from such actions are transitory, fake. Those who look to government to advance their cause are bound to be disappointed. Jackie Robinson did more to improve the lives of "black" people than any government program.