Bar Owner Posts Insulting Sign Calling Gun-Carriers ‘Doucheba*s’ & Losers, Starts National Firestorm
Not only does the owner of the Backstreets Pub and Deli in Clemson, South Carolina have some fierce words for gun carriers thinking about eating at his establishment: he called them “losers” and “douchebags.”At the bottom of a sign stating “NO CONCEALED WEAPONS ALLOWED,” he added:
“If you are such a loser that you feel a need to carry a gun when you go out, I do not want your business. Douche bag.”While the owner has private property rights and can decide who carries guns in his bar, he decided to go full-tilt and blast all gun-carriers as “d-bags” and “losers.” Not a smart business move, pal.
Needless to say, when word spread among supporters of concealed-carry, the throw-down was on. Several hundred Second Amendment supporters descended on Backstreets’ Yelp review page and posted negative reviews about the restaurant, driving its 3-star rating down to 1-star.
The owner responded, saying the sign was “temporary,” and that he was “sorry for the wording,” but stood his ground:
“Sorry, but I’m not sorry. If you feel the need to bring a gun into a college bar you are a douche bag. And if you’re drinking than you are violating the law.”He later added that he himself is a gun owner, but that he’s fed up with “irrational gun nuts.”
Incidentally, South Carolina passed a law in 2013 allowing people holding concealed-weapon permits to carry firearms in places that serve food or alcohol, as long as they don’t drink while inside.
While the law stipulates that establishments may enact their own weapon bans, provided they post a large sign in their window warning customers of their policy, it doesn’t clarify whether or not “douche bag” should be added to those signs.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/122508-bar-gets-heat-banning-guns-called-gun-carriers-far-worse/
William my thanks for your consideration in posting this article.
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction was one of surprise that an article so poorly written could be published; although the prose does perhaps reflect the intellectual capacity of the bar owner.
So what of the sentiments expressed in the notice? Well firstly I wonder if the bar owner is not denying the citizens their much cherished “rights” under the second amendment? “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”: If we accept this as a fact, the second is surely shown to be a horse’s ass because the first guarantees the right of the citizens to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
From the above, the Bill of Rights is shown to be breached by both the bar owner and his patrons who want to carry their weapons into his bar. This is somewhat similar to the frontier days when the cowboys were required to check their guns at the reception desk!
So what do we think of the article? Well leaving aside the colourful language, which many would find offensive, does the proprietor have a valid argument? I submit that he does and as he is responsible for the conduct of the patrons of his establishment, I submit his decision to ban weapons, concealed or otherwise is prudent and correct.
What of the reaction of the patrons to the bar owners stance? Well to protest and jump up and down is also their right under the first “freedom of assembly”, personally I would consider it more practical if they simply found another watering hole and ignored the anti gun establishment.
There is so much to admire in the way your country has evolved since 1776, the aims of the founding fathers are still enunciated in everyday discussions, including here on this site. So many of those same aims and ideals are carried forward even now. Regrettably, time and evolution have combined to lessen the need or the usefulness of some of those “rights” and a great nation is being held back simply because its citizens have, in many cases, developed a third eye in the back of their heads .To look backward and pine for what you once had is less important than to look to the present and the future to change that which is presently bad.
Cheers friends from Aussie.
You raise an interesting point in your comments. It is, quite frankly, the reason we have so many problems with observing our constitution today. The constitution and indeed the bill of rights is a set of rules by which the national government will operate. The bill of rights prescribe a set of conditions that the government shall never broach with respect to its citizens. Your example is that a private citizen somehow violates the rights of another on their own property by preventing them from carrying a weapon. Of course that is no less ludicrous than a private citizen preventing a group of people ‘peacefully assembling’ in their living room. Should we expect that a citizen follow all the rules of ‘due process in a home invasion?
DeleteWe have muddied up these rules that (use to)hold considerable respect for the individual and property rights. In creating laws and conditions that interfere with freedom of association particularly in the realm of commerce, we have severely weakened all of the premises on which the constitution and bill of rights were created. When the government short circuits a person’s ability to start a business by telling them who they must hire, what qualifying questions they can’t ask and how much to pay, their rights of association and property rights become no more than a privilege of the state. One thing we do know about successful democracies is the importance of property rights and the rule of law. Interestingly enough though, we seem to be fine with an owner of a business turning away someone for dressing in a way that doesn’t appeal but we somehow loose our prerogative when it comes to people acting in a way we and perhaps the majority of our customers find offensive… customers that we started the business to serve in the first place.
“Regrettably, time and evolution have combined to lessen the need or the usefulness of some of those “rights” and a great nation is being held back simply because its citizens have, in many cases, developed a third eye in the back of their heads .To look backward and pine for what you once had is less important than to look to the present and the future to change that which is presently bad.”
To this we will have to agree to disagree as I am quite sure you have heard the expression that those who ignore history are destine to repeat it. The U.S. military is, without a lot of argument, the most powerful on the planet, yet it has been woefully lacking in both Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed in Vietnam because it couldn’t confront a civilian population as an enemy. Without wholesale slaughter, private citizens can certainly be a significant countermeasure to any government, however well equipped, not bent on genocide. I think that you wish to rely on an extremely thin vale of civility your assertion that people are merely longing for days gone by… or are you saying that today’s world must recognize the society as paramount over the individual and by doing so saying that the individual has no real place in shaping society… a person, once born, is no more than a possession of the state? … is that your view of present and future?
The problem is that you and I see 'what is bad' differently.. I see the behavior as the problem while you want to blame the weapon. People bend and play with statistics to reach the conclusion that they desire but the bottom line is that if a society has a propensity to harm, it will find a way regardless the restrictions and blaming the gun is like blaming free speech for someone yelling fire in a theatre.
By the way, I side 100% with the owner of that business to turn away business from gun owners... I also side with the owner who feels that, because of their beliefs, they cannot do professional justice to any behavour they are offended by, be they gay, or redneck or muslim ... or choose not to hire grossly overweight people in a fashion house where perception is everything... or men in Hooters where boobs are the selling point... That is called property rights.
DeleteComes down to what gotta said "Very simple. Go to a different bar that appreciates our Constitutional rights."
Scott.
DeleteMany thanks for the civil and thought provoking reply.
Have been to the supermarket this morning and as you would know, such a task provides endless opportunity to consider the problems facing the world together with ourselves and our friends.
All this thinking has probably resulted in my bringing back much that was not on the shopping list, and little that was. Uxorial displeasure will no doubt result but at least I have something to say concerning your post.
History has been my passion for almost a lifetime, US history for well over two decades. To ignore history condemns us to repeat it is a little trite. To ignore history means that the present generation can study the problems and react with an uncluttered mind. It is however preferable that the decision makers of today are cognisant of the mistakes made by previous generations in order that the mistakes are not repeated.
You appear to subscribe to the view that individual’s rights are paramount. Quote I think that you wish to rely on an extremely thin vale of civility your assertion that people are merely longing for days gone by… or are you saying that today’s world must recognize the society as paramount over the individual and by doing so saying that the individual has no real place in shaping society… a person, once born, is no more than a possession of the state? … Is that your view of present and future? Unquote.
No my friend, I believe passionately in a democratic system where all views can be expressed and where the majority, having expressed those views are charged with the task of government for all. At its most simple level, You, William Ric and gotta may express your views on any particular subject and there will be differences. The government, either State or Federal may democratically decide the issue and I would hope you would all abide by the decision. Remember, the government is a group of citizens, just such as you, who have been elected by you to be your government
Now in the constitution there is much that is given to the individual citizen; much of it for reasons of political expediency and as a sop to the states that had not ratified the constitution. Many of those rights (but not all) appear to me to have been superceded by events in the past 200 odd years and are therefore about a relevant as the law requiring a man to walk in front of an automobile with a red flag.
In addition to the above reasoning, consider the harm done to the individual citizen as his heard is blown away by a nutter who is legally carrying a concealed firearm. What then of the civil rights of that poor sod?
Cheers from Aussie
Sorry for the delayed response. Life of course supersedes forum banter and some thought was required of so many subjects requiring paragraphs that easily justify volumes. It appears by some of your comments that I antagonize you. It is not my intention to do that, at least with you, but just as I have received no accolades for brevity, the trophy for tact still eludes me…. With that in mind.. onward
DeleteTo the last point first. We do not consider the car or indeed the alcohol maker when a drunk t-bones a family of six nor do we condemn all hedge funds when a Bernie Madoff destroys the financial future of hundreds by misusing the licensed position he held. Never do we discuss within the functioning of our societies why we readily consume copious amounts of blood and horror from movies, murder and mayhem in games and hate and disrespect in our music or why, what use to be considered energetic and curious children are now medicated and labeled, often before they are old enough to enter school. Failing to hold the attention of a child with an above average IQ bored in class dictated by the lease common denominator and lead by teachers tenured not by performance the child, in the name of political correctness, is placed in a class with sub 90 IQ children and we expect him to be well adjusted. The point here is that the 2nd amendment is valid. The ultimate insurance policy of a civilian population. History is replete with examples of government overreach and democratic or populous processes that created them. Present day United States seems to have a never ending cascade of government encroachment against the individual. No doubt we will agree to disagree as to the cause and cure.
Interesting concept; that of viewing the world fresh and uncluttered by past events. Being a rather adventurous boy I can credit at least 50 stitches to my propensity to ignore enlightened counsel. To both legs, an arm, hand, over one eye and the back of my head…(none by way of violent altercation a must stress) I could be dead but for chance and waking up one day and realizing that there is something to be gained by listening to past experience; both my own and that of others. Operating only in the now, be it by private citizen or statesman or an entire society, we may find a new way, perhaps better, unfettered by fear but may also find that, trite though it may be, we may find ourselves in the same predicaments of the past so I think that merely cognisant is a bare minimum of knowledge and consideration required.
“Now in the constitution there is much that is given to the individual citizen; much of it for reasons of political expediency and as a sop to the states that had not ratified the constitution.”
A sentiment usually expressed by those on the left wishing to further distort the document. That the words put into the constitution were mere puffery to illicit a signature, presumably by a group of rather power hungry statists who saw the constitution as no more than a means to an undisclosed end that if honestly disclosed would have domed the US as a nation. Perhaps a desire to create a new monarchy?... a different type of repression that most had left in Europe? A constitution and union that never would have been ratified had the real details/intent been enumerated? When words and agreements no longer matter and fraud is an acceptable method of ‘moving forward’ then you have neither democracy nor the rule of law in my opinion. Rick has stated his belief that the Federalist papers have no relevance in the interpretation of the constitution as they were only a means to ‘sell’ ratification to their various constituents, yet they have been quoted in both concurrence and decent in over 200 Supreme Court rulings…
Continued >>>
“Many of those rights (but not all) appear to me to have been superseded by events in the past 200 odd years and are therefore about a relevant as the law requiring a man to walk in front of an automobile with a red flag.”
DeleteOf course we have had many aspects of the constitution circumvented and reinterpreted but when it actually comes to striking them from the constitution… that basic law from which all other laws (are suppose to) emanate, we, using the power of democracy and requirements clearly outlined to modify its provisions, have not seen fit to remove these rights from the books. Most of them are pretty unambiguous but all of them in some fashion or another have been ignored by people who chose democracy only when it suits them… a serious danger for any freedom loving person and every precedent moves one farther from the reason it was written. “Superseded by events”… or events used by calculating opportunists?
With respect to individual liberty and democracy; these are in many ways two different subjects. I should not need any form of government to decide what cloths to buy/sell or job to take/give or indeed how much I am willing to receive/offer as compensation for that job.
Of course there must be reconciliation between the individual and the common good but one must always keep in mind that at its worst, democracy is 50.1% of the people dictating the future of the other 49.9 and the more intrusive the government, the more expansive this authoritarianism can be… particularly when it comes to social issues of a country as large as the US. People living in New York City or Washington will never understand the issues and life struggles of someone living in rural Wyoming and just because a cluster of people in one place have numerical advantage doesn’t mean they have automatically obtain infinite wisdom nor indeed the right to dictate. This is precisely why the federal government design. Power distributed away from the central and not towards it and balanced more toward individual responsibility rather than omni-present central planning. You get me wrong if you think I aspire to anarchy. I just believe the vast majority of decisions about one’s life can be dictated by individual responsibility, local custom and mutual contract to which the governments only function is to enforce the tenets of the agreement and intervene in response to aggression.
Government always takes on a life of its own when not strongly restrained within a narrow mandate and a good many times government prescription (particularly national) is more harmful than good. Much discussion about the harm of laissez faire economics neglects the fact that most monopolies where and are in fact a product of poorly considered government involvement. Much of the turmoil within a society is created by government interference rather than being an impartial referee to mutually agreed outcome. I believe that race relations in the US would not be what they are today if the government that found ‘equal but separate’ laws to be unconstitutional, hadn’t, under the same constitution, created the antithesis in desegregation, generating not less but more friction and antagonism of people being forced together regardless of their personal desires. Also the extension of ‘public’ services definition to include every private business. Interestingly the public services laws originally covered businesses such as inn’s and transport that operated along government thoroughfares; business that had most often been given exclusive license and therefore monopoly power by the government. Where I find government particularly harmful is in the realm of social mores and values. Society should be the embodiment of all individuals and there free association with each other, not a composite determined by some preordained formula driven by propaganda and codified by little more than half the population… particularly when the writers of that formula have so much to gain personally by the syntax.
Continued >>>>
When you admonish me to respect the government that I elected, I think that you misunderstand that many today do not see the government as either fair, in the sense that it might actually deliberate about the needs of the citizenry as a whole, or representative. The creation of the tea party occurred as a direct result of the members of congress receiving comment from their constituents at a ratio of 100+ to 1 against the use of taxpayer money to fund bailouts for the private banks and congresses outright refusal to listen. ‘After’ he was elected as MP from Bristol, Edmond Burke announced his constituents that, in essence, he was no longer their representative nor would he listen to their opinion if it conflicted with his own by saying: “his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. ... Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”… "You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament". He was not reelected again. Conservatism owes much to him as a stalwart to the liberal but as a representative of people… he felt himself better than those who chose him and at the end of the day, had he been forthright with the electorate, he wouldn’t have been elected in the first place.
DeleteKing you are right the bar owner does have the right to bar concealed weapons, but his method is definitely over the top. Just good business sense would tell one that posting this kind of sign for any circumstance is just stupid. Now at my place we have a polite sign but still at least once a week we get a gun nut in the place hollering and screaming about what idiots we are for posting the sign and that they won't be back. Seems with some of these people first amendment rights and property rights just don't matter when it comes to their cherished right to bear arms. You know I own a gun. But King my question is this, Do you really need to packing in a family establishment where maybe you have your kids and wife with you? Can't one just let it rest for an hour or so, so you can enjoy some time out?
ReplyDeleteBut back to the bar owner he was right in stating that if you are carrying in his bar then you are in fact breaking the rules you agreed to abide by when you got your permit as well as the law, with the gun on you, you are prohibited from drinking in most places. I don't have a Conceal carry permit but if this thing is so valuable as it seems if there is no mention about your gun and alcohol in the same sentence then the permit is not worth the paper it is written on. But King I have had several encounters with gun owners on this. They deny me my rights to control my property with their derogatory comments, although they are for property rights in ever other instance, so I guess the Bar owner is stating the obvious up front, some of these people are in fact douchebags.
Very simple. Go to a different bar that appreciates our Constitutional rights.
ReplyDeleteAnd pass up and opportunity to gather an angry mob and denounce someone who clearly doesn't understand freedom? That's like walking away from the keyboard when you've found somebody on the internet who's wrong. Are you going soft gotta?
DeleteA comment from the web site Gawker
ReplyDeletehttp://gawker.com/pub-gets-crap-for-banning-guns-calling-pistol-packers-1546550250
shadowling
I'd consider myself to be flat-out against the Second Amendment, to the point of favoring a repeal. (It no longer fulfills its original purpose. I mean, anyone who thinks that even advanced guns are going to help defend them against a tyranical government when that government has drones and nukes is an idiot.)
That said, what this guy is doing is fundamentally the same as businesses turning away gay patrons—it's rejecting members of the public because you 'disagree' with them for 'moral' reasons. Should we really be lauding this asshole for adopting the tactics of the Right and acting like a bag of dicks about it?
This liberal poster sounds quite confused.
DeleteLet's see, as citizen's,
DeleteWe can be forced to buy health insurance.
We can be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding.
We can be forced to provide birth control even if as an organization we oppose the concept for religious reasons.
But we cannot be forced to accept a patron carrying a legally obtained and permitted concealed weapon.
William re your posts above
ReplyDeleteI wonder is it necessary to turn the argument into a political bun fight? The excerpt you quote in your post of 7/59 is is blatantly political even though the reasoning in the first paragraph is such that many from outside the US would applaud. We certainly disassociate ourselves from the second paragraph/ your response to the article in your post at 8.05 is of course political and many would dispute your reasoning.
I am not sure which end of the spectrum in the US encourages birth control. Other than the Catholic Church, I am not aware of which groups oppose the practice.
It is your post of 8.14 which is intriguing and thought provoking. You must have a different system to us; I could never envisage the time any Australian would be compelled to bake a cake for a gay wedding breakfast. I can also not envisage any Australian catering business refusing to do so; the profit motive will always exceed the moral argument here.
Your comparison between the concealed weapons issue and birth control is an ingenious one. I guess contraception and a loaded gun hidden within the clothing of a male are simply cause and effect! Both are complementary, the loaded gun is the agent which provides the need for contraception! The results of indiscriminate firing of the gun prove not only the need for contraception but its absolute necessity.
To continue in a more serous note, it is the question of termination (in both senses) which is disquieting, an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy s a tragedy for all, the woman, the man, the community and even the government. I do not like to see government involved here. The decision in my view is one for the woman to take. I do not see how government can exercise control over a woman’s body. The question is complex but it is so often forgotten that it is the mother who bears the ultimate responsibility for the nurturing of the unplanned infant
Finally, both a concealed weapon and a termination of pregnancy can be, and in the latter case, are fatal. Both can be prevented by leaving one gun at home and the other in the pants.
Cheers from Aussie
"The question is complex but it is so often forgotten that it is the mother who bears the ultimate responsibility for the nurturing of the unplanned infant"
DeleteTrue in an absolute sense, but not descriptive of a bigger picture. What many in this country who oppose abortion or even common sense contraception for that matter, is that there is a price to society for poorly raised children. I think the average for black children raised by a single mother is about 50%, and this has had devastating consequences for that community and especially those children. I think most of us here would accept that regardless of how we have evolved, we carry traits of our parents for better or worse.
the extreme babbling about personal responsibility is a joke. I believe that more than a few conservative men in this country relish the idea that a woman be held accountable for promiscuity while men continue to do whatever the hell they choose. Tying it back to the story listed here, women have a legal right to have an abortion. However, quite a few conservative states have used local laws to essentially negate federal law and hence, outlaw abortion. I see little difference between those states who denounce abortion and women who have them, and this bar owner who denounces gun owners who want their legally protected right of concealed carry to extend anywhere they choose to go. Such is life in this country. All are created equal, but some more equal than others.
It is your post of 8.14 which is intriguing and thought provoking. You must have a different system to us; I could never envisage the time any Australian would be compelled to bake a cake for a gay wedding breakfast. I can also not envisage any Australian catering business refusing to do so; the profit motive will always exceed the moral argument here.
DeleteYour comment above suggests the reason why you might find the division and rancor that occurs in American politics and shows up so well on this forum to be testy at that best of times… it is a very fundamental problem.
You are talking about something that you would expect in a country where people have the right of free association and by extension the right to accept custom or reject it based on the preference of the proprietor to set the rules of their business. That is in fact the rules and laws that the US has moved very far from.
As I said to you on another thread, the government that found ‘equal but separate’ laws to be unconstitutional turned around and created the antithesis under the same founding document… If it is against the constitution for government to make laws forcing people apart, how can it conceivably create laws that force them together (In a private setting). Government institutions must be blind to all citizens but that constraint should never be placed on the citizens.
Laws that were once pointed at true ‘public service’ business such as inns and transport that were originally either funded by government or granted exclusive license and therefore monopoly interest by government are now forced upon all business, hence the inability of a private business to turn away custom based on any religious or moral grounds. I firmly believe that had government not involved itself in the free association of people to interact as they desired (within the limits of civil law of course) race relations in the US would be far better than they are currently. Your last comment speaks to the results of what free association eventually looks like… The profit motive will eventually bring people of mutual interest together and eventually bind communities together in cooperation but there should always be the right a person to reject that profit for any reason that the so chose… After all, it is their success or failure… but I guess an overly involved government only sees it as a sales tax opportunity lost.
The second part of this trend is political correctness; whereby we are denied the ability to reject behavior in our community that we may find abhorrent or damaging. Let someone get on a soapbox over gays and it is hate, over abortion and it is part of the war on women. Regardless the basis, religious or otherwise, I as an individual, no longer have the right to turn my back on a long list of people, regardless of what damage I feel they might do to my community… the latest of which is gays. When the social mores of a society are dictated by law and communities can no longer form because of free association…friction will be an unwelcomed result and much of what is called liberty and the pursuit of happiness is lost.
I'm not being sarcastic about this, your comment TS conveys the romanticism of pure capitalism that Ayn Rand described that I was drawn to 20 odd years ago. The ideal, of course, is that all citizens of society meet in a rational manner and engage to the highest of their faculties. In real life, this seldom happens and I don't believe it's because of compulsion by the government. Fairly, you don't want the government to force you to accept or deal with a person who engages in behavior you find detrimental to society. Conversely, however, it would seem that as a business owner, you would want the market place to bar access to those you believe pose a threat to society and by default, you want to compel those people to adhere to your beliefs if they want to access whatever it is you are selling. What I hear in your comment is that what you essentially want is not only the right to sell to who you find acceptable, but also to shun and indirectly make a statement to someone that they are not acceptable to your view of society. Likely you will disagree with this, and that's fair enough. You've made a good point here, but I want to ask you a question rather than dissect sentence by sentence.
DeleteWhere I agree with your post here is that individuals like MLK made a difference when they started to organize boycotts; that was pure free market thinking at work. Mind you, this didn't ease an ounce of hatred towards them, but it put a financial hurt on businesses that chose to discriminate against them. As a business owner, how would you feel if, after making it clear that some demographic is not allowed in your store, those people organized, publicly denounced you and gained the support of the community to shun you? Would you accept the decision of the marketplace and change your attitude towards the group you feel is destroying the country?
Max,
DeleteYou understand my position quit clearly Max. First you must understand that I believe in free association. The government should have no right to tell me who a can/can’t, must/mustn’t interact with in my private dealings with other citizens, except when I deal directly with a government entity. The government itself should have no prejudice as to who it hires with the exception of criminal behavour issues. To use a phrase, the government must be color blind. If I go to a government facility, I should expect to be seen by any of the full spectrum of and I should be served and treated as equal as any other by them. The government must be an amalgamation of its citizenry but the citizen should not be, by force of law, an amalgamation of all other citizens.
In the 80’s and 90’s corporate America went through a period of embracing ‘diversity’ (Mostly through legal coercion but by public pressure as well) A good thing in my eyes; the bringing together of diverse viewpoints, cultures and talents. If you, as an employ, couldn’t handle the diversity, you knew where the door was but you had an option. By in large the business has no option to submit to the government rules. Regardless of what you think of Lester Maddox’s beliefs good or bad, he started a restaurant to serve friends and as word spread among friends his business grew. Government intervened when he refused to serve blacks. Rather than submit to government force, he closed his restaurant and erected a monument in the parking lot which said: "monument to the death of free enterprise". There is no choice when the law of the land forces diversity to become social homogeny. When the law forces together two people who do not like each other or share in the same beliefs, goals and moral principles, particularly if they genuinely understand each other, you have ‘some’ chance of reconciliation with a percentage of people but I guarantee that you will have friction and heightened dislike and distrust among others. We all discriminate and some of those discriminations might be petty to you but they may be a base value to me, besides, how can we embrace the natural differences of race, creed, custom and sex if we force people to stop being diverse?
“Where I agree with your post here is that individuals like MLK made a difference when they started to organize boycotts; that was pure free market thinking at work. Mind you, this didn't ease an ounce of hatred towards them, but it put a financial hurt on businesses that chose to discriminate against them.”
Max, there never was a time when people were not forced BY LAW to be one way or another. When ‘equal but separate’ was ended in the education system in 1952, it continued in private business until 1964 where it was no longer allowed by law to segregate but immediately the law forced private business to serve everyone… that intrusion into communities was extended in 1971 with school bussing. While I agree with you that MLK did institute direct protest actions against business and that was good, he also took his pressure to Washington and was never opposed to the imposition of law, embodied in the 1964 civil rights act, to force people to accept and serve him.
Continued >>>
The fact is, civil rights laws have never made it clear that the government had no place in the private lives of peoples personal relations… the government has never given people a chance to live in peace and find their own level of cooperation. As I said, and I firmly believe it, had the government not forced associations of private citizens and democrats not felt the need to rescue blacks, perhaps, had they actually been denied a seat at the white diner, they would have had stronger drive to build a diner in their own community and if the food was good enough and the proprietor welcoming enough, perhaps some of the white customers would have helped make it the most popular eating establishment in town uplifting not only the owner of the business but the community it resided in while breaking down barriers naturally… perhaps. Whites could continue to eat in all white establishments and if they chose, blacks could do the same.
DeleteI have a great problem with feminists breaking down men’s only clubs, forcing their way into men’s locker rooms. It does nothing but antagonize people… especially when women proceed to erect women’s only health clubs in the name of privacy.
I like my values and think that they are important… by using democracy to entrench values all I need is 51% of the population to agree with me. It doesn’t make me right. According to those who agree with me, I am and the other 49% must adopt my views. It may make me right today but perhaps not tomorrow when the 51% slips to 49 or 30 or 20. Values and social interaction are organic and they are different from community to community. Values and morals of a country should never be dictated by law. This is where I vehemently disagree with the Republican party. As well intentioned as the social safety net of the Democrats, republicans want to dictate the moral code of the nation… many times with the guidance of the Christian bible. America was not designed a theocracy and the constitution made no provision for such social engineering. The only case to be made with abortion is with respect to the word life but even in that people understood that a child did not hold the same legal authority as their parent.
Values come from the way people on a street associate with each other (spitting on sidewalks was socially repulsive IN SOME PLACES and now nationally even though only a few places have actual laws against it)… the things they like and tolerate and things they don’t. What abides in one community may not in another and unfortunately until we can find common ground with each other ‘naturally’, this will extend to race, sexual morals, the right and wrong reasons for abortion and in some places the rejection of people who dislike gays.
This sounds white supremacist but it is not meant to be. Everyone needs a place to feel comfortable. Currently whites (those that desire it) have no place on earth where they can just be… Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Indians all do. They have places, for better or worse that other ethnic or racial groups are shunned. Now while I whole heartedly believe that nation states are better off with a wide range of diversity, I believe within that nation people should be able to live and work with like minded people. Sort of like hippie communes… if you believed and were accepted you lived there and if the commune succeeded or failed it was down to the communities own rules and accepted social structure.
“As a business owner, how would you feel if, after making it clear that some demographic is not allowed in your store, those people organized, publicly denounced you and gained the support of the community to shun you? Would you accept the decision of the marketplace and change your attitude towards the group you feel is destroying the country?”
Unlike Lester Maddox who was given only two choices, I think people should have three… close up shop, change your view and continue to operate or (the choice he did not have) relocate to a community that accepts your views.
As a person who also is very long winded TS, I think you and I could do everyone a favor by not typing a John Galt like farewell speech to make our point. I get what you are saying, but embedded in your point is something that I think is unintentionally incongruous. Let me concede a point for a second and say that if the government makes it illegal to deny service to someone solely because of their race or their sexual orientation, this is forcing the business owner to accept that gay people and colored people have an equal place in society. This is, IMO, more or less the conservative/libertarian position.
DeleteThe flip side is that if we say it's not illegal to discriminate, we are essentially saying that business owners have a legal right to keep a particular group disenfranchised and hence NOT accepted. To me, it's simply the other side of the same coin. The disenfranchised group wants to be accepted into society, the established group wants to make sure the disenfranchised group stays that way.
You didn't really answer my question at the end. I was asking you personally if you would change you mind if the community made it clear to you that they did not accept your personal views. My guess is that it would not change your mind at all. If you believe that acknowledging that gay people exist is bad for the moral fiber of the country, you aren't going to change your mind just because you do business with them, whether you are "compelled to" or do so by choice.
A difficult subject TS and well handled. The thread started over an establishment owner who did not appreciate gun toting cowboys in his bar. Your argument that this and other similar situations should work themselves out on a local level, or naturally, is spot on.
DeleteThis in itself is another facet of limited government. Self important nanny's who continue to muck up everything for the sake of a cause of the day need to step back and take a breath. As our founders put forth natural law, not never ending fine tuning by reams of legislation and regulation, leads to a healthy republic.
One thing I forgot to mention, kudos to you TS for your calling out of the Republican party for using the bible as basis to form law and hence, legislate morality. That is a truer, libertarian outlook and if that particular thing is something Rand Paul touches on, he may snag a few younger people who have grown tired of the conservative attempt to Christianize America.
DeleteIn political discussion, particularly with people who... shall we say... don’t agree with my view, short succinct comments are always answered with standard retorts of hater, bigoted, etc... I can do short answers but they are ineffective when someone refuses to give you the benefit of the doubt so to alleviate any chance of misunderstanding, I expound. In doing so I can’t find a happy medium between getting my point across without any ambiguity and writing an essay.... I huge failing of mine for sure.
DeleteAgain... we all carry prejudice with us. Things as small as whether we like pork and beans to hugely important moral stances. It was never the intent of the founders for government to sort that out... they forbad me from killing them but nowhere does it say I have to like them. Just because ICE grants residency to a group of headshrinkers from the Amazon does not mean that I should want them in my neighborhood nor should I have to accept any behavior from any group that creates a cause. It is up to the group to sell themselves to society at large. Groups from all over the world have assimilated without the coercion of law, many times living quite separate lives for long periods of time... China towns are almost exclusively Asian and everyone is happy... that’s way it is a melting pot and not a smoothly maker.
I don’t think I evaded your question at all. Your question was general in nature and my response gave the options I felt that I should have. Likes, dislikes, values and questions of morality can change in a person as they receive new information, met new people or contemplate an issue from a different direction. If I as a business owner have and an opinion that differs from my particular clientele then perhaps just the shear presentation of the facts from their point of view may change my mind or if so compelled by the issue, given the current state of government control, I might just decide to end my enterprise. The degree of importance certainly lends itself to the steadfastness of one’s stance. Your addition of the gay subject this time was not a consideration before.
I will say something particularly related to the cases of the cake maker, wedding designer and photographer. All three of these occupations require creative design and art. If you told a landscape artist to capture the essence of a mother and child in a portrait you would no doubt be disappointed with the results. I personally cannot envision with any kind of objectivity the passion of two men kissing... do not expect me to capture or convey that passion/happiness/love in a poem or a cake design or a photo when I cannot see, understand it and most importantly feel it in my head. As a professional, regardless the reason, if I cannot see myself producing the kind of result that would do my name justice... I wouldn’t want to do, it profit or not.
As far as calling out the Republican thanks... but they are far from being the only social engineers in the mix and even without their input certain other groups would create laws against free association... and... well I've said enough cause that's fodder for another essay...
That's a good reply. The reason I had asked that question was to make a point that the government, by saying you can't discriminate, is not by default forcing you to accept someone. You and Ayn make a compelling argument for the belief that if we let the market settle it, individual liberty is secured...for the business person. For the person who lives a lifestyle you disagree with, not so much. For the shunned person who lives a large city full of diversity, this is not big deal. For a gay couple who happen to be minding their own business but wind up needing crucial assistance while passing through a town that doesn't accept gay people, it's a very bad situation. Are we made better as a nation if we had nothing but isolated enclaves across the entire country wherein the enclave essentially put up a sign that said Mexicans, Gay People and Blacks are allowed to visit but not buy anything? I get your point and Ayn's, I just don't agree that in the real world, such a view is workable. People believe what they want to believe. As a nurse, I take care of a lot of people I find objectionable, but I can take care of them with dignity without feeling I have been intellectually raped. To me, nothing in the constitution stipulates that one must be heterosexual to be a citizen of the United States. Why should the business world get to decide the limits of their participation? This is a question for another essay and I'll let that be for now because I want to ask one question.
DeleteI was chided awhile back for mentioning that it seemed like what conservatives couldn't stop thinking about was gay sex. The Duck dude reduced being gay to simply a matter a sex, and your example here discussing the passion of two men kissing is again, an image I typically don't ponder. In all fairness, if you don't want to, as an artist, attempt to portray a passion between two gay men, are you telling me that you could easily portray the passion between two morbidly obese people who can barely bring their faces together just because they aren't gay? Would you sit back and wonder how they pull all that fat out of the way to have sex, or would you treat them as human beings who deserve some dignity? I'm not picking on fat people, but as health care provider, I can show you a ton of stats about how obesity is negatively impacting this country.
Thank you for the kind words but let me assure you, I only managed the simple points on the back of a few hundred previous words.
Delete“The reason I had asked that question was to make a point that the government, by saying you can't discriminate, is not by default forcing you to accept someone.”
That is some serious twist of logic Max. Serving and coexisting without objection is tacit acceptance of an individual or behavior and when that objection is suppressed by the barrel of a gun, I’m not so sure that conforms to any real ideal of liberty and freedom. I think we tried that with civil rights and ended up with race riots… Kent state is another good example of the state telling people how to feel and express themselves. You want to create hate groups… extinguish their right to an opinion and ability to disassociate themselves from people the dislike. Since when do we have free speech, but only if the government agrees with our motivations and conclusions? Since when is our freedom of association predicate on government approval of our personal creed?
“Are we made better as a nation if we had nothing but isolated enclaves across the entire country wherein the enclave essentially put up a sign that said Mexicans, Gay People and Blacks are allowed to visit but not buy anything?”
I don’t think you give the American people enough credit for being able to accept or reject right or wrong without the mandate of law. Over half a million Americans died over the general subject of whether blacks were ‘men’ as defined in the constitution or some lesser species and I might remind you that at the time slavery was still very much the law of the land. Many white men and women were arrested, beaten and killed in places like Selma Alabama and of some 250000 people who were in attendance at Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech 60000 of them were white. Men walked with and supported women during suffrage movement. While there be places like communes, clubs and minority owned and operated businesses where people, black, white, brown, gay, straight, male and female isolate themselves… sure… but It will be much less of an impact than you think and well, in the long run allows people to come together on their own terms. But, undoing this politically correct mess would cause a lot of upheaval… and a lot of lost democratic votes.
It is interesting, the way we talk about problems and situations in the US as if they somehow sprang to being as recently as late yesterday afternoon. Some try to insist that we deal with them not based on the path that led us to yesterday afternoon but on what exists without consideration of past events. The damage that has been done in the name of the progressive movement will be undeniably difficult to undo, even with full cooperation and understanding but the segment of the population that drives the progressive idea have only the movement as their objective and not its results, making rational conversation and corrective actions difficult.
Continued>>>
As for the linkage of sex with the issue of homosexuality… Well Max, we need to jump into the way back machine to search for clues to its origin. We don’t need to delve into descriptions of ancient homosexual relationship in Greece or Rome, but we could and NAMBLA certainly wouldn’t mind if we did. The modern gay movement started its journey by challenging sodomy laws. I agreed with them when they insisted that government had no place in the privacy of the bedroom (note the implicit sexual connotation). From there we moved to the whole issue of aids. (Certainly sex related) Homosexuals were explicitly pinpointed as being the epicenter of the HIV pandemic. This conjures visions of promiscuity not stable monogamous relationships. Later we heard new justifications for behavior… actions no different than primate societies or birds or lizards… hardly talking about emotional relationships, monogamous or otherwise and then we heard about genetic predisposition to attraction… what in the hell does attraction have to do with love? If you want to find the roots of how sex got linked with homosexuality… ask a gay.
DeleteQuickly on obesity… Another condition allowed to manifest itself in society because of political correctness and the inability of employers to hire people that suited them. Business, who provides the vast majority of health insurance (a problem created by government) would naturally seek healthy, active and energetic people. By forcing business to ignore personal habits and lifestyle choices, people were no longer responsible for their health or appearance and any off handed remark by a fellow employee about the lack of speed, agility, strength or appearance was met with a discrimination suit. Physical handicap should not include over indulgence or sedentary behavior… but it does. This follows the, shall we say … symbiotic relationship between government agencies like the FDA and certain companies that make trash food and of course the medical industry that makes huge (pardon the pun) profits treating the epidemic of obesity related disorders. And yes, if a person felt that they could not professionally administer their service to a client because of their weight… they shouldn’t have to do it, not by law anyway. Now if a whole lot of big people got together and made a point of educating that person… perhaps they could change his/her mind.
In his monograph ‘A Moral Basis for Liberty’, Robert Sirico writes:
“Many of the confusions of our age rest on a loss of certain crucial distinctions. The most apparent is the distinction between rights and privileges. John Hospers, my philosophy professor at the University of Southern California, used to say we have undergone a “rights inflation.” As in a monetary inflation, the value of the common unit of measurement has been drastically watered down. For all the talk about rights, we lack a clear understanding of what constitutes meaningful rights.”
The escape clause of libertarian thought is that they can make any claim they want because we have never had a purely libertarian society. For all the greatness of the Founding Fathers, the reality, versus their words, was that all men were created equal and were deserving of freedom, as long as they weren't black. You blame liberals today for bad race relations but don't even cast a glance back to the period of our history where it was legal to have slaves? I'm sorry TS, I deeply understand your point, but I disagree and 10 paragraphs of text are not going to change that.
DeleteYou seem to have a conviction and vested interest in maintaining at every juncture in life, Americans are thwarted from being all they can be because no matter what they are doing, there is a taint of a parental government that denies them complete freedom. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and you aren't going to convince me. No worries, the dialogue and attempt at rational debate is still worth the effort.
A final though on gay people. Your description to me has made me think that perhaps the reason that straight, conservative types fixate on the sex so much is because it helps keep gay people defined as an immoral act, rather than as people who have a different sexual attraction. If everyone's bedroom door was thrown open and we were all witness to various kinks of straight as well as gay people, perhaps we would not think so highly of each other. Bringing up NAMBLA and bestiality adds nothing to the discussion. If gay people get defined as people, there is less resistance to them. As long as they seen as nothing but participants of deviant sex, they are more easily ostracized. I see nothing philosophically moral about that.
The question remains, if the owner cannot chose who they serve, no shoes, shirts are now acceptable? The government says it's a health issue it's ok. The government says if you want to be in business for yourself, you will serve everyone regardless.
DeletePeople with service dogs cannot be barred from restaurants. My daughter is allergic to animals and cannot go into a restaurant where dogs have been present. Clearly being discriminated against.
The dual standard continues, it's ok as long as the government says so, not so much is it doesn't fit into our rulers beliefs.
Of course I couldn’t convince you Max. Other than for the sake of debate I would expect nothing less from someone with such a staunch socialist perspective. I was pointing out the logic of my thought and if it was an actual debate, you would have found an actual flaw in that logic and shown me why yours was the more accurate and to that end, why I should change my opinion. That is the point of debate...of course many times what passes as debate is more about wishful thinking and rhetorical jibes... That happens often here. Sometime ideology prevents true debate because the admission of flaws are generally too difficult.
DeleteInstead the direction of discourse is changed as often happens between us, to issues of emotional asides such as that of gay ‘rights’ for which you seem to carry a banner rather than the real problem confronting our republic of the violations of constitution and the rule of law. I, having personal opinions on these side issues of values and moral conscious, have allowed myself to deviate from the main point which was that the government should have no jurisdiction one way or the other on issues of social mores or values... any issues of that type.
Yes I do find the intrusion of government in most every aspect of American life. While you may accept that intrusion or indeed embrace it, the fact of the matter is that it exists and you have no factual argument to prove me wrong.
I have attempted to point out several times the root causes of the problems we face in both price and delivery of healthcare going all the way back to WWII FDR wage controls, official inclusion of insurance as a method of compensation and unions use of that in contract negotiation as well as the systematic dismantling of both charity hospitals and the inclination of doctors to provide gratis care to people who needed it and the very close relationship people in government both democrat and republican have with certain amiable corporations but, to those whose only thought is government control of everything, that and similar discussions are never engaged.
So the issue is not whether the government intrudes on the private life of citizens and uses any method conceivable to circumvent the basic law of this country (I can provide you very long lists and clear examples) but where one stands with respect to that violation. Clearly you believe that there is no place the government should not be allowed to intrude and are happy with the damage it creates... I do not.
By the way... I do not negate the fact that people saw slaves as subhuman and codified it in law or for that matter the fact that women were mere appendages of their men. While these ‘oversights’ were ones of custom of the time, the constitution and its protections did not change, just the definition of the word ‘men’. The umbrella widened. Now I will concede that under the strictness of the constitution, ‘marriage’ has no place which gives rise to all the kerfuffle about any perceived rights gays supposedly have and in that respect both gays and feminists will eventually drive a nail in the coffin of an institution that is the basis of society... ‘a mother, a father and their children’... and government will eventually remove the word ‘their’...
I wouldn’t call libertarianism an escape clause.. People can’t really argue rationally against most libertarian stances... but escape clause or no, progressives are still trying to find a socialist state that doesn’t collapse under its own weight.
TS, a brief review, "Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." I do not believe in this, so you are wrong. You can construe my words any way you want (in 20 paragraphs) to continue pretending to yourself that life is simple and that any one who disagrees with you is a socialist, but that doesn't make it reality.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of reality, it is tough to argue or debate anything with someone who lives in their head. A phrase was tossed out in the liberal mainstream media (redundant because I said liberal and mainstream) that many conservatives of today are "blue meth" conservatives who are obsessed with purity. In discussions here, I sense in you a similar all or nothing mentality. Either we answer to no one, or we are enslaved. I reject both. Your claim that I embrace socialism and government contorl is a dismissal tactic. As person in the medical profession, I appreciate that there are standards for producing drugs and that when those standards are not met, you get shut down. We have countless examples in our history where this was not the case and concoctions that killed people were sold and continued to be sold even after it was known it was killing people. In a libertarian world, I guess the thinking would be, "Well, you saw one person die, that should be enough to educate everyone that this product is no good and everyone should then avoid the product. Hence, the market corrects everything." Real life does not work this way. Ever read about the Triangle Shirt Waist fire? What punishment did the owners that factory face?
Ironically, it was reading Friedrich von Hayek that punched a big hole in what I fervently believed after immersing myself in Ayn Rand and the Federalist papers. No matter how airtight a philosophy may be on paper, there is always a failure in the real world. Why? Because people are free thinking individuals who will always be most concerned with THEIR best interests whether that interferes with others or not. I certainly am. There is plenty of contradiction in what you preach to me and I have pointed it out. Your second to last para in this post is something I find to be chock full of contradiction. But, you can always tell yourself, "you didn't convince me, therefore there is no contradiction in what I say". This is sort of like a child putting their hands over their ears while yelling, "LA LA LA LA I can't hear you."
Well Max, it would appear that we read each other’s comments and end up drawing the similarly wrong conclusions. I can only go by the things you say in your comments and just as importantly the things you fail to say when given the opportunity.
ReplyDeleteYour comments lead me to believe that:
*You are a statist with strong affinity to centralized planning.
* Support social programs that are arguably 1)not fit for purpose 2) disable rather than enable people.
* Don’t see the damage done or the harm in direct government involvement in major portions of the economy to include insurance, medical, automotive, finance, banking, education and forced licensing of just about every profession under the sun.
Perhaps socialist is the wrong nomenclature, maybe fascist is more? I get the feeling that you are someone who takes their capitalism with a heaping tablespoon of cronyism, although when accused with that you will undoubtedly deny it.
No, I certainly don’t see everyone who disagrees with me as a socialist… some are fascist, some imperialists and some just disagree on one or more narrow issues.
“… I sense in you a similar all or nothing mentality”
I think if you reread things that I have posted, quite often I say of individual responsibility that it is centered in the neighborhood, community and state. Recall that I have great vehemence for the 17th amendment. No Max, its not all or nothing… its distributed.
‘Blue Meth Conservative’. Never heard that one before. A new name to add to the long list of names liberals used in the name of engagement. You know that it is true.
“Either we answer to no one, or we are enslaved.”
‘Answering’ to a body of elected representatives is backwards to me as I never considered my government to be my parent, boss or overlord. Perhaps the message I got growing up was different. Being a G.I. brat, you see the government and country from a different perspective. I always considered it as my legal protection from other men but never in the sense that it was a nanny or caretaker. When you think about your comment above, consider that the U.S. has 5% of the world population, yet 25% of the world's prison population. 51% of inmates never harmed anyone else. While you’re at it think about the ‘definition creep’ of the word authorities in this sentence: “follow the authorities' instructions” From a person of superior wisdom to one of unchallengeable power; scary!
"Because people are free thinking individuals who will always be most concerned with THEIR best interests whether that interferes with others or not."
Precisely this causes me to back away from an overly intrusive government, particularly a centralized one. If everyone is in it for themselves, why would you want to cede control of your life to 566 elected people in Washington, one of which has the power of appointment thousands of armed people who answer to no one but, by your own admission, a self serving president and are paid for by a less than representative congress? We talk a lot about the lobbyists who bribe and buy congress… It is true that considerable consideration changes hands but more and more it looks less like bribery by lobbyists and more like extortion by congress.
You like to paint me as all or nothing and puritan in my thoughts. I paint you as a person who is either so scared of the world that you need someone to screen it before it touches your world or you are indeed a control freak with a superiority complex that needs to create structures that dictate to people.
Our current problems were forged yesterday and many are repeats from the day before. It is time that we stop and look at things for their results and not their ideology or ability to draw votes. Immigration is a perfect example of a problem that was dealt with before… promises of stronger borders, stricter employer penalties… yadda, yadda… Here we are again with the exact same problem only 4 times worse. If it doesn’t work… do something different!
Peace!