Reverse Jim Crow?
Tonight I had a discussion with the idea of a business owner choosing whom he can serve, and whom he can't. Bottom line? In today's environment, no one can deny service to another. Period.
I am guessing that we were talking about it because the courts have ruled against "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" a baker who refused to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple. This is not going to be a piece on gay marriage, that matter is currently shelved. What I want to write about is the greater implications of this ruling. To do that, we need to hit the way back machine, but first let's stop in 2010.
In 2010 Rand Paul was running for the US Senate in Kentucky. He was struggling against, first, the establishment GOP candidate, and then the general election. One of the things that came up was an opinion offered by Dr. Paul regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1965. He opined that the law was wrong in forcing businesses to not discriminate. He clarified by stating that he didn't think that the businesses should discriminate, but it shouldn't be a law. I think his is the correct opinion, but to clarify, let us find background. Way back.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century, while the Democratic Party's violence wing, the KKK, was on a rampage, there were few if any laws putting people in the back of the bus based on race. It wasn't until Jim Crow laws started popping up, put into law, by.... you guessed it, the Democrats, that businesses were FORCED to discriminate! That is right. Democrats FORCED private citizens to discriminate, and governments also discriminated. Now those are two different things. Governments can't discriminate. the Constitution ensures that. ( I can't help that progressive politicians felt that they could go around the Constitution, hmm still do I guess) The Civil Rights Act of 1965 clarified what was already law in the Constitution. that is that government cannot discriminate based on race. (reminder, Republicans were instrumental in overcoming a Democrat filibuster of that law)
If only the law had stopped there. It didn't. (It was a Democrat President, after all pushing it through, in spite of the Democrats in Congress fighting it) It went further, setting the stage for a collapse of the rights of property, which has been expanded, and stretched beyond all reason. It said that an individual CANNOT discriminate in clientele, or hiring. Now, I think that a businessman would be really stupid to discriminate, it would be bad business. Imagine, if a person had a restaurant, and it was for men only. Well, not only is he cutting out half of the population, but the other half, if married, would not be able to openly patronize the place. But it should be the owner's choice. By telling an individual what he can or cannot do with his property, it really ceases to be his property, doesn't it? Maybe that is why Barry Goldwater, 1964 GOP candidate for President, a strong supporter of civil rights, and an early supporter of gay rights as well, (you know, he was always for those rights, not like some johnny come latelys who changed with popular opinion), was against the Civil Rights Act.
Would it hurt feelings if someone was kept out of a business? Of course. But hurt feelings translate into hurt business, and then closed business. People SHOULD be allowed to hang a sign, which we used to see everywhere. "We reserve the right to refuse service" And let the chips fall where they may.
I am guessing that we were talking about it because the courts have ruled against "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" a baker who refused to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple. This is not going to be a piece on gay marriage, that matter is currently shelved. What I want to write about is the greater implications of this ruling. To do that, we need to hit the way back machine, but first let's stop in 2010.
In 2010 Rand Paul was running for the US Senate in Kentucky. He was struggling against, first, the establishment GOP candidate, and then the general election. One of the things that came up was an opinion offered by Dr. Paul regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1965. He opined that the law was wrong in forcing businesses to not discriminate. He clarified by stating that he didn't think that the businesses should discriminate, but it shouldn't be a law. I think his is the correct opinion, but to clarify, let us find background. Way back.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century, while the Democratic Party's violence wing, the KKK, was on a rampage, there were few if any laws putting people in the back of the bus based on race. It wasn't until Jim Crow laws started popping up, put into law, by.... you guessed it, the Democrats, that businesses were FORCED to discriminate! That is right. Democrats FORCED private citizens to discriminate, and governments also discriminated. Now those are two different things. Governments can't discriminate. the Constitution ensures that. ( I can't help that progressive politicians felt that they could go around the Constitution, hmm still do I guess) The Civil Rights Act of 1965 clarified what was already law in the Constitution. that is that government cannot discriminate based on race. (reminder, Republicans were instrumental in overcoming a Democrat filibuster of that law)
If only the law had stopped there. It didn't. (It was a Democrat President, after all pushing it through, in spite of the Democrats in Congress fighting it) It went further, setting the stage for a collapse of the rights of property, which has been expanded, and stretched beyond all reason. It said that an individual CANNOT discriminate in clientele, or hiring. Now, I think that a businessman would be really stupid to discriminate, it would be bad business. Imagine, if a person had a restaurant, and it was for men only. Well, not only is he cutting out half of the population, but the other half, if married, would not be able to openly patronize the place. But it should be the owner's choice. By telling an individual what he can or cannot do with his property, it really ceases to be his property, doesn't it? Maybe that is why Barry Goldwater, 1964 GOP candidate for President, a strong supporter of civil rights, and an early supporter of gay rights as well, (you know, he was always for those rights, not like some johnny come latelys who changed with popular opinion), was against the Civil Rights Act.
Would it hurt feelings if someone was kept out of a business? Of course. But hurt feelings translate into hurt business, and then closed business. People SHOULD be allowed to hang a sign, which we used to see everywhere. "We reserve the right to refuse service" And let the chips fall where they may.
Comments
Post a Comment