The internet has lathered itself into utter frenzied adulation about Stephen Colbert’s recent satirical segment highlighting the openly gay mayor of a town called Vicco. This tiny community is located in Kentucky, my state of residence, and it earned the Colbert treatment due to its passage of a “fairness ordinance.” This law, also in effect here in Lexington, bans private individuals and businesses from doing things that the local government sees as discriminatory against homosexuals. Needless to say, any law that ostensibly prevents (subjectively defined) discrimination against trendy minority groups must be immediately embraced without any intellectual discussion about any of the inherent constitutional and ethical implications! The entire gay rights movement rests on freedom of association, and to enforce that freedom we must obliterate that exact freedom in the realm of private business. I know this seems like a complicated equation, but you’ll get the hang of it eventually. Just remember: Gays should be free to choose who they marry because of freedom of association, but business owners shouldn’t be free to choose who they do business with because only bigots believe in freedom of association.
The Colbert piece was heartwarming because it showed how a town of southern conservatives managed to come together, rallying around their gay mayor, to once and for all take a stand against private businesses, property rights, and free speech. These things must always come in second when we’ve got bigotry and intolerance to stamp out. Colbert communicated the anti-bigotry and pro-tolerance message in the usual manner: by labeling southern Christians as “inbred yokels,” “rednecks,” “hicks,” and “backwoods bible thumpers.” Take it from a Kentucky resident — we always find metropolitan liberals compelling and convincing when they coat their message in a thick layer of scorn and contempt. I mean, to call people “inbred” is about as demeaning and insulting as you can get, which is why it’s the sort of language you should definitely use when criticizing said “inbreds” for being judgmental and intolerant.
There’s nothing like watching a bunch of enlightened progressives howl with laughter at the mere sight of a small southern town to let us know that they are truly and sincerely concerned about making sure everyone is accepted and loved. Hey, I bet Colbert could do a 7 minute satirical hit piece on inner city black culture, sprinkling various derogatory terms throughout, and everyone would admire him just as much! You know, black churchgoers are generally very opposed to gay marriage, I’m sure left wing comedians and liberal commentators will start mercilessly degrading them for it any day now.
Colbert made the insightful and important point that “fairness ordinances” can only be opposed by bigots. He demonstrated this by sticking a camera in front of an elderly Eastern Kentucky small town pastor and waiting for him to say something about gays going to hell. The pastor eventually did, which unequivocally represents and summarily discredits the opinions of everyone who fails to support these laws. It’s totally fair and constructive to randomly select one inflammatory individual in some tiny town in Kentucky and paint him as the spokesman for the entire conservative movement. Conversely, it’s completely misleading and offensive to find some half naked exhibitionist drag queen at a gay pride festival in San Francisco and position him as a representative of the entire gay rights movement. I know this gets confusing, but these are the rules.
Some might wonder how these fairness ordinances actually manifest themselves when implemented. Well, I can tell you from experience because my town adopted one a few years ago. Basically, it does two things: 1) Immediately changes the hearts and minds of everyone in the vicinity, because history proves that it always works out well when governments try to force people to adopt a certain belief system. 2) Punishes private business owners for having a value system that strays from the mainstream. Listen, if you aren’t familiar with these laws (not that a lack of basic information on a subject should stop anyone from having an opinion about it) you might be under the impression that “anti-discrimination” ordinances are designed to prevent egregious and violent forms of bigotry and prejudice. Well, you’ll be relieved to know that they, in fact, control and manipulate behavior on a much smaller and far pettier level.
In fact, a local business here in Lexington has been brought up on human rights violations after running afoul of our fairness law. The fugitive in question operates a t-shirt company called Hands on Originals. Last year, the folks organizing the local gay pride festival came to him and asked him to make the t-shirts for the event. The owner — in an act of bigotry that would make Hitler cringe — actually told the festival organizers that he is a conservative Christian and he can not, in good conscience, make shirts that would serve as advertisements for something he finds morally objectionable. This crazy Christian for some reason thought it uncouth to involve himself in an event that features both a bounce house for kids and a drag show. Clearly, only a raging murderous homophobe would find that situation even slightly uncomfortable.
This disobedience could not be allowed to stand. One can not be free to run their private business according to their religious convictions because that would surely lead to chaos, anarchy and cannibalism. The bigoted, backwoods, hickish, inbred, redneck, bible thumping piece of intolerant trash offered to refer the gay pride festival officials to other t-shirt companies that would make the shirts for a cheaper price, but, sorry hillbilly, that’s not good enough. The gay rights crusaders, who would never bully anyone, spent the next several months trying to see to it that his business was shutdown and he was brought up on human rights charges. They succeeded, and thank God for that. His refusal to make shirts for a gay pride festival is just as degrading as slavery, and should be treated just as harshly. We all have an inalienable right to get t-shirts from Hands on Originals in Lexington, Kentucky, and nobody should have the power to infringe on that right, least of all the guy who actually owns the business.
But why am I telling you this? I’m sure all of the bloggers and Facebookers who linked to the Colbert video and heaped praise upon it certainly took the time to research the background of the issue it addresses. So let us all celebrate the fact that the Orwellian thought police have made great inroads in our culture, even infiltrating the southern towns populated by dirty, mangy, disgusting backwoods bigots. Oh, and also always remember to be tolerant and accepting of everyone.
When you are old enough, please run for President.
I strongly second that, but is there enough common sense in the land to elect him?
This is exactly the type of ordinance currently before the city council here in San Antonio, TX. We are fighting tooth(cuz we only have one) and nail to try and keep it from passing. Thank you for giving some insight for how it will effect us if we are unsuccessful in our fight.
Kristina, if there is an organized, single-toothed group here in SA, I’d like to join.
Nobody cares about any old constitutional requirement like that, age, phewy, I want him to be president NOW.
Matt seems like he has way too much integrity to fit into Washington politics
That’s why he needs to be there. And if he was president, he could EO common sense back into existence.
He should become president and then keep blogging. It would be the most transparent presidency ever.
America is the land of freedom and everyone should as free as the government and “minority” groups allows him/her to be, NOT!
It is more than respecting others life styles is being forced to live like them. It is hard to believe that anyone would agree for behavior as such to be tolerated. By allowing the owner of Hands on Originals been persecuted in this manner we are slaving ourselves to the “system”.
Excuse you, but minority groups don’t hinder you from living your own lifestyle. Unfortunately, since there are some people who are biased against “minority groups” so somethings must be regulated. Now is that your fault? no, but the good have to suffer with what others have done. That’s just life.
“Excuse you, but minority groups don’t hinder you from living your own lifestyle.”
Um… in the case of this article, yes they absolutely do. You can’t operate a small business unless you conform to someone else’s views? Yea, that sounds like someone else hindering me. Not sure if you read this story or not…
“somethings must be regulated. Now is that your fault? no, but the good have to suffer with what others have done.”
So one person said/did something dumb, so I have to suffer? Even though you acknowledged it wasn’t my fault? Now why is it my responsibility to suffer? And what are you basing that off of?
If people from your religious/gender/racial/political affiliation do something dumb, should we enact laws that inadvertently punish you? I mean since it’s necessary/that’s just life…
Did you even read the blog post?
}}} Excuse you, but minority groups don’t hinder you from living your own lifestyle.
No, excuse YOU for arrogantly making a pronouncement which is demonstrably false.
In addition to the specified example, I suggest you also look up the Hawaii B&B owner who was sued by a Cali lesbian couple for DARING!! DARING, I SAY!!! to be honest that her own religious convictions gave her issues with a gay couple staying in the same bed at her B&B — she was polite about it and also indicated she’d have the same issues with an unmarried couple attempting the same.
Of course, special privileges for gays means that THEY can sue her for the horrific damage her polite honesty caused, but the unmarried hetero couple could do nothing of the sort…
The simple fact is that GLAD issues are not single-person issues but often complex interactions where two different individual rights come into direct conflict — religious rights vs. sexuality rights. In many cases, I support the latter, but the current position with regards to governments is to absolutely ignore the former, which is just flat-out EVIL.
Notice how gays always find the local christian and then use their newfound political power to bludgeon them to death, rather than to simply ignore — or use social forces — to shame them.
Except they’re finding this has some bad longer-term effects — you aren’t going to see much in that regard in North Carolina, are you? And GLAD types found out that supporters of Chik-Fil-A apparently vastly outnumber gays… whoodathunkit?
There is a difference between acceptance and open encouragement, and gays need to figure out that it’s not an all-or-nothing thing — and if they keep pushing it like that, they’ll wind up with NOTHING, because there are a lot more people who believe their actions to be wrong (but who have been willing to ack that some middle ground might be reasonable) than there are people who side with them wholly. And if they keep trying to ram their ideas down the throats of anyone who politely disagrees with them they’re going to find a great deal of ire in opposition to them which not only stops them DEAD but also reverses all the gains they’ve worked for in the last 30 years.
Well said well said indeed.
I have so many things I would like to say to you on this matter but I’m not sure you are open minded enough to accept them; so I’ll just say and leave at this: I am all for gay rights, to each his or her own, but you are so wrong on so many levels!
Busy being a victim again? Please note the owner found a less expensive source to provide the t-shirts. How were they harmed? The owner has the right to say “NO”.
Did you even read the article SouthernGal? Minority groups don’t hinder people’s lives until they attempt to force their Minority views into the legal system and paint themselves as modern-day martrys. That’s not “just life”, it’s hypocritical bullying. Like taking down a t-shirt store owner because they won’t make you a t-shirt that they don’t subscribe to. Get a clue, hun.
I was berated once by a gay and I just stood there listening to the childish tirade with a smile on my face. He called me all the usual adjectives. Racist, bigot, redneck, ignorant and so on. When he was done, I asked him “Are you finished?” just to make sure he was before my rebuttal. He acknowledged he was through. I told him that I am happy to live with all those labels and any more he could find to throw at me. Didn’t bother me a bit. Now, I said, it’s my turn. “You sir are a prissy little bitch. I’m sure your father is very proud of the dic sucking son he raised.” Then I closed with, “better you than me princess.” I walked away leaving him screaming at the top of his lungs like that little prissy bitch he is.
OK well i hope you both felt good about acting like children. at first I thought you were going to say that “the gay” was being an idiot and you waited, and then you were mature about the situation. Turns out, you wanted a bit out him just as much. You couldn’t wait to call him “princess” and “prissy”. I understand that he called you all the “bigot names”, guess you had to reply with all the “gay themed” names. I think this issue would go a lot smoother if we would all just grow up. If you don’t accept their movement then fine.
Again, did you even read the blog post? It’s not about “accepting their movement” and it never was. The owner of the T shirt company is being hounded out of business because he wouldn’t print T shirts for them. He has done absolutely nothing else to oppose them.
As Matt pointed out, freedom of association seems to work in only one direction. I do not understand why militant homosexual groups cannot leave such people alone and go about their business.
1) On this she was right — I assumed Boagrius was going to give the stupid ponce a thorough, reasonable, and carefully solid education in the flaws of his position… not turn and make the same kind of idiotic, non-solution response that he was getting. If you’re going to counter-attack, use facts, reason, logic, not their own childish temper-tantrum style of attack.
2) You ARE correct about the general issue, though — this is yet another case of gays getting special privileges to use the government to attack anyone who does not openly support their behavior. Not someone overtly acting against them, even (though this can be within free speech rights as far as that goes, too), but someone simply who chose not to support their aims. Frankly, I’m amazed someone has not created a non-liberal version of the ACLU that takes on cases like this. It was a clear violation of his basic rights, and an abuse of the law. And these things happen all the time these days.
I actually got a good chuckle out of Boagrius post. I don’t find it immature one bit. Damned funny though. Tit for a Tat and all that.
Again…did you read the article? This group is enacting laws that make disagreement punishable via litigation. I agree that name-calling doesn’t accomplish anything, but the issue hers is that people who simply “don’t accept” their movement isn’t enough. Perhaps reading about this prominent leasbian admitting (publicly) that the gay agenda is to destroy marriage, you’ll have a better understanding of the issues and the “tolerance” that’s being asked of heterosexual culture – http://godfatherpolitics.com/10597/prominent-lesbian-activist-admits-gay-agenda-is-to-destroy-marriage/
Irony isn’t your strong suit, is it?
You are proud of that, I assume? In what way are you any better than he is? You were both being immature, and you calling attention to what he does in the bedroom with another person doesn’t give you the moral high ground. Would you say the same thing to a woman, married or not who “sucks dic”?
Nothing like taking the moral low ground. I’m sure that helped the cause greatly.
This always gets it going. I actually love S Colbert, he is hilarious. I don’t believe everything he says, its more comedy than anything. But, I can definitely see both sides. There are some people who are not supportive of the gay rights movement, and should not be forced to do business with this particular movement. On the other hand, you have people who are just straight up biased individuals who throw shade toward anyone who doesn’t look like them and all races do this. However, some may have to suffer because of the deeds of others because there are so many hateful individuals out there. I have to go watch this again because it was HILARIOUS!!!
The fact that you find his arrogant, snooty, sarcastic brand of tawdry schtick funny…tells me all I need to know about you.
}}} However, some may have to suffer because of the deeds of others because there are so many hateful individuals out there.
Cylar, THIS notion is the flawed part of her position… the idea that some have to suffer so that they can get at the bad guys is an absolute reversal of the entire BASIS for English Common Law, which has been so succinctly stated as, “Better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished”.
I can ack the notion that in the 50s and 60s such laws had a purpose, but they have none today except to give a privileged group the power to bludgeon any opposition using government force, rather than reason and social pressure.
I bet you feel enlightened, dontcha? What’s hilarious is your complete lack of awareness of your hypocrisy…some people politely refuse service but that’s not good enough. With glee, people like you ignore YOUR bias of them and their first amendment rights. I’m sure your slapping your knee and hootin’ and hollerin’ when he shreds Christians…they are, after all, the ones taking their opposers to court and destroying them…oh wait, I got my groups mixed up in who is doing what.
Like the Dixie Twits, they confuse the right to free speech….they had it and exercised it at the expense of alienating their fan base. The fans exercised their rights and stooped buying their stuff. They didn’t ask the government to get involved. It’s pretty sad and hypocritical to for the modern day progressive to shut others down who obey the law but don’t agree them. I refuse to refer to these people as “liberals” because frankly, there is absolutely nothing liberal about their actions.
What if a business had refused to serve a black pride parade, or a fat acceptance convention, or a Christian church softball tournament, or a shopping center had put up a sign saying ‘No Muslims Allowed’, or refused to serve the disabled? At what point do we want businesses to be held accountable for discrimination against their own communities? Genuinely curious as to your thoughts.
At what point do we stop trying to cram our beliefs down other people’s throats and allow business owners to serve the markets of their choosing?
We already have laws against racial and gender discrimination. That should have been enough.
So if a business owner decided they didn’t want to do business with African Americans, and refused to allow them in their B&B or serve them in their restaurant, that would be okay? They can “politely refuse” (and please tell me how polite it feels when the clear inference is that you’re less of a human being than anyone else), and the African Americans have to go home hungry or find a crappy Motel 6 to stay in, right? Those countless people don’t matter, as long as a few bigoted business owners get to hold tight to their morally bankrupt beliefs, right?
TurnTheLightOn, I think the distinction has to be drawn that there is a difference between the person and their actions. I believe that what was politely refused, was the printing of what was considered to be offensive material on a t-shirt, not the fact that the customer was homosexual. I’m sure if said homosexuals wanted to have something else printed that didn’t make the business owner feel like he was being disloyal to his own beliefs, he would have gladly obliged. Similarly, while I am not personally familiar with the story of the Hawaiian B&B, let me ask this question: Could it be possible that the owner of that business was uncomfortable with two homosexual people having sex under her roof, and not with homosexual people themselves? I know this last one might be a stretch in your mind and very well may not have been the case in that instance, but once again, I think the distinction between who the person is and what they DO is important here. Similarly, African Americans should not be refused service for the color of their skin… but if they start protesting inside said business, or acting contrary to the businesses established rules or morals, then the owner should have every right to refuse them service. Wasn’t that Martin Luther Kings dream? To have people judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin?
While I do completely agree that all PEOPLE should be accepted as they are, NOBODY should have to accept anybody else’s ACTIONS that they do not agree with. The line between those to things is being blurred and even erased and in my opinion, is really the cause of all the unnecessary hubbub.
I completely agree with you. Well said and more people should realize we all have rights not just select groups.
If people want to be dumb, then they have every right to be. And individuals have a right to not support those businesses if that’s how they feel. Personally I’m fine with that
Where it gets tricky is when government steps in and blurs the line between people being bigots and people genuinely acting out of conscious. The government should not and CANNOT make that distinction.
Bottom line: if you don’t like the way someone is doing business… don’t do business with them. If enough people agree with you, that business will eventually go out of business. It’s essentially an individual decision though, and it’s your right to make individual decisions. It is NOT the government’s right to make that decision.
Exactly. Business owners invest themselves in their business. If any potential customer represents to the owner everything with which they disagree, then the owner is within his rights to refuse service. And conversely, if a potential customer disagrees with or is offended by the business owner’s views on a given topic, they have every right to take their business elsewhere. I have done so myself.
Those who support the business owner will keep it afloat. If an owner offends enough people it will go under pretty quickly. Either way, it is the prerogative of the owner to build his client base the way he wants it.
Private schools do it every day, and are heralded for their distinction.
Well said BringMeBackToSanity.
I think that people should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want. Even if it’s douche-y. As a Christian, I may be upset if somebody refused to print my shirts because of my Christianity, but ultimately, I’d understand that the business owner had the full right to turn me down.
The government needs to let people do and say what they want. That’s freedom of speech. Will people say hateful things? Sure. I’d rather deal with a few jerks than have the government limit what people can say and do with their businesses and words. It is a very dangerous precedent.
Ultimately, I believe that this system would be pretty well self-regulated anyway. For example, if an individual opened a Nazi, white-supremacist t-shirt shop, I’m sure that 99% of the community would refuse to support it. The government didn’t even have to lift a finger…it didn’t even become political. People simply chose to leave it to die. Simple as that.
I dont think we’re even allowed to complain about being discriminated against for our Christianity.
The man didn’t say get out of my shop you homo, he only said he didn’t want to print shirts for an event he is morally opposed to. I wonder how the left would respond if a skinhead walked into a Black mans print shop and demand the owner print up a bunch of racist posters and literature ? And then having been refused service claim he was being discriminated against and demand said owner be brought up on charges. Drum him out of business kill his livelihood all in the name of fairness.This isn’t about a group not being able to express its beliefs it’s about forcing another person or busines to do something they don’t want. If a Italian person went into a Black owned soul food restaurant and ordered a plate of lasagna and the owner said sorry sir we don’t serve that kind of food but I could give you the name and location of a excellent restaurant that does. Should that person then be driven out of business for discrimination because he ordered something not on the menu. I’m sure if this gay man had ordered softball jerseys for his friends he would have been more than happy to make them. This is a slippery slope here when we make private bussiness owners do thing against their will. From now on I guess no one will be refused service just when placing an order there might be series of unforeseen machine breakage that results in shirts or whatever not being ready for their deadline. Of course they would be happy to make a complete refund.
For one thing, the failure of your alternative examples to apply to this case is that there is a long-standing religious injunction against the behavior. There is no valid religious basis for racial discrimination. And the next two… LOLZ, those generally can and do happen without recourse by the “victim” party.
The solution to the latter two (Muslims/disabled) is obvious — social pressure. I think both activities would be clearly against the mainstream social attitudes, and as a result would more than amply be taken care of by losing all too much business.
Social forces are almost always a better way to handle bigotry than governmental coercion.
I grant this was a needed change in the 50s and 60s, when social convention in the South was vastly askew. But that was a long time ago, and an insufficient amount of it applies these days to violate basic civil rights to “provide” others civil rights.
excerpt from the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Now I don’t care if you worship God, Buddha, or what, read the above! I don’t necessarily agree with any of those philosophies, but I also don’t think anyone should be made to go against your religious beliefs, even if your religious belief system is no religion at all, every person on this planet has the liberty to NOT like something about someone else, we have two choices we can make when we come across someone (anybody) do we say hello or do we keep on walking. That’s a HUMAN RIGHT! If I don’t like you or you don’t like me, WE DON’T HAVE TOO! Now unfortunately the less friendly of the two or both of these two people will be labeled a bigot or racist by the other but does that mean that in order to co-exist we have to be CONFRONTATIONAL about it? Wouldn’t it be easier to just keep walking. Why is it your job to change their minds? (or in this case ruin a mans business) Couldn’t this group have found another business that would be all too willing to accept their cash? It just so happens that anytime a business owner happens to exercise his/her right NOT to do business with someone they don’t agree with they’re labeled a bigot of some sort. And a business owner Reserves the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone at Anytime Without Question.
I don’t consider myself a bigot or a racist. But I do stand up for The Constitution and being gay or straight, white or black, Christian or Muslim, it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t give ANYONE the right to persecute another ‘man’ because he refuses to believe as you do! It’s about leaving people to their choices, if you’re gay and you want to kiss your boyfriend it might make me cringe a little but would it be my right to tell you to stop doing that if you were doing it in front of my two (imaginary) young children? I’m a bigot though if I don’t attend the parade? Who’s to say that some of the civil right laws haven’t been abused and become utter failures.
The bottom line is that The Constitution exists for a reason!
Its simple, a business can restrict their market as small as they want to. If they only want to serve people of Japanese Nordic decent, so be it. Free market capitalism says that the more accepting business across the street will be more successful. This man chose to reduce his business market because of his beliefs, and that is his right. I’m sure a wiccan coven would probably prefer to have the same right not to hold baptism services for a Christian home group. You want to test this law, lets see if the gay pride parade has any success renting the community center at a mosque. When you pit two sacred minorities against each other, the veneer of progressivism quickly dissipates
If I don’t want to make you cupcakes, why should that be against the law?
Thank goodness the ACLU is around to sue the pants off these hate-business. Like this one…http://www.worldmag.com/2013/06/another_bakery_sued_for_not_baking_same_sex_wedding_cakes
Of course, We all know that if you’re a business owner, you should surrender all your rights and beliefs and be forced to do whatever people are willing to pay you to do. That’s only the fair, loving thing to do. A business owner that puts their entire livelyhood on the line, work 60+/weeks, skip vacations, work on holidays, should absolutely understand that they cannot bring their own personal beliefs into their business, or in any way influence people beyond their product. That’s discriminatory and highly unfair.
I have a great idea. Let’s ask the Christian owner of a restaurant chain that’s closed on Sundays what his views are on gay marriage…then act all shocked and surprised and outraged when we don’t like his answer. To demonstrate our point, we’ll barge into his restaurants and commit perverted acts in front of the other patrons.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
The owner would have served them and printed the shirts if it didn’t conflict with his beliefs. I’d be willing to bet he would have turned away NAMBLA, the KKK, Satanists, and anti-American custom jobs too.
What’s ironic is the fact there were other businesses and being a small town…I bet these “customers” knew what this guy would say. Shoot, I know gay business owners in Key West who will throw out gay exhibitionist tourist from their businesses because they cater to a family atmosphere. This is a free country, at least for now, and money talks.
Ask the members of the now defunct Dixie Twits.
At the point of private property rights. Their property, their right to do as they please with it. Period. If you don’t like what they do with it, don’t patronize them.
The problem with that view point, for the gays anyway, is that most small town America doesn’t have a large enough gay community to boycott a business and shut it down. Therefore they must use lawsuits to do for them what normal commercialism can’t.
Very revealing response, wehoweky. You see the goal as shutting down the folks who disagree with you and any activity that doesn’t lead to that end is not sufficient. All I said was if you don’t like the way they do business, don’t do business there. I don’t have to destroy someone else in order to be content living the way I want to live. You and others on the left apparently do. That, more than anything else characterizes the difference in your views and mine.
At no point. Freedom of association means free to associate with anybody you choose for any reason, OR NOT ASSOCIATE, for any reason. Freedom is all the justification you need. Doing business is simply associating economically.
The gays, Muslims, disabled, fat people, womyn, blacks, Catholics, Jews, spics, betas, rednecks, Mormons, bible thumpers, wops, Limeys, wogs, krauts, etc, etc, etc, that are offended by a business’s refusal to serve them can simply take their business elsewhere. Offend enough people, and the business fails.
It’s amazing how much difficulty people have with the idea of freedom.
Well see now here’s the thing, he didn’t refuse to serve them because they were gay, he declined to take on that particular project because he wasn’t comfortable with the message. If I were to go to a gay shirt maker and ask them to make me a shirt that said “Straight love is the best love!” Should they have the right to decline the job if the message made them uncomfortable?
If a business owner doesn’t want to do business with someone, based on whatever reason, it is their right, and if you don’t agree with it: Don’t. Go. To that. Business.
Easy Peasy. The market will work itself out.
Well said RM, what ever happened to we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?
Except if you’re gay, black, hispanic, female, or anything else at random.
If you’re white, male, Anglo-saxon, heterosexual, well f*** you with a sharp pointy stick…
As a business owner, and an intelligent person who wants more business, why bring your beliefs into it at all? Simply say, sorry I am too busy at this time to take your order. Problem solved, my beliefs not forced on anyone and I am not doing anything I do not want to do.
Right, because the only motivation of a business owner should be to make money. I mean, that’s all that matters to an employee, right? Contribution, creativity, making a difference, providing value beyond mere monetary compensation…
I agree with you from a practical standpoint – there are ways of avoiding the issue altogether. The question is, why should any business owner be held legally-hostage to do something against their personal belief system?
Because it is his or her prerogative. I live in Utah, one of the most non-ethnic places I’ve seen in the US. Coming from So FL, I was able to easily find products for my curly hair…I can’t here! I can barely find someone to cut it!
Should I go and demand that businesses cater to me with accusations that my rights are being violated and demand I be considered? No! You know what I did? I went and ordered it on the Internet!!
And being a predominately Mormon state, many businesses are closed on Sunday. I’ve never seen people who aren’t LDS demand the LDS throw away their religious belief to not work on Sunday to cater to them.
This PC crap is insane. Seriously.
You own a business, and that’s your call to make. All business owners should have that same right.
Let’s see: don’t take their business because you have a moral objection to participating in the propagation of sin. Your suggestion is to lie about why you won’t take their business.
Does anybody else see the moral problem here?
The moral problem, or the legal one?
The T shirt guy tried to exercise his freedom of conscience, and he’s being sued for it. What advice would you have given him at the outset of this controversy?
Hypocrisy at its finest. I am supportive of the LBGT movement, but I dislike when anyone resorts to degrading name calling.
Great post! I love how you write these political rants.
Matt has an unique ability to cut through all the BS and present the facts in a very credible manner that tells the whole story, not just the superficial, slanted, and highly sensational garbage that the media chooses to present and that people gobble up with a spoon without ever taking the time to fully comprehend the issue. Matt causes you think, and heaven knows this country could use a lot more thinking and a lot less gum-flapping. Love your blog, Matt!
If Colbert really wants to do a segment on inbreeding, he should investigate liberal college professors and their daughters.
And…..the entire liberal congregation who supports them.
I am embarrassed to say that Colbert is actually from the State of South Carolina, but I take great delight in announcing that his sister could not beat a good conservative past governor who cheated on his wife–Mark Sanford.
Businesses should be allowed to do business with whomever they please. If I knew an organization was anti-Christian (I am a Christian) I wouldn’t want to give them my business. I wouldn’t want to run them out of business either. America USED to be a free country.
When Colbert video started circulating I confess I clicked it for its raving reviews. Personally I found it repulsive. It came across that Colbert was getting a laugh at a population so many seem to misunderstand, the Appalachian people themselves. Therefore his message got lost through the messenger… its okay to get a laugh at the population as a whole, but by god leave the gays alone. The whole concept of degradation made absolutely no sense to me. It was like he picked that town, those people, to make a political point at the expense of the group as a whole. Sad. Wrong.
I must say, Matt, your points are well understood. I too believe to each their own. Personal Liberty was the fabric of our founders/framers. America these days seems more hell bent on political correctness, following the herd, than individual freedoms, liberties and protections under the constitution. I would like to see more such cases as the T-shirt company come about. I would like to see these companies bring their cases all the way to the Justices.
It seems more and more these days folks are interpreting the separation of church and state to mean christains need to stay in the closet and refrain from their liberties at the expense of others and it is important for the “state” to protect other religions/peoples from christians. NOT (I won’t get into the whole history lesson here, going back to 12th century england when the king turned over responsibilities of the poor and of education to the church; initiating a new “church tax” on the people, then go forward to the framers/founders and their “separation” from such practices. Folks can research that on their own.) The more Christians allow this kind of behavior to continue, the worse it will get, as is demonstrated from the perverse misconception of separations of power that exists today.
We need more T-Shirt companies to reach out to such organizations as the heritage or aclu, to assist them in their struggles for personal liberties, their constitution rights, to be heard at the high court. In a perfect world, we would allow all their individual freedoms, christian or not; yet these days it appears money talks… if more companies filed law suits for their religious freedoms, we would have less cities trying to trump the constitution.
I cry foul on Colbert for getting laughs at the expense of others–regardless his point.
Colbert is still on the air? I thought he’d been cancelled by now.
Oh, right. The Democratic Congress paid him for an afternoon’s entertainment with OUR MONEY. He’s probably still living off of the fees he collected that day.
I’m disgusted by guy’s twig twiddling in another guy’s dirt chute. Born that way. Get over it. Pretending that being gay is just like being black should be offensive to blacks. Blacks can’t pretend they’re not black or marry a white woman so nobody can tell. ALREADY theres a guy in Britain suing their anglican church to FORCE them to conduct gay marriages. I said that would happen a year ago and my lawyer friend who had the nerve to yell at me about my intolerance just said “No no, that won’t happen.” Freedom of religion at it’s core is freedom of thought. When we are no longer free to act according to our own thoughts there is no freedom. They’re free to shop somewhere else. The gay mafia need’s to get over themselves or suffer from a huge backlash that they’re creating. These ordinances and people are against the most basic freedom we have. They are against freedom…period. Masha Gessen said it correctly, gay marriage is about the destruction of the traditional family which is the basic unit of society. When this breaks down, society breaks down. And society is the only thing protecting these idiots. They got a deash wish or something? Well, I guess that might be the light at the end of the tunnel for people at the leading edge of a genetic dead end. The oncoming train of their own success.
I think I need to purchase some T-shirts from Kentucky for my BUSINESS.
It’s your constitutional right to do so. I’m sure no conservative Christian lobbying group will sue you for avoiding any of the local businesses, or try to enact laws preventing you from doing so.
Reblogged this on pdeneweth.
Well said Matt, I love your no nonsense writing style and your conservative values .
Anti discrimination policies should be enforced on a federal level, giving all people the same rights, rules, and freedoms. That said, those freedoms should protect the racist, homophobic, and intolerant just as much as they protect the minorities and gays. Personally, I really cant even fathom why anyone cares who someone else is married to or sleeping with. It isnt you, so dont worry about it. But thats just my stance, and living in america theoretically allows me to have mine, and others to have theirs. As far as private business is concerned, whoever owns the place should be able to do whatever they want with it. If they dont want to print gay pride Tshirts, I dont think there is anything inherently wrong with that. I doubt a Tshirt shop owned by a gay man would want to serve a super conservative christian ordering anti-gay shirts for their protest. What bothers me, is not who is right or wrong (if there even is such a black and white answer to that) but that the government is enforcing a thought process. Its not like the people in question were harmed in any way, or their lively hood put in jeopardy, or their civil rights infringed upon. In this case it was the shop owner who’s liberties are being cast aside. Last I checked, a business had the right to refuse service to anyone.
Anti discrimination policies should be enforced on a federal level, giving all people the same rights, rules, and freedoms.
They are. Or were. A key piece of legislation to do just that was signed over fifty years ago. The problem today is that it’s only being enforced in one direction.
You know what ? You are awesome!!
Did you ever notice, that when even the smallest government tries to legislate fairness, it never comes out fair. I think it’s fair to say that fairness is both a subjective and objective idea, it just depends on who’s not be’in treated fairly.
The anger that spews through the structure of your comments is hilarious. Anyway, I did read the post. And if you would have read some of my responses I clearly stated that I can see both sides of the matter. But other than that, the ball of anger and the ranting just gave me a whiff of energy that this is not such a happy website to come to. Its more of an anger management group and all of yall….are losing the good fight. Tah Tah!!!! lmao!
You prattle on about seeing both sides, then return to mock and chuckle at the people who attempted to take you to task using cold, hard fact.
Didn’t I already tell you to get lost?
Dude, I have not been on the blog since my last comment. I had no intentions of returning! So maybe you can kick rocks and let it go! The only reason I am answering now because I saw the comment in the WP notifications. I have no intentions of returning to the blog. I am someone who loves fun and happiness, there is nothing fun or happy about this blog. So stop responding and leave this happy gal alone. Your anger management group may commence once more without reasonable individuals present. lmao! hilarious.
You know, you’ve convinced me; let’s abolish all anti-discrimination laws, and go back to the glory days of Whites-only bars. After all, businesses being forced to service groups of people that make them uncomfortable for superficial reasons impedes the freedoms of White Christians, truly the most oppressed of minorities.
Oops, comments are moderated. Guess no one else will be reading this. Oh well, at least YOU will.
In retrospect, this was unfair of me, and I apologize.
You do KNOW that the “White-only” was the LAW? Jim Crow as a system of LAWS. Perhaps you can explain how gov’t using force to prevent people from associating is somehow meaningfully different from gov’t forcing people to associate.
(Don’t forget to root for the white girl at the Miss Black America Pageant. Oh, right, there won’t be one because it’s BLACK ONLY.)
And it was a LAW that ended it. Perhaps you’re familiar with such fun things as the Fair Housing Act, which created a provision where it became illegal to refuse to sell homes to black people, and the SCOTUS ruling in 1971 that allowed forced busing to end desegregation of schools, or Executive Order 9981, through which President Truman ordered the racial integration of the military.
This is to say nothing, of course, of anti-slavery laws, I’m just going with things that happened in the last 100 years or so.
“He demonstrated this by sticking a camera in front of an elderly Eastern Kentucky small town pastor and waiting for him to say something about gays going to hell. The pastor eventually did, which unequivocally represents and summarily discredits the opinions of everyone who fails to support these laws. It’s totally fair and constructive to randomly select one inflammatory individual in some tiny town in Kentucky and paint him as the spokesman for the entire conservative movement.”
Point well made; however it’s true that, unless they repent, homosexuals will go to hell. Guess that makes me inflammatory. But then again, speaking the truth has always been inflammatory to certain people.
Point well made; however it’s true that, unless they repent, homosexuals will go to hell.
Oh geez, not this again. For the 800th time, God regards ACTION as sin, not temptation prior to the fact. Hell is the destination for those who refuse the saving blood of Christ Jesus, which can wash away iniquity and make us pure in God’s sight…regardless of what acts we’ve committed on Earth. While the Bible does single out sexual sin as being especially severe, it’s still forgivable, and a practicing homosexual merely needs to become celibate to be obedient to God. He doesn’t have to change his orientation, and that’s good because he might not be able to.
Stop spreading this “all gays are going to hell” crap…and I say this as someone who despises and opposes any further expansion of “gay rights.” You and the unfortunate pastor both have some serious problems with your theology.
Hate to say this, but you forgot the bit where Jesus himself says that “if a man looks at a woman with lust, he’s committed adultery with her in his heart”. Which means that we (whether we are men lusting after women, or men lusting after men, or women lusting after men, or women lusting after women, or either lusting after animals etc.) will be held to account for even our unacted lusts. Other than that, you and Will are absolutely right – and in agreement, how ’bout that!.
Cylar, thanks for demonstrating my point. You missed the key qualifier: “Unless they repent.” I’m sure you already know this, but for the sake of everyone else, to repent means to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life, to feel regret or contrition, to change one’s mind. You of all people should know better than to misrepresent another’s theology.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
Notice homosexuals are on that list. Think there’s still problems with my theology? That’s straight from the Apostle Paul. Also notice the phrase, “And such were some of you…”
Repentance took place. People changed their behaviors. More importantly, they changed their orientations. Hence my qualifier.
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)
So, you’re right (well, mostly right; ArwenB’s comment above is also correct) that the sin is in the action. And, if a person stops acting on a temptation, then they are no longer engaging in that particular sin. We define people by their practice, not by their temptations. So, it’s a bit of a misrepresentation to assign my position as “all gays are going to hell”, as if it’s only the sin of homosexuality that condemns people to hell, and as if people are “once gay, always gay”. But then again, if they changed their actions, then they’re no longer homosexual, are they? As you said, the sin is in the action, not the temptation, so let’s quit identifying people as “gay” just because they are merely tempted to use their genitals in ways they were not designed. Homosexuals are a tiny minority; we don’t need to inflate their ranks by including the merely tempted. They already have enough letters in their silly acronym.
Let’s talk about orientation for a minute. What is it about homosexuality that’s so special that we must call it an “orientation” in the first place? And why is it assumed that, once one orients themselves toward homosexuality, they can’t re-orient themselves back to normal sexuality? You know as well as I do that, according to our culture’s self-appointed elites, changing one’s “orientation” is a one-way street. “Coming out” as “gay” is “courageous” and “being true to yourself”; yet, when someone abandons the “gay” lifestyle and goes straight, they’re treated like outcasts, lepers, or as if they don’t exist. Why the double standard? Worse, why are you buying into it? There is no evidence of homosexuality being anything other than behavioral. There is no “gay gene”. Yet we’re told to believe, without any supporting evidence, that one’s sexual “preference” is hard-wired and must not be tampered with. Our Betters are increasingly making homosexuality into a behavioral Iron Curtain; their idea of border security is keeping people in. And you would go right along with them, consigning people to a life of quiet desperation on the homosexual plantation simply because you don’t believe they can change their sexual desires. Wouldn’t that be a living hell?
Yet, here you are, castigating me and the “unfortunate pastor” for merely declaring the truth that, if unrepentant, “gays”, like any other unrepentant sinner, will end up in Hell. It’s a sad truth, and one that I don’t particularly go shouting from the rooftops, but the truth nonetheless. The good news is, that fate can be avoided. If homosexuals, like anyone else, acknowledge Jesus as Lord, believe that God has raised Him from the dead, and repent of their sin, they will not go to hell.
Wasn’t it Orwell that said, “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”? Maybe not always revolutionary, but often inflammatory.
I think it all depends on how they refuse service. I can see not wanting to make shirts for a gay pride parade and just simply stating in a respectful way that you cannot do that for religious reasons (but don’t get me started on that) and being kind in refusing them service. But the story about the B&B (I don’t think it was the one in Hawaii)..the woman was disgustingly rude to the lesbian couple. Not letting someone stay in a B&B because they’re gay is like denying a black couple to stay because ya know, “White’s only”…but that is seen as wrong nowadays, so I don’t understand why gay people can’t be included in this? The woman was very disrespectful to the woman, lost potential business, and her B&B ended up getting closed down. So, it all depends on how you handle it and what you’re denying people. Denying people shirts is one thing, you can get shirts made anywhere else, but denying someone into your B&B is just ridiculous. I can see both side of this argument and I agree with parts of both sides, so it’s hard for me to give a proper opinion about it. It’s also like the “no shoes, no shirt, no service”…where you can turn away a customer without shoes or shirt, and also you can refuse service to an unruly customer as well, but it just seems really silly to me to deny service or business to a gay or lesbian person. You’re a business owner…what are you going to do next? Deny black people and/or Hispanics service because you don’t like their skin color? Ha.
Isn’t there a sign hanging in most service-oriented businesses which says, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?” Whatever happened to that?
Does this mean that Colbert and his ilk would support a lawsuit aimed at removing those ridiculous “Gun Free zone” signs in some stores? I mean, if they have to serve people regardless of their political beliefs…
I’d like to get those out of sight just so criminals will no longer know where to go to find unarmed victims. Those signs are despicable and do nothing but encourage wolves to strike at the sheep.
Pingback: Manchester Times - Bonnaroo, News, Newspaper, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Engagement, Obituary, Births, Government, Football, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer in Manchester Tennessee, TN
If you accept that being gay or lesbian is something that you’re born with or develop in the first year of your life, then being gay/lesbian falls into the same category as race or gender. We don’t allow business to refuse to sell things to people who are black; we don’t allow businesses to discriminate based on gender. Same thing here.
Worth noting: The guy first claimed that he disliked the message of the T-shirt himself, but it turned out he took the order at first without objection, and only tried to stop printing once he found out it was for an LGBT event.
Greg, he wasn’t discriminating because the people were homosexual, he discriminated because of THE MESSAGE that the shirts symbolized (i.e. be proud to engage in homosexual behavior). That is an important distinction. A black owned t-shirt company couldn’t discriminate against white people because they’re white, but they could discriminate against white people if said white people were asking for shirts with a big KKK logo.
What the article you posted insinuates is that black owners would be allowed to reject a KKK message because the KKK isn’t “a group within a protected class of people.” That would mean in the present case that homosexuals are a “protected class” and Christians apparently aren’t (otherwise this guy would’ve been able to do business according to his values). So the fundamental question is, why are homosexuals protected at the expense of Christians? Homosexuals are worthy of protection but Christians aren’t? It doesn’t make sense.
Besides that, it’s insulting to place racial pigmentation on a par with sexual orientation, even if you believe this crap about a “gay gene” causing people to be “born that way.” (There’s not only no scientific evidence for that, it doesn’t even make sense. A genetic trait that discourages people from breeding with the opposite sex? Really? No, I think nature would have breeded that right out of humanity by now…but I digress.)
You don’t think it’s just a little insulting to compare gays to the civil rights marchers of the 60s, who actually faced water cannons, racist cops and dogs just to get rid of racial discrimination in housing, employment, education and other areas? Nobody has proposed doing any of that to homosexuals, and they’ve never faced jail over it.
On the contrary, they’re the ones bullying someone else in this case for daring to decline to cooperate with their movement. Can’t have that.
While a little late to the debate, here my 2 cents.
Quite some time ago, I learned a great lesson from my brother who is a cabinet maker. If he didn’t want the job for whatever reason, he quoted an outrageous price. So, if you do not want to make the t-shirts or bake a cake or offer a bed and a breakfast, simply quote them a price that you feel may make them back away from the deal. Really, why put yourself, your business and your family in jeopardy by stating some religious stance in a country that will not back you up?
The tide is turning in your United States and I fear it is not for the better.
If you simply quote an outrageous price, eventually someone will realize and you will face the same consequences. You should be able to be upfront and honest in a respectful manner and have the protection of the first amendment. In my opinion, it would seem more like discrimination if you’re quoting a higher price instead of respectfully refusing the business.
Did you read the article Kristina? The gentleman who owned the t-shirt business had no protection; so much for that first amendment thingy.
If you wish to risk everything for something as silly as religion, fill your boots.
You undermined your own point. If we still have a First Amendment, one ought to be able to invoke it instead of relying on flimsy devices like quoting an excessively high price. The shop owner shouldn’t have to result to such shenanigans just to avoid being forced to participate in a movement he doesn’t support. As I recall, he even offered to send the marchers someplace else to have their shirts made. That wasn’t good enough.
As for what’s as “silly as a thing like religion,” your bigotry is showing. With comments like “your United States,” I’ll bet you’re from the UK, am I right?
And they say the French are arrogant. They’ve got nothing on you snobs in London these days.
It’s a local law. Don’t Repubs like small government? Work to change the law, move, or quit your bitchin’.
you know, i never thought of it that way before. you’ve given me a lot to consider.
I think private business owners should have the right to refuse service to any one for any reason. Race, gender, sexual preference, hair color, height, weight, literally any reason. His or her business won’t last very long but the government has no right to tell a private citizen who he or she has to do business with. Let’s flip it and say a bar is run by a neo-nazi, I disagree with his ideology so I choose not to go there. Can he sue me because I’m discriminating against him? Why can the government force people to sell to certain groups but not force people to buy from certain groups? We all have the right to associate or not associate with whomever we choose. If you don’t like a business owners practices, boycott, tell your friends to boycott, spread the word and the business will lose money. Let the free market run it’s course and leave the government out of it.
Pingback: 7 Quick Takes Friday Vol 5 | farmhousejournals
I consider myself fairly liberal. However, I completely agree with you. As long as a business owner is not rude in their refusal (which I’m willing to bet most of the time they aren’t) there should not be this problem. Private businesses should have the ability to refuse service for whatever reason they choose, just like as a customer I have the right to choose where I shop. If I disagree with a businesses moral beliefs, I can choose to not support them by not shopping there. Vote with my wallet, if you will. Many businesses are simply lying to customers to get around this. Busy schedules, problems with the production, etc. are excuses that a customer can’t sue over, but will get people out of doing the work. It shouldn’t have to be that way.
These new laws aren’t liberal, they are leading toward a big brother, accommodate the lowest common denominator. What’s next, we can’t have Christian schools? Churches or Synagogues will be illegal because they discriminate against the non-religious? We can’t have private clubs for any group of people that share an interest? No more chess clubs because they discriminate against non-chess players.
I can understand in cases of duty, or public organizations, where these rules can be more regulated. Hospitals should be required to help everyone with health concerns, judges or other public officials as well as government institutions have to serve the entire public. However, private businesses shouldn’t have to.
Whether I agree with the businesses, choice to serve to not serve someone, I firmly support their right to make that choice!
Pingback: I’m a liberal because I think Starbucks has private property rights | The Matt Walsh Blog
Nice work! One thing to add: If homosexuals have freedom of association then shouldn’t inbreds also?
You have got to be kidding me. Did you actually watch the segment? The whole gag was that they kept expecting the people in the town to be anti-gay, and most of them weren’t. The labels “hick,” “inbred,” etc., were used ironically to point out, hey, our stereotypes of small town people are wrong. Matt, while I don’t always (or often, even) agree with you, I think you’re a very good writer, and I gather from your other posts that you’re a pretty smart guy – certainly smart enough to understand what Colbert was doing with humor. I have to conclude, then, that you either didn’t watch it or are being intentionally disingenuous to support your rant.
As for your critique of anti-discrimination laws for private businesses, I’m afraid you’ve done exactly what you accused Colbert of doing: oversimplifying a very complicated issue. I agree that there are problems with regulating how individuals do business, but those problems have to be weighed against the rights of people being discriminated against. A gay couple being denied wedding cupcakes might not be a huge deal, but not being able to use any public restroom in town (because every business makes the “personal” decision not to let you) is. So where do we draw the line, Matt? Be better than Colbert, and engage with the complexity of the issue.
Matt Walsh on 630 WLAP should know that Eastern Orientals had long since known Japanese Females for its beautiful shoveled teeth, and refined jaw.
You can assume White Trash Inbreds come from the North, but as long as Inbreds are not White in any way they are supposed to be protected by the NAACP. White Trash Inbreds still is very likely to be found in China where they are not on the same plane with Outer Mongolia since they won their independence from China. Mongolia has long been known for its refinement. I just don’t see how Chinese would have the same level of development for our separation. As for why Chinese look unlike Mongolians maybe till this day is because they were hard hit, and plighted before by some Swedish Viking Expedition.
You can assume White Trash Inbreds come from the North, but as long as Inbreds are not White in any way they are supposed to be protected by the NAACP. White Trash Inbreds still is very likely to be found in China where they are not on the same plane with Outer Mongolia since they won their independence from China. Mongolia has long been known for its refinement. I just don’t see how Chinese are on the same plane with them, or have the same level of development for our separation. As for why Chinese look unlike Mongolians maybe till this day is because they were hard hit, and plighted before by some Swedish Viking Expedition.