Random U.S. Small Business Owner Bans Gays from Business
An East Tennessee hardware store owner decided to express his beliefs following the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing same-sex marriage by putting up a sign that reads, “No Gays Allowed.”
Jeff Amyx, who owns Amyx Hardware & Roofing Supplies in Grainger County, Tennessee., about an hour outside of Knoxville, added the “No Gays Allowed” sign on Monday, because gay and lesbian couples are against his religion.
Amyx, who is also a baptist minister, said he realized Monday morning that LGBT people are not afraid to stand for what they believe in. He said it showed him that Christian people should be brave enough to stand for what they believe in.
“They gladly stand for what they believe in, why can’t I? They believe their way is right, I believe it’s wrong. But yet I’m going to take more persecution than them because I’m standing for what I believe in,” Amyx said.
If you’re a libertarian who opposes antidiscrimination laws in principle, because you feel market solutions are a better way to punish prejudice than handing the government power to tinker with freedom of association, you’re on his side. If you aren’t, you (probably) aren’t.
This misunderstands libertarians. I am a libertarian-leaning conservative who opposes antidiscrimination laws on principle, in part because I believe market solutions are a better way to punish prejudice than handing the government power to dictate the terms of citizens’ freedom of association.
But I am most assuredly not on this guy’s side. I’m part of the market that wants to punish him.
If the government comes after him, I will argue for his right to be a bigot. But I’m not on his “side.”
That said, how this is a nationwide story is beyond me — but the fact that it is, suggests there is less prejudice than the media would have you believe.
Ding.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:29 pmOut of 300+ million people they found one who vented his frustration in a tit-for-tat way,
“You don’t like me, fine, I don’t like you, stay out”.
Why don’t they post this:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/30/isis-celebrates-scotus-decision-by-tossing-4-accused-gay-men-off-roof/
perspective
MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:36 pmIf he were a bigot he’d have banned gays from his business long ago.
So why now?
It’s a hardware store. He literally does not want to sell people the rope they intend to hang him with.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:38 pmYou were asking in the other thread, MD? The store owner can do this to customers because no federal or state law forbids it. However, he cannot do it to job applicants.
But what Patterico said. This is just stupid.
nk (dbc370) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:44 pmnk, it’s stupid. But it’s not bigotry. If this guy were bigoted against gays on general principles that sign would have been up years ago.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:46 pmAny other week it would be stupid. This week I’m with him. Not literally, but I understand and sympathise with his motivation, just as I’m with the vulgar people at Charlie Hebdo and the Draw-Mohammed people. He’s hitting back in the only way he can. However, if I were advising him I’d have him change the sign to read: “This is a Christian establishment; if you have a problem with that, stay out.”
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:49 pmIt’s kind of self-defeating, I’d say, if he really disapproves of homosexuality. Hardware stores are the cure for gay.
Paint stores are a different matter.
nk (dbc370) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:49 pmI’d also inform him that there are many gay people who agree with him, and he probably doesn’t mean to offend them. He’d probably be surprised.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:51 pmWell, this I am not in favor with. I do not think there is any Scriptural reason to refuse to sell items to someone because they are gay.
I do think, as it has been argued, that it is a different thing when a business owner has been required to provide a service for an event they disapprove of, such as providing a service that, it can be argued, enables the event to proceed such as a ssw.
To clarify, I do not think that is necessarily the right decision to make in every instance, but I am sympathetic with the argument.
One thing on the horizon, I think there have been cases of Christian student groups at the university level that have been challenged as to discrimination in leadership requirements, and it has been ruled a group that is explicitly “Christian” in character can require its officers to be Christian. If such groups are not “churches”, then I imagine there will be challenges as to whether they can hold that “active” gays can be kept from leadership, or whether universities will ban the groups altogether.
MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:55 pmIn the context of years ago, certainly decades ago, I’d be wary of the store owner, his sign and the reasons behind it (eg, was he molested as a child by a guy? Or “methinks he protest too much,” etc). But in the context of today, where liberalism is running berserk and compassion for compassion’s sake is going off the deep end, I can’t help but sympathize with the shopkeeper.
Mark (a11af2) — 7/1/2015 @ 8:58 pmWhile I don’t agree, I sympathize as well. When hit in the head with a stick the immediate reaction is to hit back, which is what he did (figuratively).
MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:04 pmDid you read the article?
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:16 pmUnless there has been legal movement since Christian Legal Society v Martinez, you have that exactly backwards. The challenge was from the Christian group, against a university policy that didn’t allow them to discriminate against non-Christians, and they lost.
In that case, though, the university claimed with a straight face that it administered its policy with complete neutrality, and that it would also insist that a black student society allow white supremacists to join and become officers. If it could be proven that it wouldn’t do that, then it would not be allowed to apply this policy only to the Christians.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:25 pmYes, Pat, I did.
What was in the story that should make me change my mind?
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:26 pmThe new sign is a lot nicer than I’d have made it.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:27 pmHow, exactly, does any person determine if someone is homosexual? If a business owner decides to exclude homosexuals, how does that business owner determine it? And why? Capital is free from discrimination.
Maybe it is time for conservatives to judge based on how capital is distributed rather than who places a certain part of the body into another.
I don’t say that because I think that homosexuality is good or bad. At this point, I don’t care. Gay people have been around since forever. I simply think that we are being distracted from more important issues. Deliberately.
It is about time we started to concentrate on real problems rather than the left’s invented insults of the day.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:30 pmThere’s generally no need to do so. Just because you put up a sign saying “gays not welcome” doesn’t mean you intend to kick anyone out.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:34 pm==I simply think that we are being distracted from more important issues.==
I simply think that we are distracting ourselves from more important issues. FIFY
elissa (a14152) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:37 pmYes, Pat, what was your point?
That anyone who disagrees with homosexuality being equivalent to heterosexuality is a bigot? (Since that was his view prior to last week, and still is.)
maybe I had it wrong, Milhouse, or maybe there were other cases. I don’t remember the details, as was evident by the way I worded my comment.
MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:38 pmThen we’ve already lost, and surrendered, if all conservativees can aspire to be are better central planners for the distribution of capital. As determined by the moral priorities of the left.
This has been the great fraud we’ve fallen for.
We’re told that social issues are a loser. Yet, when you look at it all conservatives have done is abandon social issues to the left, so that they get to define what is moral and good with no fear of opposition.
But it’s the social issues that determine how capital ought to be allocated, assuming one thinks the central planners should be allocating it.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:40 pmSteve57 says:
I say: not necessarily; read the story. Steve57 says:
This?
The indications are not that he never believed this before. The indications are that he always believed this — and, seeing the gays stand up for their own beliefs, decided to stand up for his own.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:40 pmThat anyone who bans gays from his store deserves to be punished by the marketplace.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:41 pmThe family is the basic building block of society, male and female is the fundamental identity of the human race as created. What can be more important than those issues?
If one rejects any reference to religious belief, you still have questions over the fundamental unit of society and the fundamental identity of who we are as humans. The fundamental purpose of a car is for transportation, worrying about what color it is, whether it is scratched or not, what the neighbors think about it, could occupy a lot of time and attention, but the important things are whether the chassis is intact, the tires are good, and the engine and brakes work.
Good night.
MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:47 pmPat @21, it still does not compute as bigotry.
According to the article he never put up a sign saying “no gays allowed” before this SCOTUS decision. It was the decision he objected to, not gays per se. Which is why he changed the sign, to better reflect what he intended.
Which is tantamount to an admission that his earlier words were ill-advised. Or in plain language, stupid.
And he’s still not going to ask people if they’re gay or not.
I can not discern the bigotry. Unless, disagreeing with a SCOTUS decision equals bigotry.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:50 pmI’ve pondered in the past what my impression of the GLBT crowd would be if surveys indicated that instead of it being overwhelmingly of the left (around 70-plus percent, with plenty of the balance probably being squishier than jell-o), it was overwhelmingly of the right. To test how much my disquiet or disdain towards that group is based largely on its ideology more than its sexual behavior (although a variation of that phenomenon, referring to Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner, who describes himself as a pro-Constitution Republican, still makes me wince), if most GLBT were socially-politically conservative, I’d see them in a far different light.
Then again, it’s quite a bit of the liberalism or leftism of the GLBT that makes them “GLBT,” so the idea of a right-leaning GLBT — in an alternative universe — would be a contradiction in terms, or non-existent in almost any reality.
Mark (a11af2) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:52 pmThe difference between hardware store owner Jeff Amyx and Supreme Court Justice Kennedy?
When Amyx realized he had spoken intemperately and painted with too broad a brush, he modified and refined his language.
Justice Kennedy double downed on stupidity and hate.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:56 pmHmmm. Your answer to Steve57 seems to me to suggest that his beliefs, which were long standing, made him a bigot, whereas steve57’s view was that disagreeing with homosexuality did not make him a bigot, but maybe banning them from the store did.
MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:57 pmI also much prefer his second version of a response. If the market wants to punish him, fine. if it wants to reward him, as it has done before with Chick-fil-A and the pizzeria, then fine too, I guess you would say.
More succinct way of putting it:
“I disagree with his opinion, but I fully support his right to express it”
No, moving past opinions, it would be nice if there were a federal anti-discrimination laws that covered sexual preference. This gentleman could continue to express his opinion that being gay was “wrong”, but it would not be legal for him to refuse to do business with them.
Of course, since sexual preference is not (usually) an inherently observable trait anyway, he has no effective way of enforcing his refusal even thought it might be legal. Most customers seeking to buy hardware don’t generally announce or disclose their sexual preference when doing so, and there would be no way to be sure any of them were telling the truth anyway, short of demanding they engage in sexual activity on the spot, which I think pretty much everyone would likely to find outrageous regardless of their preference.
The Internet (31b838) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:59 pmshort of demanding they engage in sexual activity on the spot, which I think pretty much everyone would likely to find outrageous regardless of their preference.
If one extrapolates the differences from decades ago (when NBC censors didn’t allow a late-night TV show host to say “water closet,” when a famous actress was repudiated — including by Hollywood itself — for having an affair and child out of wedlock) and the differences today, and projects or estimates how ongoing trends will evolve (or devolve) in the future, it’s not pure sarcasm or flippancy to say that there will be a time when, no, the behavior you describe will not be considered outrageous by a good portion of the populace.
What we’ve been witnessing over the past few weeks, and certainly last few decades, is a daily reminder that the slippery slope can be surprisingly slippery—including the philosophical back flips that certain members of the Supreme Court have been performing in order to reach their final, preferred decision.
Mark (a11af2) — 7/1/2015 @ 10:15 pmThat anyone who bans gays from his store deserves to be punished by the marketplace.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/1/2015 @ 9:41 pm
Meh. Anyone who does that should be willing to suffer the consequences, i.e., potential loss of business, but no more than that.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/1/2015 @ 10:18 pmWhy would that be nice? Why should he be forced to do business with people he doesn’t like? Are you OK with forcing them to do business with him? If not, then why the difference?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/1/2015 @ 10:18 pmYou are not part of “the market that wants to punish him” if you don’t buy hardware in Grainger County, TN.
You’re just part of the internet lynch mob.
That is your right, of course. But don’t pretend you would be patronizing the business if only he flew a rainbow flag. That’s just crap. Typical libertarian posturing to pretend you have some moral high ground.
Estragon (ada867) — 7/1/2015 @ 10:44 pmIf he is going to refuse service to sinners, he will go out of business.
Patricia (5fc097) — 7/1/2015 @ 10:54 pmit would be nice if there were a federal anti-discrimination laws that covered sexual preference. This gentleman could continue to express his opinion that being gay was “wrong”, but it would not be legal for him to refuse to do business with them.
Why is forcing a private business owner into a private transaction a nice thing? If he doesn’t have the freedom to be wrong, what happens when the State decides that you’re wrong?
As an aside, I can’t think of a more preposterous or disastrous idea than creating a protected class which is based upon a declaration.
Burn the Witch (4f59cf) — 7/1/2015 @ 10:55 pmAll over the conservative web, once dependable pundits are behaving like trolls. I’ve complained in these comments about Allahpundit in the past and about Hot Air just yesterday. I don’t know what to make of this post and many others over there. To give Allahpundit the benefit of the doubt – something I’m not sure he deserves – my inference would be that the craziness of the era and especially those on the Left is leaving many on the Right disoriented and defensive. I used to think Charles Johnson was an outlier; now I’m beginning to think he was just patient zero.
ThOR (a52560) — 7/1/2015 @ 11:09 pmRight now there is so much to be angry about – need I list it? People are understandably angry and frustrated. What is worse is an almost complete absence of leadership on the right. This guy in Tennessee wants to do something, anything, to express his feelings of loss and vulnerability, so he does this. Desperate times beget desperate acts. And now all we can do is wash our hands of him. I don’t think I’ll join in.
ThOR (a52560) — 7/1/2015 @ 11:25 pmAfter months and months and months, we finally find one small business owner that fits the stereotype that the leftists have tried to turn all opposition into. One. In rural TN.
JD (3b5483) — 7/2/2015 @ 5:47 amI see the pizzeria more as people banding together to defend others against oppressive government action.
Well. Part of the group of people on the Internet criticizing him.
You’re right that people criticizing from a long distance, concerning an aspect of his business that has little to do with the quality or price of his merchandise, is unlikely to have much impact. But my comments are still part of the marketplace as I see it, just like any commentary about a business.
He’s not talking about gay marriage undermining a traditional definition of marriage. He is talking about a particular group of people and treating them as second-class citizens because of their sexual orientation, which he considers sinful. As Patricia says, if he refuses to serve sinners, he will go out of business. If he refuses to serve a particular set of “sinners,” I say let the marketplace handle it. Maybe he’ll have less business. Maybe in that town in Tennessee, nobody will particularly care. Maybe they’ll support him there and give him more business. If so, that’s their right, in my view. None of it is the government’s business, in my view.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/2/2015 @ 6:32 amI think people should be free to hate homosexuals, heterosexuals, whites, and/or blacks, as long as they are not voters or government officials implementing that hatred into policy. But that kind of hatred is not what I teach my kids and I am also free to disapprove of it. If I do, readers are free to claim I am part of a LYNCH MOB!!!!1! or make other silly accusations. (And I am free to ban them, but I don’t ban people for criticizing me.)
Freedom. It allows people to do both good and silly things. The fact that you are free to do the latter does not make it right to do.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/2/2015 @ 6:36 amI’ll shop at this hardware store to support him. MY CHOICE.
TheHat (58d08b) — 7/2/2015 @ 6:43 amTo our benevolent host:
Your comments here are an example of how upside down and backwards just about everyone’s thinking has become on these issues.
Born again Christians consider homosexuality to be a perversion, degeneracy, a sickness. Granting that, why would you seek to “punish” someone who didn’t want perverts and degenerates in his store?
Either you believe in free association or you don’t. Once you start picking and choosing who can be righteously exiled via freedom of association (I’m not sure who really qualifies anymore, but child molesters are still generally reviled the last time I checked) and who can’t be (homosexuals apparently) then it is no longer “free association” but just another set of ever more convoluted regulations.
Mark Johnson (25b4ed) — 7/2/2015 @ 7:11 amWho is punishing him? I’m looking all around and I don’t see a single internet rope for that internet lynching. A person can believe that homosexual conduct is a debased and degraded condition like drunkenness or prostitution, and still believe that what this business is doing is small and mean. Lacking in those other aspects of humanity such as charity, kindness and compassion. And say so. This guy put the sign up so he can be talked about, looking forward to being “persecuted” the brave and holy Martyr, and we are talking about him.
nk (dbc370) — 7/2/2015 @ 7:21 amI think the 4 potential customers of his that are effected by this should be outraged. And they should go to Lowe’s or Menards instead.
JD (bf9ccd) — 7/2/2015 @ 7:30 amI believe in free association. I also don’t understand what you are talking about.
This guy can associate with whomever he pleases. I can choose not to associate with him (which would not happen anyway, since he lives across the country in a small town) and encourage others not to (which will likely have zero effect). Who is picking and choosing? What are you even talking about?
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/2/2015 @ 7:35 amHere. I don’t carry a gun but I don’t go into businesses that have No Guns signs anyway. I am on the side of people whose individual judgment tells them to carry a gun. Am I punishing the businesses?
nk (dbc370) — 7/2/2015 @ 7:36 ammy inference would be that the craziness of the era and especially those on the Left is leaving many on the Right disoriented and defensive.
Hard to say what exactly is triggering such reactions in people, certainly those who aren’t of the left and not homosexual themselves. So do they have family members or close friends who are gay or GLBT? Is is born out of a tolerance for certain behaviors based on their own experiences or inklings? Or is it most likely due to decades of constant feedback about how everyone needs to be nice, nice, nice, good-hearted, loving and sophisticated, a part of the cool, hip crowd.
I don’t know if this will end well.
Mark (a11af2) — 7/2/2015 @ 7:39 amsomeone’s missing the forrest for the trees: it’s a national story because the MFM is prejudiced, and they decide what’s a national story & what isn’t. #HTH
redc1c4 (589173) — 7/2/2015 @ 7:42 amI think people should be free to hate homosexuals, heterosexuals, whites, and/or blacks, as long as they are not voters or government officials implementing that hatred into policy.
Modify that comment to “I think people should be free to hate liberals or leftists” (although admittedly some folks on the right are married to people on the left—so dilemmas do ensue) because that shopkeeper, who perhaps is too ideologically untethered to understand the nuances, is more upset about the politics shaping America in 2015 than necessarily customer A, B or C.
Mark (a11af2) — 7/2/2015 @ 7:45 amP,
Are you saying bigots shouldn’t vote? If so, that bothers me because it’s depriving them of the vote based on their beliefs.
DRJ (1dff03) — 7/2/2015 @ 8:06 amI bet this is the first time anyone cared about this guy’s opinions.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/2/2015 @ 8:44 amI believe in free association. The problem is though, that there is often no such thing even without government butting in. Some places and times have socially-enforced discrimination: the Jim Crow South; Hollywood 1950 & Communists; Hollywood today & Republicans. Sometime government comes in on the side of the bigots, like it did under Jim Crow.
The bottom line, though, is that we have laws that attempt to force people to like other people. You can, and maybe should, use government to enforce civility but you cannot regulate personal likes or association. If we go down that path we’ll end up with dating quotas.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/2/2015 @ 8:51 amHow about Bill De Blasio wanting NYC to terminate all contracts with Trump because he says impolitic things? How is that different than this hardware store owner? (Other than Trump having more lawyers than God.)
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/2/2015 @ 8:53 amsome punk who no one has heard of, yet, crickets, with one of the most prominent gay rights activists,
http://therightscoop.com/star-treks-george-takei-goes-on-racist-rant-calls-clarence-thomas-a-clown-in-
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/2/2015 @ 9:48 amblackface/
I know this is going to stun you, but if he’s a Baptist minister he’s supposed to have certain beliefs. Among them the belief that homosexuality is an enormous sin, and that SSM is an abomination in the eyes of God.
But that never prompted him to put up a “no gays allowed” sign. What prompted that action was later clarified by the second sign. It was this disastrous SCOTUS decision which poses a threat to:
1. The free exercise of religion.
2. Freedom of speech.
And he rightly recognizes the gay marriage ruling as a threat to both. So did every dissenter on the court. So did Kennedy writing for the majority. His weak assurances that religious people or anyone else who opposes gay marriage have nothing to worry about, i.e they can still “advocate,” had the opposite effect. Because, as Justice Thomas in particular noted, the 1st Amendment guarantee regarding religion doesn’t mention mere advocacy.
Anybody who insists on exercising their 1st Amendment rights to live their religion in their daily life and to speak against the sin of homosexuality (and as a Baptist minister he must, along with speaking against other sins) will be called a bigot.
As we’ve seen in other countries, people will be punished for quoting the Bible. The 1st Amendment will prove to be no barrier in this country. Not now, now that the SCOTUS is in the business of inventing unenumerated rights in order to trump and cancel out enumerated rights.
We now have the Soviet constitution, not the American one.
Chaplains in the military are already being censured and reprimanded for quoting scripture. It won’t be long before that’s the case outside the military.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/2/2015 @ 10:21 amAnd there are some who think the First Amendment shouldn’t/doesn’t protect such speech in public, that freedom of religion is limited to your period of organized worship.
Rushbo just quoted some poll or such claiming that 25% of people under 40 think that churches should be made to do SSM.
MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b) — 7/2/2015 @ 10:28 amGeorge Takei calls a Supreme Court Justice a clown. LOL
nk (dbc370) — 7/2/2015 @ 10:28 am…a clown in blackface, nk.
#WaitingForOutrage
Dana (86e864) — 7/2/2015 @ 10:44 amI remember in the past that Takai was quoted saying some things that were fairly moderate,
MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b) — 7/2/2015 @ 10:53 amI wonder if that was part of the ruse.
the owner’s subsequent statement made more sense, they are letting their freak flag fly,
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:01 amSo many actor jokes, so little time, Dana.
“Entertainers and stars are all the same thing; they’re all on one side of the issue, they only know that Clinton is right, the Democrats are right and no matter how they persecute people or how fraudulent they are, they’re always right. There’s a sick need in actors to prove to themselves that they’re great compassionate people, that they’re great humanitarians because they feel guilty. They’re getting paid for nothing, they get paid billions of dollars for nothing, they know they don’t deserve it, so, because most of them got no talent, they got no brains, they got nothing. They’re basically morons!” — Jackie Mason
nk (dbc370) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:06 amExcept Bugs Bunny. I cannot think of an actor I respect and admire more than Bugs Bunny.
nk (dbc370) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:08 amWhich was the case in the Soviet Union. Of course, there were more restrictions on religion and speech under that constitution. For instance, parents couldn’t take any child under 18 to church. Children belonged to the state, and parents could only raise children as long as they acted as agents of the state.
But we’re moving in that direction as well.
There are people who think a religious education or home schooling should be outlawed as child abuse. Do not for a moment delude yourself into thinking these ideas are only bouncing around in academia. Michael Oren was a visiting professor at at Georgetown before becoming Israel’s ambassador to the US during Obama’s first term.
It was at Georgetown where he first heard the theory that the US had backed the wrong horse in the ME. Instead of allying with Israel and the Saudis they should have sided with Iran. He thought then and thinks now the idea is insane (he’s right). But now the Obama administration has built its entire ME policy around that insane theory.
Similarly, Obama recently echoed Swift et al when he lectured a group of Baptists and Catholics that by sending their children to private schools they were removing them from the “commons,” i.e. public schools. And by providing their children with a higher quality education they were depriving children in public schools of future economic opportunity. They were promoting economic inequality, and that of course is bad.
Also, Obama said private/home schooling can lead to anti-government inclinations. Children must be properly indoctrinated to love government, apparently.
At about the same time his education secretary Arne Duncan was floating the idea of public (government) boarding schools for the same reason. Economic inequality. He didn’t mention the pro-government indoctrination. But then, did he have to?
The pro-government indoctrination is working.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:09 amWhen companies like Macy’s and Univision cancel doing business with guys like Trump, when TV shows cancel showing a car from the 70’s because it sports the rebel flag, and when people like the Clintons! who never built a thing in their lives become worth 100’s of millions this country is sunk. The left has taken academia, entertainment then the media. Now it’s corrupted business with a idea they should sell out to the current fad rather than just do business. At the same time our churches are under attack, private citizens can’t decide for themselves with whom to do business, or even talk to without being a racist or homophobe and this one little guy in Tenn. has leftists going batsh!t crazy.
They’re having a big “gay-in” in Philly this weekend. At the same time they’re doing mass flag burnings in Washington and New York. If this country isn’t being set-up for takeover I really am a black woman in a white mans body. The left is making their putsch and it should gel around November 2016. Syzygy.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:12 amIn a country of over 300 million, zeroing in on one actor’s ugly statement about a SC Justice, one movie actor’s attempt to censor his family’s slave ownership, one business’s decision to take a social or religious stance (you pick – Macy’s or the hardware store or the bakery), one pr driven family’s quest for attention and money (the Kardashian-Jenners), one guy getting fired for contributing to a cause, or isolated flag burnings (anybody remember the ’60’s?) as proof of the coming apocalypse is focusing on the squirrels of both the left and right.
What’s sinking us is the government takeover of healthcare, the impossible public debt, the inept/traitorous foreign policy of the current administration, the EPA’s war on business and farmers, the union takeover of the public school system, the pussification of college campuses, the unlimited pouring in of immigrants both with temporary visas and without documentation, and the courts’ increasing tendency to view the Constitution as merely a “suggestion”. These are the things that need our personal attention in local involvement and at the ballot box.
elissa (b17622) — 7/2/2015 @ 12:15 pmI agree, elissa. I was just ranting on some of my perceived symptoms of the problems you noted. It’s just that everything from the top to the bottom in this Formerly Great Country is rotting. Fundamental transformation, indeed.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/2/2015 @ 12:20 pmEverything is wrong, elissa, call it malfeasance or treason, no one is allowed to stand up for any institution, as they are being burned down to the ground, we’s about 20 minutes behind greece, but love wins, or something,
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/2/2015 @ 12:27 pmthis is in part, why the Toupee gets a hearing, no matter how boorish he acts,
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/2/2015 @ 12:28 pmHoagie, thanks for the reply. But my, uh, reverse rant was certainly not aimed at or directed specifically to you. I hope you knew that, but I want to make it clear.
elissa (b17622) — 7/2/2015 @ 12:29 pmWhat’s sinking us, elissa, is that we are not only getting the Soviet constitution, but the Soviet government of the Brezhnev era.
Complete with its anti-Americanism.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/2/2015 @ 12:40 pmWhat I’m referring to are these lines from your original post, the first line I think is from Allahpundit and the second and third lines from you:
“If you’re a libertarian who opposes antidiscrimination laws in principle, because you feel market solutions are a better way to punish prejudice than handing the government power to tinker with freedom of association, you’re on his side. If you aren’t, you (probably) aren’t.”
This misunderstands libertarians. I am a libertarian-leaning conservative who opposes antidiscrimination laws on principle, in part because I believe market solutions are a better way to punish prejudice than handing the government power to dictate the terms of citizens’ freedom of association.
But I am most assuredly not on this guy’s side. I’m part of the market that wants to punish him.”
Note Allahpundit’s mention of “freedom of association” and then what I took to be your reference to same.
Mark Johnson (46b570) — 7/2/2015 @ 12:41 pmInteresting. Why do you think prejudice should be punished? I’m very prejudiced against moslem terrorists and communists, fairly prejudiced against socialists and leftists and pretty prejudiced against democrats. Should I be punished? If so by whom exactly?
Is all prejudice bad? Evil? If prejudice should be punished should discrimination also be punished? If I choose Arby’s instead of Sonic, should I be punished? Or would prejudice and discrimination others disagreed with be the only ones punished?
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/2/2015 @ 1:01 pmElissa- I agree with you that those are all major problems.
The problem of problems is that we can’t seem to get any traction on any of them.
People go to the ballot box in CA, they donate money to promote their political opinions/free speech, they win the election but it gets ignored then overruled and the people who contributed to make the ballot box work are then victimized and made an example of like Eich.
With that as the backdrop, many of us feel sympathy for the hardware store owner going overboard with his first reaction. At least it took him only one day to think more clearly and voice his frustration in a less offensive way instead of doubling down.
I believe the usual method of influencing people by conservatives is to appeal to reason. That no longer works en masse for a variety of reasons. The left argues on emotion, personal attack, and dishonesty (not that “conservatives” seem impressive in that category anymore).
Those things work for the left, they appeal to the basest nature in us.
When the L goes after an individual for saying something less than Takei did, it works. The old and new media portrays society as outraged, the person loses their job and is blacklisted, and the example is set for the next person who dares to consider saying something that isn’t popular. Conservatives get pulled into doing the same thing, but it doesn’t work for “us” for a number of reasons.
Their should have already been ample showing of public support for the repubs to do something serious about the border, but as far as I can tell they haven’t. that seems like it should be an easy one, nearly everyone understands the concept of walls and a door to know who you’re letting into your home, even if you let everyone in who knocks.
the message of the OT prophet(s) was that people preferred lies to truth, that they listened to whoever said “peace, peace, when there is no peace”. the nation either repented (including Nineveh) or they suffered judgment. I am in no way drawing any kind of theological similarity between Israel (esp. in the OT) and the US, but it is the way God deals with nations- whether one believes in God or not.
How many of us think Obama could get away with somehow orchestrating a 3rd term? he’s gotten away with pretty much everything else, who would stand in his way?
I’m not saying to give up, though it may sound that way, but I am saying brace yourself for things to get worse unless there is a literal and deeply profound “Come to Jesus” moment.
I think I’ve said before that a person may suffer a fatal injury, but it is not apparent for awhile. Perhaps we have already.
I’m not claiming for sure that the end is nigh, just observing that is the direction the wind is blowing.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/2/2015 @ 1:09 pmIf my local hardware store guy put up such a sign I’d look for a millisecond at how far it is to town, how far it is to Home Depot and then go in and buy my stuff there and *bleep* off to anyone that wants me to go out of my way because some guy with the part I need now put up a dumb sign.
Plus my local guy would be someone I’ve known since kindergarden, so maybe I wouldn’t even get beyond a musing “huh. now there’s a sign that’ll get attention”.
If a bunch of outsiders showed up to picket and cause trouble, I’d probably go buy something just to be stubborn. Kinda like when the LaRoushies roll in with the Obama with Hitler mustache show up at the little post office… whatever drives them into insanity is my guilty pleasure.
I’d guess most, if not all, of my gay friends would cross a picket line.
steveg (fed1c9) — 7/2/2015 @ 8:21 pmWe all need to be free to be stupid and no one is immune to it.
So we give grace to others whether they deserve it or not, and most well adjusted people who are gay understand that better than straight people
If this country isn’t being set-up for takeover I really am a black woman in a white mans body. The left is making their putsch and it should gel around November 2016.
What really sickens me about various liberals — the ones who are somewhat talented and upwardly mobile — is they have the ability to vote with their feet and moving van. So when the form of politics and politicians they embrace create rot throughout a community or society, and when things become too dysfunctional even for a permissive liberal, they’ll pack their bags and move to new territory, triggering the cycle of Detroit-itis or Euro-sclerosis to start up all over again in their new adopted home.
Mark (a11af2) — 7/2/2015 @ 8:43 pmhence the old “don’t californicate” signs that used to be at the Oregon border… then they sprouted in Idaho… now I hear Alaska is the last frontier
steveg (fed1c9) — 7/2/2015 @ 9:04 pmWhat government action? I don’t understand how you could associate that episode with any sort of oppressive government action. It was all about the mob howling for their blood, and the backlash from those who didn’t like to see that happen.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/2/2015 @ 10:47 pmThe main difference is that it’s not de Blasio who has those contracts, it’s the city, and he owes the city his honest services; he is supposed to administer the city’s finances in whatever way is best for it, not to pursue his private political preferences. If a contract was in the city’s interest last week then it remains in the city’s interest this week, and for de Blasio to cancel it (even if legally possible) because he doesn’t like what Trump said is malfeasance. It’s no different than his canceling a city contract because the other party took his parking spot, or said something mean about Chirlaine.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/2/2015 @ 10:58 pmNow you’re being ridiculous. The state of the first amendment has never been stronger than it is now, under this court.
Not really true. They’re being disciplined only if they try to push their particular religion on soldiers who are not interested in it. And so they should be, because that is a blatant misuse of their authority as officers. When a chaplain speaks, a soldier is not free to turn his back or leave; he has to listen politely. And chaplains are supposed to take care of all soldiers, not just those who happen to subscribe to their religion.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:03 pmThere are some who think all sorts of nonsense, but there are no lawyers or judges who think that. The free exercise clause isn’t even relevant; it’s the free speech clause that covers this, and that has the full backing of the courts.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:05 pmAs of 12:00:01 on 20-Jan-2017, the armed forces and secret service will no longer take his orders.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:10 pmBill de Blasio best exemplifies the two-faced and overly simplistic ruminations of the left when it comes to human sexuality and marriage — when the line of “it’s not a matter of choice!” is hauled out, and “gays are analogous to blacks!” is proclaimed — because his wife is a self-described lesbian who nonetheless went the traditional route, got married to de Blasio, and had 2 children with him (presumably the old-fashioned way).
Mark (a11af2) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:27 pmNot true. They can turn their back and leave. Chaplains are just not in your chain of command. You don’t need to listen to a word they have to say unless you want to.
True. Which is why the relationship is voluntary. See the above.
But never before has the service required them to disavow their religion to do so.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:43 pmWhen politicians take positions like “I oppose X in principle, personally, BUT” it generally indicates impending hypocrisy, a desire to please both sides, to have it both ways.
You want to say the man has, or should have, the right to do as he wishes with his own business, BUT you want to “punish” him for exercising that right.
The degree of nuance perception needed to be a “libertarian-leaning conservative” (which, if it means anything other than “a conservative who has capitulated on social issues,” is a virtual carte blanche for anything) must require the medical grade of marijuana.
Estragon (ada867) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:45 pmEstragon, it must be the meth that’s making you see things either as “one” or “many”. Amphetamines do that. You, Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and a strap-on, have the First Amendment right to film an 86-minute XXX feature film. Am I punishing you by not watching it?
nk (dbc370) — 7/3/2015 @ 5:15 amMilhouse (a04cc3) — 7/2/2015 @ 11:05 pm
I believe we have had respected lawyers claim that here on this site.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/3/2015 @ 5:18 amMD, I don’t recall any doing so.
Steve, the service is not requiring chaplains to disavow their religion, it’s merely requiring them to refrain from pressing it, when acting in their official capacity, on soldiers who have not asked them to do so.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/3/2015 @ 8:30 amSteve@82
The instances I know of do not involve chaplains, but instead officers and senior NCOs whose intent was to evangelize soldiers who were under them in the chain of command. The most systemic of these occurring at the Air Force Academy. Other more random were in the Army. You will be pleased to note that I know of none in the Navy and Marines, who would seem to have a better grasp of these particular rules of engagement.
But never before has the service required them to disavow their religion to do so.
kishnevi (294553) — 7/3/2015 @ 9:02 amIf I heard of such an instance, I can’t remember it now. Can you give details?
No, that’s not what I meant, although I see the way I put it was potentially ambiguous. I said: “I think people should be free to hate homosexuals, heterosexuals, whites, and/or blacks, as long as they are not voters or government officials implementing that hatred into policy.” I meant for the phrase “implementing that hatred into policy” to modify both “voters” and “government officials.” In other words, voters are free to hate whomever, but should not be free to implement their hatred into a government policy reflecting that hatred. I have in mind initiatives, for example.
This is clear for race due to the 14th Amendment. Limitations on voters’ ability to put in place a government policy based on “hatred” of a sexual orientation may not be as clear-cut (although the Supreme Court has long said it is). I’m still not comfortable with such laws (hypothetical laws, I hasten to add, since I know of no such laws offhand), whether the freedom to do pass them is clear-cut or not. In other words, a principled religious objection to gay marriage is one thing, while government policy burdening a sexual orientation for the sake of burdening a sexual orientation is another. I would consider such a government policy illegitimate.
I don’t believe refusing to make a sexual orientation a “protected class” is a burden, by the way, contra the Supreme Court decision in Romer v. Evans.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/3/2015 @ 12:56 pmI think you’re right; I was conflating that with the bakers fined for failing to cater gay weddings.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/3/2015 @ 12:59 pmI meant a “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.” The standard dictionary definition.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/3/2015 @ 1:01 pmSorry, Patterico. I was using the standard Rev. Hoagie’s gut definition.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/3/2015 @ 1:04 pmI don’t think this businessman has any legitimate biblical grounds for refusing to allow gays to patronize his business. This is more political than religious IMO, and is not equatable to, for example, being a photographer at a same sex wedding.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 7/3/2015 @ 2:24 pm