Tag: Business Right to Discriminate

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Should be Eating at The Little Red Hen

By Kaihua Zhou | United States

Is it reasonable to serve someone on the basis on their political affiliation?  Stephanie Wilkinson, a Virginia restaurant owner, argues that it is. Wilkinson’s decision to refuse to serve White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders remains controversial. While her motives may have been noble, her choice demonstrates considerable moral confusion.

Wilkinson informed Sanders that “the restaurant has certain standards … such as honesty, cooperation, and compassion.”  In her eyes, Sanders had violated those standards through her involvement in the Trump administration.  Wilkinson’s line of reasoning appears valid. If you feel a public official is corrupt, you have every right to challenge them. Ana Navarro, a CNN commentator, argues that Wilkinson’s choice was courageous. According to her, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is “an accomplice to this cruel, deceitful administration.”  Thus, there is no distinction in her mind between Sanders’ moral qualities her political actions.

Approaching a government official and tacitly accusing them of dishonesty and brutality is hardly unique. What is unique in Wilkinson’s case is that her challenge came through denying her restaurant’s service. In her view, serving Sanders would make her an accomplice as well. Consequently, to her, refusing service is an act of personal integrity, showing her commitment to compassion and cooperation. The principle is generally sound.

The moral confusion, however, lies in the application. If we accept the argument that Sanders is  an accomplice to brutality, who else is? How would Wilkinson recognize them? 45 percent of Virginians voted for President Trump. Are they complicit in the administration’s alleged brutality? While they did not deliver Virginia’s electoral votes for Trump, it was through their ( and similarly like-minded individuals) efforts that Trump gained office. Should Wilkinson refuse to serve them? If so, she must turn away about half of her state’s residents. Perhaps she can determine that they, despite their politics, are moral people. Perhaps they sinned in ignorance.

If Americans did not recognize Trump’s character in 2016, they have a better understanding now. 41.9% of Americans continue to approve of President Trump’s policies. Are they complicit in Trump’s accused inhumanity? Are they in harmony with Wilkinson’s moral standards? If so, she again must kick out about half of her fellow citizens.  Such an outcome would be completely unreasonable.  Should Wilkinson and her fellow workers personally ask each of their customers if they support Trump? If so, they would find that many of their customers do not fit their standards.

Of course, having strong moral standards is a solid principle. Wilkinson’s folly, however, is confusing her moral standards with political standards. Are honesty, compassion, and cooperation measured by politics alone? No.  There are many honest, compassionate conservatives, liberals, independents, and everything else.

Is Wilkinson in a position to judge Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ qualities? Once again, the simple answer is no. While Sanders is a public figure, Wilkinson does not know her.  Instead, she judges her based on her political affiliation.  It is an unreasonable choice.  There are many reasonable ways to challenge public officials for policies. Refusing to serve based on limited knowledge of someone’s character is not one of them.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.


Oregon is Destroying Private Property Rights Through “Bake the Cake” Decisions

By Austin Anderholt | USA

On Thursday, an Oregon Court of Appeals continued to uphold the $135,000 against two religiously motivated bakers who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding couple.

According to NBC News, the government began violating these citizens’ first and thirteenth amendment rights back in January of 2013, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the since-closed Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery just outside Portland, Oregon, cited their religious beliefs when declining to make a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. Following the incident, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the Kleins in violation of a 2007 state law that protects the rights of LGBTQ people in employment, housing, and public accommodations. In 2015, the couple was ordered to pay the Bowman-Cryers emotional distress damages.

You got that right.: emotional distress damages. We are living in a world, where slavery is allowed, and anyone who disagrees with that must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in emotional distress damages.

I’ve stated this many times before, but no one can force you to make anything for someone. These bakers refused to do something with their own private means of production. To force someone to commit a service is slavery, and to do so in violation of that person’s religious values is religious oppression.

The gay couple stated that “It does not matter how you were born or who you love. All of us are equal under the law and should be treated equally. Oregon will not allow a ‘Straight Couples Only’ sign to be hung in bakeries or other stores,”

If this couple personally thinks that a discriminatory business is wrong, they can think that. They can vow never to discriminate. They can refuse to buy a cake from a bakery they deem “hateful”. They can tell all their friends to boycott this aforementioned bakery. However, by no means, may the employees of the state government force people, through legislation, to abide by their personal politically correct ideas.

If you take away anything from this article, remember this: nobody has any right to legislate their personal morals into your life.

Not only is this appeals court ruling based on legislation that is highly unconstitutional, but it is ruling based on legislation that is saying “I personally believe that homophobia is bad, so I’m going to make it illegal for anyone to express a disagreement with me. I am going to make anyone who disagrees pay hundreds of thousands of dollars as punishment for their personal opinion “emotionally distressing” someone. This is outrageous.

In conclusion, I ask you to write your local representative. I ask you to protest in the streets. I ask you educate your friends, family, and peers on the Bill of Rights. Why am I so amped up about this? I amped up because my freedom is it risk in my hometown and home state. My freedom of speech, opinion, religion, and freedom against slavery are all at risk, and this is not okay.

Governmental Regulation: The Antiquated Barrier to Fresh Growth in America – Jesse Stretch

By Jesse Stretch | USA

The trade-off is a perception of public and consumer safety. A label that says you’re safe; a license to guarantee that a person is competent; a logbook proving experience. As a consuming American, the idea is that you’re never going to lose. You’ll never get hurt, swindled, tricked, ripped-off. The food you eat will be clean and wholesome. Your air conditioning man will be licensed and “know what he’s doing” as he crawls through your attic sporting tandem full-sleeve skull tats.

As a farmer, business owner, contractor and product producer, I am licensed and unlicensed in all sorts of fields that many of my customers and friends have never heard of or considered. I know from personal experience that barriers to growth and virtual impossibilities exist in the governmentally-instituted regulatory system that make starting or growing a small, fully compliant business almost impossible for the average working American.

Production and product costs in the agriculture field are up, with much of the rise
attributed directly to the time-intensive process of regulatory compliance. For instance, due to regulation, we must now drive two hours each way to have our cattle processed for customers, because the skilled butcher just down the road has decided that FDA inspection is a pain, and he would rather just process deer and livestock for personal consumption. He has decided that it is easier to turn down business than to comply with the FDA. We local farmers all know he’s a great butcher, but without the Federal Government’s consent, we can’t hire him to process meat for our customers.

In the age of free information transfer, where one person can communicate instantly with an entire nation of peers, the question arises: Do we always need the government to tell us what is safe and what is not? Do we need the government to tell us who to trust now that we have our friends and associates at our fingertips every hour of the day to give us reference?

The first regulatory agency in America was set up in the late 1800s to regulate the railroads. This agency was set up in part because a train could get from Point A to Point B faster than any other communication, meaning that railroad companies had the advantage of far superior information dissemination over the people. With that kind of speed and power, unethical manipulation of commerce was very possible. Thus, the Federal Government stepped in to regulate. Back in the 1800s, this made sense, and it protected small businesses and individuals from a larger manipulative entity.

From there, more than four hundred federal regulatory agencies have sprung up to protect us. They regulate your ability to own a dog, plant a tree, and buy certain foods. As many consumers are aware, purchasing and selling the formerly essential household product raw milk is now illegal in much of the United States. Not only did the federal government tell us that it’s better to pasteurize milk, they told us they’d fine and/or jail us for selling or purchasing its counterpart. There is something wrong with a system that outlaws an elemental, ancient, healthy, local food product. Raw milk is not dangerous.

Most of these regulations were devised years ago because people had no way to
communicate quickly to blow whistles on quality issues. If Farmer Joe sold a bunch of disease-ridden food which was then put on a train to New York City, the situation could escalate for days, weeks, before the word would get out. Hence, Farmer Joe faced regulation to ensure sanitation on the production end— aiding in the prevention disease outbreaks at the controllable single source and not the open multi-consumer end.

These days, however, technology gives consumer groups the ability to instantly report a
quality or service issue. One voice is no longer lost in a crowd, but can often be heard on social media or elsewhere online. Farmer Joe’s bad meat would last a day on the shelf, maybe less, and people would be wary of buying from him again. Society will govern itself in this way. Many federal food safety regulations are rendered almost pointless by this ability to communicate and establish relationships based on trust, free information, and consumer history rather than on an antiquated safeguarding oligarchy.

In all of this, we see the institution of government regulation costing money to producers
and consumers, while not delivering an adequate or necessary return on value for either party.

Over-regulation poses issues for the future of fresh business growth in America, as such
intensive and time-consuming compliance requirements stifle the ability for new ideas to reach fruition. I say fresh growth because that’s just what it is; it’s not a barrier to growth for entities with a net worth north of a few million dollars—they have the funds to hire compliance personnel and pay the fees required to grow under the watchful eye of the regulatory committees. The growth problem exists most for the small business who gets lost under the bureaucracy and can’t find daylight; the little farmer, craftsman, tradesperson—the local girl who wants to sell fresh pastries on her townhouse porch (but is shut down by food safety regulations) or the guy who has a few greenhouses and wants to peddle lettuce greens in a parking lot but can’t because he would need a location with tier three commercial zoning, the highest level of commercial zoning, just to do so.

My business is relatively simple: Farming and Landscaping. In this simplicity, however, one can find the reason why over 20 licenses and/or registration accounts are technically required for such a business to exist. Each license will cost money, take hours to complete, and many will require exams and/or yearly renewals. For a working person, maintaining twenty or more licenses can be virtually impossible—especially if the business is a startup.

There is a really old guy down the road from my farm who used to sit outside his garage
where he’d fashioned a small vegetable stand. They shut him down because of regulatory issues. He was sitting out there under a carport in his lawn chair sleeping half the day, selling tomatoes and melons that he grew in his backyard. They somehow found a way to shut that down because it was deemed a health issue.

Regulation has reached a point where the system no longer creates a safe environment for the consumer but rather projects upon the masses endless doldrums of big box stores and boring commercial multiplicities. Such intensive over-regulation overwhelms the business owner into a state of bewildering semi-compliance. The maze of rules and agencies sequesters growth, mildewing a stagnant climate of anti-creativity in which eligible and worthy business owners are forced to fudge or forego licensing information or credentials, and thereby subvert the institution of regulation itself.

Fresh growth begs simplicity, and simplicity will only come from casual civillydisobedient reformation. If everybody threw their pointless dog license papers away, the dog license would go away. If everybody started selling baked goods on the corner, the agencies would never enough have time to stop them all. I’m not advocating the complete disbanding of regulatory agencies, nor anarchy, but for small business to thrive, something has got to give.

Wouldn’t it be nice to go downtown on Sunday and buy pastries from the girl’s porch
just off Cary Street, eat fresh lettuce from a conscientious farmer, and cut open melons with an 80-year-old man in his carport? I think so.

I, for one, would like to spend less time filing paperwork and fudging truths to
bureaucracy, and more time farming and growing my business under the watchful eye of my peers—not the watchful eye of the federal and state bureaucracies. We don’t need the government to tell us who to trust, we have our friends in commerce for that now. The internet will oust a bad producer in an instant—their operation shall wither and die under the power of online public opinion. In the age of social media and abundant online information, the need for institutional regulation is fading.

To our government: There was a time when we needed your blessing on what farmer or tradesperson to trust. That is true. But this was before we could all get together and communicate instantly online. These days, thanks to the little flickering screens in our palms, we can regulate ourselves, tell our friends who they can trust, and spread our own truths instantly.

We don’t need an inspector to tell us that we can or can’t eat an old man’s produce—but
thanks anyway.

Your Business, Not Your Choice

By Addie Mae Villas | USA

The Supreme Court is currently taking on the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, where Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, is arguing that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the first amendment and the free exercise clauses. The issue with the ruling of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is not in the fact that they truly are violating the freedom of religion, but the fact that the business ought to have the right to discriminate. Many jump to the conclusion that by supporting business’ right to run their companies as they wish immediately means that you are a bigot or racist. But, by supporting a business’ right to choose, you are supporting the true values of the free market and freedom. This case can be boiled down to two main things to consider, the first amendment rights of Jack Phillips and his business, and a business’ right to discriminate.

Let’s first look at the first amendment side of this issue. This case started in 2012, two years before gay marriage was even legal in the state of Colorado when David Mullins and Charlie Craig went into Masterpiece Cakeshop wanting a wedding cake. Phillips denied their request to make the cake for their ceremony, on the basis of religious convictions, but stated that he would be more than happy to provide goods for any other occasion. Many are racing to make this issue into one of gay rights, but by requiring a business to provide a service that has a moral obligation against in not moral in any shape or form. Phillips said that “I’m being forced to use my creativity, my talents and my art for an event — a significant religious event — that violates my religious faith.” In this case, we are satisfying the wants of one side, but sacrificing the values of another. Diving deeper into this problem, we can look to the violation of the Free Exercise Clause that states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” meaning that the government can not make a law that requires one to follow a religion, religious ritual, as well as protecting one’s religious beliefs and actions of those beliefs. So, when Colorado implemented statute § 24-34-601, they violated the Free Exercise Clause by requiring a business to serve to anyone regardless of moral obligations. Although this statute doesn’t directly violate the clause, by requiring companies to sell to a group that does not believe in is going against our values of freedom. By forcing these companies we are also harming our free market values, which leads to the next side of this issue.

The right to discriminate is tough to protect, but it is just as vital as all our other rights. When a company chooses to not do affairs with a group of people, it should be their choice and their choice alone. When a company makes the choice to discriminate, it is at their own risk. The denial of the right of discrimination can be traced back to the Civil Rights Acts. Rand Paul has been an avid proponent of the right to discriminate but has been under fire many times because of this. Senator Paul stated that he would have voted for nine out of the ten titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but would have opposed the title relating to how private business can discriminate on the terms of race. This title restricted the freedom of companies by stating that they can not deny service based off of race, color, religion, or national origin. Although this is something that almost all agree on, it still should be left to the individual to decide who they will sell to. The beauty of the free market is that it is consumer based, and relies on serving the public and providing them with goods. This simply means that if a company decides to discriminate, they will miss out on a group of consumers, but also will receive the backlash that comes with discrimination. If we want to stand for the liberties of the individual, we must stand by the fact that business shall run the way that they want, even when it may be hateful or derogatory.

When standing with the freedoms of the company, it does not mean standing for their principles. By supporting the right to discriminate we must understand that we are not standing for racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. but rather supporting liberty. What it all comes down to is if you don’t agree with a companies’ principles, don’t do business with them, and let them suffer because of it. It’s as easy as that.

OPINION: Yes, Businesses Should Be Allowed to Discriminate

By Austin Anderholt | USA

In 1964, the civil rights act was enacted. As public brainwashing has taught you, the Southern United States was full of evil racists who wouldn’t serve black people, until Title II of the civil rights act made it illegal for businesses to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. One might hold the notion that “We need the government to force people to serve each other or else everything will be racist!” This, however, is entirely false.

In dealing with this matter we must remember that America did not go from a nation of free-market racists to a nation of forced egalitarians. Southern America went from a nation that was forced by Jim Crow laws to segregate, to a nation that was forced to serve everyone equally. Although you may have been taught that the United States went from oppression to freedom, it went from oppression to oppression.

In a truly free market, society would thrive off of catering toward popular opinion without the government enslaving businesses into forced labor. Let’s say that 95% of today’s population is opposed to segregation. If one opened a nonsegregated restaurant, he would have customer potential of 95% more than a segregated restaurant owner, and business would, therefore, be much better while desegregated. A strong rebuttal to this argument may be “But what if a few businesses are getting a ton of businesses from 5% of the population? As an exaggerated example, what if 5% of the world went to ONLY someone’s segregated restaurant, and restaurants like it? Business would be booming, and we would still have segregation!” To this, I have two responses:

How many of you would knowingly befriend a proud racist? Personally, I hate racism and would never do that. And if you’re like a majority of Americans, you wouldn’t either. I’m sure that many groups would get people to boycott these restaurants if they disagree with it so strongly. Again, the restaurant would economically probably fail anyway.
Let’s say that segregationists don’t care about boycotts. Let’s say they don’t care about the hatred towards them eating at our theoretical segregationist restaurant. Imagine that ONE segregationist restaurant received enough customers to survive and make business. Then, I ask you, why should the government force this business to operate against the way it wishes to operate, and against the way that its customers want it to operate. The government is forcing businesses to serve certain individuals against the business’s consent That’s slavery. The government can’t punish a man for choosing whom he serves. If s segregationist restaurant ever reopened in America, you better bet your boots that I’ll be here writing an article about how disgusting I personally find it. But no matter how disgusting I believe it is, the rights of the people come before my own opinions. People have a right to live how they like, and businesses have a right not to be enslaved.
When a government is forcing businesses to serve all individuals, they are not only enslaving their people but forcing their own opinions and morals down citizens’ throats. Picture this: A Nazi walks into a Jewish bakery, and asks for him to make a cake that has a huge, anti-Semitic swastika on it. How would a leftist respond to this?

That’s an exception to the ‘Serve Everyone’ law! A Jewish baker shouldn’t be forced by the governments to serve Nazis!

I agree, they shouldn’t be forced to serve Nazis, but when does it end? Why does the government get to have personal beliefs over which opinions are “Evil Hate Speech” and which opinions they can force people to serve? The government does NOT get to have personal morals and opinions that are superior to the rights of the individual!

In conclusion, the government has no right to force their personal opinion on the individual. The free market would eradicate most racism, and the racism that is left would be the freedom of the minority. The free market wasn’t racist, but the government was. Freedom and individualism is the only way for everyone to be happy.