a reply to: cuckooold
Here's my take on this whole issue (and, admittedly, I'm not looking into this particular instance, but have seen a few similar discussions):
I'm a massive advocate of private businesses being able to hire or work with whomever they choose. The reason behind it is irrelevant in my
See, while individuals have the ability to create a business in whatever sector of the economy and for whatever reason, it should stand to reason that
they should be able to run this business however they see fit without massive government intrusion into their business practices. Yes, I fully
comprehend that there are extreme cases of employee abuse or customer fraud, and for issues like that, I fully agree that there should be some sort of
oversight. Where I draw the line is that the government has the right to tell any privately-owned business--especially if they're not receiving
government assistance--who they must serve as a customer.
Take for instance that Oregon bakery
that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. I feel they have the right to do that, but if they do, they must suffer the consequences of such a
business decision. And suffer they apparently did, as they closed down the storefront and moved to baking from their home supposedly due to threats
and harrassment (both things, btw, are illegal to do).
Now, do not misconstrue my support for private businesses being able to choose who they do and do not serve as me being anti-gay, or racist, or
bigotted, or whatever. While I agree with their right to do so, I disagree with the Oregon couples' point of view on religion and homosexuality. But
here's the kicker--that lesbian couple could have gone to any number of places to get a cake made--it's not their right to expect every business in
America to cater to their needs.
It's much like a radio commercial I hear nearly everyday for an investment firm--they only deal with people who have more than $100,000 to invest at
once. Now, should they be threatened and harrassed by those of us who are not as financially secure as to have $100k to invest? Are they being fiscal
bigots to the lower and middle classes? No, they're simply exercising their right to only deal with high-dollar customers.
It's a similar situation, yet since the bakers touched on a sensitive PC topic, they get lambasted with hatred while this investment firm is left to
peacefully do business with only people who I would categorize as being rich.
It could simply come down to my libertarian-minded view that the government does not have this right to dictate to private companies what they can and
can't do. While I disagree with the choice to be discriminatory, I smile to know that when businesses act like this, they often get their just reward
in the end, as the Oregon bakery did. I think that society will reward those with open minds and hearts, and reject those without.
This long-winded comment is to say that I agree that the freedom to run a business as the owner sees fit should be protected by government--let the
locals sort it out when businesses act this way.