I hope she's set up a legal defense fund, for she is going to need it. Her range is open to the public. Banning people for religious reasons is as pernicious (and as illegal) as putting up a "No Irish" sign.
My FOB ancestors, some of whom I knew before they passed, were mainly anti-Catholic. They were that way because, back in the Old Country, the local peasantry would, from time to time, get liquored up and go an a pogrom. Pogroms were when the good G-d-fearing Christians would engage in acts of rape, pillaging, arson and murder against the local Jewish population. When I was a child, one of my great-aunts advised me: "When it's time for you to marry, better you bring home a Schvartzer than a Catholic."
Clearly, they considered Catholicism, if not Christianity itself, as a religion that held acts of violence as part of its tenents. So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that they opened up a business that served the public. Would they have been entitled to put a sign on the door that said "No Catholics"?
Next step: A number of my extended ancestral family didn't come over. A few went back to the Old Country. As far as anyone knows, they all perished in the Holocaust. Does that entitle me to put a sign on my office door saying "No Krauts Allowed"?
Or, let's go back to the Catholics. Say that you're from Northern Ireland, that most of your family was killed in an IRA bombing and that you came over here to escape the Troubles. Would you have a right to put up a sign saying "We Do Not Serve Catholics" in your coffee bar?
Clearly, the answer to all those hypothetical questions is "no". If you operate a business that is open to the public, you can't discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, religion or gender. Men, women, Hebes, Micks, Mackerel-Snappers, Krauts, doesn't matter. Their money is as good as that of Lester Maddox and the law requires that you treat any of those folks as you would a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy.
And if you don't want to do that, then this is what you do: Find another line of work.
Odd thing is that some people who are so eager to defend their rights are, in the same breath, more than willing to proclaim why other people should be denied their rights. Because bigots always can come up with rationalizations.
8 comments:
Is she expecting them to self-identify, or just be run off by the fact that they aren't wanted there? They don't all look the same, you know.
-Doug in Oakland
One of the most frustrating things about religious objections to things or people is how inconsistent they are. Take, for example, the frequently-encountered problem of a cake shop refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or a resort refusing to accommodate the wedding service for that couple, on the grounds that their sexual orientation is against the religious convictions of the business owner/manager/whatever.
OK.
Is that owner/manager/whatever also refusing to serve anyone who's in violation of any of the myriad moral restrictions imposed on those of his/her faith? The Ten Commandments are a good start. For example, has the customer failed to honor his/her father and/or mother? Then he/she is as guilty of a moral transgression as a gay couple - and, according to the logic of such things, should be just as ineligible for service as the latter.
Trouble is, people don't take their analysis to its logical conclusion . . .
I quote you "...public gun RAGE..."
Hilarious typo, Mrs. Malaprop ;-)
Fixed that one!
Did you notice how the author was trying to make the point that she hurts the public's perception of gun owners, and then most of the commenters on his article made it even worse!
I agree with Caleb, but I wanted to go off on a different tack.
Of course there was the gunshop owner in Snowflake, AZ who wanted to ban anyone that voted for Mr Obama.
http://idlehandsdept.blogspot.com/2012/11/and-dont-bring-yur-stinkin-business.html
Now I have to look up "Hebes" and "Mackerel-Snappers".
Post a Comment