I’m in DC this week taking in the sights.
Got me to thinking about things like Liberty and Freedom.
Some time ago the left was aflutter over the bill passed in Arizona allowing businesses to deny service based on religious freedoms.
Ridiculous, of course. Everyone who believes in people being free support people businesses denying service to anyone for any reason.
But not the left – THEY have cornered the market on tolerance. See:
Silversun Pickups have demanded that the Romney campaign stop using the band’s song “Panic Switch” at political rallies. It is the latest pop group to object to the use of a song at Republican events.
The band sent a formal cease-and-desist letter to the campaign on Wednesday, saying the Republican presidential candidate never sought permission to play the song. “We don’t like people going behind our backs, using our music without asking, and we don’t like the Romney campaign,” the lead singer, Brian Aubert, said in a statement.
And going a little further back:
Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign also came under fire for using music from artists who did not support it.
In 2008, the band Heart asked the campaign to stop playing its song “Barracuda” in honor of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s nickname on her high school basketball team, “Sarah Barracuda.”
The band even went on national television to express its outrage.
“Sarah Palin’s views and values in no way represent us as American women,” Ann and Nancy Wilson told Entertainment Weekly. “We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image.”
McCain also settled out of court with Jackson Browne for using his 1977 hit “Running on Empty” in a campaign ad without the artist’s permission.
Foo Fighters, John Mellencamp and Boston asked McCain and other candidates to stop using their music.
And Tom Petty didn’t find Michele Bachmann his type of “American Girl.” The rocker’s manager asked the Bachmann campaign to stop using his 1977 hit “American Girl” after it was played during the kickoff event for the Minnesota representative’s presidential bid.
See, it’s okay to deny service as long as it’s properly liberal.
Uh, no. It’s wrong to deny service based on race. Property rights are protected when people want to use them in a campaign. Businesses do not have the right to deny service due to race, sexual orientation, gender or other protected factors. In Nazi Germany that would be fine, but not in the US!
Uh, no. It’s wrong to deny service based on race. Property rights are protected when people want to use them in a campaign.
Wrong isn’t the right word here.
YES it;s wrong to deny service based on race, but it shouldn’t be illegal. YES it’s wrong to deny service based on sexual preference, but it shouldn’t be illegal. YES it’s wrong to deny service based on political leaning, but it shouldn’t be illegal.
For the record, the United States Government should not be allowed to deny service to citizens, but individual people/businesses absolutely have the legal right to do so.
Businesses do not have the right to deny service due to race, sexual orientation, gender or other protected factors.
But they have the right to deny service based on thought?
In Nazi Germany that would be fine, but not in the US!
You lose! You referenced Nazi Germany.
“Ridiculous, of course. Everyone who believes in people being free support people businesses denying service to anyone for any reason.”
I often agree with a good portion of your writing, but I find you way off base on this one. I’m with Scott–Implementing a “no gays” policy is no different than the “no coloreds” policy of last century. While I support freedom, there are reasons that business should not be able to deny service. If that makes me an intolerant liberal, than I will gladly wear that label. (Although, from my perspective, there isn’t much difference between the parties or the poles. Extremist nutjobs on both sides.)
I’m with Scott–Implementing a “no gays” policy is no different than the “no coloreds” policy of last century. While I support freedom, there are reasons that business should not be able to deny service.
Individuals and businesses should absolutely be able to discriminate on who they serve. It is almost surely ugly – but it is certainly their right to enter into contract with whomever they please. You wouldn’t suggest, for example, that we legislate who we date?
But that’s not the point of the post.
If musicians are able to deny service based on thought we can’t bakers ALSO discriminate on thought?
Why does Heart, Jackson Brown and Tom Petty get to be a bigot but not the baker?
Is it right to be fired for your political leanings? Yes it is. Ask Brenden Eich. Is it right to have your private donations made public? Yes it is. Ask Mr. Eich.