E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Saturday, March 1, 2014

The freedom not to associate

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Freedom of association necessarily includes the freedom not to associate.

That is not Jim Crow, so please stop making this nonfactual comparison. Government-mandated segregation and discrimination is and should be illegal.

But a private business owner should not be forced to serve anyone he does not want to serve, for any reason or no reason at all.

For crying out loud, read Facebook's Terms of Service Agreement. If you post certain things, you can have your account deleted. That means Facebook refuses to serve you, and they are well within their legal rights to do that.

Most stores have a sign that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service." That's discrimination. It is also their legal right.

If you believe in freedom of choice, that means you need to allow for choices you don't personally like. Even if you believe it is "discrimination."

Otherwise, you don't believe in freedom of choice.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.


At March 2, 2014 at 6:41 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

Your comparison of excluding gays from any public accommodation based on "faith" with banning shirtless, shoeless patrons from a restaurant is both disingenuous and frankly bizarre. The same "religious Right" bigots who hate gays frequently also hate nonwhites and members of "false" religions--such as Catholics, Mormons, and Jews. In fact, based on your skewed vision, "faith" can justify excluding anyone from anyplace and anything. Once again, in the name of common decency to simply admit your bigotry and stop pretending it's something Jesus would do or approve.

At March 9, 2014 at 3:14 PM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

In fact, based on your skewed vision, "faith" can justify excluding anyone from anyplace and anything

Exactly. Let anyone do business or not do business as they choose, without government forcing the market either toward discrimination or mandatory acceptance.