By the author of Be Ready for Anything and the online course Bloom Where You’re Planted
Every single action taken is a precursor to a future action. That’s something that not enough people understand. All of these things that sound like such good ideas when they happen to the “enemy,” whoever that might be? They seem a whole lot less like good ideas when they happen to you. Many Americans are getting exactly the country they asked for and they don’t like it at all.
The astounding levels of cognitive dissonance make it impossible for some people to see that they themselves were the ones who set the precedents for things happening today. If you give the government – any government, not just ours – an inch, they will take a mile, and I guarantee some of that mile will be to your own detriment.
A bunch of people will read my headline and be too mad to read the article. They’ll retort angrily, “I didn’t ask for it.”
Maybe not. Maybe you are as pure an anarchist as ever there was. But just about everyone has had some feelings about things that should apply to one group but not others. It’s arrogant, and it’s true.
Let’s examine some events that are causing uproars and then look back to when it seemed like a good idea.
The Border Control is really taking the whole “control” thing seriously.
Here’s another place where folks were cheering until it happened to them. The scene at the US-Mexico border has been a tense one recently as the Trump administration cracks down on illegal aliens entering the United States. While some people strenuously object, many others have rejoiced over these policies.
Except when the policies extend a bit further within the US. Did you know that the Border Patrol can ask for your “papers” within a hundred miles of any US border? They’ve been setting up checkpoints in places like the middle of Maine and asking people trying to go about their everyday business to prove their citizenship. According to the ACLU, two-thirds of the population of America lives within this “border zone.” And if you are in that zone, you can be asked by Border Patrol to prove you are allowed to be here.
If you refuse to cooperate, you can be detained, although if you are 26-100 miles from the border, your vehicle cannot be searched without a warrant.
If you’re closer to the border, however, you can be subject to even more thorough inspections.
Within 25 miles of the border, though, the Border Patrol has even broader powers, including the right to enter private property (except houses) without a warrant. (source)
To many, it seemed like a great idea when it was happening to Mexican folks near the border, didn’t it? It sounds perfectly fine to some people when Hispanic families in LA are questioned. But they don’t like it so much when it’s carloads of folks in the middle of Maine.
Sarah Huckabee-Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant.
Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, the press secretary for the Trump administration, had sat down to eat dinner at a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia on Friday night when she was asked by the owner to leave because she works for the President.
Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so
— Kayleigh McEnany 45 Archived (@PressSec45) June 23, 2018
Conservatives are outraged that Sanders was asked to leave the restaurant. And they’re also worried because there seems to be an outright war of public ostracism brewing against them. Congresswoman Maxine Waters has called for physical confrontations of anyone who works for the White House.
But let’s back up a few years. Do you remember when a bakery in Colorado refused to make a cake for the wedding reception of a same-sex couple? Do you remember how many of these very same conservatives cheered on the bakery and said that they shouldn’t have to go against their religious beliefs? Do you remember when Hobby Lobby refused to pay for birth control for their employees?
This is exactly the same thing as someone refusing, based on their personal philosophies, to serve the Press Secretary at a restaurant. You can’t have it both ways.
And, really, you shouldn’t. Private businesses should be able to do business with whomever they want and should be able to refuse service to people with whom they do not wish to do business. It was recently upheld by the Supreme Court earlier this month in a surprising victory for freedom.
I guess what I’m saying is that people have the right to be outwardly biased if that’s how they really feel. And we who disagree have the right to no longer patronize their businesses. Call it the free market, call it freedom of association – but this is how things work. (Please note that I am not condoning cruelty or violence.) If you think it’s okay for Christian bakers to refuse to serve gay patrons, you must also be okay with Sarah Huckabee-Sanders being kicked out of a restaurant.
If you cheered on the Colorado bakery owners and Hobby Lobby, being outraged because it happened to Sarah Huckabee-Sanders is the height of hypocrisy.
The TSA was established for your own protection.
Remember when the Transportation Security Administration was established after 9/11? Frightened people were initially thrilled that they were being “protected” but I think we can all now agree that the TSA is completely out of control.
Everyone has seen the videos of humiliated grandmothers being patted down, publicly and intimately. We were all outraged when we saw a sobbing little 3-year-old girl in a wheelchair who was so traumatized that she no longer wanted to go to Disneyworld after they took away her dolly and thoroughly frisked her.
Remember? Many people didn’t just ask for this. They begged for it. They wanted to be “protected.” It seemed like a good idea at the time to them, but now it’s not that good anymore.
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
When you take away freedom from one group, it’s only a matter of time until those chickens come home to roost. Even though it’s been quoted so often that it’s become a cliche, it brings to mind that poem by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. (source)
The government is like an invasive plant species. If you give them one little bed in the garden, it’s only a matter of time before they creep out of it. The next thing you know they’re covering everything, choking out the other plant life, damaging the structure of your buildings, and requiring you to fight your way through the vines.
So for all the people begging for our guns to be taken away, what will you think when the police and military are the only people with guns and you have no way to protect yourself?
For the people who think separating families at the border is great, how will you feel if your children are forcibly taken away to be publicly educated when you wanted to homeschool?
For the people who want to insist that your kid be “fully vaccinated” to attend public events, how are you going to feel when there’s some medical treatment with which you disagree forced on your own child “for the greater good?”
The next time you hear a question that starts with the phrase, “Do you think the government should -”
The answer is no. It’s always no. Because if you think some arbitrary rule should be forced on somebody else, eventually that rule will be forced on you, too.
If you are willing to give away someone else’s freedom and to allow others to be mistreated, don’t be one bit surprised when the same thing happens to you.
Daisy! You got it! Always happy to hear that someone else gets it. ????
Daisy,
One thing you got wrong in this article is the bit about the Supreme Court case. The court restricted the ruling to the facts of that particular case, meaning it isn’t valid precedent for anyone else to use. That was their way of doing the right thing while chickening out on the whole religious rights vs discrimination issue for the rest of us. That baker won, and that’s good, but by taking the easy way out the Court left the door for similar harassment lawsuits open–and that’s a shame.
You make a good point about the creeping police state mentality though.
Thanks for letting me know this, Ray. 🙂
That sounds a lot like one those deep south very sincere, “Well bless your heart.”
Ken –
Not at all. I was unaware of what Ray had posted and really appreciate his input.
I will confess that I have occasionally been known to give out those deep south “bless your hearts” but not this time. 🙂
I hope I didn’t offend. I read your blog if not daily, then whenever I see a new article. One of the things we should all appreciate is your honesty and integrity. You say what the evidence has lead you to believe and are not afraid to admit an oversight if factually proven. You open many subjects that need to see the light of day and cover them with as much information as you can provide. This gets us all to thinking and researching for ourselves which is where we all need to be. This topic is being used by both sides as a weapon. Your guest authors that cover past (Balkans) and present (Venezuela) give us a big picture that we should hang on the wall and not lose sight of. Thanks for all the work you do.
I’m not one bit offended, Ken. I thought it was funny because it’s totally something I would do. 🙂
Thank you for being a regular reader!
So you are in favor of illegal immigration and it is okay with you that the lefties assault people. What a phony!
NOBODY was assaulted, only insulted. Haven’t seen any endorsement of illegal immigration, just statements of fact.
Daisy, you are spot on as usual! The amount of hypocrisy out there is staggering and growing every day. Why are there so many people out there that want rules/laws for others but not for themselves? Maybe we should start thinking about how a law would affect us personally and whether we would want it to apply to us before we lobby our lawmakers to pass the law. If we think about it from the perspective of how this will change/affect my life we might think differently about wanting the law passed.
Moderated as in censored. What a phony didinfo site.
Moderated as in I don’t know who the heck you are and whether you are spamming my website. After you’ve posted a couple of times, you are no longer moderated. Keep your britches on.
No sounds really good right now.
Outstanding Daisy!! You hit it right dead center!
You raise some good points here. I hadn’t thought of how these rules could affect me personally. Glad you opened my eyes to this. Keep up the good work.
I Ag ree with the major principle here. One vital distinction to clarify though: the example given conflates refusing to serve a person in a business vs. declining to participate in an immortal act. … This misunderstanding echoes the mainstream politically correct narrative about bias against certain persons. That is tragically missing the point of the Christian bakers’ or Hobby Lobby owners’ principled stand of declining to participate in an act they consciously believe to be immoral. Please observe and reflect on this crucial distinction. The bakers or Hobby Lobby definitively did not deny service or employment to persons with whom they disagreed: they withheld their participation in conduct they believe to be wrongdoing. Any customers were and are welcome to purchase any bakery product that baker made (which also does not include Halloween themed goods by the way.)
The thing is, the people at the restaurant who refused to serve Sanders felt the same way. You don’t get to claim a moral exclusion only if you are a Christian. If there are moral exclusions, every business owner’s beliefs are equally as valid.
Still a need for clarification:
Here’s the difference: Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not demand a catered party to celebrate closing borders or separating children from their parents or any other policy that these restaurant owners may have disagreed with. She simply wanted to eat food off the menu at the restaurant as any other person has a right to do. Any same-sex attracted person can going to the bakery and order anything that’s in the shop, any birthday cake , graduation cake, absolutely anything and everything they would sell to any other person – no discrimination against any specific customer.
The distinction is declining to participate to actively participate in a demanded action. It’s like demanding a Jewish or Muslim deli honor to serve you a pork sandwich – they can’t do it for you or for anyone. it’s not about you, it’s about their beliefs and their actions and their limits on their own conduct which they uphold for themselves and you don’t have the right to force them into it
Anything they would sell to any other person – no discrimination against any one person. The distinction is the right to decline to actively participate in any act, not to decline service to a person you would have done for others. It’s like demanding a Jewish or Muslim deli owner to serve you a pork sandwich – they can’t do it for you or for anyone – it’s not about you, it’s about their beliefs, their actions, and their limits on their own conduct that they uphold and no one nor the state has the right to force them into it.
The point that keeps getting confused is that the Christian baker wasn’t refusing to make the cake due to moral concerns, but SINFUL concerns. If someone wanted a cake baked to celebrate their first murder, I doubt the bakers would have baked that cake, either. Homosexuality is against God’s law, not man’s. The LGBTQWXYZ crowd has been persecuting Christians for years, and this is just the latest strategy to also wring money out of their intended victims. You will note that the courts in which these cases are taken are not courts of law–where the US Constitution applies–but administrative courts, where only political correctness applies. You never hear of gays suing muslim bakers for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake, although it’s a safe bet the muslims would also refuse such a request, because homosexuality is against allah’s law–in fact, allah demands the execution of gays. Like gays, muslims are also a protected class in the world of administrative courts.
The Red Hen situation–while perfectly legal/constitutional–has more to do with outrage because Hillary lost the election. Obama, you might recall, ALSO deported illegals, and in one case of a family seeking refugee status from Syria–a CHRISTIAN family–was denied refugee status and deported, as Assad isn’t persecuting Christians, ISIS is…
Agreed. The two refusals are really not the same thing. I don’t like Huckabee-Sanders one bit and I admire the restauranteur for deciding to educate her (and as a public servant she has to expect a certain amount of feedback from the public)… but it would probably have been within her rights to stand her ground and insist she be served like anyone else, and the law would have backed her up.
Similarly, the baker’s walk-in public storefront is subject to civil rights law. I don’t believe those laws were ever meant to apply to privately commissioned artistic creations that are inextricable from the values and beliefs of the occasion.
I tend to agree that “fair is fair…” but neither case really makes me outraged. The restaurant really had no legal basis to toss her out. They asked, and she voluntarily left.
That baker never refused service at all, never refused to bake a cake. what he refused was his artistic talent to glorify a gay wedding.
He offered them any thing they wanted except his artistic talent, what’s wrong with that ?
Nothing.
They targeted that baker on purpose, that was the real problem
And I never said the baker was in the wrong.
But if the baker was in the right (as a private business owner, not as a human being) then so is the proprietor of the restaurant that asked Sanders to leave.
No but you repeat the error that the baker refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, he did not refuse.
The article directly referenced claimed they were “Being denied service” they were not.
The entire thing is semantics bent toward hiding the facts, that liberals do so well.
Rant and rave, who cares what really happened.. so long as their agenda wins.
I could care less if someone booted sanders out of a business, that is their choice.
Sorry, guess I didn’t make my self clear on the matter.
I don’t care who didn’t do what.
My issue was the massive lies surrounding the entire situation because they didn’t get something they demanded so they could cause a S^&* storm over it.
They are activists causing problems because they can, and the media blew it way out of proportion because they can… liberals.
I saw this coming when the people beat the drum for the Civil Rights Act in the mid 60’s. People and I mean everyone (left/right/conser/lib), they think now not 5 years 10 years down the road. They do not think how a law ruling or what ever can be turned against them or others.
Agreed! Whatever happened to the mindset that when someone shows up at your door and says “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” that is NOT a good thing!! We used to laugh about that and now I hear folks all the time asking for more laws and rules. Nuttier than squirrel poop!!
Reminds me of how the people way back in the Old Testament kept asking for a king to rule over them even though they already had God. He relented and gave them what they asked for and things have never been the same!
Ironically it seems to have been a couple of gay workers in The Red Hen that asked the owner to ask Sarah to leave! I don’t see much tolerance there although the LGBT crowd seems to demand it of the rest of us!
This country is messed up for sure 🙁
I love reading articles from the 5%’ers. I do think and believe as George Carlin, that it is perhaps too late and as a nation, we are circling the drain. But keep up the articles. For every person turned from the 95% who are the true walking dead, the more we put off our own destruction
Daisy: I disagree. Religious grounds and political grounds are not the same. That is why it is illegal to refuse to not serve an African American in a business. It is also illegal to refuse an Mexican in a business. And as one of your other readers pointed out refusing to be part of what they feel is an immoral ceremony is not the same as refusing to serve them in the bakery, buying something. However the lady was wise and left as the owner was obviously mad about the ruling. .And would she or any others want to support this business who harass conservatives. Without religious grounds? You are using parallel logic which is not sound. You need to do some research on the tenants of logic and persuasion and make sure your conclusions are sound .. Because A is true and B is true does not make C necessarily true.
But what if I think it’s religious? Doesn’t the Bible literally say to “welcome the alien” and “protect the fatherless”? Sarah Sanders is actively participating in sin by circumventing that command—she is doing the opposite, and what if I believe as the owner of the Red Hen that by feeding her food, I am helping her turn away the poor and the fatherless. There’s a parable in the Bible where those people get sent to hell, I believe. Don’t tell me that I can get out of the cake thing but I have to feed dinner to a woman who helps traumatize vulnerable children.
If you think it is religious then I would tell you to read the entire Bible. Anyone who actually knows the Bible knows you can’t just throw out a couple of phases out of context to make a point. We could go back and forth all day doing that. For example, God commanded all of the canaanites to be killed, man, women and child to protect his people. Also, knowing the difference between the old and new testaments. In the new testament God says to obey the laws of the land. The ironic thing is that you commit the same logical errors that JoAnne pointed out to make your conclusion as well.
Let’s try not to get sidetracked by religious doctrine. We all interpret the good book differently and I don’t think it’s going to really further the conversation, do you?
Needed to be said Daisy
One thing left out is the Federal Reserve, not that it was a good idea in the first place.
.
re: the restaurant- They were within their rights to ask her to leave.
The reason they cited shows the problem of the political divide in this country.
I think she handled it very well. How many of us would have handled it that well?
.
Not well known is the fact that there is another restaurant by the same name not connected to this one in any way. They are getting flack even though they weren’t involved in any way. I hope people can separate the two and not cause the innocent one to go out of business.
WOW! That was a first.
I went back to check my comment and I saw “Your comment is awaiting moderation”.
That’s the first time I ever saw that and I have been reading and commenting here for quite a while.
That’s so strange! I’m not sure why it happened, since there weren’t any links in your comment. Have you changed your email address? That would cause it to go into mod.
I figured it out. In my first post I mistyped the name.
I left out the space between Not and So. That apparently was taken as a new commenter.
I wasn’t recognized as a frequent poster. It’s all good.
It all boils down to…..Be careful of what you ask for because you may get it and stuff you didn’t expect along with it. And it doesn’t matter if you asked for it or not…..SOMEONE asked for this stuff, and everyone is expected to comply with someone’s “whims” on how things should be run and done when it is passed in government.
Hi Daisy,
I think you lost a lot of people here… I seem to remember a story about how it is easier to see a splinter in someone else’s eye than a beam in your own. Ya, I know, who actually reads those old books anyway, we need to hate our neighbors and screw turning the other cheek, damn snowflake philosophy. It never ceases to amaze me how people who proclaim loudly how moral and christian they are hate the words and actions of Jesus and find a million ways and reasons not to follow His example.
I love your website, but I am afraid there are a lot of times when you get away from prepping and into ethics, that you are just throwing pearls before swine.
What amused me to no end, was when YouTubers on gun channels would censor and block comments they did not like or agree with, they said it was their channel and their right. The irony of course is that YouTube censored and even dropped their channels. Oh did they scream and whine. The irony was obviously lost on them. It is amazing how everyone is for freedom of their own speech, but against freedom of others speech.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. We need to go back to the golden rule. If you do not want someone to do it to you, then don’t condone it or do it to others.
Can I hear an AMEN??
Daisy-
I’m in agreement with almost everything you’ve said. I think the Red Hen/bakery correlation needs a little clarification. Huckabee was asked to leave because she CHOOSES to espouse the president’s lies. She was not turned away because of her religion, skin color or sexual orientation. She just needs to get a job where lying isn’t part of the job description.
Cassy – I agree with your point about CHOICE!! AMEN
Can you cite the “lies” Huckabee has espoused?
bullcrap
Thank you for that breath of sanity. Unfortunately, I believe the highly accounted tribalism that has taken over the body politic means that someone of one tribe, left or right, will believe that your words are really going to get under the skin of the other tribe, but will fail to acknowledge that it applies to their own tribe as well. I admit that my sentiments tend to align with one of those tribes, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, they apply to me as well. Far too few of us are willing to reach out across the tribal divide. After all, they are Americans too, are they not? If one is unwilling to accept that premise, perhaps that person is a big part of the problem.
Thank you for your honesty.
Well said!
It’s not the same at all. It will be the same just as soon as an unconstitutional
“administrative” court orders the restaurateur to fork over $135,000 to Ms. Sanders. Until then, it’s NOT the same…
not the same but similar.
in that the instance that started the court order against the gay baker was the same as the red hen curfuffle.
the hobby lobby thing was much different. see comment below
That’s correct……Hobby Lobby was being forced by the government to carry a certain Health care.
Daisy – again Thank You!! Sauce for the Goose, sauce for the Gander.
all these instances are slightly different. but gay bakers and “red” hens aside,
i think hobby lobby should be left out of the equation because they were being forced to PAY for something they did not believe in and were breaking the “law” for doing so. the law was flawed in that the government was forcing a business to buy a product from another business. that’s just insane from the get go. (the supremes even sided with them for whatever that’s worth)
the government forcing laws against freedom of association(like having to serve blacks at lunch counters) is really not a good idea even thought the lunch counter thing was meant with the best of intentions. the only thing the government should force anyone to do, in these situations, is to be blind to enforcement and only enforce freedom of association laws where it concerns government jobs. not the private sector.
i agree with your basic argument though.
Good point regarding Hobby Lobby being forced to pay for something – that does change things.
This may be an oversimplification but what i think Daisy is saying is “What goes around, comes around.” And that we should be careful what we start “going around”.
The HUGE difference between the Red Hen asking Sarah Sanders to leave their restaurant and the two men who were refused a wedding cake by a baker because of his religious principles, is that Sarah Sanders and company politely left the restaurant, and no one would have known about it unless one of the employees gloated about it on social media. She didn’t run off and file a law suit because het feelings were hurt.
She DID politely leave the restaurant but she tweeted it about it herself.
I totally believe in the right to refuse service to anyone! However what do you think about this restaurant owner and her gang following the Sanders family to another restaurant and harassing them out of that one? You are not dealing with people that are civil, sane or easily reasoned with. They are evil and demonically possessed.
@J, I’ll agree with you. If you want to refuse service, that’s one thing. But when you follow them to another restaurant, that is going TO FAR! They were truly evil……
Look how easily we are manipulated in these little goose and gander political traps. Ultimately, we all get screwed and the grim irony is that we asked for it. It’s maddening.
Forgot labels defining who you think you are. Conservatism and Liberlism mean nothing if you believe and practice in your words stated in Matthew 5:44-55 and John 18:36. This. Is a atmosphere created by government in Chaos looking to divert attention away from real threats that are country and others around the world are facing. Many people who call themselves “Christians” are liars because they can’t follow the rule of loving that neighbor has thyself.
This is why around the world and in this country we are acting this way.
The manager followed The family to another restaurant,not hers, and continued to harass the family.Liberal piece of SHIT!
Daisy, I have to say, I was not outraged by the restaurant denying service to Sarah, but I was saddened to see such an extreme level of hatred directed toward a decent person. On top of that to see this same establishment facilitate further disdain by engaging a crowd of rowdy individuals to go across the street and harass members of Sarah’s family outside another restaurant is really well, just a a little over the top. Along with other recent public displays of uncivil behavior, these acts are the result of a corrupt people that have supported a corrupt government without even realizing they are joining in lock-step with the NWO agenda. Loss of absolutes, morals, and any sense of kindness and decency, is now the guideline of our nation. I have been anti-establishment from the age of 18, not because I am an anarchist, because I believe we are only civil if we have in place civil laws. We must be governed by laws for our own protection. I agree those laws have gotten out of hand and added to, to the point of not too distant future subjugation. Less government, more individual responsibility, and with God’s help a better world. That is the standard that I would like to see incorporated in this nation we are so blessed to live in.
Both sides accept stolen money as payment. Ostracize all of them.
“While some people strenuously object, many others have rejoiced over these policies. Except when the policies extend a bit further within the US. Did you know that the Border Patrol can ask for your “papers” within a hundred miles of any US border?”
Bad example. The “papers please” rule was instituted BECAUSE the government refused to protect the border AT the border. Had they handled immigration control in the obvious, straightforward way to begin with, they would not have “needed” the 100-mile rights-free zone.
Of course, anyone who looks at this issue for more than a half hour will plainly see that this “stop and frisk” activity has little to do with actual immigration control, and much to do with overall citizen control using the immigration issue as an EXCUSE… just as the “federal financial controls” target overall citizen control using the “war on drugs” (by way of “money laundering”) as an EXCUSE.
Hi Daisy,
Well your logic sounds like anarchy to me. With your logic, some people would start refusing to serve blacks in their restaurants – or Mexicans, or – or Jews or Christians etc.
Even the founders of this country, saw the need for some regulations, however limited, in writing the constitution. i.e . commerce
Be blessed,
Jeremiah
Daisy, this is one of the best articles I’ve read in a long, long time. Thank you.
Decent points, but the baker and restaurant examples are not quite analogous. Under civil rights laws, places of public accommodation must be open to all. Or at least, they can’t refuse based on race, religion, etc. etc. I have no idea if they can refuse an individual, but it didn’t escalate to that level. SHS was asked to leave, and she agreed.
And I thought the “We don’t serve your kind” mentality was a thing of the past.
Daisy I also enjoyed your article very much. Yet I also found difficult the logic of some of the parallels. Further it is eye opening to me to see the complexity of these legal issues. With regard to immigration I live in big time fly over country and can’t go down the road without the possibility of encountering a check point. And for any reason dreamed up if I had a kid it could be taken away if I were arrested. So it is not easy to feel sorry for people who come here criminally, then intend to stay here criminally, then intend to take my job and earn money here criminally not to mention that they my be hardened criminals to begin with and we have no idea who they are. I also very much agree with the point some one above made about all this being about citizen control. The immigration issue has been mishandled for decades in my opinion. The real people to jail and fine the blank out of are the people who hire them. If they can’t run their businesses honestly they shouldn’t be in business and they are the real criminals. Your point about being about what you ask for is awesome. Seems like if citizens speak up they really get it socked to them. Try driving the Texas or Arizona border sometime within the last 20 years. Was wondering if you could do an article about lgbtq restroom issues and as Alex jones is always talking about men who dress in wigs and want to shower with your 8 year kids? Do you see any logical parallels on those issues? I really haven’t been able to understand their beefs? It does sort of seem like Christians are being singled out for harassment with the baker and all. Although I did find some comments on behalf of the gay couple enlightening I’m just wondering where it all stops with the lgbtqs. I think your larger point about not being legislated into further minutiae is fantastic and right on. I myself see
Myself as some who would like to see strict interpretation of the constitution. Thank you for your articles and comment space
I also wanted to say that I think all this stuff coming out into the open is awesome. If I get any whiff whatsoever that a business is supportive of undermining the bill of rights I will do what I can to make sure they don’t get my money. That pretty much means no Hollywood and other sacrifices but it’s worth it. I see a lot of people claiming they are censored on YouTube but they are never really kicked off which is weird or they are back the next day with another channel so not sure what to believe there. Oh and a lot of people claiming the evils of fb which I agree but then they beg for everybody to go like them, is that weird or what?
Don’t understand this problem every bar I have ever been in had a sign saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason” . Thanks for your articles