Free Enterprise? No such animal!

 

Here we go again!  Our freedoms are being thrown out the window again and this time it is potentially disastrous to small and large business.  The repercussions will roll forward like a rogue wave out of the Gulf coming up the Houston ship channel.

On June 1^st, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of a Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch when the store failed to hire her because she wore a head scarf in observance of her religion.  That is the assertion anyway.

This is a blatant attack on Free Enterprise, which incidentally is easily defined as the freedom of private businesses to operate competitively for profit with minimal governmental regulation.

Now here me out before you think this is about attacking this woman because she follows Mohammed.  It’s not.  It’s because this particular free enterprise has a dress code and this woman’s head scarf violates it. 

This ruling by SCOTUS basically opens the door for anyone claiming a religious practice to force a company to hire and accommodate them.  It is Socialistic in nature and anti-Capitalistic in the extreme.  It is blatant government interference.  I wonder what their ruling would be if she had applied at a hog butchering facility.  Yes, they would force the facility to hire her and then shut the place down.

That may be levity, but I’ll wait and see.  Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to law makers or my disappointment in the erosion of what our founding fathers set up.

Let’s hypothesize a bit to express my point.  A person who follows one of the numerous religions around the world who eschew working Saturdays applies at Exxon-Mobil as a Process Technician and will be required to work shift work.  Exxon-Mobil will not hire them, but under this ruling, they have to accommodate them.  So they do, but this person does not have to work Saturdays and everyone else does.

Not only that, but they have to accommodate their dietary laws also and allow them to pray 6 times a shift, etc, etc.  Another scenario is those who believe smoking marijuana is part of their religion, so they get hired too.  What?  Yes, the IRS has incorporated an Indianapolis marijuana-smoking church as a tax-exempt religious organization on June 1^st.  Now you have to hire them too and let them observe their holy use of the devil weed.

Am I against freedom of religion or smoking pot?  No I am not.  What I am against is our government eroding free enterprise and many other basic freedoms which were put in place many years ago to protect us against the government herding us like lemmings.

I was against banning smoking in private businesses for this very reason.  I felt a private enterprise should have the final say on whether they wanted to risk running off non-smoking customers to accommodate those who did – especially after the government forced them to install expensive air cleaning equipment.  I didn’t want to smell the smoke, but I hated to see freedoms disappear “for the good of the people”.

What’s next?  Mandatory hearing protection at rock concerts?  Should the government force you, the small business owner to hire someone even though they won’t wear an American flag patch on the shoulder of their uniform due to religious reasons?  It’s your company’s dress code.  Sorry, but they won’t have to.  They’ll be protected by the very government our forefathers warned us about.

Back on SCOTUS’s decision, David Lopez, EEOC General Counsel issued a statement saying, "Monday's case is the latest effort to ensure all persons protected by Title VII are not placed in the difficult position of choosing between adherence to one's faith and a job."  In Court lawyers for the government argued that it was not Elauf's  (Muslim lady) obligation to give direct notice that she needed an accommodation.

Here is the reality of that stupid argument.  Oh thank you for hiring me.  “Here is a list of my accommodations which the government will say you must give me.”  The business owner was just blind-sided and would probably try to fire the person and opening themselves up to a very expensive law suit which they would lose.

What I see in this decision is an employer stereotyping anyone they think will try to use their religion to gain access to the locker room. That person, who may or may not use religious beliefs for an advantage, will have no chance whatsoever of getting a job.  They won’t get a second interview, or another phone call.  Religious discrimination at its best.

Businesses are already operating in a stunted mode without adding this new caveat.  Many large companies have put a certificate or diploma above actual experience, resulting in people on the job who have no proclivity to actually doing the job.  Add in people claiming privilege and the standards of the company are vastly eroded.

Chemical Plants are hiring Process Techs with a 2 year certificate, many of which have never changed a flat tire or checked their own oil.  They have no work history, want to make top money in 3 years, and sit on their back-sides in the control room waiting for shift change.  They are protected though in most cases and the employer has to build a file on them 4 inches thick before they can get rid of them.

Business is doomed in America unless it allows everything from anyone.  Thank you US law makers.  You have successfully eroded 200+ years of common sense.

Free enterprise?  That’s an oxymoron.

.

The American Free Enterprise travesty

This week in Colorado, an administrative law judge ruled against a privately owned business, forcing the owner of a Lakewood bakery to go against his Christian beliefs and bake a cake for a gay couple celebrating their marriage.

When the polite refusal was voiced, the intimidation began. According to Phillips, the two both stood and stormed out of the store, one of them by his own admission making an obscene gesture and swearing something about an “(expletive deleted) homophobic bakery.”

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against the owner; effectively violating his rights, so it could represent the rights of the gay couple. What?

So, now they are going to get a delicious cake, right?  I doubt it and this is stupid to put it mildly.

First, let’s throw out the complicated issue of the two men wanting to marry and let’s look at a private business and you and me. Let’s say you go into a private business and the owner smells like a barnyard, or the place is filthy, or the guy or gal takes one look at you and crunches up their face in disgust and proclaims he doesn’t serve people like you, whatever that is.

I’ll tell you what I would do. I would turn around and walk out of that place – especially if they served food or I was going to request they create a food item for me.

Would I go to the American Civil Liberties Union and file a complaint? Heck no. I would boycott the place, which incidentally is my strongest option and tell everyone I can influence to do as well.

I know, as well as you, that the word discrimination is a vulgar four-letter word, but let’s take a look at it.
  

Discrimination: 

1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.  

2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
  

I discriminate on a daily basis, especially when in public. Does this mean that I discriminate unjustly?  Unjustly and prejudicial here are the key words. In my inherently righteous mind, I do not.

I pick and choose how I react to other humans by past experience and my spiritual guide. Take for instance my view on crime and criminals. I discriminate against criminals, especially those who prey on society or commit acts of violence.

I discriminate against people who appear to be criminals or are about to make me a target. I discriminate against people who attempt to force their will on me or violate my space.  

I discriminate against anyone trying to force their religion on me, or make me violate my religious beliefs.

Does the American Civil Liberties Union really believe that the judge’s order is going to make gay people or couples rush down to this bakery and announce they are gay and request a delicious cake?  Not one in a million will do it.  Why?  I shouldn’t have to explain, but for the sake of argument I will.
  

To put it mildly the cake might contain undesirable ingredients. Bakers sell cakes because the public wants a delicious treat. The public also wants to believe the baker wants to sell more cakes, not make them sick.

On the other hand, the baker’s stand against what he believes is a violation of his religious views, might just cause a flood of supporting business.
  

There is another side to this that I feel needs to be brought to light and it is the same stance I took when the smoking ban issue was brought before our fair citizens. Neither the bakery in Colorado, nor a private business here in Baytown is owned by the U.S. government.
  

People shop in both places because they want to. The heart of free enterprise and capitalism is the business owner’s right to serve who they want. I still believe free enterprise allows the owner to put a sign in the front window which reads “No shoes, no service” or a sign which reads “Caution: tobacco smoke may be present.”

I agree that posting a sign which reads “White (black, fat, red, yellow, brown, short, ugly) people will not be served” is wrong, but if I knew I was not welcome there, why in God’s name would I go there in the first place? Again, I feel I must point out the obvious. I don’t want anyone spitting in my cake batter because they don’t want me in their private business and made that clear.  I just won’t shop there.

Free Enterprise: Freedom of private business to organize and operate for profit in a competitive system without interference by government beyond regulation necessary to protect public interest and keep the national economy in balance.

How in the world is it protecting the public interest to force a business owner to serve anyone against their religious beliefs, which SURPRISE, violates the First Amendment rights of that very person.  

It’s a travesty of the intent of the law and if it really is the American Civil Liberties Union, they represented the wrong party.
.