browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

The Indiana Law

Posted by on April 1, 2015
Share via email

As a businessman I’m not prone to turning away business based on someone’s demographic positioning.  With rare exceptions I’m willing to work with just about anyone.  At the same time I reserve the right to deny my services as I see fit.  Let’s face it I have no plans on working with ISIS anytime in the near future no matter how much profit potential exist.  So with the uproar over the new Indiana law I’m not going to take sides.  However, there are a few things I would like to point out. 

The original blue print for the Indiana law was actually passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 and up until Indiana passed it’s version it had already been passed by 19 other states.  So what Indiana is doing is by no means anything new and hasn’t been new for at least the last 22 years.  BTW, if this law bothers you and you’re prone to registering a (D) after your name you may want to pose a few questions to Bill’s wife prior to any consideration for supporting her political future.  Just sayin’. 

The main premise for having such a law in the first place is to create a legal basis for not infringing on one’s religious freedoms.  In particular this issue was brought to the forefront recently when a bakery was sued because they refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.  From a personal perspective my only question upon taking such an order would have been what kind of frosting do they prefer, but that’s just me. 

There are certain circumstances where non-discriminatory practices can never be tolerated regardless of demographics.  For example, no one should be denied access to medical care based solely on things like race, religion, orientation, etc.  The same thing goes for things like education, public utilities, etc.  However, to allow a business a certain level of discernment in accepting clientele is actually a necessity.  Do you really want to force a Jewish caterer to serve pork chops, an Islamic Dr. to perform a circumcision, or a Black performer to sing at a KKK convention? 

The truth is we already have a plethora of arbitrary discriminatory practices in business on a daily basis.  How often do we see signs that say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” as an affront against the poor, or “No Weapons Permitted on Premises” as an affront against those wishing to pursue their 2nd Amendment rights?  It’s NOT OK to accept some forms of discrimination while denying others simply based on your own personal preferences.  After all, discrimination is discrimination, PERIOD! 

That brings me to the original point of this commentary which has to do with the outright hypocrisy of those that are currently yelling the loudest over this issue.  Or as my Grandmother used to say “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.  Therefore, let’s try reversing this situation for a moment just so that I can illustrate my point. 

Let’s supposed that we accept the idea that businesses can no longer deny service based on any of the discriminatory practices above, but conversely the public can also no longer deny patronage to businesses for the same reasons.  How many people who have currently sworn off the idea of ever eating at Chik-Fil-A over their religious standing would be happy with the idea of now being forced to eat there?  How many people that swear they hate Monsanto would be happy with having to purchase their products?  You don’t agree with Phil Robertson’s opinions.  Great, but you still have to buy a Duck Dynasty hat off him for $19.99.  Same thing goes for all the products sold by Hobby Lobby.  Basically, boycotting would become illegal simply because your right to choose who you do business with based on your own beliefs will have been curtailed just the same as those you are now railing against.  It doesn’t matter if the objection is of a religious nature or not, the fact is by forcing people to act against their will ultimately removes ALL forms of discernment. 

As you can see the problem is that without leaving room for discernment on both sides you are actually opening up a potential Pandora’s Box that can be wielded both ways.  I’m not going to say who is ultimately right or wrong on this issue.  However, to have such an automatic knee jerk reaction and carry on the way people have over this law without thinking things though completely is yet another example of one-step-forward thinking.  Yes, there’s room for legal adjustments to this law just the same as there are to any law.  However, until everyone calms down and has an adult discussion over this law so that we can clearly see the potential future issues we’ll never know what those adjustments are.  As I’ve said many times before, you can never be certain that you’re following in the right path unless you can see beyond that first step.  In the mean time if there’s that big of a market that isn’t being served properly I think I’ll start my own bakery.

Share via email

Comments are closed.