Uh-uh.
Not in 21st century America.
The courts have ruled that a business has no discretion in whom it will do business with.
If a Christian baker must bake a wedding cake for gay weddings, then you had better believe a bank must do business with the NRA.
"On Thursday, a major bank and the largest rental car company in the U.S. announced they were ending business partnerships with the National Rifle Association, citing pressure from customers in the wake of the Florida school shooting that left 17 dead. Major hotel companies also have eliminated affiliations with the NRA in the aftermath of previous school shootings.
"On Thursday afternoon, the First National Bank of Omaha tweeted that “customer feedback has caused us to review our relationship with the NRA,” and that it would not be renewing its contract to produce NRA-branded Visa cards."
That is discrimination. If I ran the NRA, I would unleash the lawyers and wind up owning the bank.
The New York Times, through a column by John Corvino, a professor of philosophy at Wayne State University on November 27, said businesses cannot act on personal beliefs.
"At first glance, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case — for which the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Dec. 5 — looks easy. In 2012 Charlie Craig and David Mullins attempted to buy a wedding cake at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. The owner, an evangelical Christian named Jack Phillips, refused to sell them one. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found Phillips liable for sexual-orientation discrimination, which is prohibited by the state’s public accommodations law. State courts have upheld the commission’s decision," the column began.
(I do not link to pay walls.)
But Corvino reached the conclusion that Christians must break their moral beliefs.
"It’s a mistake to treat sexual-orientation discrimination as exactly like racial discrimination — just as it’s a mistake to treat it as entirely dissimilar. But the underlying principle from Piggie Park holds in the case at hand: Freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not exempt business owners from public accommodations laws, which require them to serve customers equally. The Court should uphold the commission’s decision and rule against Phillips," Corvino concluded.
If a religious belief is not sacrosanct in the eyes of the court, why should a political one be protected?
Liberals baked this cake.
I don't want them to eat it too.
No, I want to shove it down their throats.
@@@
The media chose to go to war with Donald John Trump in 2017 rather than accept him as president.
The media chose poorly.
From Leslie Eastman's review at Legal Insurrection:
Surber, a recovering journalist with over 30 years of experience, has been cataloging the #FakeNews that has been regularly offered as serious analysis of President Donald Trump’s actions, policies, and opinions. He has brought his enormous collection together in the longest, most serious book he has yet written: Fake News Follies of 2017.Fake News Follies of 2017 is available on Kindle and in paperback.
Autographed copies are available. Email me at DonSurber@GMail.com for details. I am including a "director's cut." I will give you the original Chapter 1 that I cut because while the chapter was amusing, it really had nothing to do with the Fake News Follies of 2017.
The Bank of Omaha cannot tell the difference between Russian bots and tweets from real people and its progressive bank president doesn't want to know.
ReplyDeleteEnough is enough. I haven't lived on the farm in some years now, so I don't hunt or shoot near as much as I used to. My long-time NRA membership lapsed some years ago. At the time my feelings were - meh. So what? But now? I just rejoined and talked my daughter into joining as well (so I can read the American Rifleman and American Hunter, too!).
ReplyDeleteLike the Army saying goes, "F**k the dumb $h*t!" We've got to keep the rat commie bastards on the run. - Elric
Same here. New 3 year membership and a sharp Henley-style NRA shirt from Amazon.
DeleteThe more the NRA is attacked, the more marginal supporters will increase their support and become not so marginal. One recent study said that the NRA has about 5 million members and that 30 million more people follow their voting suggestions.
DeleteLife member, even before I ever owned a firearm. Felt that strongly about it. Here in the People's Republic of MA, you can't even buy a Ruger Mk4 Target in stainless - blued only, since the state didn't approve it; and most of the higher end 22 target pistols aren't allowed, due to low trigger pulls
DeleteThe Ruling Class must demonize the NRA to divert attention for their culpability in the Lakeland tragedy.
ReplyDeleteThe Ruling Class has not seen fit to provide armed security to public schools despite the fact that every other public building has armed security.
In addition, the Obama administration, dissatisfied with the rate at which his co-ethnics were being arrested in their dewy High School years, forced the High Schools to stop reporting their criminal students to the police. So teen aged crazies and thugs like Trayvon Martin and Nicholas Cruz were not arrested for their criminality at earlier stages when they could have simply been institutionalized (looney bin or prison) and done less damage to themselves or others.
We are living out what Sam Francis called in 2004 "anarcho-tyranny". "We refuse to control real criminals (that's the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that's the tyranny)."
Here in MD my daughter and others have been assaulted by students and the "resource officer" is notified and there it ends. I talked to the sheriff and his wife has been assaulted and nothing was done. My wife substituted in schools and if she is attacked, all hell will break out from this connected citizen who usually doesn't cause problems for local government due to relatives working in the local government.
DeleteI still think any businessman who turns away paying customers over politics or sexual orientation is a 'tard. One of the best customers my Dad's construction business ever had was as gay as Liberace.
ReplyDeleteThat a choice (aren't lefties all about choice?). If a private business chooses not to provide a service to a person or group, that their choice. the Government need to stay out of it
DeleteLiberace was gay?
DeleteWho knew? I'm shocked.
No doubt as shocked as Capt. Renault at Rick's.
DeleteI just hope the Democrats run on this and "collusion" this fall.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a lawyer, but I can say without reservation that Corvino doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.
ReplyDeleteDiscrimination as defined in the law is against PERSONS, not products. In the bakery case, the baker refused to provide a specific PRODUCT, namely, a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. NO ONE has pointed out that he would have done so for a straight customer buying it as a wedding present for his gay friends. Hence no discrimination. Furthermore, in the Colorado case it was well-established that the baker provided all other products at his shop to all without question. No discrimination there either.
As for the bank, the Omaha case is not discrimination either. It is simply a decision not to offer a discount/specific service to a CLASS of individuals, which the bank was under no obligation to provide in the first place. I question their spinelessness and their bad business sense, but their decision was perfectly legal. On the other hand, I won't feel sorry for them if they lose business elsewhere as a result.
And if Mr. Corvino has such a hard-on for forcing business to follow his rules, I'd like to see him go to a halal butcher and demand a rack of St. Louis ribs.
The bank, and others, are refusing all services to the NRA based on their belief in and interpretation of the Second Amendment. The baker was refusing to create a unique piece of art (expression) that expressed support for a specific religious practice the baker found in conflict with the baker's beliefs. The baker would have sold the couple a cake off the shelf, or any other confection, but not a piece specific for their gay wedding. Specific piece vs. cutting off all services... BIG DIFFERENCE.
DeleteNo, let me think about this more...
DeleteShould any PRIVATE business be obligated to provide any service to anyone and/or everyone...
NO
But I think my original point still stands. The baker objected to a specific object/product. The bank and other institutions object to the the existence of a group that they disagree with, and refuse to provide ANY services. As I said originally - BIG DIFFERENCE.
As we get deeper into this tit-for-tat fight, it is our freedom that we are giving up. As you say, no private business should be forced to sell anything to anyone, but now that we have accepted that they must, the logical next step is that customers will be obligated to patronize a business regardless of political beliefs. Stop it, now!
DeleteEither both (baker and bank) should be able to refuse service or neither should. However, the baker is standing in support of a 1A right (freedom of religion) while the bank is standing in opposition to a 2A right (keep and bear arms). Additionally, these rights were designed to limit government, not individuals. IMO, those opposed to Bill of Rights freedoms are in the wrong; but can still act as they believe and should not be sued. Those individuals acting in support of BoR freedoms should not be sued/punished either.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
DeleteI wonder if we're hearing the checking account of one Mr. Warren Buffet of Omaha talking.
ReplyDeleteMore likely that of George Soros.
DeleteDiscounts are one thing. A product -- the credit card -- is something else, which involves no creativity or input personally. Still the choice of the bank.
ReplyDeleteJust as the choice to create a wedding cake involve personal creativity and activity. AS noted it was a very specific activity requiring creativity of the baker. Other products were available. And other bakers were available.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has yet to be decided by the SJC.
ReplyDeleteIf Masterpiece Cakeshop wins, it should mean the Oregon bakers can get the $135,000 penalty back.
I trust, with interest? They certainly OUGHT to.
DeleteI would think so, and it would be interesting how many other decisions would be affected
DeleteThis could get real interesting, or not. I hope for the former.
ReplyDeleteThe whole notion of businesses being barred from certain kinds of discrimination, but being able to discriminate on the basis of politics or what they think people may or may not believe, especially when it comes to information that is passed over wires or through the air, is a discontinuity that demands a denouement.
Right wing 1A activists are saying that social media should be regulated like public utilities because it is becoming practically a requirement for business or personal success to be able to use them, and if companies can bar people from using these things because of personal beliefs, it is as harmful as the gas or electric companies turning off services to you for being a Republican. And banking is just as important, or more so, than social media.
These concerns are going to have to be confronted in a serious way sooner or later.
Just a thought...Maybe the NRA should establish a bank of its own. Or maybe a credit union. Many companies and organizations have their own credit unions. They could cater to members, gun owners, and like-minded people. What about offering a health insurance co-operative? Auto insurance? I believe they could make it work. There should be plenty of customers. I would be a customer. - Elric
ReplyDeleteElric of Melnibone? How's The Iron Orchid?
ReplyDeleteEnduring the Entropy with Jherek while awaiting the End of Time. - Elric
DeleteAlas, we have allowed the left to set the agenda for far too long. That means there are specific protected classes which do include homosexuals and the entire litany of LBGTQIAA2 but do NOT include gun owners.
ReplyDeleteOf course that is an incoherent mess, so a disfavored fellow is kicked out of protective status as a "white Hispanic."
That incoherence is a feature, not a bug, arising from adherence to power grabbing rather than reason, a byproduct of the process.
Progressives appeal to the irrational, emotional lizard brain. And when people react with Kahneman's "Thinking Fast" it's nigh impossible to get them to "Think Slow."
SO they create cuddly images of victim classes and no decent person wants to be the meanie.
Who will be the enterprising souls that go into bakeries and ask them to bake a sheet cake shaped like a gun with a giant, “NRA” decorated on it.
ReplyDeleteOh please, oh please refuse to bake it.
How about a cake for a slave-owning homosexual Muslim gun owner? - Elric
Delete"Freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not exempt business owners from public accommodations laws..." Yes, they do. The Constitution trumps any individual law.
ReplyDelete...unless it is the 2nd Amendment. Then local laws take priority.
Delete"I'M" going to start a "crow" farm and raise CROWS. I'm going to make a fortune off of all these companies who are going to wind up EATING 'crow' and "I'M" going to get RICH off of SELLING that crow to them to eat....... By proxy though.... I'm BOYCOTTING them.
ReplyDeleteYeah, this is apples and oranges, Big D. Two different types of transactions. But I can tell you that almost every Limbaugh sponsor who pulled out of a deal because of a "transgression" committed by Rush has rued the day they did it. Same thing here. The backlash is swift and it's strong. The free market takes care of things like this.
ReplyDeleteAnyone remember "Operation Chokepoint?"
ReplyDeleteEric Holder and the DOJ does.
My FFL does, as well.
This is the greatest fundraiser for @NRA in the history of mankind. That said from myself and 2 million members of GOA that have been missed by the Marxist bush-league David Hogg.
The real problem here is not whether the bank may terminate its contract with NRA. Every contract may be broken under certain conditions.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is the decision process followed by the bank in this case. What sort of pressure was applied, by whom? Who made the decision?
Once we start down the road of terminating business relationships based on phony guilt by association, how long until your employers tell you to disclose your NRA membership and/or gun ownership or be fired? Maybe they'll just add a huge surcharge on your employee health care deduction, as they do for smokers now.
Do I understand that the bank and other businesses are refusing to honor their own Bank cards, the ones they issued? Not really possible is it? They can stop printing new ones and then they can send out letters telling card holders that they will no longer honor those cards after a certain date, but how can they start refusing those cards that are already out there, in the hands of innocent individuals. If they do notify their card holders, there is nothing to keep those same card holders from changing their bank, or from doing business with other companies that are less hostile to their beliefs on gun ownership.
ReplyDeleteThe Left believes that any sort of discrimination is a crime. If people were free, as they once were, to associate with those they choose and deny association with others, that's discrimination: it's bad, so it is now illegal.
ReplyDeleteAll manner of ill effects follow this loss of a natural human right. Our once high-trust culture has been eroded: no longer can we leave our doors unlocked. Now we must grant entry to anyone, trustworthy or not. We must do things for others that disgust us, anger us and make us sick; all in the name of non-discrimination.
This will not end well.
Don? Where's the picture that's supposed to be before
ReplyDelete"The battle over gun control has spread to credit cards, rental cars, airlines, hotels, software security, and insurance," CNN gleefully reported. ?
Doesn't show up for me on Firefox, Chrome, and Internet Explorer.
"The right to own property. Property owners shall choose whom they employ and who their customers are. They shall choose which products to sell. Congress and the States retain Eminent Domain powers, but must give property owners just compensation and cannot take land from one owner and give it to another owner."
ReplyDelete- A New Constitution for a Free People
The relationship is not the same as buying a wedding cake. It is a contract in which a business gives discounts to NRA members in return for the increased business from NRA members that would bring. I'm sure there is a contract between the NRA and each business and the NRA could sue if there is a breach of contract. However, there are plenty of other businesses with whom NRA could make deals, and as commenters above have pointed out, all of the virtue-signaling companies will suffer losses from ditching the NRA just as Rush Limbaugh's lost advertisers did. So the NRA might just want to let the companies stew in their own juices.
ReplyDeleteThis is one more step towards the splitting of America if businesses continue to take sides. It's a mystery to me why a business would throw away half its market, but no doubt they are deceived by bot emails into thinking it's worth it.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of association is not the same as denying service over someone's biology: https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764
ReplyDelete