The Right to Discriminate!

When administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer ordered Jack Phillips to serve a gay couple a cake they wanted for their wedding, what he really did was order away Jack's right to discriminate. 

Yeah, you heard it right. Jack has the right to discriminate. So do you. So do I.

The right to discriminate is a fundamental right. As part of the right to discriminate, you and I as business owners have the right to NOT serve any customer we may not want to. Now our discrimination against certain customers may be perceived as distasteful by others, but that 'distasteful right' still remains, and must remain our right!

The constitutional guarantee to the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' needs to be understood and interpreted right, especially the right listed at the end. Note, its a right to the pursuit of happiness, NOT HAPPINESS itself. Everyone can pursue happiness, but everyone can't demand the outcome, namely happiness.

The right to a cake for a wedding IS NOT a fundamental right. The right to buy or bake a cake is a fundamental right, but that right stops at my doorstep when I as seller exercise my fundamental right not sell to you. My right to not sell to you does not mean you can't pursue your right to buy a cake elsewhere. You can. That's your right. But you can't make me sell to you. That IS NOT your right!

Judge Robert N. Spencer has exceeded his call as a judge in 'guaranteeing happiness' to Charlie Craig and David Mullins. He has gone beyond what the constitution stipulates, and has guaranteed happiness itself to its pursuers. The ruling is dead wrong, because it took away Jack Phillips' right as a citizen to pursue his own sense of happiness, albeit through his right not to sell.

The right to discriminate is practiced by both consumers and marketers in their everyday lives. When consumers choose one brand over another, they discriminate. When marketers decide to target one set of consumers with a value proposition, they automatically turn exclusionary. They discriminate against other consumers when they favor one set (read, target segment) with a product or a service.

I agree, discrimination may at times turn distasteful, but that's no reason why it can't be practiced. Liberals may see Jack's act as a distasteful discriminatory one. But then what about forcing Jack to go against his own religious beliefs? Why isn't that equally distasteful?

So again, the right we have are those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness itself. That in turn gives Jack and the rest of us the right to discriminate, even at the expense of others' unhappiness.


Popular Posts