Is it possible “Not” to offend?

In today’s business and political climate, you are going to take crap for things you take part in, much less for things you feel strongly about? In today’s world are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to or not?

Let the consumer be ware; and so let the consumer decide through the use of free will and choice, if necessary, to choose another service provider to their liking.

For example:

Does a restaurateur have the right to deny services to somebody for whatever reason? Do certain restaurateurs have the right to only hire women and expect these women to dress in revealing clothing as part of company policy and marketing plan? Isn’t this gender discrimination, or what some would say exploitation? Not that there is anything wrong with Hooters, but it makes a good example of that last question. Is a policy of “no shoes, no shirt, no service”, too much?

Does an advertising agency if asked to make a commercial, (for lets say) a pro-life organization, or if they are asked by a politician with a political philosophy that they don’t agree with, can they refuse service and decline the client’s patronage?

Should people who practice the religion of Islam refuse to handle alcohol or any pork products? Should the practice of allowing businesses who advertise kosher food handling and kosher foods, be forced to be more inclusive of other religion and their practices according to the customer’s religious guidelines?

Does the company that produces M&Ms have the right to refuse to print a logo, or a saying, on a client’s order for custom candy, M&Ms, or do they have the right to refuse such order on the bases according to some company policy, or philosophy, or even politics? Who sets the company policy and or philosophy, or politics, in that culture? Are company’s or corporation’s silently also in the business of changing society’s excepted popular beliefs or moral standings?

Not to exaggerate to any great level of being ridicules, but every point made has a story or a lawsuit behind the asking of these questions; except those points with regards to “Kosher foods”. But asking the hard questions sometimes requires exaggeration, it can help drive points home or develop new thought…

If you are running a business in today’s political climate, you better be aware of how your reactions could affect your business. Even how you react to the folks who “bother you”—regardless of the reason—it is just as important to your business as how you may react to your ideal customer. Both deserve courtesy and mutual respect. But this doesn’t mean that you have to leave your beliefs or how you choose to live your life at home, completely separated, because you’re in business.

Jack Phillips, 57, refused to bake a wedding cake for Denver residents David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 34 – despite it being claimed he was happy to make one for two dogs.

The couple sued him and won in a landmark case, which saw the Colorado Civil Rights Commission unanimously declare free speech and business should be separate.

Jack Phillips said “If it’s just a birthday, I have no problem with that. My issue is that I don’t want to be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding.”

He lost the Gay discrimination case brought against him and his business. The case seems to say you can’t discriminate while we use the court system to legally “discriminate” against your particular values. Because we all live in the real world of a free market system that says, you have the right to go elsewhere, to the competition if you must, to spend your money in exchange for services rendered. Why was this even a case?

Why wasn’t this case just thrown out then? Why would one individual with curtain beliefs be compelled to comply or suffer economic consequences, at the request of another group and their beliefs?

Is this a type of bullying?

Is that a type of modern-day slavery? Demanding that one person perform services against their own free-will, and to the likes of another?

There are those who would compare Gay-rights to Civil-right, but do they compare? Both claim to be born into their existence. But scientifically only one between the two has an element of personal choice. There has never been any person of color that has chosen to be some other color and by choice alone, then changed. There has been however lots of claims by people that they made a choice in being Gay or becoming straight.

Who among us has the right to empower ourselves with more power, demanding more human rights, while trampling other people’s human right, or the ability to follow their religious consciences. In following any religious convictions there should be only one rule—anything goes providing others aren’t hurt or endangered by them.

Isn’t that the essence of having freedom to worship, freedom of religion, and the separation-of-church and state?

This case isn’t really over sour grapes and wedding cake. It is the first shots fired in the war against religious beliefs, asking government to support and choose between, those who would rather install their religion of non-belief over those who claim any belief in God. Regardless what religion that seems to be for the moment. Christians seem to be fair game in going after, while no one ever questions why Gay rights activists never seem to ever go after Islam—a religion that doesn’t even recognize or has any willingness to embrace any love for Gay people.

So I will ask again. In today’s world are businesses allowed to choose what clients they wish to grant service to, or should that choice only be granted to anything but religious beliefs?

There used to be some expectations in general for everyone to be respectful of everyone they come in contact with in public. Remember when business owners had the right of refusal—“No shoes, no shirt, no service”? Back then, there were more expected freedoms, if offended in having to wear shoes or a shirt we could have just as easily gone out and created a business that catered to the shoeless and shirtless clientele. It’s all in the exercise of free choice. Because when a person is changed against their will, they’ll remain of the same opinion still.

Rather than fighting any wars in court between the religious and those who claim to be non-religious affiliated, we should all see there are economical missed opportunities here. Perhaps there is more room in the market place for a gay baker willing to bake cake for anyone or for any services, then there is for any bullying attempt to destroy people and their businesses through the power of the government, that practice a religion that you disagree with.

The best thing about a free market system is that system will all on its own allow for success and failure, by allowing individual’s to choose for themselves which business they will support, what products they will buy, what particular specialty products they which to have and desire for their money.

Government loves cases like this; it weakens everyone’s liberty, by weakening religious liberty. You may feel all safe and secure claiming no religion, having no religious beliefs, holding steadfast to a non-religious belief systems; but in the end it takes the same level of faith to believe in something, as it does to develop an non-belief in that same thing; so all liberty for everyone is affected by government involvement just the same with this issue.

Because people create businesses or corporation’s it’s only natural for those same businesses and corporation’s to be run according to individuals and their beliefs. If there is no business to provide your particular requested services, to your standards—seize the capitalist opportunity and service that market. That way competition will decide. Because if a government is powerful enough to grant you everything, it is also powerful enough to at some point take everything from you.

Unintended consequences have a way of destroying perfectly good but not particularly well thought-out dreams. When you throw the government into the mix, and when they’re perfect by batting 1000, giving a 100% guarantee that unintended consequences will multiply, liberty and common sense slowly erodes away.

Baker who lost gay discrimination case will stop making wedding cakes http://dailym.ai/1ucJHOD via @MailOnline

The Reason M&Ms Refused To Sell To A Knife Rights Group Is PC …

www.ijreview.com/…44169-mms-refuses-custom-candy…

The NFL “Talisman Wars”

When it comes to seeing our government and its officials acting stupid, this has to be it.

WASHINGTON — Half of the U.S. Senate wrote the National Football League’s commissioner Tuesday to urge that he push the Washington Redskins to change their name.

“The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the lawmakers told Commissioner Roger Goodell in 50 identical letters.

They went on to say: “The Washington, D.C. football team is on the wrong side of history,”

The last I checked it is impossible to be on the “wrong side of history” because history doesn’t pick sides—it simply is what happens, or had happened. So what does that statement really mean? For these Senators to have ruffled feathers over a NFL team name is somewhat laughable when it is DC that makes a living on word play. Changing and rearranging “words” and their definitions in an effort to massage and manipulate the public’s perception on issues.

Ever ask a Senator to explain what it means to have a “cut” (or a reduction, or a balancing) in budgets? With any answer received we all could ask…Would that be a cut in present expenditures or future tax increases? Again definitions are many, when defining the same things or words, almost as many as there is elected officials.

When looking at official government application or paperwork like those of the census and others, we would find ethnicity boxes. Check the box that applies to the applicant is the question mostly asked. Are you “White or African-American, American Indian, Latin…” maybe it’s not all that political correct as I stated it but you get the picture because you’ve seen it. Why can’t the government take the lead of changing its own predispositions to color biases? Why do we need to create voter blocks based on divisions along color of skin? Just as it was in the Travon Martin case, definitions of color were mixed and remixed into an ethnically cleansing soup. When the governments focus should have been case facts and unnecessary violent acts that happen all too often to all ethnicities in America, instead of who the (victim or the perpetrator) was and what their color of skin is. What a missed educational opportunity the Government had in ending racial handicapping.

It is government that seizes the advantage in keeping the color preferences alive, fueling the fires of prejudices in the minds of the public. If they only would have listened to MLK’s I have a dream speech? They might have taken up the torch of attempting to unite the citizenry into this great melting pot that is America over the tactic of defined voter classes and new political victims?

Instead of picking and choosing between violent tragedies, holding onto some of them for political gain above others; like in the Travon Martin case, climbing over themselves to get into the lime light while saying publicly nothing about the “Children of color” murdered in Chicago streets and other big cities, instead quietly accepting, spinning, and redefining terms and events as being acceptable collateral damage in their minds. Where are the public rebukes by officials? Where are the consistencies? Where are all of the common sense approaches to new ideas instead of preserving the game play (I’ll take “revolving definitions of political word usage for a $100 please) status-quo?

None of these 50 senators who are complaining to the NFL to change the team name the “Washington Red Skins” are willing to cleanse the racial biases in their own hearts and minds, while taking up the true motto of impartiality—judging things not on the color of skin but by the content of character. Common sense seems to be extinct in DC?

If a name change of the NFL team the “Red Skins”—also known as the “Skins” is a must!

Because Washington DC loves word games, let the “Talisman Wars” begin. Let the Washington Red Skins change their mascot and all team talisman symbols, let them be changed to the “Red Potato” AKA. Also known as a “Red Skin”. Unless vegetables can be racists… this problem has been solved!

God’s of “Chalk” dressed in black.

Judge Howard M. Shore’s courtroom seems to be full of ceremonial vandals, people dressed in black; these days Judges seem to be attacking our constitution from the bench. Attacking the very foundation that was to be one of Governments most precious founding principles, empowering individuals to have and to enjoy freedom, with no fear of governments taking away their God-given rights, in addition to enjoy their lives with limited government.

Today the trial began in the case of a San Diego man who is being charged with 13 counts of vandalism for writing anti-big-bank-slogans with water-soluble children’s chalk on the sidewalk outside of three Bank of America branches in Mid-City.

Judge Shore granted a motion to prohibit Olson’s attorney from mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial. Judge Shore ruling sighted a state “Vandalism Statute” that apparently does not mention First Amendment rights. Judge Shore apparently places his judgeship’s power, as a gift given to him by the state government, as being greater in this case than to the federally guaranteed constitution, and bill of rights. Individual rights like free speech; whether this free speech is expressed in words out in the open, or in public, or expressed in a non-Permanente medium such as words written in chalk, was not his place to place judgment in the way as he did ordering the exclusion of the terms–free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial.

Judge Shore’s mind-set had already decided sidewalk chalk is far to dangerous of an expression to allow it to continue. Over looking that it was written on a sidewalk owned by the public, not by any person or corporate entity. He could have just as easily laugh at the case and then thrown it out? You know…using some common sense?

Let that sink in for a moment. You can burn an American flag; march with signs expressing the death of a sitting president (at least this was the case while President Bush was in office), or make movies of the same, no matter if you’re expressing yourself by the written word or in pictorial, you can attempt to shut down a privet business by protesting it–shouting at customers as they attempt to shop there. But Liberals count that as free speech / freedom of expression / or an artistic expression…etc. But should you use water-soluble chalk that can easily be washed off of any side-walk, using words against a Bank who received government bailout money in order to survive, well that’s considered unacceptable or vandalism; a type of “Vandalism” worthy of stripping the freedom of expression, and free speech from those who choose to use chalk as their medium at least?

What is next? Are children playing with chalk on city sidewalks now having to answer to the law? Will we need to re educate them to proper sidewalk chalk usage?

In this nation where the use of chalk on the sidewalk is now being considered as “Vandalism” and having the potential and possibility of punishment, perhaps a prison sentence? Our nations leaders are now seemingly becoming energized with a zealots zeal to protect the public  from itself while preserving their own power,  yet they are paralyzed to engage in deportation proceedings of an illegal alien caught sneaking across our countries boarders. Refusing to see that the publics safety is being placed at risk, at the same time acting as if chalk writing is the end all in public risk?

I wonder what would happen to any illegals, if they chose to express themselves against deportation in chalk? Prison sentences? Or an offering of a wet-nap napkin, so they can clean their hands and be then sent along their way?

Where is the common sense in all of this? What is potentially more detrimental to society…chalk…or spray paint vandalism, or ________? (You can fill in the blank)

In another case, Mackinney v. Nielsen 69 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.1995), a court ruled that use of chalk was not considered vandalism. The law was later changed to define vandalism as defacement “with graffiti or other inscribed material.” Chalk fits this perfectly? Considering it disappears with rain, or man-made rain. Wouldn’t you like it if Graffiti would disappear off your building, homes fencing so effortlessly, so easily? Damn Chalk! Someone needs to make a law?

Liberals didn’t like the outcome of that case so they changed the law. The law now so vaguely defined that children using chalk to make hop-scotch squares to play could be considered criminals, menaces to society, or vandals depending on the definitions of the offended. Written words shouldn’t be considered “Graffiti” simply because someone disagrees with those words and their meanings, even if they are written in chalk claiming defacement of property. With no difference in degree of defacement to how hard it is to clean up, but defacement the same, akin to someone using spray-paint to Graffiti someone’s building or egging someone’s property, or toilet papering someone’s house, yard, and trees?

We are slowly becoming a society where common sense is going extinct within the legal systems judgments, causing a rapid erosion of our rights guaranteed by our founding as God-given. These same rights aren’t being upheld or protected at all costs by our government or its legal system, but now are openly attacked. We are seeing the constitution and the bill of rights actively vandalized by black-robed political activists, using a majority rule mentality and personal interpretations of the founder’s intent. Politicians and judges are shaping public opinions according to their social engineering models within their own minds. Their decisions seem to be in line with political acquaintances, friends, partners, and co-collaborators, and the religion of populism. Whose God and goals and worship seem to be unfettered power for themselves. In other words, “Tyranny”! Tyranny is never experienced by those in power. So the powerful embrace tyranny as the means to stay in power, to remain above the law, beyond having to comply too it, permanently positioned as if they were God’s of society that can do no wrong.

To these power-hungry people, the written word of disagreement in chalk or on any sidewalk, billboard, or even books, must be stopped at all costs. What must be stopped is instead, people who would hold the constitution in the same light as being just as easily eroded away and destroyed, as chalk words on a sidewalk during a rain storm. Because it opposes their demand for the public to worship, to comply to “Tyrannical leadership”.

You can read more at…

Chalking the plank: Judge won’t allow bank protester to claim first amendment rights, by Dorian Hargrove, http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/jun/25/chalking-the-plank-judge-wont-allow-bank-protester/, @SDReader

Strangling the golden goose…But pay-up first sucker!

Why does Obamacare resemble medieval medical shock therapy, then some benevolent, compassionate, reasonable socialist health care?  Modern insurance companies have been birthed out of the ideas of socialism–where all must pay so few can benefit from it. Insurance is a calculated gamble or bet at best, where the house… like socialism always wins. So there is no surprise in hearing news like.. at least half of all hospitals nationwide now charge upfront ER fees, in an effort to combat the cost of supplying treatments to less serious medical emergencies? With the roll out of Obamacare, insurance purchased through government exchanges are supplying insurance policies that require higher deductibles in order to lower monthly costs to the clients. But people who buy these insurance policies are thinking we have health insurance now with nothing more to pay out-of-pocket. Surprise! The house by design always wins. You have insurance with high out-of-pocket expenses, a high-deductible plan whose requirements are in the advent they should need any medical attention, you’ll need to pay-up first sucker!

So hospitals hoping to head off the impending disaster of services rendered without payments, are now asking patients to pay out-of-pocket deductibles first, before any treatments. Looking at the state of Illinois, Cook county to be specific, the lowest insurance cost offered on the exchanges by monthly premium paid…has a $4000.00 annual deductible for individuals and a $8000.00 per family annual deductible. That’s 20 of the 22 plans offered that have that high of an annual deductible.

So if you have a medical procedure that would cost $3750.00, a signal person would have to pay out-of-pocket the total amount because insurance doesn’t kick into action until getting over the individual $4000.00 deductible limit.

Some are blaming the computer glitches on the heavy traffic, people trying to get insurance all at once; but it may just as well be the design of the programs themselves? Making people first, plug into the system their various info before even getting to the nuts and bolts of the monthly cost of the darn thing? So by design these exchanges, those government-run insurance exchanges are slowing down the flow of info both gathering it from individuals and then providing the cost of it– that information where healthy younger people will have the bulk of the cost of paying into the government plan. So if they need some future medical procedure that needs to be preformed—they will also have a sizeable financial nut to crack by paying higher deductibles first.

Once younger people realize this, there will be no surprise that most young people will exercise their rights to opted-out, rather paying the penalties for not having insurance because they more than likely will be paying for medical procedures in total because of the high deductibles anyway.

With high deductible insurance, individuals will need to save up the amount of money to cover the deductible out-of-pocket costs, or suffer the consequence of going bankrupt do to some future medical procedure not totally covered by insurance. Something that Obama promised wouldn’t happen under his plan—He said paraphrased–“You wouldn’t lose your doctor if you like the one you have… You shouldn’t have to go bankrupt because someone in your family got sick… Your insurance premiums would not cost you more; in fact it would save the average American $2500.00 per year in out-of-pocket expenses.” All of these assumptions, distortions and yes I personally believe them to be calculated lies, are just supporting the fraud that Obamacare really is. A ginormous fraud enshrined in law that will hurt more people financially than help people. In fact it may just as well cause people to avoid getting annual check-ups—that may lead to more sick people needing procedures that could have been avoidable, now being placed on the government’s social net expense account.

That giant sucking sound your hearing right about now, is the deflation of the American economy. Where people have to save more to cover high deductibles, spending more to pay for insurance they are being forced to buy because of the government Affordable Care Act; leaving so much less for people to spend in the economy. Because the American economy is 70% consumers buying crap, who are now forced into saving and spending their money on things not by their own choosing, It’s reasonable to say that Obamacare will lead the economy down that road to slow—to slowing growth at best, one could also say reasonably that Obamacare is strangling the golden goose and it’s up to conservatives to save this endangered species from extinction.

The worship of robust incrementalisim

When it comes to the extreme, and heated, or what one could characterize as being uncivil name calling and rhetoric, it’s usually the Democrat party pointing the fingers at the Republicans. Who just happen to be in opposition to one of their prized political policies. With the Government shutdown, the Republicans have had to endure names like (“Economic terrorists, crazies, tyrants, saboteurs, obstructionists…etc.”).

Orson Welles once said—and I’ll paraphrase—the farther people get from the truth, the more they hate the people who actually speak it.

Often the Democrats explain themselves as having won the election—having done so, that must also now mean that all of the people are now in favor of whatever Democrat policies are in place or even the ones that they can still dream up. Too then stand in the way is seen as being against the will of the people. They willingly wrap themselves up in the mantra of majority rule when it suits them. But under the previous Presidency, G. Bush, the Democrat cattle call was, the minorities need to have shared power, power of their own, or the republicans will abuse them with their power.

It shows the abusive intent of the liberal Democrat to abuse equally so when they’re in power, or in control. They assume control through elections using the excuse of we have a majority. But then are also willing to excuse themselves in abusing the majority in favor of the minorities, using the tactics of superior moral standing. Both sides of the equation in the proses loose liberties and freedoms; compelling some to comply and others are showered with charitable gifts in exchanged for their votes.

In other words, with Obamacare Democrats are quick to say it’s the “Law of the land”. As if laws made by man can’t be changed, exchanges, made new, replaced, or even done away with entirely; forgetting all the while the Democrats evolved stance in supporting changing the “Definition of marriage, or even at one time we had legal slavery.” Laws that been actively lobbied to be changed or have already been changed for the betterment of the nation as a whole. But Marriage wasn’t any law of the land liberals say? But there was some 6000 years of traditional—religious traditions /moral laws. The democrats view seems to have changed– we can’t have laws that enshrine discrimination or bigotry, now can we? An accusation within such an argument, is designed to undermine the opposition—what they are saying is that religious moral laws are supporting discriminations or bigotry enshrined within their moral laws? But is it?

If it is a conservative value, principal everything can be changed, nothing is written in stone. But not so with liberal progressives, or Democrats, now their principles or values and policies, are written in stone. Or so they act as if they are. That’s why the bitter name calling.

Funny how conservatives allow for people to choose for themselves. But the Democrats need to be pushed kicking and screaming into excepting, forced into complying, with the strong handed government using the power of restrictions, regulations, laws, and the fear of punishments, or forfeitures of wealth or personal property, or even imprisonment to get people to comply.

Everything Democrats do is to push an agenda and orchestrate the public into becoming useful idiots, distorting everything to hide the truth, keeping people from making well-informed decisions.

A great example of this is the recent demonstrations of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, or the Immigration rally the other day while parks were shutdown to everyone else, and then the Million Veteran March yesterday; with the Occupy and Immigration rallies, the police and law enforcement were not sent out in droves as they were with the Vet’s yesterday. Why?

I would guess the tactics of the Democrats in power orchestrated certain groups for public opinion, photo opportunities, in order to push their agenda and increase their power over everyone at the same time. Democrat supporters and demonstrators know what the parameters are going into the demonstrations—you don’t have to send out the police other than for show. They know who the players are. They know what is going to happen, because it is planned for, and orchestrated for maximum sympathetic effect.

But with groups like the Vet’s or the Tea-party rallies, the Democrats see this as an assault on their power, not a unified defense of lost liberty’s or freedoms. Who would challenge the majority rule right? But with the Vet’s rally / demonstration the question is what is going to happen—because these people are exercising their rights—Democrats are more inclined ( Because you’re not in control of those people) to send out forces in opposition to them.

The Democrats are no longer doing what is in the best interests for the country using the pillars of liberty and freedom, or the constitution, along with an understanding of the declaration of Independence, to promote individual opportunities by maximizing everybody’s true human potential. Their policies and tactics are ones of destroying, any and all opposition to what they believe to be a moral superiority. In creating dependency, they maximize power and control.

In the public arena it’s not that Republicans are conservatives, or that the Democrats are liberals. It’s not that the Republican Party lines have been hardening and the Democrats lines have become spaghetti soft red lines easily moved as the political wind blows; there are exceptions on both sides. In the public arena, it is generally viewed as an all-or-nothing choice. And why wouldn’t it be? After all of the heated rhetoric, and name calling; if you then make out your opponent to be something like the “Devils spawn”, or sadistically out of touch, how could it then be even moral, in trying to negotiate a solution?  So how is name calling like economic saboteurs, economic terrorists, crazies, tyrants, obstructionists…etc. not harden the political lines? Again would it even be moral in trying to negotiate a solution when you have pushed 50% of the population towards the crises cliff of your own making? What does the breaking point look like when and if a political party wishes to be true to its moral convictions of what is right or wrong?

Wouldn’t leadership rather put their own agenda aside for the sake of true leadership, doing everything in avoiding crises in favor of finding solutions that unite the nation positively. Before doing such damage to such an extent where the nation becomes united in your political destruction?

“Terrorists,” “crazies,” “tyrants,” along with lies, distortions, and man-made-crises, in addition to spending vast sums of borrowed money; these are, the new religious weapons of robust incrementalisim worshiped by the ruling class, which exchanges the ideas of freedom and liberty with chains of slavery.