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…

Just one of those do-it-yourself healthcare cures.

In the age of Obamacare and the exploding costs of medical cures, both the medical industry and the government oversight committee in charge of holding costs to a minimums, may just as likely be looking into the practices of “human probiotic infusion, fecal bacteriotherapy, stool transplant, or Fecal transplants” as one treatment with a high degree of success? Fecal matter occupies a gray area being neither drug nor device or tissue, so why would the government or individual alike latch onto this treatment? Cost of treatment vs. success of treatment.

Even when the professionals, gastroenterologists and alike are asked about human probiotic infusion as a treatment to try instead of surgery: Their noses get all screwed up like a seven-year-olds may get when smelling a rank fart in a confined area. Their thoughts may  or may not be expressed out loud to you, but they are still thinking, “But it’s putting someone else’s pooo inside of you!”

Once people get past the gross-out factor, medical professionals and the industry alike may relax the scrutiny of the procedure and the scarcity of it may slowly disappear as it becomes mainstream in treatment of Crohn’s, C. diff, or ulcerative colitis?  On the other hand as a low-cost procedure and a high probability of success claimed by those in the business of offering such treatments, the government may embrace it, or even counterfeit the research in making it more favorable solely as a cost savings to their social liabilities of signal payer healthcare system (aka. Obamacare.)

In a hospital setting, the transplant is often performed with colonoscopy equipment, to infuse the sample as far back in the colon as possible. But as you can see this requires what is considered a surgery by insurance companies and therefore a considerable cost to the procedure. Cha Ching! Is the sound heard in the governmental regulators mind, whose job it is to control the escalating expense. In other words, its big bucks, spending it could be avoided all together.

Under an era of cost savings it may become a do-it-yourself cure promoted by your loving government healthcare provider. The personal more accessible option is to simply use an enema bottle. (The smaller size, I keep hearing: goes a long way.) Because of e-coli concerns I would venture to guess, the FDA’s recent decision to regulate fecal transplants as an investigational new drug, has brought a treatment which was on a trajectory towards mainstream acceptance—temporarily—hard to get in the US.

There has been talk about developing a pill form, for the treatment of such cases. But as usual if people know what they’re about to swallow just amounts to purified crap, the wrinkled screwed up facial expressions may be permanent to such an extent that even Botox can’t cure.

The most problematic thing about Obamacare for me is. Not being able to talk things over with a doctor who has his wagon attached to your decision based on his sound advice–that best suits you and your health concerns.

Instead Obamacare turns over the responsibilities to other agencies, and individuals, the gears of bureaucracy in making all sorts of your decisions for your health. Who needs a president who promises “changing the country fundamentally”, and keeping him for life, when the bureaucracy built out of social engineering is forever?

The treatments presented in this post are factual indeed, no less factual as the lies and distortions in Mr. Obama’s presentations and defense of his beloved “Obamacare”. His stubborn stance over the government shutdown, not even wanting to negotiate with the GOP, all the while giving exemptions, wavers, or subsidies, to avoid the pain of having to except for themselves the painful effects of the Obamacare law while demanding the people to comply to it, is my objection!

Obamacare is an excrement sandwich being forced down your throats against your will, as the cure-all to all of your future health needs. But when the tape worm eats up our free-market economy and the government can no longer barrow new money from the bank of China, are your decision for your healthcare also going to be limited? Will you beg your government to be able to go to the hospital for treatments? Or, out of cost savings, or the reduced value to the society because of your declining age, will you be left with seeking some Do-it-yourself therapy?

Just one of the many thoughts you all should be thinking when the USA happens to be following in the footsteps of Great Britain’s health industry, where it is rationed. The fact that social medicine doesn’t work the world over has got my hyperhidrosis working overtime.

If every human life is a masterpiece, a novel, a work of art in the making and shaping of our lives of our own design, than you define your own legacy every day; it should also be by your own decision on how you treat it at its end. In the pursuit of happiness somehow I have failed to see the part where we must ask government for its permission, while crossing our fingers behind our backs. I would rather fight an insurance company–I can at least sue them.

With the government bureaucracy….I hear daemons laughing–then ordering. “Take two pills…”

Religion of Suicidal selfishness, or the ultimate social engineering?

Any society that is founded on a self-centered selfishness. Is one that will often make decisions based on limiting personal responsibility’s. Yet society is dependent on growth. Peoples  retirements depends on younger people to pay for their retirement. Younger people are dependent on still younger people having kids and thus supporting the housing markets with expansion and of price. Even stores that sell the basic needs look for growth in income and expansion of operations from the population growth. Even growth of the job markets are dependent on these reality’s. Basic fact growth of any society comes from the growth of the population.

What happens to society’s when they embrace a suicidal selfishness?

Back in 2006 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had called for a baby boom.

 “I am against saying that two children are enough. Our country has a lot of capacity. It has the capacity for many children to grow in it. It even has the capacity for 120 million people,” he declared. “Westerners have got problems. Because their population growth is negative, they are worried and fear that if our population increases, we will triumph over them.”

After the 1979 Islāmic Revolution which booted out the Shah, The Iranians had an extremely high birth rate. Some almost 7 births per women. Iranians had swelling births and plenty of young people coming up in society. Soon they would enter the workforce and every aspect of a modern Iran not socially and politically prepared for it. According to the politicians of the day they had a bright future. Some what expressed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But with huge growth you also have huge societal demands. Education, Jobs, housing, better foods, healthcare… and so on. But the leaders of Iran didn’t see the need to follow the people’s needs and or demands. The outlook for the future, and that same outlook that the population viewed, was a whole different view completely. Was it is because of personal responsibility’s?

Shocked by the rapidly growing population, the Iranian government vigorously promoted family planning as a path to economic development. 70 million as a teeming cauldron of Islāmic fundamentalism and social and moral conservatism, the trend to lower birthrates began. Hoping to lower the pressure on government.

A western way of life was considered evil. So birth control was on the cutting edge of to different society’s, were one was considered more western therefore ( Evil ), and the other was religiously rigid. After the 1979 Islāmic Revolution which booted out the Shah, Iran was dismantled for being pro-Western. But contraceptive use was not totally banned and Imam Khomeini and other Ayatollahs did grant fatwas allowing it as a health measure.

Women were encouraged to space births and to stop at three. Although there was no overt coercion, a 1993 social engineering law penalised large families by terminating family allowances, health benefits and maternity leave for families with four or more children. Reducing farther the government responsibility, all the while creating a theocracy controlled social engineering.

Who really wants to look at their children and tell them, ” Sorry there is no food!” no one does. So there is no real surprise that the birth rate dropped to a low in 2012 1.88 births per women. That represents a declining population. Any population needs to have 2.1 births per women to sustain its self. But to grow it needs more births, along with a population that sees opportunity’s for a brighter future.

Iran today has had one of the highest declines in birth rates in the world. Down some 70% in their growth rate, within a single genaration.This will spell trouble with the ageing of the population. First the baby boom from the war years, now between the ages of 14-35. In that age group women are using birth control at an increasing rate, or having baby’s farther apart, or not at all. All so they have a renewed desire to have an easier life. They can see the world through the internet, and its many appeals. A reduction of personal responsibility’s on every level, is therefore appealing.  Leaving more resources for everyone on every level.

Being young with no real bright futures that they can see. The young are taking the direction to protest against the political internals to the country. It also explains the political unrest in the country. Leaderships worry is, how to deal with all of the social concerns, along with the their brand of religious expansion they are hoping for.

Iran has been going down that road of controlling the population through religious rules rather than rigid government ones. If you don’t like the rules supplied by government you can always overthrow them. But with religious rules…… even through they seem to be perverted by political leaders, it takes an extreme mindset to change religions. Much harder to do when you have the kind of religion like Islam. It also doesn’t surprise anyone with the display’s of attitudes of the government leadership. A Young population ( Some 30 + % of the population ), 25% plus unemployment among the young, and a declining birth rate. Which means that the iranian government will have fewer people to support the future retirement of the present youth. A governmental migraine.

War and the extreme talk of it is just a way to slim down the population and kick-start any economy. But that is also evil. Yet old men can’t fight in a war so……

When you look at it like I’m sure the president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has. It doesn’t surprise anyone to hear the kind of political rhetoric, along with a strange love of death.

Islamist’s love to say… ” We love death more than you love life. “

Is it religion coping society? Or society that has copied flawed religious rules, only seeing a dark future, therefore allowing a for slow suicidal death by way of reduced birth rates? Truly is it a Religion of suicidal selfishness, or the ultimate social engineering on the road to failure?