Do Laws Only Apply to Conservatives?

The recent nonsense regarding some of the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes being unwilling to perform at the Trump inauguration leads to the potential for many parallel examples but with wildly different reactions. For example, a waiter or waitress might determine that a restaurant patron doesn’t agree with them politically. They might tell their boss to find this reprehensible person another server because they refuse to wait on that particular patron.

Currently anti-discrimination law says that you may not decline service to anyone, for any reason, including your particular religious beliefs. Employees of a publicly held corporation, normally don't get an option as to whether or not they would perform the task for which they were hired just because they don't care for a particular customer or the political orientation of that customer. The employee might quit their job to avoid contact with such a customer, but the company itself must serve that customer. Sounds like a workable compromise, right? The company can just assign a different employee to the task, and they move on to their next problem. Of course, very rarely (that is, NEVER) can you find a corporation that consists of just a husband and wife team, or just a single man or single woman. Such individuals are then not merely employees of the company who could sidestep the situation. Let’s just say that a deeply religious husband-and-wife team of bakers specializing in wedding cakes is put in a similar situation. For example, Aaron and Melissa Klein ran “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” for seven years in the notoriously left-wing environment of Portland, Oregon. But on January 17, 2013, a lesbian woman asked the Christian couple to bake a cake for a homosexual “marriage” ceremony. Upon learning the ceremony would be for two women, Aaron said, “I’m sorry. I hope I didn’t waste your time, but we don’t do same-sex marriages” based on his belief in the Bible.

---

The result of this difference of opinion was a $135,000 fine levied by the state government against these bakers. And there was not a “safe space” or “trauma puppy” to be seen. Imagine that! I might be in error, but the Rockettes do not own a closely held corporation. They are normal employees. If they refuse to do their job (a job they worked very hard to get in the first place), because they don’t agree with the political positions of the person who wanted to hire the Rockettes to entertain at an event, they would find themselves seeking a new employer. Doing your job is not equivalent to endorsing the political positions of that customer. Apparently, in some states, you are required to do things (for which you have been specially trained) even if your deeply-held religious beliefs preclude doing those very things. Consider the situation faced by a doctor who has deeply held religious beliefs regarding abortion. Apparently the Rockettes are not alone in believing that they have a right to withhold the performance of their paid employment based solely on their political principles. Many other performers have refused to perform at the Trump inauguration. Some have been using a fear of retribution, or a possible reduction in their income, as an excusable reason for refusing the request of our next president or his staff to sing a song. These performers apparently fear that any performance at Trump’s inauguration will be perceived as an endorsement of Donald Trump and his political views and that they would suffer some form of reprisal for such a dastardly act. It should be noted that a fear of retribution (economic or otherwise) is not an acceptable excuse for a juror to be excused from serving on a jury. Courts fully expect citizens in this country to literally risk their lives, or the lives of family members, in fulfilling their duty on a jury.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Imagine what would've happened if a performer had declined to perform eight years ago at Obama's inauguration

Citizens selected to serve in the Electoral College are equally expected to perform their duty, even when they and their families have been threatened by certain individuals and groups that weren’t pleased by the potential of them actually doing that duty which might result in confirming the election of a candidate that was not their preference. Imagine what would've happened if a performer had declined to perform eight years ago at Obama's inauguration. Should that refusal have been accepted without question? Would anyone raise holy hell about racism in that event? That would be like asking “Is the Pope Catholic?” So apparently, Progressive-Liberal-Democrats believe that any citizen that happens to agree politically with them should be given a pass on their behavior, even if a conservative citizen would be punished for any equivalent behavior to the point of driving them completely out of business and bankrupting them. So again, the question remains: “Do laws only apply to political conservatives?” A corollary question must be asked: If it has been arranged so that only political conservatives appear to be subject to these laws, what excuse do the Democrats have to claim that Donald Trump and Republicans are the ones in this country who are fascists? Don’t these people ever look in a mirror?