We have entered a period in our society, where feelings take precedent over reason. Where if you feel scared, offended or deprived they are more important than inalienable rights.
It has been several weeks since we saw some dramatic changes in a few states as it relates to a small group of individuals. Some states have taken a stand against a social trend by enacting laws to protect the masses from this small group. Whether they are right or wrong, the problem I have is these laws have hurt some feelings. An example is the cancelation of a concert tour by the once favorite of mine Bruce Springsteen. He cited his personal belief being in conflict with the new law passed in the state of North Carolina as his reason for canceling the concert. In essence, his moral conscious was at odds with someone else’s beliefs and he chose to refuse service.
What’s good for the goose, forget about the gander
How is this any different from a baker refusing to serve a gay couple? How are their feelings any less important than a musician’s? What gives Bruce Springsteen the right to cite his feelings for refusing service, but the couple who owned a small bakery are not afforded the same luxury. I read some comments online about how the purchase of a concert ticket was a contract and the provider (Springsteen) was entitled to refuse service or cancel his concert at his discretion as long as he gave a refund. How does refunding the ticket sales validate his actions or make it any more or less fair. I mean if this is all about fairness how is this fair to the thousand of concert goers who were planning on attending.
The adult temper tantrum
If one were to pause for a moment and critically exam this and other similar incidents how is this any different from bully tactics, threatening or intimidation. If you don’t believe what I believe then I will punish you, I will withhold services or actions. The behavior that is being rewarded here is nothing more than a spoiled child throwing a tantrum and threatening to take their toys and go home if you don’t do what they say or give what they want. Never mind, you have your own feelings and these feelings have just as much importance or power as their own. That they have no more or no less right than the person next to them. If this type of action and behavior goes unchecked we will no longer be a country where the majority rules.
Know the law
I find this to be beyond troubling, but not too surprising given our social decay. Even at the local level I have felt this same type of thinking, where feelings trump your constitutional rights. In my case, a local “do it yourself” dog washing establishment put up a “no guns” allowed sign. Is it their right to deny service? Yes, but let’s look closer. I contacted the owner to learn more about this new policy. They explained in their email they were “afraid” and didn’t want their employees or patrons to be in fear. I followed up and asked how their feelings were more important than my constitutional rights. Had there been an incident or a cause for concern, was their justification for their action? There was no incident or act, there was simply their feelings. As we discussed the matter further the discussion shifted to a concerned of how people would handle their firearms while on their property.
The self appointed gate keepers
Here is where the issue became even more important to me. The owner claimed not every individual would be responsible, perhaps this is true. If we examine this thought process it would mean there are those who would be responsible. Let’s focus on the idea of irresponsibility; I have yet to find any documented incident to justify her claims. She further commented she felt it wasn’t worth the risk, again, what risk are we talking about here, what exactly is she claiming? Point to incidences of reckless behavior or negligence. If such a pattern existed there might be an argument to be made. As it stands, in the state of Texas to lawfully carry a firearm the individual must pass a background check and attended a class on safety and responsibility. Is this not enough?
Put your money where your mouth is
Apparently this is not enough, individuals and organizations across the country have thus taken it upon themselves to enact more. I am confident the vast majority of individuals are responsible, they follow the law, pay their taxes, help their neighbors and lead good lives. However, if I want to carry a firearm as is my constitutional right I am now deemed irresponsible. Then back up your claim, give me something concrete to prove the majority of legal gun owners are irresponsible. They cannot, we therefore must eliminate the excuse of irresponsibility and return back to a bias against guns based on feelings.
This was a lot of bandwidth abuse to come to the conclusion early on the simple choice is not to patron these and other businesses. This trend will continue because no one is challenging them.