FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today

To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1984

STEALING FROM THE CITIZENRY

The right to tell the Government to kiss my Ass Important Message for All Law Enforcers Freedom; what it is, and what it is not. Unadulterated freedom is an unattainable goal; that is what the founders of America knew and understood, which was their impetus behind the documents that established our great nation. They also knew that one of the primary driving forces in human nature is the unconscious desire to be truly free. This meant to them that mankind if totally left completely unrestricted would pursue all things in life without any awareness or acknowledgement of the consequences of his/her own actions leaving only the individual conscience if they had one as a control on behavior. This would not bode well in the development of a great society. Yet the founders of America chose to allow men/women as much liberty as could be, with minimum impact on the freedom or liberties of others

Sunday, August 7, 2016

WHEN DISCRIMINATION BECOMES TYRANNY

WHEN DISCRIMINATION BECOMES TYRANNY

Joseph Farah asks, 'Is it wrong for people to make distinctions?'



Entrepreneur Nate Snell is hiring in Portland, Oregon.

You might think that would be good news in a country with 45 million working-age citizens completely out of the workforce.



But not so fast.

Snell, who owns Pip’s Original Doughnuts and Chai in the northeast part of town, posted his job listing in search of prospective employees with “no medical, non-religious dietary restrictions,” setting off a firestorm of attacks accusing him of discriminating against vegans.

The proprietor explained his position this way: “I want people who are passionate about what they sell. If you can’t eat it, how can you be passionate about it? If the employee was to say something like, ‘Well, I don’t eat meat or I don’t eat gluten, or I don’t eat nuts or dairy,’ any one of those things would preclude them from being able to give you an honest answer of what that tastes like or how good it is.”

It’s not illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of dietary preference – yet!

But how long will it be before governments require employers, as a matter of course, to stop making any judgment about the people they hire.

Let me suggest a few possibilities where the government’s one-size-fits-all rules about employment might soon lead – if they haven’t already:

You’ve got a fine eating establishment – elegant, beautiful décor, great food, terrific service. Does a restaurateur have the right to require servers to “fit in”? What about rules against facial piercings, obvious tattoos, dress codes? Won’t such restrictions offend some? Would they not be discriminatory?
Suppose you own a bar and you determine it’s not a good idea to hire alcoholic bartenders. Discrimination? Certainly, it is. But should the owner have the right to make that choice for the wellbeing of his or her establishment?
Maybe you own a business that requires employees to handle lots of cash. Should you be forced to hire employees who have petty criminal records?
I’m telling you as sure as I am sitting here writing this column that the day is coming when every American will lose his or her God-given right to make choices that they believe are in the best interest of their safety, security, property and businesses.

It’s already happening. The pressure is mounting. We are losing the right to follow our own consciences and common sense in determining our own destinies.

The government knows best – and that includes unaccountable judges.

We’ve already seen florists, bakers, caterers, photographers, videographers and others told they must accept clientele and jobs that violate their own sense of religious freedom.

Where does this end?

Is all “discrimination” bad?

The word simply means “an act or instance of discriminating or making a distinction.”

Is it wrong for people to make distinctions?

Have we lost our individual right to choose what we think is right and what is wrong?

If so, who is wise enough to make our collective decisions for everyone?

We are rapidly approaching a point at which anti-discrimination hysteria becomes tyranny. Someone has to make decisions about right and wrong. That’s ultimately what laws are all about. But we’re making so many, and, in the process, micro-managing the lives of Americans to such an extent, that individual conscience and choice is falling by the wayside.

It’s a consequence of people becoming too easily offended.

Why was there hysteria of the choice Nate Snell made about his little doughnut shop in Portland?

Do vegans and those with who can’t tolerate gluten really yearn to work at a doughnut shop? Aren’t there other options for them? Aren’t there better choices to fit their lifestyles and diets?

I don’t eat pork or shellfish, for instance. Would I want to work in the kitchen of a shrimp restaurant or a Honey-Baked Ham shop? No. So why can’t people just make choices that conform with their own life choices? Why do they insist on seeing themselves as victims of “discrimination” only because business people set some common-sense standards in what they determine to be their own best interest?

Everyone acknowledges today that racial discrimination in hiring is wrong. It’s arbitrary and immoral. Is it really progress to equate every lifestyle with race? Is it wise? Doesn’t it diminish what people have been forced to endure in terms of racial prejudice?


WHEN DISCRIMINATION BECOMES TYRANNY

Joseph Farah asks, 'Is it wrong for people to make distinctions?'



Entrepreneur Nate Snell is hiring in Portland, Oregon.

You might think that would be good news in a country with 45 million working-age citizens completely out of the workforce.



But not so fast.

Snell, who owns Pip’s Original Doughnuts and Chai in the northeast part of town, posted his job listing in search of prospective employees with “no medical, non-religious dietary restrictions,” setting off a firestorm of attacks accusing him of discriminating against vegans.

The proprietor explained his position this way: “I want people who are passionate about what they sell. If you can’t eat it, how can you be passionate about it? If the employee was to say something like, ‘Well, I don’t eat meat or I don’t eat gluten, or I don’t eat nuts or dairy,’ any one of those things would preclude them from being able to give you an honest answer of what that tastes like or how good it is.”

It’s not illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of dietary preference – yet!

But how long will it be before governments require employers, as a matter of course, to stop making any judgment about the people they hire.

Let me suggest a few possibilities where the government’s one-size-fits-all rules about employment might soon lead – if they haven’t already:

You’ve got a fine eating establishment – elegant, beautiful décor, great food, terrific service. Does a restaurateur have the right to require servers to “fit in”? What about rules against facial piercings, obvious tattoos, dress codes? Won’t such restrictions offend some? Would they not be discriminatory?
Suppose you own a bar and you determine it’s not a good idea to hire alcoholic bartenders. Discrimination? Certainly, it is. But should the owner have the right to make that choice for the wellbeing of his or her establishment?
Maybe you own a business that requires employees to handle lots of cash. Should you be forced to hire employees who have petty criminal records?
I’m telling you as sure as I am sitting here writing this column that the day is coming when every American will lose his or her God-given right to make choices that they believe are in the best interest of their safety, security, property and businesses.

It’s already happening. The pressure is mounting. We are losing the right to follow our own consciences and common sense in determining our own destinies.

The government knows best – and that includes unaccountable judges.

We’ve already seen florists, bakers, caterers, photographers, videographers and others told they must accept clientele and jobs that violate their own sense of religious freedom.

Where does this end?

Is all “discrimination” bad?

The word simply means “an act or instance of discriminating or making a distinction.”

Is it wrong for people to make distinctions?

Have we lost our individual right to choose what we think is right and what is wrong?

If so, who is wise enough to make our collective decisions for everyone?

We are rapidly approaching a point at which anti-discrimination hysteria becomes tyranny. Someone has to make decisions about right and wrong. That’s ultimately what laws are all about. But we’re making so many, and, in the process, micro-managing the lives of Americans to such an extent, that individual conscience and choice is falling by the wayside.

It’s a consequence of people becoming too easily offended.

Why was there hysteria of the choice Nate Snell made about his little doughnut shop in Portland?

Do vegans and those with who can’t tolerate gluten really yearn to work at a doughnut shop? Aren’t there other options for them? Aren’t there better choices to fit their lifestyles and diets?

I don’t eat pork or shellfish, for instance. Would I want to work in the kitchen of a shrimp restaurant or a Honey-Baked Ham shop? No. So why can’t people just make choices that conform with their own life choices? Why do they insist on seeing themselves as victims of “discrimination” only because business people set some common-sense standards in what they determine to be their own best interest?

Everyone acknowledges today that racial discrimination in hiring is wrong. It’s arbitrary and immoral. Is it really progress to equate every lifestyle with race? Is it wise? Doesn’t it diminish what people have been forced to endure in terms of racial prejudice?




No comments :