The Big Question

Click here to view original web page at

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Visa and Mastercard won’t service conservative businesses. They are intentionally discriminating on the basis of political viewpoint.

It’s completely legal, of course, under freedom of association. It’s the same reason I don’t shop at Dick’s Sporting Goods, the America-hating social justice suck-ups who won’t sell Black Rifles, and the reason I won’t spend money in any store that bans guns on the premises to provide a sanctuary for criminals. I disagree with their political viewpoint so I won’t support it.

Customers have a right to discriminate against merchants based on their political viewpoint. Should merchants have a right to discriminate against customers based on their political viewpoint? Tough question.

I’m on the side of the wedding cake decorator who doesn’t want do gay cakes. I’m against Visa who doesn’t want to facilitate gun sales. I could use some help from SITD readers. How do we balance the rights?

Joe Doakes

I’ll throw this out to my audience, who are inevitably much smarter than I am.

My two cents: it takes two to balance. The other side wants nothing to do with “balance”. I think we are inevitably sliding into two different economies (at best) or complete dissolution as a nation ,one way or the other.


This entry was posted in Liberal Tyranny by Mitch Berg. Bookmark the permalink.

A friend of the blog writes:

It used to be people would go out for a night of fun and one person would have to be the designated driver. A majority didn’t even think to use cabs and public transit would often not run regularly enough at bar close.

Now that we have Uber and Lyft, I have heard many, many stories of people using those services when going out. I know some people who no longer drive under the influence because of the affordability of Uber.

So, of course, when people get real options that are reliable and affordable, those in the government who think their jobs are as social engineers have a problem.

Of interest locally, I found this link through a Tweet that declared Minneapolis/St Paul should consider this next. Why?

They can try to limit all they want, but there will still be people in cars and ride sharing will still happen. For example, the other day, I was approached by a man on the street who was trying to start his own ride share business, offering lower rates than Uber by about $2. I also have the number of a taxi driver who moonlights as a personal driver for those of us with his business card. He pretty much places himself on call for us.

So, yes, there will be options, which makes it even more aggravating that city governments get involved in private business that actually works for the people.

In a system built on rent-seeking, people will seek rent.

And for the government permission racket to survive, it’s gotta deliver the rent.