I always love interesting debates. Ones that defy logic in particular. A guy from Duck Dynasty walks into the trump hotel and gets thrown out. I certainly would be upset if that were to happen to me. The link http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/trump-hotel-not-apologizing-for-booting-duck-dynasty-star.html .  This incident, in review, was not a huge deal even to the duck dynasty star that it happened to. He brushed it off. But this does bring up an interesting question of how people perceive rights and when perceived rights get in the way of actual rights in my opinion.

Do you have a right to maintain a beard? Sure you do. If a hypothetical business decided it was in its best interests to ban those with beards from their establishment is that their right? Yes it is. Sometimes it is hard to just see the truth. The truth is that life is not always fair. People do not always agree with your lifestyle choices, or how you have decided to “decorate” your body for lack of a better terminology. Not only do people have the right to disagree with you. They have the right, on their own property, to exclude you from their business or personal property for those disagreements. This is why I cringe when I see campaigns to force business’s to accept tattoo’s. Do I believe it is necessarily right for a business to exclude people from working for the reason of an exposed tattoo? No. I think the stigma is going away and that our culture is increasingly accepting it in the public square. However, if you want to work for, shop at, dine at, or participate in anyone’s privately owned business you go by their rules.

So the question is, why is this such a hard issue to wrap your head around? There is a simple, one word answer. History. Before the civil rights movement eradicated the practice with legislation many store owners would deny service to a person based on the color of their skin.  In most states the definition of unlawful discrimination is pretty vague. In order for the discrimination to be lawful a business owner must “show a logical basis for the decision and must be evenly applied and attributed”. Many people take this, and run a long way with it. But the most common explanation and barometer used by courts is if the condition for which service is denied is not something that can be controlled or chosen. This has been largely the reason for the intense debate on whether or not homosexuality is genetic or if it is a lifestyle choice. But, even if it were ruled to be genetic (which science does not actually support as of now) there still would be the entrenched first amendment rights that would grant that this http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/ case involves a choice. A choice to get married. Even if the lifestyle is genetic it is still a choice to get married.

It is a hard debate, but I believe it is a very important one. Do I have the right to force you to allow me in your establishment when you have set guidelines as to what is acceptable there? I say I do not have that right, and no one should have that right.