A response to John Corvino, continued from Part 1
The legal line between small businesses and giant corporations is wide and well established, but anti-discrimination cases like the ones in question, all center around small businesses. Why? Could it be that small businesses are easier for states and state regulatory commissions to pick on?
Larger corporations are likely to have a team of lawyers on hand, but independently owned businesses may have none. Without the same legal standing or protections as corporations, when small business owners come under the radar of radical state commissions like Oregon’s Civil Rights Commission, they often fold altogether. Not only are the owners out of a job, they may be financially, reputationally, and creatively ruined. Those business owners have not been “educated” or “taught a lesson to,” their homes and holdings have been forfeit. They have been effectively obliterated from society, just as ancient Inquisitors did to so-called heretics.
As Roger Parloff pointed out in the March, 2017 New Yorker piece, Christian Bakers, Gay Weddings, and a Question for the Supreme Court,
“…From the standpoint of individual liberty, a mammoth corporation, such as Woolworth’s, is different from a mom-and-pop business. The regulatory machinery has been hesitant to tell individuals how to behave on their own premises, no matter how repugnant their behavior may seem. To this day, as Eskridge observes, the federal employment-discrimination laws do not apply to businesses with fewer than fifteen employees, and housing-discrimination laws do not affect owner-occupied buildings with four units or fewer…”
As an independent business owner and contractor, I absolutely value my ability to choose not to work with certain clients for any reason. They may be a pain to work with and a potential liability, and that liability and work outcome are my direct responsibility. I do not get to pass the buck, I do not get to hide in corporate shadows, and I can’t even be fired. Therefore, as any good business owner, I will pick and choose whom I work with very carefully and attempt to further protect myself and clients with fair contracts for us both. But those measures don’t offer protection against rapidly changing (and often unknown) laws or interpretations of them. Small business owners are screwed.
The main difference between a cake bought from the case, versus a custom-made cake via Cake Boss, is the risk and time and talent involved in the creation of the custom cake. If a generic cake gets accidentally dropped on the floor, there may be 5 more just like it in waiting. If a custom cake gets dropped, it’s a potential disaster (the worst part about watching Cake Boss is worrying those big cakes won’t make it to their intended destination in tact!).
It bears repeating that many of those who have won financial settlements against small business owners like bakers and florists, have done so without ever having a contract to begin with for customized creative services. Many cases do not end up in court, but are investigated (which is appropriate), prosecuted with the force of law (not appropriate), and legally penalized by certain state Civil Rights Commissions working independently from impartial judges, lawyers, etc. (really, really not appropriate).
We should not tolerate such behavior, particularly if we fancy ourselves as supporting small businesses. It’s legally outrageous, and sets a frightening precedent for small service providers who cannot always cope with the legal or media outcomes of major lawsuits or “legal” fines.
Some readers might respond to the above, “Well if business owners would only follow the law to begin with, they wouldn’t get in trouble.” Unfortunately, as we saw in part 1, state anti-discrimination laws are interpreted subjectively and, as we will see, are sometimes applied “unevenly.”
Mr. Corvino’s examples of Kosher and vegan bakeries not making bacon cakes or buttercream cakes for anyone (and therefore, no one), is a false dichotomy. Those bakeries have set professional limitations on what they will produce, based on sincerely held beliefs. It would be offensive to knowingly go into a Kosher bakery and ask for a bacon cake, or to ask a vegan baker for a meat pie, though they surely have the technical skills to produce such things. So how is it different when the bakery is a Christian one? Christian bakers also refuse to produce certain products based on sincerely held beliefs, but for them this is reprehensible, because their particular belief is culturally reprehensible.
*I do not necessarily endorse all views contained within this video or within others by Louder with Crowder
In addition to anti-discrimination laws being culturally and judiciously haphazardly applied, I am angry by the underlying societal devaluation of creative talents and skills. It’s not “just a cake,” but a carefully crafted work of art, unless you are buying from a generic, big-box retail store.
It’s not “just photography” or “just a painting,” as if no real heart, imagination, or effort goes into these things. But customers really do know better; they are attracted to artistic works precisely because they are different. Customers can see the difference, and are willing to pay higher prices because of the quality and creativity involved. Not just anyone can make beautiful cakes. Not just anyone can take gorgeous pictures, and not just anyone can fix computers or human hearts. These things require serious investments of time, experimentation, specialized equipment, and education.
So when people imperiously declare that small business owners should “suck it up” and “perform” on command, so long as potential customers throw money at the owner/creator, it is incredibly insulting. It is, in fact, prostitution!
This scene from Les Miserables 25th Anniversary Concert Edition by Universal, shows that even Fantine, an actual prostitute, should still be able to choose with whom she works. The result of her refusal and self-defense, eerily echoes the legal retribution some shop owners have unfairly faced. This clip was taken from my legally purchased, home copy DVD.
In general, Americans love funky little shops and hole-in-the-wall restaurant discoveries. They are personable, more welcoming, custom-geared for certain clientele (like my new favorite local bar geared towards gamers, D20), and tend to have higher quality customer service and products. Customers love these places not just for the food or flowers or art (products), but also for the atmosphere (heart). These are places where memories are made with family and friends, as opposed to generic retail stores which supply general goods and public services.
Most anti-discrimination laws, therefore, make no sense when applied to privately owned small businesses. For proof, let’s define the confusing term, “public accommodations,” which has been broadly (and unusually) interpreted by Oregon’s Civil Rights Commission to mean essentially any place “the public” might be. However, according to Wikipedia,
“Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines public accommodations as a limited number of facilities which are open to the public. Examples include hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private”.
In other words, privately owned small businesses are not generally considered “public accommodations”.
Lastly, let’s say just a word about prohibition and coercion and how the attempt to legalize something via these hard lines never, ever, ever, ever works. Ever. Even when the cause is noble, like protecting women and children from the abuse or neglect of drunk fathers. Even when parents are seeking to protect their kids from getting addicted to hard drugs, and even when we long to see all people treated the same everywhere because they are people (though you know, that road goes two ways).
Community and education are the keys to societal changes, albeit those things take much longer to implement and see progress. It isn’t as satisfying as exacting a kind of vengeance upon others who share the same ideas with people who may have hurt us, or our friends, or loved ones. But vengeance is not justice, and change only starts with an army of one.
Otherwise, just let our robot overlords rule and program us outright.
*I had no idea when writing this that “Robot Overlords” was a real film. But now I do, and since it features Gillian Anderson (X-Files) and Ben Kingsley, I must watch it.
See more “misty mountain” photos from my trip here
These communities rely almost solely on the dying coal industry that operates mines in the Appalachia mountains throughout Kentucky, Southern Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Not only do these areas struggle with economic depression, and an aging population, the heroin epidemic has hit these communities particularly hard as well.
The mountains here have been dynamited over the years to make room for better, wider, and safer roads. Shale rock breaks easily, so “steps” and ditches have been formed to prevent accidents from falling boulders and rock-slides.
Remains of the Sidney Coal Mining Company, now defunct. Images of the dying coal mining industry are tucked everywhere in the Appalachia mountains near Pikeville, KY.
An international friend brought a horrifying article to my attention over the weekend. It did not involve terrorism, Syria, the Standing Rock fiasco, or even Harambe. It was far more subtle a subject, far more insidious, and based on many misconceptions and quiet propaganda. The article was originally called, Bring Back Child Labor, until the author, Joseph Sunde, received such backlash he changed it to, Work is a Gift Our Kids can Handle.
Posted on the Acton Institute Power Blog, I detected some hints of conservative Christian homeschooling rhetoric I remembered from a few years ago, when I was involved in that movement with/for my small children. The Acton Institute’s stated mission is, “to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.” While the rest of the About page seeks to portray an ecumenical, almost secular and educated feel (nowhere is the word “Christian” mentioned), a quick look through Acton’s bookshop* proves their exclusively Christian underpinnings.
Betsy DeVos, Trump’s current pick for Secretary of Education, who recently made headlines with her trademark support of charter schools and school vouchers, is also a supporter of the Acton Institute, among others. This, in conjunction with the article in question, has deeply concerned many onlookers about the possible future of public education in America, but the rabbit hole goes deeper still.
For at least the past 10 years, the Homeschool Legal Defense Fund (HSLDA) has made it their mission to reduce state laws pertaining to child labor. In the states of Missouri and South Dakota, they have successfully overturned previous child labor laws in the name of homeschool anti-discrimination. They have been working on a federal bill to the same end nationwide since 2006*. The HSLDA represents the welfare and rights of not just homeschoolers, but ultra-conservative Evangelical Christian homeschoolers in particular (more on HSLDA in another post).
It is the position of the HSLDA, that children as young as 12 should be allowed to work, if their parents view such work as beneficial to the child’s education.
“…a 12-year-old homeschooler in Illinois was manning the cash register for his family’s business after his morning schoolwork was done. He enjoyed the opportunity to earn a little money, and his parents knew that it helped him hone his math skills. Unfortunately, a customer did not feel the same way. She turned the family in to the Illinois Labor Department. After looking into the matter, the department prohibited the boy from working during school hours.” –Source
The article claims many of the child labor laws enacted by states in throughout the 1800s were necessary for their time, but are “outdated”, and suggests that all federal laws regarding child labor restrictions were and are superfluous (no question where this organization stands on states’ rights!). The article continues by outlining general laws pertaining to working children at different ages. A few key laws include:
The question remains: Why should some Christians seek to overturn these child labor laws?
Why would Sunde (getting back to the original article in question) feel encouraged to blithely insist the Washington Post’s recent photo montage of dirty, poorly clothed child laborers from the early 1900s, was over-the-top for (rightly) calling the pictures “haunting”. Several of those kids were smoking for crying out loud! Or does Sunde think being filthy, poor, abused, and developing lung cancer are signs of virtuous character?
He seems to ignore those details, opting to focus on a favorite conservative fantasy that these children were using their “creative talents” to “build enterprises and cities, using their gifts to serve their communities, and setting the foundation of a flourishing nation.”
Sunde quotes heavily and with admiration, one Jeffrey Tucker from the Foundation for Economic Education. Tucker’s article titled, Let the Kids Work, is a perfect example of someone who is disconnected from reality. He calls the Washington Post’s photos, “beautiful”, and proceeds to imagine what the children in the pictures must have experienced:
“They are working in the adult world, surrounded by cool bustling things and new technology. They are on the streets, in the factories, in the mines, with adults and with peers, learning and doing. They are being valued for what they do, which is to say being valued as people. They are earning money. Whatever else you want to say about this, it’s an exciting life.”
Tucker pretends to believe the whopper that, “it was the market, not the government that reduced and nearly eliminated full-time grueling child labor.” Didn’t he just say those abused children were actually having the time of their lives? Didn’t he then proceed to make fun of those who might protest on the children’s behalf with, “Oh, look how exploitative it is!”
While Sunde insists in a new disclaimer, “I do NOT endorse replacing education with paid labor…nor do I support getting rid of mandatory education at elementary and middle-school ages.” Yet his own essay quotes Tucker’s insane words, “If kids were allowed to work and compulsory school attendance was abolished, the jobs of choice would be at Chick-Fil-A and WalMart.” (emphasis added by me)
Sunde goes on to say,
“In our schools and educational systems, what if we stopped prioritizing “intellectual” work to the detriment of practical knowledge and physical labor, paving new paths to a more holistic approach to character formation? In our policy and governing institutions, what if we put power back in the hands of parents and kids, dismantling the range of excessive legal restrictions, minimum wage fixings, and regulations that lead our children to work less and work later?”
Our forefathers’ greatest mission was free and public education for all American citizens, so Americans would not be subject to oppression! Washington and Franklin and the others are spinning in their graves to hear such blasphemies from so-called modern educated (Christian) men.
The reality of working children due to the continued and inexcusable lack of oversight of homeschooled kids is already a current problem:
“In some cases, educational neglect may occur when a homeschooled child is expected to work rather than study. In some cases…homeschooled children may be treated as servants and expected to do childcare and housecleaning rather than completing homeschool lessons. In other cases, homeschooled children’s education may cease at age 12 or 14 as they are expected to work full time, often in family businesses or doing various manual labor. “By 11, he was working full time with his dad who did construction,” writes Miranda of her homeschool graduate husband. “By 14, he was in the woods logging, carrying the full weight of a grown man’s job, helping bring home income for his parents.” These children are frequently not paid for their labor, and are thus both deprived of an education and exploited…These children often reach adulthood limited by their lack of education, their career path chosen by their parents through their failure to educate.” –Source
It’s even more of a problem for some homeschooled girls, whose educations are often devalued as they are raised to be “keepers at home”. The Coalition for Responsible Home Education quotes from Christian leader RC Sproul Jr., ““She [a nine-year-old homeschooled girl] doesn’t know how to read, but every morning she gets up and gets ready for the day. Then takes care of her three youngest siblings. She takes them to the potty, she cleans and dresses them, makes their breakfasts, brushes their teeth, clears their dishes, and makes their beds.” Now I [Sproul] saw her rightly, as an overachiever.”
Though it hasn’t been updated in 3 years, Sunde’s blog, Remnant Culture, features a telling who’s-who* of Evangelical and Catholic leaders and organizations whose mission is to instill pure capitalism (free market/free enterprise) in order to bring back the individual freedoms of religion and democracy they believe they have lost.
It is rather shocking that the very people who give the most lip service to education, America’s Founding Fathers, the value of children, and Christian morals, are the same ones advocating for elimination of compulsory education laws, a reduction of child labor laws, and the idolization of one form of human (i.e. fallible) government. In their minds, free enterprise is next to godliness (more on that in a later post). Make no mistake, the Industrial Revolution, America’s purest age of capitalism sans legal restrictions, saw the exploitation of everyone that possibly could be exploited. It was no less than the Northern form of slavery, without the personal investment of human chattel.
*Note: the shop link on the About page appears broken.
** When I first read Sunde’s essay on 11/27/16, he had included a statement about ending compulsory education at 8th grade. You will not find this quote in his current essay, it has since been deleted. The following comment references this quote, and there may be others: http://disq.us/p/1dx5k74.