Oh, the tolerance of the Left…

Late yesterday evening, a Knoxville restaurant cryptically suggested that it denied service to conservative State Senator Stacey Campfield, allegedly for remarks he’s made about the gay community and his fervent opposition to LGBT rights in the Legislature.

In a Facebook status update, the Bistro at the Bijou posted, “I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discrimanted against.” (At the time of this publication, their post had nearly 400 “likes” and more than 80 comments.)

The general consensus from the liberal commentariat in Tennessee (and now nationally) is that an establishment should be allowed to deny service to a customer based on the owner’s opinion of that customer.

Right. A business should be allowed to choose whom it serves. This is their argument. This is the very definition of discrimination, “the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.” Toss Stacey into the group of conservative legislators, or high profile individuals who oppose LGBT rights in Tennessee, or Gingers. This definition applies.

As a libertarian, I agree with their sentiment – that a private business ought to be allowed to enter into business with whomever they chose, and by extension, deny service to those individuals they do not want to serve. It doesn’t make financial sense; a restaurant ought to want to maximize its profits and serve the most number of customers it can. A dollar from a Ginger, or a black guy, or a Jewish person, or a gay person, or whomever spends the same as a dollar from anyone else. But if the issue is property rights (and whom a property owner may serve in their establishment), then people should be allowed to exercise their principles.

But as you may recall, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul got into some trouble on the campaign trail in 2010 for expressing a very similar sentiment.

Rand Paul, in typical philosophical-libertarian-unconcerned-with-electoral-politics style, expressed his dissatisfaction with the Clause in the Civil Rights Act which forced businesses to serve customers of any race or ethnicity. Now, you might imagine that passing a law simultaneously changes hearts and minds, but it doesn’t. In fact, the Civil Rights Act did little to eliminate racist sentiments toward black Americans. I digress…

The same crowd who believes a restaurant in Knoxville should be allowed to deny service to Campfield expressed collective outrage over Paul’s comments. Rachel Maddow hosted Paul and later blogged about the discussion.

In the wake of Rand Paul’s Civil Rights-gate, John Stossel came to his defense – and by extension, the defense of those who support Bistro’s decision in Knoxville.

Stossel argues in favor of “freedom of association” and asserts that we discriminate every single day; when we’re choosing our foods, or our friends, or the hundreds of other choices we make. (On a side note, I want to strangle Megyn Kelly in this Stossel interview. She’s really grasping at straws.)

The problem with the incident in Knoxville and the subsequent public response is that it’s motivated by disdain for an individual and his beliefs. The manager who tossed Campfield out and the people who have applauded her aren’t standing on some libertarian, free association principle. They’re doing so because they don’t like Stacey.

What’s the difference, then, between refusing service to a man because you don’t like his ideas and refusing service to a man because you don’t like his skin color? Both decisions are based on a disdain for an individual.

What’s to stop the owner of Bistro from posting a sign saying “We don’t serve Gingers” or “No Republicans Allowed” or whatever?

The Tennessee Left (what little that actually exists) collectively cheers every time Campfield makes headlines for something silly. Their reaction this time is no different. It’s a personal vendetta they hold against him.

What do you think? Is it inconsistent of the Left to applaud denying service to a man with whom they disagree? Is it personal or philosophical? Leave a comment below.

There’s an effort afoot in the Volunteer State to amend Tennessee state law to allow voters to recall state elected officials. From their Facebook page:

This page serves to educate voters and lawmakers on amending Tennessee state law to empower voters with the right to recall state elected officials.

Tennessee voters have shown a great deal of prudence in their use of the state’s current recall law in local county politics. It’s time to give Tennessee voters the power to recall state elected officials as well by amending T.C.A. 2-5-151.

17 other states empower voters with the right to recall state elected officials. Just like Tennessee’s current recall law, they are rarely ever used.

Tennessee currently has an “ouster law” (T.C.A. 8-47-101), but this law only protects voters from criminal politicians. It doesn’t protect voters from politicians who lie in the interview process and then switch to their own personal agendas and that of outside groups and donors.

The state’s current recall law works so well, not a single state lawmaker has tried to repeal it. If we’re going to treat government like a business, it’s time to give the real boss the power to fire politicians who feel entitled to a full term of insubordination. Let’s protect Tennessee from politicians who serve themselves before the great state of Tennessee.

While “Recall TN” – as it is being termed – does not expressly announce a partisan slant, the organization is no doubt the creation of liberal Democrat activists, who have seen their influence dwindle in recent elections. A full 80% of the other pages “Recall TN” supports are either Democrat in nature or of a left-of-center slant. Also, most of the chatter on the “wall” is of a Democrat nature.

Just as in Wisconsin, they’re undoubtedly hoping to capitalize on the populist idea of throwing out elected Republicans who make tough decisions in state government.

As I’ve said before, we already have a process to recall politicians. It’s called the next election. Unless a politician does something illegal or unethical, they were elected to serve a term mandated by law.

Just because you don’t like something a politician does, that doesn’t mean they’re not doing what they think is in the best interest of the electorate.

Seems to me “Recall TN” is made up of a bunch of sore losers, who don’t appreciate the democratic process of elections.

As of the time of the original story’s posting on Big Journalism, I still had not received word back from Rob Wolchek, the Detroit Fox affiliate investigative reporter in question. In an email I wrote to Wolchek on Thursday, July 14, I asked, simply:

I think you did a really great piece about auto workers using their lunch breaks to drink and smoke, but I’m curious: Why did you and the anchors end the segment by basically apologizing for the report? Was it in response to viewer backlash after the previous story? Why couldn’t the segment stand alone without the disclaimer at the end?

I appreciate your hard work. As a former news writer, it’s good to see hard-hitting investigative pieces like yours.

Thanks so much, and I look forward to your reply.

I will bring you his response if and when I hear from him.

If you’ve discovered this post by coming through Big Journalism, I encourage you to check everything else out here. If you’re a regular visitor to this site, I encourage you to check out the related post at Big Journalism.

UPDATE I: Last Friday, I tweeted at Fox Detroit’s Rob Wolchek to make sure he received my email. He replied – unsure if he’d received it, so I sent it again. Mr. Wolchek has not yet replied to my email.

UPDATE II: Mr. Wolchek replied to my original email just now (on 7/20) with the following message:

As you can imagine, these stories generate a lot of emotions from our viewers. This is Detroit and we depend upon the auto industry. It is a heavy load to do a story that can affect so many lives.

As a reporter, I investigate my stories as fairly as possible. I try not to take sides or put my political opinions in the stories. Regardless, a story like the “Busted Auto Workers” will be interpreted in many different ways by our local viewers and those across the country and even the world. You saw the on-camera banter as being apologetic. Others had very different opinions.

So let me state my feelings on the story. Most of the people that work in our factories are extremely hard-working, dedicated people. That’s why I get tips about the bad apples. The people we caught on camera make the good people look bad. I have many friends that work at Chrysler. They are good people. I don’t like to put a negative spotlight on their company. However, it is my job to investigate. I don’t apologize for what I found. The workers who chose to party during their lunch made those decision and we caught them on camera. They messed up and made their company and fellow employees look bad.

I appreciate Mr. Wolchek’s reply and understand his position.

UPDATE III: According to the most recent Fox Detroit update:

From the Fox 2 story on Chrysler Group’s Trenton Engine Plant, the Company was able to identify nine employees captured on video. To date, all nine employees have been suspended indefinitely without pay pending further investigation. While the evidence seems conclusive, the Company needs to act in accordance with corporate policy and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement before further action is taken. The investigation is ongoing.

Josh Fields, a fellow Tennessean and MTSU alum, penned a column about the labor fight in South Carolina and how it may spill over into Tennessee:

The clash between labor unions and businesses is a deep-rooted skirmish, creating fault lines that have helped to shape America’s political landscape.

The latest quarrel is that between the National Labor Relations Board and Boeing Corp., and though it is taking place outside of Tennessee, the implications run deep beneath its bedrock.

At stake in the battle is a $1 billion factory in South Carolina that Boeing hopes will be housing a production line of their new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet. The NLRB claims that Boeing is building the facility in South Carolina to punish the unions in Washington state for past strikes and high wages. The advantage that South Carolina has in luring companies like Boeing is their right-to-work status.

Under right-to-work laws, you cannot be forced to become a member of, or pay dues to, a union. This incentivizes, as has been seen over the past 40 years, businesses to move or expand some production lines to states with these policies. Tennessee is one of the beneficiaries of this status. From major corporations to small operations, Tennessee has experienced a steady growth in its manufacturing base and economic output despite economic downturns and outsourcing nationwide.

It is no accident that states with business-friendly climates attract business from other regions and other nations. Yet, the NLRB attack on Boeing indicates a disturbing trend. As the U.S. economy struggles to find its stride, the push from labor unions on existing facilities grows. Lack of job creation in those regions has put stress on union leaders to keep their grasp on expansion.

Pressure also mounts on politicians dependent on union donations to keep them in power. It is important to note that Boeing isn’t cutting jobs but putting an additional plant in South Carolina.

The implications here are dizzying. Given Tennessee’s business-friendly reputation, are the policies that help maintain its business prestige all for naught? Elected leaders on both sides of the aisle have staked their careers in maintaining and building an environment that sets Tennessee apart from other states. Moreover, Tennessee workers have benefited greatly from the economic freedom and helped to build the solid reputation of our labor force.

Tennesseans should be concerned that unions now seek to prevent right-to-work states from scooping up those jobs. The NLRB appears to be doing its job to protect unions, but in reality it is merely protecting a monopoly at the expense of job growth and competition among the states to offer better economic climates.

The concept of “right-to-work” — that men and women can enter into an agreement with an employer without being forced into a labor union — is what’s at stake here. The battle between Boeing and the National Labor Relations Board could have sweeping implications for right-to-work states like Tennessee.

Check out some of Fields’ other writings here.