November 28, 2005

What was wrong yesterday is right today

On November 8th, The State.com, the online rag for the South Carolina newspaper by the same name, had an interesting tidbit posted. In bold print, the headline read ‘Court upholds dismissal of barbecue sauce suit.’ It might not sound so interesting, unless you are familiar with the case.

Back in 2000, when people of the state of South Carolina were debating removing the Confederate Battle Flag from where it flew atop the capitol dome, South Carolinian Maurice Bessinger decided to exercise his right to speak out on the subject. Mr. Bessinger is a businessman who has a string of restaurants and sells a mustard-based barbecue sauce (you can check it out here).

Jumping into the debate, apparently Bessinger was trying to make some points about self-determination, the proper relationship between the states and federal government, historical facts and truths often overlooked, and how the battle flag truly related to these matters. Unfortunately, those that wanted the battle flag to come down off the statehouse dome weren’t interested in Bessinger’s facts, or any of the points he was trying to make. The anti-flag cadre was only interested in emotionalism and promoting a narrow, uninformed view of how the battle flag should be ‘interpreted,’ and its ‘proper place’ in our society.

In trying to make his case, Maurice Bessinger started flying the South Carolina state flag above the U.S. flag on his restaurant’s flagpoles, and apparently flew the battle flag from these poles as well. In addition, Bessinger was selling literature in his restaurants that some found very politically incorrect (The State article mentioned two titles, “The South Was Right,” and “Myths of American Slavery;” two books that have been hailed for their extensive research and accuracy in presenting historical facts).

In addition to having several successful restaurants, Bessinger had also experienced huge success in the distribution of his ‘Carolina Gold’ barbecue sauce. Stores across the Deep South carried his sauce, and he was reported to be on the verge of a deal with Wal-Mart for national distribution. When the liberal media (specifically The State newspaper) took after Mr. Bessinger for expressing his views, the grocery chains that carried his barbecue sauce came under immense pressure from the newspaper, as well as other liberal organizations, to quit selling the sauce. The store chains all dumped Bessinger’s sauce around the same time. Reportedly, there was a 90% drop in sauce sales, resulting in large layoffs at the facility where Bessinger’s sauce was made.

The fact that these stores all acted at the same time made Mr. Bessinger suspect they acted together, although most likely under duress from liberal political activists. Bessinger filed suit against the store chains, saying the stores violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. The initial judge for the case dismissed the lawsuit.

While all of this is of mild interest to most people, and this kind of battle is just one part of the ongoing culture wars, there has been an interesting comment to come out of the conclusions of the appeals court that upheld the dismissal of Bessinger’s lawsuit. In his ruling, the appellate judge wrote “the defendant grocery store chains and their respective managers have the right to choose with whom they conduct their business.”

What’s of interest to me in the judge’s justification for the store chains’ actions is that the concept of the stores having ‘the right to choose with whom they conduct their business’ is the exact same justification storeowners tried to use in the 1950’s and 60’s for refusing to serve minorities. Back then, business owners argued that it was their business and they could serve whomever they pleased and conduct their business as they saw fit. But at the time, the idea that it was your business and you had a right to run it as you saw fit didn’t sit well with activist judges, and businessmen were told how to run their businesses, and whom they had to serve.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, all of a sudden letting businesses choose with whom they will do business is a good idea! What’s changed? The truth is, nothing has changed. Business owners should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit; and they should have been allowed to do so back in the 50’s and 60’s. I admit I cringe at the thought of a store today refusing to serve someone based on their skin color, religion, height, gender, accent, or whatever. But isn’t it their right to run their place of business as they see fit? They are taking the financial risk, so let them do as they please, and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of their business actions. No one says you have to go into a place of business that isn’t run the way you want it to be run. If you don’t like how some business is run, start your own business to compete with it or buy the business out yourself. The courts should not be telling business owners how to run things.

My wife and I discussed the decision of the appellate court judge, and his view of things, and she thought that there was a difference between telling store chains who they have to buy from and telling a store who they have to sell to. I see no difference. A business can discriminate based on whom they buy from just as well as by whom they sell to. The store chains involved in Bessinger’s lawsuit chose to not buy from Bessinger because of his views. What if Maurice Bessinger was to go in their front door to buy something and they refused to sell to him because of his views? Same consciousness of thought: discriminate against someone and refuse to do business with them, whether buying or selling.

The judge’s views on Maurice Bessinger’s case supports, in part, the right of free association, but it also exposes the hypocrisy of the courts and their failure to consistently uphold the right of free association over the last 50 years. To be consistent in their ‘interpretation’ and application of the law, and keeping with precedent (something liberals are so enamored with concerning issues such as abortion and affirmative action), the store chains that simultaneously dumped Maurice Bessinger’s barbecue sauce should be forced to show just cause for suddenly no longer carrying the product (something more than just they don’t like his political views). They should be made to negotiate in good faith with Bessinger, to reach an amicable conclusion.

This won’t happen of course, because one thing we’ve learned over the years is that the law is no longer a solid foundation upon which our society can depend and plan. The law is a malleable tool in the hands of judges that think they are the chieftains and kings over the rabble most of us call citizens. According to the appellate judge in this case, what was wrong yesterday (discrimination of who you do business with) is right today. Who knows if it will be right or wrong tomorrow? How can one plan, or make business decisions today if you don’t know if your actions will be viewed as legal or illegal tomorrow? One is left to suffer the whims of a judge, depending on their political views or how they may feel that particular day.

This is not how our system of government is suppose to work, and we are not suppose to be at the mercy of the priest-kings of the courts. We are supposed to function on the rule of law, not the politically correct views of someone wearing a black robe. Our courts are a mockery of what they are supposed to be. Justice is an endangered species in the courtrooms of America, and political correctness is overpopulating the legal terrain.

Jeff Adams

"Published originally at EtherZone.com

Archives

Does the Death Penalty ‘Prevent’ Crime?

The 17th Amendment: A Backhanded Acknowledge-ment of State’s Rights

A Pox on Both Their Houses!

Do It Yourself

Obey the Government - But not Always

Why We Need the Southern Military Institute

Liberals Fleeing to Canada

Minutemen are Proof Citizens can take back Their Country

The New Liberal Twist on History

Private Pensions and the Government

The Advantages of Republicanism and Negatives of Consolidation

Return to Radicalism

States, Countries, and Nations