Should Mike Pence get "Playa' of the Year"

This entire political cycle has been crazy. From the beginning of the recent presidential campaign until now, many of us still can't believe our ears. We have accepted the present reality, yet it is still mind blowing. I mean the election results. I wasn't even referring to the ensuing chaos that came out of it. We're eight months in, and it still feels surreal. More and more, Mike Pence grabs my interest in a small way.

When Mike Pence was announced as Trump's running mate, many of us thought, who's this guy? Like we often do with many politicians. He didn't seem to have much controversy surrounding him. Like most accomplished politicians, he was well spoken and had a good grasp of most issues. Although being Trump's running mate, he never seemed to get a lot of slack. Even when defending something the President said, or a position he took. By the very nature of the position, vice presidents play a background role. The Vice President has been doing just that. Now and then he would pop up and address the press, but mostly staying away from the camera and public. I'm sure this is mostly just the routine of a vice president, but sometimes I wonder.

Soon after the election I would jokingly refer to Mike Pence as the genius of the year. When the President was choosing a VP, many thought of the candidates as those willing to sabotage their careers. I had occasionally joked that eventually Trump will get himself impeached, and it would be Pence to the White House. Shortly after making that joke, I began to feel like this may happen. Shortly after that, I began to feel like maybe this is a simple strategy on Pence's part. Get elected by being on a popular ticket, then when the President's antics get himself removed, the VP is next in line. All he has to do is quietly play the background, support the President's positions, and wait for things to play themselves out. Like he's been doing.

Private Businesses & Public Rights

Photo by Jusben at Morguefile

An issue that was tossed around for the past few years. Does a private business that is open to the public have an obligation to serve the entire public equally. The two key words are "private" and "public". When something is considered private, then it is up to the owner what to do with it. Conversely, when something is considered public, then it belongs to the community. The community owns it equally and, within reason, has equal right to determine it's fate. At least that is the theory.

Does a business have a right to pick its customers, or does the community it serves have some say about how it behaves. of course it has a basic right to choose it's clientele. Businesses constantly have to deal with problem customers. Some customers are mean, demanding or just a pain in the butt. Most businesses have a small portion that they would rather not serve. Usually this is for business reasons. They disrupt service, cost more than they spend, etc. But what if they aren't problem customers. What if they are just people they don't agree with or just don't like? If it's they're own personal business, shouldn't they have the right to say "I don't want to serve you", for whatever reason or no reason at all. How about the customers' point of view? If you are a member of a community, do you have a right to be served at any business open to the public? After all, it's open to the public and we all are the public.

This year, the Supreme Court will hear Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This is the Colorado bakery case that was is the news a while back. It was in the news so long ago, I thought this was decided already. A Denver baker refused to service a gay couple on religious grounds. It seems that a few laws are clashing. On one hand there is the baker's right to religious freedom, on the other is the right of citizens to be treated fairly. Maintaining religious freedom while respecting the public's constitutional rights can be tricky. Religious dogma by its nature can have a tendency to impose itself on people around it.  Religious practices don't allow for respectful decent. Certain rules must be followed a certain way, or there will be hell to pay. possibly literally.Then there are people's interpretations of these rules and philosophy. This is where things get muddy and feelings harden. But all that's beside the point. Where does the baker's rights end and the customer's rights begin. There's no way to respect both at the same time. Someone has to walk away unhappy.

The case is between Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips and David Mullins and Charlie, a same sex couple. In July 2012, Craig and Mullins tried to order a customized wedding cake for their wedding. Phillips refused on the basis of it conflicting with his christian beliefs. The original case, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, resulted in a win for Craig and Mullins. The subsequent appeal lost. Now Jack Phillips is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. in his losing case and appeal,  Phillips asserted that because of the creative nature of the business, the issue falls under the First Amendment as free speech and the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution gives Phillips the right of free expression of his religion without interference or prejudice from the government. But Craig and Mullins also have a Constitutional right on their side. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives the couple the right of equal treatment in businesses that openly serve the public, which accurately describes Phillips' business.

This case may be a delicate one since both parties have basic rights to assert. Phillips has freedom of religion, and Craig and Mullins deserve equal treatment under the law. We cherish and hold to high esteem our individual rights and ability to follow our beliefs freely. We equally hold the rights of the community as a whole as important. The community has a right to be treated fairly. The Constitution not only gives Phillips the right of free expression of his religion, but also is neutral on taking any position on religion. But Phillips also enjoys the benefits of operating private business open to the public. Just like a government office, a public business should have to be fair to the community as a whole. Allowing public businesses to refuse service on personal social preferences can have a negative effect on the business and social climate of a community. It can encourge social bias and justify attitudes that may lie under the surface. Of course, bias and attitudes always exist, and forcing businesses to be fair to everyone cannot stop this. We have full individual rights to accept and socialize with who we want. Certainly this basic right that we all SHOULD, have will support these positions anyway. But the difference is that we as individuals have every right to accept and socialize with who we want. Businesses like Masterpiece serves the community as a whole, and should have to respect to right of the community as a whole. Once Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to do this, any  other business can(and will) find a way to discriminate for other reasons. It probably would't happen right away, but definitely work it's way into other. We can't force people to like or except other people, NOR SHOULD WE. We all, Craig, Mullins and Phillips, deserve fair treatment when we enter any public establishment. After all, Phillips could enter another business looking for service run by another christian denomination, and be refused service on the same basis.