Monday, June 18, 2007
Nigh Seen Creeder says: Constitutional ignorance will NOT be tolerated
In case you haven't heard, Kroger recently announced that its stock of out-the-door free publications will no longer include the gay-themed Out & About. A Kroger spokesperson said Out & About was being "banned" 'cause it's too political. A big bunch of left-leaning folks, of course, are now mad, mad, mad.
Typical of the mad crowd is one Suzanne Reed. In a letter to the Nashville Scene, Ms. Reed had this to say:
"I strongly urge Kroger to consider the impact of this decision ... and opt for tolerance, the First Amendment, and freedom of choice."
I have a great many thoughts and opinions 'bout homosexuality and so-called gay rights; but that's a story for another day. What I'd like to address at this point is Suzanne Reed's assertion that Kroger's decision to ban Out & About from its stores somehow subverts the Constitution.
My question for Ms. Reed is this:
Where in the Constitution does it say that a private entity, in this case Kroger, must display, advertise, or otherwise promote a publication in which political opinions are put forth?
I hate to break it to the Suzanne Reeds of the world, but the Constitution says nary a thing about forcing folks to promote political views with which they disagree. Kroger is well within its rights to ban Out & About - or the Nashville Scene, or the Tennessean, or the New York Times - from its stores if and when it sees fit. If Ms. Reed has a beef with Kroger's decision to ban Out & About, she's free and clear - per the scroll upon which James Madison got all genius on the world - to purchase foodstuffs somewheres else.
A lot of folks reference the First Amendment whenever the world fails to stimulate them properly. Said folks are fools, pure and simple. A quick glimpse at the actual text of the Constitution is all one needs to pronounce such, indeed.
Typical of the mad crowd is one Suzanne Reed. In a letter to the Nashville Scene, Ms. Reed had this to say:
"I strongly urge Kroger to consider the impact of this decision ... and opt for tolerance, the First Amendment, and freedom of choice."
I have a great many thoughts and opinions 'bout homosexuality and so-called gay rights; but that's a story for another day. What I'd like to address at this point is Suzanne Reed's assertion that Kroger's decision to ban Out & About from its stores somehow subverts the Constitution.
My question for Ms. Reed is this:
Where in the Constitution does it say that a private entity, in this case Kroger, must display, advertise, or otherwise promote a publication in which political opinions are put forth?
I hate to break it to the Suzanne Reeds of the world, but the Constitution says nary a thing about forcing folks to promote political views with which they disagree. Kroger is well within its rights to ban Out & About - or the Nashville Scene, or the Tennessean, or the New York Times - from its stores if and when it sees fit. If Ms. Reed has a beef with Kroger's decision to ban Out & About, she's free and clear - per the scroll upon which James Madison got all genius on the world - to purchase foodstuffs somewheres else.
A lot of folks reference the First Amendment whenever the world fails to stimulate them properly. Said folks are fools, pure and simple. A quick glimpse at the actual text of the Constitution is all one needs to pronounce such, indeed.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, June 18, 2007 
