“If your beliefs are not in line with ours, we will not adopt a pet to you.”
—Kim Sill, founder of the Shelter Hope Pet Shop in Thousand Oaks, California in her shop’s weekly newsletter.
Pro tip for Kim: if you are going to say something really stupid and offensive in public, at least do it grammatically.
Other than that, this obnoxious, virtue-signalling Constitutional scholar is informing all that she wants to tear down a crucial support-beam in the entire democratic structure of the United States. While discrimination on the basis of political affiliations and viewpoints is not forbidden under civil rights and public accommodation laws, it is a surefire way to guarantee civil unrest and a society that is divided and miserable in which to live. The pet store’s bigotry—and that’s what it is, bigotry—violates the spirit of the First Amendment and the well-established formula for a fair and open society.
But never mind, Kim knows best.
Here is the rest of her screed:
“We do not support those who believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to buy assault weapons. If your beliefs are not in line with ours, we will not adopt a pet to you. If you lie about being a NRA supporter, make no mistake, we will sue you for fraud. If you believe that it is our responsibility to protect ourselves in public places and arm ourselves with a gun–do not come to us to adopt a dog…if you are pro guns and believe that no background check is necessary, then do not come to us to adopt. We will grill you before you even get an appointment and visit our rescue. If we ask you ‘do you care about children being gunned down in our schools?’ If you hesitate, because your core belief is that you believe teachers need to carry firearms, then you will not get approved to adopt from us. If you foster for us and believe in guns, please bring our dogs and/or cats back, or we will arrange to have them picked up. Shelter Hope Pet Shop in no way will continue to operate if we are even remotely part of the problem. We support teachers, children, and businesses who provide services to the public, but we’ve had enough of all the senseless killing.”
The woman is the Pet Nazi. “No dog for you!” She is also, of course, a few biscuits short of a snack:
- “Assault weapons” has no meaning in that context, like “weapons of war.” It’s not responsible to proclaim such certitude about matters you haven’t taken the time and effort to understand.
- Oooh, try that lawsuit! No one should answer an irrelevant question in order to adopt a dog, and while lying about an organization membership is unethical, since the information in question has no legitimate nexus to the benefit obtained, fraud is more than a little stretch.
- What exactly does Kim want? Few gun advocates believe that citizens have a responsibility to be armed; that would imply mandatory gun ownership. Nobody thinks the Second Amendment requires that, unless it’s Kim.
- “No background check” absolutists are also a fringe group, and they have no impact on public policy at all: background checks aren’t going away….not that Kim has any business asking about that, either.
- “Grill” me? Bite me. Even the most anti-gun zealot shouldn’t agree to be “grilled” on a matter that has nothing to do with pet adoption.
- Who doesn’t care about children being shot in schools? The gun policy issue has nothing to do with caring or a lack of it. “If you hesitate..” what, there’s a timer on these questions? How does a pause indicate that one believes teachers should be armed? That’s not a “core belief,” either.
- This is a random “I hate guns and I hate people who don’t hate guns” free association rant. Find an editor, Kim. Learn the rules of rhetoric. If you “believe in guns”—what does that mean? Believe they exist? Believe that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own them? Believe that owning some guns should be a right? Belief that there are times when a gun is valuable for self-defense? I don’t think Kim even knows what she means, other than “Guns bad!” To be fair, she is probably typical of the average anti-gun hysteric.
- “Shelter Hope Pet Shop in no way will continue to operate if we are even remotely part of the problem.” How could the pet adoption policies of the shop possibly be part of “the problem,” if the problem involves guns? Now, if she’s talking about the problem of closed minds, ignorance, hypocrisy, hysteria and hate dividing the country and crippling democracy, Shelter Hope Pet Shop is definitely part of the problem.
- “[W]e’ve had enough of all the senseless killing.” Aww, isn’t Kim special! What a contrast she is to all those Americans who want more senseless killing. Translation: “We’re doing something about gun violence, even though what we are doing has nothing to do with gun violence, and can’t possibly have any effect. At least that’s better than nothing!” Shorter translation: “I’m an idiot, and have nothing constructive to add to public discourse at all except anger, hate, insults, and emotion.”
Here is what Kim is really doing: using the needy animals she is obligated to seek loving and responsible homes for as a device to pursue her political and social agenda, potentially condemning the innocent creatures to a prolonged stay in cages, or adoption by less than optimum owners so she can grandstand on an issue the dogs don’t care about and that should not affect their fates at all.
She’s not fit to run a shelter or pet shop.
Pointer: The Blaze.