A point I’m fond of making is that without freedom of association, you cannot have any other liberties. You can have the appearance of choice, like when you stand in the breakfast cereal aisle at the grocery store, but you can never have real choices. The state not only puts you in that supermarket, they put you in the aisle, along with a bunch of other people. In order to prevent a riot from breaking out, the state must supervise your speech, your actions and make sure you focus on picking from the options on the shelves.
Whether or not our rulers know this is debatable. A feature of post-modernism is that the people in charge forget everything learned by prior generations regarding the human condition and human society. People used to know the link between free association and other liberties. It is why the state regulated public airwaves. Because it required effort to avoid speech broadcast over the air, that speech had to fit community standards. Speech that took effort to consume, like pay services, were free from state censorship.
Anyway, the Left is in something close to a full panic over the oral arguments in Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The reason for this is the way Judge Gorsuch questioned the attorney for the homosexuals. He correctly pointed out that the “remedy” for the alleged discrimination, is to force the baker to say things in public that he would never say and that he finds offensive. Gorsuch did not say this, but this is how Chinese communists punished heretics in the Cultural Revolution.
Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Put another way, the “remedy” for those not wanting to associate, in this case do business with, another group of people, is to frog march them into the public square and force them to say things they think are false and possibly evil. Of course, it is the only remedy, short of genocide, that is possible in a society without freedom of association. Once the state can force you to be around other people, people you may not like, they have no choice but to supervise your speech, your thoughts and your every move. You are a slave.
That is the reality of the custodial state. The people in charge see themselves as your caretakers, like a baby sitter or care giver. In reality though, you are their slave, because like a slave, you no longer control your body. They control where it is and what it is permitted to do. In this particular case. the state is trying to force this baker to perform his services for the homosexuals. The efforts to punish him are no different from a slave master flogging a runaway slave. It’s to send a message to the rest of the slaves.
The homosexual Slate writer senses this reality, but he cannot bare to face it because it means questioning the One True Faith. Even worse for him is that homosexuals have created an identity, a sense of worth, based on this notion they are a protected class, given special liberties. A white man can be run out of his job by Antifa loons and no one from the local Civil Rights Commission is coming to his aid. Homosexual terrorists can stalk the nation’s Christian bakers and they get the full support of the state.
What makes this case frightening to the Left is that there is no way for the court to rule in favor of the baker, that does not undermine the foundation of the modern special rights movement. Let’s say they carve out a religious “exception” to the laws providing homosexuals with special status. The court is, in effect, saying that religion ranks higher than sexual proclivity. The gays move down a peg. What happens when the court has to choose between Jews and Nazis? Or Muslims and Jews? It quickly becomes untenable.
This is also why the Court will have no choice but to rule against the baker. The three lesbians and Breyer, of course, are predictable votes against liberty, but Kennedy and Roberts have proven to be reliable defenders of the Progressive movement. Kennedy authored the ridiculous gay marriage ruling, after all. Roberts is smart enough to see how ruling for the baker will unravel the Progressive project, so he will probably come up with some tortured logic to justify the state compelling forced confessions from heretics.
This is the other consequence of eliminating freedom of association. The cost of restoring it always appears too high. Most Southerners before the Civil War understood that slavery was untenable, but the cost of ending it was worse. That’s what’s facing the guardians of our custodial state. They know the regime cooked up to address blacks in the 1960’s can only lead to tyranny, but unraveling it offers near term costs that seem more frightening than whatever comes at some later date. Things will just have to run their course.
It will not end well.
Pingback: News of the Week (December 17th, 2017) | The Political Hat
Anti-discrimination laws will always be in conflict w free association, religious freedom, free speech etc. because they conflict with basic human nature. Especially egregious when sexual preference, an exercise of homosexual free will, overrides the free will of others. Kennedy may try to reconcile his farcical Obergfell ruling but the reality is that anti-discrimination laws need to be struck down as they relate to individuals and businesses.
It is this country’s “Law Enforcement” who enable this treason. Once they and their families start dying, things will quickly change. I know where they live in my neighborhood. How about you?
It was said 11 years ago that Roberts was a progressive, and therefore, a very bad choice for Chief! History has proved the validity of that statement. Roberts is a lefty. the bakers should fear.
And dear ol’ Johnny was recommended to Shrub II by Ted Cruz…
Poor ol’ f**ked up white men. Screwing themselves again. In the 80s when homosexuals gave themselves AIDs I thought it’d be over. Surely, we would hold them accountable. Nope. The gays were energized! We’re victims! The poor ol’ white Reaganites caved and couldn’t bear being called homophobes.
Imagine holding motorcyclists or rock climbers accountable for engaging in dangerous behavior! Oh the horror!
White men are stupid cowards and deserve their fate.
This shop is about 10 miles from my house and I have followed the case fairly closely. I am an attorney.
The baker and his attorneys are litigating the case as a first amendment free speech case, but it’s also touched with the first amendment freedom of religion. The theory of the case is that the coercive power of government should not be used to coerce an individual to engage in speech that endorses a particular viewpoint. In this case the speech is creating a cake that is custom-decorated to celebrate a same-sex marriage, to which the baker objects on religious grounds.
The baker’s position also invokes the first amendment’s freedom of religion clause in that Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s position forces him to engage in an act that violates his religious conscience. This is quite different than the infamous peyote cases that all law students study in Constitutional Law. In those cases (and their progeny) the government exercised its coercive (police) powers to restrict an individual from engaging in an act (e.g., smoking peyote as part of a Native American religious ceremony). The peyote cases are inapposite.
With all due respect to the Zman, I am betting on a 5-4 win for the baker on a narrow ruling that essentially holds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s enforcement of the anti-discrimination statute against the baker is unconstitutional because it violates his first amendment rights by compelling him to engage in speech that violates his religious conscience.
As always, Kennedy the Squish will be the swing vote. In this case I believe he will go with the baker because a loss by the baker puts the law on a very short path on a slippery slop to forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, doctors to perform abortions, etc. It’s of note that Kennedy voted to uphold first amendment rights of the family that owns Hobby Lobby to refuse to provide birth control coverage. I expect the Hobby Lobby case to be cited in this case.
Thanks for your comment. It’s bizarre that speech includes making something. People say one thing and do something else all the time.
I have read an article on the baker and he says it’s to do with the fact that he’s an artist and he can’t be compelled to make something he doesn’t want to make.
I’ve read an article in the NYT and the baker is making the free speech and religious argument. Maybe he has to but it’s stupid.
What the baker should do is sue the gays for saying he’s not an artist.
Can a lawyer decline to accept a client just because he doesn’t want to? Just curious.
In other words could you say I’d like to help you but I’m not a trial lawyer. Or I’m not a tort lawyer. I’m not a specialist in insurance fraud. etc. Go see so and so. Why on earth can’t an artist say the same thing?
OT but speaking of freedom of association I’m sure most of us here have heard of the August Ames suicide?
For those who didn’t August Ames was a porn actress who refused a role in a porn movie because she was informed she’d be having sexual contact with a man who also acts in gay porn movies. She was attacked on twitter and other social media for “homophobia” and after a few days of twitter storm she killed herself.
As Ramzpaul said we’ve gone from “Bake my cake bigot!” to “Suck my d—k bigot!”
Maybe this girl was in the wrong business if she could be shamed into anything?
And celebrate it, h8ters!
“He correctly pointed out that the “remedy” for the alleged discrimination, is to force the baker to say things in public that he would never say and that he finds offensive.”
Watch how this happens in a parliamentary set up…same alleged freedoms as the US…BUT…
Australia just passed a Same-sex marriage law. Within 24 hours of the new law, which promised a religious exemption for marriage celebrants (especially Christian clergy) the new forms celebrants must submit for every wedding they perform were rolled out.
These new forms now include a line asking the celebrant to note the sex of the wedding participants. The old forms did not ask that question…this is new in the era when the sex of the “to-be-marrieds” no longer matters. There are 3 (yes 3) alternative choices: male, female & X (where X indicates unspecified, interest, or indeterminate).
And BAM a Christian pastor is forced to say in public something they would never say: That X is one of the many options on the sex question. So not only were Aussies treated to SSM, those who were promised protection are forced by compulsion of law to sign-off on the legitimacy of the newly-invented Biblically-unsupportable gender fluidity nonsense.
Bloody fooking amazing how popular gay marriage in white countries. As popular as diversity and climate change, eh wot?
Bloody damn fool autocorrect
(X where X indicates unspecified, INTERSEX, or indeterminate)
A commentor here pointed out that “created equal” simply means no privileged nobility or born aristicracy.
With the Civil Rights run around the Constitution, manufacturing privilege is all our new aristocrats seem to do.
Secondly, I don’t want a cake.
I want the bakers to s**k my d**k.
It’s legal! And I’m entitled! I have needs!
And lo, it becomes excruciatingly obvious why our custodial masters worship at the alter of “diversity” before all others – the more more vibrant the “diversity,” the more babysitting the plebes will require.
Finally! Someone besides me framing this as a question of freedom of association (and of property rights) instead of just an issue of conscience or religion.
Yes, thak goodness- just a marriage, as in gay marriage, is properly a property issue.
Who inherits? was the original legal question addressed by standard marriage licensing.
Conservatives seem unable to supply a proper legal answer to anything without making it a ham-handed social issue… just like their beloved liberals. Same agenda, power, same motives, assumed authority.
thank, as
Yer kinda missin’ the point there, Sparky. In the first place, this “gay wedding cake” fiasco is a question of free association and property rights. Does a property owner — in this case, a proprietor — have the right to do business with whom he wants, or does he need to serve instigators and trouble-causers and shit-disturbers, too? Plainly, he has that right; if this becomes about anything else, a minefield of unintelligible carve-outs and exceptions results.
As for “gay marriage,” that’s a different question that should have been settled by states, not by the Supreme Court finding imaginary things in the Constitution again.
Agree with you on both 100%.
Plus, “sparky” is so funny! Good on ya.
Christian bakers. Heck, try being a Christian physician. You have no idea what you are forced to listen to and observe, and ultimately participate in. No fucking idea.
Any Christians here up to visiting a Muslim baker demanding they make a First Communion cake? Then file a lawsuit, well, that’s if you make it out if the bakery alive.
If Christians had a fraction of that willingness to act they’d get a lot more deference from the Left and a lot more converts
there was a lot of action in that direction on the abortion issues well into the 90′. Its my opinion that attacks on abortion clinics while illegal and as I’m somewhat pro abortion something that I obviously dislike contributed to the huge decline in abortions and to the fact that wide swathes of the country have no such clinics
Muscular, masculine crusader Christianity works.
That aside, Christians that assume the general population is generally highly religious as they are are just mistaken. Historically people aren’t that religious, never have been. The West is not going back to pre modern church going habits under any reasonable scenario
A while back, I did an internet search on the percentage of gays in the US population. The results consistently read 2 – 4%, varies by region. I did another for percentage of transsexuals; that returned about .01% . Why is it that these very small minorities have such an outsized influence in our society? This is truly tyranny of the minority.
If these numbers are anywhere near correct, a courageous politician (yes, I know — an oxymoron!) might gain significant traction by asking a basic question: when does the majority get to have a say on how far, and certainly how fast, their society must change?
Absolutely. I had read .03% for the transgenders…many of us have been on the planet a long time and never met one. Yet something so basic as the freedom to not have the opposite sex in your bathroom is upturned. TSocial media sites are full of little 14year-old girls righteously indignant that rational people are not making “rights for trans people” a priority in their lives. That proves it’s about power and control, not “equal rights.”
The silver lining in these cases is that we get to a breaking point sooner rather than later. The quicker we hit bottom, the higher the bottom will be. The best possible outcome of this dispute is unambiguous persecution of Christian bakers and then in-your-face demonstrations of the latent tyranny that already infects our government and society. We really are not that far away right now. The DOJ/FBI criminality is being flaunted openly in public, so it should surprise no one that the Supreme Court will soon follow suite.
There can exist no freedom of association without freedom to not associate. When Charles Dickens toured America in 1842 he described Americans, who still maintained an unalienable right to not associate, as an extraordinarily friendly and helpful people, so much so that it wore an Englishman out.
Yeah.
Obtaining freedom of association should be the Alt Right’s #2 goal, immediately after repealing Hart-Celler.
If people can freely choose who they live around, hire & do business with then people can sort themselves into self-selected communities with their own standards. That breaks the insane prog tyranny imposed from above, forever.
Javits followed up Hart-Cellar with the Fair Housing Act, meaning they can keep chasing us out to yet another profitable subdivision.
All they need to do is authorize some Section 8 housing and here we go again.
Ah. Section 8 or Habitats for Humanity.
Jimmy’s running a property scam under a moral cloak.
Subsidize the costs, privatize the profits!
The homos are stupid – in that they assume that they can just FORCE their viewpoints on people without consequence. They forget that there are a multitude of ways to screw people over and get them back.
When I was in college – I worked in a printing plant – 2nd shift. Back then (80’s) – everything closed up at night. So if you wanted to eat – you had to bring something in with you. So one of the pressman used to bring in a nice big lunch (he weightlifted and needed the calories) and then would eat a nice big dinner on our half hour break.
Well somebody started stealing his dinner. He’d go to the fridge -and find half his food gone. So he came up with a plan. Since one of his staples was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich – he made one up – and mixed up a bunch of shit in the peanut butter. Yes – he took a dump in some peanut butter and spread it in the sandwich. Just enough that you couldn’t smell it. He said he to try it a few times to get the “mix” correct.
Then he put the spiked lunch in the fridge one night – and waited to see if it disappeared. Sure enough – somebody ate it.
Once he knew it was gone – he stood up during the break and announced to everybody there that he had taken a shit in his own sandwich.
It worked perfectly. This guy – I’ll call him “Louie” went berserk and attacked him. Which then gave “Gary” (the sandwich guy) – a perfect reason to beat the crap out of Louie (the sandwich stealer).
Needless to say nobody ever screwed with Gary’s lunch again.
Now – let’s say you’re a gay couple who just FORCED me to bake you a cake. Do you really think I’m not going to take dump into the chocolate cake batter – and maybe put a little Ex-Lax into the frosting?
Are people really so ignorant they think there aren’t going to be consequences for their lunacy?
Are people really so ARROGANT to they think there aren’t going to be consequences for their lunacy?
Yes!
Arrogance and ignorance are two sides of the same coin IMHO.
Either way – beatings seem to help improve – or subsume the problem.
Yep that’s the price of forcing people to do something they don’t want to do.
@cal
And here I thought “shit sandwich” was merely a metaphor.
It makes no difference how the government defines “discrimination”. If they can use force against it, tyranny is subsequent. When the 1954 Brown vs. B of E decision was handed down, that was the end of our rights of association. Once that step was taken, what was the difference in denying service to a black person and denying service to a gay person? There was no difference. The government could now order us about ad infinitum. And does. You are right, Zman. This will not end well.
I would like someone to sue jewish bakers for refusing to make a cake with a swastika, and jews to sue muslim bakers for refusing a Star of David cake. If a bakery could be identified as liberal, I wonder if they would make a pro-life cake. I’m sure there are plenty of gay bakeries. Let’s see if they would make a cake with an Old Testament verse about the sins of homosexuality. Let’s see how this plays out if liberal oxen are gored.
There is a Jewish jeweler near me who makes perfect replicas of Nazi memorabilia…cuff links with SS emblems, etc. ….so I imagine there are Jews who would definitely bake a Nazi cake for the right price.
Ah, but the question is not if you can find an appropriate baker. It’s if you can force a particular baker.
There are hundreds to thousands of bakers who would love the business of baking these fellow’s cake. But they want the one guy who politely told them no.
The root of this weedy tangle is the demand of gays to be affirmed by everybody else, not just tolerated. This is unique even in our wonderful special victim olympics. As a contrast, the much maligned Jews do not demand that everybody else must sing Chanukah songs upon request (if there are any such things) or set up menorahs at this time of year.
As I understand it, the baker was willing to sell the loathsome lesbos any cake off the shelf. What those malignant ‘pink guards’ of the gaystapo demanded was that he custom make them a cake with gay-adoring, frosting-written messages. IOW, they (and the state of Colorado) demand to compel his labor/speech in affirming their specialness. IOW, they demanded *extra* accommodation which was directly contrary to his Christian principles.
As you say, Z Man, this is tyranny.
It is slightly possible that the USSC might thread the needle by distinguishing ‘normal’ accommodation from extra accommodation that is not essential to the normal delivery of goods and services. An analogy would be that Blacks are able to demand that a hotel accommodate them by providing any room that they are willing to pay the going rate for, if any are available. But they are not able to demand that the hotel throw out another paying guest already registered just on account of their specialness.
In the Fortune 500 world the term is “celebrate”. Every year is a tiresome rotation of “celebrations”. Thankfully I was out of the country when in our “celebration” of trannies, my staff was shown a video, including some fairly graphic sections on “transition”. When I got back from Asia it was a solid week of people coming in to complain. To a person they were willing to respect and treat anyone with compassion, but this had clearly crossed a line.
Saml;
Yes, the ‘live and let live’ and ‘no harm to anyone else’ rhetorical justifications for gay ‘civil rights’ from the ’90s have long ago proven to be lies. This case just puts it into the headlines.
One did not have to be a genius to see that having usurped the Black Civil Rights Movement’s rhetoric, the gays were going to take over their formidable legal apparatus as well. There was just too much easy money to be made. Too, there was the revenge element driven by their hatred for normal Western society that they just couldn’t resist. The ‘marvel’ was how easy it has all been for them. You are literally funding their efforts to recruit among your staff now.
At the time this really got rolling under the Clintons, I expected that there would soon be normie outrage when LGBTQ//xyz propaganda started showing up in primary school curriculums. I thought, “Any parent can clearly see that the gays are attempting to use the power of the state to pull in their children. After all, they can’t replenish their ranks any other way.”
But I was wrong about that too. One has to wonder where such mysterious, formidable power comes from.
And there we have the bottom line for all leftist plans. You MUST publically and enthusiastically go along with The Plan. As with diversity — the idea behind it is that it is always taken for granted that we all (must) agree that the collective (mind) wins over the individual. And if the collective minds making the decisions are inside bodies of differing skin pigments, it has the added advantage of letting “the leaders” decide who will be IN each collective and who will be out…very convenient and allowing certain people to wield much power over others.
I sincerely hope you are wrong. A labor secretary coached a lesbian couple to file against an Oregon bakery for the same “crime” and awarded them $50,000, $50,000!, effectively putting the bakery out of business, and birthing a new extortion industry. Well, not so new, blacks have been extorting businesses since 1964.
Rep. Steve King tweeted yesterday:
“Diversity is not our strength. Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, “Mixing cultures will not lead to a higher quality of life but a lower one.”
Check out the tidal wave of virtue signaling in response to his tweet:
https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/939117527375990790
Walter ShaubVerified account @waltshaub
22h22 hours ago
Lisa Jones helped low-income communities gain access to investment capital to fund healthcare centers, charter schools, daycare centers, housing, small business and commercial real estate projects.
Who does your hateful tweet help, Steve King?
Walter ShaubVerified account @waltshaub
22h22 hours ago
Hongwei Hsiao improved the safety of construction workers, truck drivers, firefighters, and police by researching and designing a new generation of personal protective equipment and industrial apparatus.
What will your hate-filled tweet improve?
Jeffrey @jeffrey_drama
18h18 hours ago
Replying to @SteveKingIA
Diversity is scientifically proven to be beneficial. Diverse cultures create broader understanding, diverse genes make stronger beings, diverse thoughts create more innovation
Marlitomo @Marlitomo
17h17 hours ago
Replying to @SteveKingIA
Diversity is our greatest strength, you smug little man. That’s what America is built upon. Why don’t you move on down to Alabama where they appreciate this garbage?
John Minnick @JohnMinnick
22h22 hours ago
Replying to @SteveKingIA
“The land flourished because it was fed from so many sources–because it was nourished by so many cultures and traditions and peoples.”
Lyndon B. Johnson
Keksimus Maximus
@NoCountry4Islam
Dec 8
In your opinion, are there any countries in the world that are allowed to remain majority white or do all white people need to become displaced minorities in historically majority white homelands?
28 replies 0 retweets 20 likes
ivy
@flycat636
Replying to @NoCountry4Islam @IrreverentDuo and
I’m a white person and an American. It’s literally the ONLY similarity between you and I (although you may be green, idk). When you folks say “white culture” I literally have no fucking clue what that means. Human beings have been essentially migratory for thousands of years.
and on and on…
https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/939117527375990790
No civilization can survive such treachery from within. This is why I’m not a white nationalist – half of my kind want to enslave me. ZMAN is correct that they will attempt to force us all to say certain things. They tried to enforce similar laws on first century Christians. For example, first century Christians were accused of atheism and denied entrance to the agora because they wouldn’t participate in the imperial cult (emperor worship). The cult required you to offer incense to a statue of caesar before you could buy and sell in the marketplace. Recently, in Michigan, a small-scale farmer was denied access to the farmer’s market because he wouldn’t let a gay couple have a wedding on his land. If the State continues down this path, and there’s no reason to believe it will stop, it will cause civil disobedience from Christians when it comes to these matters of conscience. This might amount to another 10% of the US population questioning the legitimacy of the State. Blacks form another 10% questioning the legitimacy of the state. Muslims will amount to another 10%, Latinos another 20-30%, Pretty soon, you’re up to 50-60%. The State may continue to exist but will be severely hamstrung in what it can accomplish. It’s past time for the nation-state to die.
One quibble, PRCD. The U.S. is not a nation-state, it is a polyglot empire, composed of many nationalities. Hungary, Japan, and Korea are much closer to true nation-states.
I wouldn’t mind living in a nation-state, but I want nothing to do with living in an empire.
Diversity is scientifically proven to be beneficial.
Satan’s greatest victory of the 20th century was to make “Diversity is our strength” into an unarguable truism on zero evidence.
Actually, Vizzini, I’d have to say Satan’s greatest victory in the 20th Century was the sexual revolution and the promulgation of the birth control pill. I gotta think if white folks were still having large families, there would be a natural push back against this diversity crap.
The US fertility rate hit low levels in the 1930’s before the pill and feminism , no Satan required
This is a normal expected outcome of an urbanized industrial society with economic issues
Until people get the idea that the baby boom was an anomaly through their thick skulls. actual policy that could increase birth rates won’t happen
This means no more counting on religious revivals, (hasn’t worked anywhere) a need to understand the economic conditions,and the social ones have changed and understanding that the pill isn’t going anywhere and while a ban on abortion could happen, you’ll reduce the quality of your citizens with it
There are no short cuts, no hacks, no ‘one weird trick” it requires a change of social and economic policy and that policy might not create population growth.
heck understanding that you don’t really need it and a homogeneous society near replacement like the US and most of Europe was a few decades ago will work
Population stabilize when they reach a comfortable equilibrium
Now on topic. the only way society can be changed is when enough people have a clear idea of what it is to be changed into and are willing to make it happen with force if needed.
Slogans can get a President Trump elected but roots and bones, Make America Great is hot air and means jack. Policies only tweak the system
Have a specific plan as to what is wanted and how to keep it whether in your little corner of the no longer extant USA or the whole thing
Till you do that, cases lie this don’t matter as they can resolve anything
If the baker loses, the next step will be to extend anti-discrimination laws to personal interactions. If someone suspects you don’t like them (and won’t play golf with them, for example) because they’re gay (black, trans, female, etc.) they can sue you for monetary damages. Or, better yet, they can go to the police who will be obligated to arrest you and send you on to trial and imprisonment. In their heart of hearts this is where the Cult wants to go.
It’s part of the never mentioned Zeroeth Amendment. It states that it is “a human right to have unfettered access to white people.”
Bake the sodomites a cake. Just bake it for 12 hours.
And in our heart of hearts, we want to destroy them before they can put their plan into operation. They came perilously close in this last election.
Which is fine – because then the logical groundwork has also been laid for things like saying you’ve been discriminated against sexually – because somebody denied you access to their private parts.
Once men start making that case – then you’re guaranteed to get women all pissed off – and now you’ve got (yet another) instance where the lefties are stabbing themselves in the eye and the different corners of their coalition are fighting tooth and nail against *each other*.
Follow the logical train of events from this happening and you end up right at that “not going to end well” final outcome that ZMan is referring to.
The real question is: “not ends well” ……….. for whom?
You say that in jest, but that’s really the left’s end game plan. Absolute mandatory association. Except for the Jews.
Without freedom of association everything else is a degree of totalitarianism .
I am slightly more optimistic on the courts upcoming decision, but it could just be the homemade egg nog.
If the state forces a baker to make a cake, what does it do if the product turns out to be like chewing wet cardboard?
Of course it is possible that the ‘victors’ hate cake and wouldn’t dream of eating it, but if they did and it wasn’t to their tastes, what then? Another court case with experts from all walks of cookery?
Don’t give them bright ideas.
Indeed this will not end well. I’ll be damned if any government will force me to bake a cake. If they try it, they’ll have to have their goons monitor my kitchen 24/7 to make sure I don’t spit in the batter.
Just spit? I think a dump would be much more appropriate. Especially if it was chocolate. “What’s that taste?” “Oh, just some Sumatran coffee, mixed with the Chilean truffles and the Moroccan chocolate”.
But I see corn!
I wonder why the baker doesn’t just charge $1m for gay themed cakes.
You do know the next step is price controls. And then if that makes baking cakes unviable, well, you have to stay in business anyway or go to jail. Also see: Zimbabwe.
Hmmmm…it looks like chocolate…but tastes like…!
It’s OK. As leftists like to tell us, adding a little shit to the mix doesn’t ruin the whole thing
The right to free association is one of the most basic human rights there is, and why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was so catastrophic. We have been paying the price ever since. Think about how much damage LBJ has inflicted on this country. He ushered in a huge expansion of the welfare state, opened the borders to the Third World in 1965, got us involved in the Vietnam quagmire. He has to rank up there amongst the most destructive Presidents in US history
When you review history you see that, with the exception of Lincoln and the Bushes, the worst Presidential traitors were usually DenonicRats. Wilson, FDR, LBJ, the gay mulatto, all knowingly promoted legislation and Constitutional Amendments that effectively destroyed the posterity’s ability to defend itself.
the gay muslim mulatto
Him, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt (the first truly progressive President and the man who single-handedly put Woodrow Wilson in office by deliberately splitting the Republican vote), Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt. The five worst Presidents in history.
The state should not be allowed to force a baker to bake a cake. Conversely, the state should not be allowed to prohibit a baker from making a cake. I don’t know why these things need to be so complicated, when in reality they’re so simple. The thirst for power I guess.
The “state” should not be allowed to force a person to buy an insurance product, but they did. All they have to do is redefine the terms. A mandated purchase of health insurance becomes a “tax”. Remember, your (((enemies))) will almost always try to do things “legally” even if they have to do so unlawfully.
The “state” does no such thing. It is the people through their representatives by way of legislation that mandates insurance or insists that whites and blacks live in the same neighborhood.
You have the liberty to live among your own kind. Just do not expect some of your kind who live among you to be shamed to discriminate merely because the Alt Right demands I must. In other words, if I lived in your neighborhood, and chose to rent my upper flat to a darkie, you have no right to intercede. Furthermore, freedom of association does not mean unfettered freedom of association, as that has never been the case.
Most people tend to self segregate to a non-trivial extent in terms of who their close social circles are or perhaps where they choose to live. However, in terms of work and school and going about our daily affairs, American normies have become far too integrated for racial separatism to ever be practical, moral justifications aside. It is absolutely amazing that anyone thinks this is a serious conversation worth having.
This qualifies for the finals of the most ignorant post of the day. Let’s see if it wins.
I’ve given you an upvote because (a) you seem to be trying to make a point, and not just trolling. That’s healthy and good.
Moreover, (b) I haven’t seen the term “darkie” used at this site maybe ever, so that’s new; the last time I saw “darkie” in print, it was in a Woodrow Wilson campaign poster on display in the DC ‘Newseum’ three years ago,
BUT:
I don’t get this sentence: “American normies have become far too integrated for racial separatism to ever be practical, moral justifications aside”.
Could you unravel that for me, please?
The reason they are so complicated, in practice, is that they would require federal government to remove all restrictions imposed on private individuals and businesses in the name of the Civil Rights Act, which would cut the balls off federal government power to meddle in our lives. They are objectively unconstitutional.
No government agent or representative wants to do that. Conflict of interest.
Diocletian attempted to freeze the laboring classes of his troubled empire by ruthless decree – you will do what your father did, and your children will do what you do. His solution to imperial crisis was to criminalize the human spirit. If the requirements of Empire clashed with the basic yearnings of human nature – to his way of thinking – then so much the worse for human nature.
We are witnessing the same attitude from the panicked rulers of our time. They don’t know what to do, except to weaponize conventional thinking, much as the last emperors in the West tried, in futility, to assert the dying authority of their titles and offices to offset total collapse; consult the Theodosian Code for fin-de-siècle comedy: It’s a massive digest of self-contradictory rescripts issued by ‘rulers’ who had lost contact with the Roman legal tradition; it’s the ‘barbaric yawp’ of a doomed system.
Much later, in a more recent Empire, Khrushchev attempted a thaw, as did Mao (his short-lived ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ campaign). In fairness to these early cloud people, they had no idea how unhappy their subjects were; they did discover, however, the tenuous basis of their rule. So, they rolled back the “openness” schtick and went full Diocletian. There was no other method to preserve the all-important state against the annoying diversity of actual life.
Of the many articles I have read on this topic, yours provides the most clarity.
You can make the case due to the Clintons committing so much treason with the ChiComs over the decades that the Democratic Party is essentially the American wing of the Chinese Communist Party. So it would be reasonable they would harmonize their policies with the ChiComs. And the kind of people who support the Democrats would also find ChiCom policy more and more appealing.
You let the GOP off too easily (for Clinton’s enumerable treasons). They were all dipping their beaks into the public trough, too.
Oh, the R’s aren’t particularly loyal either but they aren’t working for the ChiComs, at least that I’ve heard about.
Just investing with them.
Who authorizes tax incentives and trade deals?
Why, the very people who own large amounts of shares, thru fronts.
Bye-bye, American jobs, hellooo outsize profit margins!
Socialize the costs, privatize the profits, and stiff the commoners whenever possible
Can hardly wait for some cuck to say “the only purpose of a business is to make money”- yeah, ask King Leopold, King Cotton, or Uranium One
So selling out one’s country and
countrymen is ‘compassionate conservative kapitalism’, eh?
They aren’t working for the ChiComs, but they are not working against them either.
Why should they be?
Avoidance of definite short term costs at the expense of ambiguous future benefits that would outweigh the costs? You should read _The Culture of Contentment_ by Galbraith.
I guess this ends in chaos, then.
The court already carves out exemptions, but it is for religious minorities (such as a Native American that wants to smoke peyote as part of a religious practice). This also puts the court in a bind. Can it be the case that these exemptions only exist for religious minorities? An honest judge would be forced to say that it must apply for all religious claims or none.
Some of the religious exemptions that have been carved out are suck stark violations of the first amendment that they are shocking to the conscience.
Take Amish exemption from Social Security, for example. In that ruling, the court set a standard that effectively renders many religions invalid or second-class for the purposes of social security exemption. In other words, in direct violation of the first amendment, the government has decided what a valid religion and religious belief is:
From the SSA website:
Meet the following requirements:
* Be a member of a recognized religious sect conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits under a private plan or system that makes payments in the event of death, disability or retirement, or which makes payments towards the costs of or provides for medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by Social Security);
* Be a member of a religious sect that makes a reasonable provision of food, shelter and medical care for its dependent members and has done so continuously since December 31, 1950; and
* Have never received or been entitled to any benefits payable under Social Security programs.
No religion or sect created after Dec. 31, 1950 can *ever* qualify, no matter their sincere religious beliefs. If that isn’t a law “respecting an establishment of religion,” I don’t know what is. The Amish and Mennonites and maybe a couple other sects are now religions officially respected and priviliged by the state.
If our federal government and our federal laws were stripped of all unconstitutional expansions, the size of government would be cut by more than half (as there is no constitutional provision for Social Security or Medicare).
I may be wrong but I think the baker’s argument isn’t about religion. It’s about being forced as an artist to make something he doesn’t want to make.
And I’d add it’s not about freedom of association. He’d sell a cake to homosexuals. He’s not putting up signs saying “no gays.” His argument is that he’s an artist and shouldn’t be compelled to make something he doesn’t want to make.
Hollywood, sports and commercial art are comprised of people paid by the hour. They are hired to mass produce images and gestures that entertain and sell products and brands. Artists work for themselves. Sure, they get commissions but they can reject the commission if it’s not their thing. You don’t expect a landscape painter to do your portrait or an abstraction. You can’t force an artist to make something. You can hire entertainment software engineers and so forth by the hour but not artists.
The Baker made the very clear point that he serves every single person who walks into his store and wishes to buy any product on his shelves. He does not believe he has to take a commission to create something he doesn’t agree with. Queer cakes are not on the shelves.
The baker studied fine arts somewhere I believe. He views his work as art objects constructed with flour and sugar. You can eat them if you want to.
I don’t know if people here are familar with Richard Sera. He has become quite famous and equally arrogant for thinking up vast slabs of metal which someone else fabricates. I can picture his reaction if a stranger walks into his studio or gallery and demands he make a realist crucifixion (he’s Jewish) or maybe a confederate general – without irony. And if he doens’t do it he will be sued. LOL.
Or imagine a car painting firm owned by a gay person, asked to paint anti-gay slogans on a car. Can he refuse?
The entire case is an abomination.
Just so. It’s the same as Jordan Peterson’s argument opposing the compelled speech of all those zees and zirs and wolfkins out there.
“If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If I am jailed for that, I will go on a hunger strike.”
He sets an example.
This is what I meant by “civil disobedience.” An example was set by the public official in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She chose jail instead. Ultimately, I think the results of this decision will decide whether Christians can go into certain professions or not. In the Patristic era, converts in certain types of professions had to renounce their professions before they could be baptized and join the church. Public officials, especially publicans, were in this category.
Civil disobedience is not as civil as refusing to pay a fine. SInce wealth is electronic nowadays, the courts can just go get an order to drain your money from your account. In Oregon, the attorney general fined a flower shop or bakery (I can’t remember which) for refusing to participate in a gay wedding. The fine was paid through private donors. The attorney general wasn’t happy with the fine merely being paid, so he drained the couple’s bank account which amounted to $10k. AFAIK, he was voted out of office, but this is possibly an example of things to come. I store my money in the stock market. It would be easy for the government to force the broker to sell it to pay sodomites who won a lawsuit against me. This, of course, would have numerous unintended consequences that would spill over onto non-Christians. It makes everyone nervous when the government starts enforcing Danegeld payments to lunatics and detritus. It will be further interesting to see what these sodomites do with their winnings. Out here, the buy up land that normal families need to raise families.
Following Jesus is costly
Hooray for ‘Dupont Circle.’ When even Z-man, of all people, accepts the pseudo-premise that this is about ‘religious freedom’, I for one hear the hoofbeats of doom. Religion is not the issue at all. I blush for anybody that can’t understand these things. It’s like saying that if there is no law against providing a particular service, then you MUST provide that service no matter what you think about it, if you are competent to provide that service.
For instance, if you are a professional photographer and are asked to film an orgy, then you MUST do it.
I never thought I’d give another thought to the Jerky Boys, but anyone familiar with their stuff will remember the ‘piano tuner’ call when the ‘boys’ asked a piano tuner to pull an angry rotweiler out of the back of a piano, and the tuner guy refused.
Can a doctor refuse to perform abortions? I don’t know what the deal is there. But if not, why not? It’s a legal service, a medical service, and why o why is ‘religion’ always the focus? Are we saying that conscience doesn’t exist without a religious constraint?