Posted on 12/16/2017 7:45:33 AM PST by all the best
This week, the Supreme Court heard the first arguments regarding Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and as you can imagine, people immediately took to social media in order to voice their opinion on the matter. And if you pay attention to pop-culture and the mainstream news, you’ll find that the majority of those opinions ultimately end up asking “Why not just bake the cake?” After all, how could you favor discrimination if you aren’t racist or prejudiced, right? Actually, no. As you’ll see, it’s quite the opposite. While it’s understandable for first impressions to fall prey to the idea that because it involves a gay couple against a business, the natural response should be to back the couple against injustice. This case is not about gay rights, though. Nor is it about freedom of speech or religion, despite what you may hear on the news. This case is about property rights, pure and simple. Let’s start with the idea of self-ownership, as most people can agree on that sentiment, and it’s not a new concept. Property in the Lockean sense, where you own yourself and, therefore, that which you mix your labor with, dates back centuries. We acknowledge that as the rightful owner, you may choose what to do with your property as well. The most obvious example is in the selection of a sex partner, romantic partner, or marriage partner. In the case of women especially, we emphasize — rightly — that consent is critical in these matters if we are to respect a person's ownership of her own body. What one does with one's body matters outside of romantic relationships also. Consent must be required for those activities as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
Even invited guests have the option to refuse to participate.
Nothing at all to do with Religion or orientation.
it’s called “freedom”
Thank you for posting this article.
Of all the articles I have read here, this one was the most clearly stated and cogently presented without the hyperbole and bombast.
Thanks, again.
Someone walks in and says you are going to bake their cake. Sounds sorta Harvey Weinstein like.
‘It is about being ale to do with choose’
I prefer beer with cheese...
Freedom of religion, speech, political association, property rights...this case is wrong for many,many reasons, which is why the libs like it.
What the baker doesn't want to do is to write a message on the cake for a gay wedding. And the plaintiffs believe they should be able to compel him to write a message of their choosing.
That's obscene - I wouldn't be in favor of forcing Muslim baker to sell me a cake that says "Jesus Saves" either.
“That’s obscene - I wouldn’t be in favor of forcing Muslim baker to sell me a cake that says “Jesus Saves” either.”
Some of what you write I agree with. But there is more to the story. This is primarily an attack on Christianity. The queers have had Christianity in their sick sights for 40 years. 20 years ago the queers barged into churches in San Fransicko screaming at parishioners for attention. At the same time public health was attempting to reign in the rampant spread of more diseases vectored by queers in bathhouses and smelly public bathrooms than anyone ever dreamed. Public health workers were forced to enter the bathhouses, stinking of a mixture of blood and feces, to collect samples from the leavings of these degenerates only to find many of them were carrying and spreading 3, sometimes 5, infectious agents to their coprophilic partners. Young boys, they called twinks, were often molested and infected at the same freak fest.
Decorating a cake is putting your artistic abilities into it. That's a lot more personal than just putting pan of batter into the oven. Artists can choose who they work for and how they interpret the project. The cake decorator should be able to do the same as any other sculptor or painter.
And more broadly, consent is the basis for a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the — CONSENT — of the governed.”
—Declaration of Independence
We have reached the point at which our Government has committed “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing... a design to [place us] under absolute Despotism” and “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
We need to start asking ourselves a simple question when our government acts or fails to take action:
Did I consent to this?
I, for one, did not consent.
It would send a strong message if a million plus armed citizens visited Washington with signs that read “we did not consent.”
Next will be a requirement that dating sites allow “transgenders” to put their profiles among the sex they “identify” as, and regular people being unable to exclude them from match searches.
are the pro cake baking arguments based more or less on the greensboro, nc lunch counter protest arguments? (dunno)
Probably. But in any case, the Federal government should not have anywhere near that much power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.