The Cake-Baking Supreme Court Decision Could Create new Class of Slavery

in #news6 years ago (edited)

Full Article

Ultimately, there are only two possible outcomes facing the American people after the Supreme Court rules in this case:

1 - Some Americans will be offended.

Or...

2 - Some Americans will be forced into involuntarily servitude at the point of the federal government’s gun.

This is really not complicated.

SCOTUS will, by judicial fiat, create a de facto new “amendment” to the Constitution, allowing offended persons to enslave those who offended them, or they will simply tell the offended persons to take their business elsewhere. (They could also tell them to bake their own damn cake.)

This is not about “equality” to the radical, activist elements of the LGBTQWKRPINCINCINNATI crowd. This is about retribution and backdoor reparations.

Yes — homosexuals have been unfairly and unjustly treated by elements of our society, and even by our laws, since before our country’s Founding — but asking for government to force another human into your service is not the moral path to equality.

**Being offended is not justification for tying up either the courts or another citizen’s hands. **

I fear this decision.

It basically comes down to Justice Kennedy.

One man . . . ONE FREAKIN’ MAN(!!!) has the power to either create a new classification of legalized slavery, or tell those offended that some animals ARE NOT more equal than others.

There needn’t be religious rights, gay rights, or free speech arguments presented in this case. It’s far more cut-n-dried than that:

Do you have the right to enslave a person who offends you?

That’s the only question that matters in this case.

If the gay couple loses this case, what do they actually lose?

(Go ahead . . . take your time. Let me know when you’re done making your list.)

If the baker loses the case, what does he stand to lose?

(Hmmm?)

If this were truly about equal rights, I’d be standing with the gay couple — but it’s not. This is about one group punishing another group for their multi-generational sins, and doing so at the expense of a single individual’s liberty.

Their intent is to force the baker into their service, against his will. If he refuses, they want him to pay a fine or lose his business. If he refuses to pay, they want him visited upon by armed agents of the government. If he resists, they want those agents to use force in order to bind and imprison him. If he refuses to be taken, they expect him to be shot.

What does the baker desire from the gay couple? Nothing other than to be left alone. Hell . . . he didn’t even want their money.

So . . . we can either be offended, or we can be slaves.

What say you, Anthony McLeod Kennedy?

Formatted from libertyLOL’s LibertyBlog.

Sort:  

I believe the baker has already lost his business. Or it could be another similar story.

But, this should have been thrown out long ago. Every legal person should have said, we cannot force someone to do something against their will.
But? No buts.

This entire farce seems to have been cooked up and pushed through by some powerful forces behind the scenes.

And, I do not know if they intend for there to be a huge backlash against LGBs so they can start rounding them up like joos to the gulag (the first domino)

or if they intend to rot individual rights one piece at a time.

then will they force to be upvoted?

No... they would never do that. Upvoting will always be voluntary. Just like filing your taxes is voluntary.

like voluntarily genociding a plant of the earth called cannabis... long live the Shepard, as a sheep only him can protect me from the wolf... my whool is his just retribution for his work even if i am cold.

aaaaaaaaaaaaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :).

The right to refuse service is a right just like a right to want service from others for any reason.

Beep! Beep! This humvee will be patrolling by and assisting new veterans, retirees, and military members here on Steem. @shadow3scalpel will help by upvoting posts from a list of members maintained by @chairborne and responding to any questions replied to this comment.

You free market types have a weird notion of slavery. I will bet any amount of money that no cake makers will be chained up, whipped, and forced to make cakes. None of them will be kept and traded like chattel to other owners of cakemakers. Some of them who can't stomach the notion of doing business with the public without discriminating on the basis of a protected class will have to get other jobs, just like everybody else in the world who doesn't like their job.

Slavery. Come on, now. The government made murder illegal and now all the hit men are slaves! Pro tip: If you want to convince people of something, don't say ridiculous crazy nonsense things.

You hit the nail on the head with that one. Should the couple win this case, we’re in for a scary downward spiral.

If the gay couple loses this case, what do they actually lose?

The case involves the baker's right to refuse all service to people he doesn't like. If businesses may refuse service for people they don't like, or refuse jobs to people who they don't like, those people excluded or EXCOMMUNICATED do not have the full range of opportunities in society. This is particularly true as businesses become more and more consolidated.

If the baker loses the case, what does he stand to lose?

If the baker loses the case, he is assured the additional profits of a larger customer base and he gets to step outside the controversy of whether to make the decision.

Do you have the right to enslave a person who offends you?

The real question should be: Do you have the right to deny those people you don't like from participating in the economy just because you're offended?

How does refusing to supply standard cupcakes to gay people (as per the facts of the cases) differ from saying black people can't sit at your lunch counter?

The baker is the offended person here. He refuses to make his usual products at his usual place of business, in his usual way just because he is offended by gay people.

It's easy to say in this particular case that the gay people can just go to another bakery. But what happens if the offended business is an electric company, a cable service, the only giant department store in the area, or when the offended business is the major employer and they won't give a person a job?

I wrote more about this here. https://steemit.com/politics/@merrickgarland/religious-and-free-speech-rights-versus-public-accomodation-what-is-at-stake-in-the-cake-decorating-case

Do you have the right to deny those people you don't like from participating in the economy just because you're offended?

your question is strangely reformulated. I prefer :

Do you have the right to deny a bid from your ask? Or can you remove your ask at anytime without any explanation necessary. it depend if the market operate under anonymity or not. for example I would be outraged as a shareholder that a business deny a bid on the ask however I can't force an ask to stay against an unwanted bid. the notion you push is very anti free market. why shall the bid and ask find though the market another solution?

great post, great comments !

However one aspect I find tragic is that rather than to focus on the actual ciscumpstance of the event, you are all already thinking in term of jurisprudence. remember it's the cumulative too that count.

foremost what the baker right to refuse what ever his reason? you clearly don't see the private propriety issue here. the right to own and serve who ever is wanted.

tomorrow you want something from someone and you will force him to serve you? I don't think it is correct.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70638.80
ETH 3565.34
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.73