June 26, 2017
As soon as it was decided that the government could force-integrate races, you were always going to end up with anal obsessed psychotics forcing Christians to bake a cake celebrating sodomy.
There was no other way it could have worked out.
Like dropping an object off a building – you know it will hit the ground. There is not a series of variant potential outcomes.
Freedom of association, like freedom of speech, is something that is either absolute or non-existent.
After numerous rejections, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a Colorado “cake artist” who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and argued that being forced to do so would violate his religious beliefs.
Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop ran afoul of Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws in 2012, when he refused a wedding cake commission for two men on grounds of religious freedom. Charlie Craig and David Mullins sued for discrimination, and the courts agreed with them.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear Phillips’ appeal for years. In the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, the justices said that same-sex marriage was a constitutionally guaranteed right in all states. On Monday, however, the court granted Phillips a hearing in its next term, beginning in October.
Craig and Mullins were legally wed in Massachusetts, because Colorado had not legalized same-sax marriage until 2014. However, the state anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation as a protected category.
Phillips argued that under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, he has free speech and religious rights that would be violated by the state compelling him to make a cake specifically to honor a same-sex marriage.
The court also granted the motion for an amicus curiae brief by the Foundation For Moral Law, an Alabama-based nonprofit that helps legislate religious liberty cases. This allows the Foundation to file a brief before the court even though it is not party to the case.
While there are some things you should be allowed to do and some things you shouldn’t be allowed to do, being forced to do something is pretty much always a bad thing.
People talk about the German National Socialists being “oppressive,” but it’s hard to find where they actually forced their will upon anyone. They were in fact populists, and defenders of freedom, much closer to the Founding Fathers of the United States than even modern Republicans.
It will be interesting to see how the new court deals with this. They are somewhat likely to side with religious freedom over… forced anal cakes.
However, the basis of the inclusion of gays in the “special privilege” group that women and nonwhites are in is based on the idea that they are born that way – “race, gender or sexual orientation.”
This really isn’t even law yet, and this court case will decide a lot about what happens next, legally. Right now, there is no federal law that prevents you from refusing to hire someone based on their fixation with male anuses.
But the ideology behind this push is that if you were born a certain way, you deserve equal treatment because there’s nothing you can do about the way you were born.
We should exploit this.
There are several studies now showing that infants show racial preference. That is to say, people are “born racist.”
This has been studied extensively not just by psychologists but by neurologists. It is an undisputed fact that from as soon as their eyes can focus, infants prefer to be around those with the most genetic similarity to them, and they are able to recognize this genetic similarity visually. There is much more evidence for “born racist” than there is for “born gay.”
I have no idea who could make this case, but legally, based on scientific studies, it could be argued that racism is a genetic condition.
“I didn’t choose to be racist, I was born this way.”
This would mean it would be illegal for PayPal, Google Adsense, Patreon, Amazon, Coinbase, every credit card processor that has shut us down, etc. to discriminate against me or this website.
To be clear: I don’t think that that is actually going to happen. However, if someone ever did make that case, based on established case law, I don’t really see how a court could reject it at this point.
I suppose the argument would be that everyone is born racist and someone makes the choice as to whether or not to embrace a racist ideology. However, this would lead to a re-investigate of the “born gay” concept, as presumably there are large numbers of people who demonstrate traits associated with homosexuality at a young age and yet do not grow up to be homosexuals.