Posted on 04/07/2015 12:09:58 PM PDT by Kaslin
My liberal friends, all three of them, are up in arms over the Indiana RFRA controversy. As usual, their views on the issue are driven by emotion, not reason. That is because liberalism is not really a political philosophy. It is a stage of arrested emotional development. Since the Indiana RFRA controversy revolves around their core religion, which is the so-called gay rights movement, their emotionally laden “political” observations are not likely to subside in the near future.
Until then, it helps to understand what the current crisis in Indiana is really all about. Hint: It’s the same thing we were arguing about in the War Between the States. It’s also the very thing we were debating in the 1960s civil rights movement. It’s a thing called involuntary servitude.
If you are unsure of where you stand on the RFRA controversy, please allow me to share a story that will help clarify the issue. At the end of the story, I’m going to ask you a very simple question. If your answer to that question is “yes” then you are opposed to the Indiana RFRA law. If your answer to that question is “no,” then you support it.
A few years ago, I declined a wedding invitation from a friend. His wife is an alcoholic and he joked about how she would probably stumble her way down the aisle adding that he hoped she wouldn't fall on the way to the front of the church. I decided I didn't want to be a part of a ceremony that would mock the institution of marriage. Now imagine I were still playing guitar at weddings for a living - as I once did before I took a pay cut and became a professor. Would anyone seriously assert that I should be forced to play at the wedding I would not even want to attend?
Once again, if your answer to that question is “yes” then you are opposed to the Indiana RFRA law. If your answer to that question is “no,” then you support it.
Some may argue that the thought experiment isn’t relevant because homosexuals and stumbling drunks aren’t the same thing – only the former are part of a protected class. Newsflash: homosexuality is not the same thing as blackness. You can’t work your way into a legitimate protected class through self-destructive behavior. Next thing you know stumbling drunks will be arguing the same thing – and citing the genetic predisposition to alcoholism to bolster their claim!
All of this nonsense about protected classes is utterly beside the point. One would never argue that a black baker should have to serve food at a Klan rally. Learning that a few of the Klansmen were not ordinary whites - but also homosexuals - would not change the equation one iota. The issue is still involuntary servitude.
Some have expressed a concern that the new Indiana law and others like it might be used to justify blatant forms of discrimination. Perhaps a truly homophobic restaurant owner would refuse to serve gays – just like racist restaurant owners used to refuse service to blacks.
I really wish that were the case. Truly homophobic restaurant owners should be able to refuse to serve gays. Just like racist restaurant owners should be able to refuse service to blacks. Should such problems arise, the solution would not be laws to prosecute the bigots. It would be a free press to run them out of business. (Isn’t it ironic that today’s press falsely reports about RFRA and then cheers on bigots who attempt to run people out of business?)
Government imposed tolerance merely masks true bigotry. Sunlight, in the form of freedom of speech, is the only effective disinfectant. One hundred years ago, true progressives like Louis Brandeis understood that. Now, most people who call themselves “progressive” would be more aptly named regressive.
But the Democrat Party has never really been a progressive party. In the final analysis, little has changed in the last 200 years. Republicans are simply trying to end slavery while Democrats are tying to impose it.
What are they going to do when Obama decrees that it is discriminatory and homophobic to deny a homosxual’s demand that they perform sex on him/her?
Or deny his/her right to have sex with their children?
Great succinct definition.
There's a problem with this reasoning--there shouldn't be ANY protected classes. The law should work well for all.
Now, some might say that this would bring back the "back of the bus", and segregated toilets (another thing the LGBTQ crowd tries to borrow from the Civil Rights Movement). But, there is the concept of public accomodation, which is closely allied with the concept of equality before the law. However, personal services are NOT public accomodation, and better understood in terms of freedom of association and (as the author states) involuntary servitude.
Suppose you're a masseuse--do you get to choose whether you have to cater to clients, whatever their sex, especially if they appear kinky to you? I think "right to refuse service" applies here, and for wedding cakes, and for floral arrangements, as they are personal services, not public utilities largely paid for by the public purse.
‘Liberalism is not a political philosophy; it is a stage of arrested emotional development.’
Excellent tag line material!
Liberalism is the political expression of the religion of Humanism,
which began with the lie “you will be as gods, knowing good and evil”.
There! Fixed it.
Yes, the gov’t is going against the 13th Amendment:
“...Neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE shall exist in these United States except for crime or punishment.”
The word, “LIBERALS” has now become a misnomer. There is nothing “liberal” about these SOCIOECONOMIC FASCISTS.
Liberal” stems from the word “liberty” and these people hate freedom and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Which means they are for COLLECTIVE RIGHTS and the fascist policies required to ensure the power of the COLLECTIVE vs. the INDIVIDUALS.
Reminds me of the saying —
— “Socialism: Policies so good, they need to use FORCE to implement them.”
The concept of public accommodation is a violation of private property rights and the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
I thought of that too. I can see the homonazis saying heterosexuals discriminate by not having sexual relations with the same sex.
And I’m stealing it post haste!
If you don’t like what Dr Adams writes than don read it. It was not necessary for you to fix anything. Got it?
Excellent point.
don’t not don
if a liberal is a homosexual, he demands legislative respect
You can say that again
Or enforced association. Either we're a free people or we're not. And if we can't even choose the people we do business with, then we are decidedly NOT free.
Now, you want me to personalize the cake with whatever phrases that you wish....however I reserve the right to use my skills in cake decorating to not produce words that I find offensive without explaining why I find them so.
cuss words, "N" words, racial words, klan words....whatever and under that cover, I won't use my personal expertice to write Harry and Fred on the cake....NO....am I discriminating against you....nope, won't do it for anybody!
I wonder if a “law” requiring everyone to have homosexual relations so as not to discriminate, would wake this blind,apathetic country up?
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.