Federalism?
In the decision that you are upset about (Charlie Craig v. Masterpiece Cake Shop), the Colorado Court of Appeals relied upon Colorado's anti-discrimation statute (Section 24-34-601) that prohibits discrimination based upon "sexual orientation." There are some stated (including Colorado) that have passed laws providing special protecting homosexuals.
Now, how is Lincoln or the Civil War responsible for a state court decision enforcing a state statute passed by a state legislature? I have been assuming that you were a big fan of a state's right to pass and enforce its own laws.
I disagree with the court's decision because I think it reads the state statute too broadly. But, the Civil War has nothing to do with it. If anything, the Confederate states wanted to give states greater power to create their own laws.
I just think this is an example of how an obsession with the 1860's can cripple the ability to clearly look at a present day problem. The Civil War is over; forget about it. Lincoln didn't cause the Colorado legislature to pass this statute. He didn't cause these judges to interpret this state statute as it did. Lincoln and the Civil War have nothing to do with this case.
All "discrimination" laws are a legacy of the Civil war. I personal do not feel the government has a right to tell people whom they must like and whom they must serve. I regard it as a bedrock principle of freedom that people have a right to be @$$holes if they want to be.
Now, how is Lincoln or the Civil War responsible for a state court decision enforcing a state statute passed by a state legislature?
It normalized the belief that people's right to do as they please was subservient to the FedGov's right to tell them who they must serve whether they liked it or not.
I have been assuming that you were a big fan of a state's right to pass and enforce its own laws.
Consistent with natural law. State laws that are contrary to natural law are just as objectionable as the Federal ones. It is still tyranny, even if it is on a smaller scale. You might be surprised to learn that I do louder, more often, and more consistent criticism of immoral state laws than I do of the Federal ones.
In my opinion, laws without moral foundations ought not be obeyed, and in fact, should be deliberately disobeyed whenever it is reasonable certain that you can get away with it.
The Civil War is over; forget about it. Lincoln didn't cause the Colorado legislature to pass this statute.
You may not thinks so, but I would wager it is fair odds that in the absence of Lincoln, such laws would very likely never have been passed. The Civil War created "Anti-Discrimination laws. " They established Government telling people that they had to serve people whom the government deemed as "protected" as a "normal" condition. That this loss of freedom was "normal."
I'm not sure you are able to think in terms of how things would be different had the civil war never happened. I think too much of the after effects of the civil war has been accepted by society as the "normal" default condition, and this renders most people unable to contemplate alternative realities in which such attitudes would not have developed.
You also keep asserting that I am obsessing over the civil war and I keep telling you that I started with modern times, and worked my way back to that historical conjunction because much bad stuff hurting us now has it's roots in that conflict.