An excerpt from the NYT op-ed The Supreme Court is about to Ask the Wrong Question About the First Amendment:

Can an artist be compelled to create a website for an event she does not condone? That’s the question the Supreme Court has said it will take up on Monday, when it hears oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The answer would seem to be obviously “no.”

But that’s the wrong question. The right question is whether someone who chooses to open a business to the public should have the right to turn away gay customers simply because the service she would provide them is “expressive” or “artistic.” Should an architecture firm that believes Black families don’t deserve fancy homes be permitted to turn away Black clients because its work is “expressive”? Can a florist shop whose owner objects to Christianity refuse to serve Christians? The answer to these questions would seem to be, just as obviously, “no.”

So why is the first question the wrong one in this dispute? The case before the court was brought by 303 Creative, a business that says it wants to offer wedding website design services to the public but doesn’t want to serve gay couples. Under Colorado’s public accommodations law, businesses that choose to serve the public at large cannot turn people away because of their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or other protected characteristics. 303 Creative claims that because its service is expressive and its owner objects to same-sex marriage, it can’t be required to obey Colorado’s law. Not to afford it an exemption, the company argues, compels it to speak against its will and violates its free speech rights.

---

---

My two cents:

Back in civilization this would be a simple cut-and-dried property rights case. The business owner (owner!) as the business owner (owner!) back in civilization had sole discretion of the management of said business decisions so long as the business didn't actually harm people by physically hurting them or ripping them off by fraudulent means.

Nowadays the legal grounding of natural rights with law has been completely forgotten and in order to maintain some semblance of self-governance people have to try and pound the square peg of property rights into the round hole of first amendment free speech rights.

It isn't a good solution to the never-ending problem facing mankind which is how to maintain individual self-governance and the society self-governance creates in the face of people who care not a whit about other people's right to their own life and self-governance.

For the Left, for the socialists, for the communists, this is a property rights issue. They don't believe in property rights. The idea that there can be such a thing as personal property but not private property (a property in "the means of production") is the intellectual premise being foisted on us in all such cases such as this. We saw it earlier with the Christian bakers case.

The Leftists know what they're about. It is the destruction of property rights in total.

To be clear on this issue: Civil property rights - the right to own property - is the social acknowledgment of the Natural Right of your ownership of your own life. (There are Natural Rights and then there are Civil Rights that are legal acknowledgment of Natural Rights. The two go hand-in-hand.) By your Right to your life is not meant your life as a biological unit, it is your ownership of your life as a body of the purposely acquired that you have made and of which you make of yourself and grow and nurture. That is the actual property we each own. We each own our lives in the most fundamental existential way and cannot be deprived of the property in ourselves. We can however be deprived of being able to make of ourselves a body of life.

The Left's war on property rights is the Left's war on your right to your own life, your right to make of yourself a whole body of life and to live in a society created by free people.

So long as property rights are denied our ability to enjoy self-governance will be denied.

Margaret wrote: ↑

12/5/2022, 7:01 pm

An excerpt from the NYT op-ed The Supreme Court is about to Ask the Wrong Question About the First Amendment:

The right question is whether someone who chooses to open a business to the public should have the right to turn away gay customers simply because the service she would provide them is “expressive” or “artistic.”

That is not the right question either. It may be framed in a way that leftists think is the right one, but it is not. Neither are the non-sequitur hyperbolic ones that follow it.

The correct question is 'can an artist be compelled to create a website for an event that violates her deeply held religious beliefs?' And the answer is legally, and Constitutionally, "no".

So, now want to add into the mix irrational examples? How about going into a halal shop and ask for pork belly. Or ask a person who is obviously gay/lesbian to create a website that espouses the virtue of a cis/straight relationship? The first example is an issue of religious conviction, the second is not. A strict application of the law(s) and Constitution would point to the gay/lesbian not being able to refuse the service. However, it is unlikely that one would be asked (compelled) to do such a thing.

What if gay Confederate reenactors sued a black Christian owner of a bakery?

https://thepeoplescube.com/post193007.h ... te#p193007

Komissar al-Blogunov wrote: ↑

12/6/2022, 12:05 pm

What if gay Confederate reenactors sued a black Christian owner of a bakery?

https://thepeoplescube.com/post193007.h ... te#p193007

I’m with trailer park hero Lamar Ferguson. He’s cute.