Another Example of American Leftists and the Tyranny of Their Political Correctness

Please read this story and – most importantly – watch the entire video clip:

Oregon Baker Faces State Investigation After Refusing to Make Same-Sex Couple’s Wedding Cake

OK, if you agree with the complainants and the State in this story, I want to talk directly to you.  If you agree with the State and believe this man should be forced – by the government – to serve people in opposition to his religious beliefs, you are un-American.  Note: I define American as someone who believes in the principles of individual rights and liberty as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.  So I’ll say it again: if you think the baker in this story is the person who is in the wrong – you are un-American.  What’s more, you are part of the problem in this nation, not the solution.

First, the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land – the supreme law of the land.  That means the law is clear in this case: the State statute is null and void as it contradicts the 1st Amendment, and the 1st Amendment is supreme.  It applies to all the States.  The States cannot supersede it – not without first withdrawing from the union.  So let’s just stop any discussion of State law.

Next, even if this were not a clearly settled matter of law, the baker still has a right to refuse to serve anyone he chooses – and for any reason.  His product is a matter of his labor, produced through his property.  To force the baker to make and sell his product against his will is an act of force.  When one claims the ‘right’ to force another to work for them against their will, it is called slavery.  So, unless you want to admit you are in favor of slavery, you have no grounds to accuse the baker of doing anything wrong.  In fact, the person who is actually being harmed here is the baker – not the complainants.

Next, the State has a duty to protect all its citizens equally.  In this case, that means it should side with the baker.  The baker has caused these two women no injury.  They have not been physically harmed, nor have they lost property or suffered monetary damages.  Furthermore, any attempt to claim emotional harm is negated by the baker’s counter claims on the same grounds AND against his freedom of conscience and his rights to his labor and property.  In other words, the baker has a greater claim against these women than they have against him, and now the baker has a claim against the people of his State – through the government – because they – through the government – have sided against him.  Should he be fined, lose business or shut down as a result, he is the one suffering real, tangible harm.  He is the one whose rights are being violated – not the spoiled little tyrants running to their “mommy” in the government to make little Johnny (i.e. the baker) do what they want him to do.

Finally, did you note the ‘reporter’s’ attitude in the interview?  It may just be me, but the tone of her voice and the way she worded her questions seemed to present a clear assumption on her part that the baker is in the wrong.  There is so much wrong with that.  First, that attitude negates her claim to being a ‘reporter.’  Were she a ‘real’ journalist, she would have included the things I just stated in her story, but she didn’t.  Instead, she implied that the baker faces being forced to shut down by the government because he refuses to agree with the ‘considered opinions’ of society.  She never even questions whether or not those opinions are morally correct, or even if they are the majority opinion of society (which, when people are interviewed privately, they are not.  The majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage).  So, not only does this reporter add to the destruction of the public’s trust in the supposed ‘news media,’ she is demonstrating the very reason our founders designed this nation as a republic, and not a democracy: a decision proven all the more prophetic by modern televisions ability to create the public impression that a minority opinion is actually a majority one.

So I’ll say it again: if you think the baker is the person in the wrong, you are un-American and part of the reason our society is in such a state of decay.  If you support these attacks on the baker, you have more in common with Communism/Marxism — as practiced — than you have with anything the world once understood as “American.”  What’s more, I will not apologize should that offend you – because I’m right!

5 thoughts on “Another Example of American Leftists and the Tyranny of Their Political Correctness

    • Not yet, but the story makes it sound like he either complies with the dictates of the State, or they violate still more of his constitutional rights by fining him or shutting him down and, thus, interfering with his pursuit of happiness and right to ear a living.

  1. There’s a remedy to this whole situation. The gay couple can just go to another baker. Or conversely, the couple can invest some of their own money and start their own bakery catering to gays.

    I’ve seen signs on several businesses that clearly state that they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

  2. Makes one wonder when the first suit will be filed in one of the progressive areas of our union that tries to force a Christian Church, against their beliefs, to perform a gay marriage?

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s