What is freedom?

The meaning of “liberty,” anno Domini 2004: Following ACLU Intervention, Refusal to Print Invites to Same-Sex Wedding Ends With Printer Apology and Agreement Not to Discriminate. The moral, as stated by the ACLU staff attorney: “Business owners are entitled to their private opinions about same-sex marriage, but discriminatory business practices are not permitted.” Freedom is freedom to think what you want, as long as your beliefs don’t affect anything you do that affects other people. The staff attorney, for example, is in the business of providing legal services. Presumably he shouldn’t be allowed to let his beliefs as to what is right affect what cases he takes, the terms on which he takes them, or how aggressively he pursues them. If he did he would be discriminating among clients based on his private opinion as to their moral worth, an obvious gross violation of their human dignity. I’m sure he would agree that should be forbidden.

5 thoughts on “What is freedom?”

  1. From the ACLU article:

    From the ACLU article:

    “In August 2003, Seattle resident Tom Butts contacted Starfish Creative Invitations to hire them to print invitations for his upcoming wedding ceremony with Scott Carter in Vancouver, British Columbia. Butts liked samples of the company’s work he had seen and liked the fact that it was a local business. But Starfish, a Seattle company, refused to provide their services because, in the proprietor’s words, she believes ‘homosexuality is wrong’ and same-sex weddings are ‘against her belief system.’ The business owner’s refusal violated Seattle’s Open Housing Public Accommodations Ordinance, which protects an individual’s right to purchase products and services without regard to sexual orientation.”

    But it didn’t violate the ordinance, because the “products and services” which the ordinance says “must be offered for sale without regard to sexual orientation” included, in the case of this particular printer, ONLY wedding invitations, NOT “homosexual wedding” invitations. Invitations for “homosexual weddings” were a product they didn’t carry, and a business can’t provide what it doesn’t have. Must every store stock, for example, homosexual sex paraphernalia such as the rubber “dams” they use for whatever it is they do to each other? I mean, the insanity is endless here.

    I would think this case would be a slam-dunk victory on some kind of appeal—if the poor print-shop owner had that kind of money to spend, that is (poor woman to have this sick totalitarian outrage thrust upon her, forcing her to choose between her morals on the one hand and her business/livelihood on the other).

  2. I suppose the argument might
    I suppose the argument might be that the shop would have printed announcements for a wedding between Thomasina Butts and Scott Carter, so the reason they wouldn’t print these announcements was that it was Tom instead of Thomasina. If it wasn’t “sexual orientation” discrimination it was sexual discrimination, which the law (I am confident) also forbids.

    The basic stupefying outrage from which all else follows is the claim that there’s something wrong with discriminating on the basis of sex, that sexual distinctions should be treated as properly irrelevant to all aspects of social life.

  3. Ever since homosexual “Civil
    Ever since homosexual “Civil Unions” was rammed down Vermont’s throat by its left-wing State Supreme Court the nearly universal prediction among Normals—one can scarcely browse the readers’ comments thread of a Normal blog without seeing this prediction—has been that it will lead to calls for the legalization of father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister, uncle-niece, etc., incestuous marriages.

    Remember King Theoden’s words while standing on the battlements of Helms Deep, watching as the immense, terrifying enemy army gathered to attack? Slowly, as if in deepest thought or stunned and in a state of shock, he said to himself something like, “And so it begins… How did it come to this?”

    Reading the following article, well might we say with the shocked Theoden, “And so it begins”:

    http://cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=29782 .

    Next after incest, the legalization of polygamous marriages is already being called for, by “intellectuals” and “university scholars.” What lies ahead after polygamy will be—let no one snicker or make any mistake whatsoever about this being what will come next—will be calls for the legalization of human-animal marriages—count on it, as sure as the sun rises there will be marriages between a man or a woman and a dog, cat, horse, and so on; of marriages between people and preserved corpses; of marriages between humans and plant life such as trees, house plants, and so on; and of marriages between humans and inanimate objects such as automobiles, stereo equipment, computers, life-size mannequin-type sex dolls, etc. After incest and polygamy the other side will call for all these abominations, guaranteed. In the world of sexual perversions this stuff and way, way more is all out there.

    “How did it come to this?”

  4. Here are some readers’
    Here are some readers’ comments posted in the forum underneath the incest article I linked above. As one of the commenters indirectly alludes to, reading them is a deja-vu experience for those who followed the progress (or should that be “regress”?) of the carefully orchestrated and coordinated, decades-long, successful homosexual “marriage” maneuver. The first three comments correctly note some of the many mechanisms by which this stuff comes about, including the way it’s propagandized at the public and the way certain of our elites fail to oppose it strenuously enough if at all. The last two are a sad indication of where the debate on incestuous and human-animal marriage is at present: it is no longer the degenerates who are on the defensive but the Normals, who must now meekly attempt to justify their opposition to these abominations before what they know are powerful elite forces, who they sense have every intention of taking the other side once the voting and court decisions finally begin. This is exactly the progression we saw with homosexual “marriage”: the Normals have now been maneuvered onto the defensive.

    “It’s not as easy as citing a Supreme Court precedent. First, you have to spend years (maybe as many as 10) quietly getting people who share your perversion into key posts in the judiciary, professional organizations, churches and the entertainment industry. Then you spend a few seasons making your filth the ‘latest thing.’ Then you go before the high court with opinion polls, astrology charts and the Constitution of the Netherlands. Then, finally, you can rule the country with 5 votes out of 9.”

    “I knew it was coming, first same-sex marriages, now calls for incest[uous marriages] to be legalized, then zoophile. […] They will justify these behaviours by telling us that incest is prevalent in the animal kingdom, just as they justified [same-sex marriage by saying] that homosexuality is also found in the animal kingdom. […].”

    “What we’re witnessing are the moral aberrations resulting when [the] Church abdicates its responsibility to be THE moral beacon for the world in favor of a de facto religious indifferentism where pluralism is a sacrament, leaving the devil in charge. Look what’s happening nationally. Where is the consistent PUBLIC voice of bishops like CA’s metropolitan Mahony when it comes to condemning the abomination of sodomite marriage in their states? Lawrence v. Texas is deja-vu Roe v. Wade, with [the] Church AWOL!”

    “The incest taboo is ingrained in human beings, a real part of the natural law. It certainly has to do with violating trust, the trust a daughter must have for her dad and a son for his mother. It has to do with the reality that cross-emotional attachments can lead to violence. And it has to do with the biological reality that a woman’s fertility and health thrive when she has marital relations with only one man. All this is violated by incest.”

    “Has [Prof. Munz] given any thought to the high rate of abnormalities in children born of incest? I suppose he expects that they will all use some form of contraception or get an abortion if a pregnacy occurs. I also wonder if he has given any thought to the possible increase in murder by victims of those abused by incest.”


Leave a Comment