Religious freedom and commerce

Much is being written about serving gays violating a merchant’s freedom of religion.  But what is the real question here.  Is the merchant being forced to serve people he or she doesn’t like or being forced to participate in activities that he or she doesn’t like.

The latest case I’ve seen is about a photographer being forced to photograph a gay wedding.  In this case, the photographer is being requited to participate in something he or she does not approve of.

On the other hand, if two men showed up at the studio can the photographer deny them service?  Not if they act as any two buddies might having their picture taken.  If they put their arms on each other’s shoulders the photographer should not have a complaint.  But if they insisted on a picture of them kissing each, then the photographer would have a complaint.

Similarly with a baker being asked to bake a wedding cake.  If two men showed up to order a wedding cake, then the baker should provide it, even if he knew they were gay.  However, if they asked him to put two male figures on the top of the cake, then the baker now becomes a direct participant in the choice of the two men.

Suppose a neo-nazi asks a Jewish baker to make a cake with a swastika on top. The baker has every right to refuse on both religious and ethical grounds.  However, if the neo-nazi just asks for a cake off the shelf, then the baker should serve him.

Suppose a Roman Catholic grocer is asked to deliver groceries to a nudist camp.  He has every right to refuse.  However, if one of the nudists comes to his store fully clothed to buy groceries for the camp, then the grocer should serve him.

Essentially, we should not be expected to participate in activities of which we disapprove, but we can’t refuse to serve those of whom we disapprove when they are acting in a socially acceptable manner.

A good case in point is the shock jock, Fred Tupper, in “Little Mosque in the Prairie”, who spreads all kinds of misinformation about Muslims.  He is welcome in Fatima’s restaurant, as long as he doesn’t spout off too much.

Quote of the day: an assault on assault

“[T]here is still no reason for a citizen to own an assault rifle unless he is planning an assault.”

“Omar Mateen, American Monster”, Charles M. Blow, New York Times, 2016-06-16, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/opinion/omar-mateen-american-monster.html

The political spectrum – from wrong to wronger

The conventional idea of the political spectrum from left to right is as if one adapts different ideas as one moves smoothly from one side to the other.  But people aren't so easily graded as eggs.  Some people are for ideas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and other are against all six.  Some people are for ideas 1, 2, and 3, and against ideas 4, 5, and 6.  Others are for ideas 1, 3, and 6 and against 2, 4, and 5.  And so on.

But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative.  If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.

Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers.  If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative.  If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal.  If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative.  If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.

About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves.  About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.

So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?

That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.

Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me.  Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance.  I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status.  I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.

Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less.  Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations.  Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food?  Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases.  Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.

It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays.  Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day.  As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.