(This cartoon was originally from January, 2011.)
And on Edward Snowden, and how the Rulers have been violating their constitutional oaths. Interviewed by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change.
(h/t Boiling Frogs)
Copyright LewRockwell.com (Link to article)
And we now have treacherous judges who are willfully defending the government’s censorship of the people, as John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute wrote about recently.
But not only has Obama been cracking down on free speech, he has also been a part of the larger structure of the government-corporate apparatus which benefits the real “1%”.
In my view, “The Powers That Be” consist mainly of the world-wide government bureaucrats and their respective corporate parasites. Besides Obama, TPTB seem to be getting very agitated by various truth-tellers and critics of the Regime.
And thanks in large part to Obama’s dictatorial abuse of governmental powers, the U.S. has dropped to #46 in world press freedoms. “America” is hardly recognizable now as the “bastion of freedom” it once was.
Besides the sycophantic and propagandistic news media and journalists, the entertainment industry is also plagued with government infiltration and censorship. Hollywood’s propagandizing on behalf of Obama’s reelection and excusing torture with Zero Dark Thirty was one example, and the Obama Administration’s openly teaming up with Hollywood to promote ObamaCare is another.
But Jay Leno’s termination from NBC may have been an even more blatant example of elitists’ punishment for criticizing the Regime.
Despite continually high ratings, Jay Leno’s many years as Tonight Show host was ended by NBC. Some people actually believe that his being canned was to do with his stinging criticisms and mocking of President Barack Obama in this past year.
Infowars, suggesting recently that Obama is attempting to seize control of the entertainment industry, provided several video excerpts as examples of Leno’s Obama jokes which could have provoked a possibly overly sensitive President.
Besides those videos on Infowars, here is another excerpt of Jay Leno telling jokes mocking the Obama Administration:
Even Johnny Carson’s longtime head writer, Raymond Siller, weighs in on the controversy, apparently agreeing with the view that Obama or his close minions directed Leno’s heave-ho, stating that, “With his pen and phone, our selfie-absorbed president is one whacked uncle away from appointing himself Supreme Leader.” Siller also speculated that other late-night comedians are soft on Obama out of fear of being called a racist.
Well, I guess the late-night comedians really have curbed their Obama jokes, but it’s probably not as much to do with fearing the “racist” label as with being unthinking, obedient leftist sheeple.
I searched online for possible David Letterman Obama jokes and couldn’t find any. Is Letterman even on TV anymore? Oh wait, I did find this one recent joke about Obama’s Syria “red line” remark. It’s not particularly critical of Obama, just typical Letterman goofy.
But why are times different now than they were, say, 30 years ago? From what I can remember, Johnny Carson made jokes about Ronald Reagan all the time. In fact, here is Carson joking about his joking about Ronald Reagan:
But Carson didn’t seem to get the pink slip over it.
And during the 1970s, comedian Rich Little made fun of, impersonated and mocked Richard Nixon, on the Tonight Show, Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts, even Hollywood Squares. Nothing particularly controversial there. No firing, no blacklisting, etc. (Although it is true that Nixon had an “enemies list,” but Rich Little wasn’t on it.)
And Lenny Bruce was arrested several times for violating “obscenity” laws, and was banned from several venues. Unlike Rich Little and Lenny Bruce, however, it may have been Jay Leno’s popularity nation-wide and his influence with the younger crowd in which his stinging criticisms may have troubled the Dear Leader.
But there may be more to this than just a possible Obama influence in the firing of Jay Leno, on the corporate side. NBC, which had been employing Leno for may years, is now fully owned by Comcast, as of March, 2013.
Apparently, Comcast employees and Comcast Corp PACs contributed over $300,000 to the Obama for President 2012 campaign, according to Infowars and OpenSecrets.org. But that could be the case with most big corporations. (Wait, it might be more than that.)
Also according to OpenSecrets.org, “86 out of 107 Comcast Corp lobbyists in 2013 have previously held government jobs.” Talk about a revolving door. And NBC itself does have a history of acting as shills for the Obama agenda.
Now, I don’t know if NBC’s terminating of Jay Leno was a direct influence by Obama who doesn’t like being criticized by a popular celebrity, or a move by corporate honchos acting as Obama flunkies. It may have been just another stupid TV exec decision. (TV execs make a lot of stupid decisions, you know.)
But here is another example of possible corporate media State-servility. If you’re a late night person or an early morning person (I happen to get up very early myself), then chances are you probably have heard of Coast to Coast on the radio. If you are a regular listener, then you might have noticed that the program’s weekend host, John B. Wells, has not been on the air for a while.
Apparently, Wells was fired from Coast to Coast, despite very high ratings, even higher ratings than its weeknight host George Noory, according to Common Sense Show host Dave Hodges.
Wells has the distinctively deep voice and, as a Coast to Coast host, Wells has interviewed NSA whistleblower William Binney, health freedom advocate Ty Bollinger, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, political strategist Roger Stone, and the late Rolling Stone investigative journalist Michael Hastings, among others.
The Wells firing by Coast to Coast came just two months after Wells appeared with Alex Jones at a big JFK assassination anniversary protest in Dallas.
To remind everyone how tolerant the Rulers are of political dissent, Dallas officials threatened to shut down protests and attempted to suppress the free speech rights of those who dissent — those who don’t believe the Regime-approved official story of the Oswald “lone gunman” theory.
Now, after all the information, testimony and thorough analyses that have been available for 50 years, how can anyone really believe the Warren Commission’s report? Of course challengers of the official narrative have a right to express their views!
So could Wells’s appearance at the Dallas event really have caused that much concern for Coast to Coast producers, its distributor Premier Networks, or Premier’s owner Clear Channel? Who knows? Maybe not. Hodges did assert that Clear Channel has a history of “censorship,” however.
But the fact is, a high ratings-getter was taken off the air for apparently no good reason.
You see, when people go against the Regime, question the Regime’s official judgments, or criticize the Regime’s puppets, it’s bye-bye to them.
So, with Jay Leno, Judge Napolitano, Glenn Beck and John B. Wells, I’m really not sure what to make of corporations who are willing to lose their profits either because of bad executive decision-making, or for the sake of helping to propagandize the Rulers’ power grabs and stifling of dissent.
Capitalism in America used to involve privately owned industries making it a number one priority to serve the consumers. Coinciding with that was the freedom to earn a profit as well as a basic living providing such service. Perhaps Ayn Rand referred to the rational self-interest of traders, but the whole thing, to me, is just common sense.
But when the businessperson sacrifices one’s own self-interest, and not even to genuinely help others but to serve the interests of government bureaucrats, power-grabbers, and parasitic misfits, then such behavior is thoroughly irrational, self-destructive, and further contributes to the eventual break-down of society, in my view.
Arthur Silber has this post on Edward Snowden and his and “responsible journalists” controlled nature of the release or non-release of documents on NSA criminality. Now, I’m sure there are a lot of people who say that Snowden is a hero for whistleblowing. But, as Silber has pointed out, given that only 1 or 2% of the Snowden documents have been made public, they really have been State-sanctioned leaks. There are those who don’t even like it when people criticize Snowden, but he really does seem to be acting more on behalf of the State than the people and our freedom. Arthur Silber explains it in the link above, and check out all the links in his post for further information.
Jacob Hornberger writes on the Ukraine and the U.S. national security state.
Here is an update on my recent blog post on 15-year-old Justina Pelletier, who had been treated by physicians at Boston’s Tufts Medical center for Mitochondrial Disease. To review briefly, in February of 2013 because of difficulty with the flu, her doctors had her taken for treatment with gastroenterologists at Boston Children’s Hospital. But she was immediately seen by psychiatrists who changed her entire diagnosis and treatment as a psychological disorder.
Because her parents attempted to take her out of Boston Children’s Hospital, custody of Justina was then seized by the state’s Department of Children and Families (DCF), an agency notoriously dangerous for those unfortunate young victims, and she had then been moved to a mental health facility which sounded more like a correctional institution. Later last year as the nightmare got worse for the Pelletiers, the DCF judge had imposed a gag order on the parents, which Mr. Pelletier violated by telling his story to the media. Justina’s condition had gotten much worse since her medical treatment for Mitochondrial Disease was discontinued by psychiatrists and since her abduction by the state’s “Child Welfare” (sic) bureaucrats.
An attorney who has been helping the Pelletiers has this more detailed review and new update at the Blaze. The attorney states that he has gotten the DCF judge to drop the “contempt” charges (against Mr. Pelletier for violating the gag order) and end the gag order altogether. And the attorney has gotten the Boston Children’s doctors to allow Justina to return for treatment with her previous doctor at Tufts, along with several other doctors as a team.
But actual custody of Justina is to remain with the state. They have literally been holding this girl against her and against her parents’ will, as a ward of the state, really a hostage of government bureaucrats, and they continue to do so, criminally in my view.
As I wrote in that initial blog post, the Children’s Hospital doctors — not the gastroenterologists Justina was supposed to see but psychiatrists who seized her case — had told Mr. Pelletier that Justina’s condition was “all in her head” and her new treatment was to be a form of “behavior modification.” This “behavior modification” for these people is really an ideology in my view. Not really a practice of behavior modification that could be useful when people have anxiety or panic disorders, etc., but in this telling case, it really becomes a cultish ideology when these doctors totally disregard the previous doctors’ valid diagnosis and treatments, in the name of instilling such a “behavior modification” onto a clearly physically sick patient. (There are indications which show that the “doctors” at Children’s Hospital may have been using Justina as research material, against her will or that of her parents, but that would probably be difficult to prove, I think. Look for that kind of stuff under ObamaCare. But I digress.)
But one big challenge to the Tufts doctors is whether or not they will actively expose the Children’s Hospital doctors as not just engaging in malpractice but as criminally negligent and dangerous physicians, which, in my opinion, they clearly seem to be. Alas, like those good cops out there (yes, there probably are some) who either cover up for the bad cops or if they do act as whistleblowers they are fired or severely ostracized, I will not hold my breath for the Tufts doctors to act as whistleblowers. Call me a pessimist, oh well.
The medical establishment has not changed much in the past century. And now with ObamaCare/Single Payer/SovietCare, those doctors who don’t mind being government bureaucrats will stay in or join the field, and those who believe in patients’ rights and “first do no harm” will leave.
Remember now, the change in Justina’s case was in February 2013 when she had the flu. That was when her doctors had her go to Children’s Hospital, and the nightmare began at that time. So, if your child gets the flu, it might be a good idea not to use a hospital for treatment. But I will not get into those kinds of things here, as I don’t want to be accused of giving medical advice or dietary advice without being licensed by a high-and-mighty government bureaucrat license-giver.
Especially in the near future when medical treatment probably will do more harm than good under ObamaSovietCare, it will be necessary to act preventively, for both adults and children. To prevent the flu, Dr. Miller suggests that the flu shot is not a good idea, but taking vitamin D is. And Bill Sardi today explains how vitamin C deficiency can be a contributor to getting the flu, and Dr. Mercola also recently advised vitamin C as a good idea.
And finally, always get a second opinion, especially in a case as serious as the Pelletiers. Those Children’s Hospital psychiatrists refused to allow that family to get a second opinion. For those who find themselves in a situation in which “doctors” don’t allow you to get a second opinion, in my view those “doctors” must be criminally charged with endangerment. And that’s what I have to say about that.
Wendy McElroy has an article discussing the national educrats’ further ruining education in Amerika.
John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute writes about how not only have our rights to freedom of speech in general been whittled away by tyrannical government power-grabbers, but more specifically our right — as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states — “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Whitehead brings up several cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court and several other courts swipe the backs of their hands to shoo away those who had attempted to exercise their right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Whitehead is the author of Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.)
And here is James Bovard speaking recently at the New Hampshire Free State Project‘s Liberty Forum. Bovard brings up Obama’s assuming the power to kill “suspects” without being required to present evidence against the accused, really anyone Obama wants to kill on his say so alone. And other subjects include the TSA and guns. (Bovard is the author most recently of Public Policy Hooligan: Rollicking and Wrangling, from Helltown to Washington. Here is a list of more Bovard books.)
Last July Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick stated with assurance that he is “not running for president in 2016.” But this past week, in response to the same question from Politico, he answered, “maybe, maybe … Let’s just see what time tells.” Hmmm. I think there’s yet another pol from Taxachusetts who likes power, and wants more of it. And another moonbat, no less.
If he runs, we can add his name to the growing list of Massachusetts moonbats running for President just from the past 25 years, including John Heinz Kerry, Paul Tsongas, Michael Dukakis, and Willard Mitt Romney.
What, you don’t think that Romney is a moonbat? You actually think he’s a “conservative”? Only in an Orwell-like novel would Willard Romney be a “conservative.” With Romney’s support for medical insurance mandates, his welching on his promise to repeal ObamaCare, his pathologically raising taxes on businesses while governor, his loving the Fed and government bailouts, his support for gun control, yes, Romney is a … moonbat.
Heh. Some really die-hard sheeple actually want Romney to run (and lose) a 3rd time, in 2016. (Masochists, for sure.)
But this is about the current Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick. Patrick is an old buddy of the current President, Obama. And Patrick takes after his buddy, in their taking many long vacations, their adoration for taxing and spending, and as with all Left-fascists (sorry for the redundancy), their love for the the police state.
For example, the busy governor Patrick recently took time away from his vacation in Switzerland to go on a vacation in Costa Rica. After that’s over with he will be just in time for Spring break. (The Obamas are also known to take many expensive vacations.)
On Patrick’s Obamaesque love for taxes and spending, last year the state legislature passed a $500 million tax increase, which Gov. Patrick vetoed because it was not high enough. But conveniently, his fellow hacks overrode his veto. And this tax increase was even though the state’s coffers were $500 million “above benchmark” in revenues.
It’s never enough of other people’s money to spend on pet projects, cronies, and nice vacations overseas. Yup.
And I wonder if Deval thinks that if he runs for President that he can escape the scandals which have plagued his governorship, unlike former Gov. Michael Dukakis who couldn’t get away from the “Willie Horton issue” in 1988. Gov. Patrick’s “Willie Horton” is the Department of Children and Families scandal that I have mentioned previously.
It’s so bad now, with foster children winding up dead or missing, story after story of abuse and the fact that Patrick’s DCF allows convicted violent criminals to become foster parents, that even the head of that state agency Olga Roche offered Patrick her resignation but he wouldn’t accept it. Hmmm.
Who knows what’s going through Deval’s head, in his continuing to defend violent criminals’ ability to receive foster children, Patrick’s aiding and abetting that negligent agency’s shenanigans and incompetence with his silence, and merely helping to rearrange the deck chairs of a government agency that shouldn’t even exist in the first place. The whole thing smells, if you ask me (sort of like Gov. Romney’s staff deleting emails from servers and taking away hard drives from their State House computers as Romney was leaving office — that smelled too).
But I think that last year’s fascist order by Deval Patrick to stay off all Massachusetts roads during the Blizzard of 2013 or motorists could be fined or be thrown in jail was very telling. And the fact that he oversaw the post-Marathon bombings Boston shut-down and Watertown police siege door-to-door searches without probable cause or warrants. Not exactly the ideal “civil liberties governor,” that’s for sure.
These moonbats who used to be anti-police are now very pro-police and government armed power. As I noted before, the police state comes from the Left. So I am not surprised to hear that, sensing the kind of power that the police state gives his buddy Obama, that Deval Patrick would want to be the next Dear Leader.
(Cross-posted on the LewRockwell.com Blog.)
Yet another ignoramus judge removes previously constitutionally protected rights from Muslims, just because they’re Muslims, according to Nat Hentoff. (What is it with these schmuck judges? Whether it’s approving NDAA indefinite detention or NSA surveillance — all thoroughly unconstitutional and criminal — these judges’ infantile and simple-minded judgments confirm just how bad Amerikan education is. And/or the judges are being blackmailed. Nah, that would never happen.)
But a much better judge, albeit retired, Judge Andrew Napolitano gives us some idea on just how much good our legal system is for us right now.
Michael Snyder at the American Dream Blog has another post pointing out the sicko sex-culture of the government school system. Chicago kindergarten teachers having to teach sex education? Age 5? Teaching “oral sex” and “grinding” as part of a Kansas middle school curriculum? Two 5-year-olds in a classroom trying to “have sex”? This is sick. And William Grigg writes about the sickos and pervs and child molesters of Department of Juvenile Corrections. To me, it’s not a good idea to take the child to any government facility or hospital just because of what I would call “odd behavior,” or having made some sort of inappropriate sexual references.
But the stuff in everyday government schools really does bother me.
You see, “liberal” parents and educators attempt to avoid the sexual “repression” either from their own childhoods or from what they see as “repressive” traditional values and norms, which aren’t really repressive at all. Sexuality and sexual relations are not for kids. Teenagers begin to develop sexually and it would be helpful for the adults in their lives to help them to deal with the confusion (but not take advantage of them as some predatory adults do). But it’s not a subject that needs to be addressed at all with children. IF they “ask questions” then try to answer them honestly, but there’s no need to be too specific, because they are children and not yet nearly mature enough to handle those issues. But we have a sick culture now with the sexualization of everything and the sickos of government schools pushing their sexual urges onto their students. (Basically, that’s really what all this is, in my view.)
As I wrote in an earlier post, “Why are so many people so constantly unsatisfied sexually in their relationships and marriages? Is it because people in general are so unsatisfied with their lives emotionally, or because so many people are so dependent and want to be treated like babies? I think that what is truly repressive is the trend of generations of people encouraging their children to start having sex at earlier ages when they are still not emotionally prepared for it. Some people believe that ‘denying the satisfactions of one’s urges’ is itself repressive, but it’s really the opposite of that, at least with teens. The ‘liberal’ parents intend to avoid sexual repression, but they are creating it. In my view, sexual repression is because people are becoming sexually active at younger ages. Given how emotionally immature adolescents are, their involving their newly-discovered sexuality with others, with their peers, is in my view a kind of invitation for violation, mainly because they are too emotionally immature to handle such intimacies. And later in life, no wonder so many people are so sexually unsatisfied in their marriages, because of all the repressed feelings coming from their adolescence associated with their private sexual lives being violated by others (like their parents, as well as peers).”
Well, enough of that.
Let’s change the subject.
Michael Rozeff writes about the two gangsters, Obama and Putin.
Robert Murphy says you can’t make ObamaCare without breaking some households.
Ilana Mercer writes about how the “Con-stitution” gives the feds the power to steal your property.
Robert Wenzel has the best books to read on Austrian Economics.
Jacob Hornberger wants to know when enough is enough on the drug war.
Frank Shostak asks, Is bad weather behind weak U.S. economic trends?
Wendy McElroy says that new laws on prostitution will victimize the women.
Kelley Vlahos writes about the careerist culture in the U.S. military.
Gary North writes about beating the State: Third Century Christianity in the third world today.
Spencer Ackerman at the U.K. Guardian writes about the criminal scheme of intercepting and recording video images from users’ Yahoo webcam interactions, inflicted by NSA and Britain’s equivalent the GCHQ. Ackerman notes that a large percentage of what the “national security” extremists view and obtain is totally useless, including pornography and family home movies. Even when the GCHQ and NSA center on a “target,” there are still people with similar user names and/or faces, so, as is typical with these criminal schemes, the infiltrators nevertheless scoop up the webcam data of totally innocent people.
The webcam scam being committed by these imbecilic and criminal government bureaucrats is a total waste of time, has no “intelligence” value and doesn’t do anything to protect the people from so-called terrorists.
And now, with the latest revelations from Glenn Greenwald at his new outlet, the Intercept, we learn “how covert agents infiltrate the Internet to manipulate, deceive, and destroy reputations.” Justin Raimondo has further analysis of Greenwald’s article. Raimondo brings up the Obama flunky Cass Sunstein (my prediction of Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee, by the way), who has wanted to infiltrate the Internet for a while now.
Greenwald mainly refers to Britain’s GCHQ doing the infiltrating. Included in what these “national security” extremists do is discrediting a target by “setting up a honey trap, change their photos on social networking sites, write a blog purporting to be one of their victims, email/text their colleagues, neighbours, friends, etc.”
And the GCHQ wants to destroy whole companies as well. To destroy whole companies, this government bureaucracy, which England’s taxpayers are proud to fund, wants to “leak confidential information to companies / the press via blogs, etc., post negative information on appropriate forums, stop deals/ruin business relationships.”
THAT’S the way to stop terrorism, for sure, baby!
So everyone, if you’re in the U.K. your hard-earned money that’s being taken from you by David Camaroon and the other crooks is funding this criminality in government. I’m sure you’re proud of that. And if the NSA is doing these things, the same goes for the hapless schmucks here in America.
Just glancing at the Greenwald article, you will see all the charts and diagrams used to describe the criminality. And no, there’s nothing good about this, no “security” here, just scheming bureaucrats acting like criminal mischief-makers.
And as Justin Raimondo referenced, this is the kind of scheme that would make Cass Sunstein proud. Sunstein had proposed to “cognitively infiltrate” the Internet in order to undermine the credibility of so-called “conspiracy theorists,” people who are informed of the various schemes and crimes being committed by government bureaucrats (see above).
This is all nuts. “National security” bureaucrats are not going to “keep us safe” when they themselves are infiltrating, intruding, eavesdropping, manipulating, committing ID theft, fraud, and scheming and plotting and otherwise compromising our security and safety.
If you are serious in preventing terrorism, then stop provoking foreigners into retaliating against us.
Yes, it’s that simple. Stop starting wars of aggression against and ruining whole countries that were of no threat to us, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stop occupying and trespassing on foreign lands, stop murdering innocents overseas with drones and bombs. Duh.
And we have chickenhawk neocons who are trembling at the thought of cutting the defense budget now, as Kelley Vlahos writes. And John Heinz Kerry whines that those who are opposed to any further U.S. military interventions overseas are “new isolationists.” This coming from the guy who sat before a congressional committee in the early ’70s to tell the American people of the war crimes being committed over in Vietnam. I guess now that he’s in power, he likes foreign interventionism, as long as he himself doesn’t have to go risking his own life to engage in such war crimes himself.
What’s worse than Kerry’s slander of non-interventionists, is his ignorant claim that U.S. interventionism overseas is helping American jobs at home and the U.S. economy in general. (What’s this guy smoking?) The ignoramus Kerry Heinz needs to read Robert Higgs and Anthony Gregory!
I really don’t want to spend my time writing about this same-sex marriage issue again. It’s amazing just how selfish some people are in their having to force their ways onto others and get the powers of the State to aid and abet their aggressions. Some “liberals” actually think that “civil rights” means having the power to force others to associate with you. Nuh-uh. Sorry, folks.
These issues are really a matter of freedom vs. statism.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill “allowing” business owners to not have to serve same-sex couples, but specifically out of “religious”-based objections. I’m glad she vetoed the bill, but her reasons are certainly not out of principle, either in favor of “civil rights” or in favor of business, or freedom of association. Given that she supports the police to require presumably innocent non-suspects to show IDs without probable cause, then she can’t be very principled. She is a politician, after all.
Same-sex marriage involves the principles of self-ownership, and private property and voluntary contract rights. The same goes for opposite-sex marriage. You own your life, and you have a right to marry whomever you want, as long as it’s mutually consensual, and whatever you decide, it’s no one else’s business. The government doesn’t own you, and your neighbors don’t own you. Therefore, neither government bureaucrats nor your neighbors have any legitimate say in the matter or any moral authority to interfere.
Now, as far as “civil rights” goes, such as in the cases mentioned in Arizona, the business owner has a “civil right” to associate with and do business with whomever one wants, and a “civil right” to NOT associate with or do business with whomever one doesn’t want to associate or do business with.
However, the activists and the selfish brats out there believe that they have a “civil right” to use the armed power of the State to force the business owner to associate with them. They believe that using force and aggression against others is a “civil right.” Sorry to be harsh with my terms such as “selfish brats,” but that is just what they are. It’s the era of self-centeredness and selfishness, in which a gay couple finds that a florist or photographer won’t provide services to them, so instead of just finding someone else who will — and surely in just about every community someone will be a willing provider for them in return for some needed financial compensation — instead of finding someone else, the self-centered brats would rather go to the armed powers of the State to compel the business owner to do business with them involuntarily.
In those cases, we can see who believes in using aggression as a means toward an end, and which party just wants the freedom to control her own business which is her right to have. The selfish brats are either too lazy or just plain covetous to go find a different provider of whatever service they are looking for. And it is they who are acting with aggression, suing and inconveniencing and even causing possible bankruptcy of the one who won’t obey their orders. In the case of a florist who doesn’t want to provide flowers for your gay wedding, you mean she’s the only florist around, and you can’t find another one? So, you want to force the florist or photographer to do some sort of labor to serve you against her will? Yes, it seems that some people are that self-centered. (And I’ll bet that there are also plenty of statist conservatives out there who would do the exact same thing to a gay photographer who wouldn’t want to provide for their wedding as well.)
So here, the aggressors are clearly the selfish brats who run to the government to sue a private business owner who wants to exercise her right (and this is the true “civil rights” here) to serve whichever customers she wants. If she feels uncomfortable doing business with or associating with a gay couple, that is her right. But if it’s a homosexual photographer or florist who doesn’t want to serve a heterosexual couple, that is her right, too. It’s a matter of freedom of association, freedom of contract and private property rights. And the same thing goes for a black business owner who doesn’t want to serve white people or a Jewish owner who doesn’t want to serve Christians or atheists.
But eventually, most of those businesses run by such narrow-minded cranks would go bankrupt, as word would get around about them, and no one would want to do business them. It’s called social shaming or ostracism. It used to work quite well in pre-nanny state eras.
And it doesn’t matter what reasons are that people have, religious or otherwise. Those bills such as what Gov. Brewer vetoed mentioned “religious exemptions,” but it shouldn’t be just religious. What if an atheist is against gay marriage for personal or moral reasons, but isn’t religious? Who is the government to decide what is or is not a valid basis for an individual deciding to associate or not associate with others?
So there are First Amendment-related issues here, as well as freedom of association, private property, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts.
And I’m sure that some people are thinking of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, given some of the things I have stated. That Act should only have applied to “public property” and government-run functions such as parks, drinking fountains, the metro buses, City Hall, government schools, etc. But it should not have applied to any private property whatsoever, regardless how big in size or finances a business might be. I have addressed that here, as have Jacob Hornberger, Walter Block, Ron Paul, and Laurence Vance.