Delphine Silverstar (delphshadow) wrote,
Delphine Silverstar

Replying to CC: "Consumer protection lawsuit filed against florist who refused services for a gay.."

Yeah, they've changed their name. And yes, it's been a long time since I've done one of these but this sort of crap has popped up enough that I want to jump in on it. To be as blunt as possible, this selfish, puerile crap is why some of those of us that oppose gay marriage do so not only for reasons of religion, not only for reasons of history, not only for reasons of logic, but also for reasons of profound distrust. What perfectly reasonable people see when they find a headline like this are entitled bullies demanding that someone bow to their wishes. Let's be clear here, people: the flowers this florist is selling, the cake that bakers sell, the photographer services that a wedding photographer sells, are their PRIVATE PROPERTY. Florist owns their flowers, bakers own their cakes, photographers own their equipment, and all of them own their labor. A proprietor may exchange their property for something of value to them (usually in the form of a currency) but every time they do so, they are entering into a voluntary arrangement in which they agree to give someone else something that they own in exchange for something that the other party owns. Implicit in this arrangement is that both parties own the thing they're trading and both parties are entering into the arrangement of their own free will. When someone comes into their shop, is politely refused, then goes bawling to a court or a government agency, they are announcing that in their view, they can appropriate someone's private property and labor in the name of equality. The proprietor is being told that they must enter into an exchange that they do not desire to make, and that they must trade something they own that they don't want to give. This is, in essence, theft by decree and in a civilized society, you can drag someone before a court and have them imprisoned for this because in a civilized society, all forms of theft are recognized as a crime and a fundamental violation of a basic human right.

Of all the basic human rights, the right to property is just barely less vital than the right to life. This is because labor represents the investment of a limited resources that is impossible to recover (time) and belongs exclusively to each individual, according to that individual's free desires. Property is what is acquired by the expenditure of labor, which again represents the investment of a person's time. Thus, when you steal someone's property, you are stealing their past because property ultimately represents time that has already been expended, which is time that is past. Only life is more valuable a resource than time, and only because the continuation of life represents a day-by-day, hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute, second-by-second extension of a person's personal reservoir of time available. What all this means is that when a gay couple asks a government agency or a court to compel someone to exchange their property in an arrangement that is not desired by the owner, they're violating a right infinitely more critical and valuable than their alleged right to equality. Compared to the right to property, their right to equality is an afterthought of practically no importance at all, and there is no circumstance in which this supposed right can EVER override the right to property.

It is because certain gays feel that their right to equality is so important that they can stomp all over another person's right to property, we do not trust them at all. They are infants playing with nuclear weapons, incapable of comprehending the gravity of what they're doing, or even worse, entirely indifferent to this gravity. They already wield a power that they are using in an unjust and wicked manner, and they now come to us and demand that we empower them further by legitimizing their presumption to call themselves married. I won't attempt to explain the chutzpah of this presumption here but suffice it to say, marriage is too vital and sacrosanct a civil institution to squander on such arrogant unworthies as they. So long as we hear these cases where an affronted couple flees to the welcoming embrace of an activist judge or a self-righteous bureaucrat, to demand that another person's absolute and irreducible right to their own property be violated to soothe that couple's ruffled feathers, we stand in the gap and refuse to take a single step backwards. For in that direction lays the dread and horrible specter of the tyrant, and we will permit no tyrant to dominate and break us so long as we have the power to resist.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
If this is the case I think it is, it's particularly egregious because the person who notified the state to start the lawsuit had been *friends* with the florist for years! She has no problem with him buying pre-made arrangements for his boyfriend, she employs gays from time to time... but geepers, just see her not want to be forced to specifically exert her creativity for the purpose of acknowledging two men as being *identical* to a married couple...


...all that friendship is down the tubes. She's a hater and a meanie and a horrible person and deserves to be sued out of existence. Apparently the friendship of gay activists doesn't mean much.
With some rare exceptions, usually activists of sterling moral character (a rare thing in the population generally, much less among a specific portion of it), you can no more be friends with these activists than you can cuddle a pit viper without fear of being bitten. It's a fundamental part of human nature to be blinded by the perfect light of your own righteousness and the justice of your cause, and when that cause requires a boot stamping on certain human faces...