Slavery came to America through the courts. I have written about this before, so I will not go through it again, but, if you will just take the time to look, you will find that slavery was established in the Colonies through court rulings. Nor should you drag the usual accusations of racism into this post. If you will bother to look for yourself, you will also find that one of the first cases that established legal slavery in Colonial America was a black man who sued to own his indentured servant, another black man. After the revolution, the Supreme Court upheld the majority of these cases, thus making slavery legal in the new nation. The Constitution did the same. And this is the primary reasons I have never listened to people who argue that the courts can decide right from wrong by making a ruling. Legal does not mean moral. And this story shows that these tyrants will continuously try to return to the evil they try to impose through their perversions of the law:
Supreme Court Deals Major Blow to New Mexico Photographer Who Refused to Shoot Same-Sex Ceremony
This case is not about a person’s right to marry who they wish. Marriage is a civil institution. If it were a Natural Right, then you would have a right to claim whomever you wanted for your mate when in the State of Nature. But to do that, you have to claim the right to control the will and body of that other person. So you are saying your right to marry who you want is a right to make them your slave.
Now, people will immediately object and say they have a right to live with whom they wish. But this is not the same thing as claiming a Natural Right to live with whom they wish. What you are claiming here is the right to Contract. You have that, and it rests on a mutual agreement made freely by all parties involved. But then, this means you have a right to have as many spouses as you wish, or the right to marry children – even animals. If several people agree they want to live together as a family, by what reasoning will you tell them they cannot do so that would not also undermine your defense of gay marriage? You can’t make such an argument without doing exactly what gays are attacking straight people for doing to them. And hypocrisy is a sure sign that there is a flaw in the reasoning being employed.
There is such a flaw in this story. A business owner has a Natural Right to their labor – period. A gay couple has no right to force that person to employ their labor for the gay couple’s benefit. For the court to say the gay couple does have such a right is no different – in principle – than saying the gay couple has a right to make a slave of the photographer. Whenever you claim you have a right to force someone to do something for your benefit, you are claiming ownership of that person. This is the definition of slavery: ownership of another person. And that means the Supreme Court is once again ruling that slavery is ‘legal’ in America. The key is making sure you are the politically correct side of the fight. If you are, then you get to be the masters, but if you are on the wrong side of the political divide, then it is ‘OK’ to enslave you and force you to do the will of those who are politically correct.
And this doesn’t even touch on the issues dealing with the photographer’s Natural Right to religion or their property – their property in their business and equipment.
The Oil for Your Lamp 
Ahhh, there is nothing like equality. Have you ever noticed how the first Amendment rights of BOTH sides have progressively deteriorated since the start of this movement? I say both becuase an attack on the Constitution is an attack on ALL Americans. Perhaps if we understood that freedom, not equality, is the American bedrock, we wouldn’t find ourselves in the midst of these specious “movements”. Equality is congruent with freedom only to the extent that it does not degrade the individual liberties of any party, thus, I justifyingly balk at the unimaginable ignorance that presently consumes this country.
Equality (or more accurately, ‘fairness’) have nothing to do with liberty except equality in ACCESS to and APPLICATION of the law. These other ideas — equality and fairness — are decidedly Marxist in origin.
I have a sneaking suspicion many of these instances are orchestrated to further their agenda. Whether it’s voluntary or compelled, they are winning in the courts.
It may be worth turning the tables just to see where it goes. Do you think I could get a gay photographer to shoot a Sons of the Confederation gathering?
Mike,
I like the way you think. I also believe there may be a lot more truth in your speculation than we’d like to think.