. . .

Supreme Court: Bakers and Gays.
(sorry, just had to crank this one out at 2:45am)

Arguments before the court are incorrect. There is a vast difference between personal conviction, small business between individuals, enterprise policy, and practical monopoly.

There is no practical monopoly of cake bakers, there is no enterprise policy forcing interpersonal rejection, and so this is an interpersonal matter of a difference in ethics.

I mean, I wouldn’t ask a jew to make a nazi cake. I just wouldn’t because that would VIOLATE RECIPROCITY.

And I wouldn’t confuse my personal conviction with corporate policy, nor near monopoly policy depriving choice in a market, nor political policy determining rights under rule of law before the courts.

I don’t let certain people service me in stores because I do not want to reward their manner of dress or speech or behavior, or ‘attire of separatism’. But I am happy to simply move on to someone else, and aside from utilities, I don’t see any commerce I can conduct that is a near monopoly.

So this has been a travesty since the beginning.

Voluntary Reciprocity provides the answer to everything.

Leave a Reply