PRODUCTS VS. SERVICES
One of the most disturbing aspects of the same-sex marriage controversy is how ignorant or corrupt judges rule on ancillary issues. The wish by these judges to advance the LGBT agenda leads them to rule in ways that are illogical, irrational, and downright stupid. And being that, dangerous to society and liberty.
There is a distinction made, usually, between products and services. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a familiar sign in some stores; the owner of the property is allowed to decide the criteria for receiving service, even if the service is that of a cashier accepting payment for products. Retail stores of all types can refuse service to almost anyone for almost any reason. There are race and religious exceptions to this right of refusal.
Products don't have this "right of refusal" associated with them; if the money is the right color, they can be purchased, it's all about finances. Again, there are exceptions based on age and criminal status, etc., depending on the product.
I'd go so far as to argue, Libertarian-wise, that even the race/religion-based exceptions should not be, for if some fool is unwilling to sell to certain minority groups, let him say so honestly and honestly go out of business by the shunning that should occur.
Back to the same-sex cases. Judges have ruled that wedding event centers must hold same-sex wedding events. They have ruled that florists must make, deliver, and arrange flower arrangements for same-sex weddings. They have ruled that bakers must make wedding cakes specifically for same-sex weddings. And they have ruled that photographers must take pictures at same-sex weddings.
If I want flowers, I can choose ready-made bouquets (products) and purchase them without telling the florist what they are for. If I want special arrangements for a reunion, the florist can refuse the service for any reason (too far, other obligations, doesn't like the neighborhood) or no reason at all. I can't take him to court to force acceptance. Unless it's for same-sex marriage.
If I want a cake, I can buy a ready-made one (product) and not tell the baker what I want it for. If I ask him to put "n*gg*r" or "sl*t" on it, he can refuse without threat of legal retaliation. But if I want "Oscar loves Felix", he must comply? Worse, if I ask him to bake a special cake for the Super Bowl, and he doesn't want to, I can't take him to court to get a football-shaped cake. But a same-sex wedding cake, he must bake and deliver.
If a photographer is world-renown for desert pictures--the Gobi, the Sahara, the Nairobi--and I ask him to take photos of the Mojave, surely he can refuse without fear of legal trouble. But a same-sex wedding, no such refusal allowed.
Why a judge would require a service to be performed is beyond explanation. Is the florist's arrangement going to be lovely, the cake tasty, the photos clear and well-framed when the person performing the work does so only under court order?
That LGBT zealots bring the case is no surprise; they are professionally offended by any hint of disapproval. That the cases are not laughed out of court is the scandal. That judges are so Progressive and corrupt that they discard common sense for a chance to make society as they want it to be is unacceptable in a country based on The Rule of Law.
If the Supreme Court loses its Progressive majority, it can hopefully undo these stupid rulings and allow services to be in the control of the business owner, as they should be. Should the Progressive majority stand, this kind of social engineering will increase and liberty, all liberties, will be threatened.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the same-sex marriage controversy is how ignorant or corrupt judges rule on ancillary issues. The wish by these judges to advance the LGBT agenda leads them to rule in ways that are illogical, irrational, and downright stupid. And being that, dangerous to society and liberty.
There is a distinction made, usually, between products and services. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a familiar sign in some stores; the owner of the property is allowed to decide the criteria for receiving service, even if the service is that of a cashier accepting payment for products. Retail stores of all types can refuse service to almost anyone for almost any reason. There are race and religious exceptions to this right of refusal.
Products don't have this "right of refusal" associated with them; if the money is the right color, they can be purchased, it's all about finances. Again, there are exceptions based on age and criminal status, etc., depending on the product.
I'd go so far as to argue, Libertarian-wise, that even the race/religion-based exceptions should not be, for if some fool is unwilling to sell to certain minority groups, let him say so honestly and honestly go out of business by the shunning that should occur.
Back to the same-sex cases. Judges have ruled that wedding event centers must hold same-sex wedding events. They have ruled that florists must make, deliver, and arrange flower arrangements for same-sex weddings. They have ruled that bakers must make wedding cakes specifically for same-sex weddings. And they have ruled that photographers must take pictures at same-sex weddings.
If I want flowers, I can choose ready-made bouquets (products) and purchase them without telling the florist what they are for. If I want special arrangements for a reunion, the florist can refuse the service for any reason (too far, other obligations, doesn't like the neighborhood) or no reason at all. I can't take him to court to force acceptance. Unless it's for same-sex marriage.
If I want a cake, I can buy a ready-made one (product) and not tell the baker what I want it for. If I ask him to put "n*gg*r" or "sl*t" on it, he can refuse without threat of legal retaliation. But if I want "Oscar loves Felix", he must comply? Worse, if I ask him to bake a special cake for the Super Bowl, and he doesn't want to, I can't take him to court to get a football-shaped cake. But a same-sex wedding cake, he must bake and deliver.
If a photographer is world-renown for desert pictures--the Gobi, the Sahara, the Nairobi--and I ask him to take photos of the Mojave, surely he can refuse without fear of legal trouble. But a same-sex wedding, no such refusal allowed.
Why a judge would require a service to be performed is beyond explanation. Is the florist's arrangement going to be lovely, the cake tasty, the photos clear and well-framed when the person performing the work does so only under court order?
That LGBT zealots bring the case is no surprise; they are professionally offended by any hint of disapproval. That the cases are not laughed out of court is the scandal. That judges are so Progressive and corrupt that they discard common sense for a chance to make society as they want it to be is unacceptable in a country based on The Rule of Law.
If the Supreme Court loses its Progressive majority, it can hopefully undo these stupid rulings and allow services to be in the control of the business owner, as they should be. Should the Progressive majority stand, this kind of social engineering will increase and liberty, all liberties, will be threatened.