We’ll Sue a Baker for
video: Destroying a Baker Who Refuses Service but Cheering Big Banks + Tech Doing the Same
Shouldn’t you be able to refuse business to anyone you don’t like? Why should someone be able to coerce your labor, your time, if you don’t want to give it to them. Wouldn’t you say that is literally authoritarianism?
Say, in you’re a baker, and someone asks you to write the N-word on a cake, are you obliged to do so? What if they want you to make a cake with a custom message for support of transgenderism. Should they able to coerce you?
Because the left will rake you over the coals, take you court, tell you what an awful person you are, issue death threats … but interestingly these same exact people will applaud when banks refuse business to a conservative group, or Twitter bans them.
Is there a reason other than hypocrisy? Let’s discuss.
I like to think that people are reasonable, but the last few years, have really put that premise in jeopardy.
Take Masterpiece Cakeshop of Denver of Colorado, and its owner Jack Phillips. He doesn’t refuse to sell a pre-baked cake, but rather refuses to create a custom cake and write an inscription he objects to for religious reasons. Yet, the transgender, gay community, rather than seek out a baker who aligns with their views, seeks to to force him, to coerce his labor.
For standing up to the mob, he gets to spend a lot of time in court, and be bemoaned as a hateful bigot in left leaning circles.
But when it comes to Twitter banning people they disagree with politically, these same people applaud. Oh sure, the leftists are going to tell you they violated the terms and conditions in some way, that’s the strongest argument they’ll bring forward. Aside of the fact said terms are nebulous and ever shifting and basically they can refuse service to any one, okay.
The lefties will shout out their rare defense of a private corporation. I’ll get back to Twitter in a moment.
Look at PayPal, which is amongst a small number of payment providers, who recently threw Ian Miles Cheong, a reporter for the Post Millenial, off their platform.
When he inquired as to why, Cheong reported the supervisor was rude, and implied it was because the company disagreed his politics.
But that’s okay for the left, because Ian Miles Cheong is on the other side of the aisle. Does the left stick up for the principles they say they’re behind, or are they using said principles merely as a cudgel to force their ideological views on the rest of the population?
Who again are the honest folk? Who again are the fascists?
How about Chase Bank taking a battle axe to hundreds of pornstar accounts. In 2014 Chase let it be known that they didn’t want to business with Engage in behavior they don’t like.
I wonder if they did so to transsexual porn workers. Probably not, too politically costly.
And back to Twitter, while I am a Libertarian at heart, it’s pretty much necessary to maintain presence on social media to have your voice amplified equally in what is today the new digital public square.
When you have a monopoly, especially one guaranteed by the state like a utility company, or one that evolves because of network effects like Twitter, I am far more sympathetic to guaranteed access for all, otherwise I do agree that a company, an individual, should have the right to do business with whomever they desire without the government interfering.
But once again, I’m genuinely confused why leftists cheer conservatives being banned from financial services or the digital public square, but rail and make life miserable for a simple baker who doesn’t want to write a slogan on a custom cake he disagrees with.
I mean, is the best explanation hypocrisy? Am I missing something, explain below in the comment section.