Masterpiece cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Inspired by http://tomwoods.com/1173

I kinda get how the homosexual couple must have felt; “Oh, so you don’t wanna bake a cake for our wedding?! Just you wait, we’ll make you!”
When I was a hormonal teenager, I would have responded similarly (gladly, no weddings for teenagers, hormonal or not). The history of discrimination in (in this case) the USA is astonishing, and only partly in the past.
I get that homosexuals have to endure a lot of unprovoked abuse. But since this court case was presumably in the spirit of the cause of improving live for homosexuals, it would have been more strategic to find a way of, for instance, shaming the baker in public, and ordering their cake elsewhere, punishing the baker by not giving him their money. That would not have been so much of a punishment for the baker. He would have gotten what he wanted; not having to bake their cake, but alas no money for selling a customer a cake), but so would the couple. (Suppose the baker would have been forced to bake the cake; how much saliva would he have used to glue the marsipan decorations in place? I would not have been happy to take a bite from that cake, no matter how hungry I was)
What happened now, was that the state got involved in something it had no business involving itself in: a disagreement between citizens.
Also, the stereotype of bitchy gays (a contradiction in terms, surely! Gay means exuberant, bitchy does not) has been confirmed, much to the displeasure of homosexuals everywhere.

It would have been more strategic to get the cake from elsewhere, then after the wedding have a friendly chat with the baker, expressing how your feelings got hurt. Perhaps get into that, after devling into background information on his religion’s position on homosrxuality, and eventually parting ways in a friendly manner. That way the cause would not have suffered a setback, but instead may have even been advanced, by converting the baker and having him act as a champion in his religious community.

But instead they chose to go the statist route, and violence never solves anything (unless you are unhappy with too many people liking you). It must take real frustration to involve the state (in the sense of nation state, not united state), because that is the engine of evil.

Advertisements

Vrijheid van religie (aalmoezen)

Volgens de grondwet hoeven wij zo goed als geen belastingen te betalen, aangezien zo ongeveer het hele belastingstelsel nu is opgehangen aan klimaatgeneuzel (waar overigens geen enkele politicus in gelooft), waar enorm veel bewijs tegen bestaat. Als wij als burger dan toch aalmoezen moeten geven aan de predikant, is dat een staatsreligie, en dus verboden.
Tel daar bij op dat belastingbetalers oorlogsmisdadigers zijn, en dat belastingbetalen al expliciet verboden is¹ en de Nederlander heeft een goedkoop 2018 (e.v.)

Maar volgens Spooner kun je helemaal geen aanspraak maken op rechten uit de grondwet!

Nou en? Zolang de junta net doet alsof de grondwet zo’n belangrijk document is, en dat zij het recht hebben om ons te onderdrukken, kunnen wij ons verdedigen door hen met hun eigen regeltjes om de oren te slaan.

¹) belasting is diefstal, en wanneer een dief gestolen geld uitgeeft heet dat witwassen (verboden). Van het gestolen geld worden o.a. F-16-missies tegen onschuldige Arabische/Aziatische burgers bekostigd: dat is terreur, en mag bij wet niet worden gefinancierd.

A-ist

It is striking how it is socially accepted to publicly call yourself an atheist, especially in predominantly right of center media. (Of course, since the political right is not an original movement, it is actually a response to the left, and the left used foreign people’s religions as an excuse to complain about the indigenous electorate; this was fodder for the right).
But in religious communities, becoming an apostate is a big thing, perhaps even as big as:

Becoming an anarchist.

Though that is frowned upon by both religious and atheistic (irrelligeous) people, though to me, both make a lot of sense. Because I was raised an atheist, it is the only path that makes sense to me.
I came to anarchism myself: the state had scared me into it.

If one stops believing in a god (the one and only) that is considered less shocking than if one comes to the realization that the state is an undesirable and (fortunately) unnecessary concept.
The only acceptable, legitimate thing the state could do, is to dismantle itself.
Even though cessatiin of belief in the non-existence of your creator (comdemning yourself to spending eternity in hell) is arguably worse than starting to deny the authority which the earthly, temporary state claims.

Reputation

Yet, anarchism has a much worse reputation than atheism.
Possible causes:
Atheism is quite common in the west
Anarchism is sadly not very common yet (and the one “country” that became stateless, Somalia, ended up having a state force d upon it again)
With certain exceptions, atheists don’t flout their views/try to push them unto others.
In the, past, anarchists have been of the violent kind, e.g. communists (not that communism doesn’t need a state to exist).

I do see a link between religion and the state: belief in the existence of an invisible sky god prepares the mind to accept the inevitability of the state.

Nieuwe religie

Naar schatting 2018 jaar geleden is er iemand geboren, die zich voordeed als de zoon van god, en zich als messias is gasn gedragen. De mensen van judea waren de bezetting door de Romeinen zo beu, dat ze de verlosser maar al te graag omarmden.
Nu zijn de mensen de bezetting door de (Christelijke) Amerikanen zo beu, dat er een nieuwe messias zou kunnen opstaan, die een nieuwe religie begint. En dan klagen mensen over hoe gewelddadig de islam is; hoe dacht je dat de nieuwe religie zou zijn, wanneer die ontstaat in een broeinest van (door onuitgelokt, willekeurig bruut geweld) wanhopig gemaakte mensen.
Mijn god (…), de onophoudelijke oorlogen in het midden-oosten waren reeds het gevolg van de onnatuurlijke landsgrenzen opgelegd door het westen welke volksstammen, culturen welke niets met elkaar te maken hadden, bij elkaar drong, waardoor een machtige minderheid de zwakkere meerderheid kon onderdrukken.
En nu flikt het westen het weer, om eeuwen later/lang te klagen over die religie.

Ps 1 van de politieke partijen die nu het hardst klaagt over #nepnieuws (het CDA) is zelf opgericht n.a.v. nepnieuws van 2 millennia oud.

Will a new messiah arise due to the west?

Jesus Christ (not his legal name at the time) could arise as a messiah, because at that time the people of Judea were suffering under Roman #occupation.
The west is so busy causing a yearning for a new #messiah, in the #middle-east. Someone (presumably multiple somes) is bound to go fill the gap.
Heaven knows what the consequence will be (pun intended).
Does anybody in the war-planning business have any idea what they’re setting up for the future?
People now enjoy complaining about islam being a “#violent #religion”. Imagine how violent this new religion will be, cast in the crucible of aggressive, unprovoked occupation.

One strike against religion

My views on what constitutes real justice have fortified my non-religiosity.
Since I do not consider punishment to be a form of justice, I cannot support an institution that condemns souls to an eternity in heaven or hell depending on any transgressions. Transgressions that people engage in because of their genetic predispositions (the way they’re created) and/or their upbringing Both of which are instrumental in moulding people, and deciding how they (re-)act in the future. So, the only form of justice can be: to make the victim whole.
Which is not a feature of any religion I know of.

Beeldenstorm

De eerste beeldenstorm was gedreven door religieuze motieven, deze 21e eeuwse ook. Alleen nu niet Christelijk oid, maar de religie van het zalige links. Als zij zo boos zijn over de slavernij, erken dan ook eindelijk eens het eigen verleden: in de goelagarchipel waren onschuldige Sovjet-burgers onder verschrikkelijke omstandigheden tot slavenarbeid gedwongen. Alsof het leven onder het Sovjetregime niet erg genoeg was, deed de grootste kameraad (Stalin) er nog een schepje bovenop.
Maar nee: links zal nooit de hand in eigen boezem steken, het is genetisch voorgeprogrammeerd om anderen de schuld te geven. Dat laatste is heiligschennis, en daarop staat (zo weten we sinds Fortuyn) in Nederland de doodstraf.