Is this a case of selective enforcement?

If a Jewish florist refused to sell a floral arrangement to an opening of a  Nazi school for antisemitism would the state sue the Jews? Methinks not. The problem with forcing people to do business with those to whom they are morally opposed is that these laws will be selectively enforced, just like hate speech or thought crimes laws. Its never about what the law claims to be its cause. But it is always about political fashion.

Im pretty sure that if a gay florist, and its a reasonable bet there are a few, refused to sell flowers to a Klan wedding, if such a thing were allowed, the state would not sue them either.

It is noteworthy that the gay couple themselves were far more OK in this case about the florists own choice than the state was. The gay community cannot be blamed for this one. Like so many similar issues its leftists pushing counterfeit rights allegedly on behalf of certain communities.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

10 Replies to “Is this a case of selective enforcement?”

  1. A private business or individual should have the right to sell to whom he or she wants to. This reminds me of the Sharia code referring to dhimmis in a Muslim land, that states that a Jew or Christian must give food and lodgings to any passing Muslim who needs a bed for the night.
    What next? If a gay couple wish to stay in my home, I have to let them, whether I want to or not?
    This is ridiculous, but not just ridiculous, it’s downright sinister. The 70 year-old florist made the mistake of saying that she was a Christian. She should have said that her objections were based on her Muslim faith. I wonder how that would have panned out.

  2. @ Softly Bob

    You are scaring me.

    In Germany it is law that you have to let a person in to use your bathroom. Think about the possible consequences.

    What you said is not only not out of the realm of possibility, but more than just a slim chance.

  3. Red: I was merely musing this as a possibility, after all it starts with a little thing then gradually creeps further.
    I can’t see it going as far as I stated, but sometimes you have to claim something ridiculous in order to make a point. I was exaggerating to the point of stupidity (with a little bit of tongue-in-cheek humour) to show you how a little thing like selective enforcement can lead to something much greater and more serious.
    Think about it. There’s more to this than meets the eye.

  4. I know you were exaggerating. But I can see someone like Father Pfleger or Jim Wallis insisting that you feed anyone poor person coming to your door.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaning

    The left has proposed quartering the poor in people’s unused bedrooms such as when your kids have moved out. I think I can find the link for that easier than the German bathroom law.

  5. Softly Bob,

    I tis going to be harder than I thought. It was not a Senator or Representative that said this or proposed this in a bill. It was probably a thinker type hypothesizing.

    I do have the one by a Law Professor hypothesizing that the U.S. could pass a law mandating interracial marriage. Some of this hypothesizing is pipe dreams and other are trial balloons. Myself I engage in miscegenation, but it was my choice and not forced. There is a big difference.

  6. All I can find is the bedroom tax in England for Council housing.

    I am positive someone thinking outside the box has proposed putting strangers in houses together to solve housing shortages and government expenses (1990s?).

  7. Once again the intolerant left attacks traditional morals and religion, they are the most intolerant people in earth who insist that everything is their way or the highway.

  8. @ Eeyore

    I found it.

    “If America Had Only One Mixed Race”
    March 30, 1999|By Geoffrey R. Stone. Geoffrey R. Stone is provost of the University of Chicago and former dean of the university’s law school

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-03-30/news/9903300101_1_reproductive-privacy-end-race

    This article is important because some people when they put their thinking caps on come up with ideals such as having welfare people live in “unused” bedrooms of private homes enforced by government law.

    It is real easy to get people to mix. Throw a party or something like that. The guy who is an all around 10 wants to marry a woman who is an all around 10, generally. Or for business reasons the rich marry the rich regardless of race. Russian nobility married Kipchak nobility. Did anyone complain? They did it out of self interest. But considering the times, a Kipchack noble woman who could ride a horse and shoot a bow is very sexy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*