A baker in Denver is being sued and prosecuted for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The baker, who has religious objections to gay marriage and therefore wishes to refrain from being involved in a gay marriage ceremony, was apparently under the mistaken impression that because he owns his business he would have the right to run it however he likes. Silly baker. Doesn’t he realize that this is America and we don’t believe in freedom anymore? Many people are saying that he shouldn’t have the right to choose who he does business with because it’s immoral and wrong to discriminate. Hey, can he say that you shouldn’t have the right to choose who you have sex with because it’s immoral and wrong to have a same sex relationship? Huh? No? Oh, so this Freedom of Association thing only works one way. I get it.
Let’s backtrack a moment and explain something about our left wing friends. See, neo-liberals have centered their entire worldview and philosophy around sex. For them, everything is sexual. It’s their only concern. They have no understanding of it, and they hate every aspect of it that makes it beautiful and life giving, but they are nonetheless obsessed with their own childish conception of it. “Sexual freedom,” for them, means the freedom to have sex without any of its biological, emotional, spiritual, or scientific consequences, and they are willing to sacrifice anything to achieve this — even if it means killing babies. In fact, especially if it means killing babies. They’re hedonists, in other words, much like the fine folks who once resided in places like Sodom and Gomorrah. So when they say they value any particular freedom, they really only value it in a sexual context.
This is an important point, and I think this is where a lot of confusion stems from. We hear a neo-liberal shout about, say, his desire for “privacy,” and we think he means privacy in the total sense of the word. We logically assume that he wishes to be free from intrusions into how he raises his kids, what sort of diet he chooses to have, and how he spends his money. These are all issues of privacy, but the neo-liberal does not want THAT sort of privacy. He only wants sexual privacy, and even then he doesn’t want total privacy because he, in fact, demands that his sexual activities be subsidized by the taxpayer. Are you confused? That’s OK. You are a rational person trying to understand irrational people. It can be a very psychologically perplexing task.
This lunacy is painfully evident when it comes to “Freedom of Association.” You’ve heard neo-liberals speak passionately on this subject, haven’t you? They care deeply for their right to “associate” freely, or so they claim. But one needs only observe a little closer to find that they only believe in freedom of sexual association. That’s it. Seriously, that’s it. That’s the only sort of association that should be free, in their minds. They viciously OPPOSE freedom of association in a professional, financial, political, familial, or educational context. They believe I should be free to have sex with whoever, whenever, however, but I shouldn’t be free to do business with whoever, or to choose not to join a union, or to give money to whoever, or to send my kids to school wherever, etc. A conservative Christian, in the mind of a mindless neo-liberal, does not have the right to choose who he professionally associates with in his own business. Yet a gay man has the right to FORCE the conservative Christian to associate with him. This is a perversion of Freedom of Association, turning it into Compulsion of Association. Come to think of it, in a sexual context it would be illegal to compel someone to associate with you. We have a word for that, actually.
I’ve now taken four paragraphs to explain how neo-liberal Statists are hypocrites with no principles. Sorry for wasting your time by stating the obvious.