As I have already demonstrated, whether it is primarily secular or primarily religious, none may escape reality, the rights of the individual, or the ethical obligations that all humans are under.

The Golden Age, by John C Wright.

The Phoenix Exultant

The Golden Transcendence

The dichotomy between free will (economic boycotts) and government force (censorship) is discussed in great detail via extrapolations into humanity’s future.

We, who are classical liberals, believe that death is fought, life is lived, and chaos controlled only through human ingenuity and free will. Prevent the individual from making choices that do not harm anyone other than themselves, and you lock down humanity into stagnancy. Yet, reality is consistent, A is A in identity, and actions have consequences. Human society does not yet have a reliable system or force or government or way of life that ensures that one human action does not harm any other. Thus our penultimate expressions of liberty must naturally deal with and adapt to issues of security and protection. We are not free, unless we are all protected, mentally, physically, and spiritually. Our thoughts, our life and limb, and our ability to choose.

This is why we prefer economic boycotts where each individual makes his own decisions, over government sanction or censorship. The chaos of the free market, the chaos and sheer unpredictability of humanity’s free will, is the ultimate solution to the ethically wrong decisions and consequences in reality.

For ethics, morality, and reality are all intertwined and consistent with each other, in one fashion or another. Even morality is consistent within their own sub-cultural identity, even if morality from one culture is not logically consistent with morality from another culture.

This is the underlying premise from which all classical liberals adhere to and live their lives by. That reality is rational and sane. That A is A, that A cannot be B while also being A. That causality exists, that actions have consequences and consequences were created. This extrapolates and derives the fundamental core philosophical beliefs of the classical liberal in American history. Given that reality is rational and consistent, within all parts and from all parts to each part, this means that any sufficiently intelligent and enlightened being will come to the same ultimate conclusions on life, death, and ethics. They will live their lives differently according to their will and desires, but in the end, the philosophy of what life is and what it is meant for, will be the same.

The totalitarian schools of thought, socialism, Marxist-Leninism, the greater alliance of the Left, and the Democrat subset of individual American politics, believe that chaos, free will, will disrupt the orderly manner and way of things in life. That it will create entropy, death, decay, and wars because people will want things that they cannot have and will disagree about fundamental issues that cannot be resolved except through violence. So their solution is to have an underlying or overwhelming organization that forces people to do the right thing. Like the Un, the EU, NATo, or what not; they are all organizations and institutions designed to control chaos, to make people and nations do the right thing even if such people and nations don’t wish it.

Doctors must show no favoritism because the rights of the individual cannot be allowed to disrupt the orderly manner of life in which we currently live; The Golden Age must be preserved, even if it costs the individual.

But who decides. Who decides what will or will not happen, if it is not the individual? Wise all knowing gods? UN corrupt and mendacious bureaucrats? EU tools and traitors? In the end, totalitarian and nihilistic systems always give you one answer to that question.

The people who decide are the people with power.

But I ask you, where does power come from and how does one acquire it? My answer is, they acquire it through the exercise of free will, by allowing free will in such things as the free market to make decisions wiser than any that could be made by limited individuals. People acquire power through the exercise of virtue and ethical behavior.

The Totalitarian belief systems of the Islamic Jihad and of Leftism believe you acquire power by making people submit to your will and sacrificing their own. Doctors must sacrifice their will and desires for the greater good. And the greater good is whatever I decide it is, because i have the power. For I am the government and the government can always get more power by stealing it from citizens, if they so wish.

Obama will make you work, he will make you care. For he will create paradise unto earth only by enslaving the minds and wills of free men and women.

The California court never considered the possibility — the plain reality — that the anti-discrimination statute was a “subtle departure from neutrality” by which activists covertly sought to suppress mainstream religious beliefs. If it was, however, the law can’t be saved by pretending to neutrality. It can be upheld only if it furthers a “compelling” state interest and is the least burdensome means of so doing — an exacting standard made all the more impossible when we recognize that protecting (or, at least, refraining from interference with) freedom of conscience is itself a compelling state interest.

From the article BW cited

The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. The Clause “forbids subtle departures from neutrality” . . . and “covert suppression of particular religious beliefs[.]” [Citations omitted.] Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality. The Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which is masked as well as overt.

The Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which is masked… Hmm. Is there a chance that the California Supreme Court would admit to a masked hostility against Christians?

Would he be required to do work for a company he doesn’t like, which make products of which he does not approve? Would a vegetarian be required to write ad copy for a sausage company? Would a pacifist be required to write press releases for Northrop Grumman?

This court decision suggests that the answer would be “yes.”

Another point…maybe the anti-disc law should only apply to the govt and must not be applied to private businesses and individuals.

The “pure” way of applying this gets you “white-only” counters. On the other hand…a place that actually put up a “whites only” sign would get pummeled by demonstrations and quickly driven out of business.

Hmmm….I guess I am back to letting the market take care of this. The anti-disc can (and must) be applied to government behavior but it can’t (and mustn’t) be applied to private behavior.

Just took me a while to get there.

I feel like Rosanne Rosanna Dana on SNL. “Never mind”.

This reminds me of arguments concerning libraries that choose to place, or not to place, particular books into their reading collections. They should be completely free to set their reading materials (and to suffer the subsequent protests or boycotts). Add “Heather Has Two Mommies” to the shelves? Or remove it? Either way, they should have total freedom to do so, and the same with Huck Finn or any other book. The books haven’t been banned by the government; they’re still available.

Censorship is by definition only accomplishable by the government. All else should be free market choice. Libraries aren’t agents of censorship, nor are boycotters.

I know that this changes when behavior is legislated (by law) and reaffirmed (by court decision) as in matters of race.

You know…it wouldn’t surprise me if young men and women just decided that in light of government take over of health care, the insurance costs, the possibility that they’d have to practice in ways that were contrary to their religious beliefs…if they just quit medicine, and we’d end up like GB, with having to import more and more foreigners to do the work that Americans won’t do.

Not a good idea, I think, to try to dictate to doctors how they should practice medicine. Even now, the shortages of OB doctors is getting pretty bad, I’m told.