[Lnc-business] Bake the Cake

[Wes Benedict]

Caryn Ann, I’m not opposed to a press release stating the real libertarian position on bakeries. If you’d like to send a few paragraphs that clarify it, I’ll have our press release team take it the test of the way. 

I would not criticize are call out any libertarians that might have said it wrong in the past. Just state the real libertarian positions. 

Wes 

> On Dec 4, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> Tom Krannawitter wrote this today (quote below).  This is the tact we need to take.  It does not countenance anyone's particular opinions and put the enemy lines right where they belong - the State.  I reiterate.  We have a ton of people right now who think it is Libertarian to force the baking of cakes.  We have an opportunity to set that record straight and stop the implicit idea that religious people have rights that others do not.  I do not begrudge them escaping illegitimate state coercion just like I do not begrudge ANY tax cut, but always say that everyone should get them, and everyone has these rights.  If we are scared of our own shadow on this, we are not leading the way to libertarian reasoning rather than the polarized identity politics of today.
> 
> ==Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Both sides, in and out of the courtroom, will focus on the wrong arguments.
> 
> Those who oppose baker Jack Phillips, on the one hand, will argue that government has the rightful authority to command one class of property owners (cake ingredient owners) with whom they will trade.
> 
> Those who oppose baker Jack Phillips will ignore completely other property owners, such as those who own cash and are looking to trade it for cakes. They don't want government commanding cash owners with whom they must trade. Only cake ingredient owners.
> 
> Those who support baker Jack Phillips, on the other hand, will emphasize either the Free Speech Clause or Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, or both.
> 
> They will concede, either explicitly or implicitly, that government has the rightful authority to command one class of property owners (including cake ingredient owners) with whom they will trade. But they will insist on some kind of exemption from the commanding power of government for select people with select religious beliefs.
> 
> Neither of these arguments has anything to do with equal protection of the laws for the person and private property of every American citizen. Neither of these arguments has anything to do with the principle of equal freedom for each and every American citizen to interact and trade with those who agree, mutually and voluntarily, to interact and trade.
> 
> The Constitutional answer in this case would be to strike down the provision of the Colorado so-called "public accommodations" code [CO Rev Stat § 24-34-601 (2016)] and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's enforcement of it as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. A law cannot offer equal protection when it singles out a certain class of property owners and commands with whom they will or will not trade.
> 
> Of course, it is almost certain no one on the Court will make that argument, with the possible exception of Justice Thomas. Instead, we are almost certain to hear and read arguments about total government control over business properties versus total government control over business properties with a special exemption for business owners who claim to hold certain religious beliefs. Sigh.==
> 
> -- 
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>  
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> We defend your rights
> And oppose the use of force
> Taxation is theft
> 
> 
>> On 2017-12-04 16:56, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>> 
>> We should put out something with a libertarian perspective on this.  It may be decided in favour of the bakers but it will be on "religious" grounds rather than the freedom that belongs to us all.  I know some will not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole.  But freedom of association (including contract) for peaceful people IS what we always held.  It is about time we cleared that up.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/16-111?utm_source=Cornell+Legal+Information+Institute+%5BLII%5D&utm_campaign=81f73bf09d-Bulletin_Previews_2017_12_4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_74379d6e9c-81f73bf09d-133170377
>> 
>> -- 
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>  
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> We defend your rights
>> And oppose the use of force
>> Taxation is theft
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20171205/e1e05529/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business