Militant homosexuals get a little overheated whenever it’s suggested that other people have rights too
sighs
Benny Huang.
The current debate we’re having over wedding cakes, wedding flowers, B&B’s, and a variety of other services is not about discrimination; it’s about sovereign individuals being able to engage in economic transactions on a voluntary basis.
Which is why homosexuals, if they really want a cake for their
mockery of a wedding, should find someone who actually wants to make it
for them. My advice is this: do business with people who want to do business with you. To
put it in terms that homosexuals might understand, economic
transactions should take place between “consenting adults.” If one party
doesn’t consent, the deal is a non-starter.
The concept of voluntary economic transactions is essentially what
Silk was trying to articulate before the New York Times trimmed his
quote, seeming to suggest that homosexuals have no right to be served
but everyone else does. What he was really trying to say is that no one has a right to be served. That’s no small distinction.
… I believe that any private business
should be able to decline my patronage for any reason and they don’t owe
me or the government an explanation. That’s their right, just as it’s
my right to shop with their competitor. Anything else would be
involuntary servitude by definition, which is prohibited by the
thirteenth amendment to the Constitution.
Advocates of coerced economic transactions find this line of
reasoning hard to refute so they resort to accusations of hypocrisy as a
means of avoiding it entirely. As angry lesbian columnist Sally Kohn
sneered in a recent Daily Beast column, “Those championing the right to
discriminate generally want the right to discriminate against others,
but for others to not be able to discriminate against them.” She cites zero examples.
Newsflash for Sally: I have been denied service on account of my
nationality and I didn’t run crying to the government. It happened a few
years ago in Tokyo when I walked into a small neighborhood diner and
was brusquely “greeted” by a grouchy old Japanese woman, probably the
owner, who informed me that she only served Japanese customers. Shaking
my head in disbelief, I left and spent my money at a restaurant that
actually wanted it. Yes, I was shocked and perturbed, mostly because my
American upbringing bequeathed me a sense of entitlement to this woman’s
labor. I grappled with the concept that she had the same right to
choose her customers as I had to choose a restaurant. We had the
opportunity to make a deal on terms agreeable to both of us but alas, we
reached an impasse and the deal fell through. I had no legal recourse
because there’s no law against refusing service to gaijin (foreigners) in Japan. Nor should there be. The Japanese have the right idea.
It’s called freedom. I kind of like it. …/…
