Americans Split on Private Property versus Marxism

This is frightening.  A virtual majority of Americans now hold a belief which entails that someone who, for religious reasons, refuses to serve a same-sex couple for their wedding (on and with their own property) should be fined and ultimately imprisoned (which is what happens if you don't pay your fines).  49% seem to hold (perhaps not consciously) that they have a right to your working for them and to your property.  They have a right to your forced-labor even if you object on religious grounds.  They have partial ownership in your labor, your goods, and over you.

Oh, but you are free not to have your business.  We'll throw you a bone (hippies are heroes after all).  As a commenter on Facebook writes:

PEOPLE need to be protected, not businesses. If you don't want to serve customers, don't open a business. 

Got that?  If you own your own business, apparently you don't count as a person.  BAKERS don't need protection, PEOPLE do.  If you own a business, you have no need for government protections.  (We run on the Democratic loot and pillage economic model).  If you don't want to serve somebody, too bad.  You'll be forced to do it or "free" to close up shop.

We are moving towards a society that does not believe in private property.

Suppose I decide to start selling cakes from my house.  Does everyone then have a moral right to come into my house such that I have a moral obligation to let you in?  Of course not.  It's MY HOUSE not YOURS or the GOVERNMENT'S.  As long as I am not harming you and your most basic needs can be met without coming into my house, it is up to me and my family to determine who comes in and when.  (Sure, I can have morally illegitimate reasons for not letting you in, but we're not talking about my reasons but the right to let you in or not apart from whatever reasons I have for or against).

You have no right to come in as you please, no right to my doing business with you in my house, nor do I have an obligation to let you in or do business with you (again, aside from extreme cases.  If you get into a wreck outside my house when there's an impending tornado going down the street, and I'm the only one with the available means to assist you, I have a duty to give you safety and shelter.  Your value as a person gives you a right to life which trumps my desire to watch TV such that, in that case, I have no right not to let you in.  In fact, I have a duty to get off my butt and lend a hand).

Now suppose I buy the property next to my house.  I make another building with living quarters.   Half the time I bake at one house and half the time I also sleep in that house.  Do you have a right to come into that other building (whenever you want or during the hours I've posted) such that I have a moral obligation to let you in now?  Why think that?  The other building is as much mine as the previous one.  Suppose I start sleeping in the other building only one night a week and selling cakes out of it six days a week.  Do you then have a right to my selling you a cake such that I have an obligation to do business with you?  Why then and not before?  Suppose I stop sleeping in the building entirely and put a sign up on the building which says "Bakery."  Do you then have a right to my selling you a cake such that I have a correlative moral duty to sell you the cake?  Why then and not before?

Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to China?  Yes (though it might be prudent to do so).  He has that right and we have a duty not to force him to sell to China.  Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to Americans?  Sure, why not? Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to Chinese women?  If he has a right not to sell to China, then surely he has a right not to sell to Chinese women.  Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to American women?  If he has a right not to sell to Chinese women then surely he has a right not to sell to American women.  Does a black businessman have a moral right not to sell to white American women?  If he has a right not to sell to American women then surely he has a right not to sell to white, American women (though our friend at this point might not have much of a business!)

Does he have a right not to sell to white women simply because they are white and (as he believes) all whites are white-devils?  No.  No one has a moral right to act on the basis of racist and thus immoral reasons.  No one has a moral right to act on the basis of immoral beliefs.  Nonetheless, in a free, non-Orwellian country, we should not want the Thought Police regulating all of our beliefs, especially our religious beliefs which do not harm others or infringe on their basic rights.  The black business owner is a racist, but racists who do not harm others should not go to jail.  Instead of using brute FORCE, one can (if one is able to) use reasons.

There is no basic moral right to have a baker bake you a cake (more on this in a later post).  If you want a cake baked, you are free to BAKE ONE YOURSELF.