Connect with us

Culture

Every Natural Right Protected in the Bill of Rights Is a Property Right? Here’s Why

Liberty also means being able to live free of unwelcome coercion—unless one violate someone else’s Natural Rights while acting with ill intent or causing irreparable harm, or both—behavior which might require incarceration.

Published

on

“Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another.  Were a private person to do the same thing, we’d call it theft.  When government does it, we euphemistically call it ‘income redistribution,’ but that’s exactly what thieves do—redistribute income.  Income redistribution not only betrays the founders’ vision, it’s a sin in the eyes of God.”  —Walter E. Williams

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions . . . [and] when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”  —John Locke, in The Second Treatise on Civil Government

 

Jefferson’s Dilemma: There Is No Freedom Without Property Rights

Trending: First Day of ‘Impeachment Hearings’ Immediately Prove Farcical

Although Founder Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal,” he would not succeed as governor of Virginia in his goal of freeing the slaves; however, in 1778, his leadership efforts did succeed, prior to his assumption of the governor’s office, in banning the importation of slaves into his home state, making Virginia one of the first jurisdictions worldwide to ban the practice.  Despite the fact that Jefferson inherited slaves from his father and acquired slaves by marriage, he would fight his entire adult life to abolish that peculiar institution of slavery, famously complaining about the British slave trade into the American colonies throughout the Revolutionary War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery) and maintaining a lifelong advocacy of ending the practice.

It was Jefferson himself who, in 1807, as President of the United States, signed a law criminalizing the importation of slaves into the United States, in line with the 1808 Clause of the US Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves).  Jefferson held the conviction that slavery degraded both master and slave alike (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s28.html), and he understood, like most of America’s Founders, that owning slaves was a violation of property rights.  It was, however, a crime against property that would have to be tolerated—until the matter could be properly addressed sometime after hostilities with England could be resolved—in order to preserve unity among all Americans in their common cause against the British.

 

Involuntary Servitude: Why Enslaving Others Is a Crime Against Property

The Founders of the United States knew that, without property rights, no freedom was possible, for they knew that every violation of Natural Rights—indeed, just about every crime imaginable—is a theft of property or of the right to protect property.  Even slaveholders knew this simple fact, which is why their arguments in favor of keeping slaves revolved around the claim that slaves were themselves property and, as such, were not entitled to property rights of their own.

The Founding Fathers who wished to abolish the institution of slavery—about 70% of them—believed that one’s person could not be owned by another, that one’s own body could only be owned by oneself; thus, the enslavement of one’s person and the confiscation of the fruits of one’s labor are both situations constituting a theft of the most personal property of all.  A human being has the right to decide his own actions, as well as the right to keep the products of his own labors.  Any confiscation of a person’s property must be according to law and, even then, may only be allowed when its fair market value is given back in exchange for it; and the property must be used for purposes of the general welfare, per the Fifth Amendment requirement that private property only be taken “for public use.”

 

Indeed, There Are No Property Rights Without Freedom

Thomas Jefferson knew all of this, but he was limited in his ability to carry out his agenda of freeing the slaves, due to some very real legal constraints that he would work diligently throughout his life to remove.  Although Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence (http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery) contained within its text a complaint against the British slave trade*, the preservation of unity among all state delegations declaring independence from the Crown necessitated that the phrase be stricken.  It would require what Abraham Lincoln would call, in his Gettysburg Address, a “new birth of freedom” to liberate the slaves.  Eventually, the Thirteenth Amendment would enshrine within the text of the Constitution the Natural Right of a human being to live free of “involuntary servitude,” unless he be justly imprisoned, according to law.  All human beings would be free to enjoy the same Natural Rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, for, indeed, without freedom there could be no Natural Rights—no right to own private property or to protect one’s property rights—whatsoever.

 

The First Amendment Enables the Use of Intellectual Property Rights

The First Amendment to the US Constitution is, at its root, a protection of one’s emotional and intellectual property rights, maintaining one’s Natural Right to worship God, to express one’s ideas, and to publish one’s views.  The freedom to associate with anybody with whom one might wish to trade views is also protected, for, just as tangible property may be exchanged, so may the products of one’s intellect.  Any violation of these Natural Rights is a crime against property.  And the right to petition the government to right wrongs is, in the end, a right to defend one’s property rights.  The stealing of one’s Natural Right to express ideas and feelings, by government force, is a tyrannical crime against the right to share or dispose of one’s own property as one sees fit.  It is an infringement of the people’s freedom to exchange their intellectual property freely with others in the marketplace of ideas.

 

The Second Amendment Protects One’s Intimate Physical Property—One’s Own Human Body

The right to protect one’s person against criminal harm is a serious property right that must never be abridged or violated.  Since a person’s own human body is personal property, depriving the individual of his Natural Right to keep and bear the arms, that any willing lawbreaker has at his disposal, may ultimately deprive the individual of his most valuable possession—his own human life.  Because guns are necessary to save innocent lives, any attempt to ban their use by law-abiding citizens only works to allow criminals—who never feel obliged to follow rules—to exercise a right that law-abiding citizens do not share.

 

The Third Amendment Protects One’s Home from Use for Military Purposes

The Third Amendment to the Constitution clearly bars the government from stationing soldiers in private homes, in a nod to the property rights of householders.  (The courts have also ruled that apartment dwellers enjoy the same rights in living spaces leased from property owners.)  Although the Third Amendment empowers the Congress to make a law prescribing how soldiers might be quartered in private homes during wartime, the Congress has never addressed the issue; thus, it remains illegal for the government to station soldiers in private residences, under any circumstances.  Depriving people of the free use of their property without just compensation would be stealing, and the Third Amendment seems to acknowledge this.

 

The Fourth Amendment Is Important to the Right to Privacy

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution reinforces the right of the people to be secure in their persons and places of residence; in other words, it is a Natural Right that one’s property not be invaded without good reason.  Not having one’s property taken or one’s privacy violated, unless someone else’s rights may be otherwise put at risk, is important in a free republic.  Of course, without property there exists no right to—or even the expectation of—privacy.

 

The Fifth Amendment Protects One’s Own Body from Unjust Confiscation & Confinement

The Fifth Amendment right of due process provides for the protection of one’s person—a form of private property—from unjust incarceration, as well as disallowing the unfair seizure of one’s real property, without fair compensation, which would inequitably harm the owner of the property taken.  The seizure of property is fair only if it is for necessary public use and paid for at a fair market rate.  If the property taken is given to another person or entity for purposes of private benefit, the crime of theft has occurred, since one person has been harmed by the state in order to help another person or group of persons.  This is wealth redistribution, rather than fair use.

 

The Sixth Amendment Guarantees the People’s Power to Be Protected Against Injustice

The Sixth Amendment provides the following rights to American citizens: 1) the right to a speedy and public trial; 2) an impartial jury of people from the area where the crime was committed; 3) the right of the accused to confront witnesses against him; 4) the right to force witnesses helpful to the defense to testify; and 5) the right to legal counsel.  Although the entire process helps to protect personal property rights, within the context of accusations of criminal wrongdoing and possible incarceration, perhaps the key component of the Sixth Amendment is the guarantee of a trial by jury.  In many countries, the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined solely by a magistrate who works for the government.  This puts the state in charge of deciding guilt or innocence, which incentivizes corruption.

The jury system provides a check on state power, disallowing the easy incarceration of one’s person or confiscation of one’s property to support a state agenda or the enrichment of state agents, thus maintaining the freedom of the people.  If a law, in its application, shows itself to be corrupt or unfair in the judgment of the people, a jury can always issue a finding of “not guilty” based upon the right of the jury to nullify the law.  This happened with regularity, prior to the Civil War, when many juries found the helpers of escaped slaves “not guilty” in spite of laws requiring the incarceration of those individuals helping slaves to freedom.  This right of jury nullification empowers the people to veto bad laws, on a case-by-case basis, until such time as the law might be changed.  Therefore, even government-supported crimes against property can be systematically thwarted by the people.

 

The Seventh Amendment

The Seventh Amendment extends the right of trial by jury to federal civil cases that have at issue an amount worth more than twenty dollars, such as disputes between private parties in noncriminal matters regarding personal injuries or legal contracts.  In civil cases, the person suing (the plaintiff) seeks a monetary award or a court order preventing the person sued (the defendant) from engaging in certain behavior.  This amendment also states that no factual decisions made by a jury are eligible to be overturned by the whim of a judge, since this would cancel the power of the jury.  State courts may use rules different from those prescribed for state civil cases that do not involve federal rules.  But the focus is still on the maintenance of property rights.  However, since one’s most important property—one’s person—is not put in jeopardy of execution by the state, the standard for proving the case is not “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” but merely by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

 

The Eighth Amendment Prevents Unfair Trades with Regard to Bail or Execution

The Eighth Amendment bars the government from charging excessive bail or imposing excessive fines.  Any punishment must fit the crime.  Cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden.

Bail is paid to the court as an incentive for the accused to return for trial and becomes forfeit upon failure to appear.  This represents, in essence, an exchange of property (in the form of money) for property (in the form of one’s person).  Bail promotes the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty and must be offered in an amount possible for the accused to pay.  In some cases, bail can be refused, such as cases where the defendant is a flight risk, in line with the principle that there does not exist enough property value in any amount of money to constitute an even trade against the risk presented by a person who may commit a serious crime or flee to another jurisdiction while free on bail.

The ban on cruel and unusual punishment outlaws such things as crucifixion, drawing and quartering, and other evil acts—all crimes against one’s person, the results of which may never be undone.  The original ban has broadened to prevent insufficient medical care of prisoners and the failure of prison officials to protect inmates from one another.  There is, however, no prohibition of the death penalty, although the government has been prevented from carrying it out against juveniles or the intellectually disabled.  The state cannot assign the death penalty, if such punishment does not fit the crime, nor may the state utilize a cruel or unusual—“unusual” means “not customary”—method of implementing the death penalty.  In a sense, this prohibition prevents unfair trades from occurring, ensuring that punishment of one’s person, for a criminal act, is a quid pro quo exchange of value for value, penalty for misdeed.

 

The Ninth Amendment Says the People Have More Rights Than the Constitution Specifies

The Ninth Amendment states that just because certain rights are listed in the Constitution as belonging to the people, this is not to imply that those rights are the only rights they have.  There do exist Natural Rights that the people possess which, although they are not written into the Constitution, the government must respect nonetheless.  This means that the people have wide latitude in how they may behave, so long as they do not violate the property rights of others.  So, the courts must begin from the assumption that people are free to act, rather than the reverse, as long as there be no specific mention of a particular action’s legality or illegality encoded within the law.

 

The Tenth Amendment Limits Federal Interference in Matters Concerning Other Jurisdictions

The Tenth Amendment holds that any power not specified as belonging to the federal government rightly belongs to the states or to the people to exercise.  There are matters that have everything and nothing to do with property rights that may vary widely in how they might be addressed, as long as no property rights are violated in the process.

 

Conclusion

When it comes to liberty, the upholding of people’s Natural Rights is more or less synonymous with respecting private property along with the right to protect and maintain that property.  Liberty means being able to do what one wishes free of interference by any individual person or collective entity, so long as one does not invade the Natural Rights of another person.  Liberty also means being able to live free of unwelcome coercion—unless one violate someone else’s Natural Rights while acting with ill intent or causing irreparable harm, or both—behavior which might require incarceration.

 

Footnote

*When Thomas Jefferson wrote a passage attacking slavery into his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, the delegates of slave states South Carolina and Georgia, along with Northern merchants who participated in the international slave trade, vehemently opposed the passage; thus, it was removed in the interest of unity.  Here is Jefferson’s deleted complaint against King George III: “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.  And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Advertisement

Culture

Veterans Day, 2019: Remembering America’s Beloved Veterans

Published

on

America is a singularly different nation where it concerns our military veterans, and not just on Veterans Days. We love them. We even have a national holiday to honor them. This is not so in most of the rest of the world. Elsewhere soldiers are not as loved as they are here in these great United States.

Is that because the United States is the Sparta of the world, loving war more than anything else? Hardly. In fact it’s because our soldiers bring peace wherever they go, not perpetual war.

In other countries, soldiers are often the dregs of society, living off the people while at the same time lording over them with machine guns and violence.

In other countries the military is feared by both the people and the government because all too often the army is used to take power and steal away the government for its own aggrandizement. There is no accident that the word “coup” is one rarely spoken in the USA unless when viewing foreign news.

In other countries when people see soldiers they fear them, they loathe them. In other countries they don’t want to sit near soldiers on public transportation, they avoid eye contact. Here we shake their hand and ask if they need anything.

In the USA we respect our soldiers because as a rule they respect We The People as much as they respect the law.

When an American sees a soldier an American feels pride, not fear. When an American learns of a fellow’s service, an American is compelled to thank him for that service.

So, from us to you, our dear military veterans, we thank you. We thank you for putting your lives on hold while serving us, while making sure we are safe and able to go about our business unafraid of danger, and time and again for putting your own safety at risk.

Happy Veterans Day to you all.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston

Continue Reading

Culture

Mike Rowe Blasts Student-Loan Crisis: ‘We’re Rewarding Behavior We Should Be Discouraging’

Published

on

Mike Rowe Blasts Student-Loan Crisis: ‘We’re Rewarding Behavior We Should Be Discouraging’

Mike Rowe blasted our country’s massive student loan debt as “nuts” saying that children are learning poor behavior by borrowing money they most likely won’t payback.

“This is why, in my opinion, we have $1.6 trillion of student loans on the books and 7.3 million open positions, most of which don’t require a four-year degree. We’re just disconnected. We’re rewarding behavior we should be discouraging. We’re lending money we don’t have to kids who are never going to be able to pay it back to train them for jobs that don’t exist anymore. That’s nuts.”

Watch the short clip below:

TDC:

If you want to know how Mike Rowe feels about something, just ask him. He’ll tell you in no uncertain terms.

Rowe, the host of “Somebody’s Gotta Do It” and former host of of the hit TV show “Dirty Jobs,” appeared Thursday on Fox Business to promote his new book “The Way I Heard It.” On the show, Rowe was asked by host Stuart Varney what he thought about the $1.5 trillion federal student loan debt.

“We have unintendedly maligned an entire section of our workforce by promoting one form of education, in my opinion, at the expense of all of the other forms,” he said.

“Forty years ago, colleges needed a PR campaign,” Rowe added. “We needed more people to get into higher education, but when we gave the big push for college back the in ‘70s, we did it at the expense of alternative education. In other words, we told people, ‘If you don’t get your degree, you’re going to wind up turning a wrench.’ ” More

Watch the full video below:

Got to love Mike, he’s this generation’s, Paul Harvey. As usual, he nails it! The left doesn’t care about exploding student loan debt, they only want free college so that they can get even more people into their indoctrination mills.

The government loan programs have made the American taxpayer liable for any student defaults. Neither the banks loaning the money or the universities have any liability for bad loan decisions. This is a travesty. 

Continue Reading

Culture

30th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

Thirty years ago today the dreaded Berlin Wall fell in Germany. It is a day that should be celebrated in every school.

Published

on

Thirty years ago today the dreaded Berlin Wall fell in Germany. It is a day that should be celebrated in every school, but a day few are remembering as more Americans than ever are falling for the lies of socialism.

The Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989, freeing half of an entire country from a 30-year-long prison sentence.

The loathsome wall was erected between the eastern and western sectors of the German city of Berlin starting in the year1961. On August 13 of that year, East German troops positioned themselves by the Brandenburg Gate and started sealing off the communist-controlled sector of the city.

The wall ran 155 kilometers around West Berlin and prevented all residents from being able to move freely between the east and west sectors.

The wall finally fell on Nov. 9, 1989, marking the beginning of the end of the communist-led regimes from Central Europe to Soviet Russia.

The wall was a prison made by communists and socialists to keep the western world out. It also served as a stark warning to citizens of the communist sector: cross and die. It is estimated that at least 80 East Berliners were gunned down by communist troops for trying to cross the wall to freedom in the west.

While the wall was intact, the world and modernity passed by the citizens of East Germany. East Germans will still living like it was 1961 when the wall finally fell.

Last week, a statue to Ronald Reagan was unveiled in Berlin to mark the 30th anniversary of the fall of the wall. Regan defied international convention and his own speech writers to deliver a searing speech on June 12, 1987, demanding that the Soviets tear down the Berlin Wall. It took another 2 years, but that wall finally fell.

This is the sort of prisons socialism builds.

And yet, today Democrats in America are increasingly fascinated by socialism and communism and more Democrats than ever would love to vote for a socialist.

It only goes to show how our left-wing educational establishment has failed this country.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

William Shatner Gets Into Epic Twitter Feud With Millennials

“Sweetheart, that’s a compliment for me.” -William Shatner. 😂

Published

on

William Shatner Gets Into Epic Twitter Feud With Millennials

“Star Trek” actor William Shatner got into a Twitter feud with millennials calling him a boomer: ‘That’s a compliment for me.’

He takes ‘entitled’ millennials to task in a heated Twitter exchange, calling one a diva and corrects her grammar after she blamed his generation for the ‘hardships’ she faces.

In case you didn’t know the phrase ‘OK Boomer‘ is used to show youthful annoyance at older people. 

Fox News:

“Star Trek” actor William Shatner got into a heated Twitter exchange with millennial users who incorrectly targeted him with the popular “OK Boomer” jab.

For those unfamiliar, “OK Boomer” is a popular phrase used to dismiss the opinions of baby boomers that younger people deem irrelevant or uninformed. Shatner was commenting on a back-and-forth between “Dancing with the Stars” host Tom Bergeron and viewers upset about Sean Spicer’s continued presence on the show when one of his followers directed the “OK Boomer” jab at the 88-year-old actor.

Shatner was born in 1931 and is, by definition, not a boomer. More

Boomer is the new dirty word to describe opposition to the socialist left. I love that he stands up to SJW’s, snowflakes and PC nonsense. Far better than the virtue-signaling celebrities that are now so prevalent.

Thank you, captain! I’d take Boomer over whiny, entitled millennial any day. I agree it’s a compliment even though I’m a gen X’er.

Continue Reading

Culture

Gov’t to Raise Vaping Age Limit to 21, Ignoring Black Market’s Role in Deaths

The feds are really missing the mark here.

Published

on

There are few instances in which our government is more inept than when it is attempting to tackle the issue of illegal drugs.  Sure, there are plenty of bonehead moves outside of drug policy, but there is little doubt that the war on drugs takes the cake.

First, let’s look at what’s legal and what’s not.

Opioids:  Perfectly legal to possess and use, so long as a doctor said so.  But these pain pills have become the plight of the suburbs, as their active ingredient is the same as we find in heroin.  Instead of track marks, your average suburban junkie could instead be having a glass of chardonnay at the local Applebee’s while getting loaded from the pills in their purse.

Adderall, which we give our nation’s youth:  Perfectly legal with a doctor’s note.  Again, this is nothing more than the corporately-manufactured version of methamphetamine.  Heck, even generic Adderall simply comes in a bottle marked “amphetamine”.  They aren’t even trying to hide it.

But marijuana, a plant that makes some people feel a little funny, is highly illegal at the national level.  Furthermore, the black market created by this prohibition has killed and incarcerated untold numbers of Americans – including a rash of vaping-related deaths earlier this year.

Those deaths, which were falsely attributed to e-cigarettes, came after counterfeit marijuana vaping liquids were cut with vitamin e acetate – a compound that will turn phase into a gas at vaping temperatures, but then reconstitutes itself as a gel-like liquid as it cools.  That meant that users were coating their lungs with the normally harmless substance, essentially drowning themselves from the inside, unknowingly.

Now, in a stunning act of ignorance, the federal government has decided to move against the e-cigarette companies as opposed to tackling the black market of counterfeit marijuana vape cartridges.

The United States plans to raise the age limit for vaping to 21, U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday, adding that his administration would issue its final report on such products next week.

Trump, speaking to reporters at the White House, did not give further details about the administration’s regulatory plans or give a specific date for any announcements.

U.S. health officials have been sounding the alarm amid a nationwide outbreak of serous lung illnesses linked to vaping, and have raised concerns about the use of electronic smoking devices, particularly among youth.

To make matters ever more remarkably asinine, 21 years is already the legal age that you must be to purchase and use marijuana products in states where it is legal.  Were the federal government to nationally legalize marijuana it would not only completely decimate the black market that caused these deaths, but it would also decrease the number of underaged users at the same time, were they to adopt similar guidelines.

Continue Reading

Culture

Joy Behar Says Trump Rallies Are Full Of Paid Actors

Published

on

Joy Behar Says Trump Rallies Are Full Of Paid Actors

Joy Behar: Trump thinks his voters are stupid; rallies are fake, full of paid actors.

Joy Behar claimed the ad was fake just like the people who go to his rallies: “To me that says that the Republican party thinks that their constituents are stupid because it says nothing. Those are all paid actors just like the ones who go to his rally.”

News Busters:

Just when you think things can’t get any more ridiculous on The View, the hosts spend time whining the President’s son’s Halloween costume is insensitive to animals. On Friday’s show, they also complained about a 2020 Trump campaign ad, which Joy Behar declared was full of paid actors “just like the ones who go to his rallies.”…

Afterward, all of the hosts, saved for Miami resident Ana Navarro, cheered President Trump’s decision to move his home residence to Florida. Behar actually thought this would hurt President Trump because New Yorkers didn’t like Trump so that meant Floridians wouldn’t either when he moved there because #logic:

“When he lived in New York, New York did not vote for him. Now they’re going to get to know him a lot in Florida, they will not vote for him there either!” she gushed. The hosts went on to trash a 2020 Trump campaign ad against impeachment.

“There was not one black woman in that ad!” Hostin gushed, repeating “They couldn’t pay a black actress, enough money to be in it!” More

Joy Behar is so blinded by her hatred of Trump, that she has convinced herself that the support shown by people at his rallies cannot possibly be genuine.

She is just a talking head. She parrots all the lies, spews all the hate, regurgitates all the poison from the leftist MSM and Deep State trolls. She’s a puppet, that’s all.

Continue Reading

Culture

Kentucky Supreme Court Sides with Christian Business Owner in Free Speech Case

The Kentucky Supreme Court has given a Christian business owner a win for refusing to do business with radical gay activists.

Published

on

The Kentucky Supreme Court has given a Christian business owner a win for refusing to do business with radical gay activists.

In a win for free speech and freedom of religion, the court ruled that a Kentucky t-shirt maker does not have to make shirts for radical gays.

It is a case that has bounced around the courts for seven long years. Lexington, Kentucky, resident Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands On Originals, reused to make t-shirts for the Lexington Pride Festival, hosted by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization.

The refusal caused the radical gay group to sue Adamson for violating their rights.

But now the state’s highest court has put the last nail in the radical gay’s case.

In its opinion, the court said, “this matter must be dismissed because the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization, the original party to bring this action before the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, lacked statutory standing to assert a claim against Hands On Originals under the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government ordinance.”

Justice David Buckingham agreed and cited recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibiting compelled speech: “Hands On was in good faith objecting to the message it was being asked to disseminate. … Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning.”

“Today’s decision makes clear that this case never should have happened,” said Jim Campbell, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued the case, in a statement. “For more than seven years, government officials used this case to turn Blaine’s life upside down, even though we told them from the beginning that the lawsuit didn’t comply with the city’s own legal requirements. The First Amendment protects Blaine’s right to continue serving all people while declining to print messages that violate his faith.”

Back in 2012, Adamson reused to make the shirts, but gave a recommendation for another shop that would make the shirts for the same price.

Adamson also said he isn’t against gay people as individuals.

“I have gay customers and employ gay people,” Adamson said in a video op-ed for The Daily Signal in 2017. “For example, we have printed materials for a local band called Mother Jane whose lead singer is a lesbian. That was never a problem for us because, as I said, we’ll work with everyone, but we can’t print all messages.”

Indeed, he also noted that he would never make shirts that say “Homosexuality is a sin.”

“I didn’t feel right making that one either. I don’t think that’s how Jesus would have handled the issue; Jesus would have balanced grace and truth,” he said in 2012.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

The Mitchell Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Pin It on Pinterest