RFRA
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
In his book, “Liberty Defined,” Ron Paul points out that two pillars of a free society are: 1. “Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.” And 2. “All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.” It seems to me that after reading former State Representative Candidate David Kolbe’s last letter, he doesn’t believe in either notion. The passage of the recently “fixed” RFRA Law would have restored both of those pillars, if it wasn’t for the firestorm that erupted in the aftermath.
Now, for the record, I have no problem with gay marriage, in fact, I pointed out during the debate last year that it was a waste of time for the State to even be pushing this issue. Neither the government, nor the religions of the world should have the final say on marriage. However, this is not a federal matter, and should be left to the states per the 10th Amendment. Mr. Kolbe is making the claim that the 14th Amendment is the basis that gay marriage should be legal in the United States. My first question is, how can the federal government force a state to allow something that the federal government can’t legalize? Why should the courts use another amendment that contradicts one of the Bill of Rights?
Now this is all coming about because some businesses are refusing to provide services for a gay wedding. My next question is, how can government force people to participate in commerce with each other when one party objects? Everyone has the right to participate in commerce, no one has the right to force another to participate in commerce with someone they do not want to.
Is it a bad business model to turn away customers? Probably, but should the government be the final arbiter of that? Of course not. The woman who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding is going to lose everything she has defending her religious beliefs, and the couple who she turned away — ended up getting their cake from another baker free.
So my third question is how is this be permitted in a free society that a person should lose their business because of a decision that did not violate another person’s life, liberty, or justly acquired property? The business owner owned all of the property in the execution of her business, it is her decision to decide how to part with it. All property is the property of others that is given to you through voluntary and mutual consent.
Now Mr. Kolbe stated that he would have voted against this bill because he believed it would have been best. My last question is, if you would have had a flood of calls telling you to support this bill, and to vote for it, would you have seriously gone against the will of your constituents? We already saw what happened to legislators who do that.
Gary Eppenbaugh
Warsaw, via email[[In-content Ad]]
In his book, “Liberty Defined,” Ron Paul points out that two pillars of a free society are: 1. “Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.” And 2. “All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.” It seems to me that after reading former State Representative Candidate David Kolbe’s last letter, he doesn’t believe in either notion. The passage of the recently “fixed” RFRA Law would have restored both of those pillars, if it wasn’t for the firestorm that erupted in the aftermath.
Now, for the record, I have no problem with gay marriage, in fact, I pointed out during the debate last year that it was a waste of time for the State to even be pushing this issue. Neither the government, nor the religions of the world should have the final say on marriage. However, this is not a federal matter, and should be left to the states per the 10th Amendment. Mr. Kolbe is making the claim that the 14th Amendment is the basis that gay marriage should be legal in the United States. My first question is, how can the federal government force a state to allow something that the federal government can’t legalize? Why should the courts use another amendment that contradicts one of the Bill of Rights?
Now this is all coming about because some businesses are refusing to provide services for a gay wedding. My next question is, how can government force people to participate in commerce with each other when one party objects? Everyone has the right to participate in commerce, no one has the right to force another to participate in commerce with someone they do not want to.
Is it a bad business model to turn away customers? Probably, but should the government be the final arbiter of that? Of course not. The woman who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding is going to lose everything she has defending her religious beliefs, and the couple who she turned away — ended up getting their cake from another baker free.
So my third question is how is this be permitted in a free society that a person should lose their business because of a decision that did not violate another person’s life, liberty, or justly acquired property? The business owner owned all of the property in the execution of her business, it is her decision to decide how to part with it. All property is the property of others that is given to you through voluntary and mutual consent.
Now Mr. Kolbe stated that he would have voted against this bill because he believed it would have been best. My last question is, if you would have had a flood of calls telling you to support this bill, and to vote for it, would you have seriously gone against the will of your constituents? We already saw what happened to legislators who do that.
Gary Eppenbaugh
Warsaw, via email[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092