Conceding Freedoms

I don't think we should be making concessions when we're talking about a fundamental freedom...

Those are the words of Vice President Kamala Harris, on the question of whether there should be an allowance for religious objections to abortion. Mind you, this has nothing to do with a woman's right to get an abortion. It is about coercing health care providers, such as Catholic hospitals and doctors who have a religious objection, to performing abortion procedures.

Some of you may recall the long-running (and on-going) saga of Jack Phillips and his bakery, Masterpiece Cake Shop. Phillips, a practicing Christian, was visited in his shop by a gay couple who wanted to commission a wedding cake. He declined, based on his religious beliefs. Rather than go to a different shop, the couple escalated the matter, Phillips was charged with discrimination, it escalated to the Supreme Court, and the Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled that Phillips' right to free exercise of his religious beliefs entitled him the right to refuse to engage in the creative service of making a custom wedding cake.

One might think that a Supreme Court ruling would put the matter to bed.

Oh, no. Woke activists don’t much care to be rebuffed, nor do they care to allow others to to act or think “wrong.”

Next up, a transgender woman sought to have Phillips make a cake celebrating a gender transition. He again refused on religious grounds. A lawsuit ensued, of course, but the Colorado Supreme Court tossed it (on procedural grounds).

In a normal world and a free market, people would just take their business elsewhere. People who don't agree with Phillips views might also say "I'll give my business to someone else." Conversely, some who agree with Phillips might choose to go to his shop rather than another, in solidarity. No one nowhere is alleging that Phillips' refusal substantially interfered with either patron's ability to get the custom cakes baked.

But, this isn't a normal world. Dissenting opinions are not to be tolerated.

All that's an aside to today's actual topic. Harris's declaration of "no compromise on a fundamental freedom" echoes the Left's views on choice. As I blogged back in 2019, "my body, my choice" is quite narrowly focused. "My body, my choice," interpreted plainly, would mean the government has no business coercing or prohibiting consensual behaviors. So, minimum wage laws, labor regulations, seat belt laws, helmet laws, registration for the draft, jury duty, sin taxes, prescription requirements for pharmaceuticals, restrictions on recreational drugs, alcoholic blue laws, organ sales, prostitution, and more should be off the table.

But, of course, such as Harris would not concede the government's authority over any of those.

Likewise with the 'no concessions on fundamental freedoms' bit.

Restrictions on gun ownership, bans of "assault weapons," mandatory "buy-backs" of certain classes of firearms... all these are concessions to a fundamental freedom that Harris and her ilk demand.

Likewise, the Left's desire to prohibit "disinformation," with the government being arbiter of what is and isn't, requires a massive concession to a fundamental freedom.

And, as I just covered, Harris has no room in her "fundamental freedom" book for religious liberty, no matter the Free Exercise clause of the Constitution's First Amendment.

It needs to be said here, for the "gotcha" crowd that can't reason its way out of a paper bag, that one person's fundamental freedoms do not provide immunity against harm done in exercising them. You can scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater without repercussion if a - there is a fire, or b - nothing bad happens as a result. If you cause a panic and someone gets hurt, that is when you can get in trouble (the theater management can also throw you out for being a jackass, of course). That and other matters such as slander, libel, perjury, and intimidation are already covered by the law - and they are all based on the premise that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

If I spew a pile of falsehoods, but they don't cause proximate and measurable harm to another, I can't be prosecuted for that.

If I don't want to bake a cake, for any reason, in my shop, no one should be able to coerce me to do so. That coercion is the violation of freedom.

If I'm a doctor and I don't want to perform an abortion, no one should be able to coerce me to do so.

If I want to own a dozen firearms of varying formats, but I never use any of them to harm another, the government has no business telling me I can't own them.

I find it quite interesting that Harris asserts abortion as a fundamental freedom and government as the mechanism to ensure access to it when there is nothing in the Constitution that grants authority to the Federal government to regulate it (as the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe pointed out). Free speech, free exercise of religion, and gun rights, on the other hand, are explicitly protected in the Constitution, and the government is explicitly prohibited from infringing on them. That's a step beyond the implicit protections set forth by the enumerated powers of the Constitution (that which is not expressly authorized is prohibited) and by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Next time someone talks about limiting speech or restricting guns or coercing the religious to engage in certain activities, we should remind whoever quotes her that Harris herself told us we should not make concessions on fundamental freedoms.

As for Harris? She has demonstrated she doesn't have a clue as to what constitutes a right or a freedom, and since she has no clue, she has no business being President.