Free to Chew: The other side of religious freedom laws





«
»


  • http://www.aaronsenvironmental.com MacAaron

    Ya, because FORCE is how freedom always works. Right?

  • http://www.thegrainmillwf.com/ David Bissette

    Best thing to do here is vote with your purse or wallet.

  • danallison

    Forcing people to serve you against their will is normally called “rape.”

  • Michael Enoch

    The thirteenth amendment abolished involuntary servitude. Seems like that is a violation of human dignity to me.

  • Ted Wray

    Frame #2: It applies equally to both, in public and in spaces they own. In spaces owned by other individuals, where you are a guest, and it is their complete and un-assailable right to welcome whomever they wish, serve whomever they wish, and impose any rules that they wish upon their own property, regardless of how primitive their social views might be.
    Frame #3: Your bosses “pre-enlightenment” worldview causes no imposition WHATSOEVER on your ovulation cycle. Go to your doctor and buy birth control; you may be surprised when your boss doesn’t appear from nowhere to slap the package of pills out of your hand. But wait… I guess what you really meant is that you are crabby because your boss’s worldview forms a minor hurdle in the way of your using the force of government to make him pay for more of your free goodies.
    Frame #4: You realize that forcing someone to service you against their will is essentially rape, right?

  • Benjamin Schwab

    There is no better way for men to make a point to a woman then by using a rape metaphor. Also, this seams coordinated.

    The only difference between the argument about justifying not engaging in commerce with queer folk and one justifying not engaging in commerce with African-Americans is the popularity of the belief. I don’t want to put words in your mouth so instead I shall ask a question: are laws forbidding racial discrimination in interstate travel “rape” or involuntary servitude?

    Also yes. Freedom does involve force. It always does. Every time a freedom is created a responsibility is created as well. In an example by argument ad absurdum, your freedom from being murdered puts the responsibility on me to not murder you. Sometimes the responsibility and the freedom fall on the same person but sometimes they do not. There is nothing wrong with this. People who engage in commerce in the public sphere provide a public service. Store fronts that are open to the public are not private spaces, they are public spaces. Those allowed by society to have the freedom profit off of business they do in public also owe a responsibility to the public. All of this has ample of historical, philosophical, and legal backing. If you do not know what this backing is then it is incumbent upon you to learn what it is before you can consider yourself informed on the subject. It is not my responsibility to dispel your ignorance. That is your individual responsibility. If you have the freedom to express your opinion (which you should have) then you either have the responsibility to make sure it is an educated one or our society has the responsibility of dealing with your uneducated opinions clogging up public discourse.

    I will also mention that the comic in question makes little mention of government and that is in a hypothetical which is not clear if it is an actual suggestion. I will also mention that Mrs. Sorensen often publishes comics that have nothing to do with government and instead other institutions in society. I’ve heard that other institutions exist and they exert influence on people may or may not consent to the influence. I personally don’t know what government can or should do on this issue (I would need to know the specifics of a policy proposal) but (it is my opinion) that governments are always reactive. ALWAYS. Society will accept queer-folk much quicker then governments will and this is exactly what is happening. Dispute the large amount of progress that has been made, there are public figures who still want to justify discrimination against us. I can call that discrimination bad without asking the government to correct for it.

    On this though I do seek to put words into someone’s mouth. To be self consistent in one’s opinions one either must advocate that we, as a society, need to figure out how to get adequate healthcare to anyone who needs it (which would include high level access to birth control) or one must advocate that we, as a society, let people go sick and die for want of available healthcare. How best to accomplish the former is not a trivial question. The answer that we, in the United States, seam to have found at present involves employer provided and mandated healthcare. As long as that remains the case then society should and must regulate what that healthcare is and what it must cover.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Frame #2 is just ridiculous. Only the sick leftist would call entitlement “freedom” and try and force that entitlement through on others. “I AM FREE TO HAVE A HOUSE (though I can’t afford one so I will take yours instead. This is my freedom.” How about I want the freedom not to see and hear feminists? Will you grant me that freedom? Id like the freedom to slave labor and I want my slave to make me a sandwich.

Jen Sorensen is a nationally-published political cartoonist. She is a 2017 Pulitzer Finalist and recipient of the 2014 Herblock Prize and a 2013 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award.

Archives