About those businesses...and the homosexual rights lobby...

Homosexuals (or anyone really) who seeks to force a business to provide him or her with a service represents a modern day moral equivalent to a 19th century slave owner. If you compel a private person to serve you in a private capacity, you, quite frankly, are no better than a 19th century slave owner. In fact, there is an Amendment to the United States Constitution that you should probably read. Here's a hint. You can find it between Amendment 12 and Amendment 14. You have studied some history and know why we decided to put that in there, haven't you? If you haven't, you should. Here's what it says:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Well, if you have to sue a baker [use legal process; more on that later] in order to get that baker to provide you with a cake, that isn't really voluntary servitude, is it? The typical leftist can probably rationalize such a statement by proclaiming that it's for the greater good to compel a baker to make a cake. If you think about someone who would go to court to make a baker bake him a cake, does that strike you as the product of a rational mind? Think about that situation and analyze it. I'll break it down into a few hypothetical facts:

• You're found a baker who does not want to bake you a cake.
• You're offended because that baker does not want to bake you a cake.
• You go stompy feet mode and hire a lawyer. 
• The person who does not want to bake you a cake claims it's against his religion.
• You take him to court and sue him. 
• Instead of going to court, he agrees to make the cake. 
• The baker acts like a leftist and makes you a vile and disgusting, albeit edible cake for your wedding with your spouse. 

That's a potential consequence of a lawsuit if you try to compel someone to provide you with a service. If that person has expressed a reluctance to provide you with a service, does it strike you as a good idea to make them provide it? Probably not, if you desire a decent product of their labor. But then again, we're talking about the actions of a leftist, so "rational" does not apply.

I digress. On to that "legal process" that the homosexual couple used to compel the baker to provide a service. in US. v. Kosminki the United States Supreme Court actually provided a 13th Amendment definition of involuntary servitude for a prosecution under one of the 18 US Code Civil Rights Statutes. Here's how they defined involuntary servitude:

Held: For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion. 

Ouch. I'm actually kind of curious why no one has raised this issue in court yet. If we had a Department of Justice interested in justice, then perhaps they could look into this.