cat-gun t1_j84wgaf wrote on February 11, 2023 at 5:28 PM

Reply to comment by cwalton505 in Bakery Owner Sues [Conway] New Hampshire Town After Officials Demand He Paint Over Donut Mural Made by High Schoolers by ArbitraryOrder

In my view, laws exist to protect our right to life, liberty, and property. So, when the law itself violates those rights, then there is no moral or ethical obligation to obey or enforce it. For example, many towns used to have "sundown laws" that made it illegal for non-whites to remain in town after sunset. Do you think a sheriff charged with enforcing "sundown laws" had an ethical obligation to enforce them?

In this case, billboard regulations violate the property owners right to do with their property as they please, and violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech (" Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...")

Of course, the Constitution is just a piece of paper; what matters is whether there are enough people who value civil liberties that they're willing to protect other people's civil rights. I'm arguing that the townsfolk should defend this baker's free speech rights instead of slavishly obeying the local ordinance (just as I would advocate that folks living with "sundown town" laws on the books have no duty to enforce or obey them.)

cwalton505 t1_j852x6n wrote on February 11, 2023 at 6:12 PM

Your continued correlation of this sign issue to historical abject racism in multiple threads is fucking weird and I am not going to get into it past here. This is not even close from a morality standpoint, and its gross to compare the two like they are equivalent. The people in the town can change the sign law as they all agree on and deem fit. A sign is not a person. Comparing this silly sign issue as a tribulation to those oppressed by sundown laws is fucking disgusting honestly.

cat-gun t1_j853vlx wrote on February 11, 2023 at 6:18 PM

I didn't say they were equivalently evil acts. I used the "sundown laws" as an example to establish the principle that there exist a ) immoral laws that should not be obeyed b) laws that can't be easily changed by the victim of the law.

While suppressing the baker's free speech rights is not an equivalent offense, it's a violation of his free speech rights (and therefore immoral) and trying to change the law is likely to be a futile effort (which I think the people making the suggestion know).