Doing, Or Not Doing Business

IT TURNS OUT that the big Supreme Court decisioin involving whether a business in which the owners are devout Christians, a "Christian business" if you will, is requird by law to do business with people whose lifestyles, behavior, or religious views - or whatever - are so objectioanble to the businessowners as to be unacceptable, invloved not a bakery, but rather, an online enterprise of some sort. Nonetheless, same basic idea. And by now we all know the result, the ruling. I have no trouble understanding it. Hell,a business owner ought to be able, and allowed by law, to do business or to not do busines with whomever he or she damned well pleases. At least, so you might think, so you might imagine. But on the other hand, any business which seeks and obtaines a business license, which is basically permission form government to go into business, the agreement is that the business will serve the public, the whole public, and nothing but the public, so help it God...that the business will not violate federal non-discrimination laws it either stipulated, or implicit. As in most questions involving the effects and desirability of some action, there are many possible ways of looking at and evaluating the situation. It is not illegal to be unkind, or rude, nor insensitive, nor should it be. Arguably, if a gay couple wants to buy a wedding cake from a bakery, the couple is not in any way intending to be disrecpectful of the religious beliefs of the owners, nor do they intend any harm to them or their religious freedom. Of that, you can be assured. What harm does it do Christians to do business with non Christians, or gay people? To not do businees with them damages the business, and the economy, and therefore, society. What is conspicuously lacking is an adequate constituion, especially at the federal level. I'm sure many if not most can be similarly identified, as constitutionally deficient. Trying to decide whether the founders intended abortion to be legal in the twenty first century is a complete waste of it, and yet...and with regard to the second amendment, what we need is a slightly longer, more detailed, more specific version, better suited to the twenty first century, and our technology. Its teim to stop canonizine, revering our past and current constitution, and creat a better one, a much better one. Madison and Jefferson would, I can assure you, wholeheartedly agree.