The Colorado baker is not merely arguing religious liberty, but arguing for the cessation of alienation of the stratified working classes. Yes, he is lately suggesting it is because of his religious beliefs, but this goes further. He has argued in his defense of his refusal to refuse service to a gay couple (via his bakery) that he is an artist.
“Phillips believes that if he uses his artistic talents to participate in same-sex weddings by creating a wedding cake, he will be displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible.”
“Every artist must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced to express contrary views,” adds senior counsel Kristen Waggoner. “Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free. If the government can take away our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away.”
If he is an artist, and regardless of his disclosed origin of his talents, then his creations are the works of his hands. These works are his the expression and not the object of his humanity, like all other works. Protecting his Gattungswesen from Entfremdung should be part of the Government’s duty. His very essence, then, must be preserved because to do so otherwise is to inflict irreparable harm on who he is as a person and helps to further alienate the Baker from the Gay Couple.
Or, rather, as Karl Marx would say,
Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways, affirmed himself, and the other person. (1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and, therefore, enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also, when looking at the object, I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses, and, hence, a power beyond all doubt. (2) In your enjoyment, or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. . . . Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.
Comrades and fellow Laborers, we must take this chance to encourage Governor Brewer and other like minded elected officials of the State to protect the human essence of the baker and prevent further stratification of the proletariat. Further, because of this, I hope they mandate other measures to protect the humanity of the stratified.
By protecting the right of the artist to freely distribute his creation and thus secure to himself the right to practice openly his humanity, Gov. Brewer is paving the way for a new society wherein humanity is protected and not bound to any particular labor market, but they themselves are the labor market.1 In this new society, one in which every human is respected not as the object of their work but as an entity, there would be no need for the State (the very tool that enforces alienation). The State of Arizona is far-sighted in their need to legislative the end of the State.
In this new state-less society, the Baker shall enjoy his right to refuse service. The Gay Couple shall enjoy their right to be married without a State declaring them unfit to join together in a contract. Further, because the end goal of the State of Arizona is clearly about a state-less society based on non-objectified individuals, this will bring about the end of corporations and the resurgence of unions and guilds. Since corporations exist for the sole purpose of objectification and unions exist for the sole purpose of alleviating Entfremdung, one must be outlawed and the other given the necessary freedom to expand. The move to a soviet society where the alienation is ended is being led by forward thinking individuals such as Jan Brewer.
I hope you get what I’m saying.
- Craig J. Calhoun (2002). Classical sociological theory. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 23. ↩