'The Law' is to free people, not impose on their liberty

So Sweet Cakes in Oregon has been fined $135,000 for mental anguish caused to a gay couple by the bakery’s refusal to bake a cake for their marriage, a ceremony which is against their religious convictions. Nonsense. No other bakers in Portland?

So, if a neo-Nazi group goes to a Jewish baker, can they demand a cake with a swastika? Can a Southern Baptist group demand that a Muslim caterer provide a pork dish at their dinner? Can a religious group demand that a gay couple that performs commercial photography take pictures at an anti-gay marriage rally?  

How have we come to a point at which we determine that the deeply held convictions of one group are less important than the rights of another? How do we demand that one group with a deeply held conviction must perform a service that violates that conviction and for which there are many other readily available options of equal quality in the same geographic area for whom that conviction is not an issue?  

Or is political correctness now more important than liberty. As Frederic Bastiat clearly explained in his 1850 monograph, “The Law,” “Every person has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty and his property.” These three elements, according to Bastiat, define man, and the rule of law is to protect them not plunder them.  

The danger of law and legislators is to impose their will on others by force. Surely this great French journalist and economist would be turning over in his grave if he were alive to see how his idyllic United States of America was abandoning justice for political correctness. —P. David Myerowitz, Columbia Falls