It’s complicated, no doubt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiec

It’s complicated, no doubt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colo... The point I’m trying to make is that because these things are complicated, I think that discourse around them is valuable. And “we” - members of a relatively democratic society and citizens of a relatively democratic government - are a part of that discourse, although I suppose we can choose to remove ourselves from it if we want. As I’m pretty sure that every person has moral beliefs of one kind or another, and politics is a tool for enforcing consensus on human society (even if it’s a negative consensus not do do something - like, not limit speech), thus, on one level or another I think it’s fair to say that every person has a series of moral and political beliefs - an ideology. So if someone doesn’t want the government to place any restrictions on who can buy what, that is a political ideology they would like to see established in law. I suppose maybe certain Buddhists or people with a very well developed philosophy of deliberate disengagement from human society may not fit the bill. But otherwise, I stand by my “we” statement which, I hope it’s now clear, isn’t a rhetorical trick about consensus, unless that consensus is that human beings live in societies and believe things and societies figure out ways to create rules based on some of those beliefs.