What Everyone is Getting Wrong About The Wedding Cake Decision

The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a Denver cake shop owner who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The owner of the cake shop, Jack Phillips, said he refused to bake the cake because of his religious beliefs. That’s when the cake hit the fan.

Christian groups are claiming victory because their freedom to express religious beliefs and exercise free speech has been protected. While I think we should celebrate, everyone is missing the true point about this controversy. This is about property rights. Not free speech. Not religious rights. Property rights. People should be able to chose who they do business with, or associate with, on their own properties.

The conversation about these issues needs to change. One reason is that property rights are more universal and will appeal to a wider audience than just someone that holds the same religious beliefs. Secondly, we need to start asking why the government thinks they can tell us what we can do on our properties, or put in our bodies, as long as we are not harming anyone else. Of course governments don’t want us to think that way, so they will continue to define it in ways that divide the people. A divided populace is a controllable populace.

The following article from Mises.org is going to give you a different point of view than what you will hear in the mainstream media:

What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in Its Gay-Wedding Cake Decision
Wedding Cake

06/04/2018 Ryan McMaken

The US Supreme Court today ruled 7-2 in favor of a Denver small business owner who has been threatened, sanctioned, and ultimately driven out of business by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The controversy arose when the cake shop owner, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, claiming to be motivated by religious beliefs.

The cake shop was hauled up before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission where the commission ruled that the shop must “change its company policies, provide ‘comprehensive staff training’ regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers.”

Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch and Thomas all voted to overturn the earlier appeals court’s decision to uphold the Commission’s ruling against Phillips. Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.

In the decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, much of the reasoning centered on the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated an apparently obvious bias against religious people, even though “neutrality” is legally required in such cases. The ruling states:

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.

The SCOTUS ruling also noted that both the Commission and the appeals court largely ignored and glossed over the fact that the Commission had on three prior occasions ruled in favor of bakers who had refused to bake cakes with anti-gay slogans on them. There was an enormous double standard at work.

As Kagan notes in her concurring opinion, the Civil Rights Commission was abandoning neutrality in favor of making decisions “based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.”

In other words, the Commission was deciding, based on the members’ own personal prejudices and biases, who shall be forced to bake cakes, and who shall not.

Click here for the rest of the article.

We covered this very topic three years ago when Auntie, Ron, and I produced the Liberty Show: