Thought Police Force Local Baker to Participate in Gay Wedding. Will They Make Orthodox Rabbis and Imams Perform Gay Weddings, Too?

In Colorado, the Constitution is subordinate to hurt feelings and nuptial pastries.

seemii/Flickrseemii/FlickrThe Colorado Civil Rights Commission has ordered a suburban Denver baker named Jack Phillips to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, finding that his religious objections do not supersede the state's anti-discrimination statutes. Because if the Constitution should be subordinate to anything, it's the local thought police, hurt feelings, and nuptial pastries.

Raju Jaram, one of the reprehensible unelected commissioners—whose contact information is nowhere to be found on Colorado's government site—apparently had this to say about the case: "I can believe anything I want, but if I'm going to do business here, I'd ought to not discriminate against people."

No, you can't. Because Phillips isn't discriminating against gay Coloradans. Gay customers, as far as all the news stories have suggested, are free to shop in the bakery and purchase (at the same price) any of the cakes, cookies, and pastries they like, without ever being asked by anyone whom they love or what the gender equation is in their sex life. Public accommodations, fine. But the fact is that Phillips does not want to participate in a very specific ceremony, because he holds authentic, well-documented, age-old religious objections to such an event—in the same way that a Hasidic Jew or an orthodox Muslim might not want to participate in a ceremony that proclaims that Jesus is our Lord and savior. Maybe if we begin forcing atheists to party plan baptisms, the point would become clearer. Actually, maybe if we begin forcing Orthodox rabbis and imams to perform gay weddings, the point would be even clearer.

Though you and I may find Phillips' objections lacking in merit or even objectionable, according to the blueprint of the American founding, religious concerns should take precedence over any "civil rights" of cake seekers. Forcing Americans to violate their religious beliefs should be avoided unless there is a clear and undeniable compelling interest. There is none here. Is there no other establishment that bakes cakes in all of Lakewood, Colorado? Because I found at least a dozen other bakeries in the town and surrounding areas that would probably be happy to bake a cake for a gay wedding in Colorado—even though, by the way, same-sex marriage is not even legal in the state yet. Capitalism, thankfully, provides gay Coloradans with a bunch of pro-gay businesses they could support less than a mile away.

It is unclear what power the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has to enforce its ruling. Does it fine Phillips until he's out of business? In an earlier ruling, an administrative law judge ruled that Phillips could not "turn away" gay couples seeking cake but did not impose fines in the case. Perhaps the National Guard—as the National Journal's Ron Fournier once implicitly suggested for this sort of case—should be called in to ensure that all the egg whites are properly separated from the yolks. Or perhaps President Barack Obama could chime in with, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" ("let them eat cake"). Which would be misleading—because the idea that people should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit is quickly morphing into the ugly idea that we should all be forced to participate in your life.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    So it's true...they *do* want cake.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "they" - people who want to compel bakers to make cake for them.

  • R C Dean||

    So, yeah, retards.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    It's true. I always want to lick cake... off my boyfriend's ass.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Though you and I may find Phillips' objections lacking in merit or even objectionable...

    Personally, I wouldn't care enough to find his objections anything. What I would find would be another baker. But then I guess I wouldn't be making my special day a martyr for a cause.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    There is a word for when someone compels the labor of another through threats of violence but it's slipping my mind at the moment..

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm for slavery in only the very limited case of alt-text.

  • Brian Macker||

    Actually they just wanted to buy it, and would have paid for it, and will still pay for it. So no they are not practicing slavery.

  • Ivoted4KODOS||

    No, they wanted the state to force him to bake a special wedding cake (those are designed and customized not ready made) for them even though he says he would prefer not to. They want special treatment, not equality.

  • Kevin47||

    Slave-owners fed their slaves. Some slaves were happy with their living arrangements. They were not, however, free to leave, which was what the whole thing as all about.

  • Valkanis||

    The government wants to force him to bake a cake when he doesn't want to. Baking a cake takes time and energy. What part of basic reasoning don't you get?

  • Paul.||

    There is a word for when someone compels the labor of another through threats of violence but it's slipping my mind at the moment..

    Yeah, it's called 'social contract'.

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Where do I find a copy of this "social contract"?

    If you're trying to make the argument that we are all beholden to each other and kumbaya, where exactly do threats of violence fit in with that?

    You're fucking evil.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    No, you can't. Because Phillips isn't discriminating against gay Coloradans. Gay customers, as far as all the news stories have suggested, are free to shop in the bakery and purchase (at the same price) any of the cakes, cookies, and pastries they like, without ever being asked by anyone whom they love or what the gender equation is in their sex life. Public accommodations, fine. But the fact is that Phillips does not want to participate in a very specific ceremony

    There's no difference between declining to cater a Black Panther event and kicking out any black person who walks into your deli!

  • Valkanis||

    Is this a joke? It is hard to tell, because if serious it is moronic. Just so we're clear, there is a big difference between declining to cater an event of a group known to advocate racial violence and kicking out from you deli anyone who is black.

  • MikePercy||

    How about a black caterer being forced to cater a KKK event, including having to man the buffet while the Grand Wizard rants about how much he hates niggers?

    How about a gay wedding planner planner being forced to plan a wedding at Westboro Baptist Church (the "God hates fags" church) knowing that the people involved are some of the worst haters on the planet?

    How about mom&pop; photography shop being forced to provide their services to the NAMBLA annual meeting? Did I mention that their young son was abused by a pedophile?

  • B.P.||

    I think I read somewhere that Mr. Phillips' bakery is receiving the Chick-fil-a treatment (ie, business is going through the roof) since this edict came down.

    As Harsanyi suggests, this seems like an easy thing to turn on its head, test case-wise. Request that the local Jewish deli cater the next neo-Nazi mixer, rent the rec room at the unitarian universalist church to teach concealed carry classes. The possibilities are endless, but most people don't have the time, or want the attention, as seems to be the case with the smug, pushy jerks involved in the Phillips affair.

  • Jgalt1975||

    Except that I'm not aware of any state that considers neo-Nazis or gun safety teachers to be protected classes for purposes of public accommodation laws, so those examples would seem to be easily distinguishable.

  • B.P.||

    Eh, true. I guess the Christian Identity or Westboro Baptist folks would need to be involved to tweak PC sensibilities, expose hypocrisy, etc.

  • cavalier973||

  • Brian Macker||

    If memory serves me correctly there was no attempt by gays to exterminate bakers (or Christians in general for that matter).

  • Kevin47||

    That was point missing. Thank you, Brian.

  • cavalier973||

    It never starts with shoving bakers into their own ovens, you know.

  • ||

    If memory serves me correctly there was no attempt by gays to exterminate bakers (or Christians in general for that matter).

    Really? Nero was pretty grotesque and plenty of his sexual activities were homosexual. He was also fond of feeding Christians to lions and nailing them to crosses. It's pretty much understood that Christianity is historically opposed to homosexuality, not precisely or entirely by scripture, but because of the culture of Roman Leadership.

    Also, while not specifically targeting Christians, the Sturmabteilung was clearly not devoid of homosexuals either. That's the same Sturmabteilung that created and managed the Hitler Youth.

    You could easily say that these people were sociopaths who happened to be homosexuals rather than just homosexual, but that's how much of the atrocities of Christian (among other belief systems) history are absolved.

    The Christian agenda to exterminate homosexuals is as real as the homosexual agenda to exterminate Christians.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Maybe the Satanists should hold their next convention in the social hall of a Catholic church.

  • jmomls||

    Of course, no one remembers a few years back where some grocery store declined to make a cake for some 6 year-old whose name was Adolf Hitler Jones [or somesuch]. No one forced that grocer to make the cake.

    I think the kids ended up getting taken away from the parents, actually, if memory serves correct.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    But that's different! The kid had a choice of what his name... oh wait... But HITLARRRRR!!!!!111!!!

    /social justice warrior

  • lap83||

    But that story had a happy ending, because the evil Hitler kid didn't get a cake AND didn't get parents in the end. Tolerance.

  • gaoxiaen||

    That was only because they didn't have a swastika cake pan.

  • Free Society||

    If I were a baker I would only turn down gay wedding cakes if it were apparent that he/she/it would try to force the issue. Then I'd go about my life until the state shows the world it's heavy handed support for slavery.

  • Almanian!||

    Let Force them eat to make cake.

    And there you'll have it.

  • WDATPDIM?!||

    Maybe if we begin forcing atheists to party plan baptisms, the point would become clearer.

    Why would atheists care? No souls are being lost because their owners are not atheists.

  • Acosmist||

    I don't know why atheists do care, but have you seen them post on the internet? They would care. They do care. All must agree with them.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    It's because most atheists who care that much aren't really atheists, they're idol worshippers. They either worship Gaia or government.

  • Kevin47||

    Or, as commonly, themselves.

  • Eric Bana||

    I'm an atheist, and I worship neither Gaia nor government. I don't think I worship myself either, but in general I do try of course to do what's best for myself and those I care about.

  • Eric Bana||

    As an atheist, I care in large part because I'm interested in the truth. I also care because people's beliefs inform their actions. As an example regarding atheism, nearly half of Americans would not vote for an atheist candidate even if they thought that candidate was well-qualified in all other areas.

  • WDATPDIM?!||

    But do you care so much that you would refuse to bake a cake for use in connection with a Catholic ceremony?

  • Eric Bana||

    Personally if I were a baker, I wouldn't have a problem baking a cake for a religious ceremony. I would welcome the money.

  • Zunalter||

    To be fair, I think we have voted for many atheist candidates, though none who would openly admit it.

  • Eric Bana||

    though none who would openly admit it

    The fact that people have to hide their atheism is a big reason why talking about atheism and religion is important to me.

  • OneOut||

    Baking a cake full of salt instead of sugar would have prevented them being forced to bake for someone they disagreed with in the future, I think.

    Who would refer their friends to a baker who made such a shitty cake ?

  • Baelzar||

    Exactly. I would bake them the shittiest cake in the history of cakes.

    He's already suffering the bad publicity; why not earn it?

    The next gay couple who walked through the door would also get VIP attention and service....and then receive inedible, salty, perfectly decorated cake.

  • cavalier973||

    I wouldn't do this. I would see baking the cake as an opportunity to share the Gospel. I would also ask for referrals.

  • PaulMc||

    Interesting story about "qu'ils mangent de la brioche". Brioche is not cake, it is bread but with egg in so more expensive than plain flour/yeast/water/salt bread. At the time the price of bread was controlled, but to ensure bakers didn't cheat, if they ran out of bread they had to sell brioche at the price of bread. So Marie Antoinette was actually being semi-reasonable: they are out of bread, then they can get brioche.

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Marie Antoinette never actually said that.

  • ||

    So Marie Antoinette was actually being semi-reasonable: they are out of bread, then they can get brioche.

    And, for a libertarian forum on a website called *Reason*, lauding regulators (Antoinette or other) for creating a new regulation to fix the old broken regulation seems unreasonable.

  • Bean Counter||

    The thing that always gets me in these type of situations is the way the gays think they have the moral high ground and anyone who refuses to see things their way is morally and socially retarded. Throughout history and even today in the vast majority of nations on earth, gay marriage has been not just illegal, but unthinkable. 50 years ago the mere whisper that a man was "light in the loafers" would ruin him financially and socially. I'm not in agreement with that. I think gay people should enjoy the thrill of midnight bottle warming, divorce proceedings and losing everything they worked for all their lives to someone who found another sex partner, just like heterosexuals. However, to act like anyone who has a different view of gay marriage is somehow deviant is ridiculous.

  • WDATPDIM?!||

    I think gay people should enjoy the thrill of midnight bottle warming....

    I had to read that a few times before I realized that you're not referring to some sort of deviant sex act. (No, I don't have kids.)

  • Brian Macker||

    So if back then someone found out you were black and it would ruin you financially and socially then that makes it right?

  • Valkanis||

    Your comment makes no sense.

  • Paul.||

    I think gay people should enjoy the thrill of midnight bottle warming, divorce proceedings and losing everything they worked for all their lives to someone who found another sex partner, just like heterosexuals.

    I'm gonna... I'm gonna borrow that.

  • ||

    50 years ago the mere whisper that a man was "light in the loafers" would ruin him financially and socially.

    Name one?

    Forty years ago Anita Bryant was ruined for trying to speak out against homosexuals while Freddy Mercury, Elton John, and David Bowie were making money hand over fist. 50 yrs. ago, Harvey Milk was sleeping with underage (or nearly so) boys while State Senator and to-be SF Mayor George Mosone was overturning sodomy laws.

    'Light in the loafers' was a euphemism rather than an indictment for homosexuality. It held the connotation of being neat and well dressed and originated around being light on one's feat, or nimble. I wouldn't pretend to say it was always used in good taste, but it was hardly similar to being labelled a communist during the McCarthy era.

  • AlgerHiss||

    Just as you'll never witness a PETA member go into a biker bar and throw paint on the leather-clad bikers, the social Marxists don't have the guts to tell the Islamics they have to go gay.

    When faced with real, authentic violence, these people are quite gutless.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    The problem is the Colorado has a Civil Rights Commission. Sounds like those abominations in Canada.

  • ||

    What's to stop them from making a sub-par cake? Seriously, I'd consider that.

    If not, there HAS to be a way out for the baker on this issue. Instead of these two knuckleheads moving on with their lives and onto another baker they decide they're gonna make a point. If anything, I bet they managed to turn people (even those who are down with gay marriage) against them.

    I know if I was discriminated against (and I have in the past) I'd simply take my business elsewhere. In Quebec some misguided stores have 'ici on parle francais' stickers on their windows basically telling English-speakers to fuck off and not be expected to be spoken to in their tongue. Language over business and guess what? That's what I do. I move on. Future Shop, Best Buy, Reno (hardware), and other stores simply lost hundreds upon hundreds of dollars from not only me, but my own business where I need stuff like phones, electronics and hardware items.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    We'll let you know when its time to nuke Quebec. Cause I think they have it coming.

  • ||

    Just let me know so I can escape to Vermont.

    BUT. In their defense, a recent poll by a big company revealed 70% of 18-24 year-olds reject the policies of the Parti-Quebecois. It should be 100% but it's a start.

  • ||

    In Quebec some misguided stores have 'ici on parle francais' stickers on their windows basically telling English-speakers to fuck off and not be expected to be spoken to in their tongue.

    Promptly purchase product from nearest competitor. Consume/use said product in Qebecois's establishment, audibly extolling it's products virtues and value in English. If asked to leave in any other language except English, feign deafness or ignorance until English is used.

    If competing products/services are unavailable, use cell phone to feign a conversation with a fellow English-speaker about the general inadequacies of the Quebecois's business and/or products. Again, requests for your departure should only be honoured if provided in English.

    If possible, use the phrase, 'parler ne coûte pas cher' (talk is cheap) to initiate your departure, and 'les actes sont plus éloquents que les paroles' (actions speak louder than words) and during your departure.

    I can't think of an adult political group stupid enough to hang a 'No Girls Allowed' sign on their door. Oh, wait...

  • lap83||

    Well...they can at least take comfort in the fact that they didn't build their bakery business. So, in a way, government forced themselves to make the cake..?

  • Zunalter||

    +1

  • ||

    Suggestion: Make the cake in the shape of a log. Something you might throw onto a fire.

  • Beezard||

    Empire kosher meats won't deliver directly to companies unless they're Jewish owned. Everyone else can only go through distributors. I'm sure they're next on the take-down list.

  • Response||

    A few pounds of extra salt in the cake should do the trick to prevent future conscription.

  • Brian Macker||

    That would be the same thing as a gay person pissing in some milk to be delivered to the bigot's bakery. Harmless but a little bit salty. See how that works?

  • Kevin47||

    Actually no, that is entirely illegal. Further, if this were a case of the baker selling cupcakes to the public at large, but he decided to piss in the ones for customers he thought might be gay, that would be a far more compelling case, were it legal to piss in food products before selling them.

  • Response||

    Different situation (is it not?) if the gay person is able to choose to deliver the milk to the bigot? I mean if they are forced to, then pee away.

  • Brian Macker||

    "But the fact is that Phillips does not want to participate in a very specific ceremony, because .."

    He wasn't asked to participate in a ceremony. He was asked to bake and decorate a cake. The baker plays no ceremonial role in the wedding in any religion I am aware of, and certainly not in Christianity.

  • Kevin47||

    "He was asked to bake and decorate a cake. The baker plays no ceremonial role in the wedding in any religion I am aware of, and certainly not in Christianity."

    The arrival and placement of the cake is a pretty important component of the ceremony, which is why people have them custom made. Either way, he was asked to make a cake specifically celebrating something he disagreed with, which he should not be forced to do.

  • Brian Macker||

    "...according to the blueprint of the American founding, religious concerns should take precedence over any "civil rights" of cake seekers."

    The constitution and bill of rights only restricts the government from establishing a religion. It does not say that religious concerns should take precedence over other concerns. It says the government should not interfere in the free exercise of religion, not that it should be given priority. If your religion says you can lynch gays or blacks the government will stop you.

    In this case, it is quite obvious that baking cakes and this fellow's religious beliefs are quite compatible, as is dealing with gays. Otherwise he wouldn't be baking cakes, now would he? If his religion really required him to shun all business associations with gays then he's in big trouble, because I doubt he is checking his eggs, flour, milk, and cream to make sure no gay had a hand in producing it.

  • Beezard||

    It way protects freedom of conscience. Basically the government is saying if he doesn't go against his own principles he can't make a living. That essentially is the government making a religion.

    Then there's hundreds of years of common law and free association.

    He isn't shunning business with homosexuals. He'll take their money but only under his terms which exclude being forced to engage in something he doesn't want to.

  • Brian Macker||

    What is it he is being forced to engage in that he doesn't want to? Baking cakes. That's rich considering he is a baker.

  • JW||

    Smugness isn't a suitable replacement for morality.

    YOU BAKE CAKE. OR BONK BONK.

  • Beezard||

    His labor is going to be used in ceremony which he disdains on religious principles. And maybe cake making is an expression of his personal identity.

    The measure of freedom in this case isn't whether or not you find it silly. It's whether or not someone can be forced to participate in something that goes against their conscience.

    It's his business and he's not forcing anyone to patronize it. It's vice versa.

  • Kevin47||

    "What is it he is being forced to engage in that he doesn't want to?"

    Baking a cake for a gay ceremony.

    "Baking cakes. "

    For a gay ceremony.

    "That's rich considering he is a baker."

    Should a gay baker be compelled to bake a cake for Westboro Baptist peeps to celebrate an anniversary of their church or the first time they came out against homosexuality.

  • Zunalter||

    +1

  • Valkanis||

    Once again, your comment is idiotic. He does not shun all business associations with gays, as the fucking article makes clear. Can you read, and you just choose not to?

  • WDATPDIM?!||

    Some of us think he should be allowed to shun all business associations with gays (or Jews or blacks or whites or one-legged women or anybody named "Moe"). But I guess that's a topic for another news story.

  • Valkanis||

    Forcing you to engage in an action that violates your religious beliefs is the very definition of interfering with the free exercise of religion, and yes, that does take precedence over the commercial transactions desired by various other parties.

  • Paula Douglas||

    The baker has every right to decline to serve--or discriminate against--whomever he wants. He is not a public, i.e., government entity. Public in the sense of a government school, government library, court, or DMV facility is completely different from being a private business open to the public. In practical terms most businesses would be unlikely to want a reputation as anything other than open to all comers, but morally they must retain the right to associate with whomever they wish. If the state can determine the use a businessman makes of his own property, then the concept of property rights loses all meaning. Which, most likely, is one of the motives of these "activists" who demand a cake from someone who is unwilling to work with them, when there are dozens of more cooperative bakers available.

  • Brian Macker||

    "... morally they must retain the right to associate with whomever they wish."

    This is an unsupported assertion. As a matter of fact they have the opposite moral duty, to associate with other members of society on a equal basis. This because as part of society the will gain benefits from the others they arbitrarily discriminate against. For example a gay couple passing by the store may notice the kitchen is on fire and call the fire department. They may do this even if they know the owner is the asshole he is because they have a level of humanity he does not live up to. The baker then becomes a freeloader and parasite upon their good will. He is in essence gaining a free insurance policy from the entire society without reciprocating. It is in fact his moral duty to provide that reciprocation, and not societies moral duty to allow him to persist in his misanthropic behavior.

  • JW||

    As a matter of fact they have the opposite moral duty, to associate with other members of society on a equal basis.

    You really know nothing of morality, do you?

    You know the word. You know how it makes you feel all superior-y to those social troglodytes, but you don't have any real grasp the actual meaning. It's basically one big fluffy shield for you to hide behind with your right thinking.

    I'll spell it out for you: If you feel the need to use force to get someone to do something, when they've not harmed you, you're not moral.

    And I'll save you more time in replying: Fuck your collective and your authoritarian compulsions.

  • Brian Macker||

    You sure think you know a lot about my inner thoughts. You a mind reader or a psychic?

    "Fuck you" does not an argument make.

  • JW||

    Not very bright either. I didn't say "fuck you." I said "Fuck your collective and your authoritarian compulsions."

    Since you need to have the basic premises explained to you, I'll accommodate your limited capabilities: "Fuck you" is a simple epithet. It may communicate any number of things, including anger, disgust or despair. Unfortunately, it's left up to the recipient to sort out the meaning, if there is any at all.

    My statement was very specific. I reject your assumptions as to what, if anything, is owed to you and to whatever you define as your tribe. I reject that there is any quid pro quo that can be compelled as some sort of social tribute. I also categorically reject your explicitly default setting of using force to achieve whatever arbitrary social goal that satisfies what you so incoherently call a moral code.

    I hope this has been helpful in understanding my statement. If you still don't understand, please feel free to make additional moronic assumptions and statements.

  • Beezard||

    Except that Society is the organic sum of a multitude of individual beliefs and actions, not a centralized goal set by an arbitrary authority.

    He's not taking from the people he refuses to serve, nor is he forcing them to do anything, The government and the complainers are.

  • Brian Macker||

    Sure he is. It's impossible for him to not benefit from the security that society provides. Living isolated carries certain risks which living together doesn't. For example if his baby were to accidentally become separated and fall into a bucket and start drowning then there is a higher chance someone will notice and save that baby in a society. For him to refuse to reciprocate because the baby drowning is black and he doesn't want to associate with blacks is a form of freeloading.

  • Beezard||

    Considering thieves and con men exist in "society" then he benefits from its insecurity too. What do you mean by society? And why do you keep assuming it shares your exact values? He's part of his own society that doesn't view gay society as morally appropriate or legitimate.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And why do you keep assuming it shares your exact values?

    Because he's a solipsist?

  • Kevin47||

    Again, this whole stream of logic is incoherent, re: saving lives.

    In a free market, altruism doesn't factor in. If a gay person wants to sell the dude flour, or personalized flour, or flour wrapped in cute little packages, and he compensates them in a way they agree upon, the exchange is complete.

    There is no right, on their part, to purchase a personalized cake from him. It is not assumed by either party this will happen. If I sell a car to a family. It is not assumed they will sell one to me. It is simply assumed I will give them the amount of money (or other goods and services) we agreed on.

    Once the government decides there is some sort of unspoken assumption, based on pablum about saving babies from buckets, they can pretty much compel anyone to do anything.

  • Whahappan?||

    And there you've hit upon the underlying motivation.

  • Kevin47||

    But... Gay!

  • Valkanis||

    It doesn't matter if he is freeloading! The fact that people choose to give him things does not create an obligation upon him. You clearly are insane.

  • Zunalter||

    So, socially speaking, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need?

  • Kevin47||

    "This is an unsupported assertion."

    The freedom of association is not an unsupported assertion. It is a bedrock freedom.

    "As a matter of fact they have the opposite moral duty, to associate with other members of society on a equal basis."

    This is an unsupported assertion.

    "The baker then becomes a freeloader and parasite upon their good will."

    So? You call in a kitchen fire because you don't want someone to die, not because you are concerned as to whether the potential victim would return the favor, pay it forward, or whatever the hell it is they are supposed to do.

    "He is in essence gaining a free insurance policy from the entire society without reciprocating."

    Huh? Only if he wouldn't report someone else's kitchen burning down. This is incoherent.

    "societies moral duty to allow him to persist in his misanthropic behavior."

    We have no obligation to protect any behavior deemed misanthropic?

  • Brian Macker||

    Freedom of association does not mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean you get to pick and choose who you treat as moral equals on arbitrary qualities. No one is asking this baker to become fuck buddies with a homosexual, befriend them, or start a club with them. They are just being to told to treat them as they would any other stranger who walks into the store.

  • Valkanis||

    "It doesn't mean you get to pick and choose who you treat as moral equals on arbitrary qualities." Yes it does, you piece of trash. There aren't enough insults in the English language to describe how bad of a person you are.

  • Kevin47||

    "It doesn't mean you get to pick and choose who you treat as moral equals on arbitrary qualities."

    It can pretty much only mean that. Otherwise the association is not free, but compelled. Also, if homosexuality is an "arbitrary quality", you just tossed any case you could possibly make for special protection under the law.

    "No one is asking this baker to become fuck buddies with a homosexual, befriend them, or start a club with them."

    The freedom of association is broader than sex, friendship and forming a club.

    "They are just being to told to treat them as they would any other stranger who walks into the store."

    Not any other stranger. If some dude wants a lizard cake for his lizard party, cake guy can pretty much tell him to pound sand, because lizard parties are weird.

    That is true whether or not lizard guy would rescue his baby from a bucket.

  • Zunalter||

    "That is true whether or not lizard guy would rescue his baby from a bucket."

    LMMFAO!!

  • Brian Macker||

    "Only if he wouldn't report someone else's kitchen burning down. This is incoherent."

    Not at all. He might just not do that for the homosexual couple because he is a bigot. No one can avoid emergencies and he might just find himself in a position when he needs some good or service provided by a gay and has to take it. For example, he might need gas for his car because he ran out. The nature of man, and reality, is that in some such circumstance he will be in a position not to refuse. Thus he will be freeloading on those he refuses to provide services too.

  • Josh H||

    You keep going on about this guy as if you think he's the most hateful man in the world just because he refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I know many Christians who would do the same thing, but still help help a person in need regardless of their sexual background. You act as though you think anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage is instantly a hateful, spiteful person who goes out of their way to make their lives terrible. He didn't want to bake a cake for a ceremony he believes to be morally wrong! Get over it! He may be the nicest man in the world for all we know. He just morally thinks gay marriage is wrong.

    Theres a difference between being in need of help (your kitchen is on fire) vs *wanting* a cake for your wedding. You do understand that right?

  • Kure'i||

    Are you saying that:

    1) As members of a society,
    2) We have some kind of basic moral obligation to rescue/help others in emergency situations; and
    3) therefore, we cannot discriminate in commercial transactions or we're being freeloaders?

    Because that's what I've gathered from your posts, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

  • Brian Macker||

    "[not] societies moral duty to allow him to persist in his misanthropic behavior."

    We have no obligation to protect any behavior deemed misanthropic?

    What is it with you guys chopping my sentences down to make straw man arguments? There was a "not" in that sentence that you removed.

  • Brian Macker||

    I'm glad to say that this kind of argument is exactly why I am not a libertarian. I think it is a reasonable expectation that when you are doing business that you not be subjected to arbitrary double standards. For example, if you are black and sell land to a white person there would seem to be an unspoken assumption that that white person would also sell to a black. You can be pretty sure this baker has bought some of his capital inputs from gays at some level of his supply chain. Perhaps the land his store sits on was once owned by a gay, perhaps the flour he purchased, etc.

    What next? Refusing to reciprocate the refraining from trespass against property based on race. Certainly a person who steals from blacks on religious grounds, and yet refuses to let blacks steal from them is also practicing a double standard. A double standard in whose property rights they will respect.

    Part of property rights is the ability to purchase, control, and dispose of property on the same footing as everyone else. Some libertarians apparently don't believe in true property rights.

  • Beezard||

    You're conflating an individual making decisions about his own labor and something like segregation. This guy not baking cakes doesn't suddenly mean no one will bake cakes for gay weddings. And libertarianism is based on rights going both ways. Of course gay business owners have a right to refuse service to anybody if they want.

    And you have no property right over property no one wants to sell you. The right to purchase means the -government- can't define what you choose to purchase. It can't say gays can't own businesses and shouldn't be able to say I can't buy cakes or ,fuck,heroin (as long as someone's willing to sell it to me.). Segregation was law.

  • ||

    Stealing from people or trespassing on their land violates their property rights. Not baking them a cake doesn't. Unless the gay couple paid in advance for the cake, in which case their money should be returned.

    How can you have a property right to a cake before it is even baked?

  • Brian Macker||

    The honoring of property rights is a form of reciprocal altruism.

  • Beezard||

    What property right? If a "right" comes into immediate conflict with someone else's established right then it's not a right.

    And altruism isn't the basis of our law it's liberty.

  • Brian Macker||

    Reciprocal altruism is how morality evolved in the first place. Rights emerge from the fact that certain rules cause greater benefit than others when we agree to abide by them in a way that benefits all parties involved. We all implicitly agree not to take stuff when others are not in possession so that others will treat us the same way. There is no point to it unless it is reciprocal, and altruistic.

  • Kevin47||

    So then, a gay baker should be compelled to go ahead and make that cake for the Westboro peeps.

  • Beezard||

    Altruism is thoroughly subjective. And actual legal rights that we actually rely on couldn't possibly abide by your assumptions because the people having a right to buy the exact cake for the exact price society arbitrarily decides immediately cancels out his right to make something, and set his terms of the exchange.

    Once you get out of the realm of your chosen morality (religion) and into law, you're advocating the use of force to promote altruism. Which immediately annihilates the validity of your "altruism".

  • Brian Macker||

    I didn't claim that people have a right to buy and exact cake for an exact price.

    "... you're advocating the use of force to promote altruism. Which immediately annihilates the validity of your "altruism"."

    No it doesn't. I also use force to promote the elimination of rape. That is altruistic in nature. Someone else getting raped is no skin off my teeth, and it costs me at a minimum money to support law enforcement. The second you cry "thief" you are relying on the reciprocal altruism of others and the willingness of them to use force to deal with the criminal.

    What I'm really advocating is the making of freeloaders live up to their social obligations. They are like individuals who receive insurance benefits without being willing to pay the premium.

  • Kevin47||

    So a gay baker would be compelled to bake an anniversary cake for the Westboro peeps because we authorize force to eliminate rape. Got it.

  • Zunalter||

    I notice that despite repeated attempts to ask this question that it remains unanswered. I am sure that is just a coincidence.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "They are like individuals who receive insurance benefits without being willing to pay the premium."

    No, they aren't. They are discriminating sellers. No one is (or should be) compelled to sell them anything just as they are not compelled to sell anything. That goes to the very heart of property rights. If I own stock, must I sell it to you as long as you pay the market price? No. It is my property and I can do with it what I please.

    No Shirt. No Shoes. No Service. No Fair? Forcing someone to engage in commerce against their will, particularly if said commerce involves mostly their labor, is slavery or at least indentured servitude.

  • Beezard||

    Yes you did claim they can get exactly what they want for the exact price because it would be unaltruistic to sell it for anything more the what society (not the cake baker) deems fit.

    The guys not free loading, he runs a business pays twice as much taxes as you and probably employs people.

  • Valkanis||

    False. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with reciprocation. Something is right or wrong because it is right or wrong, not because you expect to receive the same treatment from others. If you expected other people to kill you if they had a problem with you, it would be ok for you to kill them if you had a problem with them? That is called logic, you base moron.

  • Kevin47||

    Yeah, altruism is a fuzzy concept, but I don't think reciprocation belongs anywhere in the definition. An altruist will do things without expecting reciprocation, or at least commensurate reciprocation.

  • JW||

    An altruist will do things without expecting reciprocation, or at least commensurate reciprocation.

    Bingo.

    Oh, how I love it when an American Studies major comes on to show off his new words and concepts that he learned at the drum circle, completely incorrectly.

    Brian's taking the moron in oxymoron to whole, new levels.

  • Kure'i||

    "The honoring of property rights is a form of reciprocal altruism."

    "Reciprocal altruism is how morality evolved in the first place."

    I get the impression that someone came here specifically to troll objectivists.

  • cavalier973||

    The honoring of property rights is a form of reciprocal altruism.

    Where do you learn this pablum?

    I mean, it sounds a little like something George Gilder wrote about in either "Wealth and Poverty" or "The Spirit of Enterprise", but you've gone off in an odd direction with the idea.

  • Kevin47||

    "For example, if you are black and sell land to a white person there would seem to be an unspoken assumption that that white person would also sell to a black."

    It is the government's job to enforce unspoken assumptions?

    "Certainly a person who steals from blacks on religious grounds, and yet refuses to let blacks steal from them is also practicing a double standard. "

    But, far more importantly, is also stealing, and therefore violating property rights.

    "Part of property rights is the ability to purchase,"

    No it isn't. There are many people able to purchase my house. They may not do so, because I do not want to sell it. If I procure the means, I might choose to buy their house, should they choose to sell it.

    And I might choose to sell my house if a family member or church member wants to buy it. That is my choice, not my obligation.

  • Brian Macker||

    "It is the government's job to enforce unspoken assumptions?"

    Yes, property rights are an unspoken assumption.

  • Kevin47||

    "Yes, property rights are an unspoken assumption."

    No. They are Constitutionally enshrined. Your assumption that someone will sell you something so long as you sell them something isn't. At all.

  • Brian Macker||

    When I said "property rights" I meant the right that is prior to any government enforcement. The natural right that arises from the nature of man (based on reciprocal altruism).

    " Your assumption that someone will sell you something so long as you sell them something isn't. At all."

    Actually it is enshrined in law. That's why the baker is being forced to act in accordance with the rights of the gay couple. It is also a natural right in that it is something that is not a double standard and that reasonable parties would agree to (among other criteria).

  • Kevin47||

    "When I said "property rights" I meant the right that is prior to any government enforcement. "

    Appealing to natural rights doesn't get you anywhere. I have seen no writing on the subject that insinuates we have the right to purchase whatever we have the means to purchase, so long as it is on the open market, and there is no gifting (adding to the definition to accommodate your persistent moving of the goal posts). There is no reason to think our founding fathers understood there to be such a right, or that the right to purchase arose from the notion of societal benefit.

    "Actually it is enshrined in law."

    No, it is enshrined in the brain of an unelected civil rights commission. None of this is remotely constitutional, which is what I refer to when I say something is enshrined in law.

  • Zunalter||

    Not to mention, segregation (etc.) was also enshrined in law, so even if your notion of property rights were written in some legal code, it doesn't automatically make your argument valid.

  • Valkanis||

    The couple has no such rights, and no reasonable person who would they do. An unreasonable entity such as yourself might, but that means nothing.

  • cavalier973||

    You don't have the right to someone else's labor without their consent, even if you pay them. The right to property derives from people's self-ownership, which means they own their own labor, which means that they own the product of their labor, which includes any property acquired through trade.

  • Brian Macker||

    Me: "Part of property rights is the ability to purchase,"

    You: "No it isn't. There are many people able to purchase my house."

    So you disagree with a sentence fragment which you trimmed to alter it's meaning. Why should I care about that? Of course, you are still wrong. How about if the government outlawed your ability to purchase anything. You sure would scream about infringement of your property rights then.

  • Kevin47||

    "So you disagree with a sentence fragment which you trimmed to alter it's meaning. "

    It's not a fragment, it stands alone. That said:

    "Part of property rights is the ability to purchase, control, and dispose of property on the same footing as everyone else. "

    You don't have the right to control or dispose of property you do not own. If they only way you can control property is to acquire it by compelled purchase, then that is not a property right.

    "How about if the government outlawed your ability to purchase anything. You sure would scream about infringement of your property rights then."

    I would complain that the government was distorting the markets, not that my property rights were violated. And the government does outlaw my ability to purchase lots of things. Apparently, in your moral vision, this is something that is okay for government to do, but not individual citizens.

  • Brian Macker||

    "It's not a fragment, it stands alone. "

    Well let me educate you as to the meaning of sentence fragment. This is the entire sentence:

    "Part of property rights is the ability to purchase, control, and dispose of property on the same footing as everyone else. "

    This is a sentence fragment:
    "Part of property rights is the ability to purchase,"

    This would be an edit that preserved the meaning:

    "Part of property rights is the ability to purchase property on the same footing as everyone else."

    Got it?

  • Kevin47||

    "Part of property rights is the ability to purchase property on the same footing as everyone else. Got it?"

    My response, with counterexamples, is exactly the same. There are countless examples where people are not on equal footing in terms of purchasing power.

    "This is a sentence fragment: 'Part of property rights is the ability to purchase,'"

    A sentence fragment does not have an independent clause. The excerpt does.

  • Brian Macker||

    Your response is wrong regardless. For example: "You don't have the right to control or dispose of property you do not own."

    The sentence asserts no such rights. It asserts the rights to be treated equal when it comes to open sales of property. When you "sell" to your children that is in part a gift. Where the children offering more than the market would bear they would get the property anyway. Any amount the children pay less than the market is a gift from parent to child.

    In this case no one is asking the baker to make gifts to gay people.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    OK, let's take your example of a gift to a child. You have a $1MM house that you sell to your child for $10. In your distorted view of a proper market, you MUST accept my offer of $10 or more for the house as well. If you don't, you've violated my property rights because you didn't give me equal standing as your child. I'll make it even easier for you; assume that I'm gay. Now you REALLY have to sell me that house.

    Are we done yet?

  • Kevin47||

    "It asserts the rights to be treated equal when it comes to open sales of property."

    You said nothing about "open sales", but I may favor my children (or friends, or just someone I happen to admire) when selling property, even if I choose to sell for market value. There is no gift inherent in such an exchange. That is something you injected to make your argument coherent.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    In this case no one is asking the baker to make gifts to gay people.

    No, they're demanding that he provide a service against his will, enforced by two years of digging in his books. It's rather telling how shitlibs get all "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!" when it comes to causes they support.

  • Brian Macker||

    "A sentence fragment does not have an independent clause. The excerpt does."

    Sentences do not end with commas. You took a whole sentence an cut it down to a fragment ending with a comma.

    You took a fragment of my sentence in order to dishonestly create a straw man.

  • Kevin47||

    You are simply wrong about what a fragment is, and I did not in any way change the contentious nature of your argument. You said property rights include the right to purchase. You still maintain that. It's not a straw man when it aptly summarizes what you believe.

  • Valkanis||

    Property rights have absolutely nothing to do with the ability to purchase, so he didn't need the rest of your statement. Got it? Obviously not because you are a troll or one of the least intelligent people I have ever seen comment on the internet.

  • Brian Macker||

    "And the government does outlaw my ability to purchase lots of things. Apparently, in your moral vision, this is something that is okay for government to do, but not individual citizens."

    I did not make any such claim. Red herring.

  • Brian Macker||

    "I would complain that the government was distorting the markets, not that my property rights were violated."

    I said you. Not everyone.

    Yet, you don't complain about market distortions when it comes to refusing to allow gays to purchase. There is only one you but a hell of a lot of gays. I think refusals to sell to gays or blacks has a much larger market distortion effect.

    I also said that the government would not allow you to purchase anything. No food, no water ... NOTHING!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "Yet, you don't complain about market distortions when it comes to refusing to allow gays to purchase."

    No, you don't understand what is meant by a market. Refusing to sell something is a perfectly acceptable feature of a free market. A third party, say the government or you, imposing your will and forcing me to sell something is a distortion because the market is not operating freely. BOTH parties must want and agree to the exchange for it to not be a distortion or a crime.

    Property rights relate entirely to the disposition of said property. I own a piece of land. I can do with it as I please. I can sell it for a mutually agreed upon exchange. I can use that land. I can give it away. I can put up a big sign explaining what property rights are. Note that none of those says *anything* about whom I must trade with, or what price I must accept.

    Your strawman is dry and it's fire season.

  • Kevin47||

    "Yet, you don't complain about market distortions when it comes to refusing to allow gays to purchase."

    Right, the free market distorts itself. If I don't want to sell to someone, they can take their business elsewhere.

  • Whahappan?||

    So you want to equate a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple to the government forbidding someone from purchasing ANYTHING from ANYONE? You can't be this dumb.

  • MikePercy||

    I'm pretty sure he is.

  • Valkanis||

    That would be a bill of attainder, and hence directly unconstitutional, genius.

  • WDATPDIM?!||

    @ Brian Macker (if you're not gone for good) -- I appreciate your efforts to engage in debate. It livens things up.

    For libertarians, one of the essential, basic, and natural (or axiomatic if you prefer) rights is the right to use one's property as one sees fit as long as you're not injuring another. (Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, as the old maxim goes.) Being free from interference with one's property is right up there with being free from interference with one's person and one's beliefs.

    Now, you may say that any such right is meaningless without some kind of government that is responsible for, and capable of, enforcing the right. I'm willing to grant you that point, although I recognize that one strand of libertarianism holds government to be unnecessary.

    (Coninued....)

  • WDATPDIM?!||

    Continued...

    And you seem to be saying that government involves the implicit quid pro quo you've described. You haven't made clear whether you view this quid pro quo solely as the way things are (i.e., all governments arose in this way) or as the way things ought to be (i.e., every government that is worthy of acceptance must be based on your prinicple). If you're just claiming that that is how things are, then you haven't established that a differently constituted government cannot exist. If, on the other hand, you're claiming that every good government must be based on your quid-pro-quo principle, then you'll find that most (all?) libertarians disagree.

    So far, I don't think you've tried to establish that a government cannot be good unless it is based on your principle. You seem to have focused your efforts on showing that your principle is axiomatic. But the validity of axioms (by definition) can't be proven.

  • Robert||

    You have a different meaning of "on the same footing as everyone else" from what I have in mind, which is that the relevant laws treat them equally. Otherwise nobody gets to indulge their preferences as to buying & selling. If you don't have a choice, then, what, vanilla & chocolate cake will be rationed according to their supply, and you get whichever lot comes up next?

  • JW||

    I'm glad to say that this kind of argument is exactly why I am not a libertarian.

    Oh, I have a hunch there are far more reasons that that.

    One of the primary reasons is: Being a witless goon whose limited understanding of the world, restricts his choices in achieving social goals as a binary solution:

    1-Have state agents apply coercion and violence as needed, to achieve compliance of subjective and arbitrary standards as to what is socially acceptable beliefs and behavior.
    2-See #1.

    Cheers.

  • ceanf||

    i believe you can contact raj via his 'rotary club email' at

    http://portal.clubrunner.ca/50.....C3uNaMEA==

  • ceanf||

    in addition, he apparently likes cricket, and is a member of the colorado cricket club...
    http://www.coloradocricket.org.....ccl_mode=1

    you can reach him via personal email at raju@mbi.com

  • ceanf||

    and i could give his home address, as well as his PO box, but i won't.

    god bless the internet

  • Kevin47||

    I wonder if that club accepts women.

  • Locris||

    Let us be honest, the idea that a Muslim would asked to do anything they find offensive is just plain____________.
    They are the most fawned over protected class in the country.
    And fair or not, they have a well publicized reputation for violence should their religion be____________.

  • shel86||

    My only issue is, it really is none of his business what the cake is used for. It is a multi tiered cake. If I wanted one to use as a prop in a comercial, or hell a couple looking to renew their vows, "sorry, can't sell it to you these are for weddings only." No he would sell the cake. I do however think it would be wrong to force say, a wedding planner, or photographer to work a gay wedding because that is actually making them participate

  • Kevin47||

    Once he sells the cake, he does not own the cake anymore. If he were trying to run around taking cakes back from gay people, he would be in the wrong. If he were trying to make a rule suggesting that the cakes bought from his establishment not be used in this or that way, he could make his rule, but it would be unenforceable.

    But he isn't doing that.

  • Number 2||

    Does Colorado law also require gay bakers and photographers to participate in Baptist weddings where they pray to deliver the country from the "scourge" of gay marriage? We can't have religious discrimination either, can we?

  • TimMcD||

    Now, the way I would handle this, I would fix them a cake alright, and every time I thought about them biting into it, I would roll around on the floor laughing, because I would insure there was no clause they had to be satisfied with the cake, and I can guaran-damn-tee they would not take a second bite.

    I suspect the NEXT gay couple would hunt up another baker. If not, well, I can probably find that recipe again.

  • Kevin47||

    That's why it's clear there was quite a bit of planning behind this. This couple never intended to buy a cake from this guy in the first place.

    That said, if someone were producing inedible cakes for gay people, using a different recipe, the civil right czar would just say he can't do that either. The state is making up the rules as it goes.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Which would also be a discriminatory act under the logic of what the Civil Rights Board is operating under. It is also a deliberate, intentional harm done to the couple. The only thing recommending it is that it might be difficult to prove in court the cake was deliberately bad.

    I really don't understand why so many here think this is a brilliant solution to this type of issue.

  • emma422||

    its awesome,,, Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. www.Fox81.com

  • cavalier973||

    Yeah, but do you refuse to service gay weddings?

  • steve baker||

    If they could prove they're gay he should bake them a cake.

  • cavalier973||

    Oh, by the way, this is old news.

  • Kure'i||

    I wonder if Westboro Baptist will next force a gay graphic artist to design their new logo.

  • MikePercy||

    I hope they do. I hope the KKK starts demanding services from black-owned businesses. I hope Beef USA starts demanding the vegan deli to cater lunch every day. I hope Oscar Meyer demands that kosher and hilal shops sell big slabs of bacon.

    These sorts of laws are anathema to libertarians. You should be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason. And those people you refuse have every right to make it know that you refused service and why.

  • Kure'i||

    While I agree that individuals and private businesses have the moral right to discriminate as they wish, since the right isn't recognized legally, this case's implications would have to be tested using a politically unpopular but legally protected class. Westboro Baptist would seem to be a fine example, as the leftist totalitarians can only tolerate this kind of behavior coming from their side, and the mental pretzels they'd go through to differentiate the cases would be outstanding entertainment for the 5 Americans still paying attention.

  • ace_m82||

    "Forcing Americans to violate their religious beliefs should be avoided unless there is a clear and undeniable compelling interest."

    Why the "compelling interest" nonsense?

    First of all, I don't read that in my copy of the Constitution... But I don't have the invisible ink copy that the courts do.

    Second, doesn't that violate NAP? Horribly? Under every circumstance?

  • Kure'i||

    A compelling interest is a very high standard when employed by the courts, usually along with the "No less strict alternative" standard.

    It's usually a good thing, because it's a high hurdle for the state to jump, though I can imagine it eventually being warped and turned into a horror, as identity politics become ever more enshrined in law.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement