Skip to content

Gay Wedding Cakes at the Supreme Court

Well, the “gay wedding cake issue” is in the news again, as the Supreme Bureaucrats have heard the case of the Colorado baker who for religious reasons refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding.

This “gay civil rights” and “transgender civil rights” stuff these days shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has obviously expanded beyond its intention, which was to outlaw “Jim Crow” laws and forbid governments, bureaucrats and government-run functions from discriminating against people based on race, religious beliefs, and sex.

Now “civil rights” means allowing people to enslave others to serve them, involuntarily. It is beyond mere trespassing and extortion.

The problem with that Civil Rights Act is that it didn’t just apply to government-run functions (such as schools, parks, city buses, etc.) and public property, but it also applied to private property as well, privately-owned property, whether businesses or functions otherwise known as “public accommodations.”

I can see why by 1964 the separation between public and private property had been blurred, given how the 1913 income tax allowed the federal government to seize private wealth and order the people to have to report their income, their wages and earnings to the bureaucrats. Such “private” property had thus become the property of the State by its own decree. After that point, anything is fair game now. Anyone can use the armed force of government to steal and plunder the income, earnings and savings of one’s neighbors, or live off the work and productivity of others without their voluntary consent.

And obviously the Social Security system which started in the 1930s and Medicare and Medicaid of the 1960s pretty much sealed that. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s usurpation of private property now known as “public accommodations,” anyone can sue anyone else for “refusal of service” (or refusal to allow trespass) for any reason. Anyone can forcibly compel private property owners to serve them, let them in or on their property, or associate with them, involuntarily.

And private property is private property, by the way. It is privately owned. And our bodies are our own private property, including the labor we expend. We have the right to decide how we arrange the products of our labor, whom to do business with, etc.

And also it doesn’t matter how big the property or business is, how much of an income the businesspeople have. Private property is no less privately owned (and thus no more publicly owned) the bigger it is or the larger the income the owners have.

And so the idea of freedom of thought and conscience or religious beliefs isn’t really relevant here. The baker and his legal team in the “gay wedding cake” case are using the wrong arguments.

Their arguments should be based on private property rights and freedom of association.

Either private property owners are the owners of their own private property, including their businesses, their homes, churches, schools, etc., or they share in ownership of those things with others, with the community, the government, and so on. It’s either one or the other.

So either A has a right to force B to do extra labor to serve A or associate with A involuntarily, or B has a right to not serve or associate with A for ANY reason.

Those are the two choices: freedom or compulsory association. There is no in-between, there is no “grey area.”

It doesn’t matter if someone is “racist,” anti-homosexual, anti-transgender, whatever. The prospective consumer can easily find someone else who will be of service. In most of these recent “civil rights” cases, the prospective customers who were turned away were easily able to find someone else to serve them. But, being social activists, they sued the bakers, photographers, florists, mainly to punish those people for their views, and extort money from them as well.

But regarding “civil rights,” when we go beyond the areas of race and religious belief, and into the areas of lifestyle choices, those who don’t want to associate with others, based on lifestyle differences, have a right to exercise their freedom of thought and conscience on their own private property. The business owner’s own business is one’s own private property, it is not owned or co-owned by the community or by the government.

For these reasons, it is necessary to either repeal the entire Civil Rights Act of 1964, or amend it to only apply to government-run functions or public property but not apply to private property.

On this current Supreme Court case, I don’t expect any renewed respect for private property rights. And if the Supreme Bureaucrats do rule in favor of the baker, it will be based on “religious liberty,” although there may still be a superficial mention of “private property” in some way. (Would they rule in favor of atheist bakers who refuse to serve a Christian couple? Many conservatives, including the ones on Salem Radio who don’t understand private property, would probably say no on that. Hey, “religious liberty” and all that. )

The rulers and their judicial bureaucrats know that if we restore private property rights, we will then have to go after all “civil rights” laws, all income tax-thefts imposed by governments and all programs of forced redistribution including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Published inUncategorized