Skip to content

Supreme Court Rules on Case of Baker Refusing to Bake a Cake for Gay Couple

The Supreme Bureaucrats have once again shown what a bunch of gutless wonders they are. They have ruled on a “baker refusing to bake a cake for gay wedding” case.

I didn’t read through the whole opinion, but I heard discussions about it on various talk shows and Nina Totenberg’s report on NPR. (Is she still there?)

From what I heard, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s (Is he still there?) opinion criticized the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its anti-religion, anti-Christian sentiment against the Christian baker. Kennedy et al. seemed to take the case mainly to reprimand the Colorado bureaucracy for not being “inclusive” enough, as the opinion sounded like it was laced with SJW crapola throughout.

But the gutless wonders didn’t really address the “civil rights” laws in question, or the property rights and freedom of association rights of the baker involved in any real way.

The 7-2 opinion, with liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, left the important constitutional principles up in the air, with no actual issue being clarified in any way. Two other liberals on the high court, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative majority.

And the Bureaucrats didn’t address the questions of whether business owners have a right to refuse serving customers, or a right to refuse to do extra labor to serve others, involuntarily. Those are the main questions here.

Regardless of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says, yes, free people do have a right to associate with, do business with, establish contracts with, anyone they want to, as long as it’s voluntary. And they also have a right to NOT associate with, NOT do business with, NOT establish contracts with, anyone they DON’T want to. This is because the business in question is privately owned. The owner owns one’s own life, one’s own person, one’s labor, and one’s business or property. Privately owned businesses are not owned by the government, they are not owned by the community, they are not owned by one’s neighbors.

The problem with the Civil Rights Act is that it should only have addressed public property, government-run operations such as the schools, the buses and subways, the parks, etc. Everyone is a part of the “public” and has a right of access to those things. (I know, it should not be that way in a free society, gubmint should not control schools or transportation, but that’s the way it is right now.)

But the Civil Rights Act included privately owned businesses, which made them no longer privately owned (only on paper). Hotels, restaurants, diners, and other like businesses were considered “public accommodations,” so therefore, to the anti-liberty illogic of the U.S. Congress, all of the “public” had a right of access, regardless of what the owners-on-paper wanted.

But now, EVERY business, regardless of its privately-owned status, is a “public accommodation,” including bakeries, photography businesses, and so on. And also now, “Civil Rights” goes beyond just skin color and race, and one’s sex or religious views, but now it includes the “sexual orientation” and “transgender” protected groups.

So the cowardly, ignorant Supreme Bureaucrats are so afraid of recognizing an individual’s right to pick and choose with whom to do business and for any reason, and so afraid of appearing “anti-LGBT,” they came up with this confused ruling (that nevertheless sided with the Christian bakers).

The LGBT activists are getting ready to go to more bakeries, photographers, and florists to threaten with lawsuits to extort money from them, as well as drag the businesspeople’s lives through the courts. And this, even though if refused service the activists will very easily be able to go to other bakeries, photographers, and florists to do work for them, which is what most of the “victims” in these cases were still able to easily do anyway. But the activists felt it important to ruin lives in the name of legally forcing others to show acceptance of their lifestyle.

The LGBT activists’ narcissistic compulsion to force others to accept their lifestyle is what motivates them in these cases. And we can safely conclude that based on most of the people in these cases being able to find plenty of other businesses in their area who will serve their needs, bake them a same-sex wedding cake, take pictures at their wedding, etc.

The bottom line for me: Either the private business people have a right to not do business with anyone and for any reason, or the ones who are refused have a right to force the business people to do extra labor to serve them, involuntarily. That is the choice.

Published inUncategorized