Gay Cake Case 7-2 Supreme Court Decision

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The case regarding the Christian Baker not wanting to bake a cake with a homosexual message on it for religious reasons is not about civil rights, or discrimination.  Our rights don't work that way.

In the Declaration of Independence our rights are listed as having four characteristics:

◦ Individually Entitled: Our rights are not collective rights, they are individual rights entitled to us by the laws of nature and of nature's God.

◦ Self-Evident: As a virtuous people, our rights are apparent to each one of us.  We know what is a right, what isn't a right, and to what extent those rights reach.

◦ Endowed by our Creator: Our rights are God-given, God-defined, and can only be taken away by He who gave us our rights in the first place.  God existed long before government did.

◦ Unalienable: Our rights belong to us and cannot be separated from us.  While our rights are our possession, tyrannical governments always seek to compromise our rights.  Government, historically, tends to be the greatest threat to Natural Rights.  This is why the First Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law."  The Second Amendment ends with, "Shall not be infringed."  The Third Amendment begins with, "No soldier shall."  The Fourth Amendment at its core reads, "shall not be violated."  The Bill of Rights was not written to tell the federal government to guarantee our rights.  The Bill of Rights was written to tell the federal government "hands off our rights."

The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution use the word "secure" when it comes to the government's job regarding our rights.  Secure, as in to "keep in place".  It is government's job not to protect and guarantee our rights, but to secure our rights, keep them in the possession of the individual citizens, against not only external threats, but against government forces, as well.

Since our rights are our own possession, they are our responsibility.

There is a saying.  "With freedom comes responsibility."  The same goes for our rights.

I have a right to swing my arms, but not to swing them into your nose.  You have a right to not be punched in the nose, and I have the duty to ensure I am responsible with that right to swing my arms so that I don't punch you in the nose.

In the Declaration of Independence, it states we have certain unalienable rights, including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Notice, it doesn't say you have a right to happiness, but the right to pursue that happiness.

I don't have a right to health care.  I do have a right to pursue health care.

We all have a right to go into the free market and seek products for our consumption, but we don't have a right to force particular businesses to provide us with particular services or products.

Could you imagine if I decided to sue a tennis racket maker for not making me a baseball bat?  How about suing a Muslim store for not selling me a crucifix?  How about suing a gay baker for not making an anti-homosexual cake?

The whole cake baking controversy where a Christian baker decided not to make a homosexual message for a gay wedding cake is a ridiculous case.  It's not discrimination because the perceived rights of the gay couple cannot, or at least is not supposed to, extend into the religious rights of the baker.  The gay couple has the right to pursue someone baking a cake for them, but they don't have a right to force them to make it exactly the way they want it.  Besides, there were other bakers available willing to make that message, and there were other designs the baker was willing to make for the gay couple.

That's why they push the "I was born that way" narrative.  The thought is that if homosexuality can be proven to be a scientific fact, and the other is a religious belief, then they believe their "scientifically proven civil right" would outrank the Christian's right to his belief.

Once again, that is not how rights work.  There is no ranking system.  Rights are rights, and one right is not supposed to interfere with another right, and if there is going to be some kind of interference, the participants are supposed to be responsible enough to be reasonable about the whole thing.

I believe in part, the 7-2 Supreme Court decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission used the arguments I have provided about the "extent" of one's rights.

Regardless of what you think your right is, it has no allowance to extend beyond the edge of the next person's right, such as how the radical gay agenda seeks to create a scenario that establishes an institutionalized hostility toward religion.  The United States Supreme Court, at least, recognized that those kinds of attacks against religious liberties have no place in America.

For those of you not aware of the case in question, Masterpiece Cakeshop cake artist, Jack Phillips, said he could not in good conscience design and create custom wedding cakes that celebrate same-sex marriages. The court held that the state of Colorado was “neither tolerant nor respectful” of Phillips’ beliefs about marriage. The court pointed out that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed “clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection.”

The Supreme Court also noted, “Religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted, "[T]here’s no indication the bakers actually intended to refuse service because of a customer’s protected characteristic. We know this because all of the bakers explained without contradiction that they would not sell the requested cakes to anyone, while they would sell other cakes to members of the protected class (as well as to anyone else)."

Therefore, it was not discrimination against the person, but instead a decision that the subject matter would not be something the bakers would create on the cakes.

“Disagreement is not always discrimination.” And this is true when it comes to disagreements about same-sex marriage.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary