The infamous “gay wedding cake” case hits the Supreme Court this Tuesday.
You might assume that a conservative court will decide in favor of the baker who didn’t want to make the wedding cake for the gay couple because it goes against his beliefs. However, it was a similarly conservative Supreme Court that upheld Obamacare 5 years ago. So assume and expect nothing!
The best comment I’ve yet read on the case is the following, posted at the Daily Signal:
Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner, Jack Phillips, has the right to do business with whom he wants. It is rather hypocritical of two men in a same-sex relationship—who demand the right to their lifestyle and beliefs—to adamantly impose their views on Mr. Phillips.
That couple should have found another business to make a custom cake for their wedding, and left this man alone.—Leila Martin
If you ask me, the gay couple and the Christian baker should not be legal adversaries. They should be on the same side. Why? Because they share one very profound principle in common: The right to private property.
The right to private property is what enables these two men — consenting adults — to have the sexual and romantic relationship of their choice in their own homes, regardless of what anyone else says. The Christian baker has no right to use the force of government to prevent these men from having sexual relations. It would never even occur to the Christian baker or the gay couple to suggest such a thing.
So why does the Christian baker have no right to private property while the gay couple not only has a right to private property, but a right to enter the private business of the bakery and impose their will? It’s a profound injustice of the kind that can only come back to haunt the gay couple — some day.
How so? A government that in 2017 has the right to force a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake will, under a different type of political correctness, have the ability to turn the tables in 2027 or 2057.
The gay rights movement should never have been about gay rights or group rights. It should always have been about individual rights. The most basic and obvious implementation of individual rights is private property. Where private property is upheld, the gay couple will have to shop somewhere else for a cake. Or even bake their own. Or perhaps go without a cake.
But the alternative is a heck of a lot worse.
Here’s hoping the Supreme Court not only makes the right decision, but makes the right decision for the right reasons. I’ll be honest when I tell you: I’m not holding my breath.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1