Why a Wedding Cake Baker’s Rights Matter

Cakeshop Owner Wins Lawsuit

By a narrow margin, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop bakery finally won the trial that was placed upon him. If you have not heard, in Colorado, a homosexual male couple went to Masterpiece Cakeshop bakery and requested a cake to celebrate an upcoming wedding ceremony. The owner cordially explained they were welcome to a cake, but due to religious beliefs, and because same-sex marriages were illegal at the time in Colorado, he would not custom design the cake for the ceremony.

The unhinged Left went crazy, dragging the baker through the ringer and the courts. It started with a complaint claiming the baker violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Following protocol, the Colorado Civil Rights Division investigated. After finding probable cause, the complaint was forwarded to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who decided a formal hearing before a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was warranted. The ALJ ruled against the baker, ordered staff training, policy changes, and quarterly compliance reports for two years. The baker stood his ground, fighting for his rights through the Colorado Court of Appeals, and in the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Monday, June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decision reversed the Colorado Court of Appeals, vindicating the baker’s First Amendment rights, citing that “the Commission’s treatment... violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.” It states, “The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.” Further, “When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.”

Weaponizing Sexuality, Claiming Discrimination

The baker’s case evidence gives some validity to the claim that a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) will seek out Christian establishments for the sole purpose of baiting them. Once lured into a seemingly unwelcome engagement, the "discrimination" card is played. Next, the SJW culture weaponizes the judicial process and legislation upon such establishments. If these customers were normal and sane folks, they would take their business elsewhere, post a negative review on Yelp and move on. However, because the business was owned and operated by a Christian, SJWs made them public enemy number one.

Here is why this case matters. When someone weaponizes their sexuality to impede upon the religious beliefs of another person, it becomes a tangled tug-of-war match between freedoms. The Left has been heaping on the mud into that quagmire for the last decade with identity politics. Reasonable people have gotten tired of it.

Free Market

This case matters because it is an attempt to circumvent the free market. The free marketplace is where businesses live or die based on supply and demand, customer service, and innovation. If any of those concepts do not work in favor of the business, then the business dies. Vice versa, if a business thrives on all three of these concepts, then the business lives. The owners determine how they run their business, within the law. If a business owner wants to utilize their faith to run their business on the principles of their faith system, then it should be honored, right? Imagine if the owner was Muslim: Muslims denies gay wedding cakes.

Can the Discrimination Card be Used Here?

What is funny is that in their selective outrage, the Left has not called into account the discrimination argument in Silicon Valley. Arguably, it is because social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and others are mere Leftist propaganda machines.

Twitter has done everything from shadowbanning conservatives to outright kicking people off the platform without so much as a warning. Those kicked out are usually conservatives (consider our own Tamara Leigh).

Facebook has been noted to curate ads and content to "benefit the user.” Many consider the relevant benefit to the user to be that which Facebook believes you want to see. Same can be said for Youtube, who curates your subscriptions to where they will notify you of what they believe you want to see and not the subscriptions you wish to view.

YouTube and by proxy, Google, has a history of demonetizing videos and restricting content that they believe goes against their very vague, broadly defined "Community Guidelines." Two very powerful examples of the hypocritical discriminating censorship: Steven Crowder and Dennis Prager's conversation about Human Nature were deemed "restricted content," meaning kids in libraries and schools will not be able to view the 40+ minute video on the nature of man. On the other end of the spectrum is the harmful and mentally detrimental Logan and Jake Paul videos that received large amounts of backlash for content, which were not restricted. Logan Paul took his team to a Japanese forest infamously known as "Suicide Forest" and actually filmed a suicide victim.

Gentle As Doves but Wise As Serpents

Social media platforms can do whatever they want since they are private companies. When they infringe on free speech and curate content favoring their own narrative, it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Compare this to the baker’s private business. He followed the law and his beliefs, yet was vilified and accused of discrimination.

Weaponization of legislation and discrimination occurs. We need to know our rights fully, extensively, and utilize them for our defense. Otherwise, someone with an agenda will knock on our proverbial door and force us to cowtail to them. We must not be lazy. Whether it be matters of faith, politics, culture, or debates, we need to be better. We need to get smarter, wiser, more cunning, more shrewd with our dealings, more active, more aware of what we believe, and why we believe it.

So let us begin refining what we know and be more active in defending that knowledge, honing it to a sharp edge to use it to both attack bad ideas and defend our rights while doing so, our rights depend on it.

John Lee / Senior Contributor
I am a conservative, Christian Asian who loves God, country, and music. I am proud to be American and want to MAGA!
previous article
Newer Post
next article
Older Post

  1. We go back and forth, don't we? We don't want to serve for religious reasons, but we also don't want Muslim no-go zones. Solution? Don't mix cultures. There is no coexist. There is only dominance, and whoever controls the law, controls the dominance. Short of that, guns and revolution, but then a new law and new boss.

    Am I against bakers' rights? Heck no! In fact, I am for whatever commerce you want to do. If that attracts people or repels people, so be it. The Left is AFRAID it will attract people to do as they really like, and this means the Left loses control of the narrative, the streets, the cops, the media, and the laws.

    My 2c

  2. This piece hits the nail on the head.

  3. The baker's rights mattered. Why should anyone be surprised by this? The free market is just that. You as a consumer can choose the business(s) that you like, and likewise a business can create or sell the products they choose to sell. It's not about discrimination it's about the freedom of the business as much as the consumer.




Email *

Message *