Should Black-Owned Bakeries Be Forced to Make Confederate-Themed Cakes?
Have you noticed that the homosexual rights movement has been silent over what’s happening about the removal of monuments? Could it be that the demand to remove offensive images is damaging the argument that bakers, florists, and photographers should be forced to serve same-sex marriage ceremonies?
There are beliefs and views that offend people, so much so that there are calls for their removal. Millions of dollars are pouring into the Southern Poverty Law Center to expose “hate groups.” Once exposed, do people have the right not to service their operation or business? Sure they do. No one should be forced to accommodate a view they disagree with. If it’s OK for anti-Confederates to oppose Confederate opinions, memorials, and services, it seems to me that it should be OK for anyone to oppose and not accommodate other types of offending opinions and actions.
Should a black-owned bakery be forced to make a cake with a Confederate flag emblazoned on it designed for a Confederate-themed wedding? I don’t believe a baker should be forced to make any cake for whatever reason. The cracks are beginning to widen in the argument that business owners should be forced to supply an advertised service for any or all who request it no matter what the subject matter.
A Wisconsin Circuit Court announced … that it will rule a Christian photographer can declare her faith-based intent not to take photos at homosexual “weddings” because her business does not have a storefront.
Trending: What ‘Spocking’ Tells Us About Our Money
The court said her online business would not be prosecuted under a Dane County law banning “discrimination” based on “sexual orientation.”
Evangelical Christian Amy Lawson, who describes herself as “a Madison portrait and wedding photographer with a passion for telling visual stories that glorify God,” had once advertised publicly that she would not take photos that promote homosexual “marriage” (or abortion or racism). (LifeSiteNews)
Does this mean that if a Jewish-owned bakery that has a storefront it will be forced to make a cake for a Nazi-themed wedding or a Jewish-owned printer will be forced to print signs for a pro-Nazi protest march?
The homosexual lobby has been able to carve out special protections for their position that are not afforded to others.
If on a particular day a pro-Confederate, a pro-Nazi, and a pro-homosexual walked into three separate bakeries and asked for a cake, only two of the bakeries could refuse and not be fined even though the argument for each refusal would be the same.
This is not equal justice under the law; it’s a perversion of justice.
It seems that only Leftists can discriminate against what they consider offensive opinions. PayPal shut down the accounts of Robert Spencer’s “Jihad Watch” and Pamela Geller’s “American Freedom Defense Initiative” based on the company’s Acceptable Use Policy in their User Agreement. Why does PayPal get to have an Acceptable Use Policy but not florists, bakers, and photographers? It was only after public pressure that PayPal reinstated the accounts.
Valerie Plame Wilson, who was revealed to be a covert CIA operations officer in a 2003 leak, “is fundraising to buy a controlling share of Twitter so … she can ban President Trump from the social media platform.” (Washington Examiner)
Those on the Left are OK with banning certain types of speech, opinions, and people by private companies but deny that same right to people they disagree with.
The essence of liberty is to be able to what you want with what’s yours. If Plame and her supporters can raise billions of dollars to gain a controlling interest in Twitter, then ban away. But the new controlling interests in Twitter will have to deal with the public. The same is true of a bakery that refuses to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. There may be market costs, but that’s the free market, not the government.