Article from The Ron Paul Institute by Ron Paul.
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case stems from the refusal of Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery, to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The bakery was found guilty of a civil rights violation and ordered to stop refusing to bake and design cakes because they are for same-sex weddings. The bakery was also required to file reports on the steps it takes to comply and whether it turns down any prospective customers.
The decision to force the bakery to change its business practices reflects a mistaken concept of rights. Those who support government intervention in this case view rights as a gift from government. Therefore, they think politicians and bureaucrats can and should distribute and redistribute rights. This view holds it is completely legitimate to use government force to make bakeries bake cakes for same-sex weddings since the government-created right to a cake outweighs the rights of property and contract.
This view turns the proper concept of rights on its head. Rights are not gifts from government, so the government cannot restrict them unless we engage in force or fraud. The bakery did not use force to stop any same-sex couple from getting a wedding cake. It simply exercised its right to decide who it would accept as a customer. No one would support private individuals forcing bakery employees to bake a cake at gunpoint, so why is it right for the government to do it?
Some people claim that forcing the bakery to bake the cake is consistent with libertarianism. The reason they make this claim is they view the bakery’s actions as rooted in bigotry toward homosexuals. But even if this were true, it would not justify government intervention. Bigots and others with distasteful views have the right to use their property as they choose. The way to combat bigotry is through boycotts and other means of peaceful persuasion.
Read the entire article at The Ron Paul Institute.
Image Credit:Â By Gage Skidmore (Flickr: Ron Paul) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
wpDiscuz
This is why the first settlers abandoned their masters in Europe and came to a new world. It’s why they rejected King George and declared war. It’s why the U.S. joined the Allies in 1917 and 1941. An even though they think they are, judges aren’t even kings. If these cretins push free people too far, it’ll end badly, starting with them and ending in an unimaginable conflagration.
Excellent comments, all three above. My thoughts are that if I want to rent out some property, I am not allowed to discriminate against renting it to certain people by law. Makes no difference if they are unemployed drug addicts with prison records. How is this discrimination different, especially if it is a contract? Is harm done? Was bussing school children wrong? Is the government’s effort to prevent senior citizens and veterans from gun ownership a violation of the second amendment or justifiable crime prevention? Isn’t it discrimination against them, too? Pretty soon government overreach will affect everyone all the time, and that’s when freedom is lost for good. The gay couple wanting the cake should have just gone somewhere else, quit whining, and left the bakery alone, in my estimation. The bakery owners have rights, too. The Hobby Lobby ruling should be the precedent.
it’s NONE of the GOVTS BUSINESS ON THIS AND MANY MORE ISSUES.
I agree with all comments & not with the Supreme Court!
How could such learned individuals go so wrong?
100% agree the government has no business in this matter, whatsoever!