Via the Daily Wire
The Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case today. Ben Shapiro has already provided a helpful refresher on the case, which you can read here. If you’re too lazy to click the link, here are the basic bullet points:
-Jack Phillips owns and operates a bakery called Masterpiece Cakeshop.
-Phillips is a devout Christian.
-Phillips used to make beautiful cakes, but is no longer permitted to do so.
-He’s no longer permitted to make cakes because one time, a few years ago, he declined to decorate a cake for a gay wedding.
-I say “decorate a cake” not “make,” because he was perfectly willing to sell the gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a cake. He was willing to sell them any pastry they wanted. But, due to his religious beliefs, he couldn’t decorate it with a gay wedding theme.
-Phillips had also in the past refused to decorate Halloween cakes and divorce party cakes. Nobody ever complained about that.
-Rather than respond like empathetic, decent, civilized human beings, Mullins and Craig decided to embark on a five-year campaign to ruin Phillips and destroy his business.
-The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decreed that Phillips can no longer make any cakes for anyone, and he must provide gay-friendly “reeducation” to his employees.
-Phillips lost 40% of his business and had to fire half of his work force.
-Now the Supreme Court will decide whether a private citizen can be legally compelled to create a piece of art celebrating something they find morally objectionable.
Those are the fundamental facts of the case. Now, here are a few other things to keep in mind as you read about the oral arguments and await the final decision:
The First Amendment is on trial, not Jack Phillips. If Phillips loses, free speech is effectively finished in this country. If a Christian business owner can be forced by the state to create something that goes against his deeply held religious beliefs — beliefs shared by a majority of the world, by the way — then what function does the First Amendment really serve?
Phillips doesn’t need the First Amendment when he makes a birthday cake. He doesn’t need it when he cooks a batch of brownies. He doesn’t need it when he’s doing innocuous things that no one — not even the gay lobby — could possibly find offensive or upsetting. He needs it precisely when he’s faced with the dilemma that Mullins and Craig presented. He needs it when he makes a decision, grounded in his religious convictions, which will be upsetting to a powerful group like the LGBT lobby. If he doesn’t have it then, he doesn’t have it at all.
If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the gay lobby, what next? If gays have a mystical right to force their fellow citizens to participate in their gay weddings, where does that right end? I’ll tell you: it doesn’t. If Phillips goes down, the churches will be next. And why not? If we’ve just established that gays are a special and superior class of human beings, and their desire for a cake decorated a particular way now must supersede everyone else’s First Amendment rights, why should the churches be exempt? Indeed, if Phillips doesn’t have the right to withhold his cake, why should the local priest have the right to withhold his church? He doesn’t, in that case. He won’t. Mark my words.
Because LGBT rights don’t exist. Your gayness does not come with special rights and privileges. Your sexual proclivities have no bearing on anything. We all have the same rights, or we should. That’s what “equal protection” means.
Phillips is not claiming any special rights. He is simply saying that he, like anyone, is entitled to use his artistic abilities in a way consistent with his personal and religious convictions. He doesn’t want to advance a message he doesn’t believe. It is his fundamental human right — not his Christian right, or his baker’s right, or any other kind of right — to refrain.
Mullins and Craig, on the other hand, are saying that a special exception must be made for them, specifically, because they’re gay. Notice how nobody is challenging (for now) Phillips’ right to continue turning down Halloween cakes and divorce cakes and lewd bachelorette party cakes, etc. Mullins and Craig are arguing that their situation is different because they’re gay. Whereas a man’s love for Halloween does not entitle him to special privileges and protections, a man’s sexual attraction to other men does. That’s the argument.
It’s deranged, arbitrary, and un-American.
Let’s be clear about the real victim in this situation. Phillips — the decent, hardworking Christian business owner, who employed members of his community and provided a valuable service — is the victim. He did not seek out this notoriety. He did not want to be at the center of a national controversy. He just wanted to make his cakes and live his life. He was a decent, normal man, living a decent, normal, inconspicuous life. Until Mullins and Craig walked in the door.
The same thing happened in Oregon with Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of the shop, were bombarded with death threats and hounded in social media. After months of litigation, they decided to close up the business and move it to their home.
They deliberately target shops they know will decline their demands. The fucking sissies don’t have the guts to try that shit with a muslim bakery.