A big headliner in the news lately is the Supreme Court Case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This case originated when Christian bakers refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Since then, leftists have seized the opportunity to label the bakers as “homophobes” or “discriminating” in their actions to deny the gay couple their wedding cake. They argue that the couple were victims of discrimination that is being masked as religious freedom. Alternatively, the opposing side argues that the bakers’ denial of their service is a free speech right and that they are acting in conviction of their own personal religious beliefs. The two sides recently presented their arguments to the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Overall, I absolutely do believe that the Christian bakers have the right to religious freedom, but for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on this idea would prove flimsy. Yes, the Constitution protects the right to believe in any belief system, but whether or not one can practice any belief is still a gray area. In other words, while it is constitutionally protected to attend church on Sundays and pray in public, is it constitutionally protected to throw gays off of buildings? Additionally, is it constitutionally protected to sacrifice living human beings? Just because something is a religious belief does not mean it can be permitted. Due to the fact that the case revolves around the actions of religious bakers, I would argue that the Supreme Court case should not be ruled on the grounds of “religious freedom.”
While I do hold those beliefs, I would not agree with leftists that the Court should rule in favor of the gay couple. No, this is not about “gay rights,” those so-called “rights” don’t exist for a whole community, and for the Court to rule in favor of the gay couple would infringe on personal liberty. Such a ruling would set the precedent that individuals have a right to someone else’s services and goods. But despite the fact that I wholeheartedly disagree with leftists on their opinion of the case, I do agree with their phrase “It’s Not About The Cake” because it’s not–it’s about property.
Property is the one idea this case revolves around, therefore, the Supreme Court should rule in favor of the Christian bakers, and the majority opinion should argue on the grounds that ownership of the cake shop automatically grants the bakers the right to run their business however they please, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of their customers, which they have not done because the right for the gay couple to receive a wedding cake simply does not exist. In this manner, the Court would uphold the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while at the same time recognizing the right to business autonomy, an implied right protected by the 9th Amendment.
Ultimately, this Supreme Court case is a perfect microcosm of what America was built on. This nation fought for the right to be free and independent. If the Court rules in favor of the Christian bakers, that sentiment will not be lost, and liberty and freedom would continue to reign supreme in this nation. A ruling in this direction would also impede the left-wing movement that calls to raise taxes, take away guns, impose socialist dogma on US citizens, and coerce us to give up individual rights. With no doubt, the Christian bakers winning their case would be a big plus for America.