It’s Not About Baking The Cake, It’s About Property Rights


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 notit’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.


  1. It is about property rights but more importantly it’s about the human right to discriminate even when it offends others. Like our freedom of speech there are no limits unless it does actual harm and offended feelings are not actual harm.

  2. This case is one of the main reasons why I now refer myself as a common-sense (first and always), Libertarian (second) conservative (third). The baker should be allowed to serve anyone he/she wishes. But that does not mean the baker should be shielded from being exposed and boycotted. He may not be a homophobe, but his actions are homophobic. Since being exposed, he’s lost 40% of his business. This shows that there is tremendous power in the act of shaming. It also shows that in a free-market system, the ultimate voting power is done with the wallet (as it should be), and that wallet is colorblind.

    Nobody is asking him to attend the wedding, throw rice at the newlyweds, or anything else, other than simply bake a cake. While I understand that this baker has said he wouldn’t bake a cake to “celebrate” other “sinful” activities, I’d bet the farm that most of these Talibangelicals would have no problem providing services to adulterers, divorced people and other “sinners,” thus exposing their inherent hypocrisy. Nevertheless, they should be allowed to be as hypocritical as they want.

    The fly in the ointment, however, is that we already have anti-discrimination laws in action that were necessary at the time to battle the poisonous effects of Jim Crow, but are now unnecessary relics. I seriously doubt there is enough willpower in Congress or elsewhere to recognize times have changed for the better and to take the bold step of dismantling these outdated and ultimately counterproductive laws. Thus, unfortunately, SCOTUS has no other option but to act.

Comments are closed.

Latest from Law

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.