Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips for his refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The ruling was a travesty, not because the Court ruled in favor of Phillips, but because the Court refused to take a principled stand.
The basis of the Court’s decision was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility towards the baker’s religious beliefs. Apparently, if the commission had been less hostile, the Court would have ruled against Phillips. But the essential issue isn’t whether a government agency expresses hostility; the essential issue is freedom of association (and by extension, property rights.)
If Phillips does not want to associate with gays, that is his right. It is his right as a private citizen, and it is his right as the owner of a bakery. If he doesn’t want to have gays over for dinner, he should be free to act on that choice. If he doesn’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings, he should be free to act on that choice. His reasons are irrelevant. He has a moral right to act on his own judgment, so long as he respects the right of others to do the same.
As a business owner, this means that he has a right to trade with those whom he chooses on terms that are mutually acceptable. If he does not want to trade with someone, no matter the reason, he has a right to act accordingly. Just as a gay baker (or any baker for that matter) has a right to refuse to make a cake with anti-gay wording, a homophobe has a right to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple.
Each individual has a moral right to associate and trade with those he chooses. He doesn’t lose this right when he opens a business. If his choices are irrational (and I think homophobia is irrational), then he will suffer accordingly. Certainly, some will patronize Masterpiece Cakeshop because of its homophobia. But enlightened individuals will take their business elsewhere.
Gays claimed that this was an issue of “gay rights.” Phillips and his supporters claimed it was an issue of “religious rights.” Both are wrong. This is an issue of individual rights. Fundamentally, it has nothing to do with sexual preference or religion.
If each individual has a right to associate with those of his choosing, then gays have a right to marry. And businesses have a right to refuse service to those they don’t like. It is wrong to deny gays their rights as individuals. It is equally wrong to deny Phillips his rights as an individual, and that includes his right to be irrational. The travesty of the Court’s ruling is that it didn’t defend these rights on principle.