In a Facebook post, Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson explains why the State should be allowed to force bakers and florists to participate in gay weddings even if such participation goes against their religious beliefs.
In a nationally-televised debate among three of the Libertarian candidates for President (A debate that should, by the way, have been more inclusive of all the candidates.), a highly unlikely hypothetical question was raised about whether a Jewish baker has the right to refuse to serve a Nazi sympathizer asking for a “Nazi cake”. I responded to that question in the legal context of whether a public business has the right to refuse to serve a member of the public, as distasteful as it might be.
The simple answer to that question is, whether all like it or not, U.S. law has recognized the principle of public accommodation for more than 100 years: The principle that, when a business opens its doors to the public, that business enters into an implied contract to serve ALL of the public. Further, when that business voluntarily opens its doors, the owners voluntarily agree to adhere to applicable laws and regulations — whether they like those laws or not.
To be clear, anti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency — not to mention the First Amendment — all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It’s not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.
Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be.
Of course, we all know that this conversation is really “code” for the current, and far more real, conversation about society’s treatment of LGBT individuals. I have even heard some talk of a “right to discriminate”. And of course, we have states and municipalities today trying to create a real right to discriminate against the LGBT community on religious grounds — the same kinds of “religious” grounds that were used to defend racial segregation, forbid interracial marriages and, yes, defend discrimination against Jews by businesses. That is not a slope Libertarians want to go down.
Once again, my belief that discrimination on the basis of religion should not be allowed has been distorted by some to suggest that a legitimate church or its clergy should be “forced” to perform a same-sex marriage. That is absurd. The various ballot initiatives I supported across the country to repeal bans on same-sex marriage all had one provision in common: A specific provision making clear that no religious organization, priest or pastor could be required to perform any rite contrary to that organization’s or individual’s faith. That protection was supported almost universally by the LGBT community — even though most legal scholars agreed that such a protection already exists in the Constitution. We just wanted to leave no doubt.
I was the first major candidate in the 2012 presidential campaign to call for full marriage equality, and Libertarians have long stood for equal treatment under the law for all Americans. As your candidate for President, I will not tarnish that record.
He’s wrong, of course. Public accommodation laws arose from the necessity to protect travelers from harm way back when being denied a room in an inn or a meal at a tavern could be a matter of life-or-death. Getting one’s feelings hurt because someone doesn’t cheer one’s lifestyle does not rise to the level of harm that warrants state involvement. His assertion that the law trumps individual conscience is an odd one for someone who claims to be a libertarian; the Jim Crow laws forced merchants to discriminate even if they didn’t want to, because “It’s the law.”
If a bakery (or a florist, or a photographer) doesn’t want to participate in your wedding, there is a simple solution that doesn’t involve the State, go to another baker. Someone else will be gladly accept the business.
Forcing those who religiously object to gay marriage to participate in gay marriage ceremonies is an act of forced political speech in a way that just selling a generic cake to a gay customer is not. It’s disheartening that Mr. Johnson cannot distinguish the difference. However, since his opinion on the matter is no different than Hillary’s or Trump’s, it isn’t a deal-breaker.
The problem, as see it, is that they don’t see the act of creating, decorating, delivering, setting up and serving a wedding cake as participating in the ceremony. They see it in the same light as going into a grocery and buying a pre-made cake.
It seems VERY odd to me that he says a Jewish Baker is protected against making a cake with a swastika on it, but a Christian Baker is not protected against making a cake that says “God Bless Your Marriage, Jim and Tom”.
Reading carefully, however, he answered the direct question, but really did not answer the implied one. He seemed to hesitate to directly say that a Christian had to make that cake.
Still pretending that making a dessert is participating in a wedding, V?
The difference between the wedding cakes and the Hitler cake is that the baker, whether Jewish or not, wouldn’t make the Hitler cake for *anyone*; the baker is not making it for whites and denying it to blacks. S/he wouldn’t make it for any customer.
But for marriage cakes, the Christian baker will make a wedding cake for straight people, but s/he refuses to make the same cake for gay people. Thus, the baker is discriminating on the basis of orientation.
Hope that helps clear it up for you. It’s not enough to ask, “Will I make this cake?” It’s a matter of “Do I intend to make it for some people but not for others?”
As I keep saying — when push comes to shove, most “libertarians” (especially the capital-L variety) will side with the leftists against the rightists.
What hmm_contrib said.
“It’s disheartening that Mr. Johnson cannot distinguish the difference.”
I think he knows the difference.
The thing to keep in mind is that most “libertarians” (especially the capital-L variety) are atheists, or at best, secularists. Therefore, for most of them, getting “religion” (i.e. Christianity) out of the public square is an important goal; and to get there requires silencing and suppressing Christians; and that requires State compulsion and violence.
It’s not that most libertarians “just want to be left alone”, it’s that they “want to do what they want to do” … and they don’t want to hear any “you shouldn’t do that”.
I think some of these gays who want a wedding cake make a big fuss of it due to their insecurities and anger at heteros.
For me, I have seen a few times that restaurants do not like the fact that I am homosexual. I don’t file a lawsuit, I just never go to that restaurant ever. One place was Texas Road Steakhouse, a truly mediocre place that no one should go to. The gay thing is not the primary reason. The food is just terrible. The other time was at a Greek place in Alexandria, VA. This was odd since it is in an area full of homosexuals. Plus that city is quite liberal.
How many times does it have to be explained to hmmm_contrib and CrayCray, that creating, decorating, delivering, assembling, and serving a wedding cake is a part of the ceremony, and as such, they are participating in the ceremony? This is not the same as walking into a bakery, finding a cake you like, buying it, and walking out. A creative process is involved, and to compel a baker to perform that duty is tantamount to requiring only certain speech. Dissent is not allowed. This is NOT “just a dessert”.
At the few weddings that I have attended, while the cake was an important feature, the baker wasn’t. The cake was displayed, then served. It’s part of the catering, not the ceremony. Personally, I just don’t buy this argument.
Your mileage may differ….
A KKcaKe is a custom made work, not just something you can pick up on short notice.
What ever happened to the gay yellowpages where you could support those that support you? Leftists believe they can make people like them by having a judge order people to do so. Its funny none of these puffs said a word when Steven Crowder did a hidden camera video of asking moslem baker to bake gay cakes.
As long as one gay KKcaKe lays unbaked or a bearded man in a wig is barred from the little girls bath room, the leftist fight against the crony 0.1% can wait.
Ted B., it depends on the cake. Multi-tiered cakes often require the baker present else they will not be able to disassemble the cake for serving. For example: this cake would need the baker there. Only they would know how to disassemble the cake for serving.
In addition, since the candidate claims that a Jewish baker is protected from making a cake with a swatika on it, because that would be considered speaking against his own religion, why is a Christian baker not protected from making a cake that says, “God Bless Your Marriage” with two grooms on it? To a Christian, that could be considered speaking against their own religion.
Now, if all they want is a stock wedding cake that they will pick up, I know of few bakers who would refuse that, since it is stock, and done for anyone and everyone.
I should have been more specific. I agree with the poor comparison between Nazis/Jews and Gays/Christians. Just reread Post #2.
Oh I think there are a few of the alleged Christian variety who would do that if they deduced that someone who would be purchasing a cake would be one of “those” couples. And in reality, how many wedding cakes would be pre-made ‘stock’, save perhaps in a few shops and supermarkets in and around Las Vegas? I have a relative and an acquaintance who’ve done quite well for themselves by making custom cakes, mostly for weddings.
Cakes are a big deal these days; one trip to the crafts aisle at your average Walmart displays as many cake and post-baking supplies as types of motor oil in the automotive department. And most professional or semi-professional bakers order supplies from trade distributors and wouldn’t think of going to Walmart for anything needed in their trade, outside of something very simple.
All that said, I can’t wait for the day when wedding cakes are indeed a stock item that resembles something out of Maoist fashion in the 1970s. Perhaps if they are bland and inconsequential enough, there won’t be any of the reception pressure to show who’s the dominant one in the relationship by trying to be the first to shove a piece into the face of the other dearly beloved. And the rest of us can finally go without hearing the whine of the perpetually aggrieved over yet another trivial item.
Oh, like the snowflakes in suburban Denver did when refused a cake by the evil, Christo-Nazi baker? From a gay-owned & operated business, no less? From a retail establishment who was happy to have the extra business, since their primary one deals in, um, novelty cakes? Yeah, well, doing that first doesn’t get you on the local evening news and with later video of you prancing outside of court, head high in supreme smugness. In other words, why just experience your ordinary special event when you can turn it into your own dramatic masterpiece, complete with state-sanctioned approval?
“They could just buy it elsewhere…” is an argument that side-steps the entire issue and ultimately undermines a man’s right — including the bigot’s right — to run his private business as he sees fit, including refusing a good or service to anyone for any reason.
I think you mean ‘ultimately enforces a man’s right’ Ignatius
No, the baker is discriminating on the basis of the EVENT (and the implied message sent by the event) at which the cake will be served. The baker does not want to expend personal effort to send the message “God approves of this Adam+Steve union.”
Gary Johnson also supports illegal immigration.