The Supreme Court has ruled (7 to 2) in favor of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Those who are pleased by the ruling proclaim a victory for religious liberty. Those against the ruling liken it to blacks not being seated in restaurants. Though I like the result, I don't much care for the religious liberty reasoning. I'm more of an extremist.
All transactions between private people must be consensual. If Nazi Nick doesn't want to service Jews in his business, the government should not force him to do so. If Klansman Keith doesn't want African American patrons in his business, then he should have the right to refuse service. Of course, this works both ways. Jews and African American business owners can refuse service to Nazis and Klansmen. Government is a different matter. The State of Alabama or the City of New York must treat all people equally. As such, the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, Votes for Women, and so forth were absolutely required. Government is disallowed from being a racist or a bigot but it cannot criminalize that in its citizens. The correct way to purge racism, bigotry, sexism, and other prejudices is through private ostracism. That is a long and slow process. It is so much quicker to pummel the racist and sexist bigots with the coercive government. Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it criminalized the right of private individuals to choose to do business or not do business with whomever they chose. People should be free to be miserable human beings. Forced virtue is no virtue at all. That's a hard argument to sell and is partly why Goldwater was obliterated in the 1964 election.
As Ron Paul said in his farewell address to the House of Representatives, freedom is a hard sell:
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.
As Jefferson may have said (it has often been attributed to him), "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Vigilance is hard work. The promises of politicians to do all the hard work for the citizens is enticing. It is laborious and time consuming to debate the racists and the sexists and the bigots while it is comparatively easy to pass a law and sic the cops on them. Sure, that punishes the bad think, but it doesn't reform them but rather hardens their prejudices.
With our current technology, such laws are mostly unneeded. No law was required to cudgel Starbucks in the wake of apparent racism. The company folded almost immediately. Ditto for a bakery in Portland that refused to service a black women who arrived after the store was closed; employees were fired here. Though I think the businesses were justified in both cases, private citizen outrage resulted in immediate action by those businesses. In this atmosphere, just try to be a racist business owner.
The baker may have won the ruling but I highly doubt he will have great success in his future baking endeavors. Everyone knows who he is and he will most likely lose more business from those who think he's a bigot than he will get from those who think he's a hero. And that is how you change society.
