I Should Not Be Forced to Bake a Cake and Neither Should You

This article is a response piece to an article published in the Christian Science Monitor on December 29, 2015 entitled “Oregon bakery pays $144,000 fine for refusing to bake gay wedding cake.” The original article can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1229/Oregon-bakery-pays-144-000-fine-for-refusing-to-bake-gay-wedding-cake?cmpid=editorpick

In 2013, Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer were planning their lesbian wedding. For their wedding cake, they went to Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery in Oregon. The bakers there refused the order on religious grounds. They apparently did not approve of gay marriage. That should have been the end of the story. Laurel and Rachel should have found another bakery willing to take their order and given them their money instead. Rather than do this, however, Laurel and Rachel decided to sue for the discrimination. They won and were awarded $135,000 for the emotional suffering they were caused by the denial of service.

Had the property rights of these business owners been respected, the free market would have been enacted. The two women would have taken their money to an establishment willing to fill in the supply for their demand. Sweet Cakes by Melissa turned down their money. In doing so, they clearly defined the service/product their private company was willing to provide, and which private parties it was willing to do business with. The keywords in this last sentence are 'private' and 'willing.' Business should always be voluntary. After all, nobody should put a gun to your head and order you to shop at a furniture store. The concept is the same in both instances. While companies and their clients are distinctly defined different parties in the transaction of goods and services, they are both, nonetheless, private entities which should be able to choose what kind of transactions they engage in.

Perhaps Sweet Cakes by Melissa thought that they didn't need Laurel and Rachel's money. Perhaps word of the incident would have hurt their business. Maybe it would have put them out of business. It's also possible that their overall business wouldn't change at all or even increase because of it. The point is that we should be held responsible for the consequences of our decisions, and do so in the free market system naturally. Had the couple just walked away, they would have filled the market with the demand for services they need. I could see an entire business being dedicated solely to the fulfillment of that need. That's why the free market is such a great thing.

Instead, socialistic bureaucracy is choking away the property rights of business owners. Businesses are private endeavors using private property to perform private transactions amongst private parties (the only exception being the public government). The law used in this case wasn't even one that had to deal with denying service to potential clients. It dealt with discriminatory hiring practices, a law which also strips away another right for a business to run itself as it sees fit. We may not like the choices some companies make, but we must allow them to operate with freedom for the sake of principle. We do have the option to boycott them, and collectively our actions will speak through supply and demand.

It appears that the primary argument against what I'm saying is that of collective public ownership – which is, at it's core, communism. It's the idea that since the business is open to the public, it must subscribe to public rules. The ruling judge in another case won against a venue refusing to host a different lesbians' wedding put it this way in her decision, “the policy to not allow same-sex marriage ceremonies on Liberty Ridge Farm is a denial of access to a place of public accommodation.” This business is located on private property. It has private rules which just so allow members of the public to enter it at hours it designates. The establishment is not a part of the public, and therefore it should not be within the same jurisdiction as public places. It provides a service which members of the public can request of it as private individuals, but it is not performing a public service subjective to the collective community like parks or streets. It pays its taxes and outside of that it owes the public nothing.

I’m not arguing against social reform, but there must be a distinction between social and legal reform. We must be free to make the decision to do the right thing, not have it be forced upon us by the legal system. To force people to be morally good creates resentment for those practices (even if they really are objectively right), and we might get it wrong to begin with. It also stifles the development of social reform since it forces people to subscribe to a particular system of doing things rather than allowing it to evolve naturally as situations change. Morality loses all meaning when it is prescribed rather than something people freely came to on their own accord. In both preserving the moral good and legal freedom, we must allow private entities to make their own decisions on how to govern themselves. Even if a decision made by a particular party is socially frowned upon, they must have the right and freedom to do so without the expense of dealing with legal ramifications.

Is the Libertarian Party right to sue the Commission on Presidential Debates?

 

The Libertarian Party (LP) claims to be “the Party of Principle.” As someone who has subscribed to the political philosophy of libertarianism for close to ten years (my entire adult life) and cares for it deeply, I am often put off by the shenanigans of the official LP which contradict those very principles. I do think that libertarianism is founded on some very strong principles. I'd say that those principles are more solid than any other political philosophy or party. I think those principles are important and must be maintained for social progress. It is for these reasons that I feel that libertarians must strictly hold the LP to high standards – to those very principles. If we sacrifice those principles in our attempt gain office we won't have them once we're in office; we'll be just like the Democrat or Republican candidates – telling it's followers what they want to hear to gain voter support while playing cut-throat politics to maintain power.

So, what in blazes am I talking about?

On September 29, 2015 the LP filed a lawsuit (not the first of it's kind which the party has filed) alongside the Green Party against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) arguing that the requirements the organization set up for presidential candidates to participate in its debate events keep third parties from being eligible year after year.ⁱ I won't discuss what those requirements are, or what the lawsuit wants them to be changed to because it's completely beside the point.

Well, isn't the LP being discriminated against along with other third parties? Isn't there a conflict of interest since the CPD was created by just the Democratic and Republican parties? Didn't then (1987) co-chairman for the CPD Paul G. Kirk, Jr. say he believed that third party candidates should be outright excluded from the panel?ⁱⁱ Doesn't the LP have a right to that stage to give the people a third option?

To answer my own questions: yes, yes, yes, no.

I'll repeat this unpopular opinion: No, the LP does not have a right to the CPD debate.

The fact of the matter is, the official sounding CPD is actually a private corporation, founded jointly by the Democratic and Republican parties, also private institutions which, to the best of my knowledge, receive no government subsidies. The CPD is completely privately funded, the debate events it holds are private events, and the rules they create are legally sanctioned by the foundational principles of private property over which they have ownership. The presidential debates is a product disguised as a public service. The LP has no more right to demand participation in it (let alone it changing the rules of this private organization) than the Raiders have a right to demand participation in the Super Bowl without qualifying by the NFL's rules.

Do they have a monopoly on something that has much influence over the election? Arguably you could say that they do, but that is only because of a combination of a lack of conscientious consumerism and competition. It's only because so many people watch the CPD debates exclusively that they have said “monopoly.” That is completely at the fault of the American collective. If there was enough demand otherwise, things would change very quickly. Anybody can hold a presidential debate. After all, before the CPD there were other independent presidential debates. Quite frankly, there were years in which no presidential debates were even held (i.e. 1964, 1968, & 1972).ⁱⁱⁱ The CPD dominance can be largely attributed to the lack of supply within a marketplace where there was clearly demand. The Libertarian Party did host a “Third Party Presidential Debate” in 2012, but ultimately that didn't directly compete with the event which included the two largest presidential candidates.^iv

The way I see it, the only three outcomes that would favor third parties such as the LP that don't violate libertarian principles are if a third party meets the CPD requirements to participate (15% voter support), the CPD voluntarily changes it's own rules to include third party presidential candidates more easily, or if a different event holds a presidential debate including the Democratic and Republican nominees alongside third party candidates due to enough demand (much of which would have to come from within each of the two major parties) for such an event. As a supporter of competition within the marketplace, I'm holding out for the third option.

Is it deplorable that we're in the situation we're in right now? Yes, it is. I don't like it. I'm not saying that libertarians should lay back and accept the situation for what it is. We have to work towards change to achieve any of our social goals. I don't like the CPD. I don't like the power it holds over public opinion on the presidential elections or how it uses that power. I don't like that year after year the LP is kept as much in the dark as the Democrats and Republicans can keep it in. But, it's the people who subscribe to the CPD events. It's the people who give the two major parties the support they have. It's the people who complain that both choices are corrupt or inadequate but choose not to look at alternatives. The CPD is a private corporation. They have every right over their product – the presidential debates they hold. They have every right to make whatever rules they wish for the event. The LP has no right to bust in and tell them to change a thing.

You've all heard the phrase, “I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll fight for your right to say it.” I think that hits home to a lot of libertarians. What of property rights? Are you going to violate them just because you don't like the product? Are your actions going to be determined by an emotional outrage due to injustice or will they be founded by principle?

ihttps://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-and-green-parties-sue-fec-for-anti-trust-violations-in-presidential

iihttp://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/19/us/democrats-and-republicans-form-panel-to-hold-presidential-debates.html

iiihttp://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview

ivhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/13/libertarian-party-sues-chance-stand-2016-president/