Commentary: Why a bar can boot Trump supporters but a baker cannot deny gays!

By Joe Jarvis

April 26, 2018 - A judge has ruled that a bar was well within its right to kick out Donald Trump supporters; and this is great news.

Not because I have any particular animosity towards Trump supporters. I’m not saying Trump supporters should be kicked out of bars. If I owned a bar I certainly wouldn’t kick out Trump supporters. After all, it’s not like Bernie Sanders supporters have enough money to keep a business afloat.

But this is a win for freedom of association. All interactions should be consensual. Obviously, we understand the concept when it comes to relationships and sex. But for some reason, fewer people hold consent as important when it comes to business transactions.

You don’t have to go to a bar, and a bar doesn’t have to serve you.

But this does seem like quite the contradiction compared to courts forcing bakers to bake cakes for homosexual couples.

The distinction, in this case, is that the bar did not deny someone based on religious beliefs. Political discrimination is allowed. You cannot deny a customer based on your own religious beliefs, but you can deny a customer based on their - and your - political beliefs. Unless of course that customer holds a protected political belief, in which case you still cannot deny them.

Some people think that when a business opens its doors it is waiving its right to deny service to any peaceful customer willing to pay the price for a product on offer.

But imagine extreme examples where the store owner should absolutely be able to deny a customer.

A Jewish-owned bagel shop advertises that they will make your bagels into any shape you want. Can they deny a Neo-Nazi who wants a dozen swastika bagels?

A black-owned costume maker advertises that they will sew anything for $20 an hour. Can they deny a KKK member who needs his robes altered?

Can a homosexual baker deny an Evangelist Christian who wants his cake to say, “Pray to uphold marriage between a man and a woman.”

Not surprisingly, pro-traditional marriage activists have asked homosexual-friendly bakeries to bake such cakes.

This doesn’t please me. I feel bad for the owners of the bakeries who get dragged into the debate. They are just trying to run a business and be inclusive. Yet because the political winds leave religious folks feeling oppressed, they feel the need to fight back and demonstrate the very real double standard.

The point is, a homosexual-friendly bakery should absolutely be able to say, “No, we will not bake you a cake with an anti-homosexual Old Testament verse on it.”

But it is a two-way street. Forcing people to interact with you only creates conflict.

Just for the record, I find the whole homosexual marriage debate an absurdly stupid issue. Any conflict stems from the government giving special privileges and incentives to married couples. The government should have nothing to do with marriage.

Any privileges like hospital visitation rights, property ownership, etc. should be dealt with in private contracts between consenting adults. Who cares if the adults are two men, two women, or just friends; the contract will stipulate the legal relationship, and the rest is no one else’s business.

But then, of course, a particular church should not be forced to perform homosexual weddings. Surely many still would. A religious ceremony is not something that should hold any legal weight anyway; and the rest just gets back to not forcing businesses to serve customers they don’t want to, for whatever reason.

The ability to deny service does not create broader conflict. The conflict is created by people being forced to associate. Going our separate ways when we don’t agree is a peaceful resolution. Agree to disagree.

I find it a ridiculous double standard when cafes brag that they discriminate against men, or when an all black retreat bans white people. But they absolutely have the right to do so.

Give your money to someone who wants your business and doesn’t discriminate against you.

There will be peace on Earth not by forcing everyone under one big oppressive umbrella of collectivism, but by simply allowing people to associate with - and ignore - whomever they wish.

Forced unity does not create peace; it creates conflict.

Does a business owner really hold sincere religious beliefs that weigh on his conscience if he bake a homosexual couple a cake?

Who cares? That is irrelevant to freedom of association. He should be able to deny service for whatever reason he wants.

Of course, consumers are free to debate the sincerity versus bigotry of the owners. Customers should decide whether a business is worthy of continuing to have their patronage.

But isn’t it better when this is all out in the open? I don’t want businesses to pretend to like me; I would rather they be honest, and take my business elsewhere.

But it seems that voluntary association, interaction by consent, is under attack.

This is not an issue for homosexuals, trans, religious people, alt-righters or whatever.

At one point or another, we will all want the right to say, “No thanks, I don’t want to serve you, I don’t want to patronize you, I don’t want to talk to you, have sex with you, or pay for your housing.”

That right should be respected, whatever the scenario.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.