Why a Bar Can Boot Trump Supporters, But a Bakery Cannot Deny Gay Customers

By Joe Jarvis Via The Daily Bell

A judge ruled that a bar was well within its right to kick out Trump supporters. And this is great news.

Not because I have any particular animosity towards Trump supporters (any more than other enablers of government oppression). 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 the Bernie 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 this concept when it comes to relationships and sex. But for some reason, fewer people hold consent as so 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 gay couples.

The distinction, in this case, is that the bar did not deny someone based on religious beliefs. Political discrimination is allowed. So 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 their doors, they are waiving their 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 gay 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 gay-friendly bakeries to bake just such cakes.

This doesn’t please me. I feel bad for the owners of the bakeries who get dragged into the debate to be made an example of. 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 gay-friendly bakery should absolutely be able to say, “No, we will not bake you a cake with an anti-gay 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 gay 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 gay 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–whoever they wish.

Forced unity does not create peace, it creates conflict.

When Movements Start to Eat Themselves

Oppressive inclusiveness tends to escalate until a movement ends up devouring itself. Recently Ru Paul of Ru Paul’s Drag Race ran into an issue. In case you are unaware, the tv show features “drag shows,” popular in gay culture where gay men dress like women…usually quite comically and unconvincingly.

But the key aspect of drag is that gay men are dressing as womenI’ve written extensively about trans-contradictions, but the relevent thing here is that a trans male wants to be considered and treated like a female. That means they aren’t drag queens, they are transgender.

And yet now there are a whole bunch of trans activists saying Ru Paul is transphobic because he thinks it is unfair to allow people in transition into a drag competition.

“You can identify as a woman and say you’re transitioning, but it changes once you start changing your body… It takes on a different thing; it changes the whole concept of what we’re doing.”

Isn’t it great that you have the freedom to turn off television shows with which you disagree?

And again to clarify, as someone who loves individual freedom, trans people can do whatever they want. I fully support their right to dress, live, and receive all the cosmetic elective surgery they want. But there are too many contradictions in their anti-science demands to ignore. I’ll leave them alone, but they refuse to leave me alone unless I play along with their fantasies.

Interestingly, a gay political figure was recently denied service in a New York City bar. But in the case of Milo Yiannoppolis, he was actually shouted out by the customers, as opposed to being denied by the bar itself.

They shouted, “Nazi scum get out,” because Milo is a Trump supporting political alt-righter. He is also regularly uninvited to speak on college campuses because of snowflakes protesting free speech that they call hate speech.

So if you are gay but don’t tout the right politics, you can be discriminated against.

Motivation is Irrelevant

Does the business owner really hold sincere religious beliefs that weigh on their conscience if they bake a gay couple a cake?

Who cares?! That is irrelevant to freedom of association. They should be able to deny service for whatever reason they want.

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 in the open? I don’t want businesses to pretend to like me, I would rather them be honest and take my business elsewhere.

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

This is not an issue for gays, 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.”

And 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.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


King of Ruperts Land Pernicious Gol… Thu, 04/26/2018 - 17:29 Permalink

A baker can refuse to any business including fags. The Baker may face illegal persecution for this at this time, but we shall fix this injustice shortly.

The powers that be do stupid things from time to time such as outlaw golf, or issue licenses for two men to get "married". The best I can bend to you fags is to be OK with the state issuing "registered homosexual" status to you and your faggot partner.

The judge forcing baking a fag wedding cake is an idiot.

In reply to by Pernicious Gol…

a Smudge by an… toady Fri, 04/27/2018 - 00:17 Permalink

Another reminder of failure. When the "gay wedding cake" thing broke out I desperately sought funding for an exclusively gay wedding cake bakery. Complete with online ordering and shipping. Gay cake to your door.

I have no real experience with baking but I assume if one starts out with the freshest, all gay ingredients sourced from gay chickens for eggs and gay cows for milk, one would arrive with a truly gay product. More importantly, the market seemed established at least in the media.

Alas like all my ideas, people laughed but nobody pulled out their wallet. And I was being serious!

That's OK. People laughed at my idea for flavored bitcoins. Then the ICO thing happened. Not only could we have been rich but our whole digital prescence would have tasted like wintery freshness.

In reply to by toady

King of Ruperts Land a Smudge by an… Fri, 04/27/2018 - 02:36 Permalink

Gay cow milk? How would that work? Two gay bulls. The farmer puts a condom on one that mounts the other. The Farmer could put that bull semen in a turkey baster so one lesbian cow can strap it on and mount the other lesbian cow so she can conceive birth and lactate?

How would you get the Bulls and cows to be gay? Use that gay frog drug Alex Jones speaks of? It might work.

In reply to by a Smudge by an…

brushhog Stuck on Zero Thu, 04/26/2018 - 21:07 Permalink

The author is wrong. The lesson isnt that 'now it's established that you can discriminate based on political ideology'. The ruling made it possible to discriminate against Trump supporters, that doesnt mean that the next ruling will allow you to discriminate against Obama supporters. If it were Obama supporters being discriminated against we would have seen a completely different ruling with a completely different rationale. The author is still making the mistake of believing that he lives in a country with rule of law. Its just factions pushing their political agendas and making up legal sounding justifications later. Liberal judge allows you to discriminate against Trump supporters and not against Obama supporters....conservative judge, the opposite. There are no "rules" that they all have to follow, there is no excuse not to realize that by now.

In reply to by Stuck on Zero

TruthHunter jin187 Sat, 04/28/2018 - 08:18 Permalink

I've been expecting an American Bastille day...

BTW, discrimination with teeth always involves economic discrimination.

Black indentured servants got screwed by "contracts" that didn't expire.

Good ole' boy clubs discriminated against blacks and women because they could conduct business that shut out those not like them.


In reply to by jin187

DoctorFix Stuck on Zero Fri, 04/27/2018 - 19:33 Permalink

So true.  No need to explain... just tell them, politely even, to get the fuck out. 

The problem with the cake baking example, as per the gay bakery having to bake a non-gay cake... and don't get me started on that one, is that they "advertised" themselves as gay in the first place.  They wanted to draw attention to the fact rather than leave it alone and simply be bakers who happen to make cakes.  Right?

In reply to by Stuck on Zero

King of Ruperts Land roddy6667 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 02:01 Permalink

Yes in a perfect world there would be nothing illegal about that. You cannot force people to be accepting.

OK. I will put on my black face.

If I was a nigger, I would say nigger all the time. I would be a straight nigger. I wouldn't be no fag nigger. And I'd marry me some mighty fine black booty woman with big tits and big ass.

In reality your question is a canard because I don't see many bakers having personal moral dilemmas problems selling to niggers. As long as the nigger has money and its not some faggy homosexual gay sodomy niggers. Send those fuckers to Nigeria to be properly dealt with man!

Yep! That is what I would think if I was black.

In reply to by roddy6667

jin187 roddy6667 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 08:44 Permalink

White people have no one but themselves to blame for how things are now.  If they'd merely drawn their line in the sand, and stayed on their own side, shit would have been fine.  Instead, they had to abuse government to inflict suffering on undeserving victims, to the point that someone had to do something about it.  Now everyone suffers due to overcompensation we now engage in to avoid similar situations from taking place again.  I hope at least some of the 80-90 year old white trash out there realize that if they hadn't decided to rundown niggers in their pickups for fun, their great-grand children wouldn't be getting passed over for jobs and colleges by less qualified blacks.  We wouldn't be letting illegals invade the country out of fear of being called racists.  We wouldn't have black gangs ruining cities, and filling our prisons to the bursting point.  We also wouldn't have trial lawyers getting rich every time someone doesn't want to bake a cake, or fry a burger for someone they don't like.

In reply to by roddy6667

overmedicatedu… css1971 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 08:13 Permalink

lesbo poster family Harts who drove off cliff with kids..nobody stopped them adopting cause that would be anti trans or somethin..

from NYT no less...

"Dozens of pages of reports released this week by child-welfare officials offer some clues. Taken together they paint a portrait of a pair of mothers — one dictatorial and eccentric, the other constantly working and seldom home — who doled out cruel punishments and perennially withheld food from their six children."

In reply to by css1971

DPLETTENBERG King of Ruperts Land Fri, 04/27/2018 - 08:08 Permalink

It seems to me the only real solution to these types of situations is to let the vender decide who they serve. They would have to make the decision knowing that they would be punishing themselves by turning away business to uphold their belief. 

Sure someones "feelings" maybe hurt by being refused service but get over it and just go to a competitor. 

Once judges have to decide these issues there is no end to it and all it does is promote more attorneys. 

In reply to by King of Ruperts Land

GoingBig King of Ruperts Land Fri, 04/27/2018 - 12:30 Permalink

So here we come with the idiots that are "worried" that the gays are destroying everything.  What if the bakery refused to serve you because you were White or Old or Catholic? Would that be okay too? So if you don't like the way someone thinks you should be able to refuse to serve them? Sounds like NAZI Germany to me. Nobody would let the Jews work or buy from their stores. The judge isn't an idiot. You are.

In reply to by King of Ruperts Land

a Smudge by an… ItsAllBollocks Fri, 04/27/2018 - 00:24 Permalink

The immoral of the story is if you are gay you invite your friends over, get naked, smear the cake all over each other's bodies and lick it off. On video. Then you sell the video and go on tour of dark and seedy night clubs full of wealthy old dottards with wristwatches that cost as much as your degree in...probably something like fashion design. But you don't mind so much because the money is good and the sex is awesome.

It all takes a turn when one fine day a female catches your eye and you say "honey you'd just love my brother Roy".

Your brother Roy rides a souped-up lawnmower on weekends and has trouble speaking without a red, white and blue microphone in his hand.

I leave the rest of this delightful scenario to you, dear readers.

In reply to by ItsAllBollocks