THE RIGHT TO NOT SERVE SOMEONE

Why This Isn’t About Religion

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As a child, I remember seeing signs in many places saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”  I never actually saw this right being enforced, but I heard stories.  In most cases, the owner posted it to have the right to throw out for drunks, people who harassed others, etc. It makes sense.  Most business owners do not gladly turn away customers.  In fact, I read somewhere that during segregation, many business owners fought the laws because they felt they had lost business by making it unfriendly for Black customers. 

Still, I’ve always thought someone who owns a business should be able to determine who they would serve.  After all, it’s their business, right?  Maybe this right should be reinstated simply to get rid of the shameless shoplifters seen everyone now.

What Has Happened Since

I remember reading about the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  To me, it was clear what should have happened.  The owner, who had made other cakes for the plaintiffs before, refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.  He was willing to forfeit the business, (and likely any other business from the couple), to honor his religious beliefs.  Why did the case have to go to SCOTUS?  As a side note, I feel sure that if a gay couple came into Oakland’s Your Black Muslim Bakery, they would also have been denied service, but the Oakland government would most likely have supported a Muslim objection.

Next, we have 303 Creative v. Elenis, where the defendant refused to create wedding website for a gay couple.  Again, shouldn’t the owner be able to refuse business?  Three things come to mind, one of which was the main argument of these cases; that you cannot compel creativity.  However, they did not argue the 1^st Amendment, which says you cannot compel speech, thought or creativity.  And finally, it is probably very rare where you cannot find an alternate purveyor of the product or service you desire.  Why must LGBT people compel one business owner when they have other options?  As I alluded to in the Muslim bakery example, my guess is that there are LGBT individuals who seek out people they can take to court. 

I once went to a gay friend’s birthday party in San Francisco.  His cake was a   bit crazy; the decoration was of a shirtless gay man, leaning on one arm, with a bulging erection.  My friend’s mom was very cool; she made sure the birthday boy got a piece with that very section.  I learned they had to shop around to find someone who specialized in that kind of creative cake design.  In other words, in one of the most forgiving and tolerant cities, few were up to making this cake.  No one took this case to court.

Consider the Future

If you limit the right to refuse service to those who are required to input creativity, imagine the future where you might be compelled to write a paper in college expressing views you abhor because the teacher believes they are “the truth.”  Oh, wait.  That already happens at most universities.  Or to insist that speakers say things they know aren’t true to support a political or governmental narrative.  Oh, wait.  Tony Fauci is the perfect example of that.  He knew masks didn’t work, that natural immunity was better than vaccinations and that shutting down the world was an extreme overreaction. 

But for most of us, our first amendment rights are too important to be abridged.  I learned in a constitutional law class that SCOTUS tries, in most cases, to render narrowly-drawn decisions, so as not to set dangerous precedents, but…  isn’t it clear that forcing people to produce products or provide services of any kind is a violation of our Constitution?  Our country was set up to offer us the maximum amount of liberty possible, as long as we didn’t hurt others.  While one might say that a gay couple might be “hurt” at being refused service, they are not victims of battery under the law. 

Hurt Feelings?  So What?

The Left has pushed a narrative that having your feelings hurt is equivalent to being assaulted, but it isn’t true.  One thing my Mom taught me is to get over myself.  Like many, I experienced some bullying and while it hurt at the time, getting through it made me stronger.  I learned how to work with people, even managers, who treated me badly.  Tip: pretend you are meeting them for the first time every day.  This strategy always worked.  The person never could figure out how to deal with it so they stopped abusing me.

We’ve got to stop protecting everyone from feeling hurt, starting with childhood.  Those mental muscles need to be built up; otherwise, as an adult, you have a hyper-sensitive person who can’t function in real life.  People say things, you misunderstand things…it happens.  Yes, it may not feel so great to have someone tell you that (a): they won’t make something for you (b): you aren’t welcome somewhere (c): you have to listen to the other side of an issue to have your side heard.   But that’s the way our Constitution works.

We need to stop coddling those who are so sensitive and let them build up the mental calluses that enable them not to be so easily offended.  Tell people who want to voice their opinions that they must agree to listen to yours…or don’t listen to them. If someone doesn’t want your business, fine.  There is always another business you can try.