The debate over the moral propriety of Lakewood baker Jack Phillips refusal to bake a cake glorifying homosexual behavior for a militant heterophobic couple continues on the editorial page of the Denver Post. The story has been rekindled by Phillips who continues to push the issue in the courts. He has adopted a rather strange defense, in my view, for his refusal to bake a cake. His argument now goes something along this line: He is an artist. He bakes works of art. As an artist he should not be required or forced by the State to create pieces of art he does not want to create. Baking a cake glorifying homosexual behavior is inconsistent with his artistic values. Therefore he should be free to refuse to create a work of art if he wants to. Of more interest to me than Phillips' defense of his position is the response of various heterophobic people who have been writing letters to the editor of the newspaper. I would like to consider two of those responses today.
My good friend Paul Brown of Denver writes, "Pray as you wish, believe as you must, but if you want to do business with the public you are required to serve the entire public." Paul is not known for his powerful logical skills. Paul's argument against Jack is that the law declares Jack must bake cakes for homosexuals so he must bake cakes for homosexuals whether he likes it or not. Paul seems to miss the singular point that Jack is challenging the moral propriety of the law. Everyone agrees about what the laws says. What people disagree about is whether the law is moral or not. Paul believes that it is a moral principle that any person who "does business" with a member of the "public" is morally required to do business with all members of the public regardless of who they are or what they demand. Let's think about that position for a moment.
As a businessman I bring a particular product to the market place in search of buyers who are willing to pay my price for my product. The product that I am selling is my own creation. I used my brain and my hands to fashion something that I hope other people will want to purchase from me. I bought the raw materials used to produce the finished good. I rented the building where I produced the finished good. Throughout the entire process I used my money, and my money alone, to create the finished product. It is fair to say that the product I am attempting to sell belongs to me and no one else. I am the sole and exclusive owner of what I have created.
As the sole and exclusive owner of what I have created I have all of the rights of ownership over that finished product. My rights of ownership include the right to do whatever I want with it. I can burn it in a gigantic bond fire. I can give it away to my neighbor. I can keep it for my own personal use. I can store it in my garage until the mice destroy it. And I can also sell it to someone who is willing to pay the price I am asking. At all points during the process of deciding what to do with the finished good it belongs to me and no one else. At all points during the process of creating my product I have complete and total control over what I can do with it. Then, at the precise moment I make the decision to sell my finished good to another person, Paul believes everything about the nature of my ownership of my product dramatically changes.
According to Paul, and the militant homosexuals who endorse his position, the moment I make the decision to sell something that is mine to another person I become morally and legally required to produce and sell a similar product to any member of the public who comes to me and commands me to do so. The moment I ring up my first sale I become a slave to every consumer in the country. The moment my first dollar is earned I am now at the beck and call of every single member of the public and if I refuse to perform my slave-like duty I can be arrested, fined and thrown into prison. Paul calls this freedom. Paul believes forcing producers of finished goods into slavery at the hands of their consumer masters is a good and moral principle. I have a word for Paul. In fact I have a couple of words for Paul. Paul, now hear this, what is mine is mine and not yours. You have no moral claim over anything I produce. I can sell, or refuse to sell, anything and everything I make to everyone in the universe for whatever reason I wish and there is nothing, morally, you can say about it. That is what it means to be a free man and not a slave to the State. Conversely, your principle of "enslavement by virtue of a prior sale" is immoral, disgusting and, in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, perfectly legal.
Douglas Willey of Thornton writes, "I sympathize with Phillip's position, but I hope that he can open his heart enough to consider the possibility that an all-loving God approves of love and marriage for all His children." Well Dougie-boy, I don't know if Jack can "open his heart" as you wish for him to but I certainly can. In fact, I am doing it right now. I have posited the idea of an "all loving god," as you describe it, and I can easily see how that all loving god is just head over heels with acts of homosexual sex. The problem for you, and what Jack is attempting to tell you, is that your all loving god is not the God of the Bible. Both Jack and I know the God of the Bible exists (if you are honest with yourself, which you are not, you would also admit that you know the God of the Bible exists and has a moral claim upon your life). Furthermore, your all loving god does not exist. So if you want to live your life in service to a god that does not exist you are certainly free to do so but it is the height of theological hubris to ask a Christian to suspend his belief in the God of the Bible and endorse your imaginary god of free homosexual sex.
I have a word for Dougie-boy as well. My beliefs are my beliefs and not yours. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. If you don't like my beliefs go somewhere else but most certainly do not attempt to change me into a creature made after your own ignorant and immoral image. That is an amazingly arrogant thing to do for such a self-perceived humble man, don't you think?
One additional point to be made about the "enslavement by virtue of a prior sale" doctrine advanced by militant homosexuals and other worshipers of civil government is the fact that it only goes one way. A Christian entered a bakery owned and operated by a homosexual and demanded that he bake a cake for him with a verse from the Bible inscribed on top declaring how homosexuality is a sin. The baker refused to do so, despite the fact that he had previously sold cakes to the public and this Christian was a member of the public commanding him to make him a cake. The case went to court and to the surprise of nobody the court ruled that the Christian was out of line. According to the court the Christian did not have a moral claim on the cake he ordered the baker to make for him because Christians are not recognized by the State as a protected victim class. In addition the court rejected the legal doctrine of "enslavement by virtue of a prior sale" and informed the Christian that he had no right to tell a homosexual baker what to make simply because that immoral baker had previously baked and sold a cake to a member of the public. In other words, the doctrine is only in effect when it supports perverts and other government created and endorsed victim groups. It never applies when Christians are involved. In the Socialist Democracy of Amerika a Christian will always lose.