randombio.com | commentary
Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Cake Explosions, Part 2

The 21st century could be remembered as the era when the government began telling us what we must say.


L et's not kid ourselves: the left's attacks on bakeries are not about religion. Neither are they about gays or gay marriage. And they have nothing to do with civil rights or the elimination of discrimination. They are attacks on freedom of speech. As such, they threaten all citizens, whether they're gay, religious, atheist, or straight.

When a customer demands a baker put a specific message on the cake, it's essentially a request for the baker to speak and write the words the customer wants. When the government steps in and enforces it, it is forcing people to speak phrases that are, for whatever reason, repugnant to them.

The First Amendment doesn't just protect your right to say what you believe. It also protects your right not to say what you don't believe. Without this right, freedom to say what you believe would have no meaning. If every time you say something you could be compelled to say its opposite a hundred times, you would not have freedom of speech. That's even more true when stating your true belief gets you arrested, as is now the case in many parts of the world.

Cakes
Cakes: a mixture of sugar, flour, and freedom of speech

Everyone has certain things they will refuse to say, either at work or in private.

A reputable scientist will refuse to say something he or she knows to be false, even if millions of dollars in funding depend on it. A reputable engineer will refuse to say (or sign a certificate saying) that a bridge is safe, knowing that it is not, no matter how much money is offered. A reputable newspaper editor (yes, we're being hypothetical here) will refuse to accept an article that is not backed up with sources, or which they believe is harmful to whatever cause the editor believes in, regardless of how much money is on the table.

A prostitute who poses naked with various words spelled out in carrots placed strategically on her body would never allow something degrading about herself to be written there. We are a verbal species; our identities are defined as much by what we say as by what we do not say. Our reputations, and our self-respect, are based as much on what we say as what we do.

We would be up in arms if the government tried to force people to praise its policies. But the government has involved itself deeply in the quagmire of social engineering, and we are discovering that every aspect of society, including something as seemingly trivial as what a baker writes on a cake, is now part of the government's policy.

The government's rationale is that since these particular customers want a specific phrase to be written on their cake, refusing to write the phrase is a form of discrimination against them. But these bakeries aren't refusing to do business with the customer. They're refusing to accede to a demand they believe to be unreasonable: that the baker be forced to speak or write something he or she finds offensive. Forcing them to do so would be to invert the purpose of civil rights laws and to use them to suppress civil rights.

We can all imagine things someone might like us to say—maybe offensive swear words, or falsehoods, or praises to Satan, Hitler, or Pol Pot—that we would refuse because they offend our deeply held beliefs. It is as much our right as free individuals to decline to say these things, even when doing business with the public, as it is our right to say them if we so desire.

We can get in trouble for lying, but we have as much right to inform people in a crowded theater when there is a fire as to remain silent when there is not a fire. Any decent human being would refuse any request to the contrary.

Many on the left think don't see it that way. They believe that government control of speech is a good thing, and they want more of it. They know that freedom of speech also means freedom to remain silent. They know that forcing people to speak a phrase is a way of forcing them to think it. That's why they want the government to compel it. But compelling behavior is a line the government of a free people cannot cross. The Supreme Court should have taken its opportunity to make this line clear.


jun 06 2018, 5:48 am


Related Articles

Cake Explosions, Part 1
The government has put freedom of expression and antidiscrimination laws in conflict.


On the Internet, no one can tell whether you're a dolphin or a porpoise

back
science
book reviews
home