Would You Bake A Cake For Nazis?

Freedom for everyone or freedom for no one

10 July 2018

In 2009, a New Jersey bakery refused to bake a cake for Heath and Deborah Campbell. The married couple were celebrating their son’s third birthday and wanted a cake decorated with his name, an addition that the bakery objected to based on moral grounds. Sound familiar to you?

Businesses discriminating against customers is nothing new. We saw it with the Greensboro sit-ins, and now we’re seeing it with wedding goods and gay couples.

But there is a big difference between the Campbell case, the Greensboro sit-ins, and what has been going on with the Masterpiece Cakeshop and businesses like it.

Heath and Deborah Campbell are neo-Nazis who named their son Adolf Hitler. The Greensboro sit-ins succeeded based on economic pressure rather than litigation. And business owners like Jack Phillips of the Masterpiece Cakeshop are well within their right to free speech.

So think about it: a law that would make people surrender their beliefs when in business. It would force the religious to violate their conscience and force the sane to feed a family of neo-Nazis.

Nazism is a political ideology as much as being gay is a sexuality. If a business doesn’t want to serve someone, why should we force them? A devout Christian doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay couple as much as you and I wouldn’t want to serve Heath and Deborah Campbell.

If we are to preserve liberty, we must allow businesses, including those of public accommodation, to retain the right to refuse service.

The government must not be allowed to step in and force you (under the threat of fines) to provide goods and services to people whom you hold a bias against, regardless of whether or not your views are largely agreed upon.

By trying to enforce anti-discrimination, we have inadvertently created a situation where business owners are unable to exercise their own morality in regard to who they feel comfortable serving. This is about the freedom of private businesses to live or die by their own values.

A situation in Oregon saw a business driven to closure after a barrage of angry online reviewers and boycott campaigns. But for some reason that wasn’t enough, and the state government stepped in to deliver a $135,000 fine. Market forces and public opinion were already taking effect without any intervention.

Dozens of nations are currently in favour of same-sex marriage, nations that are leaders in the global order, including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, etc. Western societies are already leaning towards a particular side.

In the age of Facebook, Yelp, Twitter, and Instagram, there is no need for any government to use overbearing power to denounce a potentially discriminatory business.

Anyone on the wrong side of history will fade soon enough, and any business that sees in colours other than green will invariably be subject to criticism and public withdrawal.

A business owner does not have to serve everyone, and a homeowner does not have to invite everyone to the Christmas party. Such laws against this idea are limiting your freedom. A bar should be able to hold a ‘Ladies Night,’ and a movie theatre should be able to have a women-only screening of Wonder Woman.

Financial support and the provision of goods is a form of speech. Jack Phillips does not want to violate his Christian beliefs by using his talents to support a gay wedding. If you were asked to cater for a meeting of KKK members, you would refuse, right? Food is not an open declaration of support, but the provision of it can reflect on your own views, especially if you choose to abstain like Phillips did.

Ever heard of the phrase, ‘vote with your wallet?’ Well, that’s predicated on the idea that money means something. 

Business owner: I don’t want to violate my beliefs, so I may have to deny service to certain groups of people.

Customer: I don’t want to support a business, and by denying them my money, I hope they will change.

Free speech is free speech. We have gone overboard in trying to protect minorities who are already backed by overwhelming public opinion. Money will persuade most, but for those who remain staunch in their beliefs, we cannot force them to change.

A bakery won’t serve you a wedding cake? Tell your friends, write a review, buy from a competing business. But please don’t impede on everyone else’s freedom just because you couldn’t go across the street to a different bakery.


    • With the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, it was the Christian baker who was being civil and liberal rather than the gay couple who were continually attempting to push a man into violating his convictions.


    • But the point is that from the perspective of a devout Christian, being gay is sinful in some way. Therefore, we should not force those people to violate their conscience and serve someone they may not want to.

      A Jew would not be happy about being forced to serve a Nazi. A Nazi would not be happy about being forced to serve a Jew. They both view each other as evil. Of course, I’m not condoning Nazism at all, but we can’t exactly make a law that specifies all the groups that should be discriminated against, such as Nazis, Maoists, and Stalinists.

      Either a business has the right to refuse service, or it doesn’t.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think I probably have a problem with devout christians, but as you say either a business has a right to refuse service or it does not.

        I was at an evangelical wedding at the weekend. It was a happy day. Young and old they were friendly, pleasant people. And yet they were undoubtedly a sect; they used language in a different way, they interpreted things in ways the rest of society would not.

        In conversation they talked of “we christians” as opposed, presumably, to myself and my wife as heathens.

        I have been thinking much recently of collective delusion and the dangers of group think. This bunch of people were harmless in their delusion. Some christians I find less so.

        Each to their own but I find much to fear in group thinking, cults and cliques.

        Liked by 1 person

    • There are a few cities and counties around the United States that actually do have bans on discrimination based on political affiliation. In D.C for example, you wouldn’t be allowed to open a business that only serves republicans or only serves democrats. Because they don’t allow the right to refuse, however, a business owner may find themselves having to serve someone whom they genuinely don’t want to.

      This isn’t about comparing the plight of the queer community to that of terrible political ideologies—not at all. This is about arguing for a business owner’s right to refuse service based on moral and perhaps religious grounds.


  1. There was a case like this in Canada where a business owner denied entry to a patron for having facial tattoos. Tattoos are not protected by law, so the owner has legal ground to stand on. The moral of the story – don’t tattoo your face and don’t be a Nazi. I thought both of these things should be common sense by now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s