by Chris Black

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled via a 7-2 vote in favor of “Gay biased” Christian baker Jack Phillips. The ruling states that Philips had the right to refuse service to a gay couple who asked him to bake them a wedding cake. The owner of the bakery was lynch-mobbed back in 2012 by LGBG/leftist activist for refusing to do business with the gay couple on religious grounds, and he even faced charges for discrimination. It’s funny that the mainstream fake news media called the 7-2 vote of the SCOTUS a narrow win.

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn’t make same-sex wedding cake. — AP Politics (@AP_Politics) June 4, 2018

7-2 is a blowout in baseball or hockey. It’s the same for the Supreme Court as well. That’s Public School Progressive Math at its best, if you ask me. Here’s the guts of the decision: previously, the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled against the bakery and so did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The US Supreme Court determined that the Colorado Court’s treatment of the bakers elevated one view of what is offensive over another view and, in doing so, sent a signal of official disapproval of the baker’s religious beliefs which violates the US Constitution. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s hostility to the baker’s religious viewpoint violated the baker’s First Amendment rights.

As much as I appreciate the SCOTUS making the right call here, I am disturbed that no one, NO ONE, seems to be grasping the deeper issue: in a free society, you cannot compel someone’s labor against their will. That is enslavement. This goes even beyond the sacred right of religious freedom. It goes to all freedom everywhere for everyone. When the government decides that a private business MUST create something for someone else, regardless of what it is, that is slavery. Period. Full stop.

The Court NEVER should have referred to “religious beliefs” at all. Mr. Phillips should not have been compelled to create a cake against his will, PERIOD. No explanation needed. Had Mr. Phillips objected to making the cake for any other reason than religious belief, his right to say “no” is protected. Otherwise, any portrait painter, sculptor, filmmaker, dancer — any person who uses artistic expression could be compelled by the State to perform a certain way against their will. That is tyranny.

And since I’m told that there have been news reports of “Cake Makers” refusing to put a swastika on a cake, and even refusing to put “magna cum laude” on a cake, I find it strange that in some instances people are allowed to refuse the customer, and in others people are not allowed to refuse the customer, depending on their political leaning/political correctness or whatever liberal palaver.

If left unchecked, the cultural-marxists will continue to chip away at the concepts of moral limits, individuality, and liberty. This is why group rights and consequently group punishments have been so violently destructive to this country. It’s difficult to imagine that the tide can be reversed at this point, and these United States can somehow survive.