11 Jul Activists obfuscate
After the Masterpiece cake shop victory in the Supreme Court, things looked pretty straightforward. We had a clear cut case of demonstrable bias, which was more than sufficient to find that the Colorado civil rights commission had no business judging this particular case. This means that when a government agency can be shown not to be an impartial adjudicator, it loses all legal standing with regard to any case that involves such elements towards which it has bias.
This would mean that businesses are effectively free to say no to people who wish to force them to do things, provided they can demonstrate bias. Seeing as it is leftists who wish to force people to comply with their will, finding bias is remarkably easy, as a leftist is someone who by definition cannot help himself. Further, it is possible to bring a reversed scenario to the commission, allow their biases to run rampant, and then use the commission’s behavior as proof of bias.
However, the court did not rule on freedom of association itself, on whether or not businesses could be forced to violate their religious beliefs in the name of tolerance per se. This leaves the door open to the possibility that an intelligent tyrant ruling on the commission, or a skilled politician sitting in office, can use his position to force you to be tolerant towards all of his chosen classes, by avoiding appearances of bias.
So, this leaves us in a position where the question is still open, and another case will likely decide on the matter.
However, many writers and newspapers are out there saying that the case is confusing and that now business owners are in a worse position than before. How, they can’t really say, except that now there is a conflict between civil rights laws and the court order. This is not so. There would be a conflict if the court order invalidated the existence of civil rights laws on anything other than constitutional grounds. But this didn’t happen, as the court didn’t invalidate the laws at all, except to say that they must be applied by a neutral arbiter.
In the event that a future ruling invalidates the civil rights laws on constitutional grounds, that again would not be confusing as it would simply throw the law out.
The only confusing scenario would be if the court found that freedom of association was a non-constitutionally guaranteed right, and that it overrode civil rights laws. This will not happen, as freedom of association can only override laws if it is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
So there is no confusion whatsoever, except in the minds of leftists who think that the law changes depending on who is being tried.