Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Colorado must be neutral in application of civil rights laws

The U.S. Supreme Court told the state of Colorado that it must be neutral in its application of equal rights laws in an opinion released today by the high court.  In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, at issue was whether the State’s requirement that the appellant create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate the appellant’s right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion? The Court answered in the affirmative, holding that Colorado did not apply its civil rights laws in a neutral manner.

In its analysis, the Court reiterated that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and, in some instances, protected forms of expression. Masterpiece Cakeshop’s claim that the State compelled him to use his artistic skill to make a statement endorsing a gay couple’s wedding had significant First Amendment implications regarding the sincere religious beliefs expressed by the appellant.  Statements made during the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s hearing of the gay couple’s complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop were, according to the Court, clearly hostile to the appellant. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission had a duty under the First Amendment to not base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.

The individualist can’t help but be concerned about how the State apparatus, a civil rights agency, could be used to help extend one couple’s view of how the world should be over those who don’t agree with the view. Yes, as individualist we promote the individual’s choice to live their life as they see fit, according to their own personal rules. This includes exercising their personal sexual preference. So- called cultural conservatives are guilty of these attempts as well, most notably in the area of abortion where they show a heavy penchant for regulating a woman’s womb.

The Court made a call in the individualist favor although promoting individualism was the furthest thing from the Court’s mind. This holding is a reminder that sometimes the entire State apparatus has to call its own bluff when it comes to its claims that government is protector of liberty.

America needs a new civil rights paradigm; one that puts the individual first

There is racism in America. America’s institutions were designed to route capital away from various groups based on race. America’s founding was race-based evidenced by a European policy of removal of Native American tribes from ancestral homes in North America where removal was based on a theory of discovery that, on one hand acknowledged the occupancy of America by Native Americans, but on the other hand, chose to abide with what it identified as a global rule where the country discovering the occupied land can declare acquisition by discovery of the occupied land and remove the occupants by force.

Europeans used a similar argument when it entered the African slave trade and removed people from their homes in Africa and transported them to North America. Like the Native American, Africans were given sub-human status justifying their removal as nothing but chattel property for use as unpaid labor.

America’s history is steeped in racism and as part of its redress federal, state, and local governments have embarked on an almost 60-year initiative to guarantee the rights of individuals to receive “equal treatment” by prohibiting discrimination against classes of individuals (race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) who are pursuing certain endeavors, activities, or opportunities including education, employment, housing, borrowing on credit, housing, or voting.

I see two problems with these attempts at redress of wrongs allegedly perpetrated on certain groups. First, there is the total disregard of the individual where civil rights laws attempt to extend the “tyranny of the masses” that is becoming increasingly virulent in democracy. Groups of unknown individuals identified only by the class that they may fall in may now, backed by the force of the State, restrict the ability of the individual or an association of individuals from engaging with who they want or engaging in certain aspects of the market on terms that best serve their individual or group interests.

The second problem, particularly as it involves blacks in America, is that civil rights laws create a reliance on another group’s “safety pin”, a false and dangerous narrative that says that blacks should seek protection from a group whose wealth has been built on a history of systemic and systematic initiatives designed to keep power. There is a fallacy that the group that has kept its boot on the neck of black people is expected to remove the boot solely on the power of morals.  Rather than seek true economic and political empowerment via total independence, the current civil rights framework has the group with the boot creating the framework for redress on its terms while blacks hope and pray that the pressure of the boot is relieved just enough so that they can swallow a couple mouthfuls of fresh air.

Both problems, the attack on the individual’s freedom to disassociate and the lack of empowerment for and among blacks promoted by the civil rights framework, are best addressed by the dismantling of the current framework. Dismantling the framework eradicates the erroneous interpretation of the role of the State as protector of the individual and introduces many blacks to the reality that true empowerment comes from the ability to set your own course toward liberty.

Civil rights is anti-individual and anti-empowerment. The framework must be abandoned. It fosters weakness.

Fifty years after MLK’s death, the civil rights movement has become a revenue stream for event planners

I don’t know if it is still done, but I remember watching some movie filmed in black and white where in one scene there was an attractive white girl walking around with a box strapped in front of her containing cigarette cartons. She would use her voice, smile, and good looks to charm the men in the room into buying a cancer stick or two. From a consumer perspective this type of traction creation for marketing and selling product is standard operation.  I see it when good looking women are pictured on magazine covers laying on the top of race cars. I see it at conferences when the best looking bartenders are placed behind the cash bar. I see it when a pretty face women is placed at the receptionist desk of an office or at the registration table of an event.

An event planner realizes that her staff responsible for connecting with clients must be able to create a level of trust and comfort such that the client pays attention to what the event’s sponsors are selling. The sponsors want event planners to weave the sponsors’ products into an event’s theme creating exposure of the product’s benefits to the prospective consumer. The greater the exposure to the product, the greater the likelihood of a sale in the short or immediate term.

In politics, political messages are the products pushed through partisan politics channels. Those messages ask tax payers to vote for a particular candidate or support some policy. Today’s post Martin Luther King civil rights movement has become an event planning channel for partisan messages from the left. Some of the “event planners” are familiar to some of you: the NAACP, the National Urban League, the National Action Network, the National Rainbow Coalition. Others have emerged over the past decade such as Color of Change and Black Lives Matter. Their business model is simple. Led by a bunch of college educated black elites, they invite people from the black masses to participate in forums, panel discussions, parades, etc., where they can discuss issues impacting the “black community.” During these forums they intertwine the messages of the progressive left and then close with calls to action, including during an election season, a call for blacks to vote for liberals.

During Dr King’s time, civil rights leaders exchanged information and inspiration in their church meetings. Other than planting a bug in a church (I wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI did this often), you couldn’t “hack” these meetings unless you convinced civil rights leaders that it was important for you, especially as a non-white, to attend. Contrary to the images you saw on “Mississippi Burning”, of helpless blacks dependent on the white man to get him through, black Americans were very resourceful in addressing and pressing their grievances on their own.

Today they have been convinced that a “go it alone” approach is not feasible. By relying less on their own resources, blacks have opened themselves up the carpet bagging of liberals who have sold them on a new corporate model where the black civil rights movement is underwritten by the Democratic Party and other progressive groups. There is a price to pay for the underwriting. The price is a dilution of message.

Now civil rights has extended to groups that quite frankly don’t need civil rights attention or protection: white women, other ethnic groups, and the LGBTQ communities. Black Americans have been pushed so far down to the bottom of the civil rights ladder that they are a fossilized movement, compressed by the weight of all the other communities that have managed to get ahead of them that today, just like the fossils of dead dinosaurs and mammals, they are fueling the civil and human rights campaigns of everyone else.

Martin Luther King’s death removed any last viability of a movement that was moving its focus toward economic empowerment. The movement opted to go the route of political empowerment, falling for its glamour and surface glitz. That power has traditionally been urban based, but as whites return to core cities and old black neighborhoods gentrify, that power is quickly eroding. Fifty years after his death, all the black civil rights movement may have going for it is putting another event on a calendar.