ACLU Shows Disinterest in Civil Liberties by Forcing Christian Baker to Serve Same-Sex Couple

On July seventh, the Colorado Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, which has drawn national attention. Craig and Mullins were denied service by Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in July of 2012 when they tried to order a cake for their wedding. Last year, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that the denial of service was unlawful under Colorado state law that says businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Now, Phillips is fighting in defense of his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and expression.

Craig and Mullins are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a group that used to be ideologically libertarian in their defense of individual liberties, but has recently moved in the direction of social justice and equality of outcome for classes of people.

Louise Melling, the deputy legal director of the ACLU, published an op-ed in the Washington Post on June 25th announcing that the ACLU will no longer support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She wrote:

[W]e can no longer support the law in its current form. For more than 15 years, we have been concerned about how the RFRA could be used to discriminate against others. As the events of the past couple of years amply illustrate, our fears were well-founded… [RFRA] is now often used as a sword to discriminate against women, gay and transgender people and others.

The ACLU’s website echoes this sentiment on a page titled “Using Religion to Discriminate,” saying “[w]ith increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people.” The page explains the ACLU’s anti-discrimination stance:

[W]e see business owners… [refusing] to provide services… because the owners object to same-sex relationships. In addition, we see social service organizations that receive government funding deny services to same-sex couples. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but when you operate a business or run a publicly funded social service agency open to the public, those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate.

However, the ACLU makes a serious mistake in flippantly comparing organizations that receive government funding to private businesses like Masterpiece Cakeshop.

The government cannot discriminate nor show preference to one religion over another. There is no protection for the free expression of the federal government; however, First Amendment rights, including the freedom of association or dissociation, are vital for the protection of individual liberty. The owner of a private business should be free to express himself (and his religion) however he pleases; the proper recourse for hateful messaging is negative press and loss of clientele, not legal action.

Craig and Mullins had the proper response initially in 2012, when, as quoted in the Washington Post, they “posted a message on Facebook,” included the phone number for the Masterpiece Cakeshop, and  “asked that if people felt that the way [they] were treated was wrong to call the bakery and let them know that they thought [the policy which denied service to same-sex couples] was wrong.” However, the current litigation aims not to promote acceptance of LGBT people, but rather to force a business owner to feign acceptance and deny individual liberties in the process.

The ACLU posted this picture on their Facebook page:

The caption stated “[w]e believe that everyone should be treated equally, no matter who you are.” In this regard, the ACLU is right. Nobody deserves to be humiliated or dehumanized because of their sexual orientation. But nobody deserves to be stripped of free expression, either, regardless of how unpopular his or her opinions happen to be.

The answer to discrimination against LGBT people in the private sector is not legal action; speech can only be fought with speech. It is sad to see the ACLU, which once proudly defended free expression, taking a stance which could diminish civil liberties.