On Bakers and Gays

The recent controversy, among many other examples, of a Christian baker who refuses to bake the wedding cake of a homosexual couple has sparked some interesting, and passionate, debate even among generally like-minded people.  Arizona's law, of which I am not especially familiar, is more broadly irrelevant to the inherent and underlying issue at hand.  Who's in the right and the wrong?

Truly it is an intriguing question.  On the one hand, the Christians believe, for one, that homosexuality is immoral, and would rather not condone the sin.  But the real issue is that marriage, a God-created institution, is sacred to them, and it mocks God's law to have such a rite used to unite a sinful union.  That it is offensive to those should not be surprising, nor debased as heartless or cruel.  It is simply the defilement of something they hold especially sacred. 

On the other hand, gays certainly do not hold the same beliefs as those strict Christians.  It is in their rights to believe what they may, and to pursue the paths which they believe makes them happy just as the Christians do.  Certainly they wish to be accepted as others are.  But they do not require acceptance, just that they get what they pay for the same as everyone else.  If they want a cake, what is it to the baker who it's for?  He/she's getting paid for a service, not for the moral acceptance of the customers' beliefs.

But we're asking the wrong question now, aren't we?  It doesn't matter who's right or wrong.  They're both right in their own minds.  We can't say one is right and the other wrong, for reality is subjective.  The world is subjectively created.  Of course, if you believe in objective truth (e.g. God), then there exists a right and a wrong.  But who's "objective truth" is really true?  We live on faith, no matter which religion or belief system we subscribe to.  And everyone has a right to that (see Article of Faith 11).

So if we can't say either one is right, what do we do?  What's in the best interest of society?  It doesn't matter what is morally right here because morality is in the eye of the beholder. 

The answer is to maximize individual freedom.  This is right for a few reasons.  First economists have shown repeatedly (both historically and in modern empirical study) that free markets produce the greatest economic benefit.  But so what?  Money isn't everything.  Well, it's actually a bigger deal than we generally give credit for.  Wealth is a representation of how many human needs/wants we have satisfied.  The wealthy are so because they have satisfied many people's needs, thus creating value for them and receiving monetary value in return.  A wealthy nation is relatively "wealthy" because it can satisfy more of its people's needs than a poor country.

Second, by maximizing personal and individual freedom, individuals are able to pursue their own ends, and satisfy them as best as they can.  This is important because we are all different.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution to people's needs.  We need and want different things.  To maximize societal value and happiness, then, we must each pursue our own ends.  We certainly know what we want better than anyone else.

Third, if there is variation in individual freedom, there must be tyranny and slavery.  If one has any more freedom than another, the other is forced in some form to work for the one who is free, who has power.  Morally it is obvious why slavery is wrong.  But what about requiring a doctor to see patients who are sick but can't pay?  Is he not a slave too?  What of the rich executive that pays half her salary to the government.  Isn't she a slave for half the year?  You say no, she's getting something in return.  But is she fairly getting what she's paying for?

So in this scenario, how do we maximize individual freedom?  The baker, who is free, may choose to serve whomever he chooses.  This is right.  "No shirt, no shoes, no service!"  "No soup for you!  Come back one year!"  If we force him to serve someone against his will, he becomes a slave.  Morally it is no different. 

But what of the customers?  Isn't the baker denying their freedom to buy a cake?  That's a silly argument.  Is the Ferrari dealership denying me my right to buy a car?  Is the baker denying me a right to buy a car?  People provide what they will to whom they will.  That's the way it is.  If the baker can't or won't build me a Ferrari at a price I can afford for whatever reason, I can't buy a Ferrari from him.

I've heard it argued that there is a distinction between personal and professional life, that you should be required to serve all without discrimination in professional life even if you don't agree with them personally.  We need to route out this type of thinking, as it is wrong and very dangerous.  As Nobel winning economist Fredrich Hayek explains, there isn't a distinction between economic and personal life.  It's all personal life.  We work for our personal purposes just as we consume for personal purposes.  "It is very questionable whether there are any actions which can be called merely "economic" and whether any restrictions on liberty can be confined to what are called "economic" aspects.  Economic considerations are merely those by which we reconcile and adjust our different purposes, none of which, in the last resort, or economic (except those of the miser or the man for whom making money has become an end in itself)."

The refusal of the baker to provide this couple's cake infringes on no one's rights.  The couple simply must give their business to another baker.  If no baker is willing to do the service (this, of course, is purely hypothetical), then some enterprising entrepreneur will be able to create value in starting a bakery to meet that unmet need.  That is how the economy, and the world, works.  There are infinite unmet needs in the world.  That we simply want them does not make it our right to have them.  We must provide them or have them provided for us in exchange for something else.  We have no right to force a trade, it must be voluntary. 

This analysis is intentionally amoral.  I take no moral stance on individuals' sexual preferences.  I believe homosexuality to be a sin, but that has no bearing on this analysis.  This is simply right.  Freedom is right.