Can’t have your cake and eat it too

| 7:00 pm EST December 10, 2022
Dear Palmer Report readers, we all understand the difficult era we're heading into. Major media outlets are caving to Trump already. Even the internet itself and publishing platforms may be at risk. But Palmer Report is nonetheless going to lead the fight. We're funding our 2025 operating expenses now, so we can keep publishing no matter what happens. I'm asking you to contribute if you can, because the stakes are just so high. You can donate here.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. How many times have we heard that cliché? Well, it fits in this situation. A restaurant in Richmond, VA is under fire for refusing to host a private event for a conservative Christian organization. The restaurant, which is called Metzger Bar and Butchery, prides itself on being an “inclusive establishment,” according to CBS News. The owners found out that the group are donors to a political organization that “seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia.” Some of the restaurant’s employees are female and LGBTQ, and the restaurant didn’t want them to feel uncomfortable. The organization, of course, took to its blog, posting: “We’ve Been Canceled! Again.” So, how is this any different from the web designer whose case is before the Supreme Court because she refused to work with same-sex couples? Is it any different from the baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple? There is no difference; the shoe is merely on the other foot, and they don’t like how it fits. Too bad.

The group is called The Family Foundation, and they are not happy for, as they describe it, being “denied a meal because of your beliefs.” Couldn’t the same be said of the same-sex couple who wanted a wedding site designed for their upcoming nuptials? CNN reported a few days ago that the Supreme Court appears to be leaning toward ruling in the woman’s favor. How might they rule if this so-called Christian organization sued Metzger Bar and Butchery? Let’s look at some of the highlights. CNN said the conservatives judges “seemed sympathetic” and were looking at the case as a free speech issue, with Gorsuch saying it’s not the “who” but the “what” and Coney Barrett believing that “custom work” gives the designer grounds. Thomas specifically pointed out that Smith’s work is not comparable to “a restaurant, a riverboat, or a train,” but what is the difference? Are these owners held to a different standard because they own a restaurant? Do they have no right to free speech or to choose with whom they do business? SCOTUS is setting itself up for a slippery slope should they rule in favor of the web designer but pretend that restaurant owners don’t have the same rights. A business is a business, and the owner of each business has the right to do as it sees fit-or none of them are.

We’re living in a strange era when laws are differently applied to the same issue. You can’t have it both ways; either businesses can choose with whom they do business, or they cannot. It doesn’t matter the type of business. What matters is the law. If it is within the confines of the law for a business to refuse services to those with whom they don’t agree, then that that law works for all businesses other than public transportation or public utilities. SCOTUS had better tread lightly with their ruling; they are going to open a can of worms they won’t be able to close.