Barney Frank’s Double Standard

Former Senator Barney Frank, who is gay, defended  the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow procedural ruling in favor of a Christian baker who refused to serve a gay wedding cake. From Barney Frank to LGBT Voters: ‘People Have a Right to be Bigots,’ Don’t ‘Trash Them in Return’:

Reacting to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple, former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that people “have a right to be bigots,” which is not “a license to trash them in return.”

“He was moved to decide this in part because people on the Colorado Human Rights Commission may have been well-intentioned, but they were mean-spirited when they made nasty comments about religion. And so there’s a very important point for people on our side to understand: You can’t have a one-way standard,” 

My emphasis. 

Strictly speaking, the Colorado Masterpiece Bakeshop case is not fundamentally about bigotry. Bigotry is certainly part of it. Fundamentally, it’s really about faith—which is actually worse. A bigot can be persuaded. Faith precludes persuasion because it is based on blind acceptance of an idea from the authority of a holy book. Be that as it may, Frank is right, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, he doesn’t go far enough.

Later, in defending free speech, Frank also says “This is not a principle that doesn’t have some two-way street,” implying that principles should be applied consistently. Sounds a lot like mutual respect for each others’ opinions, even if one disagrees. 

But he also supports anti-discrimination laws that force bigots to sell services that violate his beliefs:

“Secondly, yeah, the ruling is very limited. I think it’s very clear if you are a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, whatever your sexual self-description is, you will not be legally denied any service that is normally provided to others. Let’s be clear: that’s a given. The question is, if you want something specifically tailored to reflect your interests as a lesbian couple or as transgender people, how far can you go? And it is logical, yes, people have a right to be bigots and you have some limits on what you could have people sign on to,” he added.

This mish-mash becomes clear later: Frank believes businesses should be legally compelled to provide services even if the service violates the business owners conscience. But does an LGBT person have a right not to patronize a bakery? Where is the two-way street? How has an LGBT person any more right to legally force a merchant to provide a wedding cake than it is for Christians to, say, legally outlaw gay marriage. Why is it wrong for Christians to force their values on LGBT persons through bans on gay marriage, but right for LGBTs to force their values on Christians by compelling them to provide that cake?

It sounds like a one-way standard. Frank argues for the right to be a bigot, but not to live by that opinion. But the right to hold an opinion is hollow without the right to act upon it. The right to think and the right to act on one’s judgement are indispensable corollaries of a free society. People living under dictatorships have the first. It’s the second that makes us free. The only obligation is that one’s actions not violate the rights of others. The baker’s refusal to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple no more violates the couple’s rights than that gay couple’s refusal to patronize the bakeshop violates the baker’s rights. 

Related Reading:

Individual Rights is the Solution to the Gay Marriage Conflict

Gay Marriage: The Right to Voluntary Contract, Not to Coercive “Contract”—My article for The Objective Standard

Court Violates Cake Baker’s Right Not to Serve Gay Weddings—Ari Armstrong for The Objective Standard

‘Bigotry Motivated by Religion is Still Bigotry’—True, but Still an Individual Right