Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[Neo-Scholastic]

While you may believe that in this instance the use of state power serves a noble cause, the larger issue is whether government power is ever justified to force people to perform work against their will in service of others. It should be noted that the baker's refusal to be the servant of the plaintiffs in no way restricted the liberties of the plaintiffs.

Yes, the government is justified *at times* in requiring people to perform work against their will in the service of others. That is, after all, what a military draft does. It is what happens when someone is *required* to serve on a jury. It is what happens when people are *required* to pay taxes.

There are many cases where governments do, in fact, have that right and are justified in using it.

There must be a compelling state interest. There is no compelling state interest for the government to insert itself into voluntary and honest private business transactions any more than there is one for the government to insert itself into private consensual sexual behavior. Even in the extreme case of military conscription during times of war, there have always been exceptions for conscientious objectors, such as for Quakers, etc.