Pregnancy centers in Mississippi are providing free support and services for women that will eliminate the demand for abortion, regardless of any new rulings from the Supreme Court.

It is a wonderful time to be a pro-life Mississippian. It’s an even greater time to be a pro-life Mississippian with passion for free markets. The Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area, with two Jackson locations, is a force to be reckoned with for our state’s abortion industry.

In fact, the Fondren and Frontage Road centers may just be the thing that makes Mississippi the first abortion-free state in the nation.

Supreme Court’s latest decision on pregnancy centers brought us closer to that reality than ever

If it were not for the Supreme Court rulings of Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton, Mississippi would likely already be free from the requirement of legal abortion. Time and time again, abortion laws have passed our state legislature, often with the tireless work of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, only to be halted by activist judges, and ruled as “undue burden” in the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The “undue burden” that halts the courts from ruling in favor of our state’s wishes refers to women needing to leave the state to find doctors who will commit abortions. It takes time to overturn court decisions, pass legislation, and see court seat changes.

The Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area isn’t willing to wait for court processes to end abortion in our state. Private donors, churches, and local community groups fund free services that wipe out the demand for abortion far before the courts catch up to the conscious of Mississippi residents. With one lone abortion facility in our state, Jackson Women’s Health is standing on one leg.

The death of over 2,500 Mississippi babies annually takes place in the famous “pink house” in Fondren. Nearly half of the women obtaining abortions are from Hinds, Madison, and Rankin Counties. To put that in perspective, 1 in 7 pregnancies end in abortion in the tri-county area. Despite being a pro-life state, despite our overwhelmingly pro-life legislature, and despite our Bible belt reputation, abortion remains a reality for thousands of women in our state.

This is where The Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area penetrates the market—with compassion and practical care

The CPC Metro Area offers medical-quality pregnancy tests, high-quality sonograms, counseling, literature, parenting classes, referrals to community services, infant supplies, and prenatal vitamins for free. Conversely, the JWHO abortion facility charges hundreds of dollars for consultations, sonograms, and counseling all pointed towards their highest profit product: abortion. They do not offer support for women desiring to carry their pregnancies to term. Under the banner of “choice,” women often enter and leave JWHO feeling as though abortion is their only choice.

The nurses and staff of The Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area journey alongside pregnant women of all ages, races, and backgrounds to ensure they are informed of all resources available to them. A woman who enters the CPC Metro Area is counseled by a trained professional to hear her story and educate according to her needs. She will then receive a free sonogram, where she will be able to see her baby. She will leave with prenatal vitamins and literature to help make her decision. This woman can return or call back for help at any time she needs to be heard. Following her decision to carry to term, she can enroll in free parenting classes to prepare for her unplanned parenting experience and receive supplies such as diapers and clothes as incentive for participating. Following her decision to abort, she may still return for post abortive healing sessions with a group Bible study.

When a woman learns that there are ways to meet the needs of her unplanned pregnancy, she often feels the relief of not having to go to the pink house across the street. Instead, the entire staff celebrates her, her pregnancy, and her child.

Heavy, burdensome regulations threatened the freedom of pregnancy centers like The CPC Metro Area around the nation

The narrow 5-4 NIFLA vs. Becerra decision to protect the rights of charitable pregnancy centers is monumental. The law in question placed burdens on pregnancy centers that would force their staffs to betray their own conscience and offer confusing, conflicting information. Pregnancy resource clinics would have been mandated to include information on how to obtain abortions and, if not medically licensed, required to display a lengthy disclaimer in several languages that they do not employ medical professionals.

These charitable organizations, that save states millions of dollars with their non-governmental services, were to be treated as “fake clinics” with ulterior motives. Imagine visiting a salad bar and noticing mandated advertising of the burger joint next door. This is the world the “pro-choice” community wanted for pregnancy options. Instead, the court ruled that it was indeed the right of the pregnancy centers to offer their free services without the burden of intrusive advertisement regulation.

With Justice Kennedy’s seat pending for confirmation, many Americans are hopeful that the courts will catch up to the desires of states to determine their own conscious on abortion legality. In the meantime, the Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area will be here, in Jackson, meeting the real needs of Mississippi women.

English statesman William Wilberforce and his Clapham Sect that started the movement to end the slave trade believed that culture is upstream from politics. Mississippi, the Hospitality State, the most philanthropic state in the nation, and arguably the most pro-life state in the nation, is that culture shift. We will rise up and meet the needs of women beyond the date that politics catches wind of our success.

Colleges and universities, both public and private, have long fashioned themselves as beacons of academic freedom. The place where ideas are to be discussed and debated, and conventional wisdom is challenged and deliberated. A place where various and diverse opinions are welcomed, and the young men and women, who will soon enter the workforce, are better off because of that experience.

Now, back to reality.

That sounds like a wonderful utopia, but we know the unfortunate truth. We know that too often academic freedom is only extended to one side of the political spectrum.

And ideas are not to be debated. Rather, one ideology is to be the truth and everything else is wrong, and usually bigoted, racist, and sexist for good measure.

Conservative speakers are regularly shouted down or shut down. In some instances, we have even seen small riots. And colleges have little appetite for supporting freedom of speech that they don’t like, nor do they care to protect the speakers themselves from the riotous mobs.

After all, if the bulk of the administration, faculty, and student body all think the same way, they see little reason or benefit to accept differing points of view; even as college leaders claim to promote academic freedom.

But a recent state Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin just might strike a blow for academic freedom in America. Actual academic freedom; not just freedom in name only.

A professor at Marquette University, Dr. John McAdams, was effectively terminated for posting an opinion of a political topic on a blog that differs from the administration. The case is pretty simple. A graduate instructor, Cheryl Abbate, listed gay rights as an issue that “everybody agrees on” and “there is no need to discuss it.”

When a student, at this Catholic university, approached the instructor for debate, she called the student homophobic and said she was “invited to drop the class.” The student told McAdams about the encounter and he then wrote about it on his blog and named the instructor.

After Abbate received hateful messages, the school rallied behind the instructor. McAdams had to go in front of a Faculty Hearing Committee and suspension was recommended. The president of the university then added that McAdams could not be reinstated until he signed a letter saying his blog post was “reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University.”

He declined.

That is where the lawsuit began. With the help of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, McAdams won his case as the Supreme Court declared that the decision to fire McAdams violated Marquette’s own promise to protect his academic freedom.

Marquette is a private university. Private enterprises should have broad latitude on employment policies. A religious school, for example, should not be forced to hire a faculty or staff member who is of another faith or is atheist. Just as an employer should be free to require his or her employees to stand when the National Anthem plays.

But a university cannot make up the rules as they go along. Nor can they selectively enforce policies to fit what they do or don’t like. If a university wants to offer its professors academic freedoms, such professors must be allowed to say what is not popular among the administration or faculty.

This ruling represents one professor at one college in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And as the new school year begins, there will certainly be new examples of conservative students or speakers who have had their rights restricted.  But the hope is that in a world where the left has virtually unilateral control, liberty and freedoms may emerge.

And freedom of speech may enjoy a platform on our college campuses, again.

Few policy reforms have been as popular as welfare-to-work. Why, then, is the U.S. Senate trying to kill state efforts at encouraging able-bodied adults to get a job?

Welfare-to-work was one of the signature policy wins of the 1990s, resulting in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

The legislation was signed by President Bill Clinton, after being shepherded through Congress by House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who recognized welfare had become a trap for many Americans.

The two most important features of the federal law were time limits on how long recipients could remain on welfare and work requirements for those on welfare. Both of these reforms were targeted at able-bodied, working-age adults on cash assistance (TANF) and food stamps (SNAP).

The positive impact of federal welfare reform is well documented. A 2004 report by the left-of-center Brookings Institution states: “The welfare-to-work objective was predicated on a simple proposition: poor families are better off employed than on welfare.

Jobs are the best antidote to poverty. The work requirements have helped increase the employment rate of single mothers, lowering welfare dependency and child poverty.”

In particular, poverty rates for black children reached an all-time low.

In spite of its immense success and popularity, the temptation to reverse federal welfare-to-work and related reforms has been unrelenting. Even though he signed PRWORA, Clinton crafted an expansive waiver process that had already started to undo some of PRWORA’s gains by the time he left office.

President George W. Bush not only failed to reign in the waiver process, he oversaw passage of the 2002 Farm Bill (in his defense, he vetoed the 2008 Farm Bill), which loosened food stamp requirements even more, including opening up the program to noncitizens.

Then, beginning in 2009, the Obama administration used the Great Recession in an attempt to unilaterally–and thus illegally–dismantle TANF work requirements.

To say the least, the waiver process under the Obama administration was not transparent.

As late as 2013, no state had even formally applied for a TANF work waiver. Instead, regional offices pressured state welfare agencies to accept various waivers, allowing longstanding policies to be overturned with a single email. Most state lawmakers, and some governors, were unaware that their human services departments had even requested such waivers.

The results soon became evident. Whereas only 12 states had obtained statewide permission to waive food stamp work requirements before Obama took office in 2009, two years later 47 states were waiving food stamp work requirements.

This stampede was aided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which also suspended the work requirement nationwide for two years (2009 and 2010). Food stamp participation rates–and food stamp spending–skyrocketed, with spending doubling under the Obama administration, even as it had already doubled under Bush.

With food stamp spending hitting $80 billion in 2013, lawmakers in conservative states started ringing the alarm bell.

Kansas was one of the first states not to renew its waiver. In doing so, Kansas merely reverted to what the 1996 welfare reform law actually says–that able-bodied adults without children are only eligible for food stamps for three months every three years.

After three months, these adults have to find work, volunteer, or obtain job training in order to remain on welfare. Kansas tracked what happened to those able-bodied adults who cycled off their state rolls. Almost two-thirds obtained employment within a year, many finding permanent well-paying jobs in a variety of industries. Other quality-of-life measures, like marriage rates, also increased.

Here in Mississippi, the poorest state in America, lawmakers first started pressuring for change in 2015. In 2016, Gov. Phil Bryant declined to renew Mississippi’s waiver. And in 2017, the legislature codified that Mississippi could not waive federal work requirements for SNAP.

The $867 billion Farm Bill (H.R.2) just passed by the U.S. Senate threatens to undo this reform for Mississippi, as well as Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia. The subterfuge was accomplished by deleting 7 U.S.C. 2015(o) and moving the work requirement to 7 U.S.C. 2015(d). This occurs on p. 295 and pp. 326-327 of the 1,242-page Senate bill and is a textbook illustration of why it is bad practice to amend laws by reference without indicating what is being changed.

At best, the substitution creates unnecessary confusion. At worst, the result for Mississippi and the aforementioned states is to invalidate their state laws that specifically cite subsection 2015(o) in eliminating the work requirement waiver.

It is tempting to believe the Senate didn’t realize that in the back and forth of crafting the Farm Bill it might be gutting state efforts at helping able-bodied adults find work. Given the tendency of past Farm Bills to expand welfare eligibility, the artful deletion seems intentional.

This assumption is buttressed by the Senate’s tabling of a floor amendment aimed at reforming the food stamp waiver process altogether. In any event, the offending language needs to be fixed now that the Farm Bill is headed to conference.

As demonstrated in a new study by the Employment Policies Institute, more generous welfare entitlements lead to more poverty and more people on welfare.

Whatever the benefits of a targeted and limited safety net for families in crisis, able-bodied adults should be expected to work. Allowing these folks to remain on food stamps indefinitely is personally and socially destructive.

It is immoral that the U.S. Senate is not only doing nothing to free people from the welfare trap, it is also trying to stop states from doing so themselves.

This column appeared in the Daily Signal on July 6, 2018. 

Today, Governor Phil Bryant named Shadrack White, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, the new Mississippi State Auditor. White will replace outgoing Auditor Stacey Pickering, who recently announced his resignation.

“The Governor displayed wisdom with his choice of Shadrack White as State Auditor,” Jon Pritchett, President & CEO of Mississippi Center for Public Policy said. “Though we are certainly disappointed to lose a talented member of our team, we are proud of Shad and happy for he and Rina and their families. Shad’s service as the Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute was exemplary and his work on government accountability and transparency has set a solid foundation for his successor. It’s an honor for one to have the opportunity to serve his home state and I’m confident Shad will serve all of the Mississippi taxpayers well. We should all sleep better with a constitutional conservative in the state auditor’s office.”

White will be sworn in on July 16, 2018.

“While I’m excited for my next step, I’m saddened to leave the talented team at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy and the Mississippi Justice Institute,” White said. “In its short history, the Mississippi Justice Institute has built a reputation for taking tough stands against government overreach and violations of our transparency laws. Its next director will step into a job full of opportunity to make a real difference for Mississippians. I don’t think it’s an accident that MJI’s first director is now a U.S. Attorney, and its second will be State Auditor. Mississippians and Mississippi leaders recognize the powerful force that this Institute and MCPP have become, and that power is being used to make Mississippi freer and more prosperous for the people of this state.”

Prior to White, Mike Hurst was the first Director of MJI. He served in that role until he was named U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi last year.

What creates prosperity? Why are some states rich and others poor? Why does Mississippi consistently rank as one of the poorest states in the nation? Can anything be done to move Mississippi 'out of last place?'

Join Brandon Cline and Claudia Williamson, editors of Promoting Prosperity in Mississippi and the Co-Directors of the Institute for Market Studies at Mississippi State University, for MCPP's July 26 Liberty Luncheon as we discuss these questions and how we can truly promote, encourage and experience prosperity in Mississippi.

Here are the details:

WHAT: Liberty Luncheon: Promoting Prosperity in Mississippi
WHO: Featuring Brandon Cline and Claudia Williamson, Co-Directors of the Institute for Market Studies
WHEN: Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:30 a.m.
WHERE: River Hills Club, 3600 Ridgewood Rd., Jackson, Mississippi

Space is limited so sign up today.

Conservatism is a word I’ve heard a lot since moving here to take the position as CEO of Mississippi’s conservative think tank, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. It seems almost everyone considers himself a conservative. I’m discovering the word has lost some of its meaning, though. It has become interchangeable with the GOP or with one’s views on the Second Amendment or on being pro-life. But those definitions of conservative are not wholly accurate. More importantly, they’re not enough. A conservative is also willing to stand up to encroaching power of all forms of government, to the growing corporatism that seeks to govern us from the boardroom, and to the menace to our society that is a progressive culture.

To make Mississippi a leader in economic growth, entrepreneurship, job creation, and prosperity, we have to make progress on the issue of our long-standing dependence on government. We have to change our public policy. We need to value work, remove barriers to risk-taking, free parents to choose the education path that works for their own children, and leverage the power of the private enterprises of faith, family, non-profits, and private organizations. The faith-based and philanthropic generosity of Mississippians is amazing. It can create so much good, but we have to prevent government from competing with this philanthropy. The best solutions in civil society come from local, efficient, effective, temporary actions where a personal relationship ensures mutual accountability. This is how we used to solve the problems in our civil society.

There are far too many Mississippians who seek to petition government to do this work. Worse, too many individuals and companies are looking to the government for a contract, a job, a partner, or protection from competition. When we allow government to become the Holy Grail in this way, we weaken the free market. We create a disincentive to the formation and deployment of capital. We thwart the opportunity for all Mississippians to prosper. What’s more, such reliance on government ensures only those with power have significant influence on Mississippi, including determining who represents us in the legislative and executive branches of our government.

What makes a “conservative” is not a party or allegiance to a particular leader or political campaign, but the power of ideas. As conservatives, our ideas are based on bedrock values and fundamental truths. Freedom is a policy that works. A limited and restrained government is the essence of our system. And the principle of ordered liberty holds it all together. Our goal at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy is to play a leadership role in building a Mississippi where individual liberty, opportunity, and responsibility reign because government is limited. We believe this is the only way nations, states, and cities have ever enjoyed durable prosperity.

If we remain committed to these ideas and work hard to convince others of their value, we can all experience a Magnolia renaissance. And we can say conservatism made it possible. Real conservatism. The kind of which Bill Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and Milton Friedman spoke. The kind where we are free to pursue our individual liberty and speak our minds. The kind where we encourage people to take action and take risks in pursuit of their happiness. The kind where we take personal responsibility for our futures and stop looking for government to solve all of our problems.

There is an important role for government but it must be limited. Government functions best when it is closest to the people and when it is open and transparent. And the states are the best avenue for getting things done. Although our national government continues to grow into an unwieldy and bureaucratic swamp, our country is still federalist. We are a collection of semi-sovereign states. Federalism is a conservative idea. As Reagan stated in his first inaugural address, “The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.” Thanks to our founding fathers, the real political and policy power is supposed to belong to the states.

Though I’ve lived in Mississippi for only a few months now, I’ve come to learn that y’all are not very fond of people telling you what to do, especially not people in Washington, D.C. I admire that. That’s a conservative thing, too. That independence goes to the heart of the conservative movement. It was present at our founding. It was what compelled Bill Buckley to start National Review. It was what gave us Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. And if we harness it, conservatism will lead us to a prosperous Mississippi—a Mississippi where individual liberty, opportunity, and responsibility reign because government is limited.

The remaining Toys-R-Us stores closed last week ending an era of retail shopping in America. Many were saddened to see the large retailer collapse, but as long as we have had stores in this country, we have had stores that go out of business.

Before Toys-R-Us entered our malls and shopping centers, we had independent toy stores. They couldn’t compete with the large chain and today you see very few independent toy stores, outside of specialized stores in specific locations.

But the reaction to Toys-R-Us closing was a little different than we usually see for these types of announcements. Driven by nostalgia, we saw people shed tears- either real or virtual- about the news. We even saw someone set up a GoFundMe campaign to raise $1 billion.

GoFundMe and nostalgia simply weren’t enough to save the giraffe.

If people were that concerned about Toys-R-Us, there is one very important thing they should have been doing for a long time: shopping there. As happens in a free market economy, the markets change. Toys-R-Us did not adapt and they failed. No different than any other number of businesses.

But we always have to blame someone. That use to be Wal Mart. Today it is Amazon. They are the reason small towns are dying. Why shops downtown are boarded up. Why local governments aren’t receiving enough tax revenue to pave their roads or fund schools. The list could go on for days.

Blaming someone else is the easy thing to do. But the market always chooses the winners. American consumers are, and should be, free to shop for the best options available. In the end, Toys-R-Us missed on a number of key business trends in consumer shopping behavior.

They weren’t competitive with competitors, brick and mortar or online

A very basic rule to retail: you need to be competitive to survive. Toys-R-Us simply did not match their brick-and-mortar competitors like Wal Mart or Target on pricing. Add in the fact that you can also get groceries or household items at those stores and there was no real reason to visit multiple stores when you could complete your shopping in one location. Something that is especially appealing to mom’s with young children.

But Toys-R-Us, as well as Babies-R-Us, had a larger selection than their competitors in the store some might say. That was a bonus if you needed an item at that very moment. However, you can find those same items online either from Wal Mart and Target, or an online retailer like Amazon. And you can receive them in a day or two, with free shipping. Toys-R-Us didn’t seem to grasp the digital trend until it was too late. Again, they just weren’t competitive.

To truly understand how uncompetitive they were on pricing, you needed only to visit a Toys-R-Us or Babies-R-Us during their liquidation sales before closing. At 30 or 40 percent off, they were about on par with their competition.

They didn’t set themselves apart from their competition

The brick-and-mortar advantage is that people can touch and feel items before they buy. We certainly purchase tablets and computers online, but we also like to be able to go to a Best Buy and put our hands on a keyboard or our fingers on a screen- and maybe seek a sales adviser for some expert guidance.

Save for the joy of riding bikes down the aisles, there was nothing that set Toys-R-Us apart. The stores were often cluttered, the experience wasn’t enjoyable, and they certainly were not known for their customer service.

You need to be competitive in pricing, but you also need a niche. Simply selling toys is no longer a niche. Toys-R-Us didn’t do anything to set themselves apart. A joyful customer experience was not part a customer’s average visit to Toys-R-Us.

Kids are seeking digital options, rather than traditional toys

The other part of this story is that the market for toys has changed. As much as we may or may not like to hear it, kids today prefer digital options such as tablets or video games. If you are in the business of selling products for children, you need to adapt. Especially in an environment that is becoming more and more competitive each day.

Some might feel sad that Toys-R-Us closed. Some of us might think back to our childhood. But consumers voted with their feet. They chose convenience. They chose lower prices. They chose independent, niche toy stores. Unfortunately for Toys-R-Us, that means the market chose someone else.

When all is said and done, nostalgia or a catch phrase will only get you so far. The market always determines the winner…and the loser.

This year’s U.S. Supreme Court term is drawing to a close this week, and one thing is plain: this is the best Supreme Court—thanks to Justice Gorsuch and the general trend of the judiciary in the Trump Administration—that our country has had in my lifetime.

For proof, look no further than two cases handed down this week, NIFLA v. Becerra and Trump v. Hawaii.

The first case, NIFLA, was about whether California could require pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to post information about where patients could receive abortions. Forcing the centers to put up that information is forcing them to speak and therefore violating their First Amendment rights. California wanted to require people making pro-life statements to post abortion messages in up to 13 different languages. Even if you just wanted to put up a billboard saying “Choose Life,” you would also have to put up a poster with abortion-related messaging.

The Court found California had overstepped its authority.

Policies like California’s show how extreme the pro-choice movement has become. Thankfully, we have a Court that will protect our right to not be forced to say something we disagree with. You could see the same penchant for respecting speech in the Mansky case earlier this term, where the Court said Minnesota could not ban ideological statements, like “Don’t Tread on Me,” on clothes worn to the polling place.

In the second case, Trump v. Hawaii, the State of Hawaii challenged the Trump Administration's travel ban, which blocks some people from eight countries from coming into the U.S. The reason these eight countries were chosen is they refused to share information with our government to ensure that their travelers are not a threat. The countries are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Chad, Iran, Yemen, and Venezuela.

Despite handwringing from the Left, the Court found that this policy was squarely within the powers of the President. The President has the power to ensure our country is safe, and even if some want to try to spin this policy as bigoted, the truth is that it mirrored policies from past administrations, like the Carter Administration, and was obviously constitutional.

The most encouraging takeaway from this term of the Court is that the Court clearly does not seem to mind making the hard decisions that would be unpopular in the media. Ruling for someone who opposes same-sex marriage, as the Court did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, is an example doing the right thing even though a swath of big corporations and media coverage will be against you. Defending the Trump Administration’s right to have a reasonable immigration policy is another example. This Court cares about following the law and staying within its designated powers, regardless of what names they get called (or what restaurants they get kicked out of). That’s good for our country and good for the judiciary.

Which brings us to the definition of a “good” Supreme Court. A good court is one that does not bend to what is politically popular or even what the justices think the best policy outcome should be. A good court understands its role, follows the plain text of the law, and doesn’t bend the words of the constitution to fit some desired result.  Trump v. Hawaii provided an example of this approach. The Court knows that the law and constitution provide the President with broad authority in the areas of national security and immigration. It’s not for them to question decisions like the travel ban.

NIFLA and Trump v. Hawaii were close votes—both 5 to 4—so if we want more rulings like this, we need more backup for the five justices who stood for the rule of law. But while we wait for more appointment opportunities for this White House, let’s hope for more Supreme Court terms like this one in the meantime.

The latest development from Washington, D.C. includes a northern Virginia restaurant named the Red Hen and White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

Shortly after Sanders arrived at the restaurant last week, co-owner Stephanie Wilkinson told her that they would not serve her and her party because they disagreed with her politics. Specifically, the owner was unhappy with the Trump administration’s refusal to have taxpayers pay for elective surgery and hormones for transgendered soldiers.

So Sanders and company left and only made note of it in a Tweet:

Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) June 23, 2018

The owner would then go on to defend her actions saying, “People have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.”

After the incident we then learned that the owner followed Sanders and her party to another restaurant to continue harassing her.

The difference between Red Hen and Masterpiece

The refusal by a business owner to serve a member of the Trump cabinet, and the celebration of this decision from the left, is oh-so ironic considering the reaction to a Supreme Court decision just a few weeks ago concerning a cake baker and who he would or wouldn’t make wedding cakes for.

The state of Colorado said Jack Phillips would have to make wedding cakes for anyone, regardless of his religious beliefs. Or face punishment for refusing. But in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips in determining that “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views.”

But there are two main differences between Masterpiece Cakeshop and The Red Hen.

Masterpiece served customers who were gay. Phillips would make a cake for any reason other than for their wedding. The equivalent would be if Sanders asked the restaurant to cook for a Trump campaign event. The restaurant should have the right to refuse to do that, because they disagree with the President’s political message. But the restaurant won’t serve Sanders simply because of who she is and her job. That’s the exact opposite of what Masterpiece did. Red Hen said we won’t serve Sanders under any circumstance. Phillips just said he wouldn’t serve someone under a certain condition.

And the Masterpiece decision also centered around the deeply held religious views of Phillips. The Supreme Court has time and again protected the religious freedoms of Americans, which are guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the case of Red Hen, the refusal of service wasn’t related to anyone’s religious beliefs; rather purely to political differences.

The market always works

And Red Hen has plenty of encouragement, even from elected members of Congress. For example, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) recently said this: “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

But the truth is when it comes to Red Hen or Masterpiece, the market will sort itself out. Kicking someone out of a restaurant, particularly for no reason other than political differences, may be reprehensible. But for someone just outside of Washington D.C. surrounded by a sea of anti-Trump vitriol, it might not be a terrible business decision.

The same is true in the case of Jack Phillips. If his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding bothers you that much, and you don’t understand how someone could have religious beliefs that run counter to the endorsement of gay marriage, then don’t frequent his business. My guess is there are plenty of other options in Colorado.

Just like there are other options for restaurants in northern Virginia.

As Mississippi was passing legislation to protect individuals like Phillips from discrimination for their religious beliefs, restaurants and businesses in the Fondren and Belhaven areas of Jackson began putting up stickers on their front door or window that said something to the extent of “if you’re buying, we’re selling.”

Which, of course, any business is allowed to do, whether a state passes religious freedom laws or not. In fact, if a restaurant refused to serve someone simply because they were gay, odds are the media firestorm that that would create would cause real harm to the business.

Businesses should never be forced to promote a message that stands in opposition to their beliefs. Masterpiece shouldn’t be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding if they disagree with same-sex marriage, and Red Hen shouldn’t be forced to make a party tray for a pro-Trump rally if they disagree with Trump.