Cake isn't a right. Neither, by the way, is marriage. You no more have the right to get hitched as you do the right to nom on a three-tiered devil's food delight. Cream-cheese frosted served with coffee. We've been over rights vs. wants, privileges vs. protections before. It's a tale as old Belgian chocolate. Yet the pompously privileged among us will demean, bully and ruin anyone who dares deny them a cake. Specifically wedding cakes. Specifically gay wedding cakes.

Today the Supreme Court ruled "in favor" of baker Jack Phillips but not in the way we'd think. I used the scare quotes purposefully. The court ruled the baker was treated, as Trump would say, very unfairly, which is where Colorado went wrong. If only they'd peed all over his First Amendment rights with a smile. Then all would've been cherries jubilee.

The prevailing argument on the right is the baker has a First Amendment right to his religion, and to refuse service based on that First Amendment right. That's all well and good, but where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to be served at all? Maybe it's hidden between the Amendment about abortions on demand and rewriting the rules of beauty to appease land-dwelling butter whales.

Being a part of a special class of people, which today consists of men who like getting it on with other men or ladies who like scissoring it up with their gal pals, doesn't magically grant the right to cake. Or any other "right." Just as believing one is the opposite sex of what one actually is doesn't grant one the right to drop trou in any bathroom of zer choosing. Tinkling in a business, school, or government toilet is also, as you may have guessed, not a right.

Yet the LGBT Gaystapo, a sliver of angry, activist LGBT peoples, is bent on oppressing anyone who doesn't bend over backward to accommodate their perceived special qualities. They'll bully anyone who refuses to bestow upon them new "rights."

Being LGBT doesn't grant you more rights than anyone else. The LGBT community has no more right to a cake than a straight person does. If a baker doesn't like a betrothed couple, for any reason, should he or she not have the right to deny them service?

A note about discrimination: some will say "But if businesses can refuse service to anyone, they'll refuse service to 'people of color' or 'solve for X group of oppressed peoples!'" Enter the free market. If a racist baker, Dick Smallwood, refused to bake a cake for Tanisha Wang and Mario Pecker, Tanisha and Mario could go to a baker who would be happy to cater them. Word would spread that Dick Smallwood was, in fact, a racist douchecanoe with a teeny weeny. His business would suffer as someone else would happily serve Tanisha and Mario.

Also, who wants to force someone to serve them? Wouldn't you rather be served by someone who's happy to accommodate you? Or one who's only serving you because a government is forcing him? Or are we getting into weird psychology territory where some of the Gaystapo are living out their domineering fantasies? You play the serf, I'll play the oppressive king.

You may also say Tanisha and Mario's feelings could be hurt by Dick Smallwood's refusal. I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to be protected from bad feelings.

The extreme LGBT Gaystapo believe others' lives must be destroyed simply because they want something. As if being "different" is a pass to demand more. To demand "rights" which aren't rights at all.

But being "different" doesn't grant anyone special rights. Being different doesn't grant you bullying powers over anyone who's not just like you, and who doesn't change their beliefs for yours. In short, you have just as much right to cake as you have a right to be a vengeful asshole free of consequences. Where would the equality be in that?

~ Written by Courtney Kirchoff