Gay Patriot Header Image

Wedding Cake Fascism, Act V; Scene I

My opinion on Wedding Cake Fascism has been abundantly clear; in line with my libertarian principles and the Non-Aggression Principle, I don’t believe the Government has any right to force any business to sell to any customer they don’t want to. Full Stop.

Nevertheless, oral arguments at the Supreme Court happened yesterday. I’m pretty sure it will come down to 5-4 ruling in favor of Wedding Cake Fascism because Old Man Kennedy — who found a right to “dignity” in the Constitution to make gay marriage the law of the land — will find that “dignity” requires forcing Christians to bake cake for gay weddings (but not Mohammedans to transport leader dogs for blind people).

There were some interesting (interesting being a euphemism for horrifying) comments made by the wedding cake fascist side, including this one:

Chief Justice Roberts: “So Catholic Legal Services would be put to the choice of either not providing any pro bono legal services or providing those services in connection with the same-sex marriage?”

Colorado lawyer: “Yes”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is perhaps the dumbest person to ever sit on the Supreme Court, had this to say after the baker’s lawyer said people shouldn’t be forced into expressive activities that support gay marriage: “Then don’t participate in weddings!”

Get it? The wedding cake fascists are arguing that if you engage in business, you forfeit any right to choose who you do business with.  And if you don’t want to do business with certain people, you shouldn’t start a business. It’s analogous to saying you forfeit your 3rd Amendment rights by owning a house. (If you don’t want to quarter troops, don’t own a house.) If you don’t want your property searched without a warrant, just don’t have property.

I am pretty much done with this topic. I wouldn’t even have said anything were it not for the very scary and fascistic assertions made by Sotomayor and the Colorado lawyer at the SCOTUS. Anyway, CFG wrote a piece about it, but it’s nothing I haven’t said already: Why I Don’t Want to Force Anybody to Bake a Cake for My Gay Wedding.

Also, Matt Walsh has been commenting on what a nasty pair of vindictive little bitches are the gay couple who started this lawsuit. I think he’s right, they do seem bitter and self-loathing. People who respect themselves and are self-validating don’t need to have the state bully people for not  liking them.

Share

36 Comments »

  1. The only wedding cake that these guys deserve is a Hostess Twinkie with a cheap looking bride and groom on it.

    Comment by Pawfurbehr — December 6, 2017 @ 9:45 am - December 6, 2017

  2. From the HQ:

    If I was a cake baker, I would have probably got in more trouble because I would have said “Sure I can bake you a cake” and then on the day of the wedding I would have sent over a beautiful cake with a large beautifully drawn portrait of one groom holding his ankles with the other groom standing behind him, sticking it in. And then if they got mad I would have said “aw come on it was a joke! I’m a comedian! Can’t you guys take a joke??? HA!”

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2017 @ 9:58 am - December 6, 2017

  3. Groucho almost said: “I wouldn’t eat a cake that the baker didn’t want to bake.”

    For the most part, I find social justice warriors to be in the game for the theatrics and the thrill of showing their asses in public. (I still don’t know what those pussy hats were all about, but they sure were “empowering” to the dopes that donned them.)

    If I ran the bakery, I would align with another baker who had no hesitations about baking a gay-wedding cake. I would sell the clowns what they ordered along with a healthy mark-up for handling the transaction through the other baker. I guess it would be like a kosher butcher who had a separate area for pork and shell fish. He wouldn’t have to be engaged in killing and preparation process, just the retail.

    Petty people are a dime a dozen. And sticking it to a baker who turns down an order is a bizarre fight to pick. I suppose that the loving couple feels humiliated and that gives them “cause” to beat the snot out of the guy who would not accommodate their wishes.

    The “right to dignity” is a hoot. I would love to meet the lucky stiff who gets to be the czar of homeland dignity and sends his dignity agents throughout the land settling dignity disputes in a dignified manner.

    The state dignity police is the absolute first place anyone should go to resolve dignity disputes. Pee Wee Herman should make a movie about this.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 6, 2017 @ 10:50 am - December 6, 2017

  4. “I am pretty much done with this topic.”

    That makes two of us, though the Federalist article you linked is still worth a skim.

    Comment by Sathar — December 6, 2017 @ 10:59 am - December 6, 2017

  5. Bob Hope once quipped that he was OK with homosexuality being legal, as long as it was not compulsory. The gag was funny at the time. But, back then, liberals advocated freedom of choice. We did not foresee that SJWs would someday demand forced participation in gay weddings.

    Comment by Tom — December 6, 2017 @ 12:52 pm - December 6, 2017

  6. I commented elsewhere that Progressives are perfectly fine supporting business owned by homophobes, racists, misogynist, bigots, Klansmen, etc. so long as it’s convenient and they can claim to not know.

    Comment by BigJ — December 6, 2017 @ 1:40 pm - December 6, 2017

  7. Commission Muslim artist to draw Mohammed. When they refuse, haul them into court. Appeal until before SCOTUS. Corner market on popcorn. Enjoy the progressive firework show.

    Comment by Deadcenter — December 6, 2017 @ 2:02 pm - December 6, 2017

  8. @ Heliotrope: And if some queens complain about the extra cost and try to sue for it, the bakers should just ask in court: “Why should I get fined for charging extra, and not every Jewish butcher who charges goys extra to ship in pork cutlets?”

    Comment by Sean L — December 6, 2017 @ 2:54 pm - December 6, 2017

  9. Echoing Sotomayor, leftists have been ridiculing the notion that a cake can be an expression of free speech. Yet, here’s a case where a man was sentenced to 15 years probation for leaving bacon at a mosque. So, apparently, yes… food is speech.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/12/06/mosque-vandalism-hate-crime-bacon/926811001/

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2017 @ 3:53 pm - December 6, 2017

  10. And in Portlandia, leftists attacked a doughnut shop for feeding a poor family at Christmas.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/06/liberals-attack-donut-shops-good-deed-what-in-sweet-name-santa-claus-is-wrong-them.html

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2017 @ 3:55 pm - December 6, 2017

  11. Respond to all questions with “I’m sorry, I can’t hear you.” until they raise their voices, and them kick them out for being disruptive.

    Comment by Karen — December 6, 2017 @ 4:09 pm - December 6, 2017

  12. I read the article about the donut shop, and I am horrified. Instead of protesting the link to the Salvation Army, a better response would be for the protesters to donate food to another worthy group. “Be a part of the solution, not part of the problem.”

    Personally, I regularly drop off food and personal items at the local homeless mission. They do some religious things there, and probably are fundamentalist, but they do good work on balance. Another nearby shelter is a horror show, and I refuse to donate to them.

    Now: From what I have heard, the Salvation Army does discrimate against practicing gay men if they decide to join the army. But, they do not discrimate against their clients.

    Comment by Larry — December 6, 2017 @ 4:23 pm - December 6, 2017

  13. The wise latrina redpills people on affirmative action. Especially since her guidance councilor was tired of her telling the story about him, & explained he thought someone in the top 20% of her high school class should have gotten her free ride.

    She was a small fish in the small pond of high school but the biggest latrina fish any ivy league could find in the ocean of the US.

    Comment by Steve — December 6, 2017 @ 5:01 pm - December 6, 2017

  14. While the NY Times editorial position on this is perfectly predictable, they somehow published a good piece by Robert P. George and Sherif Girgi.

    In it, they discuss the difference between “conduct and expression” and the idea of “compelled speech”.

    It’s been my position that a few hurt feelings now and then is a cheap price to pay for now having a government that can force people to do most anything.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/first-amendment-wedding-cake.html

    Comment by KCRob — December 6, 2017 @ 6:18 pm - December 6, 2017

  15. Hi V the K and Karen,

    The wedding cake fascists are arguing that if you engage in business, you forfeit any right to choose who you do business with.

    and

    Respond to all questions with “I’m sorry, I can’t hear you.” until they raise their voices, and them kick them out for being disruptive.

    And I think that is the standard actually. The WCF are not arguing that you lose the right to choose who you do business with per se; you lose the right to discriminate against a couple because you disapprove of their sexuality. If the heterosexual couple can get a cake, so can the homosexual couple. If the heterosexual couple is being disruptive in the shop, the owner has the right not to serve them. You are not discriminating on the basis of their sexual identification, but on the way they behave in your shop. Some behaviour is unacceptable–such as disturbing the business’ primary activity–kick them out (Karen’s point). It would be as discriminatory for a Muslim business to not serve a Jewish customer on the basis of their religious or ethnic identification. A Jewish shopkeeper would still have to serve a respectful white supremacist who was just buying lunch. If any of these people became abusive–then don’t serve them, and kick them out.

    Comment by Cas — December 7, 2017 @ 12:12 am - December 7, 2017

  16. You misunderstand the entire thing, Cas. Is this deliberate maliciousness or ignorance?

    Comment by Juan — December 7, 2017 @ 1:59 am - December 7, 2017

  17. Cas, no one is discriminating against gays.

    It is discrimination if a kosher deli won’t serve Muslims. Is it NOT discrimination if they don’t serve pork.

    A Hindu artist cannot refuse to sell a painting to someone because they’re Christian. It is NOT discrimination to refuse to make A promotion for steak.

    A musician is discriminating if they refuse to sell cds to people due to their politics. It is NOT discrimination if they refuse certain venues, like playing a Trump’s Inaguration.

    Wal-Mart already refused to bake a birthday cake for a toddler who’s only crime was having crazy parents who named him Hitler. They have a right to do that.

    Comment by Karen — December 7, 2017 @ 2:52 am - December 7, 2017

  18. There also is an inalienable right not to like other people; leftists have a real problem with that. It’s OK for them to hate, of course. But anyone who dislikes some other group of people needs to be punished by the government.

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2017 @ 7:31 am - December 7, 2017

  19. Cas @ #15:

    you lose the right to discriminate against a couple because you disapprove of their sexuality.

    By that same standard, Hobby Lobby must sell trinkets for Satanism crafts. Macy’s must have a leather, whips and chains section for toddlers and Ken and Barbie must not be molded sans gender equipment.

    Would you use the force of law to compel the baker to make a vagina cake?

    The baker would bake a cake for homosexuals. That was made clear. He would not decorate it for a gay marriage. He drew the line due according to his belief system that gay marriage goes against his religious belief system. He is a conscientious objector. Cake, yes; wedding cake, no.

    John Adams argued for a state religion: “Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.”

    Embodying Adams’ principles, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 struck a balance between the freedom of peaceable private religions and the establishment of one public religion. Article II stated that: “it is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publickly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and preserver of the Universe.” Article III provided the reasoning: “the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion, and morality . . . promote their happiness, and secure . . . the good order and preservation of their government.” The same constitution also insisted that all persons, particularly political leaders, maintain rigorous moral and religious standards, which they confirmed in their oaths of office. It also rendered these same moral qualities essential ingredients of education within the state, since “the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and the other United States of America.”

    Naturally, that was then and this is now. But, the agnostics and atheists have not succeeded in driving religion from the public square and, thus, it remains an impediment to their secular humanism.

    For those who need to brush up on secular humanism: • Secular humanism is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. • Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.• Secular humanism is a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life. • Secular humanism is philosophically naturalistic. It holds that nature (the world of everyday physical experience) is all there is, and that reliable knowledge is best obtained when we query nature using the scientific method. Naturalism asserts that supernatural entities like God do not exist, and warns us that knowledge gained without appeal to the natural world and without impartial review by multiple observers is unreliable. • Secular humanism provides a cosmic outlook—a world-view in the broadest sense, grounding our lives in the context of our universe and relying on methods demonstrated by science. • Secular humanists see themselves as undesigned, unintended beings who arose through evolution, possessing unique attributes of self-awareness and moral agency. • Secular humanists hold that ethics is consequential, to be judged by results. This is in contrast to so-called command ethics, in which right and wrong are defined in advance and attributed to divine authority.

    Therefore, for secular humanists, ethics is outcome based. If it moves the agenda forward, it is ethical. The ends justify the means. Morality is instinctual or it is group controlled by the fact that might makes right. Morality is cultural and varies from group to group according to the sub-cultural norms.

    And blah, blah, blah. Secular Humanism and nihilism are conjoined.

    Therefore, the baker must bake the gay wedding cake or be denied the right to bake. Period. The higher power in this naturalistic order is the group which “understands” the rights emanating from the “enlightened” universe of self-awareness.

    That is where Cas comes in. We, the unworthy, are being dazzled by enlightenment of Cas and we are too damned dumb to know it.

    Secular humanism is the triumph of arrogance over weakness and humility.

    Well, Cas, I stand informed. But screw you and the secular humanism mule you rode in on.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 7, 2017 @ 12:10 pm - December 7, 2017

  20. What you never heard in the media was that the baker offered to sell them any pre-made cake in the bakery case. So he did not refuse them service. What he refused to do was to get involved with them in the decorating process. He did not want to participate in their wedding in that capacity. The media has been pimping this as the baker refused to sell them a cake. Categorically untrue. But then, are you surprised that the media omitted this very salient fact? This is exactly why Trump won.

    Comment by runningrn — December 7, 2017 @ 4:03 pm - December 7, 2017

  21. Hi Karen, Juan, and V the K,
    I don’t think it is a question of liking people. I know that many people on the left focus on outcomes and people on the right think about the intention of people. I do not doubt that the bakery folks do not intend to discriminate. They are following their strongly held beliefs. But, and it is a but–they are running a commercial enterprise. They are refusing service not on the basis of someone’s actions (because they deserve to be treated that way) but because of who they are.

    The pork analogy–to push your analogy–it is discrimination if the deli has pork, and won’t serve it to someone–Jewish or non-Jewish, who wants it. After all–the bakery has the “pork” so to speak–right? They just don’t want to serve it to a group of people they disapprove of, in this case. If I have a cd, is it discrimination to not sell it to someone because they tell me that they are gay, even if they are a religion I like?

    Just because the justices want to argue about “freedom of expression” and whether the cake is “artistic expression” I don’t think my comments show I misunderstand what is going on.

    I want to emphasize the commercial nature of the bakery. If this is a private undertaking, no one is going to argue that if my friend doesn’t want to bake a cake for me that they are legally discriminating against me. But the purpose of this bakery is to offer a service to those people who are willing and able to purchase it.

    That is the way capitalism operates. I am trying to understand how on the one hand people here argue that we need to get out of the way of markets that are self-correcting and on the other accept behaviour from firms that cuts against this desire of capitalism to treat all equally in the face of market forces (something, I repeat, that many here hold sacrosanct).

    Comment by Cas — December 7, 2017 @ 4:28 pm - December 7, 2017

  22. Hi runningrn,
    I consider the icing on the cake to be part of the cake making process. Though some people like unadorned cakes, many do not, and consider the icing etc., an integral feature of the cake (one of the reasons that cake makers offer that type of cake and advertise that they do so). For example, many people would think that an unpainted house was not a finished house, and would think it strange when the seller says that even though their houses have paint jobs, in this case it won’t.

    Comment by Cas — December 7, 2017 @ 4:41 pm - December 7, 2017

  23. So, according to Cas, the baker must obey the customer.

    OK. I want loaf cakes arranged in the form of a swastika and iced in red with black tops and white lettering reading: Exterminate Islam, Jews, Gays and the Weak.

    Oopsie.

    …the purpose of this bakery is to offer a service to those people who are willing and able to purchase it.

    That is the way capitalism operates…

    Bullshit. No painter is compelled by capitalism to paint Cas Sucks Green Wienies on the side of a house of a person who is willing and able to pay for it. No doctor is compelled by capitalism to insert decorative studs into the skull of a person who is willing and able to pay for it. No farmer is compelled by capitalism to host wiccans to tear up his cornfield because they are willing and able to pay for it.

    Capitalism does not permit me to throw you out on your ass because I am willing to pay the landlord twice the rent.

    people here argue that we need to get out of the way of markets that are self-correcting and on the other accept behaviour from firms that cuts against this desire of capitalism to treat all equally in the face of market forces (something, I repeat, that many here hold sacrosanct).

    Huh?

    It looks like Cas is in need of scaling Mt. Capitalism in order to ask the Dali Lama of Capitalism how to achieve capitalism nirvana. Or Utopia. Or perfect harmony. Or what the meaning of what “is” is.

    Egalitarianism and Capitalism does not compute. No way. Nada. Never.

    If ANYONE here besides socialist trolls ever defined capitalism as a redistributive force, name the poor soul.

    Color me totally baffled: “people here argue that we need to get out of the way of markets that are self-correcting and on the other (hand) accept behaviour from firms that cuts against this desire of capitalism to treat all equally in the face of market forces” — not a complete thought or sentence — but — When did the “desire of capitalism (become) to treat all equally in the face forces of market forces”?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 7, 2017 @ 6:24 pm - December 7, 2017

  24. Cas – the NY Times piece I link to is worth a read. One point raised is that a decorated wedding cake, like a statue, is art. Being edible is beside the point.

    If looked at as expression, it’s little different than forcing a sculptor to create a piece that offends his conscience.

    I’ve asked in the past: if the government can force someone to decorate a wedding cake, why can’t it force a physician to perform an abortion or participate in an execution? Some docs wouldn’t have a problem doing either while others would object on traditional ethics grounds or religious grounds.

    People love to have gov’t *force* people to do things as long as the people being forced are people we don’t like and as long as we don’t wind up in the crosshairs.

    The list of things that the gov’t can make people do should be as short as possible. Liberty doesn’t mean everyone always gets their way (and the baker certainly didn’t get his way)./

    Comment by KCRob — December 7, 2017 @ 6:41 pm - December 7, 2017

  25. KC Rob,

    A work of art falls under the freedom of speech (expression) First Amendment protection.

    This issue is well outside of Bill of Rights protections.

    It is fundamental. Cas ordains that “capitalism” requires that the “capitalist” service provider must compliantly fulfill every buyer’s “legitimate” service request. Yet, you may expect Cas to defend the Muslim baker’s right to keep all pork lard out of his establishment.

    I respectively object to giving the baker cover as an artist expressing his art. I don’t disagree with that as a fall back position, but it begs the question.

    Should a baker be allowed to refuse to bake and decorate a divorce cake or a “congrats on losing your virginity” cake or a “good luck with your one night stand” cake?

    Cas is likely inspired by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “dignity whisperer,” who has found “dignity” emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution. Lawrence v. Texas:“Adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” United States v. Windsor: “It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage.”

    “Dignity” is a new egalitarian hitching post. But if the buyer has a right to some convoluted right to dignity, does it not follow that the seller does also?

    The moral fluidity of the Secular Humanist can cram just about anything down the throat of the poor stiff who runs afoul of political correctness.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 7, 2017 @ 9:48 pm - December 7, 2017

  26. Thanks KCRob. I read the piece. This interested me:

    After all, the aesthetic purpose of wedding cakes — combined with the range and complexity of their possible designs — makes them just as capable of bearing expressive content as other artistic speech. Mr. Phillips’s cakes are admired precisely for their aesthetic qualities, which reflect his ideas and sensibilities.

    Though the op-ed argues that by analogy, a carpenter or stone mason’s work could arise to the level of art, I would also argue that as a craftsperson, that the work they do is not primarily for the purpose of art (as in the case of a formal artist) but as a vehicle for a more utilitarian purpose–a pathway, a cabinet, or even, yes, a wedding cake. Even if the cake was not going to be carved & eaten for its gastronomic qualities.

    why can’t it force a physician to perform an abortion

    I agree, that would be unacceptable, but I don’t think this is the situation here–the situation, I think, is more a kin to a doctor who practices abortions, and refuses to do an abortion for one person, because of some criteria that they don’t like about the person asking for the abortion, but which is incidental to the actual task of performing an abortion.

    Liberty doesn’t mean everyone always gets their way

    True, but let me ask a question in return. Why couldn’t a person, using the same logic that the baker is offering, decide not to serve someone of color or from a minority religion, if they believe–sincerely–that doing so is a violation of their religious beliefs? That would be OK, right, according to this line of thinking? I feel uncomfortable with that outcome. At what point would the loss of that person’s access to services be an acceptable or unacceptable loss of liberty to you, if at all?

    Comment by Cas — December 8, 2017 @ 12:24 am - December 8, 2017

  27. Wilful mischaracterization of the baker’s position.

    Baking is not a public utility.

    Baker did not refuse to provide a service – that of baking a cake. Baker refused to bake them a cake for a wedding. Baker offered other cakes.

    Comment by aerinyes — December 8, 2017 @ 12:36 am - December 8, 2017

  28. True, but let me ask a question in return. Why couldn’t a person, using the same logic that the baker is offering, decide not to serve someone of color or from a minority religion, if they believe–sincerely–that doing so is a violation of their religious beliefs? That would be OK, right, according to this line of thinking? I feel uncomfortable with that outcome. At what point would the loss of that person’s access to services be an acceptable or unacceptable loss of liberty to you, if at all?

    Comment by Cas — December 8, 2017 @ 12:24 am – December 8, 2017

    No, you’re not uncomfortable with that outcome, Piss Cas.

    We know that because of how you and your fellow LGBT and Democrats behave.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/antonio-darden-susana-martinez-hairdresser-new-mexico_n_1310219.html

    http://volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/

    Now, Piss Cas, what those two cases make obvious is that you consider “loss of access”, even when it comes to a government official actively and publicly denouncing and denying service to people based on their stated religious beliefs, to be a small price to pay.

    What this case establishes is that Christians have the same rights as LGBT people and Democrats who wish to deny service to others.

    That would be equality under the law. You are objecting, of course, because you don’t want equality; you want Christians and those with religious beliefs to be treated as second-class citizens.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 8, 2017 @ 9:08 am - December 8, 2017

  29. Now of course, Piss Cas is not going to answer the question, because Piss Cas is nothing but a troll.

    But, since I’m here, another fine example. Piss Cas, why can LGBT bar owners discriminate on the basis of gender?

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/the-abbey-bans-bachelorette-parties_n_1546008.html

    Before you start spinning, Piss Cas, this is in California. The laws you claim you just want people to follow explicitly state that discrimination by gender is a crime and is forbidden.

    Why do you think the Democrat Attorney General, Democrat Governor, Democrat-controlled Department of Justice, and Democrat President Obama, supposedly of the party that supports women, deliberately allow these women to be discriminated against?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 8, 2017 @ 9:14 am - December 8, 2017

  30. So Aerinyes,
    How many carpenters or stone masons do you know are “public utilities”? I don’t know any. So, who is mischaracterizing who’s position here? And your epigrammatic answer just ignores the points I made. It is OK to just say I am wrong, but please, don’t assume that just saying what you did proves your point. You have a different opinion to mine on this issue–fair enough. But that is all you have done, Aerinyes.

    Also I am still interested to know what you think of U6 and its relation to the current moment in this business cycle. You never did get back to me on that issue. 🙂

    Comment by Cas — December 9, 2017 @ 12:38 am - December 9, 2017

  31. I stated facts.

    Not opinions.

    Fact one: Baking is not a public utility or service. comparisons to carpenters and stonemasons, which are also not public services, change nothing.

    Fact two: You are willfully mischaracterizing said bakers actions.

    Fact three: Historically, the catholic church has offered free medical care to homosexual victims of AIDs and HIV. Until the state forced them to stop.

    Fact Four: The bible teaches hatred of sin. Not of sinners.

    Comment by aerinyes — December 9, 2017 @ 2:19 am - December 9, 2017

  32. Hi Aerinyes,
    Point one: Is there an essential difference between a baker and a stonemason? If so, what is it, in your opinion? If you can’t offer one, then I believe my analogy stands.

    Point two: You’ll need to explain how I am “willfully mischaracterizing said baker’s actions.” Asserting this is not enough to convince me. After all, making a cake for someone is a “service” for which the baker is paid. Why does it matter to you whether the service is for a birthday, for unrelated personal consumption of said cake, or for a wedding in which cake will also be consumed? Are these cakes all being provided as a service? It is not enough to offer a cake without the service offered to decorate it. I do argue that the decoration is an essential feature of a wedding cake. I haven’t seen many non decorated wedding cakes–have you? What do you think–if you think differently, offer your reasons.

    As for your points three and four at #31–could you please explain what this has to do with what is being discussed here? I am a little lost in this line of reasoning.

    Comment by Cas — December 12, 2017 @ 12:03 am - December 12, 2017

  33. There is no essential difference between a baker and a stonemason. A stonemason is equally free to decline work for any reason, or a specific reason.

    If the baker is willing to sell them a cake, but unwilling to sell them a wedding cake, Cas says this means they are unwilling to sell them a cake, period. They are willing to sell cakes. They are unwilling to sell cakes that celebrate what they see as a sin.

    Cas, would you be willing to use state sponsored force to require a baker to bake a cake celebrating Nazi symbols and the third reich, or the rise of the fourth reich, if that baker objects to doing so on religious grounds?

    If that same baker refuses to bake a cake celebrating Samhain?

    If that same baker refuses to bake a cake celebrating Easter?

    If that same baker refuses to bake a cake celebrating MAGA?

    #3/4: Cas posits a slippery slope argument that sees all homosexuals being denied the ability to access basic services – housing, food, clothes, electricity, broadband, phone service, medical care – if a baker is allowed to decline baking a homosexual wedding cake. Then cannot see the reasoning behind why someone would post what I did. This also follows from Cas’ willful mischaracterization of the baker’s decision to refuse to bake a wedding cake, instead interpreting it as the decision of the baker to deny them any cake at all. I wonder what Cas thinks of Marie Antoinette’s famously misinterpreted and mischaracterized line.

    Comment by aerinyes — December 12, 2017 @ 1:29 am - December 12, 2017

  34. What I don’t get, Aerinyes, is how you separate the cake from the celebratory decoration that goes with it. You go to bakers for what they are known for–this baker is known for his icing and his wedding cakes. And it is not about whether he is willing to sell them a cake or not, but selling a service for their wedding. The question is whether the service is one that the baker would extend to others, if not to this couple? And the issue IS the wedding cake:

    Last to be heard Tuesday was David Cole, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, who was representing Charlie Craig and David Mullins. They were planning a wedding reception in 2012 when they stopped by the Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips said he could not make a custom cake for them because the Bible said marriage was limited to a man and a woman. Surprised and upset, the two men left and later filed a complaint with the state commission.

    Cole said the dispute did not involve words or speech. “The only thing the baker knew about these customers was that they were gay,” he said. “There was no request for a design. There was no request for message. He refused to sell any wedding cake. And that’s identity-based discrimination.”

    And as for slippery slopes–yes, you can take up this very point with Justice Kennedy, who made that VERY point:

    Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who probably holds the deciding vote, pressed a Trump administration lawyer who defended the baker’s right to turn away a same-sex couple. If the court were to grant such a right, Kennedy asked, would a store owner with religious objections be able to post a sign in the window stating that gay couples are not served?

    “You would not think that an affront to the gay community?” he asked U.S. Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco.

    Ruling for the baker could have a broad impact, he said, and persuade others around the country to join a movement to refuse service to gay couples. “Would the government feel vindicated in its position?” Kennedy said, sounding irked.

    Comment by Cas — December 13, 2017 @ 9:30 pm - December 13, 2017

  35. Conflation.

    Cas is conflating the baker refusing to sell them a wedding cake – a cake meant to celebrate something the baker sees as a sin – with the baker refusing to sell them a cake with icing on it because they’re gay.

    Mischaracterization.

    Baker is perfectly willing to decorate cakes for anyone. Is not willing to decorate cakes for every -reason-.

    The bible teaches hate for sin. Not for sinners. Sin is not to be celebrated.

    This baker also refuses to bake Halloween cakes, yet no one is up in arms about that.

    Cas, would you be willing to use state sponsored force to require a baker to bake a cake celebrating Nazi symbols and the third reich, or the rise of the fourth reich, if that baker objects to doing so on religious grounds?

    If that same baker refuses to bake a cake celebrating Samhain?

    If that same baker refuses to bake a cake celebrating Easter?

    If that same baker refuses to bake a cake celebrating MAGA?

    What is the compelling government reason to force someone to participate in something they view as sinful and evil?

    Should a black photographer be compelled by the government to take photos for a Ku Klux Klan event?

    Comment by aerinyes — December 13, 2017 @ 11:31 pm - December 13, 2017

  36. Charlie Craig and David Mullins were planning a wedding reception in 2012 when they stopped by the Masterpiece Cakeshop.

    Actually, they drove 102 miles out of their way, passing by no fewer than 30 bake shops, to target Masterpiece. The left lies.

    Comment by V the K — December 14, 2017 @ 11:04 am - December 14, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

**Note: Your first comment will be held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**

Live preview of comment