Gay Marriage

Nobody Has a Right to an Anti-Gay Wedding Cake, Either

|

"No, no, it's just a perfectly normal yellow cake, I assure you."
Credit: Boggy | Dreamstime.com

Theodore Shoebat is the answer to the question, "Why should anybody care so much about freedom of association, anyway?" Shoebat and his father, Walid, have a Christian conservative site that features stories with headlines like "The Homosexual Empire," "America Is Becoming an Agent of Satan (We Are Now Living in Sodom and Gomorrah)," and "America's Most Embarrassing Muslim Spy and His Terrorist Connections Have Been COVERED UP and are NOW EXPOSED."

So probably not the site for me, and a lot of folks, and that's fine. The Internet is a big and wonderful place. Shoebat recently, though, performed an experiment some fans of freedom of association simply ponder. He called a bunch of gay or gay-friendly bakeries to see if they would make a cake for him that says "Gay marriage is wrong." He has posted videos of his conversations on YouTube and you can watch them here.  

Shoebat is kind of his own worst enemy in trying to perform this experiment. He can't keep from referring to the homosexual agenda "in California" and trying to argue with the folks in the other end of the call rather than simply asking if they'd sell him the cakes he wants. And his claim that they all rejected him isn't exactly true. His first call is to a cookie place, not a bakery. After arguing with the woman and saying that she'd be discriminating against him if she refused to make his cookie, she finally says she'll do it, though sarcastically says she'd add a big penis to the cookie. When a baker says they won't make him the cake because "They don't support that," he doesn't respond by saying that he's not asking them to support his position, just make a cake. Instead he asks them why they don't support his statement, which is missing his own point. Shoebat needed to be making the argument that it shouldn't matter whether they agree, because they're just providing a service.

But while it would have been better for a more articulate person to have performed this experiment, it's instructive nevertheless. If bakers are a "public accommodation" as is argued, there's no reason for them to refuse to make these cakes or cookies or what have you. The bakeries would not be saying "Gay marriage is wrong." They're just selling a cake to somebody who believes that. Just as making a gay wedding cake is not an endorsement of gay marriage. It's just fulfilling a customer's orders.

But it's wrong on both counts. Nobody should, by order of the government, have to make Shoebat's stupid cakes. And nobody should be forced to make gay wedding cakes either. Ethical and moral consistency requires demanding both or neither, not one or the other. Somehow some people see that it's obviously wrong for anybody to be forced to make Shoebat's cakes, but not gay wedding cakes.

Related: "Nobody, Gay or Straight, Has a Right to a Wedding Cake"

NEXT: Gun Owners Defy Washington Background Check Law as Rally Organizer Burns His Carry Permit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. yourenothelping.jpg

  2. To fit the case even more closely within the “public accomodation” laws, he should have asked for a cake reading, “Support Biblical Marriage! One Man, One Woman! For More Info, Contact our religious ministry at [Web site].”

    Then they could report recalcitrant bakers for religious discrimination, especially if he could find examples of them doing cakes for more liberal religious groups.

    1. What surprises me is that this is the first SoCon I’ve heard of who attempted this experiment.

      I would imagine they would be climbing all over this bandwagon! Unless they have a principled support for freedom of association, that is.

      1. I could see doing this even with a principled support for freedom of association. It just hammers home the “today me, tomorrow you” aspect of all the government bullying that liberals always ignore.

        1. Its a tactical question.

          Is freedom of association defended/advanced by applying current limitations broadly and evenly, in hopes they will be found intolerable and thus repealed?

          Either a “yes” or “no” answer is acceptable, really. Up to you, but if you answer “yes” I for one am not going to accuse you of being a pants-shitting bigot or of not being True Libertarian.

          1. I actually oppose persecuting gay bakers – I think that some fanatics would be willing to throw the gay bakers under the bus in exchange for the chance to bankrupt the Christian bakers.

            “in hopes they will be found intolerable and thus repealed”

            Looking at the history of the past 100 years, I shudder at the strategy of “double down on this bad policy until people realize how dumb it is.” Because there are depths of depravity that people are quite willing to plumb.

            1. So my position is to have a case of persecution vs. the gay bakers, so supporters of free association can stand up for them. And a victory for the gay bakers can then be a precedent for more traditional targets of the SJWs.

          2. Yes. If this shit exists, apply it evenly across the board and see if you can get maybe 2% of the hysterical shrieking hordes to stop any actually give their position some thought before advocating government-enforced “fairness.”

            1. Look, I feel like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, I didn’t want to actually coerce gay bakers, just to taunt them *if* they would coerce other bakers.

        2. DC “liberals” got a taste this week http://dcist.com/2014/12/can_b…..1743826111

        3. This isn’t ABOUT “government bullying”. It’s about ‘christians’ bullying.

          Why do conservatives always ignore the facts?

          1. You seem confused…do you know where you are? Most of the people talking here are libertarians, not conservatives, and they’re fine with gays marrying, or not marrying, or marrying twice without a divorce between.

            Not providing a service is not the same thing as bullying. Forcing someone to provide a service is bullying.

    2. Sorry, but “Biblical Marriage” was, more often than not, between one man and many women. It was also between 1 rapist and his victim. It was also between one man and his brother’s widow. You could look all this up. I did.

      Instead, Moonbat chose to LIE. NO same-gender couple has EVER requested a cake that read, “Straight marriage is wrong”. THAT would have been a valid comparable.

      Why ‘christians’ forget/ignore the central tenet of their faith (Do to others as you would have them do to you) so readily when it comes to God’s LGBTQ children is a mystery.

      1. I’m not sure you know where you are… I’m also not sure you understand the article above. I’ll give you a word of advice: stop embarrassing yourself here.

      2. Also, as much as your internet fueled theology degree impresses us all, I think most people who would identify themselves as Christians would laugh at the suggestion that “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is the central tenet of their faith.

  3. Just bake your own fucking cakes morons!

    1. Oh, come one, where’s the fun in that?

      You can’t sue *yourself* and bankrupt yourself with legal fees and fines, so what’s the point?

      1. Are you quite sure? I say buy liability insurance and sue your own ass silly! You’ll be a loser, but maybe also a winner, and either way, you’ll make your own point.

        And yes, it has gotten just that silly.

    2. Not everyone CAN. Not everyone wants to. Not everyone has the time.

      What have you got against commerce?

      1. Nothing at all, but some of us don’t like using coercion to force someone to bake a cake. You’re a goddamn bully, and if you behaved in your interpersonal relationships the way you want government to behave on your behalf you would eventually get beaten up, as all bullies do.

      2. I think we’re against forced commerce. Libertarians believe in allowing people do do as they choose as long as they are not harming others. If bakery A doesn’t want to bake cakes for gay marriages, then if the government stays out of the way, someone will open bakery B, which will bake the cakes that bakery A doesn’t. And then you get to vote with your dollars and put bakery A out of business.

  4. I wish I still had pictures of my parents’ wedding cake that said GOD HATES FAGS on it.

    1. God Hates Figs!

      Matthew 21:19

      1. Why would God create a fruit, he didn’t love?

        1. Everyone loved Liberace!

        2. This is true! And then doubling down, he also created Newton.

    2. No wonder you turned out the way you did.

      Proof positive that mere heterosexuality is NO guarantee of good parenting.

      1. NOTICE FROM THE MANUFACTURER: Your sarcasm meter is due for calibration. Please have it serviced immediately, and be cautious of commenting until it is working properly.

        1. LOL! It seems the problem is that overzealous progressives have to lower their standards a bit when seeking out potential Christian Fundamentalist Conservative targets causing sarcastic comments to get lumped in with similar ones made by the ultra-dipshit fringe they are used to picking on at other sites…

  5. I’ve said it before – current judicial theory does not allow *individuals* to make these decisions. Government has continually expanded its authority to determine what is and isn’t socially acceptable and to enforce those norms through law and has completely destroyed your 1st Amendment right to free association. Its not even critically wounded like the 4th and 5th are – its completely dead.

    in the old days you’d simply shun someone whose actions you didn’t like – but that does not inculcate a proper sense of government dependency.

    1. In the old days black people were shunned from participating in the life and commerce of their own communities, systematically. That’s why these laws exist. People want small government, they should stop demonstrating why it doesn’t actually produce a decent society.

      1. Re: Tony,

        In the old days black people were shunned from participating in the life and commerce of their own communities, systematically.

        Yes, the State did this. You know, that nice State that keeps civilization from collapsing under the weight of self-interest. Yeah, that nice, cuddly State – it shunned blacks.

        That’s why these laws exist.

        At least, that is what the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem Dat Teeches To Reed and Writ told you.

        1. Yes, the State did this. You know, that nice State that keeps civilization from collapsing under the weight of self-interest. Yeah, that nice, cuddly State – it shunned blacks.

          Yeah, bigots use the state to their own ends. What’s your point? Anti-bigots ought to exclude themselves from advocating for public action on the promise that bigots will do the same? More unicorn shit, but that’s really all you got. You shall not be constrained by the pedestrian concerns of how human beings actually work. If only everyone agreed not to impose power over others, life would be swell. Your entire belief system is predicated on question-begging utopianism, not to mention a mendacious disregard for cause and effect.

          But let’s indulge this fingerpainting fantasy world you perpetually live in. No governments, somehow, impose Jim Crow despite a racist white majority. Thus, since government doesn’t forbid discrimination either, discrimination pervades communities. Tough shit to the minority, I guess? Oh and you’re a lazy thug for not taking advantage of the magic of capitalism too!

          1. Tony, I disagree. You’re usually much better than this. Inspite of other’s opinion of you, I appreciate your additions to the discussions.

            Libertarianism isn’t based on humans “agreeing” not to impose power; Libertarianism is concerned protecting individuals from imposing power.

            Libertarianism is based, as I understand it, on the idea that human beings are mean motherfuckers that will use any power they get to force others to act/think as they see fit.

            The problem is, the more authoritarian a state becomes the more mean motherfuckers there are to impose their will upon another. Most progressivism, as I understand it, argues that mean motherfuckers who are elected are cured and no longer the mean motherfuckers we all know all people to be. (If you say “Well, I’m not a mean motherfucker!” and “Neither is my preferred elected representative!” then I have nothing to say to you. We are all mean motherfuckers, some of us just fake it better than others.)

            Jim Crow laws owe their power, not to individuals, but to mean motherfuckers who wanted to create the right society. Remember, these are Jim Crow LAWS, which means they had the power of the STATE to support them. With the police, judges, elected officials.

            Saying “But white people DID impose Jim Crow laws!” is about as helpful as tits on a bull. Yes. Mean motherfuckers act like mean motherfuckers. A libertarian would never have supported these laws, but progressives would (and did) in the hopes of creating a perfect society.

      2. Yeah – and those pesky forced segregation laws were completely opposed by the people in government who went out and enforced them.

        A *small* government would certainly have done nothing to combat racism – it would also have not been in a position to *actively support* it like ours has.

        1. It took big federal government to correct the wrongs imposed by small local governments. Are you saying your definition of small government extends to restricting the legislative powers of all governments down the line? What do these terms even mean at that point? It would take a mighty federal imposition to hamstring all local governments to th extent that they can neither forbid discrimination nor permit it.

          1. You mean like when the federal government tried, Imprisoned and executed radical abolitionists like John Brown, thereby making slavery last years longer?

            1. This supposed argument is so stupid it pains me to even respond. You’re just blaming the nearest government for everything, thinking I’m going to be tricked into thinking there’s someplace on earth without a government nearby. Bigots used the government. They meddle; that’s what they do. You only give a shit when anti-bigots use it. If by some unicorn fart of a miracle we achieved a government of minimal action, guess what, the bigots would change the government so that it could do their bidding anyway, provided they had enough support.

          2. Homer Plessy would diagree

      3. It was government that did this. Sure there were craploads of people who wanted the government to do this, who lobbied the government to do this, who got themselves elected to government in order to do this, but in the end it was big intrusive government that did it, not small hands-off government.

        Just because it was the Good Old Boys in city government does not mean it wasn’t the government. We libertarians want the government small and limited because eebiltards will ALWAYS be a part of government.

        1. In the absence of state power, private citizens and collectives whose relative power is thus increased will simply make their own “law.” Your solution is to make government legally bound to be neutral on this. That means the people get to decide whether we have an apartheid regime or we don’t. Because it’s de facto rather than de jure doesn’t make it better.

      4. Aw pumpkin – – when you understand there’s something called a free marketplace, come back and try again… k?

        And when you can adequately explain why a black baker should have to produce a cake for a Klan function or a Jewish baker provide a cake for a Neo-Nazi function, perhaps you can then focus on why it isn’t the reverse where the Nazi baker can force the synagogue to hire him as the caterer or the Klan rally force the black baker to cater. Yes, pumpkin, what works for one works for the other.

        Meanwhile, no black or gay person is prevented from getting a cake. It’s just a matter of from whom. Your comments are moot.

  6. Bigotry and expressions of other ideas are not protected by anti-discrimination law. People can refuse service for almost any reason, including because the patron is a bigot–just not (in public accommodations) because the customer was born a certain race, sexual orientation, etc. Neither Mr. Shoebat nor Mr. Shackford appear to get this.

    1. They get it retard, they (at least Shackford) also get that appeal to authority is a piss poor way to build an argument.

    2. Re: Tony,

      Bigotry and expressions of other ideas are not protected by anti-discrimination law.

      The moral coward who prefers hiding behind some law instead of seriously discussing the ethics of prohibiting free association and free expression has thus spoken.

      People can refuse service for almost any reason, including because the patron is a bigot — just not (in public accommodations) because the customer was born a certain race, sexual orientation, etc.

      So, yes you can, but no you may not.

      That is how little red Marxians think.

      1. Implicit in my arguments is a position on the ethics of free association. I think free association shouldn’t extend to allowing public accommodations to discriminate against customers based on race or sexual orientation or disability status and other criteria. I think this trade-off is more balanced and fair than one that is not a trade-off at all and that allows for society-wide apartheid conditions if that’s what society wants.

        If you say that this is an exaggeration that clouds the issue, it wasn’t when the laws were passed. And it’s a perfect law in that it becomes less necessary the more society evolves, thus extinguishes itself once the problem goes away. No freedom of association issues because nobody’s being a bigot and forcing minorities to have a de facto second-class citizen status.

        1. You stupid fuck, if “society” wants society-wide apartheid conditions, laws will be enacted to enforce apartheid. Can you feed yourself and tie your own shoes?

    3. Bigotry and expressions of other ideas are not protected by anti-discrimination law. People can refuse service for almost any reason, including because the patron is a bigot–just not (in public accommodations) because the customer was born a certain race, sexual orientation,etc. Mr. Shoebat nor Mr. Shackford appear to get this.

      1. Oops. Let’s try this again.

        Bigotry and expressions of other ideas are not protected by anti-discrimination law. People can refuse service for almost any reason, including because the patron is a bigot–just not (in public accommodations) because the customer was born a certain race, sexual orientation,etc. Mr. Shoebat nor Mr. Shackford appear to get this.

        How can they get anything when your argument is hidden in an abbreviation.

        1. The specific classes are detailed in the Act, and I should have not included sexual orientation because those aren’t treated the same as race, etc., in federal law yet.

    4. because the customer was born a certain race, sexual orientation, etc.

      I have no idea what comes next in this sequence. What is the logical connection between race & sexual orientation with regards to mandatory service? I need to know whom I have to serve and whom I can tell to fuck off.

    5. See – you simply don’t get it.

      Bigotry and expressions of other ideas are not protected by anti-discrimination law.

      You are completely dependent upon government.

      1. What they are protected by is the First Amendment. I’m sure you’re eager to dispose of that what with its Big Government imposition on a national standard.

        1. Oh, is today opposite day? Or George Orwell’s birthday? Now we’re protecting freedom of expression by providing strict laws to control it. “You are free to express yourself in any way that does not offend the State. And for heaven’s sake, don’t do it with the baking or not-baking of cakes.”

    6. Bigotry and expressions of other ideas are not protected by anti-discrimination law.

      Not expressing support for gay marriage is not an “expression” that should be discriminated against by banning people from entering business why do not express support for gay marriage, by writing it on cakes.

    7. Which is a convenient and arbitrary standard. Exactly where does the government derive authority to decide what “bigotry” is and police people on it? I can think of at least two reasons why such authority is explicitly prohibited.

    8. “WAAAAH! THERE ARE YUCKY MEAN PEOPLE OUT THERE! MAKE THEM STOP, BIG DADDY GOVERNMENT! MAKE THEM BE NICE!”

      1. You are the whiniest people on the political spectrum bar none.

        1. That’s pretty rich coming from the 2nd whiniest moron in the comments. But yes MOCKING you should TOTALLY be considered whining. Again you show a dismal understanding of language.

    9. This is such a turgid sentence, like much of your spew, it is unclear what it means.

  7. This was a badly designed experiment.

    What he should actually have done is hire gay caterers, waiters, decorators, florists, for a wedding at a very anti-gay church with a minister who might reference traditional marriage in the vows. Would it be legal to refuse service to these people on the basis of the it religious beliefs?

    Beyond that, I believe men should start suing to be allowed on the all lesbian Olivia Cruises or the Michigan Women’s Music Festival, and heterosexuals should start suing gay B&bs; and the Atlantis cruises for admission – and culturally appropriate accommodations. And then there is the suing that could be done against gender and race specific scholarships and sororities and fraternities. A sort of Cloward-Piven strategy should be deployed against the statist civil rights regime, to make it grind to a halt, or rather to bring much of society to a halt by speeding up its regimentation of all of society.

    1. Just to be clear, I draw back from actually enforcing enforcing these idiot laws against gays, feminists, etc. – because it may end up with a situation where *everyone* gets forced to associate with people and causes they dislike.

      Many SJWs are clever enough to throw gay bakers, caterers, etc. under the bus in order to create a precedent for oppressing the Christian bakers.

      What I *would* support is taunting the gay bakers with scenarios where they would conscientiously object to serving certain people, and then watch them rationalize supporting their rights while trampling on other peoples’ rights.

      (and for all I know, the gay bakers may be completely sound on freedom of association, I’m saying *if* they want to oppress the other bakers, taunt them for it)

      1. And not whine like you do when someone taunts you, right Eddie? Not call them stalkers and all just for responding, eh, Eddie?

        1. So you’re saying you’re *not* a stalker?

        2. Heyyyy Bo.

    2. All they would accomplish is making themselves look like assholes. Is it really so hard to sit back and count yourself lucky that you have been born with every privileged trait there is? The abysmal lack of empathy it must require for peevish white guys to actually think themselves the victims of society because of their white-guyness is truly difficult for normal people to understand.

      The venues you cited that aren’t already exempt from the CRA (like churches) must not discriminate already. A gay cruise company can’t turn away straight customers, but please do the polite thing and stay away unless you are willing to be experimental.

      1. You appear to be all up to date on your talking points. Congratulations, Tony.

        1. Notice that Tony believes the laws have a purpose and it is to punish and hobble white guys and help non whites or non guys. That’s not what any anti discrimination or fair housing laws actually say though. Instead they create protected classes and outlaw discrimination based on them. The classes aren’t things like blackness or gayness, but race or sexual orientation. It is then illegal to discriminate not merely against blacks or gays but against or for blacks or gays or whites or straights. Just today DC government bureacracies have actually stated that Maryland Congressman Andy Harris cannot be refused service by a DC bike store because of his politics – political affiliation being a protected class in DC (which has 18 local such protected classes in addition to the federal ones), Harris cannot be discriminated against for being a (straight white) anti pot Republican. Tony doesn’t understand civil rights laws and their inexorable logic of regimentation.

      2. ” Is it really so hard to sit back and count yourself lucky that you have been born with every privileged trait there is? The abysmal lack of empathy it must require for peevish white guys to actually think themselves the victims of society because of their white-guyness is truly difficult for normal people to understand.”

        Strange how people who have guns pointed at them and are told to obey or else would feel like victims. I doubt that badges and votes would change that perception. Nor would paleness or external swinging genitalia.

        1. Strange how people who have guns pointed at them and are told to obey or else would feel like victims.

          We weren’t talking about black guys.

      3. Re: Tony,

        Is it really so hard to sit back and count yourself lucky that you have been born with every privileged trait there is?

        We can sit back, indeed. That is, until you decide to shoot us ? la Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General.

        The abysmal lack of empathy it must require for peevish white guys to actually think themselves the victims of society because of their white-guyness is truly difficult for normal people to understand.

        And while we’re on the subject of the bromide from Move.org du jour, since when are you so concerned about empathy?

      4. Is it really so hard to sit back and count yourself lucky that you have been born with every privileged trait there is?

        If only there was a country where homosexuals made up 97% of the population.

      5. All they would accomplish is making themselves look like assholes.

        It does make gay people look like assholes.

      6. ” Is it really so hard to sit back and count yourself lucky that you have been born with every privileged trait there is?”

        I’ve wondered in the past, this seems a good time to ask, where did this supposed “privilege” come from? Originally?

        I’m just wondering why people like yourself are so certain this privilege isn’t justified, if it exists at all.

        1. Why what ethical standard is a permanent racial underclass justified? Racial privilege is the crassest form of unfairness in a society.

          Even if, as I think you’re getting at, some races are just smarter than others and that’s what justifies their privilege, why is it then ethical to let the LD kids go off and struggle perpetually on their own? Don’t we make special provisions for the LD kids? Or is that too wuss for you?

          It came from historical accident, predestined by facts of the natural environment if you believe Jared Diamond. Europeans subjugated the rest of the world first. I guess that makes them the winner?

          1. We have a racial underclass Tony because you fund your Democatic candidates by kidnapping poor black kids and selling them to educrat cartels in exchange for donations to your party. You are objectively the biggest racist here. If you are killed in a riot it will be poetic justice.

          2. Why what ethical standard is a permanent racial underclass justified? Racial privilege is the crassest form of unfairness in a society.

            Racial and ethnic privilege is a fundamental feature of every human society in existence.

            Europeans subjugated the rest of the world first.

            The whole world?

            surely you do not imply that Europeans are superior?

      7. “A gay cruise company can’t turn away straight customers, but please do the polite thing and stay away unless you are willing to be experimental.”

        But gays should not exhibit that kind of politeness when the shoe is on the other foot?

      8. You are an idiot as you always are Tony, trapped behind your proglodyte blinders. The failed statist civil rights regime, the papier m?ch? solutions that leave masses of black people segregated in failed urban schools and with double digit unemployment, while making morons like you feel good about yourselves and allowing you 6 figure jobs running people’s lives, also outlaws any innovative businesses that serve minorities. It would be illegal to create a real estate company that only works with gay people, a taxi company that only serves women with only women drivers, or an Urban Taxi app that worked as an Uber service for black people tired of taxis that pass them by and want to call a cab that advertises that it prioritized them as customers. Dumb liberals don’t realize all the business they have kept out of existence by regulation.

        1. Nobody said the work is complete, and that we don’t live in racial paradise is not an argument for the lack of efficacy of these policies (we have made a lot of progress since they were made law).

          I must say, preventing minorities from discriminating against white straight people being a hindrance to their upper mobility is a new one to me. Congratulations, I don’t often see fresh bullshit here.

          1. Everything is new to you as you are an idiot who can’t think beyond a newspaper headline. You are completely unaware of the costs of your creaky failed “liberalism” including to poor people and minorities. You aren’t wirth shitting on.

            1. Then so too are the minorities who skew overwhelmingly liberal in their voting patterns and policy preferences. I wonder what’s wrong with all those minorities that they keep voting for things that harm them. White guys obviously would never do that.

              1. Actually Tony more and more they simply don’t vote, like this year. More and more they recognize you and your cohort as the racist shits you are.

          2. Tony…the people changed, then the laws changed. The laws didn’t do anything. There was a sea change regarding gays about ten to fifteen years ago. The laws are actually slow to respond. Held back by guys like Obama who won’t take a stand unless he knows it will help him politically.

      9. I’ve actually been in a gay resort in Fort Lauderdale and seen them turn away a straight couple. The Michigan Women’s Music Festival has forbidden men and male to female transsexuals for decades, and makes lesbian mothers leave male children at a camp across the road. Tony is as usual fact free.

        1. See, I should not have included sexual orientation, as it is not protected in all places. If we protected it in public accommodations, I would say it would be illegal to deny access to gay-majority businesses to straights.

          But there is another wrinkle, as is the case when we’re talking about minority spaces in general. The law shouldn’t treat them differently, but etiquette should. Gay bars and resorts, etc., are the only places gay people can be the majority and let their hair down (normal society kind of blows for gay people because they can’t ever really be as open as straight people can. So just don’t be a dick is the law here.

          1. Actually gay and other minority owned businesses tend to only exist in market societies. Gay bars etc. aren’t found in socialist societies.

            You are too simple minded to fathom these issues. You think progress was made by your failed civil rights regulations, mistaking contemporaneousness with causation.

            You are oblivious to the problems and costs of your model, which are only going to increase as more and more Balkanized groups fight over state controlled resources about which medieval guilds should get them.

            Who in your picture is being a “dick” when radical feminists want to use the government owned park for a wimmin’s festival and don’t want Trans women there, but trans women demand to be defined as women by the State and included? In your world everything belongs to or is controlled by the government and the government decides. In a libertarian world both groups are free to buy or rent land and associate freely as they please.

            1. Fuck, it always bothers me when a great question gets asked to Tony and he doesn’t answer it.

      10. Is it really so hard to sit back and count yourself lucky that you have been born with every privileged trait there is?

        I’m pretty sure none of the English royal family is black.

      11. Tony…I’m white. Both my parents were alcoholics. My father was a 100% disabled war vet suffering from all the post war stuff vets suffer from. There was lots of violence in my home. I lived in 18 different places by the time I was 18. Every year I would go to the lost and found in whatever school I was in and find myself some runners and a pair of shorts that were somewhat in style.

        Other than being white could you run it past me what are these privileged traits I was so magnanimously graced with?

        Arguably I am what you would consider rich now, and privileged. And, I accomplished that by a huge amount of will and hard work. Fortunately, I’ve got some brains, which helped immensely.

        The whole point about NOT judging people by their color is because you can’t do it with any degree of accuracy. You can’t look at me in my Porsche, with my whiteness, with my straightness, and know anything about me or what my life has been like. Nothing.

        (Not complaining, by the way, if anyone reads this. I am very happy with my life, and my upbringing. At least, now I am, despite that was not always the case.)

        1. I love your story. You are not the only one here, or elsewhere, with a similar story and I wish more people knew about how your life has transgressed.

      12. Hey, thanks for assuming we’re all white males here.

        Fuck you are a racist, misogynist, piece of shit.

    3. Beyond that, I believe men should start suing to be allowed on the all lesbian Olivia Cruises or the Michigan Women’s Music Festival

      The problem is, we’d have to actually want to go to these dull affairs and I don’t think men could muster up the energy.

  8. But while it would have been better for a more articulate person to have performed this experiment,

    That is just bigotry against the enunciation-impaired!

    If bakers are a “public accommodation” as is argued, there’s no reason for them to refuse to make these cakes or cookies or what have you.

    But they’re LABOR is not a public accommodation.

    “No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. The nearest approach to it in reality?the man who lives to serve others ? is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit?”

  9. Here is a completely reasonable compromise that everyone should be happy with:

    The bakers can be required to bake them a cake, but only an UNDECORATED cake. Something with icing, but no symbolic, wedding related decorations or writing.

    That is, the bakers cannot be forced to make an artistic [removed]i.e. speech) with which they disagree. They can be required to provide a plain cake, but don’t have to write “Congratualtions John and Mark!” on it, or top it with two grooms or anything that symbolizes a gay wedding.

    or conversely, to write “Gay marriage is wrong” on it, or anything else.

    Satisfied?

    1. I don’t know why it [removed] the word “expression” …..

    2. How about any baker may be forced to bake anyone a cake, but the baker gets to decide what the decoration or writing is.

      1. Then we’ll have to change the right to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to the “right to troll”, but it’s better than nothing.

      2. I’m not sure. I suspect that would run afoul of hate-speech laws if the baker chose to put some anti-gay speech on it.

        Probably best to just say no speech at all – he must provide at least a blank cake, but cannot be compelled to affix any symbolic decorations to it.

  10. Nobody should, by order of the government, have to make Shoebat’s stupid cakes. And nobody should be forced to make gay wedding cakes either.

    But non-gay bigots should be made to make cakes because they enjoy white privilege or something Tony said, the louse.

  11. Quasisemikindasorta related philosophical question: If millions upon millions of individual economic actions can create a greater whole (an a foro deus if you will) can millions upon millions of individual bigotries do something similar?

    1. Re: SusanM,

      –“Quasisemikindasorta related philosophical question: If millions upon millions of individual economic actions can create a greater whole (an a foro deus if you will) can millions upon millions of individual bigotries do something similar?”–

      Yes, you would call it “Cosmopolitan Magazine.”

      1. You are proud that you refuse to even entertain ideas that challenge your dogma. Proud!

        1. Behold, the Platonic Ideal of projection and complete lack of self-awareness.

  12. How about this: Try to get a cake made by a gay baker that says “Gay marriage is wrong.” If they refuse, go to the lawyer who argued to the case against the straight baker who refused to serve gays, and get him to take your case. If he refuses, sue him.

    1. That was Shoebat’s point all along. Expose the double standards of the establishment.

  13. How do we know it’s not an anti-smoking wedding cake ?

  14. Perhaps the stupidest collection of Tony derp ever, that takes some doing. Piss off Tony.

  15. I used to eat Silber’s Bakery Rainbow Cake when i was a kid. How come it didn’t turn me into a pole-smoker?

  16. Mr. Moonbat is deception incarnate.

    He did NOT ask for a “pro-Traditional Marriage” cake. A “pro-Traditional Marriage” cake would have said something to the effect of: “Best wishes for a happy marriage, Chris and Pat” – the exact same wording that would be on a pro-equal marriage cake. Not one syllable of a difference.

    Instead, he asked for wording that said, “Gay marriage is wrong.” A comparable cake that said “Straight marriage is wrong” has NEVER been requested. EVER!

    This is just another lie from the lying frightwing and nothing more.

    Moonbat is acting as an ‘agent provocateur’ and has based his ‘research’ on a lie. Typical for a ‘christian’. Sadly.

    As they say, haters gotta hate.

  17. I don’t think he was being naive. He knew very well they would not agree to make the cake. The point was to expose double standards about homosexuality and discrimination. That’s probably why he didn’t say “you don’t have to agree but just do it” and instead used the same arguments from gay militants.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.