Gay Marriage

Man Files Religious Discrimination Complaint Over Bakery's Refusal to Make Anti-Gay Cake

Does it matter, under the law, whether the baker agrees with the sentiment?

|

Who wants the first slice?
Credit: MotleyOklahoman / photo on flickr

It was only a matter of time before it actually happened. In Colorado, where Masterpiece Cakeshop has been cited by the state for refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples, a man has filed a complaint with the state that a different bakery has refused to make him a cake, violating public accommodation laws. In this case, though, the man claims religious discrimination for a bakery's refusal to make a cake that's not quite so love-affirming.

Out Front Colorado spoke with Marjorie Silva, the owner of Azucar Bakery in Denver. Here's what happened:

The gentleman took a seat at one of the tables as the team served him free samples and began building his order. He swiped through pics of Bible cakes on the iPad they presented him, and it appeared he'd found the perfect fit. It was only when he produced a leaf of paper from his pocket — careful not to release it to any of the attending employees, but simply brandishing it for them to read before returning it to his pocket — that the order "got a little uncomfortable," says Lindsay.

"He wanted us to write God hates …" she trails. "Just really radical stuff against gays."

"He wouldn't allow me to make a copy of the message, but it was really hateful," Marjorie adds. "I remember the words detestable, disgrace, homosexuality, and sinners."

The bakery says they didn't entirely refuse him service. They would make a cake for him and provide him a decorating bag with icing to decorate the cake himself. It wouldn't look as good obviously, but as Silva points out, it wouldn't require her to include a "hateful message crafted by her own hands."

Not good enough for this gentleman, who apparently kept coming back and asking over and over, which was a dumb thing of him to do. He eventually left for good, and then filed a complaint with Colorado's Department of Regulatory Agencies, which is now investigating Azucar Bakery just as they did Masterpiece Cakeshop.

A look at Colorado's laws shows that their public accommodation rules don't directly include "religion" as a protected class but do include "creed." Silva said she wasn't sure whether her decision was the right one legally. I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Running through the story is a near-hilarious sort of disbelief that somebody would ask for an anti-gay cake and confusion at the idea that they should have to make it. One interesting detail about the bakery's interaction with this gentleman that's worthy of note:

[Silva] says that one of her guests misheard the confrontation and thought Marjorie was refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. Exhausted, she reassured the patron that he was mistaken and that she would never do such a thing.

Why, it's almost as though consumers might treat a bakery's decision whether to make a cake for a gay wedding by itself as an indication of some sort of political position of support or lack of support for gay marriage. Like the bakery was taking a stand, or expressing an opinion.

And none of this would be happening, of course, if we all agreed that nobody has a legal right to cake.

NEXT: How the Government Subsidizes Unsustainable Development

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. It’s a trap!

    1. Too late.

    2. The cake is a lie.

  2. That is fucking awesome.

    And the shit cake is pretty great too.

    1. It is awesome and hilarious, though I don’t like threatening some random bakery with this. Their business shouldn’t be hurt, just as the other bakeries shouldn’t be hurt.

      1. It is ironic and no doubt that’s the intent, but for the reason you’ve given I’m having a hard time finding the humor in it. There’s a business and its employees who will be hurt if they are made to bake this cake, and for whom the experience is not a pleasant one.

        The only thing that is (somewhat) comforting is the extreme unlikelihood that the case will end the same way as the gay wedding cake case it is modeled after. It is only comforting in the sense that there is unlikely to be a victim in this case; it is less comforting in the sense that there will still be many victims in the case of anti-gay discrimination statutes.

        1. There’s a business and its employees who will be hurt if they are made to bake this cake,

          The same can be said of a bakery that refuses a gay marriage cake.

          As test cases go, this one is awesome. We’ll either get a decision that is no worse than a pro-gay marriage test case (yes, they must do it) or better (no, they don’t have to).

          Its not a perfect test case, as you can distinguish the explicit textual message on this cake from the lack of such a message on a gay marriage cake, but it’ll do for a start.

          1. Sure, I get that. I still don’t like that some random business is an unwilling participant in this exercise. While the result of such a test case will not be any worse than the status quo, on an individual level it does suck for the bakery in question.

            1. Some unfortunate business is going to take a beating. That’s a given, and it sucks. Which one it actually is doesn’t really matter.

              What would matter is if nobody had to take a beating. But that’s not on the menu.

            2. What makes you think this was a random bakery.
              My guess is, it is one that is open about its ownership being homosexual.
              How else could the test subject be sure that the making of the cake would be denied?
              A similar test could be made by going to an obviously Jewish bakery and asking for a cake with a swastika emblazoned on it.

              1. Like when Heath Campbell went to a Jewish-owned ShopRite and asked for a cake with “Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler” on it.

                That backfired spectacularly.

                Lesson there: don’t try to make a political statement with hate speech when you’re abusing your kids and already under investigation by DYFS. It’s never going to end well.

      2. I hope he went looking for a bakery that specifically was happy about the ruling in the case of the bakery who lost for NOT baking a gay wedding cake.

    2. But why is it green?!? I DON’T UNDERSTAND!!!

      1. Because the dogs and I prefer to shit on the lawn! Is that wrong?

        1. Why does that turn me on?

        2. Well, the dogs at least really ought to be trained.

  3. Love it. I don’t care if the guy sincereily wanted an anti-gay cake or not, the existence of the complaint is awesome. When they turn down his complaint, it’ll be even more awesome. Maybe even progressive retards will see that there’s a double standard.

    1. There previously was the complaint from the white supremacists who named their kid Adolf Hitler, and the refusal of a bakery to decorate a cake with the poor kid’s name on it.

      I understand the logic of public accommodations, but I don’t put decorative cakes in the same category as hotels.

      1. I understand the logic of public accommodations, but I don’t put decorative cakes in the same category as hotels.

        Hotels have the same legitimate right to discriminate, for whatever reason, that everyone else does. The logic of public accommodations is slavery.

        1. I think it’s considerably easier to understand the argument when you’re talking about the only hotel or gas station in a 50 mile radius in the middle of nowhere refusing to sell you their standard product, then when you’re talking about one of dozens of cake shops in a populated area creating a custom cake.

          1. Ah, so your rights are conditional and situational, are they?

            Sorry. Not buying it.

            1. To expand:

              If the justification for public accommodation is limited to hotels, gas stations, etc. (which its not, but bear with me)

              and the justification is that some are, effectively, local monopolies, then you have a couple of choices:

              (1) Apply rules that are appropriate to local monopolies to everyone, including each of the four gas stations that occupy corners on a single intersection, or

              (2) Apply rules only to local monopolies, meaning that you lose your rights depending on geographical accident.

            2. Not what I said. I said I think it’s easier to understand the argument. Understanding or even sympathizing with argument is not the same thing as agreeing with it. Indeed, the very fact that laws apply universally and facts are difficult to distinguish generally means that there will be more and less sympathetic cases, and one should not make law on the basis of only the sympathetic ones.

              But sure, I understand that most people (and lawyers such as yourself) don’t even want to give an inch of pretense to understanding the other argument.

              1. I understand the other side’s argument perfectly well. What that argument ignores is that people own themselves, not other people. The moment you have an uncontracted right to the labor of others is the moment you have slavery.

          2. Because there are sooooo many hotels in geographically isolated locations with little to no local population and therefore being entirely dependent in those passing through for business who are just itching to refuse to take someone’s money because they don’t like the color of their skin.

          3. I think it’s considerably easier to understand the argument when you’re talking about the only hotel or gas station in a 50 mile radius in the middle of nowhere refusing to sell you their standard product

            As RC Dean points out, rights are not conditionally based on convenience, desire or need. And while not selling that gasoline may not be ‘fair’, forcing the sale of that gasoline is not only unfair but thoroughly immoral and a slippery slope towards slavery. You are either a slave or you are not.

      2. I understand the logic of public accommodations,

        Then you understand that the same rules are now applied to every business, yes?

        1. I understand the law and the motivating logic. It just seems to me that the motivating logic is much stronger in certain instances than others.

          Strictly speaking, not *every* business is affected. The West End Wine Bar on Franklin Street in Chapel Hill (and then its branches) has long had a nominal “$1 membership fee” in order to evade various alcohol laws, but public accommodation laws would also be affected. I believe that a decent number of bars in Utah were structured as private clubs for similar reasons.

          1. It just seems to me that the motivating logic is much stronger in certain instances than others.

            Why is it less of an imposition on some businesses than others?

            I think the logic is shit, regardless of the business at hand.

            1. It’s not much less of an imposition, though I’d argue that it’s somewhat less of an imposition to force someone to sell the same gasoline that he’d sell to a white person to a black person, than it is to force someone to create a custom cake celebrating a particular event or to represent a particular client. The latter add an element of compelled speech.

            2. And you know perfectly well that if you were arguing the case for any of these cake shops, you would distinguish on the basis of compelled speech.

              1. And the compelled speech is a violation of the same rights as if it were compelled labor. You are violating that person’s right to self-ownership.

      3. Yeah, but Heath Campbell is an idiot.

        He was pissed that DYFS (CPS) was investigating him for child abuse and went to a Jewish-owned grocery store to ask for little Adolf’s cake, to draw media attention and make him sympathetic. He thought he could get media pressure on his side to prove some Jewish conspiracy and make DYFS leave him alone…

        …I love when stupid plans blow up in an idiot’s face.

    2. They’ll see that there is a standard they agree with. Nothing more.

      1. ^This.
        There are no principles. Only principals. Rights are exclusively for those with whom we can empathize.

      2. Yup! The progressives* will not see any double standard in this. In both cases, they are sticking up for gays against the hateful majority.

        You have no right to freedom of speech or association if you do it in a way that they don’t agree with.

        * I’m responding to the statement about progressives, but I have no doubt that conservatives would do exactly the same in a case where the target was religion instead of gays.

    3. The sad part will be when the complaint is found valid and from here on out, the government will require every bakery to bake any and every cake requested, regardless of whether or not it requires them to act against their conscience.

      1. But, but, Tonyo (both Tonio and Tony) keep telling me that slavery for bakers is actually freedom…

        1. Show me where I have done that, you lying sack of shit.

    4. No double standard at all; totally different issue. No bakery, or print shop, or anyone else should be required to publish actual hate speech. This is not the same as refusing to create a wedding cake, since wedding cakes don’t usually carry ‘anti’ messages or hate speech.

      1. Much as I hate to admit it, this will be the left’s defense.

      2. actual hate speech.

        Uh-huh.

        1. Do you deny that such a thing actually exists, shitbag? And I’m not talking a legal sense, but a moral sense.

          Hate speech: God says kill fags. Jews and blacks are mud people. Etc.

          1. I don’t care Tonyo. “Hate speech” might have once meant something but it has been so diluted by fuckhead griefers like you to tar anyone who doesn’t agree with them that it is meaningless pablum used as a weapon to end debate.

            In the context of this conversation “hate speech” has no more relevance than the morality of gay marriage does to those who don’t want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

      3. No bakery, or print shop, or anyone else should be required to publish actual hate speech do anything they don’t want to.

        If you can compel speech, there is no freedom of speech. The “hate speech” concept is fundamentally dishonest and easily abused. Don’t use it.

        This is not the same as refusing to create a wedding cake, since wedding cakes don’t usually carry ‘anti’ messages or hate speech.

        Its not, but not in any way that should matter.

        1. Hate speech doesn’t exist. It’s just a euphemism for unpopular speech or speech that a particular person or group doesn’t like. Euphemisms are useful when your goal is to circumvent moral conventions that you couldn’t get around if you were being honest about your intentions.

      4. …leftist logic, my friends.

      5. So, if he had asked for a wedding cake, then the issue would be comparable?

        You’re seriously basing an argument on the intended use of a cake?

        1. Who says that cake wasn’t going to be showing up at a wedding, anyway?

  4. So,if someone opened a bakery that only made gay wedding cakes ,would that be ok?

    1. No you fucking funeral cake hating bastard! Honestly…sometimes I wonder what’s wrong with you people!

      1. OK ,gay funerals too?

        1. Stop othering the Gay bar mitzvah cake!

    2. Sure.

  5. Okay, on some level I feel this is wrong, but….BWWWAAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    Part of me almost hopes the bastard wins just to shove public accommodation down the throats of its proponents. Watching the “I want cake” brigades twist themselves into knots trying to explain why this is different would be awesome.

    1. All of me hopes he wins.

    2. “Part of me almost hopes the bastard wins just to shove public accommodation down the throats of its proponents.”

      That is the point. This dude doesn’t care about cake.
      I hope a ton of these pop up. Someone needs to find a bakery owned and run by gays and force them to make an anti-gay cake.

      Great photo Shackford.

      1. And a black baker and force them to make a KKK cake. A jewish baker …cake with a swastika on it. On and on and on.

        1. A Muslim baker with a pic of Muhammad??

        2. A bunch of KKK white hood wearing motherfuckers should go into Katz Deli.

        3. Being in the KKK or a Nazi does not make you legally protected from discrimination. If the black baker refused to serve white people, or the Jewish baker refused to serve non-Jews, then you may have a case. Not that I agree with the law as stands, but those are clearly not legally equivalent.

          1. Way to miss the point(s), Cali.

            1. I didn’t miss the point at all. Suthenboy said (combining the relevant parts of two comments)

              “Someone needs to find a bakery owned and run by gays and force them to make an anti-gay cake. And a black baker and force them to make a KKK cake. A jewish baker …cake with a swastika on it. On and on and on.”

              My point is that there is no way that is going to happen (especially in the latter two cases) because those are clearly not examples of illegal discrimination, and discriminating against Nazis or the KKK is no way legally equivalent to discriminating against black or Jewish people. Pointing out that there is no legal equivalency here is not missing the point.

              1. My point is that there is no way that is going to happen (especially in the latter two cases) because those are clearly not examples of illegal discrimination

                Really, because it seems like you did miss the point by a few lightyears at least. The fact that an unjust law produces unjust outcomes is not even up for debate. The issue is that what constitutes ‘illegal discrimination’ is unjust and inconsistent.

                A Jew shouldn’t be able to force a Nazi baker to make him a kosher cake anymore than Nazi could force a Jewish baker to make him a swastika cake.

                Pointing out that there is no legal equivalency here is not missing the point.

                The fact that there is no legal equivalency is 100% of the point.

                1. Did you read suthenboy’s posts? He was advocating people sue to force gay or black or Jewish bakers to serve people who hate them, to give the left a taste of their own medicine, so to speak. The reaction in this thread has been about that. My point is that this strategy is not valid or going to work because there is no legal equivalency between discriminating against Jews or black people and nazis or Kkk members. Whether there should be or not is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not that plan would actually work in the real world.

                2. “Really, because it seems like you did miss the point by a few lightyears at least.”

                  No, he didn’t. Doing that wouldn’t make any point or shove anything down anyone’s throat, because with no protected class in play, the guy who wanted the cake would lose his case, probably very quickly, and no one would hear any more about it or care.

              2. I’ll fix it for you.

                The Church of the Aryan Nations seeks a cake for their St. Hitler Day church supper.

                The Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan comes in to that black baker’s shop demanding a cake with a burning cross as religious expression.

                1. Are you all incapable of seeing the difference between acknowledging legal reality and supporting it? I’m don’t support anti-discrimination laws, but that doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge legitimate legal differences under current law.

                  I’m not an expert on religious discrimination law, but I do know it doesn’t work exactly the same as other forms. For example, you can’t refuse to hire someone simply because of their religion, but you can refuse to hire someone because of their religion if those beliefs majorly inhibit their ability to do their job. Also, I don’t think the Aryan example would pass the sincerely held belief requirement that courts use. Again, none of this is a defense of current law. I’m simply pointing out that anyone who thinks there are no legal distinctions between these cases is going to be disappointed.

                  1. I picked that example intentionally, because the organization in question does exist — http://www.aryan-nation.org/Membership-packet.pdf

      2. This dude doesn’t care about cake.

        Whoa, c’mon now. The guy maybe sort of a dick but he isn’t a monster.

        1. I thought they all do, they all want cake?

      3. On a similar note, I’ve wondered why dude-brahs haven’t taken advantage of the public accommodation laws to demand admittance to lesbian bars.

      4. Someone needs to find a bakery owned and run by gays and force them to make an anti-gay cake.

        Force. And there’s your non-aggression principle on display for all to see.

        Because one wrong deserves another wrong in retribution. Stopping the wrong is never the answer. Payback, and more payback, then yet more payback is the answer.

        Keep classy, Suthen, keep classy.

        1. Well, at least you’ve made a 180 on the use of force by gay griefers.

          Perhaps there is some hope for you, probably not though.

  6. First me, then you.

  7. It was bound to happen, but you know it won’t be treated the same way as the cakes for gay weddings. And I think there are enough superficial differences for people to use as an excuse to blow this off.

  8. Father Maxi: Friends, we gather in this place to mourn the victims of yesterday’s tragedy: nine good people who were run over in the street by an elderly woman driver. [the four boys are shown in their funeral best]
    Cartman: [yawns] Oh God, memorial services are sooo boring.
    Kyle: [jabs Cartman and says in hushed tones] You insensitive asshole, Cartman! Nine people died!
    Cartman: Yeah, but like, eight of them were hippies. Mostly hippies go to farmer’s markets. Mostly.
    Father Maxi: It is sometimes hard, in times like these, to understand God’s way. Why would he allow nine innocent people to be run down in the prime of their lives by a senior citizen who, perhaps, shouldn’t be driving? It is then that we must understand, God’s sense of humor is very different from our own. He does not laugh at the simple “man walks into a bar” joke. No, God needs complex irony and subtle farcical twists that seem macabre to you and me. All that we can hope for is that God got his good laugh and a tragedy such as this will never happen again. [screeching tires are heard]

  9. THEY ALL WANT CAKE!

    /that is all

  10. Hateful Bigot Twists Anti-Discrimination Laws To Force Baker To Make Anti-Gay Cake

    …and, that’s all she wrote. I doubt that any of the reasoning applied in the case of the gay wedding cake will be applied to this case.

    What this might do is make it so that when the cultural Christians get good and pissed, they’ll actually capture the civil service and courts and make this type of shit happen — only in reverse. All of which will exacerbate the country’s problems well beyond what would have been necessary, and which may have the effect of sundering the rule of law even further.

    All for the sake of a fucking cake.

  11. “Let them eat cake” — some 18th century bimbo.

    -jcr

    1. The shit for the goose is the shit for the gander.

  12. Let him eat hate.

  13. Well a shit cake seems an appropriate dessert for a shit sandwich.

    1. MMMMMMM. Sammiches.

  14. Let them eat ROADZ!

    /statist

    1. But without the government, who would enthrall the bakers to make gay people cakes?

  15. Let them eat cake.

  16. WHERE IS YOUR GOD, NOW?

    Yes, I’d like that on my cake.

    1. But how do you get the Edward G. Robinson accent n there?

  17. Who would ask for a cake with a bunch of black dicks on it anyway?

    1. Your…your mom?

      1. DAMN it, Epi!

        1. PWN’D

          1. You and your sick perverted long nimble typing fingers. You must use your dick to hit the spacebar for improved speed. It’s unfair. I’m going to hire Fist for posting lessons.

            1. Fist isn’t in it for the money, he is in it for the love of the game.

            2. I’m going to hire Fist for posting lessons.

              Get a large supply of rice paper and pebbles.

            3. FoE only accepts gold-pressed latinum as payment, I hope you’re stocked up.

              1. You’re saying FoE is some sort of space… ethnic?

                1. He’s something all right.

                  1. Who doesn’t love the Space Jews?

        2. He even stuttered and still beat you!

    2. Your mom?

    3. Your sister?

      1. Well, as long as you didn’t say my brother…

        1. Actually the bakery seems totes cool with baking that sort of cake, if he wanted one.

    4. Who wouldn’t?

  18. I love this so much. I suspect only libertarians are truly enjoying this (since the TEAMS reserve the right to tell people what to do), but you have to be a humorless scold not to laugh at this.

    The only downside, as pointed out by MJGreen, is that some random bakery has to get hurt in this, though there’s some karma in play, given the “…she would never do such a thing” quote.

    1. How is that karma? Because she wouldn’t refuse to make a gay wedding cake, she’s wrong for refusing to make a “God hates fags” cake?

      1. Yes, that was unclear; I meant to say karma _may_ be in play, and only if we can extrapolate “…she would never do such a thing” to “she totally supported those other bakers being forced to make a cake for a gay wedding” – which doesn’t necessarily follow, to be fair.

  19. If somebody really wants to fuck with public accommodation, they need a “Saved from the Gay” cake celebrating their gay conversion therapy. Include some “abomination to the Lord” scripture and voila! Fun times at the state Supreme Court!

    1. Hate Speech!!!

      And nothing else happened.

    2. Just put Leviticus 18:22 on it.

    3. ISIS victory cake…

  20. I also wonder how many of the people who squawked about the gay wedding cake saw this shit coming. I am guessing very few if any at all. Stupid fuckers.

    1. ignorance of the Iron Laws is no excuse for stupidity 🙂 “Me today, you tomorrow”.

    2. It’s pretty clear to me that these people feel Religion ought not be protected the way Gender/Orientation is. C.F. their stance on teh birth controls for Hobby Lobby.

  21. Next up: ask for a wedding cake featuring you and a sheep.

    1. I thought that was a New Zealand cake?

      1. Jemaine: It doesn’t matter what country someone’s from, or what they look like, or the color of their skin. It doesn’t matter what they smell like, or that they spell words slightly differently…some would say, more correctly.

        Sinjay: Yeah…

        Jemaine: Let me finish. I’m a person. Bret’s a person. You’re a person. That person over there is a person. And each person deserves to be treated like a person.

        Sinjay: That’s a great speech. Too bad New Zealanders are a bunch of cocky a-holes descended from criminals and retarded monkeys.

        Jemaine: No, you’re thinking of Australians.

        Bret: Yeah, that’s Australians.

        1. Bret: Did she sound Australian? Australian accent?
          Jemaine: Yes, yes.
          Bret: What did it sound like?
          Jemaine: Kind of like an evil version of our accent.

        2. Oh, and, +1 murdered Brown Snake

  22. Don’t we all fondly recall a simpler time… when professionally-produced bakery products *weren’t* the chosen weapon of Culture-Warriors? Before your local baker had been turned into a unwilling tool for various conflicting zealots?

    Really = what we should be looking for here are *market-based solutions*

    Which is why i’m proud to announce Betty-Crocker’s new line of Ideological Bake-Mixes:

    Want to have the Gayest Gay-Wedding in Gaytown? Our Rainbow-Power-Layer-Cake Mix can be customized for any combination of alternative sexual orientations you can imagine.

    Want to give voice to the Righteous Wrath of God in cake-form? try our new Leviticustard, complete with icing-flame-design templates and a handy Latin translator

    1. Leviticustard

      Awesome

    2. “Try our SJW Mix. It’s mostly composed of hate and moral narcissism, with a touch of whimsy and some baking powder. Plus bitterscotch.”

      1. *”Icing available in all flavors except Vanilla, which is racist”

    3. Mmmmmmmmm, pillars of salt.

      1. Sodom and Gomorrah = the cliff-notes cartoon version

    4. Our Rainbow-Power-Layer-Cake Mix can be customized for any combination of alternative sexual orientations you can imagine.

      So othering, you micro-aggressing crypto-christfag.

    5. People fail to appreciate the role that Cakes have played in many of this nation’s most intense conflicts

      There was, for instance, the Anti-Lynching Fruit-Cake Campaign

      And who could forget the Cake-of-Foreshadowing that Osama Bin Laden sent George Bush in 2001?

      (in retrospect it seems obvious, but at the time it was just delicious)

  23. Scott Shackford likes scat porn?

  24. I’m getting a bigger laugh imagining the conversation this guy had with Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies.
    “Yes, good day, I’d like to file a complaint against a bakery that has discriminated against me.”
    “Oh, you poor soul! Please have a seat. Recent court decisions have outlawed this sort of thing, you know.”
    “Yes, I had heard that.”
    “What was the name of the bakery?”
    “The Azucar Bakery, in Denver.”
    “And what sort of cake were you attempting to order?”

  25. Wow, this comes right out of tge blue. Why didn’t someone predict this?

  26. Reason, where on earth did you find that photo?! That’s one way to get people off sweets for good.

    Back to the story. I can’t say this doesn’t makes a strong argument from a “well, I find that offensive so I won’t do it” standpoint.

    Levelplayingfield for all… And I agree that no one has a legal right to a cake!

  27. And none of this would be happening, of course, if we all agreed that nobody has a legal right to cake.

    Why should we all agree? NOBODY has a right to a cake. It is a fact, not a consensus.

    That the State acts in a tyrannical way to score political points is something entirely different

    1. But the state has decreed that we do.

  28. “It is awesome and hilarious, though I don’t like threatening some random bakery with this. Their business shouldn’t be hurt, just as the other bakeries shouldn’t be hurt.”

    If we don’t break a few eggs, we will never get to feed on the delicious tears of “progressives” finally having to be tolerant of freedom of association.

  29. Valid lawsuit. Let it go forward.

  30. They offered to sell them a cake. They were not denied service. Nobody said antidiscrimination laws protect the right to get any product you ask for.

    1. Like, say a wedding cake?

      We havn’t seen any bakeries denying gay people cakes in general.
      Just wedding cakes in particular.

  31. Next up:

    A man walks into a Muslim bakery and demands a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it.

  32. my co-worker’s mom makes $75 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for ten months but last month her paycheck was $13904 just working on the laptop for a few hours. use this link………..
    ????? http://www.netcash50.com

  33. I was first with “The Cake is a Lie.”

    I am disappoint.

    Today, the Internet has failed.

    Now… lie on your stomach with your arms at your sides and a party associate will arrive shortly to collect you for the party.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.